The theory of attachment is a psychological model that attempts to describe the long-term and short-term interpersonal relationship dynamics between people. However, "the attachment theory is not formulated as a general relations theory, it deals only with certain aspects": how humans respond in relationships when injured, separated from loved ones, or perceives threats. Basically all babies become attached if nannies are provided, but there are individual differences in relationship quality. In infants, attachment as a motivational and behavioral system directs the child to seek closeness with the intimate caregiver when they are concerned, in the hope that they will receive emotional protection and support. John Bowlby believes that the primate infant's tendency to develop attachment to an intimate caregiver is the result of evolutionary pressure, because attachment behavior will facilitate the survival of infants in the face of dangers such as predation or exposure to the elements.
The most important principle of the attachment theory is the baby's need to develop relationships with at least one primary caregiver for successful social and emotional development of children, and in particular to learn how to manage their feelings. Every caregiver tends to be a major attachment figure if they provide the majority of child care and related social interactions. In the presence of a sensitive and responsive nanny, the baby will use the caregiver as a "safe base" to explore. This relationship can be dyed, as in the mother-child numbers that are often studied in Western culture, or may involve the caregiver (sibling/extended family/teacher) community as can be seen in the regions of Africa and South America. Admittedly "even a sensitive nanny gets it right only about fifty percent of the time, their communication is out of sync, or mismatched.There are times when parents feel tired or distracted.The phone rings or there is a breakfast to be prepared." In other words, the interaction is aligned quite often broken. But the hallmark of a sensitive nanny is that the shards are managed and repaired. "
The bond between the baby and the caregiver is formed even if the caregiver is not sensitive and responsive in social interaction with them. This has important implications. Babies can not get out of unpredictable or insensitive caring relationships. Instead, they must manage themselves best in such relationships. Based on its already established Strange Situation Protocol, research by development psychologist Mary Ainsworth in the 1960s and 1970s found that children would have different patterns of attachment depending on how they experienced their initial parenting environment. The initial attachment pattern, in turn, shapes - but does not specify - individual expectations in the next relationship. Four different classifications of interrelations have been identified in children: strong attachment, ambiguous attachment, intrusive attachment-avoidance, and irregular attachment. A secure attachment is when children feel they can rely on their caregiver to meet their need for closeness, emotional support and protection. This is considered the best attachment style. Ambivalent-ambivalent attachment is when the baby feels separation anxiety when separated from the caregiver and does not feel at ease when the caregiver returns to the baby. The annoying attachment-avoidance is when babies avoid their parents. The irregular attachment is when there is a lack of attachment behavior.
In the 1980s, the theory extended to adult attachment. Attachment applies to adults when adults feel close to their parents, their romantic and platonic couples and their friends.
The theory of attachment has become the dominant theory used today in the study of infant and toddler behavior and in the mental health of infants, the care of children, and related fields.
Video Attachment theory
Baby attachment
In attachment theory, attachment means "the biological instinct in which closeness to the attachment figure is sought when the child senses or senses threats or discomfort." Attachment behavior anticipates responses by an attachment figure that will eliminate threats or discomfort ". Such bonds may be reciprocal between two adults, but between the child and the caregiver this bond is based on the child's need for safety, security and protection, important in infancy and childhood. John Bowlby begins by noting organisms at different levels of the phylogenetic scale that govern instinctive behavior in different ways, ranging from "fixed action patterns" such as primitive reflexes to complex plan hierarchies with powerful sub-subjects and learning components. In the most complex organisms, instinctive behavior can be "corrected targets" with continuous adjustment in the field (like a predator tailing its escape to prey movements). The concept of a cybernetically controlled system of behavior organized as a hierarchy of plans (Miller, Galanter, and Pribram, 1960) thus came to replace the concept of Freud's drive and instinct. Such systems regulate behavior in an unnecessarily rigidly innate manner, but - depending on the organism - can adapt in a greater or lesser degree to changes in the environment, provided it does not deviate much from the environment of evolutionary adaptation organisms. Such flexible organisms pay a price, however, because adaptable behavior systems can be more easily subverted from their optimal developmental path. For humans, Bowlby speculates, the evolutionary adaptation environment may resemble today's hunter-gatherer society for the purpose of survival, and, ultimately, genetic replication. Attachment theory is not a full description of human relationships, nor is it synonymous with love and affection, although this may indicate a bond exists. Some infants direct the attachment behavior (seeking closeness) toward more than one attachment figure as soon as they begin to show discrimination between caregivers; most come to do so during their second year. These numbers are arranged hierarchically, with the main attachment figure at the top. The set-goal of an attachment behavior system is to maintain accessibility and availability of attachment figures. Many cultures use different forms of attachment including the most prominent diad models in Western culture and allomothering. "Alarm" is the term used for the activation of attachment behavior systems caused by fear of danger. "Anxiety" is the anticipation or fear of disconnection from attachment figures. If numbers are unavailable or unresponsive, separation distress occurs. In infants, physical separation can cause anxiety and anger, followed by sadness and despair. At the age of three or four, physical separation is no longer a threat to the child's bond with the attachment figure. Threats to security in older children and adults arise from prolonged absence, damage to communication, unavailability of emotions, or signs of rejection or neglect.
