Attachment Love
Chapter 3 from Falling in Love is Not Enough
Falling-in-love sets many of us up for marriage. But this love generally
ends after two years. For better or worse, many couples, by that time, are
married or living together. Even though falling-in-love ends, it's not the
end of the world. Attachment love generally has developed. The long-term, quiet, deep, calm love sustains relationships for extended periods
of time. This chapter explains attachment love and how it permeates our
entire lives.
Nobody Noticed It
Some things in psychology are really no-brainers. Patterns are there for anyone to see, yet they seem to stay under the radar screen undetected and unnoticed.
For example, have you ever wondered why almost all projects take longer to finish than you planned? At least, this is true for me. The faucet takes longer to find than expected. The new shrubs cost more. The upgrade to the bathroom costs more and takes longer than I figured. How many new homes, new buildings, new bridges and upgrades of all kinds cost more than planned? So it's not just me. Even professionals with all their expertise often miss their estimate.
Some psychologist noticed this and did some work on it. It's now called the Planning Fallacy. It means, simply, that people have a tendency to underestimate the resources it takes to complete projects of all kinds. So maybe it's not so surprising that it wasn't until 1969 that John Bowlby first wrote about attachment theory.
Love Was Learned
Before then, people did notice that we human beings are social animals. But for the most part, it was believed that this was a learned process. We hung around people and somehow we learned to be social. We learned to be close to our parents and caregivers.
However, Bowlby noticed that many species of mammals seemed to "hang around" their parents in ways quite similar to the ways children are attached to their parents. He documented many examples of baby animals that seemed to automatically stay close to the parent. He concluded that we are not that much different.
Attachment Love is Genetic
We are genetically programmed to attach ourselves to our biological parents or whoever happens to be our caregiver. (From this point on, whenever I use the term "parent" or "caregiver," it refers to any caregiver with whom a child has attached him or herself. It could be a step-parent, a foster parent, the grandparents, or whoever takes care of the child on an ongoing basis.) This explains why we develop close relationships with caretakers. Genetically we are programmed to do so.
We, and the other species that have these attachment genes, are fortunate. As becomes apparent, it made it easier for people to survive.
What Exactly Is This Attachment?
There appears to be a general consensus that there are four general characteristics of attachment. In the next sections, these aspects of attachment are explained.
They are called:
1. Seeking Closeness
2. A Secure Base
3. A Safe Haven
4. Separation Protest
Seeking Closeness
The major aspect of attachment love is "seeking closeness" or "proximity seeking." With relatively few exceptions, people of all ages try to achieve and maintain closeness with their attachment figure. We try to establish and keep in contact with moms, dads, grandparents, children, foster parents, step-parents, mentors, friends, and other people. We are social animals who genetically need to be around people. We want their attention and their help in a variety of ways.
But attachment love is different than our relationship with a store clerk or an acquaintance at work. When we have attachment love for someone, there are specific qualities and behaviors involved. The attention has to be of a certain kind.
A Secure Base
The second aspect of attachment is called the "secure base." Have you ever noticed an infant interacting with its caregiver? An infant will typically explore a room or place and make contact with family members, other infants and kids, toys, even the dogs and plants. But up until a certain age, the infant won't do this unless a parent is physically present. If the parent is absent or can't be seen, the child will tend to get upset. When the parent reappears, the infant will check in and then begin
exploring, again.
The younger children stay close to their parents. They explore only in the immediate vicinity. It seems the child has to make sure that he or she can spot the parent. As the child grow older, his or her explorations expand in ever widening circles. Probably because the infant has learned that the parent doesn't disappear when they are not looking, they are now comfortable exploring the room next door. As they grow older, their comfort increases and they explore the backyard, the neighbor's house,
school and more. Now my son is exploring California. Next week: Beijing, China?
Seriously, infants need a secure base; a parent, from which they can safely explore the world. We function best in the world when we have close relationships which also serve as a secure base. We need other people who are our foundation or center or support. This allows us to go out into the world with more ease and confidence.
An old phrase goes something like: Behind every successful man there is a good woman. The truth is, during one's lifetime no one individual can be successful without having a secure base in some kind of attachment relationship.
