What Makes Us Stay Together?

Attachment and the Outcomes of Couple Relationships

Rosetta Castellano, Patrizia Velotti, Giulio Cesare Zavattini

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN:
  9781782200581
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429923876
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

In recent years commentators have speculated on the "collapse" of the couple and the family, highlighting the increasing fragility of couple relationships making them vulnerable to crises and break ups. Now, more than ever, and prompted by changes that have shaken our assumptions about socio/cultural context, the reasons that make couple relationships unstable are sought in the negotiations and redefinitions required by the changes themselves. New types of families are emerging and consequently new issues are being raised about the dynamics of family relationships. This book underlines the role of attachment as a central motivational system in couple relationships, and focuses on the relationship between past and present experiences in determining choices, perceptions, and feelings in couple relationships. It considers what other motivational systems interact with attachment in constituting a couple's dynamics, and looks at aspects more directly experienced by couples: in particular, how they feel about their relationship, especially in terms of the degree of intimacy between them (something that attachment theorists might look at in evaluating how "good" a relationship is).

CHAPTER ONE

Attachment perspectives on couple relationships

Attempting to understand the nature of love involves embarking on a very complex undertaking, one that risks appearing banal if not carried out with sufficient care. If we were to ask why a person sets out to form a relationship with a particular partner,¹ the answer would entail listing numerous elements pointing to what that person looks for in the other. These elements would affect not only the choice of relationship—for example, opting for a stable relationship—but also the kind of evolution the relationship will have (Clulow, 2001; Cutrona, 2004; Diamond, Blatt, & Lichtenberg, 2007).

Love has been defined as “a dynamic state involving both partners’ needs and capacities for attachment, caregiving and sex” (Mikulincer, 2006, p. 23). This is precisely the premise that we adopt and shall be looking at in this book: the interplay between a person’s search for protection and comfort in a partner, their capacity to offer protection and support, and whether they are and remain sexually attracted to that partner. Studies from an attachment perspective offer a fundamental contribution to understanding couple bonds, showing the importance of attachment as a motivational system that deals with the needs humans have for ensuring the physical and affective availability of a meaningful person (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Hughes, 2007).

Attachment as a motivation for couple relationships

The starting point for understanding how attachment theory might be applied to couple relationships can be found in Bowlby’s hypothesis, which holds that throughout the lifespan individuals establish preferential bonds—attachments—that contain four fundamental behavioural features:

1. Seeking and maintaining proximity: In romantic relationships one searches for closeness with one’s partner.

2. Safe haven: In times of distress, the partner is turned to for comfort and support.

3. Protest at separation: When separated, partners show signs of distress and try to overcome what is keeping them apart. When separation turns to loss, a sequence of “protest-despair-detachment” behaviour is evident (Bowlby, 1979), similar to that observed in children who have lost their attachment figure.

4. Secure base: An available and sensitive partner enables exploratory behaviour, furthering cognitive and affective development (Crowell et al., 2003).

As with attachment in childhood, adult attachment, once established, aims for contact with and closeness to a specific person, someone for whom there is no substitute. This behaviour becomes particularly evident at times of distress, when a partner is needed for caregiving and for providing the “safe haven” and “secure base” functions of the relationship. But, in contrast to the attachment relationships of childhood, adult attachment does not necessarily require physical closeness (as a child might need from a mother), but rather a sense of protection. In other words, an adult needs to feel that their partner is emotionally close, not necessarily to have them physically present.

Adult attachment bonds, like those in childhood, are emotionally intense and demanding, and are defined by the quality of the relationship between the partners. As Bowlby wrote: “If it [attachment] goes well, there is joy and a sense of security. If it is threatened, there is jealousy, anxiety, and anger. If broken, there is grief and depression” (Bowlby, 1988, p. 4). In this sense, it could be said that the most important function of attachment is linked to the capacity to regulate emotion, which, as we will see later, gives the partner a primary role in providing a sense of psychological wellbeing (Schore, 2003; Velotti, 2009).

The relationship between two people who “fall in love”, or who have a passionate affair that fades over time, cannot be referred to as an attachment bond. Attachment bonds are different from the attraction that draws individuals together at the start of a relationship. As in childhood, adult attachment bonds must be enduring, not transitory.² Attachment research has shown how, in romantic relationships, attachment bonds are developed through a series of sequences, and that it is necessary for the four features of attachment described earlier to be progressively transferred to the partner during the course of the relationship (Barone & Del Corno, 2007; Cassibba, 2003; Weiss, 1991; Zeifman & Hazan, 2008). Just as the attachment bonds that develop during infancy and childhood take time to organise themselves, so, too, attachment in couple relationships can only be considered as such after romantic relationships have been consolidated, a process that according to some may take more than two years (Zeifman & Hazan, 2008).