Behavior
Attachment behavior system functions to achieve or maintain closeness with attachment figures. Pre-attachment behavior occurs within the first six months of life. During the first phase (first eight weeks), the baby smiles, babbls, and cries to attract the attention of a prospective nanny. Although babies at this age learn to distinguish between caregivers, this behavior is directed at anyone around it. During the second phase (two to six months), infants distinguish between familiar and unknown adults, becoming more responsive to caregivers; follow and paste added to various behaviors. The infant's behavior toward the caregiver becomes organized based on the goals directed toward attaining the conditions that make him feel secure. At the end of the first year, the baby can display a variety of attachment behaviors designed to keep a distance. It manifests as protesting the nanny's departure, greets the nanny's return, sticks up when frightened, and follows when able. With the development of movers, babies begin to use caregivers or caregivers as a "safe base" to explore. Baby explorations are larger when the caregiver is present because the baby's attachment system is relaxed and free to explore. If the caregiver is inaccessible or unresponsive, stronger attachment behavior is indicated. Anxiety, fear, illness, and fatigue will cause a child to increase attachment behavior.
After the second year, when the child begins to see the caregiver as an independent person, a more complex partnership that is corrected by purpose will be formed. Children begin to pay attention to the goals and feelings of others and plan their actions accordingly. For example, when a baby cries out of pain, a two-year-old cries to call their nanny, and if that does not work, cry louder, scream, or follow.
Tenets
Common attitudes and emotional attachments, shown in most social primates including humans, are adaptive. The long-term evolution of this species has involved selection for social behavior that makes the survival of individuals or groups more likely. The common attachment behavior observed in toddlers who live near familiar people will have a security advantage in an early adaptation environment, and has the same benefits today. Bowlby sees an early adaptation environment similar to today's hunter-gatherer society. There is a survival advantage in the capacity to sense potentially dangerous conditions such as unfamiliarity, alone, or quick approach. According to Bowlby, looking-closeness to the attachment figure in dealing with threats is a "set-goal" of the behavioral system of attachment.
Bowlby's original account of the sensitivity period in which attachments can form between six months and two to three years has been modified by subsequent researchers. These researchers have shown that there is indeed a sensitive period in which attachments will form if possible, but the time period is wider and the effect is less fixed and irreversible than first proposed. With further research, the authors who discuss the theory of attachment have realized that social development is influenced by the latter and previous relationships. The first step in the installation is the easiest if the baby has one nanny, or occasional care from a small number of others. According to Bowlby, almost from the beginning, many children have more than one figure to whom they direct the behavior of attachment. These numbers are not treated equally; there is a strong bias for a child to direct attitudinal behavior especially to one particular person. Bowlby uses the term "monotropy" to describe this bias. Researchers and theorists have abandoned this concept to the extent that it can be considered to mean relationships with distinctive figures differently qualitatively from other numbers. Conversely, current thinking postulates a definite relationship hierarchy.
Initial experience with caregivers gradually generates systems of thoughts, memories, beliefs, expectations, emotions, and behaviors about self and others. This system, called "the internal work model of social relationships", continues to evolve over time and experience. The internal model organizes, interprets, and predicts behaviors associated with internal attachments and attachment figures. As they grow in line with changing environments and developments, they combine the capacity to reflect and communicate about past and future attachment relationships. They allow children to handle new types of social interaction; knowing, for example, that a baby should be treated differently than an older child, or that interactions with teachers and parents share the same characteristics. This internal work model continues to grow into adulthood, helping to overcome friendships, marriage, and parents, all of which involve different behaviors and feelings. Development of attachment is a transactional process. Special attachment behavior begins with predictable, seemingly innate, behavior in infancy. They change with age in a way determined in part by experience and partly by situational factors. Because attachment behaviors change with age, they do so in ways that are shaped by relationships. The behavior of a child when reunited with a caregiver is determined not only by how the caregiver treated the child before, but in the history of the child's effect on the caregiver.
Cultural differences
In raising children of Western culture, there is a focus on single attachment to primarily mothers. This dyadic model is not the only bonding strategy that produces a safe and emotional child. Having a single nanny, responsive responsive and sensitive (ie mother) does not guarantee a child's ultimate success. The results of the Israeli, Dutch and East African studies show children with multiple caregivers grow not only feel secure, but develop "more enhanced capacity to see the world from multiple perspectives." This evidence can be more easily found in the hunter-gatherer community than the Western day care context.
In hunter-gatherer communities, past and present, moms are the primary caregivers but share the mother's responsibility to ensure the survival of children with different types of mothers. So while mom is important, she is not the only chance for a relational attachment a child can do. Some group members (with or without blood rela- tions) contribute to the task of raising children, sharing parenting roles and can therefore be the source of some attachments. There is evidence of this communal parenting throughout history that "will have significant implications for the evolution of double attachment."
Maps Attachment theory
Attachment classification in children: The Odd Situation Protocol
The most common and empirically supported method of assessing infant attachment (11 months-17 months) is the Strange Situation Protocol, developed by Mary Ainsworth as a result of deep-seated observations of infants with their mothers in Baltimore, USA (see below ). The Strange Situation Protocol is a research tool not intended for diagnostic purposes. Although this procedure can be used to complement clinical impression, the resulting classification should not be confused with the psychiatric diagnosis of 'Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD)'. The clinical concept of RAD differs in a number of fundamental ways of classification theory and classification based on research based on Strange Situation Procedures. The idea that unsafe attachments are identical to RAD is, in fact, inaccurate and leads to ambiguity when formally discussing the attachment theory as it has evolved in the research literature. This is not to suggest that the concept of RAD is unfounded, but rather to the clinical and research conceptualization of insecure attachments and unequal attachment disorders.
