Discuss the four attachment patterns and the impact of
each on our ability to express closeness throughout the stages of adulthood.
Attachment is the close emotional
bond between the infant and the caregiver that allows them to experience
contentment when they interact. After about 2 weeks the infant begins to show
distinct preference for his primary caregiver and anxiety when he encounters a
strangers; this separation anxiety—as
it is called—signals that the child has already developed some measure of
attachment to the caregiver (Bower, 1977). This observation seems to supports
Freud’s theory. He believes the infant-caregiver bond is created when the child
seeks and gains oral satisfaction. With this in mind, it is easy to see why the
mother usually becomes the person the child is most attached to; as she is the
one performing the feeding function, particularly during the first few months
of the infant’s life. (Berk, 2001; Santrock, 2000)
Nevertheless, as compelling as Freud’s theory is,
there are many who offer alternative explanations as to how and why attachment
occurs. Behaviourists Harry Harlow and Robert Zimmerman conclude that the
collective behaviours accompanying feeding, and not the feeding itself, is the
defining factor of attachment. Nurturing actions such as caressing, smiling and
the general comfort the baby feels during suckle help to create a setting in
which emotional support and companionship is reciprocated. Harlow and Zimmerman
present a scenario which explains why infants form ties with individuals other
than their primary caregiver who perform little or no role feeding wise.
(Santrock, 2000; Bower, 1977).
Cognitive Developmentalists, like
Kohlberg believe attachment is formed when the child begins responding
discriminately to the stimuli from his social world (separating the persons he
recognizes from those he does not). The bond is cemented when the child
understands the concept of person
permanence and is no longer fearful when the caregiver leaves his presence,
hence elimination or greatly reducing separation
anxiety. (Sigelman and Shaffer, 1995)
John Bowlby, in his ethological
arguments, contends that infants and parents are deemed by biological evolution
to form special bonds. Crying, smiling, cooing, clinging and babbling are all
innate baby behaviours which caregivers find hard to resist because they have
already been programmed to respond to them. This biological mechanism that
ensures parent and child are in close proximity to each other, evolved to
assure the child’s survival, but in doing so it has managed to foster
attachment. Bowlby does caution, however, that the quality of this attachment
is greatly dependent on the ongoing interaction between the parent and child.
(Sigelman and Shaffer, 1995).
Mary Ainsworth, in an attempt to understand how infants bond with their
primary caregivers, created several situations involving parent, child and
stranger and then took the opportunity to observe the child’s behavior in the
different situations. These situations were the infant and mother alone; the
infant, mother and strange; and the infant and stranger alone in the room. Upon
concluding her study, Ainsworth in Patterns of Attachment, described her
findings and produced four attachment styles she believes each child will, more
of less, adhere to. One secure and
three insecure patterns: Resistant,
Avoidant and Disorganised.
Secure typed infants use their mothers as a constant base for
exploration and in her presence, the child is outgoing with strangers. When she
leaves the room he (the child) may show some tears but is quickly comforted and
upon her return she is openly greeted (Sigelman and Shaffer, 1995).
Characteristics associated with them are empathy, positive emotional states and
positive interactions with peers and adults. Pre-school teachers describe
secure children as cooperative, socially competent and popular (Berk, 2001;
Baron and Byrne, 2000)
Resistant typed attachment is characterized by ambivalence towards the
mother. There is a disturbance in the balance that should exist between the
parent and child. At times the child anxiously sought the attention of his
mother, while on other occasions he avoided her. He is unlikely to explore in
the mother’s presence, suggesting she does not serve as a base, yet when she
departs he often show much stronger separation
anxiety that the securely attached child (Sigelman and Shaffer, 1995;
Ainsworth, 1978). Resistant infants are often disruptive and difficult, they
engage in apathetic behaviour and both feelings of anger and dependency are
expressed toward adults (Berk, 2001; Baron and Byrne, 2000).
Avoidant typed infants seem to have distanced themselves from their
parents. They don’t respond to their mother’s presence and when she leaves they
show very little, if any, distress. They are not particularly wary of strangers
and their behaviour toward them (the strangers) is similar to those directed at
the parents. Avoidant children labeled “loners” usually fit into this category,
they are described as hostile and distant towards others and would much prefer
to do things on their own rather than ask for help. (Sigelman and Shaffer,
1995; Baron and Byrne, 2000; Berk, 2001).
Disorganized typed infants show a combination of Avoidant and Resistant
styles. Its primary factor is confusion, resulting in contradictory behaviour
such as approaching a parent yet remaining distant or avoiding a parent even
though they show clear signs of needing closeness. This puts them at high risk
for becoming hostile aggressive preschoolers. It is important to note that this
style particularly characterizes children who have been abused (Sigelman and
Shaffer, 1995).
These four patterns have been developed via American research and calls
into question their universal validity. For example the Avoidant and Resistant
figures jump significantly when they same study is carried out in other parts
of the world. However, differing childcare practices and parenting techniques
will produced varying results, a notion used to explain the spike in the
insecure attachment figures. Furthermore, secure attachment figures have
consistently proven far higher than the insecure patterns in all cultures
studied to date, this finding seemingly attests to the relevance and validity
of Ainsworth’s study and her subsequent categorizations (Berk, 2001).
