Attachment Theory In Psychology Explained (original) (raw)

Attachment theory explains how humans form strong emotional bonds with key individuals, starting in childhood, to help manage stress, fear, and uncertainty. These bonds provide comfort and safety, shape how we see ourselves and others, and influence our relationships throughout life.

Key Takeaways

Attachment theory hypothesizes that early caregiver relationships establish social-emotional developmental foundations, but change remains possible across the lifespan due to interpersonal relationships during childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

Attachment can be defined as a deep and enduring emotional bond between two people in which each seeks closeness and feels more secure when in the presence of the attachment figure.

The initial and perhaps most crucial emotional bond forms between infants and their primary caregivers.

Distinct behaviors characterize attachment in children and adults, such as seeking closeness with the attachment figure when distressed or threatened (Bowlby, 1969).

Young mother holds her son with care and love. Happy Mothers Day concept with mom and small boy.

John Bowlby

Attachment theory in psychology finds its roots in the pioneering work of John Bowlby (1958).

During the 1930s, Bowlby was a psychiatrist at a Child Guidance Clinic in London, treating numerous emotionally troubled children.

His experiences there underscored the significance of a child’s relationship with their mother in shaping their social, emotional, and cognitive development.

It molded his understanding of the connection between early separations from the mother and subsequent maladjustment, leading him to develop his attachment theory.

Historically, attachment theory represented a significant shift from earlier psychological perspectives, notably Freudian and behaviorist theories.

Prior to Bowlby’s contributions, these approaches largely explained attachment through feeding – the idea popularly known as the cupboard love theory.

Bowlby challenged this view by demonstrating that attachment arises primarily from a child’s need for comfort and security rather than merely physical nourishment.

His observations highlighted that children experience profound separation anxiety even when their physical needs are adequately met.

The attachment bond isn’t coincidental. Its primary purpose is to ensure the survival of the vulnerable infant, requiring the constant presence of a caregiver (Bowlby, 1973, 1980).

Viewed from this lens, attachment emerges as an evolutionary concept. The behavior of seeking proximity is universally observed across cultures (Van Ijzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008).

Bowlby (1988) contended that the drive for proximity arises from an interconnected set of behavioral systems that collectively shape behavior. These include the attachment, caregiving, and exploratory behavioral systems.

circle of attachment security

Attachment Behavioral System

The primary goal of the attachment system is “felt security,” which means feeling safe, understood, and supported by your caregivers. Felt security lets individuals confidently explore their surroundings and manage stress effectively, fostering growth and resilience.

The attachment behavioral system helps children manage their need for safety alongside their desire to explore and learn about the world.

This system becomes active when children encounter stress or discomfort, such as internal issues (like hunger, illness, tiredness) or external threats (unfamiliar situations, frightening stimuli, or perceived danger).

The greater the perceived stress or threat, the stronger the child’s instinct to seek closeness and reassurance from their caregivers.

This attachment system is most prominent during the first five years of life, a critical developmental period marked by significant dependency and vulnerability.

When activated, children engage in behaviors designed to gain closeness and comfort, including crying, calling, reaching, clinging, or actively seeking physical proximity.

Successful proximity seeking, reassurance, and comfort from caregivers help deactivate the attachment system, returning children to a calm and secure state.

Once reassured, children feel safe to shift their attention back to exploring and interacting with their environment confidently.

Bowlby (1988) suggests the attachment behavioral system remains important throughout life and will also motivate adults to seek emotional support from close relationships during times of stress.

Caregiving System

Caregivers provide a “safe haven,” responding to children’s distress signals by offering comfort, security, and reassurance.

The caregiving system is activated in response to children’s attachment behaviors or expressions of distress, prompting caregivers to provide immediate emotional and physical support.

Effective caregiving encompasses behaviors such as empathy, validation of emotions, physical closeness, soothing speech, affection, reassurance, and practical problem-solving assistance.

These caregiver responses facilitate the child’s emotional regulation, helping them recover from distress and restore a sense of emotional equilibrium.

Caregiving behavior also supports exploration by giving children the reassurance they need to engage confidently with their surroundings.

Sensitive caregiving involves accurately interpreting and responding promptly to the child’s signals, thus fostering secure attachment relationships and building a robust emotional foundation for children.