The 'Strange Situation' is a laboratory procedure used to assess the pattern of infant attachment on their caregivers by introducing unexpected threats, two brief separations of the mother followed by reunions. In the procedure, the mother and baby are placed in an unusual playroom equipped with toys while a researcher files the procedure through a one-way mirror. This procedure consists of eight consecutive episodes in which the baby experiences both separation from and reunion with the mother as well as the presence of a stranger (Foreigner). This protocol is performed in the following format unless the modification is otherwise indicated by a particular researcher:
- Episode 1: Mother (or another familiar nanny) Baby, Experimenter (30 seconds)
- Episode 2: Mother, Baby (3 minutes)
- Episode 3: Mother, Baby, Stranger (3 min)
- Episode 4: Stranger, Baby (3 minutes or less)
- Episode 5: Mother, Baby (3 minutes)
- Episode 6: Baby Alone (3 minutes or less)
- Episode 7: Stranger, Baby (3 minutes or less)
- Episode 8: Mom, Baby (3 minutes)
Particularly on the basis of their reunion behavior (though other behaviors are taken into account) in Strange Paradigm Situations (Ainsworth et al., 1978; see below), infants can be categorized into three categories of 'organized' attachments: Group B (then called 'safe') , Group A (later called 'anxious avoidance'), and Group C (later called 'ambivalent anxious'). There are subclassifications for each group (see below).
Beginning in 1970, a series of expansions were added to the original Ainsworth pattern. They include the following: B4 (1970), A/C (1985) D/Unorganized (1986), B5 (1988, 1992) A, C, & amp; Depression (1992, 2010). At an advanced age, additional categories have been described. Each of these patterns reflects the different type of attachment relationship of the infant with the mother/caregiver. A baby may have different attachment patterns for each parent as well as a surrogate nanny. The pattern of attachment is thus not part of the baby, but is a characteristic of the quality that protects and comforts of a particular relationship. These attachment patterns are linked to behavioral patterns and can help further predict the future personality of a child.
Attachment pattern
"The strength of the attachment behavior of children in certain circumstances does not indicate the 'strength' attachment bonds.Some unsecured children will routinely display very obvious attachment behaviors, while many children who feel safe find that there is no great need to engage in intense or frequent shows of attachment behavior. "
Secure attachments
A toddler firmly attached to his or her parents (or other intimate caregivers) will explore freely when a caregiver is present, usually involved with a stranger, often looks angry when the caregiver leaves, and is generally happy to see the caregiver return. However, the level of exploration and distress is influenced by the temperamental nature of children and by situational factors as well as by the status of attachment. The attachment of a child is strongly influenced by the sensitivity of their primary caregiver to their needs. Parents who consistently (or almost always) respond to the needs of their child will make the children safely protected. Such children are convinced that their parents will respond to their needs and communications.
In traditional Ainsworth et al. (1978) Strange Situation encoding, safe babies are symbolized as "Group B" infants and they are subsequently subclassified as B1, B2, B3, and B4. Although this sub-grouping refers to different stylistic responses to caregiver comings and attitudes, they are not specifically labeled by Ainsworth and colleagues, although their descriptive behavior directs others (including students from Ainsworth) to design relatively loose terminology for this. subgroup. B1 has been referred to as "safe-protected", B2 as 'safe-inhibited', B3 as "safe-balanced", and B4 as "safe-reactive". However, in academic publications, the classification of infants (if subgroups are represented) is usually only "B1" or "B2" although more theoretical and review-oriented papers surrounding the attachment theory may use the above terminology.
Children who are securely attached are the most able to explore when they have knowledge of a secure base (their caregiver) to return to when needed. When assistance is provided, it will strengthen the sense of security and also, assuming the help of parents is helpful, educating the child in how to solve similar problems in the future. Therefore, secure attachment can be seen as the most adaptive adhesive style. According to some psychological researchers, a child becomes securely bonded when parents are available and able to meet the child's needs in a responsive and appropriate manner. In infancy and early childhood, if parents care and concern for their children, the children will be more vulnerable to attachment.
Attachment attachments
Ambivalent-ambivalent attachments are also dubbed as "resistant attachments". In general, a child with ambivalent attachment patterns will usually explore a little (in Strange Situations) and often be wary of strangers, even when parents are present. When the mother leaves, the child is often very depressed. The child is generally ambivalent when his mother returns. An ambitious-ambivalent strategy is a response to responsive and unpredictable parenting, and displaying anger (opposed resistance) or helplessness (passive ambivalence) to caregivers in a reunion can be regarded as a conditional strategy to maintain caregiver availability by preemptively taking control of the interaction.
The subtype C1 (ambivalent resistant) is encoded when "the resistant behavior is striking." The mixture of seeking and denying contact and interaction has an undoubted quality of anger and indeed an angry tone can characterize behavior in episodes of preseparation.
Regarding subtype C2 (passive ambivalent), Ainsworth et al. write:
Perhaps the most striking feature of baby C2 is their passivity. Their exploratory behavior is limited across the SS and their interactive behavior is relatively lacking in active initiation. However, in the reunion episode they obviously want closeness and contact with their mothers, although they tend to use signals rather than active approaches, and protests against being delayed rather than actively refusing release... In general, C2 babies are not as conspicuous as C1 babies.
Research conducted by McCarthy and Taylor (1999), found that children with rough childhood experiences are more likely to develop ambivalent attachment. The study also found that children with ambivalent attachments were more likely to have difficulty in maintaining intercourse as adults.
Attachment anxious-avoidant
A baby with an alarming pattern of attachment will avoid or ignore a nanny - showing little emotion when the caregiver leaves or returns. Babies will not be much exploring anyone there. Babies were classified as anxious-avoidant (A) representing a puzzle in the early 1970s. They do not show difficulties in separation, and ignore the caregivers when they return (subtype A1) or show a tendency to approach together with some tendency to ignore or turn away from caregivers (subtype A2). Ainsworth and Bell theorized that the obvious behavior of abandoned babies is actually a mask for distress, a hypothesis that is then proven through studies of the heartbeat of obliterating babies.
