Review and Analysis of Attachment Theory - Essay Example

?Running Head: Insecure Attachment and Development Insecure Attachment and Development Insecure Attachment Introduction In the early to mid-twentieth century, a number of studies were conducted which led to observations of the negative short-term and long-term effects of separation and abandonment on children (please see Bender & Yarnell, 1941; Bender, 1947; Bowlby, 1958). Based on these studies, Bowlby began to critically assess the findings and used them to create what is now known as attachment theory. Bowlby's theory of attachment takes into account both the biological and social bases of behaviour (Bowlby, 1969, 1988). According to this theory, every individual is born with a biological predisposition for developing attachments to others. The infant's first experience of this is through the relationship he or she forms with his or her primary caregiver.' These early relationships are thought to guide how we approach and function in later relationships and new situations, and will influence social, emotional, cognitive, and personality development (Bowlby, 1988). Research has demonstrated that insecure attachment styles, in particular, will lead to negative outcomes in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Insecure Attachment and Development Attachment theory posits that every individual is born with the capability of developing attachments to other individuals. These attachment styles will guide expectations and behavioural, interpersonal, and emotional functioning, over the course of one's lifetime. Research indicates that children with attachment insecurity , are more likely to experience not only learning problems but also a whole host of social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties, including peer rejection, withdrawal, loneliness, low self-esteem, and externalising behaviours (Reid et al. 2004; Trout et al., 2003) If one recalls, children with ED, in most cases, are lagging in their academic abilities by at least one to two years, and evidence problems with understanding even the most basic concepts (Reid et al. 2004; Trout et al., 2003). As a result of these problems, these students tend to have lower graduation rates, an increased rate of grade retention, and are not as likely to attend postsecondary schools. In terms of academics, children with insecure attachment face similar problems to those with ED. Each of the three insecure attachment styles-anxious avoidant, anxious resistant/ambivalent, and disoriented/disorganised-highlight difficulties with cognitive development and academic capabilities consistent with the academic performance of children with ED, while secure attachment has been found to enhance one's learning abilities and experiences. Teo et al, (1996) found that securely attached individuals perform better in the area of mathematics, while Clegg and Welfare (1995) contended that children with learning disabilities will have a much harder time if they are insecurely attached. Geddes (2003, 2005) has delineated specific learning profiles for each of the three insecure styles. According to her, anxious ambivalent children are clingy and overly dependent on the teacher, so much so that they neglect the task at hand. It is thought that this behaviour is caused by the child's anxiety about independent thought and action, and can lead to underachievement and poor academic outcomes as a result. The avoidant child maintains physical distance from the teacher, and focuses solely on the task without indicating any need for assistance. Consequently, an emotional barrier is created whereby the child does not seek help, even if needed, which in turn can lead to decreased development of academic abilities. Disorganised children have difficulty trusting the teacher, but eventually do, though these children experience difficulties with even attempting to do a task. They, too, as with the other insecure attachment styles will likely to be underachieving, and function cognitively at a level lower than their actual age level. Accordingly, Barrett and Trevitt (1991) suggested that insecurely attached children, as a group, do not acquire the skills necessary to effectively engage in the learning process. Specifically, these authors contend that due to the nature of their early interactions with their primary caregivers, these children are unable to explore the environment (i. e., the school setting) due to a lack of security and confidence and do not develop the problem solving skills necessary to approach new tasks. On the other hand, securely attached children are thought to be confident enough to engage readily in academic tasks, and have the ability to look to the teacher for assistance when necessary (Barrett & Trevitt, 1991). Thus, overall it appears that while secure attachment does not guarantee academic achievement, it does provide an individual with skills necessary to learn, while insecure attachment leaves individuals vulnerable to academic underachievement. In addition to academics, insecurely attached children also evidence a greater chance for developing externalising and internalising behaviours. These problems are due to the fact that insecurely attached children's ability to interact with others in an appropriate manner is severely disrupted as a result of the relationships they have experienced early on with their primary caregivers. Thus, when these children reach school-age, they are unable to engage in acceptable school age behaviours or form adequate relationships with their peers and/or their teachers. Individuals with any of the insecure attachment styles develop negatively toned internal working models which colour their perceptions of future interpersonal relations and subsequent behaviours (Bowlby, 1969, 1988; Card & Hodges, 2003). Anxious ambivalent/resistant children tend to be much more dependent and clingy, and evidence more internalising symptoms, while anxious avoidant children