Evolutionary theorists have long recognized that humans, along with many other species, are incapable of maintaining independent survival within their early infancy period. It was Lorenz who first recognized this; by observing that young animals have a tendency to follow and stay close to another animal of which they had exposure to during a sensitive period in their development (Bateson, 1990; Westen, Burton & Kowalski, 2006). Darwinists, and those with more evolutionary orientated leanings, would suggest that such fortuitous attachment arrangements are highly adaptive to environmental fitness and are necessary precursors to higher probability in survival. Upon such reasoning, British psychoanalyst John Bowlby attempted to explain why infants become attached to their primary caregivers and why they experience emotional distress when they are separated (Collins & Feeney, 2004). Influenced by the work of ethologist Lorenz, and also evolutionary theorist Charles Darwin, Bowlby formulated his theory of attachment (Westen et al., 2006). Based on principles identified by Lorenz and Darwin, Bowlby argued that infants were controlled by innate attachment systems that preserved the valuable evolutionary function of keeping infants in the close proximity of their caregivers. Bowlby’s Attachment Theory proposed that such behavioural and emotional predispositions granted protection from external threats (Bowlby, 1969, 1980; Simpson, 1990; Westen et al., 2006). Clearly, as an extension of this reasoning, those who attach successfully are more likely to survive. As such, we may employ similar logic in suggesting that those who survive are more likely to preserve and develop more elaborated versions of these primal attachment strategies.
To investigate such reasoning, Bowlby (1969) devised an attachment behavioural test system in which an infant would attempt to locate their caregiver; who was in some cases within proximal range. Bowlby’s (1969) earlier research suggested that if the infant could locate the care giver they would feel secure and if the infant could not locate the care giver they would experience distress. Bowlby (1969) understood that the attachment behavioural system would contain both normative processes and individual processes. Accordingly, normative processes would refer to the universal operation of attachment and adaptive functions including emotional and social components. Conversely, individual differences would refer to the specific ways in which the attachment system is active in different people and would recognizes that this is somewhat dependent upon past and present attachment experiences (Collins & Feeney, 2004). Bowlby (1969, 1980) established the normative outcome that, should the care giver be successfully detected, the infant in this case would experience security, love and sociability.
Extending upon Bowlby’s research claims, Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters and Wall (1978) investigated the attachment behavioural system in somewhat more depth. Ainsworth et al. (1978) created a design called the ‘strange situation’ where she and her colleagues could easily study infant and care giver attachment in a laboratory where the infants and their caregivers were methodically separated and then brought back together. Ainsworth et al. (1978) found that the majority of infants conducted themselves as per Bowlby’s normative theory and these infants were categorized as having a secure attachment style. The remainder of infants, however, were categorized as either anxious/ambivalent or avoidant. The secure style of attachment characterised those infants who effectively employed their caregiver as a support when distressed (. The anxious/ambivalent style of attachment described infants who amalgamated attachment behaviours with overt communication of disapproval toward their primary caregiver when distressed (Ainworth et al., 1978). Finally, according to Ainsworth et al. (1978), the avoidant style of attachment typified infants who avoided their caregiver and displayed signs of disinterest when distressed. Plainly, the work of Ainsworth et al. (1978), suggests there are at least three distinguishable attachment styles and response modalities utilized by infants in relation to their caregivers. The question is, are these styles sustainable and enduring enough to influence later adulthood attachment with significant others?
In adult research studies, it has been noted that adults demonstrate similar versions of infant attachment style. Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw’s (1988) as cited in Sternberg & Barnes, (1988) put forward that adults in romantic relationships long for physical immediacy, sense protection by their lover and undergo suffering if they are separated from their lover for a sizeable period. Those who model ‘secure’ type attachment tend to build mental models of themselves as affable and of good nature and, in relationships, view their significant other as having good intentions for them (Simpson, 1990). Those adults mirroring the ‘anxious/ambivalent’ style are more prone to develop self representations of being insecure and regularly worry that their romantic partner will fall short of commitment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson, 1990). For adults more closely resembling the ‘avoidant’ style, they tend to develop relationship models where they appear unconvinced and feeling nervous when a significant other becomes too close emotionally (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Simpson, 1990). So, the inquiry changes as to whether infant attachment and adult relationship styles are directionally and functionally dependent or, are they in fact mutually exclusive and independent of each other?
A study by Hazan and Shaver (1987) supported the notion that such differences in early infant social experience and attachment style, as derived by Ainsworth et al. (1978), may be recognized as directly linked to adult relationships. This further suggests that attachment styles forged upon early bonding with family can have substantial impacts on subsequent emotions and personality and consequently on those aspects specific to adult romantic love. This observation, however, remains consistent with Bowlby’s (1980) research which led him to hypothesise that human emotions are developed within the complexities of attachment relationships and will influence a persons behaviour and ongoing social development (Bowlby, 1979). Bowlby understood that internal working models were formed during infancy and, based on early social interactions, create a foundation for expectations in close relationships. He noted that these internal working models would continue to be present and manipulate social relations and mental conditions throughout the lifespan (Bowlby 1969; Feeney & Noller, 1990; Westen et al., 2006). Similarly, Hazan and Shaver (1987) concur that on the basis of commonalities between adult romantic relationships and infant-caregiver relationships that romantic love is a component of an overall attachment behavioural system.
The long lasting influence of internal working models has been supported by many ongoing longitudinal studies that have investigated the ways in which early attachment experiences impact the functioning of romantic relationships later on in life. Such studies include Simpson, Collins, Tran & Haydon (2007) who studied the cross generational effects of attachment relationships. Bowlby’s fundamental principal of attachment theory gives rise to the longitudinal study devised by Simpson et al. (2007). When four vital stages of development were assessed, Simpson et al. (2007) were able to find a significant connection in the portrayal of emotions between infant attachments and adult romantic relationships. The longitudinal results from Simpson et al. (2007) are noteworthy as they propose how a key attachment style is initiated in infancy and maintained to some extent throughout adulthood, but also interestingly, how it can change as adults enter new and different romantic relationships and developmental stages over the course of time. Simpson et al. conclude that early developmental stages will most likely form the greatest impact on the stages that directly follow them.
In conclusion, the research confirms there is a strong correlation between early attachment style and mature adult romantic love. To expect there is a directional effect whereby early attachment directly influences adult romantic attachment tendency is not only plausible, but highly likely as an artefact of continuity. Hence, there is indeed some substance to Bowlby’s claim that the effects of infant attachment style will remain with us from “the cradle to the grave” (1979 p.129). To what extent these tendencies are amenable to psychological change, will the subject of further enquiry.
References
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bateson, P. (1990). Konrad Lorenz (1903-1989). American Psychologist, 45, 65-66.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. London: Tavistock.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. London: Routledge
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). An attachment theory perspective on closeness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 165-167). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
deCatanzaro, D. (1999). Motivation and Emotion: Evolutionary, Physiological, Developmental, and Social Perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall (Pearson Education).
Feeney, J. & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,281-291.
Harlow, H. F. (1965). Total social isolation: Effects on Macaque monkey behaviour. Science, 148, 666.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
(1990). , 59, 971-980.
Simpson, J. A., Collins, W. A., Tran, S., & Haydon, K. C. (2007). Attachment and the experience and expression of emotions in adult romantic relationships: A developmental perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 355- 367.
Sternberg, R. J., & Barnes, M. (Eds.). (1988). Anatomy of love. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Westen, D., Burton, L., & Kowalski, R. (2006). Psychology: Australian and New Zealand Edition. Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons Australia.