Babies are portrayed as anxious-dodging when they exist:
...... the obvious evasion of the mother in the reunion episode most likely consists of ignoring it altogether, although there may be some who turn away, turn away, or stay away... If there is a saying when the mother comes in, it tends to be just a look or smile... Either the baby does not approach her mother at reunion, or they approach in "fail" mode with the baby passing through the mother, or tend to only happen after much persuasion... If raised, the baby shows little or no maintain contact behavior; he tends not to embrace; he turns away and he may wriggle to get down.
Ainsworth's narrative note shows that infants avoid caregivers in the strenuous, stressful Situation Procedures when they have a history of rejection of attachment behavior. The baby's needs are often not met and the baby becomes convinced that emotional communication needs has no effect on caregivers. Ainsworth's disciple, Mary Main theorizes that avoidance behavior in Situation Weird situations should be regarded as "conditional strategies, which paradoxically allow any possible closeness in conditions of maternal rejection" by not emphasizing the need for attachment. The principal suggests that avoidance has two functions for infants whose caregivers are consistently unresponsive to their needs. First, avoidance behaviors allow babies to maintain conditional spacing with caregivers: close enough to protect, but far enough to avoid rejection. Second, cognitive processes that govern avoidance behaviors can help direct attention away from unfulfilled desires for proximity to caregivers - avoiding situations where the child is overwhelmed with emotion ("unorganized distress"), and therefore unable to maintain control of themselves. and reach even the conditional distance.
Irregular/Unintentional delays
Ainsworth himself was the first to find difficulty in adapting all infant behaviors into the three classifications used in his studies in Baltimore. Ainsworth and colleagues occasionally observed "tense movements such as bending the shoulders, putting hands behind the neck and tilting heads, etc. It is our clear impression that such tension movements indicate stress, either because it tends to occur in episodes of separation and because they tend to prodromal to cry.As indeed, our hypothesis is that they occur when a child tries to control crying, as they tend to disappear if and when crying through. "Such observations also appear in the Ainsworth student doctoral thesis. Crittenden, for example, notes that one of the abused babies in his doctoral sample was classified as safe (B) by undergraduate program coders because his odd situation behavior was "without evasion or ambivalence, he actually showed stereotypic headcocking related to stress throughout a strange situation, but this pervasive behavior is the only clue to the degree of stress. " Beginning in 1983, Crittenden offers A/C and other new organized classifications (see below). Drawing on behavior notes that do not fit the classifications A, B, and C, the fourth classification is added by Ainsworth's colleague Mary Main. In Strange Situations, the attachment system is expected to be activated by the departure and return of the caregiver. If the behavior of the infant does not appear to the observer to be coordinated in a seamless manner throughout the episode to attain relative closeness or closeness with the caregiver, then it is considered 'irregular' as it indicates a flood or flood in the appendix. system (eg with fear). Infant Behavior in Strange Situation Protocols encoded as irregular/disorientation include a clear display of fear; conflicting behavior or influence occurs simultaneously or sequentially; stereotyped, asymmetrical, misdirected or jerking motion; or clear freezing and dissociation. Lyons-Ruth has insisted, however, that it should be broader "admitted that 52% of unorganized babies continue to approach caregivers, seek comfort, and stop their distress without clear ambivalent or avoidance behavior".
There is a growing interest in the irregular attachment of doctors and policymakers and researchers. However, the classification of irregular attachments/disorientation (D) has been criticized by some as overly covers, including Ainsworth himself. In 1990, Ainsworth listed his blessing for a new 'D' classification, though he insisted that the additions be regarded as "open, in the sense that subcategories can be distinguished", as he worries that too many different forms of behavior may be treated as if they is the same thing. Indeed, the classification D places with infants using a secure strategy (B) that is somewhat disturbed by those who seem hopeless and show little attachment behavior; it also puts together a baby who ran to hide when they saw their caregiver in the same classification as those who demonstrated a avoidant (A) strategy in the first reunion and then ambivalent-resistant strategy (C) in the second reunion. Perhaps responding to such concerns, George and Solomon have been split between the unorganized/disorientation (D) index in the Weird Situation, treating some behaviors as 'desperation strategies' and others as evidence that the attachment system has been flooded (eg with fear , or anger). In addition, Crittenden argues that some behaviors classified as Disorganization/disorientation can be considered as more emergency versions of avoiding and/or ambivalent/resistant strategies, and serve to keep the protective availability of caregivers to some degree. Sroufe et al. have agreed that "irregular attachment behavior (simultaneous avoidance of approaches, freezing, etc.) allows for proximity in the face of fearful or unpredictable parents". However, "the notion that many 'disorganization' indices are aspects of an organized pattern does not preclude acceptance of the idea of ​​disorganization, especially in cases where the complexity and threat of threat are beyond the ability of children to respond." For example, "Children are placed in care, especially more than once, often have interruptions.In the Video Situation Weird situation, they tend to occur when the rejected/abandoned child approaches the stranger in disturbance of desire for comfort, then loses muscle, controls and fell to the floor, overwhelmed by the distracting fear of an unknown, potentially dangerous, and strange stranger. "
Main and Hesse find most of the mothers of these children have suffered massive loss or other trauma shortly before or after childbirth and have reacted by becoming very depressed. In fact, fifty-six percent of mothers who lost their parents to death before they finished high school had children with irregular attachments. Further studies, while emphasizing the importance of unresolved losses, have qualified these findings. For example, Solomon and George find unresolved losses in mothers tend to be associated with irregular attachment to their babies especially when they also experience unresolved trauma in their lives before loss.