Beyond immediate emotional comfort, caregiving strategies include promoting trust, understanding and validating children’s thoughts and emotions, supporting self-esteem, and encouraging independent decision-making skills.

The Importance of Early Emotional Bonds

Exploratory Behavioral System

When infants feel safe and secure, and their attachment system is deactivated, their energy can be devoted to what Bowlby (1969) refers to as the exploratory behavioral system.

Exploration includes behaviors like approaching new objects, manipulating materials, experimenting with different outcomes, and interacting socially with others.

According to Bowlby (1969), the exploratory system is activated by novelty and is terminated when a person exhibits a sense of competence and familiarity with their environment.

From this perspective, attachment figures can also be seen as a ‘secure base’ which infants use to explore their social world (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).

The more assured the infant is in the availability of their attachment figure in times of stress, the more likely they will interact with others and their environment.

Thus attachment, far from interfering with exploration, is viewed as nurturing exploration.

Caregivers who provide a secure base allow infants to become autonomous, inquisitive, and experimental.

Children who lack a secure base find their attachment system keeps overriding their attempts to be autonomous and to competently interact with their social environment.

This, in turn, can impair and harm a child’s social, emotional, and cognitive development (Bowlby, 1980).

Of course, not all attachment figures become a secure base, and this function is based on the responsiveness of their caregiver towards the infant (Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969).

Ainsworth et al. proposed the interconnecting between attachment and exploratory systems are adaptive as they ensure a balance between protection and exploration of the social and physical environment.

Creating a Secure Base for Children

The concept of a secure base is central to attachment theory.

It describes the role a primary caregiver plays in giving a child the confidence to explore the world, knowing that comfort and protection are always available if needed.

Here’s a clear and detailed breakdown of how caregivers create and maintain a secure base:

1. Availability and Responsiveness

Being consistently available and responsive to a child’s needs forms the foundation for creating trust and a secure base.

This doesn’t require immediately addressing every emotional cue, but rather striking a balanced approach.

Prompt and sensitive responses to clear signs of distress or urgent needs are critical, while comfortably allowing less urgent signals to resolve naturally.

Trust is fundamentally built through numerous, often subtle, positive interactions accumulated over time.

Routine moments – such as feeding, play, and everyday exchanges – become powerful opportunities for reinforcing trust and emotional bonds.

When caregivers are reliably available and consistently responsive, children internalize this reliability, developing a secure sense of trust.

Consistent interactions contribute to forming internal working models, shaping children’s views of themselves as lovable and competent and caregivers as reliable and trustworthy.

However, when caregivers are frequently unavailable, absent, or inconsistently responsive, children may experience anxiety or fear in situations they perceive as threatening.

This inconsistency disrupts the child’s expectations about caregiver support, creating uncertainty and insecurity.

2. Interactional Synchrony

Synchrony refers to how mothers and infants match their behavior and emotions, responding to each other in a well-timed and reciprocal way.

It’s like an interactive dance, where each partner intuitively moves in harmony.

Caregiver sensitivity (the ability to accurately perceive, interpret, and respond appropriately and promptly to signals) is a foundational quality that facilitates interactional synchrony

When caregivers engage in synchrony, they are finely tuned to their child’s emotional signals – such as facial expressions, vocalizations, gestures, or cries – and respond sensitively and at the right moment.

Synchrony fosters feelings of safety, trust, and emotional closeness, reinforcing the child’s confidence that their caregiver is attentive and understanding.

Conversely, a lack of synchrony (asynchrony) -such as repeatedly misreading or poorly timing responses – can undermine security, potentially leading to anxiety or uncertainty about the caregiver’s availability.

Ainsworth’s Strange Situation

The Strange Situation Procedure was developed by psychologist Mary Ainsworth to measure attachment relationships between infants (12 to 18 months old) and their caregivers, typically mothers.

It involves observing an infant’s behavior in a controlled, unfamiliar environment through a structured sequence of 8 stages (episodes).

The procedure unfolds as follows:

  1. The infant and caregiver enter a new playroom containing toys, and the infant is encouraged to explore.
  2. Soon, a stranger enters and interacts gradually, first speaking with the caregiver, then approaching the infant.
  3. Next, the caregiver quietly leaves, briefly leaving the infant alone with the stranger. Shortly afterward, the caregiver returns, offering comfort if needed, while the stranger exits.
  4. This separation and reunion pattern is repeated, including leaving the infant briefly alone entirely and then again with the stranger.

strange situation

Attachment Styles

Attachment styles refer to the particular way in which an individual relates to other people.

