3.4.3.3 Attachment Styles

The first year of life is particularly important in respect of our attachment style, and studies have also shown how important the pre-birth phase of human growth is.

In fact, as time goes on – and as can be seen in this link – more and more attention is being given to the phase from conception to birth in respect of not only initial attachment but a wide range of experiences that we encounter throughout our lives. In this, it is posited that our experiences in the womb are repeated over and over again until they are resolved through therapeutic or other support. We will meet this phenomenon again when I discuss fractals.

But for now we will focus on attachment.

The four attachment styles, secure, insecure ambivalent, insecure avoidant, and insecure disorganised, which will be described in the next four posts are attributed to Mary Ainsworth and two other researchers Mary Main and Judith Solomon. The styles can sometimes change as we grow, depending on our life experiences.  For example someone who might be described as ambivalent during childhood can be described as secure when an adult.

Now I am aware that in breaking down what is an emotional journey into identifiable or discrete types or styles I run the risk of reducing what are primarily feeling phenomena into (almost) mathematical, measurable entities. So in a way my descriptions are analogous to the way that both sides of the brain develop in sympathy with each other – see this post.

Most studies posit the importance of the mother as a primary caregiver – and while I totally agree that mother is of high importance, I will use the word parents because I believe that both Mams and Dads are capable of providing love, warmth and consistent care. 

My beliefs in this regard are continually affirmed by the passion and interest, (given time and patience), that Dad in prison expresses to see his child prospering, and ensure that he or she does not end up like him and, in turn, the attachment that the child has to Dad.

Because my work is closely associated with the imprisonment experience I am acutely aware of the role of the single parent (usually, though not exclusively Mam) and all the nurturing and protecting that the single parent has to do, while the other parent is absent, very often due to imprisonment.  Yet, my experience (and intuition) informs me of the enormous benefit to the child of acknowledging her attachment to her very imperfect, probably much-given-out-about, Dad!

Most of the time people who fall in love and start a family are attracted to each other because one’s needs are met by the other’s. (For example, one’s need for care may be met by the other’s need to care). Total opposites might not attract but is true that the characteristics of one person complements the other’s, and the initial attraction is driven (or at least significantly influenced) by this complementarity of needs. (Of course, we may not be conscious of our needs at time of first meeting).

But because of this complementarity, from the point of view of the child, what Mam can provide is different to what Dad can provide, and vice versa. (And I am not just talking about gender based differences here). 

And while I cannot recall coming across it that much in literature that I have read, I believe (probably because I am so accustomed to thinking systemically) that the extended family has substantial influence in forming attachment styles and resultant patterns of behaviour throughout life.

So I include a remark, in each post, on what I believe to be the influence of the extended family in the descriptions in the following posts.

Secure is just what it says – secure! I propose that this is the most important style for us to know about because it is what we are aiming for in families and I will describe it below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If we are parents, secure attachment means that we react quickly (and appropriately) to our infants’ needs and we are generally responsive.  We also tend to play a lot with our children, and enjoy playing in general.  We tend to be content to be good enough as parents, in that we accept our imperfections.  If we (parents) are at our ease within, and/or are surrounded by, a loving, accepting extended family, it is obvious that it will optimise secure attachment among grandchildren, nieces, nephews etc.

An interesting aspect of secure attachment is that it gives us permission to be critical of our family (or indeed our homeland [1]) in a constructive way.  We may find it difficult to be critical if we are not.

If we are children, and we experience secure attachment, we tend to be more empathic with others’ needs, in particular during later stages of childhood.  We will generally mature and develop as expected and will display age appropriate responsibility.

Empathy is very important for development of positive, healthy and reciprocal relationships, and is linked to a child’s ability to mentalise. That is, imagine and/or predict what others might be thinking from observing things like facial expression, tone of voice etc., and ponder on the affect our own thinking is having on both ourselves and our environment.

(Just as an aside – studies have shown that in children that grow up in war zones, the trauma experienced by the child is ameliorated by the love and protection offered by parents and whether or not it is consistently available).

One indication of secure attachment is that (as children) we learn how to soothe ourselves when something goes against us.  This is resilience-in-action – bouncing back and trying again, keeping our protective layer flexible, there being less need to grow the rigid armour referred to in the post describing how we protect ourselves from trauma.

As adults, if we have experienced secure attachment in our home growing up, we tend to trust more, and be able to sustain the ups and downs of long-term relationships.  We also tend to have good enough self-esteem and enjoy intimacy in relationships.  We can seek out help and support if we need it, and have willingness to be honest about what we might perceive to be our shortcomings. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I think of secure attachment, I think of fertile soil where roots can grow deep and strong to ensure a sturdy and long-living tree, or a good foundation of a house, that will ensure that the house will remain standing.

And one of the reasons that I used the term root foundations in the Chapter on the Universal Theories Of Change is that secure attachment enables them to flourish.