Differences in cross-cultural categorization
In many cultures deviations from the Strange Situation Protocol have been observed. A Japanese study in 1986 (Takahashi) studied 60 pairs of Japanese infant mothers and compared them with the Ainsworth distribution pattern. Although the range for safely and insecurely installed does not have a significant proportion difference, the Japanese insecure group consisted only of children who were resistant without children being categorized as avoidance. This may be because the Japanese child-care philosophy emphasizes close maternal bonds rather than Western culture. In northern Germany, Grossmann et al. (Grossmann, Huber, & Wartner, 1981 Grossmann, Spangler, Suess, & Unzner 1985) replicated the Anonymous Ainsworth Situation with 46 maternal pairs and found a different classification distribution of attachment to a large number of infants avoiding: 52% avoidant, 34% safe, and 13% resistant (Grossmann et al., 1985). Another study in Israel found there was a high frequency of ambivalent patterns that, according to Grossman et al. (1985) can be associated with greater parental impulse toward children's independence.
Pattern later and dynamic maturity model
Techniques have been developed to enable verbal assertion of the child's state of mind with respect to attachment. An example is the "parent story", in which a child is given the start of a story that raises the issue of attachment and is asked to solve it. For older children, teenagers and adults, semi-structured interviews are used where the way content is delivered can be as important as the content itself. However, no linkage measures are substantially validated for early childhood or early adolescence (about 7 to 13 years). Some studies of older children have identified the classification of further attachment. Major and Cassidy observed that irregular behavior in infancy can develop into a child who uses parenting behaviors or punishments to manage a helpless or dangerous caregiver that can not be predicted. In this case, the behavior of the child is regulated, but the behavior is treated by the researcher as a form of 'disorganization' (D) because the hierarchy in the family is no longer governed by the parenting authority.
Patricia McKinsey Crittenden has elaborated the advanced form classification of attitudinal attachment and attachment attitudes. These include parenting behavior and punishment also identified by Main and Cassidy (respectively called A3 and C3), but also other patterns such as compulsive compliance with threatening parents' wishes (A4).
Crittenden's ideas developed from Bowlby's proposal that "given certain bad circumstances during childhood, selective isolation of certain types of information may be adaptive, but as adolescence and adulthood change, continuous exclusion of the same form of information can be maladaptif. ".
Crittenden proposes that the basic components of human experience of danger are two types of information:
1. 'Affective information' - emotions triggered by potential dangers, such as anger or fear. Crittenden calls this "affective information". In childhood, this information will include emotions triggered by the inexplicable absence of an inherent figure. Where a baby is faced with insensitive or resistant isolation, a strategy for maintaining the availability of their attachment is to try to exclude from consciousness or from the behavior expressed by any emotional information that might result in rejection.
2. Other sequential causes or knowledge of potential safety or hazards. In this childhood will include knowledge of the behavior that shows the availability of the attachment as a safe haven. If knowledge of behaviors that demonstrate the availability of an attachment image as a safe haven is subject to segregation, then infants may try to keep their caregiver's attention through inherent or aggressive behavior, or alternating combinations of both. Such behavior may increase the availability of an attachment figure which in turn presents inconsistent or misleading responses to infant attachment behavior, indicating unreliable protection and safety.
Crittenden proposes that both types of information can be separated from awareness or behavioral expression as a 'strategy' to maintain the availability of the attachment figure (see section above on the disorganized/disoriented attachment for "Type" differences): "Type A strategies are hypothesized based on a reduction in perceptions of threats to reducing the disposition to respond Type C is hypothesized based on an increased perception of threats to increase the disposition to respond. "Type A strategies break the emotional information about feelings threatened and type C strategies separate temporally ordered knowledge of how and why the figure of attachment is available. In contrast, type B strategies effectively utilize both types of information without much distortion. For example: a toddler may have depended on C strategy in doing the job of maintaining an inconsistent availability of an attachment that has caused the child to disbelieve or distort the causal information about his or her actual behavior. This can direct their attachment figures to gain a clearer understanding of their needs and an appropriate response to their attachment behavior. Experiencing more reliable and predictable information about the availability of their attachment figures, toddlers then no longer need to use coercive behavior in order to maintain the availability of their carers and to develop a secure attachment to their caregivers as they believe that their needs and communication will be addressed.
Significance of pattern
Research based on data from longitudinal studies, such as the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Studies of Early Childhood Care and the Minnesota Study of Risk and Adaptation from Birth to Adult, and from a cross-sectional study, consistently shows the relationship between the early attachment of classification and peer relations to quantity and quality. Lyons-Ruth, for example, found that "for any additional withdrawal behavior displayed by mothers in relation to their infant attachment cues in Strange Situation Procedures, the probability of clinical refer- ence by providers increases by 50%."
There are many studies that show a significant relationship between attachment organization and children's function in various domains. Initial insecure attachments do not always predict difficulties, but it is the responsibility for the child, especially if the same parent behavior persists during childhood. Compared to safely protected children, the adaptation of unsafe children in many areas of life is not well-founded, putting their future relationship in jeopardy. Although the relationship is not fully enforced by the research and there are other influences besides attachment, safe babies are more likely to be socially competent than their unconfident colleagues. Relationships formed with peers affect the acquisition of social skills, intellectual development, and the formation of social identity. The classification of the status of children's friends (popular, ignored or rejected) has been found to predict subsequent adjustments. Unsafe children, especially avoiding children, are particularly vulnerable to family risks. Their social and behavioral problems are increasing or decreasing with worsening or improvements in parenting. However, the initial secure attachment appears to have a lasting protection function. Like attachments to parental figures, subsequent experiences can change the course of development.
