Patterns of Attachment

A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation

Mary D. Salter Ainsworth, Mary C. Blehar, Everett Waters, Sally N. Wall

• Editorial: Psychology Press
• Año: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781135016173
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Psychology
• Categoría: History & Theory in Psychology

Ethological attachment theory is a landmark of 20th century social and behavioral sciences theory and research. This new paradigm for understanding primary relationships across the lifespan evolved from John Bowlby's critique of psychoanalytic drive theory and his own clinical observations, supplemented by his knowledge of fields as diverse as primate ethology, control systems theory, and cognitive psychology. By the time he had written the first volume of his classic Attachment and Loss trilogy, Mary D. Salter Ainsworth's naturalistic observations in Uganda and Baltimore, and her theoretical and descriptive insights about maternal care and the secure base phenomenon had become integral to attachment theory.

Patterns of Attachment reports the methods and key results of Ainsworth's landmark Baltimore Longitudinal Study. Following upon her naturalistic home observations in Uganda, the Baltimore project yielded a wealth of enduring, benchmark results on the nature of the child's tie to its primary caregiver and the importance of early experience. It also addressed a wide range of conceptual and methodological issues common to many developmental and longitudinal projects, especially issues of age appropriate assessment, quantifying behavior, and comprehending individual differences. In addition, Ainsworth and her students broke new ground, clarifying and defining new concepts, demonstrating the value of the ethological methods and insights about behavior.

Today, as we enter the fourth generation of attachment study, we have a rich and growing catalogue of behavioral and narrative approaches to measuring attachment from infancy to adulthood. Each of them has roots in the Strange Situation and the secure base concept presented in Patterns of Attachment. It inclusion in the Psychology Press Classic Editions series reflects Patterns of Attachment's continuing significance and insures its availability to new generations of students, researchers, and clinicians.

PART I Introduction

DOI: 10.4324/9780203758045-1

1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

DOI: 10.4324/9780203758045-2

Introduction

Attachment theory was given its first preliminary statement in John Bowlby’s 1958 paper entitled “The Nature of a Child’s Tie to His Mother.” It was fully launched by the first volume of his trilogy on Attachment and Loss in 1969, which was followed by a second volume in 1973. The first two reports of research inspired by Bowlby’s early formulation were by Ainsworth (1963, 1964) and Schaffer and Emerson (1964). Since then there has been an increasing volume of research relevant to infant–mother attachment, including research into mother–infant interaction and into early social development. There is no doubt that the further formulation of attachment theory, as represented in Bowlby’s major works (1969, 1973) was influenced by this research. In the meantime other statements of attachment theory have emerged, some of which (e.g., Ainsworth, 1969, 1972; Sroufe & Waters, 1977) dovetail closely with Bowlby’s evolutionary–ethological approach. In contrast, others (e.g., Cairns, 1972; Gewirtz, 1972a, 1972b; Maccoby & Masters, 1970) have attempted to assimilate attachment theory to other earlier paradigms.

Attachment Theory as a New Paradigm

Bowlby’s attachment theory stemmed from a convergence of several important trends in the biological and social sciences. An initial psychoanalytic orientation was integrated with the biological discipline of ethology and its insistence on viewing behavior in an evolutionary context; with psychobiology and its focus on neurophysiological, endocrine, and receptor processes that interact with environmental stimuli to activate and terminate the activity of behavioral systems; with control-systems theory, which directs attention to “inner programming” and links behavioral theory to an information-processing model of cognition; and with Piaget’s structural approach to the development of cognition. Although this integration was undertaken primarily to understand the origin, function, and development of an infant’s early social relations, that part of Bowlby’s theory that deals specifically with attachment is embedded in a general theory of behavior that owes much to its several origins.

Attachment theory might be described as “programatic” and openended. It does not purport to be a tight network of propositions on the basis of which hypotheses may be formulated, any one of which, in the event of an adequate but unsuccessful test, could invalidate the theory as a whole. Instead, this is an explanatory theory—a guide to understanding data already at our disposal and a guide to further research. “Validation” is a matter of collecting evidence relevant to “construct validity” (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), with the implication that the “construct” itself can be elaborated and refined through further research, rather than standing or falling on the basis of one crucial experiment.

Despite its lack of resemblance to a mathematicophysical theory, both the general theory of behavior and attachment theory amount to what Kuhn (1962) termed a paradigm change for developmental psychology—a complete shift of perspective. According to Kuhn, such paradigm changes are at the root of scientific revolutions and account for the major advances in science, even though much constructive endeavor must follow the advancement of a new paradigm before it is fleshed out fully.

Kuhn emphasized the difficulty encountered by adherents of earlier paradigms in assimilating the implications of the new paradigm. Such difficulty is unavoidable, for a new paradigm comes into being in an attempt to account for findings that older paradigms could not deal with adequately. For Bowlby the inexplicable findings pertained to a young child’s responses to separation from his mother figure. Although a new paradigm may build on older ones and must also account for the empirical findings that they dealt with adequately, the new paradigm cannot be assimilated to an old paradigm—not without such substantial accommodation that the old paradigm is changed beyond recognition and itself becomes a new paradigm more or less akin to the other new one that could not readily be assimilated. We hold that Bowlby’s attachment theory constitutes a new paradigm for research into social development. It is in terms of this paradigm that we interpret our findings—and indeed we view our findings as helping to flesh out the framework of the new paradigm.