In examining the temporal sequence that leads to the formation of couple attachment, four fundamental stages have been proposed, as depicted in Figure 1.1. The figure shows the developmental stages and defines the prototype elements of couple relationships that will become attachment bonds, distinguishing them from other types of adult relationships (such as short term, casual, or friendship relationships).

It should be underlined that, for reasons to do with either the individual or the relationship, the transfer of the essential characteristics of an attachment bond to the partner is not always achieved in a reciprocally balanced way, nor need the pace of development of the safe haven and secure base functions be matched between the partners. When the strategies through which an individual regulates their own emotional state are of the insecure type (owing to the presence of internal working models of self as unlovable and of others as unavailable or insensitive), the romantic relationship, while being an attachment bond, may inhibit the development of safe haven and secure base functions. Individuals may experience their relationship as a threat to their autonomy, or fear that their partner is unable to provide the reassurance that they need. In these circumstances, they deactivate the functions that might otherwise provide them with a sense of security.

Or it may be that a partner is not permitted to take up the role of primary attachment figure because this role is still entrusted to a member of the family of origin (Carli, 1999, 2009). And, over time, it may be that the role is transferred from the partner to other meaningful figures in a person’s life. For example, mothers may use their children as their main attachment figures, seeking comfort and protection from them rather than from their partners. In these situations, “it is almost always not only a sign of pathology in the parent but a cause of it in the child” (Bowlby, 1969, p. 377), and very likely to be an indicator of dysfunction in the organisational structure of the family.³

Figure 1.1. Phases of establishing attachment bonds in the couple.

From what has been outlined so far, it is evident that the four-step sequence described above is best taken as a general model for the functioning of attachment bonds in the early years of the couple relationship, and in an heuristic sense rather than as a normal sequence. Real life is more complex.

Emotion regulation

Considering a couple relationship as an attachment bond implies, among other things, that it has a regulatory function in the homeostasis of each individual. Studies have shown higher levels of wellbeing in individuals who have satisfactory marital relationships than in those who do not (Diamond & Hicks, 2005; Ryff, Singer, Wing & Love, 2001). Attachment relationships provide a context within which the capacity to regulate emotions can be acquired.⁴ Accordingly, individuals will have used their early relationship experiences with caregivers to regulate their emotions. Over time, these relationship experiences are internalised and become internal working models that gradually shape and influence the process of engagement in interpersonal relationships, and provide strategies for managing emotions (Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005). The strong connections that exist between the motivational system of attachment and emotional states have been highlighted by many authors where emotion regulation has been considered the most important aspect of attachment (Allen & Fonagy, 2006; Schore, 2003). As one theoretician put it:

Emotion regulation consists of the extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for monitoring, evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially their intensive and temporal features, to accomplish one’s goals.

(Thompson, 1994, pp. 27–28)

Bowlby never fully explained how affect regulation derived from attachment. Kobak and Sceery (1988) were among the first to suggest that how individuals perceive and manage emotions in their relationships can depend on the organisation of their internal working models. There are significant differences in the way the link between the two has been explored and understood. From these, we can identify two fundamental and converging approaches. The first integrates emotion regulation with the contributions of infant research, including the work of authors such as Sroufe (1996), Beebe and Lachmann (2002), Stern (2004), Tronick (2005), and Lichtenberg (2005). The second focuses primarily on emotion regulation and the hyperactivation and deactivation of the behavioural attachment system (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007a, 2008).

In the first approach, the central question concerns the way in which an individual learns to self-regulate emotions through “hetero-regulation”, that is, through relationships with others. In other words, this approach focuses on how self-regulation emerges from co-regulation, and, indeed, how the process can work in reverse.⁵ In our opinion, such an approach is fundamental to understanding the outcome of couple relationships because it focuses attention on the dual nature of the auto- and hetero-regulation of attachment bonds between partners. Each partner has a role in the other’s process of self-regulation, confirming and defining the self of the other, and thereby contributing to the stabilisation of an internal sense of cohesion. And the process works simultaneously in reverse. As we control and regulate our internal state, we are constantly involved in monitoring the emotions of our partner, focusing on his or her words and actions. So, whether we are feeling anxious, agitated, or sad may depend on how we affect our partner, as well as how we are affected by him or her (Beebe & Lachmann, 2002). Under optimal conditions, the two processes are dynamically and flexibly balanced.