Studies have shown that high-risk infants for Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) can express different mounting safety from low-risk infants to ASD. Issues of behavior and social competence in unsafe children increase or decrease with the decrease or improvement of the quality of care and the level of risk in the family environment.
Some authors question the notion that a category taxonomy representing qualitative differences in the attachment relationship can be developed. A data check of 1,139 15-month-olds showed that variations in attachment patterns were continuous rather than grouped. This criticism introduces an important question for the typology of attachment and the mechanism behind the obvious types. However, it has relatively little relevance to the theory of the attachment itself, which "does not require or predict a separate pattern of attachment."
There is some evidence that gender differences in the pattern of attachment of adaptive significance begin to appear in middle childhood. Unsafe bondage and early psychosocial stresses indicate an environmental risk (eg poverty, mental illness, instability, minority status, violence). Environmental risks can lead to unsafe attachment, while also supporting the development of strategies for previous reproduction. Different reproductive strategies have different adaptation values ​​for men and women: Unsafe men tend to adopt avoidance strategies, whereas unsafe women tend to adopt an anxious/ambivalent strategy unless they are in a high-risk environment. Adrenarke is proposed as an endocrine mechanism that underlies the reorganization of insecurity attachment in middle childhood.
Changes in attachments during childhood and adolescence
Adolescence and adolescence enable the development of a useful internal work model to form attachments. This internal working model is linked to the individual's developing state of mind in relation to the general attachment and explores how attachment functions in the dynamics of relationships based on childhood and adolescent experiences. Organizational internal work models are generally seen as leading to a more stable attachment to those who develop such models, rather than those who are more dependent on individual individual states of mind in forming new attachments.
Age, cognitive growth, and advanced social experience advance the development and complexity of the internal work model. Behavior associated with attachment loses some characteristics typical of the toddler period and takes an age-related tendency. The preschool period involves the use of negotiation and bargaining. For example, four-year-olds are not pressured by separation if they and their caregivers have negotiated a joint plan for separation and reunion.
Ideally, these social skills are incorporated into the internal work model for use with other children and then with adults. As children enter the school years of about six years, most develop a correlated partnership with parents, where each partner is willing to compromise to maintain a satisfactory relationship. In middle childhood, the objective of the behavioral attachment system has changed from close range to attachment to availability. Generally, a child is satisfied with a longer separation, giving contact - or the possibility of reunion physically, if necessary - is available. Attachment behaviors such as attachment and following decline and independence increase. In middle childhood (ages 7-11), there may be a shift toward mutual coregulation from base-safe contacts in which caregivers and children negotiate methods of maintaining communication and supervision as the child moves toward higher degrees of independence.
Attachments in adult
The theory of attachment extended to adult romantic relationships in the late 1980s by Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver. Four attachment styles have been identified in adults: safe, restless-attentive, frightening avoidors and avoidors. This is roughly according to the infant classification: safe, unsafe-ambivalent, unsafe-avoided and disorganized/disoriented.
Secured adult adults tend to have a positive outlook about themselves, their spouses and their relationships. They feel comfortable with intimacy and independence, balancing the two. Adults who are anxious and busy looking for intimacy, approval, and high response from couples, become too dependent. They tend to be less confident, have less positive views about themselves and their partners, and may exhibit high levels of emotional expression, anxiety and impulsivity in their relationships. Adults who avoid avoidance want a high degree of independence, often appearing to avoid attachment at all. They see themselves as independent, immune to feelings of attachment and do not need close relationships. They tend to suppress their feelings, deal with conflicts by distancing themselves from partners who often have bad opinions. Fearful adults have mixed feelings about close relationships, both wanting and feeling uncomfortable with emotional closeness. They tend not to trust their spouse and consider themselves unworthy. Like avoiding adults, fear-averse adults tend to seek less intimacy, suppressing their feelings.
Individuals who are sexually and securely attached tend not to engage in one night stand or sexual activity outside the main relationship, and are more likely to report mutual initiation and sexual enjoyment. Avoidance-avoidance individuals tend to report activities that reflect low psychological intimacy (one-night sex, extra-dyed sex, loveless sex), and lack of physical contact. Studies have shown that for both sexes, the ambivalent-insecurity attachment is associated with the pleasure of holding and caressing, but not more clearly of sexual behavior. Relatively, unsafe individuals tend to partner with unsafe individuals, and secure individuals with safe individuals. The unsafe relationship tends to persist but is less emotionally satisfactory than the relationship (s) of two securely bonded individuals. Attachment styles are enabled from the first date onwards and affect the relationship dynamics and how the relationship ends. Secure attachments have been shown to allow for better conflict resolution in a relationship and for one's ability to exit unsatisfactory relationships compared to other types of attachments. Secure individuals who have high self-esteem and a positive outlook from others make this possible because they are confident that they will find other relationships. Secure attachment has also been shown to enable successful relational loss processing (eg death, rejection, infidelity, neglect, etc.). Attachments have also been shown to influence parenting behavior in relationships as well (Shaver & Cassidy, 2018)
Two main aspects of adult adherence have been studied. The organization and stability of the mental work model underlying the style of attachment is explored by social psychologists interested in romantic attachment. Developmental psychologists interested in the state of mind of the individual with respect to attachment generally explore how attachment functions in the dynamics of relationships and the outcomes of impact relationships. The organizational model of mental work is more stable while the individual's mind state with respect to attachment fluctuates more. Some authors suggest that adults do not have a set of working models. On the other hand, on one level they have a set of rules and assumptions about the relationship of attachments in general. At another level they hold information about a specific relationship or relationship event. Information at different levels need not be consistent. Hence individuals can have different internal working models for different relationships.
