Attachment Theory and Loneliness.

The dimensions of loneliness presented will be explored during the period of adolescence and adulthood using attachment theory in this section of the paper to answer three basic questions: what type of deprivation is loneliness according to attachment theory, why is the emotional characteristics of loneliness described as painful and unpleasant, and lastly what causes certain individuals to experience chronic loneliness?  Each dimension of loneliness and related questions will be looked at in turn.

Type of deprivation.  Attachment theory suggests that the type of deprivation experienced by lonely individuals is one of an objective absence of an attachment figure rather than a subjective perceptual discrepancy.  Robert Weiss was one of the first loneliness researchers to suggest a link between attachment theory and loneliness.  His initial research into loneliness lead to observations that individuals experienced loneliness due to the loss of a romantic partner.  Once another romantic partner was found, the loneliness “magically” disappeared.  He also later theorized on the period of adolescence in which he suggested that the adolescent relinquishes his/her parent as the primary attachment figure.  Instead the adolescent searches for a romantic partner to form an adult attachment with.  During this transition period adolescents experience loneliness as they search out for their romantic attachment partner.  Just as in newborns, there is an internal mechanism designed to find and form an attachment with an individual, Weiss (1989) suggests that a similar process takes place during adolescence.  The loneliness that adolescents experience therefore is as a result from this missing attachment figure, as parents are relinquished as attachment figures and a search ensues to find an attachment figure and romantic partner.

Emotional characteristics.  Weiss (1973, 1989) defined loneliness as separation distress without an object, which is very much an affective description of loneliness.  When an attachment figure is absent from an individual, separation distress results.  Shaver and Hazan (1989) have cited research that shows that both infants and adults experience separation distress when an attachment figure is absent.  This separation distress is unpleasant and painful.  Weiss (1973, 1989) sees this affective experience of separation distress as the same as loneliness, and descriptions of the two experiences are similar.  The emotional experience also provides motivation as well to find the lost attachment figure.  Just as Flanders (1982) suggested that loneliness may be a signal for a social deficiency and motivation to return to the optimum level, similarly, separation distress seems to perform much of the same function.  Indeed, as Weiss (1973) argues, in some instances they may be one and the same thing.  The loneliness is the experience of separation distress.

Time perspective.  The time perspective dimension is an important dimension is separating individuals who experience separation distress and are able to form new attachments or re-establish old attachments, and those individuals who experience separation distress and are unable to form new attachments or re-establish old ones.  It is a persistent absence of an attachment figure that can make loneliness become chronic.  There are several inter-related explanations for this inability to maintain or form attachments.  The first describes interconnections between attachment styles, working models and loneliness.  The second looks at attachment theory, personal intimate relationships and loneliness and lastly working models, coping styles and loneliness.  Each of these will be looked at in turn.

Attachment styles, working models and loneliness.  Working models and the resultant attachment styles provide theoretical insights into the processes underlying individuals who suffer from persistent, chronic loneliness by highlighting their impaired ability to form and maintain attachments.  Working models provide a cognitive schema about what expectations to have with regards to attachment figures and of one’s own abilities.  Generally speaking, persons with insecure attachments to their attachment figure (either avoidant or anxious-ambivalent) have had experiences in which the attachment figure either unreliably provided care or provided little or no care.  Persons with secure attachments have had attachment figures who have reliably provided care (Shaver & Hazan, 1989).  However, the models are more complex than stated here.  Complications occur with regards to the number of attachment figures during childhood and the kind of care each provided.  Cassidy and Berlin (1999) provide evidence though that the attachment style of the child generalizes to new situations with unknown persons.  Attributions for the unknown person were characterized based upon the attachment style (and in turn the underlying working model) of the child.  Lonely individuals may possess a cognitive representation that people cannot be trusted or that others will reject them due to their perceived social incompetence based upon their working models. 

Indeed there is evidence to suggest that such a representation does exist within lonely persons.  A study by Nurmi, Toivonen, Salmela-Aro, & Eronen (1997), found that persons who exhibited a cognitive strategy called pessimistic avoidance (characterized by failure expectations, negative affects, avoidance, and self-handicapping) was related to a loneliness that persisted over a period of one year.  This finding has support from other researchers who show that lonely persons have a general pessimistic attitude towards social situations (see for example, Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1999; Rook, 1984).  This pessimistic attitude in part prevents lonely individuals from forming new attachments with others for fear of rejection perceived as inevitable because of a possible combination between expectations of failure and feelings of social inadequacy.

Attachment theory, personal, intimate relationships and loneliness.  Before beginning to outline relationship between attachment theory and personal, intimate relationships, it is important to definite what is meant by a personal, intimate relationship.  Sharabany (1994) defines an intimate friendship as composed of eight dimensions: self-disclosure, sensitivity and knowing, empathy, attachment, exclusiveness of relationship, degree of helping the friend, being able to ask favors/impose on a friend, openness and the ability to be vulnerable, sharing common activities, and lastly, the ability to trust a friend (p. 160).  Out of all of these, Prager (1999) suggests that the basis of intimate behaviors is the ability to share the personal, private self.

