essays on child attachment theory

What is Attachment Theory? Bowlby’s 4 Stages Explained

No matter what the “it” refers to, Sigmund Freud would have probably said yes to that question.

However, we now know a lot more about psychology, parenting, and human relationships than Freud did.

It’s clear now that not every issue can be traced back to one’s mother. After all, there is another person involved in the raising (or at least the creation) of a child.

In addition, there are many other important people in a child’s life who influence him or her. There are siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, godparents, close family friends, nannies, daycare workers, teachers, peers, and others who interact with a child on a regular basis.

The question posed above is tongue-in-cheek, but it touches upon an important discussion in psychology—what influences children to turn out the way they do? What affects their ability to form meaningful, satisfying relationships with those around them?

What factors contribute to their experiences of anxiety, avoidance, and fulfillment when it comes to relationships?

Although psychologists can pretty conclusively say that it’s not entirely the mother’s fault or even the fault of both parents, we know that a child’s early experiences with their parents have a profound impact on their relationship skills as adults.

Much of the knowledge we have on this subject today comes from a concept developed in the 1950s called attachment theory . This theory will be the focus of this article: We’ll explore what it is, how it describes and explains behavior, and what its applications are in the real world.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Relationships Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help you or your clients build healthy, life-enriching relationships.

This Article Contains:

What is attachment theory a definition, research and studies, erik erikson, attachment theory in babies, infants, and early childhood development, attachment theory in adults: close relationships, parenting, love, and divorce, attachment theory in grief and trauma, the attachment theory test, using attachment theory in the classroom (worksheet and pdf), attachment theory in social work, criticisms of attachment theory, recommended books, articles, and essays, a take-home message.

The psychological theory of attachment was first described by John Bowlby, a psychoanalyst who researched the effects of separation between infants and their parents (Fraley, 2010).

Bowlby hypothesized that the extreme behaviors infants engage in to avoid separation from a parent or when reconnecting with a physically separated parent—like crying, screaming, and clinging—were evolutionary mechanisms. Bowlby thought these behaviors had possibly been reinforced through natural selection and enhanced the child’s chances of survival.

These attachment behaviors are instinctive responses to the perceived threat of losing the survival advantages that accompany being cared for and attended to by the primary caregiver(s). Since the infants who engaged in these behaviors were more likely to survive, the instincts were naturally selected and reinforced over generations.

These behaviors make up what Bowlby termed an “attachment behavioral system,” the system that guides us in our patterns and habits of forming and maintaining relationships (Fraley, 2010).

Research on Bowlby’s theory of attachment showed that infants placed in an unfamiliar situation and separated from their parents will generally react in one of these ways upon reunion with the parents:

• Secure attachment: These infants showed distress upon separation but sought comfort and were easily comforted when the parents returned;
• Anxious-resistant attachment: A smaller portion of infants experienced greater levels of distress and, upon reuniting with the parents, seemed both to seek comfort and to attempt to “punish” the parents for leaving.
• Avoidant attachment: Infants in the third category showed no stress or minimal stress upon separation from the parents and either ignored the parents upon reuniting or actively avoided the parents (Fraley, 2010).
• In later years, researchers added a fourth attachment style to this list: the disorganized-disoriented attachment style, which refers to children who have no predictable pattern of attachment behaviors (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004).

It makes intuitive sense that a child’s attachment style is largely a function of the caregiving the child receives in his or her early years. Those who received support and love from their caregivers are likely to be secure, while those who experienced inconsistency or negligence from their caregivers are likely to feel more anxiety surrounding their relationship with their parents.

However, attachment theory takes it one step further, applying what we know about attachment in children to relationships we engage in as adults. These relationships (particularly intimate and/or romantic relationships) are also directly related to our attachment styles as children and the care we received from our primary caregivers (Firestone, 2013).

The development of this theory gives us an interesting look into the study of child development.

Bowlby and Ainsworth: The History and Psychology of Attachment Theory

Bowlby’s interest in child development traces back to his first experiences out of college, in which he volunteered at a school for maladjusted children. According to Bowlby, two children sparked his curiosity and drive that laid the foundations of attachment theory.

