Attachment theory and research: Resurrection of the psychodynamic approach to personality (original) (raw)

Abstract

Since the rise of the social-behaviorist approach to personality and its elaboration with cognitive concepts following "the cognitive revolution," psychodynamic theories, usually identi-Wed with Sigmund Freud, have taken a beating. This makes it easy for mainstream personalitysocial psychologists to brush the psychodynamic approach aside. At the same time, researchers in both developmental and personality-social psychology have made great progress in testing and elaborating ideas presented by John Bowlby in his famous trilogy on attachment and loss. What outsiders to that perspective may not realize is that Bowlby was a psychoanalyst who saw himself as retracing Freud's steps but with the advantage of new theoretical and empirical strategies. In this article, we conceptualize attachment theory as a contemporary psychodynamic approach, show how this theory has helped to bring psychodynamic psychology back to life, and review empirical evidence from our laboratories that supports many of the psychodynamic hypotheses advanced by Bowlby.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What explains the revival of psychodynamic theories in contemporary psychology?add

The research highlights that attachment theory, rooted in psychodynamic principles, brings unconscious processes back into focus and fosters substantial empirical investigations, thus bridging historical gaps in personality psychology.

How has attachment theory influenced empirical research methodologies in psychology?add

Attachment theory has led to the development of varied measures, such as the Adult Attachment Interview and the Strange Situation, which are increasingly integrated with cognitive methods like fMRI to explore unconscious dynamics.

What are the key findings regarding unconscious activation of the attachment system?add

The studies demonstrate that threats can automatically activate attachment-related thoughts unconsciously, leading securely attached individuals to have heightened accessibility of positive representations of attachment figures during distress.

How do deactivating strategies manifest in avoidantly attached individuals?add

Avoidantly attached individuals tend to engage in cognitive suppression of attachment-related thoughts, which can paradoxically lead to heightened anxiety and intrusions of suppressed thoughts under cognitive load.

What role do working models play in attachment theory's approach to personality development?add

Working models reflect early attachment interactions and influence adult relational behaviors, shaping a person's capacity for self-reliance and optimal emotional regulation in relationships.

Figures (3)

Fig. 1. Attachment-style differences in unconscious activation of attachment-related representations.

Fig. 1. Attachment-style differences in unconscious activation of attachment-related representations.

Fig. 2. Rebound of suppressed thoughts and the activation of self-representations among avoidant per- sons under conditions of low and high cognitive load. TEelateG MOUS ts LO LOTMCHLY SUPPTessed NeSallve seil-Tepresentauons. Overall, with the psychodynamic conception of mary of the findings.) Evidently, avoid unacceptab rejection fail to resolve the distress material resurfaces in experience and action when high cognitive and suppressed he findings imply that, und e or unmanageable thoug emotional d Rude, Taylor, Stultz, and Sweatt (2001 emands are encountered. T er strain, the avoidant mind operates in line defensive suppression. (See Fig. 2 for a sum- ant persons’ attempts to suppress or repress hts and feelings concerning separation and caused by these painful episodes, and the his vulnerability resembles one that Wenzlaff. documented in the case of individuals at risk Cre Aanracann: “Eich lavale nf thanah? curnnreconn max indAgeata: that Hhoxwndinianal

Fig. 2. Rebound of suppressed thoughts and the activation of self-representations among avoidant per- sons under conditions of low and high cognitive load. TEelateG MOUS ts LO LOTMCHLY SUPPTessed NeSallve seil-Tepresentauons. Overall, with the psychodynamic conception of mary of the findings.) Evidently, avoid unacceptab rejection fail to resolve the distress material resurfaces in experience and action when high cognitive and suppressed he findings imply that, und e or unmanageable thoug emotional d Rude, Taylor, Stultz, and Sweatt (2001 emands are encountered. T er strain, the avoidant mind operates in line defensive suppression. (See Fig. 2 for a sum- ant persons’ attempts to suppress or repress hts and feelings concerning separation and caused by these painful episodes, and the his vulnerability resembles one that Wenzlaff. documented in the case of individuals at risk Cre Aanracann: “Eich lavale nf thanah? curnnreconn max indAgeata: that Hhoxwndinianal

Fig. 3. The soothing function of security-based self-representations in threatening conditions. As predicted, securely attached participants reacted to the threat condition with heightened accessibility of security-based self-representations. They rated traits that they originally used to describe their self-in-relation-with-a-security-enhancing- attachment-figure as more descriptive of their current self following threatening than following neutral conditions. This heightened accessibility of security-based self-rep- resentations under threat was not observed among insecurely attached persons. More important, security-based self-representations had a soothing effect: The higher the accessibility of these self-representations, the more positive was a participant’s emo- tional state following a threat and the less frequent were task-related worries and other interfering thoughts. Thus, it appears that securely attached individuals can mobilize representations of being loved and valued, and these representations can provide real comfort, allowing one to feel worthy and unperturbed (see Fig. 3). These representations become more available during stress and are not simply equally acti- vated or conscious at all times.