From this approach we can understand how the attachment system operates as an organisational system of affect regulation, not so much as a system of regulation of physical distance (Harman, Rothbart, & Posner, 1997; Siegel, 1999; Sroufe, 1996). According to Sroufe (1996), self-regulation can be conceived as part of a system that affects selfesteem and confidence in oneself. Confidence in a caregiver allows the development of trust in “oneself with the caregiver”, and, finally, confidence in oneself. Attachment relationships therefore provide a framework within which the skills for regulating emotion are acquired. These skills are a prerequisite for engaging in social relationships in a competent way. The following is an example of how this might work.

Example 1.1

In her childhood, Isabel was forced to take on responsibilities that she should not have had to do. Her mother’s constant need for affection, and her father’s pressing demands, often made her feel anxious and worried. As the first of three children, she had precociously taken on adult tasks, helping in the house and taking over domestic responsibilities to support her mother. During adolescence and early adulthood, Isabel was always available to listen to the problems and heartaches of her friends, even if this did not help her own romantic relationships. As an adult, her sense of responsibility, and the confused feelings associated with it, stayed with her, as did her belief that in her significant relationships she was unable to live up to the expectations of others. Isabel had adopted a strategy for controlling her confusing emotions by anticipating the emotional demands of others, specialising in being available for them.

When she became part of a couple, Isabel constantly tried to “read” signals from her partner to identify possible dissatisfactions in order to overcome these, and so overcome her difficulties and feelings of inadequacy. She tried to commit herself fully to making the relationship succeed, and often ended up feeling disappointed in her partner, who appeared not to notice her efforts. Isabel imagined that in her relationship it was very difficult to satisfy her partner, but at the same time it continued to be her main concern, her mission impossible. These expectations kept her in a constant state of alert and emotional anxiety, which, in turn, led her to look for a very close relationship with her partner as a means of reassuring her that she was accepted. But even his loving presence seemed only to give her a temporary feeling of relief.

This illustration suggests an adequate capacity for emotion regulation is needed to achieve a sense of internal balance between psychological distance and closeness with others, and to develop “healthy” relationships (Zavattini, 2008b). Without an emotion-regulating capacity, it is difficult to achieve this. Excessive closeness, as with excessive distance, weakens the psychological self (Fonagy, Gergely, Jurist, & Target, 2002), which then remains dependent on others to contain feelings and affects (both negative and positive). Isabel did not know how to entrust herself to her partner when he was undemanding—when he wasn’t telling her what she could or should do for him. She reacted by searching for closeness because her feelings of fear and anxiety prevented her from feeling secure with him.

These regulatory processes can be considered as a “constant” for significant relationships throughout life. Over time, they are progressively refined by the mutual understanding that is developed between partners (Zaccagnini & Zavattini, 2006). We can imagine the positive contribution Isabel’s partner might make towards resolving her dilemma from the following example.

Example 1.2

Matt was born into a loving family with two parents who got on well and agreed over the management of family tasks. This affective scenario favoured him developing a representation of himself as being worthy of affection from others. He was confident that others would understand and comfort him in a positive way. The sense of humour that abounded in his family reduced tensions and problems that he had faced when growing up. It was a strength he appreciated.

As an adult, his confident expectations had been confirmed in a series of significant relationships, both friendships and romances. In his relationship with Isabel, Matt felt she sometimes worried too much, became alarmed when he spoke of any discomfort, or became anxious when he asked her to help him resolve what were for him the ordinary ups and downs of domestic life. He sometimes felt it might be better not to share his problems with her, but his desire to have her at his side and deal together with the small obstacles in life overcame this. So he tried to reassure Isabel, letting her know that he noticed what a lot she did for him and that she did make him feel better. ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• ABOUT THE AUTHORS
• FOREWORD
• PREFACE
• CHAPTER ONE Attachment perspectives on couple relationships
• CHAPTER TWO Understanding couple relationships by comparing attachment perspectives
• CHAPTER THREE The interplay of motivational systems
• CHAPTER FOUR Couple functioning
• CHAPTER FIVE The outcomes of couple relationships
• REFERENCES
• INDEX