      The type of working model one possesses therefore can influence to what degree an individual is able to establish intimacy.  Shaver and Hazan (1989) give examples of working models of each attachment style.  Secure individuals, for example, think that people are generally well-intentioned and good-hearted.  As a result, Feeney et al. (1999) report that secure individuals have a high level of self-disclosure, and reciprocate during conversations.  Shaver and Hazan (1989) also suggest that these individuals are trusting of others and have more satisfying intimate relationships and marriages.  Anxious-ambivalent individuals, think that they are ready for a relationship but feel that others are not as ready as they are.  Feeney et al. (1999) report that self-disclosure is also high for this group, but however, reciprocity is low.  Shaver and Hazan (1989) suggest that these individuals are “too eager to self-disclose” (p. 119) and quite possible self-disclose inappropriately.  Finally, avoidant individuals do not trust others, they think that love rarely lasts.  Feeney et al. (1999) reports that self-disclosure for this group is low.  Shaver and Hazan (1989) report that avoidant individuals try to avoid close intimate relationships probably out of fear of getting hurt.

      On these brief descriptions, it seems that dependent upon the attachment style, various dimensions of intimate relationships are either complete or incomplete.  Research suggests that secure individuals have the greatest ability for intimate relationships because they possess the ability to cover the various dimensions of intimate relationships, such as self-disclosure and reciprocity.  Anxious-ambivalent individuals can cover some dimensions but not others, such as the ability to self-disclose, but not the ability to reciprocate, and avoidant individuals seem to leave the greatest number of dimensions incomplete.  This pattern occurs in part because of the working models of individuals.  These given expectations about self and others can reduce the quality of relationships.  The result lack of quality intimate relationships can then lead to chronic loneliness (Rook, 1984, Sharabany, 1994, Sullivan, 1953) because relatively stable working models will consistently cause insecure persons to form poor quality relationships and secure persons to form higher quality relationships.  Indeed other authors have described results of their research, which suggests for example a significant relationship between self-disclosure and loneliness (Buss, 1999; Matsushima & Shiomi, 2001).

Working models, coping styles and loneliness.  Working models may also influence how individuals cope with the emotional load of loneliness.  Rokach and Brock (1998) and Rubenstein and Shaver (1982) have done some research into coping strategies adopted by lonely persons and within these two researches, three common types of coping strategies are present in both researches: avoidance coping, involving withdrawal, denial, and passive activities (sleeping, eating, watching TV); social coping, involving activities meant to increase social contact; and active coping, involving activities that require some greater degree of physical or cognitive concentration, such as exercising, working on a hobby, etc.  Synder and Pulvers (2001) suggest that avoidance coping involves not only the denial, withdrawal and passive activities as suggested by Rokach and Brock (1998) and Rubenstein and Shaver (1983) but also ruminative thinking or “paradoxical hyperattention to stressor”.  Synder and Pulvers (2001) suggest that while individual may strive to ignore their stressor, they paradoxical think about it more.

Attachment theory, and in particular, the working models concept help to explain the coping strategies chosen by individuals.  Feeney et al. (1999) states that secure individuals, because they have received responsive caregiving, learn to acknowledge stressors and deal with them, such as through social support.  Anxious-ambivalent individuals, who received inconsistent caregiving, tended to focus on their distressing thoughts and feelings as a way of maintaining contact with their attachment figure.  This coping strategy can be considered rumination.  Finally, avoidant “individuals learn to avoid acknowledging or expressing distress thoughts and feelings so as to minimize conflict with insensitive caregivers” (Feeney et al., 1999, p. 193).  It appears that the coping machine as suggested by Synder and Pulvers (2001) may have been shaped by previous attachment experiences of the individual during their childhood.  It may also explain the interconnections between attachment style, coping strategy and the degree of loneliness.

Given the connections between attachment style and coping strategies, it is conceivable that insecurely attached individuals would have greater difficulty forming new attachments (or re-establishing old attachments) than securely attached individuals.  Given the emotional experience of loneliness, individuals would either deal with their loneliness (securely attached persons) or avoid dealing with their loneliness (insecurely attached persons).  The avoidance route would entail the individual undertaking activities that would prevent them from forming attachments necessary to alleviate their loneliness or separation distress.  In this way, the emotional burden of loneliness can become overbearing and hinder one’s motivation to effectively engage in social interactions.

      Conclusion.  According to attachment theory, loneliness is as a result of a deficiency in the necessary attachment figure and is experienced as separation distress.  It can become chronic because of maladaptive working models which result in pessimistic attitudes about social situations, personal relationships with low levels of intimacy, and ineffective coping strategies.

General Conclusion.

This section outlined attachment theory and the application of attachment theory to various dimensions of loneliness.  Attachment theory provided useful insight by suggesting that loneliness results out of a social need, is experienced as separation distress and can become chronic through maladaptive working models.  While there is some evidence to suggest that working models can change over the course of the lifespan (Feeney et al., 1999), it is conceivable that more consistent attachment experiences create working model that are resistant to change.  Indeed, individuals with a considerable history of insecure attachments have been found to have persistent loneliness (Hojat & Borenstein, 1990; Rokach, 2000; Shaver & Hazan, 1989; Van Buskirk & Duke, 1991).  Getting such individuals to change their current situation may require considerable and prolonged effort.  More will be said about this later.