The style of attachment is formed at the very beginning of life, and once established, it is a style that stays with you and plays out today in how you relate in intimate relationships and in how you parent your children.

The concept involves one’s confidence in the availability of the attachment figure for use as a secure base from which one can freely explore the world when not in distress and a safe haven from which one can seek support, protection, and comfort in times of distress.

attachment working models

Secure Attachment

Bowlby (1988) described secure attachment as the capacity to connect well and securely in relationships with others while also having the capacity for autonomous action as situationally appropriate.

Secure attachment is characterized by trust, an adaptive response to being abandoned, and the belief that one is worthy of love.

An infant with a secure attachment is characterized as actively seeking and maintaining proximity with the mother, especially during the reunion episode. The infant may or may not be friendly with the stranger, but always shows more interest in interacting with the mother.

Additionally, during the same situation, the infant tended to be slightly distressed during separation from the mother, but the infant rarely cried.

Ainsworth and colleagues interpreted infants who were securely attached to their mothers, showed less anxiousness and more positive attitudes toward the relationship, and were likely because they believed in their mothers’ responsiveness towards their needs.

Anxious (Ambivalent) Attachment

Anxious attachment (also called ambivalent) relationships are characterized by a concern that others will not reciprocate one’s desire for intimacy. This is

caused when an infant learns that their caregiver or parent is unreliable and does not consistently provide responsive care towards their needs.

An anxiously attached infant is characterized as being somewhat ambivalent (and resistant) to the mother. The infant often demonstrated signs of resisting interactions with the mother, especially during the strange situation reunion episode.

However, once contact with the mother was gained, the infant also showed strong intentions to maintain such contact. Overall, ambivalent infants often displayed maladaptive behaviors throughout the Strange Situation.

Ainsworth and colleagues found ambivalent infants to be anxious and unconfident about their mothers’ responsiveness, and their mothers were observed to lack “the fine sense of timing” in responding to the infants’ needs.

As adults, those with an anxious preoccupied attachment style are overly concerned with the uncertainty of a relationship. They hold a negative working model of self and a positive working model of others.

Avoidant Attachment

Children with avoidant attachment styles tend to avoid interaction with the caregiver, and show no distress during separation.

This may be because the parent has ignored attempts to be intimate, and the child may internalize the belief that they cannot depend on this or any other relationship.

An infant with an avoidant attachment was characterized as displaying little to no tendency to seek proximity with the mother.

The infant often showed no distress during separation from the mother, interacted with the stranger similarly to how he or she would interact with the mother, and showed slight signs of avoidance (turning away, avoiding eye contact, etc.) when reunited with the mother.

Ainsworth and colleagues interpreted infants’ avoidance behaviors as a defensive mechanism against the mothers’ own rejecting behaviors, such as being uncomfortable with physical contact or being more easily angered by the infants.

Disorganized (Fearful) Attachment

Main and Solomon (1986) discovered that a sizable proportion of infants did not fit into secure, anxious, or avoidant, based on their behaviors in the Strange Situation experiment.

They categorized these infants as having a disorganized attachment type.

Disorganized attachment is classified by children who display sequences of behaviors that lack readily observable goals or intentions, including obviously contradictory behaviors or stilling/freezing of movements.

Main and Solomon found that the parents of disorganized infants often had unresolved attachment-related traumas, which caused the parents to display either frightened or frightening behaviors, resulting in the disorganized infants being confused or forcing them to rely on someone they were afraid of at the same time.

Stages of Attachment

Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy Emerson (1964) investigated if attachment develops through a series of stages by studying 60 babies at monthly intervals for the first 18 months of life (this is known as a longitudinal study).

The children were all studied in their own homes, and a regular pattern was identified in the development of attachment.

The babies were visited monthly for approximately one year, their interactions with their carers were observed, and carers were interviewed.

A diary was kept by the mother to examine the evidence for the development of attachment. Three measures were recorded:

• Stranger Anxiety – response to arrival of a stranger.

• Separation Anxiety – distress level when separated from carer, degree of comfort needed on return.