[1]. This finding, on the surface, might lead one to believe that in Ireland we are, generally, securely attached and have a sense of belonging to our homeland, as we certainly do not appear to have a problem criticising our past. But, it appears to be far more difficult to be critical of the present – perhaps we (unconsciously) feel ashamed and guilty when we think of all we could be doing for vulnerable members of our society but, because of our economic choices, don’t. All the soul searching, enquiries, revelations etc. might in the long run be a good thing.  It can, however, bring a lot of shame and guilt which I believe we need to process as a country. Perhaps the processing will enable us, over time, to be (constructively) critical of the present as well as the past, which (as the saying goes) is a different country!

Ambivalence implies doubt, mixed feelings, or having difficulty making a choice. In the attachment context – it implies uncertainty about whether I will be loved or not. For example I might believe that if I try really hard all the time I’ll be up to the standard demanded of me, and only then will I deserve to be loved.

There are a lot of shoulds in ambivalent attachment. (Like, I should love my Dad but I’m angry with him all the time because he makes so many demands on me). The paragraphs below will shed some light on this ambivalence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With ambivalent attachment, if we are parents we tend to over-control, we doubt that our children will thrive without constant direction, and we are fearful about their growth, development and overall progress.  We might be inhibited about play – perhaps deeming it to be a waste of valuable time, and focus on what we should be doing as parents.

We strive for perfection, and may be critical of our own performance.  We tend to blame someone if something goes wrong and we may take life very seriously.  It is likely that supply of love in our extended family is conditional on who behaves in what way, and some members may be in conflict with others over historical issues that never seem to be resolved. 

If we are children in ambivalently attached situations we tend to be infants who are fearful about exploring, be in distress about minor matters, and more anxious and suspicious of strangers.  When we are older we might be clingy and find it hard to be independent.  We may worry about exams and never being good enough, and (perhaps) work very hard but find it hard to concentrate or absorb material.

As adults in this category we can experience difficulties in relationships and though dutiful and loyal, find it hard to be close to others.  If we break up it will involve blame mixed with being not good enough. We may be distraught with ending of relationships, partially because of our sense of failure. We may worry a lot about our job, getting it right, who’s being promoted, who’s not, disciplinary matters etc.

Avoidant implies just what is says – parents avoid close contact.

It is different to the ambivalent (described in the previous post) where parents may be demanding, strict or harsh disciplinarians, but at least children know that they are interested in them and emotionally involved.

In avoidance, intimate contact is avoided and emotional matters are kept at a distance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In avoidant attachment, as parents, we find it difficult to meet our children’s needs – we are simply too needy ourselves.  Unwittingly, our behaviour may be rejecting of our children, or we may sometimes (usually unintentionally) ignore our children.  These patterns probably run through the extended family also.  While some members of our extended family may be very needy there are always those who are strong and resilient, and can see the harm that the overall level of neediness is doing.  (These could be the wise and strong people referenced in this post when describing the Focus Group).

If we are children who are avoidant and/or insecure we grow up avoiding intimacy and relationship, even with our own parents or carers.  Because we do not feel accepted or that our parents are genuinely interested in us, we might not seek out our parents’ love or comfort if we are in distress – this is the avoidance bit.  (This theme will be touched on again in Section Three in the Chapter on Symmetry).  We may also be indifferent as to whether it is a parent or a stranger meets our needs.

As adults we might find intimacy and close relationships problematic.  We may feel that we are investing a lot and getting little return. As we find sharing feelings and thoughts difficult, how-it-looks-to-the-world can be as important in sustaining a relationship as the depth of the feelings.

Disorganised, (also called disoriented) in attachment theory, is, sadly, a term that I associate with many children growing up in families that are in the Focus Group.

As such it is important that anyone with ambition to support families affected by imprisonment has an understanding of the term and its implications.

My own opinion is that while children, as they grow to mature adults, can make sense of and even rationalise (what I described in previous posts) as ambivalent and avoidant attachment, it is far more difficult for children who experience disorganised attachment to do so.

Unlike children who experience secure attachment, they may find empathy difficult. One of the reasons for this is that their ability to mentalise is impaired. That is, guessing what others – including their own parents – are feeling or thinking.

A not uncommon manifestation of disorganised attachment is a rage, or disintegration, (reminiscent of a tantrum that a three year old might have) that the vast majority of the population have no appreciation or understanding of – as they rarely if ever experience it themselves in their adult lives.

These difficulties have implications for the type of modality that we choose when supporting people who grew up, or are growing up in such situations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With disorganised attachment we parents might display very inconsistent behaviour in general.  We may be very angry (and/or violent) one minute and display great love the next, with no rational explanation or apparent reason for the sudden switch.

Certain members of the extended family may be feared and obedience, authority etc. is garnered through fear and strength rather than genuine respect.

As children we never know what to expect and can experience both love and fear and everything in between but have no way to figure out a reason why.  This causes us to be confused and apprehensive, leading to an overall sense of deep insecurity.  We can avoid relationships, or resist affection and feel that we do not deserve it. 

Sometimes we appear distant but paradoxically it also causes us to seek closeness, a kind of extreme clinginess.  This is the only way that we can feel safe – as it is too risky to venture too far from the caregiver for too long.  Also, we might have grown up having to be on high alert all the time.