The Safe Haven
When threatened or afraid, an infant will retreat. In fact, the child will run screaming for the parent. It wants to be comforted. The infant wants the caregiver to help him or her feel safety and security. After the child is comforted and calmed down, it will get off your knee and go back to playing and exploring the room and the things in it. This is the "safe haven" of attachment love.
It probably developed as a way of protecting children and infants from dangers. If the kids are genetically programmed to stay close to their parents, they would undoubtedly have a better chance of surviving an attack by a saber-toothed tiger or by the neighboring marauding Cro-Magnons. If the child came running for help, the parents could more easily defend them or snatch them up and carry them away from danger. So it appears to have survival value, making it easier for the tribe and the race to survive.
Of course, it has broader applications for us adults. We turn to our spouses and friend and attachment figures for other kinds of aid and assistance. When I am bothered by something, I will talk to my spouse or my dad or a close friend. In response, this person helps me out both in terms of advice and other kinds of assistance. These are safe havens: people I can go to who help me out when I need it.
Separation Protest
The fourth aspect of attachment is called "separation protest." This means that the infant or young child seeks to be physically close to the parent and fights to prevent separation from one's caregiver.
Parents have often seen these protests. When a parent leaves a child with the babysitter for the first time, the child will cry, cling, call, scream, whimper, hold his or her arms up to us, kick their feet, or do many other things. They are letting us know that their security is threatened and that they want to be physically close to us. This is different than having a temper tantrum at Wal-Mart because they can't have a toy. This is a legitimate and genetically programmed fear of being separated from the parent.
In a sense the infant has two built-in opposing desires. On one hand the infant wants to explore the world. On the other, he or she wants to be close, safe and secure. The two desires balance each other. But when the separation is too great the infant reacts with crying and clinging, protesting the separation from one's parent.
There is a threshold for closeness. When the parent is within a certain geographical range, the child is content and happy. When the child or parent wanders beyond this point, the child will feel afraid and run back to one's caregiver. Because each child is unique, the balance between these two principles varies for each child. Just as some kids are genetically more tolerant of change than others, some need to be closer
to caregivers than others.
Stress is also a factor. If a child is tired or sick, he may be crankier and more "clingy" than normal. This is his or her way of expressing one's desire to be closer. Thus when the loved one is too distant, separation protest is activated. It can be triggered by external events. It can also change when the child is either under stress or feeling exceptionally good. But all children share a limit beyond which they will protest and
complain and seek your attention. Once that attention or contact is restored, the child feels secure and becomes quiet. The protest system shuts down.
When the Separation Doesn't End
What happens when an infant or child experiences a prolonged separation from the caregiver? Typically, one begins by protesting in some way. But this can't be maintained forever. Eventually, though it may seem to take forever, the child becomes tired of crying. The child withdraws into what looks like a depressed state. The child appears passive, sad, disinterested in the surroundings and seemingly lacks any desire to play or explore. If the child is reunited with one's parent during this phase, he or she appears unusually anxious and clingy.
If not reunited, the child eventually resumes regular play and appears normal. But if parent and child are reunited at this stage, the child is detached and aloof, doesn't want to get close or maybe is afraid to get close to the parent. Eventually, if the reunited parent hangs in there and maintains contact, the child will start getting closer to the parent and, as noted, often may become overly clingy and anxious.
This complex reaction to separation is probably a predictable reaction for both children and adults. First there are protest behaviors. This is followed by clinging to the attachment figure when reunited. If there is no reunion, then despair and depression occur. Finally the person detaches from the person he or she was once close to.
Attachment is Universal
The desire for closeness, a safe haven and a secure base is almost universal. These behaviors can be seen and observed in children, in adolescents, in adults, in their friendships, in their relationships with parents, and with significant others of all kinds. Attachment love is a part of our entire lives, from the cradle to the grave. It influences numerous aspects of our lives.
The absence of the desire for attachment is notable. Some, like those who have forms of autism, lack any such desire. The inability to display social skills and to attach to others is a major symptom of people with autism. But an inability to attach is relatively rare.
How Do We Form Attachments?