• Social Referencing – degree that child looks at carer to check how they should respond to something new (secure base).

They discovered that baby’s attachments develop in the following sequence:

Asocial (0 – 6 weeks)

Very young infants are asocial in that many kinds of stimuli, both social and non-social, produce a favorable reaction, such as a smile.

Indiscriminate Attachments (6 weeks to 7 months)

Infants indiscriminately enjoy human company; most babies respond equally to any caregiver. They get upset when an individual ceases to interact with them.

From 3 months, infants smile more at familiar faces and can be easily comfortable by a regular caregiver.

Specific Attachment (7 – 9 months)

Special preference for a single attachment figure. The baby looks to particular people for security, comfort, and protection. It shows fear of strangers (stranger fear) and unhappiness when separated from a special person (separation anxiety).

Some babies show stranger fear and separation anxiety much more frequently and intensely than others; nevertheless, they are seen as evidence that the baby has formed an attachment.

This usually develops at one year of age.

Multiple Attachment (10 months and onwards)

Many of the babies from the Schaffer and Emerson study had multiple attachments by 10 months old, including attachments to mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings, and neighbors.

The baby becomes increasingly independent and forms several attachments. By 18 months, the majority of infants have formed multiple attachments.

The multiple attachments formed by most infants vary in their strength and importance to the infant.

Attachments are often structured in a hierarchy, whereby an infant may have formed three attachments, but one may be stronger than the other two, and one may be the weakest.

The results of the study indicated that attachments were most likely to form with those who responded accurately to the baby’s signals, not the person they spent more time with.

Schaffer and Emerson called this sensitive responsiveness.

Intensely attached infants had mothers who responded quickly to their demands and, interacted with their child. Infants who were weakly attached had mothers who failed to interact.

The Lasting Impact of Early Attachment

According to Bowlby’s theory (1988), when we form our primary attachment, we also make a mental representation of what a relationship is (internal working model), which we then use for all other relationships in the future i.e., friendships, working, and romantic relationships.

The different attachment styles may be viewed as internal working models of relationships that evolved from event experiences (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).

internal working model of attachment

This would suggest that early interactions with caregivers could not only shape how an infant understood and behaved in relationships (as exemplified by infant attachment styles), but that such impact could be carried forward into adult attachment.

According to Bowlby (1969) later relationships are likely to be a continuation of early attachment styles (secure and insecure) because the behavior of the infant’s primary attachment figure promotes an internal working model of relationships which leads the infant to expect the same in later relationships.

In other words, there will be continuity between early attachment experiences and later relationships. This is known as the continuity hypothesis.

In humans, attachment does not conclude in infancy, or even childhood, but instead is active throughout the lifespan, with individuals gaining comfort from both physical and mental representations of significant others (Bowlby, 1969).

It is through an individual’s internal working model that childhood patterns of attachment are carried forward across the life cycle into adolescence and adulthood.

The notion of security is still important; however, the growing emergence of autonomy is also significant as the attachment system in adults is less likely to be activated due to them being able to tolerate higher levels of distress compared to children.

During adulthood, new attachment bonds are formed which may become a significant source of support during periods of distress, or during periods of goal achievement and exploration.

Researchers have proposed that working models are interconnected within a complex hierarchical structure (Bowlby, 1980; Bretherton, 1985, 1990; Collins & Read, 1994; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).

complex hierarchical structure of attachment relationships

For example, the highest level model comprises beliefs and expectations across all types of relationship, and lower level models hold general rules about specific relations, such as romantic or parental, underpinned by models specific to events within a relationship with a single person.

The existence of multiple mental models is supported by evidence which demonstrates considerable within-person variability in the expectations and beliefs that people hold about the self and others (Baldwin & Fehr, 1995).

Furthermore, although specific models of attachment relationships are positively associated with more overarching general working models, the correlations are small to moderate (less than .40), indicating that they comprised distinct beliefs regarding the self and significant others (Cozzarelli, Hoekstra, & Bylsma, 2000).

Likely, general mental models indicate a typical appraisal of the self and others across relationships, and relationship-specific beliefs about the self and one’s partner would plausibly represent only a part of these generalized beliefs.

Critical Evaluation

Strengths and Widespread Influence

Attachment theory is among the most influential theories of human socioemotional development globally, adopted widely by clinicians, educators, child welfare professionals, and parents.