There was an isolated and distant teenager who had no stable mother figure in his life and had recently been expelled from his school for stealing, and an anxious 7- or 8-year-old boy who followed Bowlby wherever he went, earning himself a reputation as Bowlby’s “shadow” (Bretherton, 1992).

Through his work with children, Bowlby developed a strong belief in the impact of family experiences on children’s emotional and behavioral wellbeing .

Early on in his career, Bowlby proposed that psychoanalysts working with children should take a holistic perspective, considering children’s living environments, families, and other experiences in addition to any behaviors exhibited by the children themselves.

This idea grew into a strategy of helping children by helping their parents, a generally effective strategy given the importance of the child’s relationships with their parents (or other caregivers).

At roughly the same time Bowlby was creating the foundations for his theory on attachment, Mary Ainsworth was finishing her graduate degree and studying security theory, which proposed that children need to develop a secure dependence on their parents before venturing out into unfamiliar situations.

In 1950, the two crossed paths when Ainsworth took a position in Bowlby’s research unit at the Tavistock Clinic in London. Her initial responsibilities included analyzing records of children’s behavior, which inspired her to conduct her own studies on children in their natural settings.

Through several papers, numerous research studies, and theories that were discarded, altered, or combined, Bowlby and Ainsworth developed and provided evidence for attachment theory.

Theirs was a more rigorous explanation and description of attachment behavior than any others on the topic at the time, including those that had grown out of Freud’s work and those that were developed in direct opposition to Freud’s ideas (Bretherton, 1992).

There were several groundbreaking studies that contributed to the development of attachment theory or provided evidence for its validity, including the study described earlier in which infants were separated from their primary caregivers and their behavior was observed to fall into a “style” of attachment.

Further findings on emotional attachment came from a surprising place: rhesus monkeys.

The Harlow Experiments

His work showed that motherly love was emotional rather than physiological, that the capacity for attachment is heavily dependent upon experiences in early childhood, and that this capacity was unlikely to change much after it was “set” (Herman, 2012).

Harlow discovered these interesting findings by conducting two groundbreaking experiments.

In the first experiment, Harlow separated infant monkeys from their mothers a few hours after birth. Each monkey was instead raised by two inanimate surrogate “mothers.” Both provided the infant monkeys with the milk they needed to survive, but one was made out of wire mesh while the other was wire mesh covered with soft terry cloth.

The monkeys who were given the freedom to choose which mother to associate with almost always chose to take milk from the terry cloth “mother.” This finding showed that infant attachment is not simply a matter of where they get their milk—other factors are at play.

For his second experiment, Harlow modified his original setup. The monkeys were given either the bare wire mesh surrogate mother or the terry cloth mother, both of which provided the milk the monkeys needed to grow.

Both groups of monkeys survived and thrived physically, but they displayed extremely different behavioral tendencies. Those with a terry cloth mother returned to the surrogate when presented with strange, loud objects, while those with a wire mesh mother would throw themselves to the floor, clutch themselves, rock back and forth, or even “scream in terror.”

This provided a clear indication that emotional attachment in infancy, gained through cuddling, affected the monkey’s later responses to stress and emotion regulation (Herman, 2012).

These two experiments laid the foundations for further work on attachment in children and the impacts of attachment experiences in later life.

Erikson’s work was based on Freud’s original personality theories and drew from his idea of the ego. However, Erikson placed more importance on context from culture and society than on Freud’s focus on the conflict between the id and the superego.

In addition, his stages of development are based on how children socialize and how it affects their sense of self rather than on sexual development.

The eight stages of psychosocial development according to Erikson are:

