SEMINAR : ATTACHMENT THEORIES

Attachment is a reciprocal, enduring emotional tie between an infant

and a caregiver, each of whom contributes to the quality of the
relationship. From an evolutionary point of view, attachments have
adaptive value for babies, ensuring that their psychosocial as well as
physical needs will be met (MacDonald, 1998).

Attachment is the strong, affectionate tie we have with special people in our lives that leads
us to experience pleasure and joy when we interact with them and to be comforted by their
nearness in times of stress.

Watch how babies of this age single out their parents for special attention. When
the parent enters the room, the baby breaks into a broad, friendly smile. When
she picks him up, he pats her face, explores her hair, and snuggles against her.
When he feels anxious or afraid, he crawls into her lap and clings closely.

Freud first suggested that the infant’s emotional tie to the mother is the founda-
tion for all later relationships. Contemporary research indicates that—although
the parent–infant bond is vitally important—later development is influenced not
just by early attachment experiences but also by the continuing quality of the
parent–child relationship.

Bowlby attachment theory:

Bowlby points out that both infants and their primary caregivers are biologically
predisposed to form attachments. He argues that the new- born is biologically equipped
to elicit attachment behavior. The baby cries, clings, coos, and smiles. Later, the infant
crawls, walks, and follows the mother. The imme- diate result is to keep the primary
caregiver nearby; the long-term effect is to increase the infant’s chances of survival.

Bowlby believed that the human infant, like the young of other animal species, is
endowed with a set of built-in behaviors that keep the parent nearby to protect
the infant from danger and to provide support for exploring and mastering the
environment (Waters & Cummings, 2000). Contact with the parent also ensures
that the baby will be fed, but Bowlby pointed out that feeding is not the basis for
attachment. Rather, attachment can best be understood in an evolutionary
context in which survival of the species—through ensur- ing both safety and
competence—is of utmost importance.

1. Preattachment phase (birth to 6 weeks). Built-in signals—grasping, smiling, crying, and

gazing into the adult’s eyes—help bring newborn babies into close contact with other
humans. Babies of this age recognize their own mother’s smell, voice, and face (see
Chapter 4). But they are not yet attached to her, since they do not mind being left with
an unfamiliar adult.
2. “Attachment-in-the-making” phase (6 weeks to 6 to 8 months). During this phase, infants
respond differently to a familiar caregiver than to a stranger. For example, the baby
smiles, laughs, and babbles more freely with the mother and quiets more quickly when
she picks him up. As infants learn that their own actions affect the behavior of those
around them, they begin to develop a sense of trust—the expectation that the caregiver
will respond when signaled—but they still do not protest when separated from her.
3. “Clear-cut” attachment phase (6 to 8 months to 18 months to 2 years). Now attach- ment
to the familiar caregiver is evident. Babies display separation anxiety, becoming upset
when their trusted caregiver leaves. Like stranger anxiety (see page 405), separa- tion
anxiety does not always occur; it depends on infant temperament and the current
situation. But in many cultures, separation anxiety increases between 6 and 15 months,
suggesting that infants have developed a clear understanding that the caregiver contin-
ues to exist when not in view. Consistent with this idea,
4. Formation of a reciprocal relationship (18 months to 2 years and on). By the end of the
second year, rapid growth in representation and language enables toddlers to under- stand
some of the factors that influence the parent’s coming and going and to predict her return. As
a result, separa- tion protest declines. Now children negotiate with the care- giver, using
requests and persuasion to alter her goals. For example, one 2-year-old asked her parents to
read a story before leaving her with a babysitter. The extra time with her parents, along with a
better understanding of where they were going (“to have dinner with Uncle Charlie”) and
when they would be back (“right after you go to sleep”), helped this child withstand her
parents’ absence.

 internal working model, or set of expectations about the availability of

attachment figures, their likelihood of providing support during times of
stress, and the self ’s inter- action with those figures. The internal working
model becomes a vital part of personality, serv- ing as a guide for all
future close relationships (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008).
 Consistent with these ideas, as early as the second year, toddlers form
attachment-related expectations about parental comfort and support. In
two studies, securely attached 12- to 16-month- olds looked longer at a
video of an unresponsive caregiver (inconsistent with their expectations)
than a video of a responsive caregiver. Insecurely
 attached toddlers, in contrast, did not distinguish between the two (see
Figure 10.4) (Johnson, Dweck, & Chen, 2007; Johnson et al., 2010). With
age, children continually revise and expand their internal working
model as their cognitive, emotional, and social capacities increase
and as they interact with parents and form other close bonds with
adults, siblings, and friends.
 an infant whose caregivers respond promptly and appropriately to his or her bids
for attention is apt to believe that “I’m lovable” (positive working model of self ),
whereas one whose signals are ignored or misinterpreted may conclude that “I’m
unwor- thy or loathsome” (negative working model of self ). Presumably, these
two models com- bine to influence the quality of the child’s primary attachments
and the expectations he or she has about future relationships.
 who construct positive working models of themselves and their caregivers are the
ones who should (1) form secure primary attachments; (2) have the self-
confidence to approach and to master new challenges; and (3) be inclined to
establish secure, mutual- trust relationships with friends and spouses later in life
(Waters & Cummings, 2000).

 A positive model of self, coupled with a negative model of others (as might result
when infants can successfully attract the attention of an insensitive, overintrusive
caregiver), is thought to predispose the infant to form avoidant attachments and
to “dismiss” the importance of close emotional attachments. A negative model of
self and a positive model of others (as might result when infants sometimes can
but often cannot attract the attention they need) should be associated with
resistant attachments and a preoccu- pation with establishing secure emotional
 ties. Finally, a negative working model of both the self and others is thought to
underlie disorganized/disoriented attachments and an emerging fear of being hurt

Multiple Attachments
 As we have indicated, babies develop attachments to a variety of familiar
people—not just mothers but also fathers, grandparents, siblings, and
professional caregivers.

Harlow tested the strength of the infants’ attachment to their surrogate

mothers in twoexperimental set-ups: the fear test and the open field test. In
the first, he analysed the infant mon-keys’ response under emotional stress by
placing them in a strange situation. In the open field test,Harlow put an infant
in a room with objects that experimenters knew would elicit its curiosity.
Thebaby monkeys reared with cloth mothers used the surrogate mother as ‘a
source of security, a baseof operations’ (1958a: 679). That is, they clung to
her initially, but slowly moved to play with anobject, then came back for a bit
more contact comfort before venturing forth again in their explora-tions. In
contrast, monkeys reared with a wire mother crouched at her feet, terrified of
the objects,never moving away to explore on their own (Harlow, 1958a:
680). According to Harlow (1959: 72),their conduct resembled ‘the autistic
behavior seen frequently among neglected children in and outof institutions’.

the Harlows saw that the existence of affectional systems that could
compensate foreach other made sense from an evolutionary perspective,
because reciprocal compensations pro-vided a better chance of surviving
socially.