Human Development and Attachment Theory

Two major tasks of a developmental theory are to describe changes that take place and to explain these changes (Miller, 1993).  This section will seek to describe and explain how parent-child attachments and subsequent adolescent and adult attachments can result in feelings of loneliness.  There are three main components in this section: an outline of attachment theory, applying attachment theory to the three  dimensions of loneliness, and the conclusion.

Attachment Theory.

Early attachment theory.  John Bowlby originally proposed attachment theory and defined attachment as “any form of behavior that results in a person attaining or retaining proximity to some other differentiated and preferred individual, usually conceived as stronger and/or wiser” (Bowlby, 1973, p. 292).  He conceived the attachment system as an evolutionary mechanism developed for the survival of the species by helping offspring maintain close proximity to a caregiver.  His theory came from observations of nonhuman primates, in which he observed behaviors geared towards the young maintaining contact with the caregiver.  He also observed similar behavior among orphans in hospitals.  If the young were separated from their caregivers they would exhibit distressful behavior and begin to actively seek out the caregiver.  This distress experienced because of separation of the young from the caregiver became known as separation distress.  There would also be protests if the caregiver wishes to leave the young and greeting behavior upon the return of the caregiver.  Among non-primates, similar types of attachment occur as well, such as imprinting or object fixation (Hojat, 1989).  This attachment is important because the young are usually defenseless against predators and needs the caregiver’s protection.

Working models.  Working models represent the internalized development of the relationship between the caregiver and the child.  Unlike some other non-primates, Human newborns do not immediately form an attachment to the first object they see.  During the first six to nine months, the infant slowly learns to develop attachments to a few individuals.  When infants form these attachments, a synchronicity develops between the infant and the caregiver.  Infants learn that certain behaviors are expected when certain cues are presented to the infant and in much the same way, the caregiver learns that certain actions performed by the infant require certain types of behaviors.  Over time then, infants develop (internal) working models in which they have learned expectations about the responsiveness of various caregivers.  These working models help not only with interactions with the caregiver, but also generalize to new situations and people (Miller, 1993).

According to Feeney, Noller, & Roberts (1999) working models function to “predict the behavior of others and to plan one’s own behavior to achieve relational goals” (p. 192).  Attachment theorists usually divide working models into models of self and models of other.  These subcomponents refer to positive or negative schemas about one’s capacity and expectations of others in relational settings respectively.  According to Bowlby (1973) these two models usually develop within the individual in relation to each other, usually in a complementary fashion.  Therefore if a caregiver is unresponsive and insensitive to the needs of the individual, then the individual usually develops negative models of self and other.  However, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) have for example, proposed four different types of emotional relationships based on variations of valence between models of self and other.  The assumption is that while models of self and other tend to be complementary, they can also vary independently of one another.  Therefore for example, one can have a positive model of other and a negative model of self.  Further research by Feeney et al. (1999) demonstrates that each of the four types have consistent cognitive, behavioral, and emotional responses to specific events.

Attachment styles.  Working models provide the foundation upon which attachment styles develop.  Attachment styles are derived from the work of Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978).  Ainsworth et al. (1978) developed an experiment called the Strange Situation experiment.  In this experiment several steps were involved, including observations of the child’s behavior; with the parent, when the parent was not present, and when a stranger was present (both with and without the parent there).  The absence of the parent aroused separation distress for the infant.  But Ainsworth et al. noticed that the intensity of the separation distress were different for different infants, and was related to the strength of the attachment of the infant to the parent/caregiver.  The results from this experiment lead to the development of attachment styles between the infant and caregiver.  Ainsworth et al. highlighted three basic attachment styles: secure, avoidant, and anxious-ambivalent.  The researchers observed that securely attached infants could explore their environments when the caregiver was present, displayed some degree of separation distress when a parent left but were easily comforted by their parent upon their return.  The parent of avoidant infants was generally distant or rigid and infants tended to avoid contact with them.  Anxious-ambivalent infants had a parent who showed inconsistent caregiving behavior, and were showed extreme separation distress when the parent left, and ambivalence or anger upon return (Feeney et al., 1999).