The process of forming an attachment with another is probably similar to what we experience as infants. We seek to be close to someone. There could be a desire for friendship, to avoid loneliness, to pursue sexual interest, to seek out information, to fish for praise, to work on a project, or just to enjoy conversation.
This is followed by a successful interaction. Both parties are satisfied by the interchange and have solved a need or a problem, thus establishing a kind of safe haven between the two. With repeated contact, this may or may not develop. Yet over time people will typically feel safe with each other. Then a secure base might develop.
In attachment relationships between peers, the strength of the bond is weaker than in the relationships between child and parent or between intimates. They tend to be less secure, yet they appear to develop in similar ways.
Intimate Adult Attachment
There are differences between us and our children. Children want whatever they see (not so very different than us). They want the security and safety that parents provide. As adults we give this to our children. We end up providing the care, money, support and security our kids need. We do not and should not receive these things from our children. The relationship should be one-sided.
But it's different between adults. Adult attachments are more typically reciprocal. Each partner gives as well as receives in the attachment relationship. This is also true of friends, and for our support networks.
I believe it can be true even between parents and their adult children. This relationship can change in time, with parents and children offering support and emotional security to each other. Certainly, as my parents became older I took on a different role with them; sometimes offering the security of attachment, while asking for and receiving less support. It seems only natural.
So in intimate, adult love-relationships partners offer a secure base and a safe haven to each other. They also generally offer a sexual link, as well. Thus, the attachment between spouses is multidimensional at its core, including mutual giving and caretaking, mutual support and sexual intimacy.
Different Patterns of Attachment
What complicates all of the above is that it doesn't work perfectly.
We learn how to attach and how to complain about separation from our parents, in combination with our own personalities. Parents do not always respond perfectly to what their children need from them. Nor do their children have personalities that necessarily match up well with their parents' strengths. So problems can occur.
There are three different patterns of attachment between parent and child; different ways in which attachments can be handled or lived out.
These patterns are important for a number of reasons. For one, the way our caregiver responds influences the quality of the attachment. It's also largely responsible for setting the threshold for the activation of the separation protest response. Lastly, unless efforts are made to change, these patterns tend to remain the same throughout a person's life. (Believe me, this is not an impossible task.)
These patterns are:
1. Secure attachment
2. Anxious/ambivalent insecure attachment
3. Avoidant insecure attachment
Secure Attachment
An experiment was created by Mary Ainsworth, an early and noted researcher in this field. Infants were placed in a room. The room contained many interesting toys, one parent and a stranger. The parent was then asked to leave the room, and the stranger tried to interact with the infant. After a period of time, the parent was then brought back into the room. The kids reacted differently to their parents based upon their basic pattern of attachment.
The secure infants were distressed by the separation from their parent. They cried and protested, as we'd expect. Remember, this is called the "separation protest."
When the parent returned, each infant sought comfort from their parent, was easily quieted and then went off exploring the numerous toys in the room. The secure infant fits the normal pattern we described above.
When the researchers visited the secure infants' homes, they found that the parents were generally sensitive and responsive to their children's moods, desires, and signals of distress. The caregivers could interpret these signals accurately. They were warm and accepting of their children. They provided pleasant emotional and physical experiences (smiling, talking pleasantly, hugging, etc.). The caregivers accepted the child's striving for autonomy. They interacted with their children in cooperative
and supportive ways rather than in controlling or intrusive ways.
Anxious/Ambivalent Insecure Attachment
The anxious/ambivalent infants reacted differently. They, too, were distressed when their parent left. But when the parent returned, these infants could not be easily comforted or reassured. They continued to cry and fuss and would not easily get back to exploring the room full of toys. Each was preoccupied with his or her parent.
Home visits to families of these kids revealed that their parents seemed to respond inconsistently to their child's signals. Sometimes the parents were unresponsive and sometimes they were overly responsive. These parents were not generally rejecting of their infants; they just did not respond in a way that was useful for the child. Others have suggested that these mothers lacked knowledge, understanding, and skill in how to react to the child. These mothers also tended to be intrusive, being
unable to provide clear directions and often entering into a struggle of wills with the child.