There are a number of different sizes of adult attachments, the most common being self-report questionnaires and code interviews based on Adult Appendix Interviews. Various measures are developed primarily as research tools, for different purposes and addressing different domains, such as romantic relationships, platonic relationships, parent relationships or peer relationships. Some classify adult states of mind in relation to attachments and attachment patterns with reference to childhood experiences, while others assess the relationship and security behavior of parents and peers.
History
Lack of mother
The early thought of the school of object relations of psychoanalysis, especially Melanie Klein, influenced Bowlby. However, he strongly disagrees with the general psychoanalytic belief that infant responses relate to their internal fantasy life rather than real-life events. When Bowlby formulates his concepts, he is influenced by case studies on disturbed and mischievous children, such as the children of William Goldfarb published in 1943 and 1945.
The contemporary Ren Hillsby Spitz observes the sadness of separate children, suggesting that "psychotoxic" results are brought about by inappropriate early treatment experiences. A strong influence is the work of social worker and psychoanalyst James Robertson who filmed the effects of separation on children in the hospital. He and Bowlby collaborated in filming a 1952 documentary A Two-Year Old Going to the Hospital that was instrumental in a campaign to change hospital restrictions on visits by parents.
In his 1951 monograph for the World Health Organization, Mother Care and Mental Health Bowlby hypothesized that "infants and young children should experience warm, intimate, and ongoing relationships with their mother in which both find satisfaction and pleasure ", a deficiency that may have significant and irreversible mental health consequences. It is also published as a Child Care and Growth for public consumption. The central proposition is very influential but highly controversial. At that time there was limited empirical data and no comprehensive theory to account for such conclusions. Nevertheless, Bowlby's theory sparked a considerable interest in the nature of the initial relationship, providing a powerful impetus for, (in the words of Mary Ainsworth), a "large collection of research" in extremely difficult and complex areas. The work of Bowlby (and Robertson's films) led to virtual revolution in hospitals visited by parents, provision of hospitals for children's games, educational and social needs, and the use of daycare. Over time, orphanages were abandoned for homes or family-style homes in most developed countries.
After the publication of Mother and Mental Health Care, Bowlby sought new insights from the fields of evolutionary biology, ethology, developmental psychology, cognitive science and control system theory. He formulates an innovative proposition that the mechanisms underlying an infant's emotional bond to the caregiver emerge as a result of evolutionary pressure. He began to develop a theory of motivation and behavioral control built on science rather than Freud's psychic energy model. Bowlby argues that with the attachment theory he has made good "lack of data and lack of theory to relate the alleged cause and effect" of Mental and Mental Health.
Ethology
Attention Bowlby was first drawn to ethology when he read Konrad Lorenz's 1952 publication in draft form (though Lorenz had published his earlier work). Another important influence is the ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen and Robert Hinde. Bowlby then collaborated with Hinde. In 1953 Bowlby declared "the time is ripe for the unification of the concept of psychoanalysis with those of ethology, and to pursue the rich veins of research that show this union." Konrad Lorenz has examined the phenomenon of "printing", the behavioral characteristics of some birds and mammals that involve rapid learning of youth, from similar or comparable objects. After recognition there appears a tendency to follow.
Certain types of learning are possible, each for each applicable type of learning, in only a limited age range known as the critical period. The Bowlby concept includes the idea that engagement involves learning from experience over a limited period of age, influenced by adult behavior. He did not apply the whole printing concept to human attachment. However, he considers that attachment behavior best described as instinctive, combined with the effects of experience, emphasizes the readiness that the child takes to social interaction. Over time it became clear there was more difference than the equation between attachment theory and printing so that the analogy was dropped. The ethologist expressed concern about the adequacy of several studies based on the theory of appendixes, especially generalizations for humans from animal studies. Schur, discussing the use of ethical concepts Bowlby (pre-1960) commented that the concepts used in the attachment theory do not follow changes in the ethology itself. Etologists and others wrote in the 1960s and 1970s questioned and expanded the type of behavior used as an indication of attachment. Observational studies of young people in natural settings provide other behaviors that may indicate attachment; for example, living within a predictable distance from the mother without effort on her part and taking small items, taking them to the mother but not to others. Although ethologists tend to agree with Bowlby, they suppress more data, refusing psychologists to write as if there were "entities that are 'attachments', which are above and above the observable size." Robert Hinde considers the "attachment behavior system" to be the exact term that does not offer the same problem "because it refers to a postulated control system that determines the relationship between different types of behavior."
Psychoanalysis
The psychoanalytic concept influenced Bowlby's view of attachment, in particular, the observations by Anna Freud and Dorothy Burlingham from young children separated from the familiar nanny during World War II. However, Bowlby rejects psychoanalytic explanations for early infant bonds including "drive theory" in which the motivation for attachment comes from the satisfaction of hunger and libidinal drive. He calls this the "cupboard-love" relationship theory. In his view it fails to see attachment as a psychological bond in itself rather than an instinct derived from eating or sexuality. Based on the notion of primary attachment and Neo-Darwinism, Bowlby identifies what he sees as a fundamental weakness in psychoanalysis: excessive emphasis on internal dangers rather than external threats, and views of personality development through the linear phase with regression to correct the accounting points for psychological distress. Bowlby instead suggests that some development paths are possible, which results depend on the interaction between the organism and the environment. In this attachment it means that although a developing child has a tendency to establish attachment, the nature of the attachment depends on the environment in which the child is exposed.