Although in Chapters 9, 10, and 14 we also discuss some researches that stemmed from divergent paradigms, we are cognizant of Kuhn’s warning that it is difficult to move from one paradigm to another. Ainsworth (1969) attempted an elucidation of the differences between three major paradigms relevant to an infant’s relationship with his mother; we shall not repeat this endeavor here. The attachment theory that we shall summarize in this chapter is based on Bowlby’s paradigm, with particular emphasis on those aspects that are most relevant to the research with which this volume is concerned.

The Behavioral System

One of the major features of Bowlby’s general theory of behavior is the concept of a behavioral system. To ethologists this “construct” is so fundamental that it scarcely requires explanation. (Nevertheless, see Baerends, 1975, for a detailed discussion of behavioral systems.) Bowlby holds that the human species is equipped with a number of behavioral systems that are species characteristic and that have evolved because their usual consequences have contributed substantially to species survival. Some of these systems are toward the labile end of an environmentally labile vs. environmentally stable continuum. An “environmentally stable” system manifests itself in much the same ways throughout almost all members of the species (or almost all members of one sex) despite wide variations in the environments in which the various populations that compose the species have been reared and in which they now live. The manifestations of a relatively “labile” system vary considerably across the various populations in the species in accordance with environmental variations.

For those who are not conversant with evolutionary theory, it is perhaps useful to explain that “survival,” in terms of natural selection means species survival or at least population survival. It implies survival of the individual only to the extent that he or she survives to produce viable offspring and to rear them successfully. Natural selection implies that the genes of the most reproductively successful individuals come to be represented in larger proportion in the “gene pool” than the genes of individuals who do not survive long enough to reproduce, who survive but do not produce as many offspring, whose offspring do not survive to sexual maturity, or whose offspring do not reproduce, and so on. Given the natural-selection process, it is scarcely surprising that among the most environmentally stable behavioral systems characteristic of many species (including the human species) are those concerned with reproduction and with care and protection of the young.

It is generally acknowledged that the relatively long period of infantile helplessness characteristic of humans, together with a relative lack of fixed-action patterns, provides the necessary conditions for flexibility and learning—for adaptation to a very wide range of environmental variation. Nevertheless a long period of immaturity implies a long period of vulnerability during which the child must somehow be protected. Bowlby argues, therefore, that human young must be equipped with a relatively stable behavioral system that operates to promote sufficient proximity to the principal caregiver—the mother figure—that parental protection is facilitated. This system—attachment behavior—supplements a complementary behavioral system in the adult—maternal behavior—that has the same function.

Attachment behavior conceived as a behavioral system is not to be equated with any specific bit of behavior. First, the external, observable behavioral components are not the only components of the system; there are intraorganismic, organizational components as well. These are discussed later. Second, there may be a variety of behaviors that serve the system as action components, and indeed a specific behavioral component may, in the course of development, come to serve more than one behavioral system. Nevertheless several behaviors may be classed together as serving a given behavioral system because they usually have a common outcome. The behaviors thus classed together may be diverse in form. They may be classed together because each is an essential component of a series of behaviors that lead to the outcome, such as nest building among birds, or they may constitute alternative modes of arriving at the outcome, as in the case of attachment behavior. Bowlby refers to the outcome as “predictable,” to imply that once the system is activated the outcome in question often occurs, although not invariably. If the outcome did not occur consistently enough and in enough individuals, however, the survival of the species would be at risk.

Predictable Outcome

The predictable outcome of a child’s attachment behavior is to bring him into closer proximity with other people, and particularly with that specific individual who is primarily responsible for his care. Bowlby refers to this individual as the “mother figure,” and indeed in the human species, as well as in other species, this individual is usually the biological mother. The mother figure is, however, the principal caregiver, whether the natural mother or someone else who plays that role. Some behavioral components of the attachment system are signaling behaviors—such as crying, calling, or smiling—that serve to attract a caregiver to approach the child or to remain in proximity once closeness has been achieved. Other components are more active; thus, once locomotion has been acquired, the child is able to seek proximity to his attachment figure(s) on his own account.

Causation of Activation and Termination of Behavior

Several sets of conditions play a part in the activation of a given behavioral system, both specific and general, and within both the organism and the environment. Bowlby notes that the most specific causal factors are the way in which the behavioral systems are organized within the central nervous system and the presence or absence of certain objects within the environment. From the study of other species, we also know that hormones may have a fairly specific influence on behavior, although our knowledge of hormonal influences on human attachment behavior or reciprocal maternal behavior is sparse indeed. Among the more general factors that play a part in the causation of behavior are the current state of activity of the central nervous system—its state of “arousal”—and the total stimulation impinging on the organism at the time. These five classes of causation act together; no one of them may be sufficient to set a behavioral system into action unless one or more of the other factors are also favorable.