B-ii)
Attachment Patterns’ effect on our ability to express Closeness throughout the
Stages of Adulthood
As described by John Bowlby, self esteem and interpersonal trust are the two schemas the child develops from
interactions with the primary caregiver. The actions of the caregiver
communicate to the child that he is either wanted, loved and precious or none
of the above, hence defining the child’s self
esteem. Also from these actions the child creates a picture of the
caregiver as trustworthy and dependable or on the flip side unreliable. Here
the child begins to construct his idea of interpersonal
trust. These two parts create an important whole because they determine the
nature of the relationships the child will have later in life with other
members of society. In essence, the framework he develops for familial
interactions becomes the model schema he uses to interact with persons in the
wider society. (Baron and Byrne, 2000)
Secure typed adults are able to establish and maintain relationships
with friends and lovers that involve high levels of trust and intimacy. According to Hazan and Shaver,
they believe in enduring love, are self-confident and see others as
trustworthy. They don’t worry about being abandoned or about their partners
being too intimate. Outside of the social and into the professional context,
secure adults tend to experience more job satisfaction as they have created
good faithful relationships with their co-workers making the work time spent
more enjoyable (Baron and Byrne, 2000). However an infant who didn’t form a
secure attachment with the primary caregiver tend to be emotionally crippled,
disabling their ability to form meaningful connections. Hazan and Shaver write
that these adults have many doubts and insecurities and experience love as a
painful preoccupation where they will be abandoned because their partner really
doesn’t love them. Even more extreme some fear and avoid closeness with others
and believe they do not need love to be happy. And so it results that isolation becomes their only friend.
Following isolation, Insecurely bonded people, around middle adulthood
suffer stagnation. Not having enjoyed
those things that a positive relationship offers, life’s meaning continue to
slip away from them and so they can not appropriately guide the next generation
on how to live theirs. All this contributes to feeling trapped in an existence
that is hardly worth the air it takes to sustain them. On the other hand,
securely attached people experience a period of generativity when they can effectively guide others since they
themselves have lived a meaningful life.
In old age generativity gives way to satisfaction with the knowledge
that one has spent well his time on earth. This evaluated integrity prevents them from fearing the end. Nonetheless, the
disorganized, resistant and avoidant typed individual’s entire life of insecure
ties leading to later disappointment, isolation and stagnation, all culminate
in a feeling of despair. Reflection
revealing that he has no significant bond, and has contributed no real social
insight to those after him can only produce a feeling of despair.
C: Infant Attachment Not Necessarily the Determining
Factor in Adult Closeness
The above information suggests that during infancy, if children are not
in the ideal situation of being in close contact with one primary caregiver,
they will find adjusting to society difficult. Hence only experiencing the
negative sides of the developmental tasks in other stages of life especially
adulthood. Psychologists who have studied children in extended Day Care and
state run Child-Rearing institutions provide evidence to support this thought.
They argue that infants in these agencies cannot form secure bonds as they may
have several primary caregivers over a short period of time. Even if this is
not true and there is permanence in caregiving, the primary source has so many
other infants to care for that the quality of contact is greatly diminished. From
their research, they conclude that Children who were reared by these two
agencies are far more likely to endured difficult lives because of the insecure
attachment fostered by the environment they grew up in. (Berk, 2001; Sigelman
and Shaffer, 1995)
Nevertheless secure well-adjusted individuals do emerge from group care
and some developmentalists use this fact as evidence to dispute the infant
attachment theory. Jerome Kegan, believe far too much importance is placed on
secure attachment in infancy. He sees infants as highly resilient and adaptive
creature that evolution has programmed to stay on the positive developmental
path, regardless of parenting pattern or structure. In fact, he sees the
infant’s genetic and temperamental dispositions as more critical in his ability
to be a socially competent human being. They absolutely acknowledge the
importance of “competent nurturant, caregivers” [1]
but they question the idea that attachment, particularly to a single caregiver,
is crucial in later social fitness (Santrock, 2000).
Attachment is the bond between
caregiver and child and is seen by most to be of great significance in that it
is a preview of the relationships we will later have. Meaning whatever style we
adopt in infancy will decide how we interpret, experience and mange closeness
throughout adulthood. Though this thought has been sustained by many
longitudinal studies, it is being greatly debated today, for others have put
forward the idea that children have the ability change the effects of their
negative environs and become perfectly sociable persons.
References
attachment: A psychological study of the
Strange Situation. New
Jersey: Erlbaum.
Baron,
R. and Byrne, D. (2000). Social psychology. Massachusetts: Allyn and
Bacon
Berk,
L.E. (2001). Development through the lifespan. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon
Bower,
T. G. R. (1977). A primer of infant development. USA: Freeman and
Company
Santrock,
J. W. (2000). Psychology. USA: Mcgraw-Hill
Sigelman
C. K. and Shaffer D. R. (1995). Life-span human devlopment. California:
Brooks and Cole