It provides a comprehensive framework for interpreting children’s behaviors, particularly those who have experienced relational adversity.

It has been applied in various contexts, including social work, clinical practice, health visiting, training for foster and adoptive parents, parenting education, forensic contexts, and professional development for teacher

The theory integrates multiple disciplines, including psychoanalysis, ethology, cognitive psychology, and evolutionary biology, addressing fundamental human emotional and relational dynamics.

At its best, attachment research can provide practitioners with valuable ideas to understand the quality of child-carer relationships, especially when a child is distressed, and guide efforts to improve family relationships.

Misunderstanding of Attachment Theory

The term “attachment” itself can have significantly different meanings for different people, leading to uncertainty about the boundaries of behaviour influenced by attachment processes.

It can be used as a loose metaphor for relationship-based interventions by people who may not have an accurate understanding of the concept.

For example, attachment parenting, a parenting philosophy derived from attachment theory, often employs the term loosely, leading to potential misinterpretations and oversimplifications.

Practitioners of attachment parenting may conflate specific parenting practices (e.g., breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby-wearing) with scientifically validated attachment behaviors, potentially fostering confusion.

Simplified and Outdated Guidance in Attachment Practice

Although attachment theory provides essential insights into human relationships and development, practitioners frequently receive guidance that is outdated.

Guidance provided to clinicians and social workers about attachment theory can often be overly simplified and rely on outdated concepts, detached from current research.

Rather than drawing from nuanced and contemporary research, many practitioners depend heavily on simplified interpretations and statements from John Bowlby’s early works.

One significant issue is the gap between attachment researchers and practitioners.

Practical guidance frequently lacks clear explanations of key technical concepts, such as Bowlby’s behavioural systems model, Ainsworth’s approach to sensitivity, or the detailed methodology for categorizing disorganised attachment.

Instead, these resources tend to use general terms like “attachment,” “security,” and “sensitivity” in a vague, everyday manner rather than their precise scientific meanings.

Additionally, many available guides overlook recent research developments and instead highlight Bowlby’s initial, popular writings, which sometimes exaggerated the influence of early childhood experiences on later life outcomes.

This approach treats attachment theory as static, ignoring significant advancements and distinctions made by modern researchers.

Another reason behind these misunderstandings is Bowlby’s intentional use of simple language to reach broader audiences.

While effective in promoting awareness and policy changes, this simplicity has created confusion, causing terms like “attachment” to become fuzzy and ambiguous.

Bowlby himself recognized the risks of this approach, admitting that using common language made it challenging to convey precise scientific meanings.

Examples of misconceptions from Bowlby’s early works that still persist include:

The gap between research and practice has allowed commercial trainers and simplified resources to thrive, often offering misleading or overly generalized interpretations of complex attachment concepts.

Improving clarity and updating training materials could significantly enhance the practical application of attachment theory.

Misuse of Attachment Language in Child Welfare Practice

In child welfare practice in the UK, attachment terminology is sometimes used to support conclusions practitioners have already made, rather than guiding their initial assessments.

Practitioners may rely on their intuitive judgments about family situations and then use attachment-related language afterward to justify these judgments.

Even if not intentional, this backward application of attachment concepts can be problematic.

It often results in an overly narrow focus on the mother-child relationship, placing excessive responsibility on the mother.

Consequently, this practice can overshadow other important factors that impact a family’s wellbeing, such as their socioeconomic circumstances, available social support, or potential developmental issues affecting the child.

This approach is influenced by the priorities within the UK’s child protection system, which frequently emphasizes immediate procedures and risk assessments rather than a thorough, long-term understanding of the broader family context.

Temperament vs. Attachment Debate:

Psychologist Jerome Kagan argued that infant attachment behaviors might reflect innate temperament rather than caregiver sensitivity alone, challenging the view that caregiver behavior exclusively determines attachment styles.

According to Kagan, inherently difficult or irritable infants might naturally provoke less sensitive caregiving responses, complicating causality between caregiver behavior and attachment outcomes.

Research acknowledges a significant interplay between temperament and caregiving behaviors in shaping attachment development.

Omitting this discussion could lead to an overly deterministic interpretation of attachment theory.