Fig. 3. The soothing function of security-based self-representations in threatening conditions. As predicted, securely attached participants reacted to the threat condition with heightened accessibility of security-based self-representations. They rated traits that they originally used to describe their self-in-relation-with-a-security-enhancing- attachment-figure as more descriptive of their current self following threatening than following neutral conditions. This heightened accessibility of security-based self-rep- resentations under threat was not observed among insecurely attached persons. More important, security-based self-representations had a soothing effect: The higher the accessibility of these self-representations, the more positive was a participant’s emo- tional state following a threat and the less frequent were task-related worries and other interfering thoughts. Thus, it appears that securely attached individuals can mobilize representations of being loved and valued, and these representations can provide real comfort, allowing one to feel worthy and unperturbed (see Fig. 3). These representations become more available during stress and are not simply equally acti- vated or conscious at all times.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (75)

  1. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1991). Attachment and other aVectional bonds across the life cycle. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 33-51). New York: Routledge.
  2. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: Assessed in the strange situation and at home. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  3. Andersen, S. M., & Berk, M. S. (1998). The social-cognitive model of transference: Experiencing past rela- tionships in the present. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 109-115.
  4. Aron, L. (2002). A meeting of minds: Mutuality in psychoanalysis. New York: Analytic Press.
  5. Aspinwall, L. G., & Staudinger, U. M. (Eds.). (2003). A psychology of human strengths: Fundamental questions and future directions for a positive psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  6. Atkinson, J. W., & Raynor, J. O. (Eds.). (1974). Motivation and achievement. Washington, DC: Winston.
  7. Banai, E., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (in press). 'Selfobject' needs in Kohut's self-psychology: Links with attachment, self-cohesion, aVect regulation, and adjustment. Psychoanalytic Psychology.
  8. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood CliVs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  9. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-cate- gory model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.
  10. Bargh, J. (1996). Automaticity in social psychology. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psy- chology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 169-183). New York: Guilford Press.
  11. Berant, E., Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (2001). Attachment style and mental health: A one-year follow- up study of mothers of infants with congenital heart disease. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle- tin, 8, 956-968.
  12. Berant, E., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Segal, Y. (in press). Rorschach correlates of self-reported attachment dimensions: Dynamic manifestations of hyperactivating and deactivating strategies. Jour- nal of Personality Assessment.
  13. Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft Books.
  14. Blum, G. S. (1953). Psychoanalytic theories of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  15. Bowlby, J. (1982/1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
  16. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.
  17. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routledge.
  18. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An inte- grative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.
  19. Cassidy, J., & Kobak, R. R. (1988). Avoidance and its relationship with other defensive processes. In J. Bel- sky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. 300-323). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applica- tions. New York: Guilford Press.
  21. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalogue to classiWcation: Murray's needs and the Wve-fac- tor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258-265.
  22. Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Measurement of adult attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 434-465). New York: Guilford Press.
  23. Davila, J., & Cobb, R. J. (2004). Predictors of changes in attachment security during adulthood. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 133- 156). New York: Guilford Press.
  24. Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy: An analysis in terms of learning, thinking, and culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  25. Dozier, M., Stovall, K. C., & Albus, K. E. (1999). Attachment and psychopathology in adulthood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 497-519). New York: Guilford Press.
  26. Fonagy, P. (2001). Attachment theory and psychoanalysis. New York: Other Press.
  27. Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and dynamic model- ing of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 123-151.
  28. Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults' close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131-144.
  29. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1997). Adult attachment and the suppression of unwanted thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1080-1091.
  30. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132-154.
  31. Freud, A. (1936). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
  32. Freud, S., (1959). Inhibitions, symptoms, and anxiety. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 20, pp. 77-172). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1926).
  33. George, C., & West, M. (2001). The development and preliminary validation of a new measure of adult attachment: The Adult Attachment Projective. Attachment and Human Development, 3, 30-61.
  34. Greenberg, J., Koole, S. L., & Pyszczynski, T. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of experimental existential psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
  35. Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1997). Terror management theory of self-esteem and cul- tural worldviews: Empirical assessments and conceptual reWnements. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (29, pp. 61-141). San Diego: Academic Press.