• Infancy—Trust vs. Mistrust : In this stage, infants require a great deal of attention and comfort from their parents, leading them to develop their first sense of trust (or, in some cases, mistrust);
• Early Childhood—Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt : Toddlers and very young children are beginning to assert their independence and develop their unique personality, making tantrums and defiance common;
• Preschool Years—Initiative vs. Guilt : Children at this stage begin learning about social roles and norms. Their imagination will take off at this point, and the defiance and tantrums of the previous stage will likely continue. The way trusted adults interact with the child will encourage him or her to act independently or to develop a sense of guilt about any inappropriate actions;
• School Age—Industry (Competence) vs. Inferiority : At this stage, the child is building important relationships with peers and is likely beginning to feel the pressure of academic performance. Mental health issues may begin at this stage, including depression, anxiety, ADHD, and other problems.
• Adolescence—Identity vs. Role Confusion : The adolescent is reaching new heights of independence and is beginning to experiment and put together his or her identity. Problems with communication and sudden emotional and physical changes are common at this stage (Wells, Sueskind, & Alcamo, 2017).
• Young Adulthood—Intimacy vs. Isolation : At this stage (ages 18-40, approximately), the individual will begin sharing with others more, including people outside o the family. If the individual is successful in this stage of development, he or she will build satisfying relationships that have a sense of commitment, safety, and care; if not, they may fear commitment and experience isolation, loneliness, and depression (McLeod, 2017).
• Middle Adulthood—Generativity vs. Stagnation : In the penultimate stage (ages 40-65, approximately), the individual is likely established in his or her career, relationship, and family. If the individual is not established and contributing to society, he or she may feel stagnant and unproductive.
• Late Adulthood—Ego Integrity vs. Despair : Finally, late adulthood (ages 65 and above) usually brings reduced productivity, which can either be embraced as a reward for one’s contributions or be met with guilt or dissatisfaction. Successfully navigating this stage will protect the individual from feeling depressed or hopeless, and help the individual cultivate wisdom (McLeod, 2017).

Although it does not map completely onto attachment theory, Erikson’s findings are clearly related to the attachment styles and behaviors Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Harlow identified.

John Bowlby – Attachment Theory – Diana Simon Psihoterapeut

According to Bowlby and Ainsworth, attachments with the primary caregiver develop during the first 18 months or so of the child’s life, starting with instinctual behaviors like crying and clinging (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004). These behaviors are quickly directed at one or a few caregivers in particular, and by 7 or 8 months old, children usually start protesting against the caregiver(s) leaving and grieve for their absence.

Once children reach the toddler stage, they begin forming an internal working model of their attachment relationships. This internal working model provides the framework for the child’s beliefs about their own self-worth and how much they can depend on others to meet their needs.

In Bowlby and Ainsworth’s view, the attachment styles that children form based on their early interactions with caregivers form a continuum of emotion regulation, with anxious-avoidant attachment at one end and anxious-resistant at the other.

Secure attachment falls at the midpoint of this spectrum, between overly organized strategies for controlling and minimizing emotions and the uncontrolled, disorganized, and ineffectively managed emotions.

The most recently added classification, disorganized-disoriented, may display strategies and behaviors from all across the spectrum, but generally, they are not effective in controlling their emotions and may have outbursts of anger or aggression (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004).

Research has shown that there are many behaviors in addition to emotion regulation that relates to a child’s attachment style. Among other findings, there is evidence of the following connections:

• Secure Attachment: These children are generally more likely to see others as supportive and helpful and themselves as competent and worthy of respect. They relate positively to others and display resilience, engage in complex play and are more successful in the classroom and in interactions with other children. They are better at taking the perspectives of others and have more trust in others;
• Anxious-Avoidant Attachment : Children with an anxious-avoidant attachment style are generally less effective in managing stressful situations. They are likely to withdraw and resist seeking help, which inhibits them from forming satisfying relationships with others . They show more aggression and antisocial behavior, like lying and bullying, and they tend to distance themselves from others to reduce emotional stress;
• Anxious-Resistant Attachment : These children are on the opposite end of the spectrum from anxious-avoidant children. They likely lack self-confidence and stick close to their primary caregivers. They may display exaggerated emotional reactions and keep their distance from their peers, leading to social isolation.
• Disorganized Attachment : Children with a disorganized attachment style usually fail to develop an organized strategy for coping with separation distress, and tend to display aggression, disruptive behaviors, and social isolation. They are more likely to see others as threats than sources of support, and thus may switch between social withdrawal and defensively aggressive behavior (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2004).

It is easy to see from these descriptions of behaviors and emotion regulation how attachment style in childhood can lead to relationship problems in adulthood.

Attachment styles are primarily discussed in the context of our childhood and upbringing.

In the early stages of development, children develop different attachment patterns to their parents or caregiver. These attachment styles can be predictive of how children grow up. For example, anxious or avoidant attachment styles are often powerful predictors for psychopathology or maladjustment development in the later stages of life (Benoit, 2004).