are much more hostile in their approach to and thinking of different interpersonal situations. Disorganised children tend to experience problems in both spheres. Regardless of the types of behaviours exhibited, difficulties in relationships are likely to occur as a result of insecure attachment (Card & Hodges, 2003). In a study examining the formation of enemy relationships among children, Card and Hodges (2003) found that most peer relationships among insecurely attached children are marked by enmity, such that both members of the relationship share a dislike for one another. Similarly, it has been shown that insecure attachment styles can lead to more aggressive, hostile, and antisocial behaviours among children (Card & Hodges, 2003; Eamon & Mulder, 2005). A possible explanation for this is offered by a study by Ziv, Oppenheim, and Sagi-Schwartz (2004) which looked at how an individual's social information processing develops based on his or her attachment style. In using the four-stage model of social information processing proposed by Dodge and Price, Ziv et al. (2004) found that compared to securely attached children, insecurely attached children, especially anxious ambivalent children, do not develop social information processing skills in the same manner as secure children. Specifically, insecurely attached children are not as competent as their secure counterparts in accurately interpreting a response made by others, so that these children often interpret the meanings of responses to fit with their negatively held internal working models, and then respond accordingly. This information suggests that the development of social interaction skills of insecurely attached children is disrupted by way of the internal working models that have developed, leading to difficulties in social and behavioural processes. The difficulties associated with insecure attachment styles may stem ultimately from an inability to regulate affect effectively. Mikulincer, Shaver, and Pereg (2003) suggested that an inability to effectively regulate one's affect puts him or her at the risk of developing an insecure attachment style. According to these authors, attachment security influences "positive expectations about others' availability and positive views of the self as competent and valued are formed and major affect-regulation strategies are organised around these positive beliefs" (p. 79). On the other hand, when a secure attachment does not form, "negative representations of self and others are formed, and strategies of affect regulation other than proximity seeking are developed" (p. 79), which in this case refer to secondary attachment strategies. Primary attachment strategies, or "security-based attachment strategies" such as attachment seeking behaviours, are thought to allow for the development of affect regulation and effective coping strategies and social skills. In contrast, secondary attachment strategies, or "deactivating" and "hyperactivating strategies" such as either avoidance of intimacy in interpersonal relationships and emphasis on self-reliance or excessive dependence on others, can lead to affect dysregulation and thus, problems with coping and interpersonal relatedness (Mikulincer et al., 2003). Thus people with insecure attachment styles are often inept in dealing with obstacles in effective manners, leading them to experience difficulties behaviourally, interpersonally, affectively, and cognitively. These findings, as a whole, mirror the difficulties of those children classified with ED. Specifically, children with ED are subject to experiencing both internalising and externalising behaviour problems throughout their academic careers, and these behaviours often adversely impinge on the social development of students exhibiting them, resulting in aggression, social isolation, social withdrawal, oppositionality, bullying, and peer rejection and victimisation, among other characteristics (Furlong et al., 2004). Berlin et al, (1995) demonstrated that insecure ambivalent attachment contributes to withdrawal, isolation, and peer rejection, leading to increased feelings of loneliness and lowered self-esteem. In looking at the effects of attachment on overall behaviours, several studies have found that insecure relationships place children at risk for a wide range of internalising and externalising behaviours, similar to the behaviours shown by children with ED (Vondra, Shaw, Swearingen, Cohen, & Owens, 1999). Thus, it can be assumed that while insecure attachments do not cause ED, there is a significant relationship between the features of insecure attachment styles and ED. These behavioural problems and subsequent inadequate social development can exacerbate impairments in the academic arena, especially when an insecure attachment style is present. Al-Yagon and Mikulincer (2004) demonstrated that insecure attachment puts children with learning problems at an increased risk for maladjustment in that these children will experience great social and emotional problems throughout their academic careers, while children with learning problems who were found to be securely attached exhibited fewer social and emotional problems during their school years. Specifically, they found that insecurely attached children view teachers and peers as more rejecting, less available, and less accepting of them. In turn, teachers also felt less closeness with their insecurely attached students. These feelings were exacerbated by the presence of learning problems, since children with these problems do not have the confidence or security in themselves or others to combat the feelings of low self-esteem and incompetence that often follows from having a learning problem. How these children view their teachers and peers will then influence how they behave and react in interpersonal situations. While the problems inherent with a learning problem cannot be changed, these difficulties can be either exacerbated or ameliorated by the presence