Cultural and Social Context Critiques:

Attachment theory has faced criticism for its Western-centric focus, with cross-cultural research highlighting variations in attachment behaviors across diverse societies.

Studies indicate cultural differences, such as higher rates of anxious-resistant attachment among Japanese infants and more frequent avoidant classifications among German infants.

Including these cultural considerations would enhance the theory’s generalizability and help readers understand attachment behaviors in broader social contexts.

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41, 49-67.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. Cardwell & H. Ricciuti (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 3, pp. 1-94) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In C . M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 33-51). London: Routledge.

Ainsworth. M. D. S., & Wittig, B. A. (1969) Attachment and exploratory behaviour of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In: B. M. Foss (Ed.) Determinants of infant behaviour, IV. London: Methuen, p. 111-136.

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the childs tie to his mother. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, 350-371.

Bowlby J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J., and Robertson, J. (1952). A two-year-old goes to the hospital. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 46, 425–427.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss, Vol. 3: Loss, sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books.

Cooke, J. E., Kochendorfer, L. B., Stuart-Parrigon, K. L., Koehn, A. J., & Kerns, K. A. (2019). Parent–child attachment and children’s experience and regulation of emotion: A meta-analytic review. _Emotion, 1_9(6), 1103.

Dollard, J. & Miller, N.E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dugan, K. A., Fraley, R. C., Gillath, O., & Deboeck, P. R. (2024). Testing the canalization hypothesis of attachment theory: Examining within-subject variation in attachment security. Journal of personality and social psychology, 126(3), 511.

Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 631.

George, C., & Solomon, J. (1996). Representational models of relationships: Links between caregiving and attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 17(3), 198-216.

Girme, Y. U., Jones, R. E., Fleck, C., Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2021). Infants’ attachment insecurity predicts attachment-relevant emotion regulation strategies in adulthood. Emotion, 21(2), 260.

Harlow, H. F. & Zimmermann, R. R. (1958). The development of affective responsiveness in infant monkeys. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 102, 501 -509.

Hill, C., Vasiliou, V. S., Sirois, F. M., Hughes, O., & Thompson, A. R. A meta-analysis of self-compassion and attachment in adults. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice.

Isabella, R. A., Belsky, J., & von Eye, A. (1989). Origins of infant-mother attachment: An examination of interactional synchrony during the infant’s first year. Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 12.

Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., Clarke, C., Snidman, N., & Garcia-Coll, C. (1984). Behavioral inhibition to the unfamiliar. Child development, 2212-2225.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psychodynamics, and interpersonal processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 53-152.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.

Prior, V., & Glaser, D. (2006). Understanding attachment and attachment disorders: Theory, evidence and practice. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Schaffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. (1964). The development of social attachments in infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1-77.

Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2006). Attachment theory, individual psychodynamics, and relationship functioning. The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships, 251-271.

Sroufe, L. A. (1985). Attachment classification from the perspective of infant-caregiver relationships and infant temperament. Child development, 1-14.

Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2008). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds) Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications (pp. 880-905). New York: Guildford Press.

FAQs

What is attachment theory in relationships?

Attachment theory is a psychological theory developed by British psychologist John Bowlby that explains how humans form emotional bonds with others, particularly in the context of close relationships.

The theory suggests that infants and young children have an innate drive to seek proximity to their primary caregivers for safety and security, and that the quality of these early attachments can have long-term effects on social and emotional development.

What are the 4 attachments in a relationship?

Attachment theory suggests that there are four types of attachments people can develop based on their early experiences with caregivers. These four types are secure, anxious-preoccupied, avoidant-dismissive, and disorganized.

People with secure attachments are comfortable with intimacy and have positive views of themselves and others. Those with anxious-preoccupied attachments worry about being rejected and may become overly clingy in relationships.

People with avoidant-dismissive attachments may avoid close relationships and prioritize independence. Those with disorganized attachments may have difficulty regulating their emotions and behavior in close relationships due to past trauma or abuse.

Attachment styles can change over time, but understanding one’s attachment style can provide insight into how one approaches relationships and areas for personal growth.

What do psychologists mean by attachment?

Attachment in psychology refers to the emotional bond between individuals, typically seen in relationships between parents and children. It’s a crucial part of social and emotional development and impacts future relationships. Attachment can be secure or insecure (avoidant, ambivalent, or disorganized).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email