  36. Greenberg, M. T. (1999). Attachment and psychopathology in childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 469-496). New York: Guilford Press.
  37. Hall, C. S., & Lindsey, G. (1957). Theories of personality. New York: Wiley.
  38. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
  39. Hesse, E. (1999). The Adult Attachment Interview: Historical and current perspectives. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 395-433). New York: Guilford Press.
  40. Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (Eds.). (2000). Motivational science: Social and personality perspectives. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  41. Kelly, A. E., & Kahn, J. H. (1994). EVects of suppression on personal intrusive thoughts. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 66, 998-1006.
  42. Klein, G. S. (1970). Perception, motives, and personality. New York: Knopf.
  43. Klein, M. (1957). Envy and gratitude: A study of unconscious forces. New York: Basic Books. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press.
  44. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press.
  45. McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York: William Morrow.
  46. Mikulincer, M. (1998). Adult attachment style and aVect regulation: Strategic variations in self-appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 420-435.
  47. Mikulincer, M., Birnbaum, G., Woddis, D., & Nachmias, O. (2000). Stress and accessibility of proximity- related thoughts: Exploring the normative and intraindividual components of attachment theory. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 509-523.
  48. Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (in press). Attachment-related strategies during thought-sup- pression: Ironic rebounds and vulnerable self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology.
  49. Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Halevy, V., Avihou, N., Avidan, S., & Eshkoli, N. (2001). Attachment theory and reactions to others' needs: Evidence that activation of the sense of attachment security promotes empathic responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1205-1224.
  50. Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2002). Activation of the attachment system in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attachment Wgures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881-895.
  51. Mikulincer, M., & Horesh, N. (1999). Adult attachment style and the perception of others: The role of projective mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1022-1034.
  52. Mikulincer, M., Horesh, N., Eilati, I., & Kotler, M. (1999). The association between adult attachment style and mental health in extreme life-endangering conditions. Personality and Individual DiVerences, 27, 831-842.
  53. Mikulincer, M., Orbach, I., & Iavnieli, D. (1998). Adult attachment style and aVect regulation: Strategic variations in subjective self-other similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 436-448.
  54. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 81, 97-115.
  55. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The attachment behavioral system in adulthood: Activation, psy- chodynamics, and interpersonal processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy- chology (35, pp. 53-152). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  56. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Security-based self-representations in adulthood: Contents and processes. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 159-195). New York: Guilford Press.
  57. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social-learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.
  58. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-aVective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situa- tions, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.
  59. Mitchell, S. A. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis: An integration. Boston, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press.
  60. Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177-196.
  61. SarnoV, I. (1971). Testing Freudian concepts: An experimental social approach. New York: Springer Pub- lishers.
  62. Schafer, R. (1968). Aspects of internalization. New York: International University Press.
  63. Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and evidence. In D. Perlman & W. Jones (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (4, pp. 29-70). London: Jessica Kingsley.
  64. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychodynamics. Attachment and Human Development, 4, 133-161.
  65. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2004). What do self-report measures of attachment assess? In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 17-54). New York: Guilford Press.
  66. Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., Campbell, L., & Wilson, C. L. (2003). Changes in attachment orientations across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 317-331.
  67. Sohlberg, S., & Birgegard, A. (2003). Persistent complex subliminal activation eVects: First experimental observations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 302-316.
  68. Solms, M., & Turnbull, O. (2002). The brain and the inner world: An introduction to the neuroscience of sub- jective experience. New York: Other Press.
  69. Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). The measurement of attachment security in infancy and childhood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 287-316). New York: Guilford Press.
  70. Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34-52.
  71. Weinberger, D. A. (1995). The construct validity of the repressive coping style. In J. L. Singer (Ed.), Repres- sion and dissociation: Implications for personality theory, psychopathology, and health (pp. 337-386). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  72. WenzlaV, R. M., Rude, S. S., Taylor, C. J., Stultz, C. H., & Sweatt, R. A. (2001). Beneath the veil of thought suppression: Attentional bias and depression risk. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 435-452.
  73. WenzlaV, R. M., & Wegner, D. M. (2000). Thought suppression. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 59-91.
  74. Westen, D. (1994). Toward an integrative model of aVect regulation: Applications to social-psychological research. Journal of Personality, 62, 641-667.
  75. Westen, D. (1998). The scientiWc legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psy- chological science. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 252-283.