"First, the bulb must want to change."**
A while back I got into a conversation with Icy Boo about Attachment Theory. Then more recently it came up again in a convo with Mikey Mic. So I felt compelled to make an entry on it.
I'll cut this for people not interested in psych-related geekiness. But I honestly think this is something anyone, whether they care about psych or not, can get something from. However, if you have an interest in behavioral psych, child development and child-parent bonding, you might want to at least peek beyond the cut.
The theory originated from John Bowlby. More or less the theory states that we are all instinctually driven to seek bonds with others, particularly in stressful situations and for the purpose of survival. How the primary care giver reacts to the infant determines the type of responses the child will have not just with the parent, but with other people in future interpersonal relationships in the future. Furthermore, it determines the attachment style of the person.
The styles are:
Secure
If the primary care giver responds consistently and appropriately to the child's needs, the child will express concern and sadness when the caregiver is away and happiness when the caregiver returns.
Basically the child will be able to form "normal" bonds which require some level of anxiety (though low and with the acquired ability to self-soothe) when the other person is not present. The way this translates to other relationships (romantic or otherwise) is that once a connection is made, "subject" misses the "object" (whomever the other person is). Not to the point of devastation without the object, but some anxiety is felt. The attachment is felt, but is not debilitating.
Avoidant
If the primary caregiver is neglectful, ignores the child when they are in distress, discourages expressions of emotions (usually crying) and heavily encourages independent actions, the child will express little to no concern nor anxiety when the care giver leaves and no happiness nor concern when the caregiver returns.
The child doesn't fully bond to the parent because no precedent has been made for emotional connection. The child learns that emotions in general are to be dismissed and cannot be handled (both by the care giver and by themselves). This translates in other relationships as dismissal of the object and the object's feelings, along with dismissal of the subject's feelings. Denial of the subject's feelings.
The avoidant attacher either seeks relationships only to sabotage them because s/he never learned how to securely attach or the aviodant attacher... avoids... attachments. lol Does not choose relationships with emotional significance at all.
Ambivalent
If the primary caregiver alternates between being neglectful and being affectionate, the child will display sadness when the caregiver leaves, but some sort of distress when they return as well. The inconsistency produces inconsistent reactions from the child. Because they cannot predict the care giver's reactions, they become preoccupied with the caregiver's actions.
The ambivalent person can either become co-defendant and need the object to be permanently attached or may become flighty hopping from object to object.
Disorganized/Fearful
If the primary caregiver expresses distracted behavior in addition to being very anxious, the child will freeze or lock up when the care giver leaves. Because they have such inconsistent and unhealthy examples of attaching, they tend to long for attachments while fearing being hurt. So similarly to the Avoidant person, they may sabotage relationships (unintentionally), but dissimilarly to the Avoidant they do not dismiss the significance of attachments. They simply do not know how to trust.
It's important to note that we all have the same inclinations and instincts. Some of us have developed different attachment styles to get our needs met. Some have developed coping strategies for how to respond when we don't get our needs met, but we all have the same basic needs.All the babies start off with the same needs. It's the parents'/parent's reactions that mold how the needs will be sought.
Note: I sort of haphazardly mixed in object relations stuff, which is a totally different, though very closely related (and often connected) theory. But I imagine that only matters to me and other Psych geeky folks.
I imagine only a handful of you will read this, which is really more than fine. It was cool just to talk about psych stuff again. I need to register for next semester now that things in my life are back to somewhat normalcy.
**That's the punchline to the psychology version of the "how many ______ does it take to change a lightbulb?" joke. I love that corny ass joke.
I'll cut this for people not interested in psych-related geekiness. But I honestly think this is something anyone, whether they care about psych or not, can get something from. However, if you have an interest in behavioral psych, child development and child-parent bonding, you might want to at least peek beyond the cut.
The theory originated from John Bowlby. More or less the theory states that we are all instinctually driven to seek bonds with others, particularly in stressful situations and for the purpose of survival. How the primary care giver reacts to the infant determines the type of responses the child will have not just with the parent, but with other people in future interpersonal relationships in the future. Furthermore, it determines the attachment style of the person.
The styles are:
Secure
If the primary care giver responds consistently and appropriately to the child's needs, the child will express concern and sadness when the caregiver is away and happiness when the caregiver returns.
Basically the child will be able to form "normal" bonds which require some level of anxiety (though low and with the acquired ability to self-soothe) when the other person is not present. The way this translates to other relationships (romantic or otherwise) is that once a connection is made, "subject" misses the "object" (whomever the other person is). Not to the point of devastation without the object, but some anxiety is felt. The attachment is felt, but is not debilitating.
Avoidant
If the primary caregiver is neglectful, ignores the child when they are in distress, discourages expressions of emotions (usually crying) and heavily encourages independent actions, the child will express little to no concern nor anxiety when the care giver leaves and no happiness nor concern when the caregiver returns.
The child doesn't fully bond to the parent because no precedent has been made for emotional connection. The child learns that emotions in general are to be dismissed and cannot be handled (both by the care giver and by themselves). This translates in other relationships as dismissal of the object and the object's feelings, along with dismissal of the subject's feelings. Denial of the subject's feelings.
The avoidant attacher either seeks relationships only to sabotage them because s/he never learned how to securely attach or the aviodant attacher... avoids... attachments. lol Does not choose relationships with emotional significance at all.
Ambivalent
If the primary caregiver alternates between being neglectful and being affectionate, the child will display sadness when the caregiver leaves, but some sort of distress when they return as well. The inconsistency produces inconsistent reactions from the child. Because they cannot predict the care giver's reactions, they become preoccupied with the caregiver's actions.
The ambivalent person can either become co-defendant and need the object to be permanently attached or may become flighty hopping from object to object.
Disorganized/Fearful
If the primary caregiver expresses distracted behavior in addition to being very anxious, the child will freeze or lock up when the care giver leaves. Because they have such inconsistent and unhealthy examples of attaching, they tend to long for attachments while fearing being hurt. So similarly to the Avoidant person, they may sabotage relationships (unintentionally), but dissimilarly to the Avoidant they do not dismiss the significance of attachments. They simply do not know how to trust.
It's important to note that we all have the same inclinations and instincts. Some of us have developed different attachment styles to get our needs met. Some have developed coping strategies for how to respond when we don't get our needs met, but we all have the same basic needs.All the babies start off with the same needs. It's the parents'/parent's reactions that mold how the needs will be sought.
Note: I sort of haphazardly mixed in object relations stuff, which is a totally different, though very closely related (and often connected) theory. But I imagine that only matters to me and other Psych geeky folks.
I imagine only a handful of you will read this, which is really more than fine. It was cool just to talk about psych stuff again. I need to register for next semester now that things in my life are back to somewhat normalcy.
**That's the punchline to the psychology version of the "how many ______ does it take to change a lightbulb?" joke. I love that corny ass joke.