Avoidant Insecure Attachment
Avoidant infants seemed not to mind being separated from their caregiver. When the parent returned, the infant did not seek any contact with the parent but kept his or her attention on toys and other things in the room. There was no rushing up to greet their parent.
Home visits revealed that these parents tended to ignore and push away their children. The parents were not close to their child. Some even avoided physical contact with these children.
These caregivers were the opposite of the secure caregivers and tended to be less sensitive to the children's communication. There were more instances of sarcasm, threats, and anger toward the children. In general, they were less responsive, ignoring their children to a greater degree. The caregivers did not express much emotion and tended to control and interfere with their children rather than cooperate in the child's growing ability to explore.
Researchers have attempted to determine how many people have each kind of attachment styles. They learned that the majority, about fifty-five percent, have secure attachment styles; about twenty percent have anxious attachment styles; and twenty-five percent have avoidant attachment styles.
Street Maps of Love
Even as we grow and mature, we tend to keep these styles of relating to lovers, spouses and children.
These differences appear to be maintained and strengthened by our mental representations of them, as though we have an internal street map of how the world works. We build up "internal working models," mental models, of how relationships work and we act accordingly. They are sometimes called "schemas." It's like a street map in the mind, except that instead of street names and traffic lights we have ideas of how we should act toward our spouses, how our president should act,
what to expect when going to Wal-Mart.
These schemas are complicated sets of expectations. We form a working model of how relationships work from parents and other people close to us.
Schema 1: How We See Others
Parents can be responsive or unresponsive. They can be emotionally accessible or not. They can be available or not. All of these things work toward creating a stable model of what to expect from others.
Let me give you a personal example. My father, who passed on a few years ago, cared for me, was passionate about the underdog, respected truth and real justice and gave me many things which I needed to get where I am today.
Yet his style of relating to me was complex. I remember his sometimes wanting to play with me. At other times he seemed distant and unapproachable. Many times he was angry. He was embarrassed to say that he loved me and rarely was comfortable with any tender displays or expressions of love. In fact, even though he felt much, he rarely displayed much emotion. He could express anger with ease and tended to yell a lot. I was afraid of him and tended to avoid him. He had few friends and did
not trust many people, if any, beyond his wife and kids. He was angry with many people for the things they did to him. This attitude carried over to the world in general.
These attitudes carried on into my relationships with men, especially. I expected them to be angry. I did not trust them. In general, I did not try to get close to them. I was unresponsive to overtures of friendship. I believed that I could not trust men. My mother recently told me that I was an "angry teenager." I suspect that, like my dad, I was also very angry at the world.
As I look back I see that I was just like my dad in many of the attitudes I had about the world. His attachment relationship with me had a big influence on my life. I expected the world to act as he did. Similarly, parents and caretakers unconsciously mold the way their children see their loved ones. Kids develop schemas based on how their parents relate to them and on how they express their attachment love.
Schema 2: How We See Ourselves
The second part of the schema involves how we see ourselves. This is the classic psychological language of self-image. We also gain a working model of ourselves from the attachment relationships we have with our parents.
Many times, in my practice, people have linked their present attitudes about themselves to the way that their parents related to them. Barbara recently asked herself how she became a "good girl" who tried to please everyone. It turned out that her parents tended to ignore her or, occasionally, yell at her. They were not mean. Mostly they seemed to ignore her.
Thus she tried to get her parents' attention by pleasing them, by being a perfect child, by going out of her way to do things for them. If she succeeded, it proved that she was loveable. Of course she never really succeeded. Despite all of her efforts, they ignored her.
However, Barbara kept this pattern of behavior. Since all of her efforts to succeed with her parents failed she also held onto the idea that she wasn't loveable. She is now in her fifties and has finally realized that her self-image derived from her parents' distance.
We respond to our caregivers' style of attachment by forming ideas of ourselves based upon their style. There you have it. Attachment is part and parcel of being a human being. It involves seeking closeness with another person, who offers you a secure base and a safe haven. When your partner seems far away, you respond by protesting in some way. There are three basic styles of attachment, and we bring to the relationship our unique roadmap of love.