From the beginning of the development of the theory of appendix there is a critique of the lack of congruence theory with various branches of psychoanalysis. Bowlby's decision made him open to criticism from well-established thinkers working on the same issue.
Internal working model
Philosopher Kenneth Craik has noted the ability to think predict events. He emphasized the survival value of natural selection for this ability. This internal work model allows one to try alternatives mentally, using the knowledge of the past while responding to the present and the future. Bowlby applies Craik's idea to attachment, when other psychologists apply these concepts to adult perceptions and cognitions.
The internal workings of infants are developed in response to the baby's experience of the outcomes of his proximity-seeking behavior. If the caregiver accepts the behavior of seeking closeness and providing access, the baby develops a safe organization; if caregivers consistently deny infant access, avoidant organizations develop; and if the caregiver does not consistently grant access, an ambivalent organization develops.
The internal working model of the parent working in the attachment relationship with the baby can be accessed by examining the mental representation of the parent. Recent research has shown that the quality of maternal attribution as a marker of mental representation of mothers can be attributed to certain forms of maternal psychopathology and can be changed in a relatively short time with targeted psychotherapy interventions.
Developments
In the 1970s, the problem of seeing attachment as a characteristic (individual stable character) rather than as a type of behavior by organizing functions and outcomes leads some authors to the conclusion that attitudinal behavior is best understood in terms of their function in the lives of children. This way of thinking sees a secure basic concept as the center of logic, coherence, and the status of the attachment theory as an organizational structure. Following this argument, the assumption that the attachment is identically identifiable across all humans is crossculturally examined. Research shows that although there are cultural differences, three archetypes, safe, avoidance and ambivalence, can be found in every culture in which research has been conducted, even where communal sleeping arrangements are the norm.
The selection of safe patterns was found in the majority of cross-cultural children studied. This follows logically from the fact that the theory of attachment provides for infants to adapt to environmental changes, choosing optimal behavioral strategies. How the appendix is ​​expressed indicates cultural variations that need to be confirmed before the research can be conducted; for example baby Gusii greeted with a handshake rather than a hug. Gusii Babies are safely installed in anticipation and search for this contact. There are also differences in the distribution of unsafe patterns based on cultural differences in child-rearing practices. Scientist Michael Rutter in 1974 studied the importance of distinguishing between the consequences of the weakening of dependence on intellectual backwardness in children and the lack of development in emotional growth in children. Rutter's conclusion is that careful delineation of maternal attributes needs to be identified and differentiated for field progress to proceed.
The greatest challenge to the idea of ​​universality of attachment theory comes from research conducted in Japan where the concept of amazon plays an important role in describing family relationships. The argument revolves around the appropriateness of the use of the Strange Situation procedure where amae is practiced. Ultimately research tends to confirm the hypothesis of universality of attachment theory. Recently a 2007 study conducted in Sapporo in Japan found an attachment distribution consistent with the global norm using a major scoring system and a six-year Cassidy for attachment classification.
Critics of the 1990s such as J. R. Harris, Steven Pinker and Jerome Kagan are generally concerned with the concept of child's determinism (nature versus nurture), emphasizing the effects of later experience on the personality. Building on the work of Stella Chess's temperament, Kagan rejects almost every assumption on which the theory of attachment is based. Kagan argues that heredity is far more important than the temporary developmental effects of the early environment. For example, a child with a difficult temperament inherently will not elicit a sensitive behavioral response from a caregiver. The debate resulted in a large research and data analysis of the growing number of longitudinal studies. Subsequent research does not prove Kagan's argument, it may indicate that the caregiver's behavior shapes the child's attachment style, although how this style is expressed may be different from the child's temperament. Harris and Pinker put forward the idea that the influence of parents is exaggerated, arguing that socialization occurs primarily in peer groups. H. Rudolph Schaffer concluded that parents and peers have different functions, fulfilling a special role in the development of children. Psychoanalyst/psychologist Peter Fonagy and Mary Target have tried to bring the theory of attachment and psychoanalysis into a closer relationship through cognitive science as mentalization. Mentalization, or the theory of mind, is the human ability to guess precisely what is thought, the emotions and intentions behind the subtle behavior of facial expressions. It has been speculated that the relationship between the theory of mind and the internal work model can open up a new field of study, leading to a change in the attachment theory. Since the late 1980s, there has been a development of the relationship between attachment theory and psychoanalysis, based on common ground as outlined by the theoreticians of attachment and researchers, and changes in what psychoanalysts consider to be the center of psychoanalysis. The object relations model that emphasizes the autonomous need for a relationship has become dominant and is related to the growing recognition in psychoanalysis of the importance of infant development in the context of internalized relations and representation. Psychoanalysis has recognized the formative nature of a child's early environment including childhood trauma problems. Psychoanalytic-based exploration of the attachment system and its accompanying clinical approach have emerged with recognition of the need for measurement of intervention outcomes.
One focus of attachment research is the difficulty of children with a history of poor attachment, including those with extensive parenting experience. Concern for the effects of childcare was particularly strong during the so-called "day care wars" in the late 20th century, where some authors emphasized the damaging effects of child care. As a result of this controversy, child care professional training has come to emphasize the issue of attachment, including the need to build a relationship with a child's assignment to a special caregiver. Although only high-quality child care arrangements may provide this, more babies are in the bundle
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments