User:BillyBlueJay/Sandbox

Interpersonal Attraction

Avoidant Attachment Style

The attachment styles are reflective of the original study that focused on child participants and their primary caregivers, mostly mothers, analyzing the reaction of the child when separated from the caretaker (Ainsworth et. al., 1978). Hazan and Shaver (1987) tested the attachment styles later in life and found results similar to the original study. There are three main attachment styles in this theory that pertain to romantic love, the avoidant attachment style being one of the two categories that apply to a smaller portion of the population. The avoidant attachment style is characterized by a fear of intimacy and feelings that true love is rare to find. Only roughly 20% of the population can fall into this attachment style category. Currently, there are no sex differences in attachment style affiliation, especially important because the avoidant attachment style seems expected of men where the anxious-ambivalent attachment style seems expected of women. Those who consider themselves to have an avoidant attachment style reported higher levels of mistrust of and distance from others, more fear of intimacy, emotional highs and lows, and higher levels of jealousy. In addition, the avoidant group was more likely to report never having been in love, having less intense love experiences, and not being in love at the time of the study. Though the avoidant group had relationships that did not last as long as the secure group, the anxious-ambivalent category had the shortest relationships of the three attachment styles. In addition, those in the avoidant group were more likely to rate their mother as cold or rejecting (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Different attachment styles may affect how a person views love, including the costs and rewards of relationships, which may make relationships a reflection of the views held. The people in the avoidant category had lower scores on the "Loving and Romantic Love Ideal scales" and the "Avoidance of Intimacy scale", with the biggest characteristic of this category being their avoidance of intimacy in romantic relationships. "Ludus" style of love, or "game-playing" love was the highest-scored version of love for those in the avoidant attachment style, indicating that these people avoid intimacy in a relationship (Feeney & Noller 1990).

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

Lyddon, W. J., Bradford, E., & Nelson, J. P. (1993). Assessing adolescent and adult attachment: A review of current self-report measures. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71(4), 390-395. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

My Thoughts: The article focused on checking the validity and reliability of self-report measures that are used in determining attachment styles in adulthood, specifically the measures used by Hazan and Shafer in their study that initially defined the framework for this extension into adulthood. Looking at the scores of participants across different samples, Lyddon, Bradford, and Nelson (1993) concluded that the measurements were reliable and valid, but that the terminology and ways of choosing measures should reflect the purpose of the psychologist; in either a research or clinical setting, the appropriate measures and uses of the results may have different implications and call for different methods.

Waters, E., Crowell, J., Elliott, M., Corcoran, D., & Treboux, D. (2002). Bowlby's secure base theory and the social/personality psychology of attachment styles: Work(s) in progress. Attachment & Human Development, 4(2), 230-242. doi:10.1080/14616730210154216

My thoughts: The article looked at different classifications of terminology and explanation used in the attachment styles as applied to adulthood relationships. Specifically, the authors looked at describing attachment as either a trait or a style, depending upon the definitions applied. Also, the article looked into the history of attachment styles and the roots of the movement. Lastly, this article focused more on the results produced by certain methods than putting too much emphasis on the specific measurements used in research.

Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment Styles

Attachment styles are observed when a child is temporarily separated from their caregiver, and their reactions are assessed. Children who develop an ambivalent attachment style (AAS) tend to have caregivers who aren't very sensitive to their need for security and physical proximity. These caregivers usually respond to ambivalent children inconsistently; sometimes the caregiver ignores the child (negative response) and sometimes the caregivers are dependable sources of security (postive response). As a result, ambivalent children usually seek closeness with their caregiver while simultaneously displaying discomfort and even anger in stressful situations (ex: clinging insistently while crying). Because the child’s distress signals are met with inconsistent responses from the caregiver, the child learns that negative emotions are ineffective for eliciting responses, and tend to exaggerate negative emotions--especially with the attachment figure (Fuller, 1995). AAS are characterized by infants being extremely aware and wary of threats such as illness, fear, or separation, to their relationship or their self. Ambivalent people are usually insecure, and want more intimacy than most people.

Once the ambivalent child creates an internal working model based on how their caregivers treated them, the child uses this model as a basis of defining themselves, and to interpret the goals and intentions of each person they are romantically involved with. Therefore, the internal working model regulates their attachment behavioral system, causing children to act accordingly to their parents. So with anxious ambivalent children, when their parent is cold, rejecting, unpredictable, frightening, or insensitive, the anxious-ambivalent child learns that others cannot be counted on for support and comfort, and he or she regulates her behavior to excessively demand attention and care (Maio et al, 2000).

In romantic relationships, the partner is essentially the secure base/caregiver used as a source of safety, comfort, and protection. Ambivalent adults want close relationships, but because they fear rejection, they will seek extreme forms of intimacy to the point that they become very dependent on their partner (McCarthy, 1999), and respond to stressful situations within the relationship the same way they did as children in stressful situations. They experience more negative affect in their relationships than those who were securely attached to their caregivers as kids. Negative affects include experiencing more extreme jealousy and sexual attraction, obsession, and desire for their partner to reiprocate their feelings and to be united with their partner (Hazan and Shaver, 1987). Ambivalent adults develop models of themselves as being misunderstood and underappreciated, and of significant others as being typically unreliable and either unwilling or unable to commit themselves to permanent relationships. AAS are usually correlated with the mania love style, which is known as the possessive, dependent love, and was negatively related to positive relationship characteristics, except for passion (Feeney and Noller, 1990).