Among the various environmental conditions that may activate attachment behavior in a young child who has already become attached to a specific figure are absence of or distance from that figure, the figure’s departing or returning after an absence, rebuff by or lack of responsiveness of that figure or of others, and alarming events of all kinds, including unfamiliar situations and strangers. Among the various internal conditions are illness, hunger, pain, cold, and the like. In addition, whether in early infancy or in later years, it seems apparent that attachment behavior may be activated, sustained, or intensified by other less intense conditions that are as yet not well understood. Thus, for example, an infant when picked up may mold his body to the person who holds him, thus manifesting proximity/contact-maintaining behavior, even though his attachment behavior may not have been activated at any substantial level of intensity before being picked up. Or a somewhat older infant or young child may respond with attachment behavior to a figure—particularly a familiar one—who solicits his response and interaction. Indeed he may seek to initiate such interaction himself, and if the figure is a familiar caregiver or (later) an attachment figure, one could argue that the behaviors involved in the initiation and in the subsequent interaction operate in the service of the attachment system. As for the most specific intraorganismic factor—the organization of behavioral systems within the central nervous system—we shall only say at this juncture that whatever constitutional organization is present at birth becomes substantially modified and elaborated through experience, and that individual differences in experience may be presumed to result in different patterns of organization. Thus, although one may generalize to some extent about the conditions likely to activate attachment behavior, the factor of internal organization is highly specific to the individual and, in addition, specific to his particular stage of development.

The conditions for termination of a behavioral system are conceived by Bowlby as being as complex as the conditions of activation, and as related both to the intensity with which the system had been activated and to the particular behavioral component of the system that was involved. Thus the most effective terminating condition for infant crying is close bodily contact contingent upon being picked up by the mother figure (Bell & Ainsworth, 1972), whereas simple approach behavior in a 1-year-old may be terminated by achieving a degree of proximity without requiring close bodily contact. On the other hand, if the attachment system has been activated at a high level of intensity, close contact may be required for the termination of attachment behavior.

A note on terminology may be helpful to the reader. Bowlby (1969) uses the term “attachment behavior” to refer to both the behavioral system and to the behavioral components thereof—a usage that may occasion confusion among readers unaccustomed to the concept of behavioral systems. We have attempted to use the plural term, “attachment behaviors” to refer to the action components that serve the behavioral system, while reserving the singular term “attachment behavior” or the somewhat clumsy term “attachment behavioral system” to refer to the system.

Biological Function

The biological function of a behavioral system is to be distinguished from the causes of the behavioral system’s having been activated. It is an outcome of the behavioral system’s having been activated, but whereas there may be more than one predictable outcome, the biological function of the system is defined as that predictable outcome that afforded a certain survival advantage in the “environment of evolutionary adaptedness”—the original environment in which the system first emerged as a more or less environmentally stable system, and to which it may be said to be adapted in the evolutionary sense. Biological programing continues to bias members of the species to behave in the ways that gave survival advantage in this original environment. The biological function of the behavioral system may or may not give special survival advantage in one or another of the various environments in which populations now live, but unless changes in the average expectable environment render the behavioral system a liability, it will be maintained in the repertoire of the species.

Bowlby (1969) proposed that the biological function of the attachment system is protection, and he suggested that it was most specifically protection from predators in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. Indeed, field studies of other species suggest that infants who get out of proximity to their mothers are very likely to become victims of predation. He argued, however, that even in the present-day environment of Western society a child is much more vulnerable to disaster (for example, to becoming a victim of a traffic accident) if alone rather than accompanied by a responsible adult (Bowlby, 1973). Indeed, he noted that even adults of any society tend to be less vulnerable to mishap if with a companion than when alone. Therefore, he felt comfortable about specifying protection as continuing to be the biological function of attachment behavior and its reciprocal parental behavior.

The implication is that the reciprocal behaviors of child and parent (Hinde, 1976a, 1976b, would term these “complementary” behaviors) are adapted to each other in an evolutionary sense. Thus, a child’s attachment behavior is adapted to an environment containing a figure—the mother figure—who is both accessible to him and responsive to his behavioral cues. To the extent that the environment of rearing approximates the environment to which an infant’s behaviors are phylogenetically adapted, his social development will follow a normal course. To the extent that the environment of rearing departs from the environment to which his behaviors are adapted, developmental anomalies may occur. Thus, for example, an infant reared for a long period, from early infancy onward, in an institutional environment in which he has so little consistent interaction with any one potential attachment figure that he fails to form an attachment may, when subsequently fostered and thus given an opportunity to attach himself, be unable to attach himself to anyone (e.g., Goldfarb, 1943; Provence & Lipton, 1962.)

The foregoing example raises an important point for attachment theory—namely, that just as an infant is predisposed to exhibit attachment behavior under appropriate circumstances, he is predisposed to form an attachment to a specific figure or figures. The predictable outcome of both the activation of the attachment behavioral system and attachment as a bond is the maintenance of a degree of proximity to the attachment figure(s); and similarly, in each case, the biological function is protection. We discuss attachment as bond and its relation to attachment behavior later in this chapter. Here we merely wish to point out that it is under very unusual circumstances that an infant or young child encounters conditions such that his attachment behavior ...