Recent works on attachment styles have suggested that there are four attachment styles rather than three.  Bartholomew (1990) initially proposed a four-group attachment style, based in part on the positive and negative variations in the working models of self and other mentioned previously.  They are: secure (positive self and other), preoccupied (negative self, positive other), dismissing (positive self, negative other), and fearful (negative self and other).  Feeney et al. (1999) cite several researches that confirm these four attachment styles based on cluster analysis of individual items based on attachment theory, including Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) empirical testing of the model.  These four attachment styles, however, may be an elaboration of the three-group attachment style model originally proposed by Ainsworth et al. (1978).  Feeney et al. proposes that secure attachments in both models are the same.  The preoccupied attachment style is similar to the anxious-ambivalent attachment style, and the avoidant attachment style can be separated into either the dismissing or fearful attachment styles.  This paper will focus on the three-group attachment style model given its longer research history and conceptual similarity to the four-group model.

Attachment theory and adolescents/adults.  Whilst initial theorizing of attachment theory has focused on childhood, the theory was later applied to adult romantic relationships, particularly through the work of Phillip Shaver and Cindy Hazan.  There are several important similarities and differences between the attachments that occur in childhood and adulthood.  Shaver and Hazan (1989) point out six similarities between childhood and adult (and adolescent) attachments.  First, is that the quality of the attachment is dependent upon the reciprocation, sensitivity and responsiveness of the attachment figure/ caregiver.  Second, securely attached individuals (infants/adults) are generally happier and more adaptive than insecurely attached individuals.  Third, the attachment mechanism of maintaining proximity to the attachment figure is displayed in both adult and infant attachments.  Fourth, separation from an attachment figure causes extreme distress (separation distress), and the initiation of attachment behaviors in an attempt to regain contact with the attachment figure.  Fifth, in both adults and infants, there is an “intense sensitivity” when displaying discoveries and achievements to the attachment figure for approval.  And lastly, both attachments entail a certain degree of baby talk or motherese type communication. 

Feeney et al. (1999) note that there are two important differences between childhood attachment and adult attachment.  The first is that childhood attachments are asymmetrical, meaning that the relationship is usually complimentary than reciprocal.  Second, there is almost always a sexual component involved in adult attachments. 

Attachment transition from infants to adults.  Kerns (1994) proposes that the attachment style at one developmental stages helps to influence the resultant attachment styles at the next developmental stage.  Her analysis of attachment theory and friendship suggests that working models provide a mechanism of continuity from early childhood through to early adulthood.  Working models provide the continuity between infant and adult attachment systems by maintaining expectations derived during childhood of the attachment figure’s behavior and one’s capacity in social situations.  In addition, each stage of development provides the foundation for the next stage and for example, having the advantages of a secure attachment would help a child develop secure attachments with peers during adolescence.  Shaver, Collins, and Clark (1996) have also proposed that expectations associated with working models tend to become self-fulfilling over time, so for example, being rejected can cause one to develop expectations of rejection and subsequently behave in ways that increase the likelihood of rejection.  These mechanisms provide continuity from infant to adult attachment.  Klohnen and Bera (1998) for example, have analyzed longitudinal data of approximately 100 women from ages 21 to 52 and found not only consistent working models and thus attachment styles during the 31 years of study, but also that these working models were related to self-report childhood environments measured at age 21.  This research suggests that working models are relative stable over the lifespan of the individual.  More will be said later.

Conclusion.  From this brief outline of attachment theory, several concepts are useful in their application to loneliness.  The first is the idea of the attachment figure or caregiver.  There seems to be some inherent drive to maintain contact with a person who can provide security and care.  Second, the idea of working models, or the underlying expectations individuals have about their own capacities (model of self) and other people’s responsiveness (model of other) in social situations.  The third useful concept is that of attachment styles.  Based on the experiments of Ainsworth et al. (1978), three attachment styles were found; secure, avoidant and anxious-ambivalent.  Later work by Bartholomew (1990) suggests four attachment styles instead of three based on positive and negative models of self and other.  Finally, attachment theory is applicable not only to infants, but also to adults as well.  For example, Kerns (1994) outlines how early attachment experiences can influence later attachment.