And we never learn to soothe our pain because we are too pre-occupied being on high alert.  (More about this in posts 3.4.3.4 and 3.4.3.5).

Because we have never learned to soothe our own pain, rather than being open and honest and willing to ask for help we expect others to sense that we are in pain and soothe it for us. But the trouble with this is that others often get it wrong!

John Bowlby proposed that we can have different forms of attachment to different family members and even though attachment might be disorganised with parents it can be secure in respect of others in our life – which – obviously, is a protective factor for us.  (In this, I have come across children that, on the surface, do not appear to have what could be described as secure attachment with anyone – and discovering those to whom they are attached takes time and patience).

As adults we can feel unloved and undeserving of love with roller-coaster kinds of relationships.  We may be totally apathetic on one hand and demand great love on the other.  We can be very difficult to live with as we are usually very demanding, emotionally. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I think of insecure disorganised attachment, I think of a house built on soft or swampy soil with insufficient pile-driving done to ensure stability, or (in the living world) a tree growing in sandy or gravelly soil where roots are thin and stunted, placing the very viability of the growing tree at risk.

Now we come to a discussion, or an exploration, that makes (I believe anyway) this website a little different to other publications.

Most books, articles etc. that describe attachment focus on hurt children from families that are deemed to have problems, are dysfunctional, and/or have parents who are very needy – like, for example, children in families in the Focus Group.

Just to recap, here are brief descriptions of the different forms of attachment:

1. Secure Attachment:
Comfortable with closeness, playfulness; being ‘at ease’ in relationships is seen as natural.

2. Insecure Ambivalent Attachment:
Some doubt about whether one deserves love, i.e. love may be conditional, person is aware of implications of this and may work on difficulties through the life-course.

3. Insecure Avoidant Attachment:
Avoids closeness in relationship; intimacy may be problematic. Perfectionism is seen as important and playfulness is risky.

4. Disorganised Attachment:
Intimacy may be associated with violence or abuse; adult behaviour often has a clear self-destruct pattern.

I have described how insecure attachment of the types in the previous posts – particularly the disorganised type – affects individuals and families in the Focus Group. It can lead to oppositional, self-destructive behaviour, lack of trust and hope, tendency to demand instant gratification, and lack of ability to form warm, long-term, trusting relationships in adult life. It also leads to what is known as the trauma bond, where someone who engages in harmful, self-destructive behaviour chooses another of the same type; even though the relationship is – to every outside observer – a disaster.

The general belief is that children who grow up in families that display the most extreme form of insecure attachment (disorganised) in addition to having poor physical and mental health, may cause ordinary people all sorts of problems (in particular crime, but also dependency, illness etc.) costing the state a fortune.

So much for the Focus Group, but what about those who are of most influence of society – the Pillars?

I propose that, in general, organisations within the Pillars fall somewhere between ambivalent and avoidant attachment.

This is evident in organisations’ lack of trust in people, their risk aversion, their striving for perfection and obsession with shoulds, competition and comparison, lack of playfulness and (particularly in respect of the Focus Group), the avoidance of genuine contact and dialogue, their wariness of idealism, and in some cases even people being at ease with each other.

And remember the post on trauma, creativity and logic? Almost always – in my experience anyway – spontaneity, creativity, or passion are met by stifling amounts of institutional logic and rationality. This speaks volumes about the balanced development of left-brain and right-brain thinking within the Pillars……. and their willingness to allow the root foundations to flourish.

And of course, it follows that if the Pillars in general display avoidant and ambivalent attachment it is because a critical mass of people working within them are that way. This further implies that such styles have prominence in our hugely influential mainstream education system – in which almost all staff in the Pillars have spent 15 to 18 years.

In a later Chapter I mention the desirability of modelling what we want in families in our organisations.  One of the reasons why I describe attachment theory in some depth and include this post is that I believe that it has significant relevance for what practitioners in the caring professions within the Pillars might aspire to.

The reason for this is – of course – that caring involves contact, warmth and at ease relationships – the stuff of secure attachment.

NOTE: Further reading on the Strange Situation experiments by Mary Ainsworth is recommended for interested readers, where she separated infants from care-givers and then assessed how easily they settled down again on reuniting.  Those with disorganised attachment style had far more difficulty than any others, were confused and had no pattern of attachment. 

To conclude, after the descriptions of ambivalent, avoidant and disorganised attachment, I feel like adding a sentence like ‘if you have been affected by the issues’ etc. and giving a helpline!

If you are upset after reading them, and/or see your history (or your family history) in the more negative styles, do not be too put out. We’d all wish that our families were perfect, but they weren’t – all families have elements of dysfunction. If they were perfect they’d be boring.

And anyway this website is about hope – not despair. Healing can take place at any time and place during the life stages – people who experienced the more problematic styles in their childhoods are not predestined to have problems all their lives.

And children are very good at compensating for deficits in their families – I believe that every individual in the world who was ever born had or has to do this.

Also, don’t forget, you are attracted enough to the subject to read about it – so you are obviously interested in further growth and development.

Otherwise you probably wouldn’t be reading about it at all!