of a secure attachment style. Finally, another major link between insecure attachment and ED is offered through evidence suggesting that both insecure attachment and ED can lead to psychopathology. The features which characterise ED are often similar to diagnosable disorders according to the DSM-IV-TR (Furlong et al., 2004). Similarly, each of the insecure attachment styles has been shown to potentially lead to the development of some type of psychopathology (Stams et al., 2002; Weinfield et al., 1999). In examining the disorders similar to both ED and insecure attachment styles, it appears that they frequently lead to other very similar disorders. Summary Attachment theory has generated much research in the past several decades. It is believed that every individual is born with the ability to form attachments to others. Based on the interaction that occurs within the first year of life, children will form internal working models that will give rise to four distinct attachment styles-secure, anxious avoidant, anxious ambivalent, and disorganised/disoriented. The last three styles are often referred to collectively as insecure attachment styles. All four of these styles are considered to be fairly stable and consistent over the course of one's life. Each of the styles manifests very differently, and represents an individual's behaviours in interpersonal relationships and his or her ability to regulate emotions. The style that is most characteristic of an individual will have negative and positive consequences for the individual, and will affect every aspect of his or her life. Insecure attachment styles, in particular, will lead to negative outcomes in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Thus, it is imperative to intervene earlier rather than later with these individuals to combat the development of psychopathology and poor outcomes in the future. References AI-Yagon, M. & Mikulincer, M. (2004). Socioemotional and academic adjustment among children with learning disorders: The mediational role of attachment ­based factors. Journal of Special Education, 38(2), 111-123. Barrett, M. & Trevitt, J. (1991). Attachment behaviour and the schoolchild: An introduction to educational therapy. London: Routledge. Bender, L. & Yarnell, H. (1941). An observation nursery. American Journal of Psychiatry, 97, 1158-1174. Bender, L. (1947). Psychopathic behaviour disorders in children. In R. M. Lindner and R. V. Seliger (Eds.), Handbook of correctional psychology, New York: Philosophical Library. Berlin, L. J., Cassidy, J., & Belsky, J. (1995). Loneliness in young children and infant- mother attachment: A longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41(1), 91­103. Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's ties to his mother. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 39, 350-373. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Volume I-Attachment. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers. Card, N. A. & Hodges, E. V. E. (2003). Parent-child relationships and enmity with peers: The role of avoidant and preoccupied attachment. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 103, 23-37. Clegg, J. A. & Lansdall-Welfare, R. (1995). Attachment and learning disability: A theoretical review informing three clinical interventions. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 39(4), 295-305. Eamon, M. K. & Mulder, C. (2005). Predicting antisocial behaviour among Latino young adolescents: An ecological systems analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(1), 117-127. Furlong, M. J., Morrison, G. M., Jimerson, S. R. (2004). Externalizing behaviours of aggression and violence and the school context. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioural disorders (pp. 243-261). New York: The Guilford Press. Geddes, H. (2003). Attachment and the child in school, Part I: Attachment theory and the 'dependent' child. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 8(3), 231-242. Geddes, H. (2005). Attachment and learning, Part II: The learning profile of the avoidant and disorganized attachment patterns. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 10(2), 79-93. Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Pereg, D. (2003). Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 27(2), 77-102. Reid, R., Gonzalez, J. E., Nordness, P. D., Trout, A., & Epstein, M. H. (2004). A meta analysis of the academic status of students with emotional/behavioural disturbance. The Journal of Special Education, 38(3), 130-143. Stams, G. J. M., Juffer, F., & van Uzendoorn, M. H. (2002). Maternal sensitivity, infant attachment, and temperament in early childhood predict adjustment in middle childhood: The case of adopted children and their biologically unrelated parents. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 806-821. Teo, A., Carlson, E., Mathieu, P. J., Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1996). A prospective longitudinal study of psychosocial predictors of achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 34(3), 285-306. Trout, A. L., Nordness, P. D., Pierce, C. D., & Epstein, M. H. (2003). Research on the academic status of children with emotional and behavioural disorders: A review of the literature from 1961-2000 .. Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders, 11 (4), 198-210. Vondra, J. I., Shaw, D. S., Swearingen, L., Cohen, M., & Owens, E. B. (1999). Early relationship quality from home to school: A longitudinal study. Early Education and Development, 10(2), 163-190. Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. A. (1999). The nature of individual differences in infant-caregiver attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications (pp. 68-89). New York: The Guilford Press. Ziv, Y., Oppenheim, D., & Sagi-Schwartz, A. (2004). Social information processing in middle childhood: Relations to infant-mother attachment. Attachment and Human Development, 6(3), 327-348. Read More