On the contrary, children with secure attachment styles to their parents are also more likely to have secure attachments to their romantic partners. This being said, attachment styles from childhood play a significant role in all the relationships you will encounter.

From this image, you may notice that the secure attachment style is the only one with a “positive” connotation, whereas the other attachment styles seem to have more unfavorable consequences.

If you recognize yourself as displaying one of the more maladaptive attachment styles, don’t fret because this is 1. very common and 2. not set in stone. For example, if you identify with the fearful-avoidant attachment style, you may see that trust seems to be the biggest issue.

The purpose of this image is not to make you feel ashamed about having a particular attachment style, but the opposite. By accepting and embracing your weaknesses, you allow yourself to grow.

Indeed, it is clear how these attachment styles in childhood lead to attachment types in adulthood. Below is an explanation of the four attachment types in adult relationships.

Examples: The Types, Styles, and Stages (Secure, Avoidant, Ambivalent, and Disorganized)

The adult attachment styles follow the same general pattern described above (Firestone, 2013):

Secure Attachment

These adults are more likely to be satisfied with their relationships, feeling secure and connected to their partners without feeling the need to be together all the time. Their relationships are likely to feature honesty , support, independence, and deep emotional connections.

Dismissive-Avoidant (or Anxious-Avoidant) Attachment

One of the two types of adult avoidant attachments, people with this attachment style generally keep their distance from others. They may feel that they don’t need human connection to survive or thrive, and insist on maintaining their independence and isolation from others.

These individuals are often able to “shut down” emotionally when a potentially hurtful scenario arises, such as a serious argument with their partner or a threat to the continuance of their relationship.

Anxious-Preoccupied (or Anxious-Resistant) Attachment

Those who form less secure bonds with their partners may feel desperate for love or affection and feel that their partner must “complete” them or fix their problems.

While they long for safety and security in their romantic relationships, they may also be acting in ways that push their partner away rather than invite them in. The behavioral manifestations of their fears can include being clingy, demanding, jealous, or easily upset by small issues.

Fearful-Avoidant (or Disorganized) Attachment:

The second type of adult avoidant attachment manifests as ambivalence rather than isolation. People with this attachment style generally try to avoid their feelings because it is easy to get overwhelmed by them. They may suffer from unpredictable or abrupt mood swings and fear getting hurt by a romantic partner.

These individuals are simultaneously drawn to a partner or potential partner and fearful of getting to close. Unsurprisingly, this style makes it difficult to form and maintain meaningful, healthy relationships with others.

Each of these styles should be thought of as a continuum of attachment behaviors, rather than a specific “type” of person. Someone with a generally secure attachment style may on occasion display behaviors more suited to the other types, or someone with a dismissive-avoidant style may form a secure bond with a particular person.

Therefore, these “types” should be considered a way to describe and understand an individual’s behavior rather than an exact description of someone’s personality.

Based on a person’s attachment style, the way he or she approaches intimate relationships, marriage, and parenting can vary widely.

The number of ways in which this theory can be applied or used to explain behavior is compounded and expanded by the fact that relationships require two (or more) people; any attachment behaviors that an individual displays will impact and be influenced by the attachment behaviors of other people.

Given the huge variety of individuals, behaviors, and relationships, it is not surprising that there is so much conflict and confusion.

It is also not surprising, although no less unfortunate, that many relationships end up in divorce or dissolution, an event that may continue an unhealthy cycle of attachment in the children of these unions.

Download 3 Free Positive Relationships Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients to build healthy, life-enriching relationships.

Download 3 Positive Relationships Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

• Email Address *
• Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Speaking of unfortunate situations, attachment theory also has applications in the understanding of the  grief and trauma associated with loss.

Although you may be most familiar with Kübler-Ross’s Five Stages of Grief, they were preceded by Bowlby’s Four Stages. During Bowlby’s work on attachment, he and his colleague Colin Murray Parkes noticed four stages of grief:

• Shock and Numbness: In this initial phase, the bereaved may feel that the loss is not real, or that it is simply impossible to accept. He or she may experience physical distress and will be unable to understand and communicate his or her emotions.
• Yearning and Searching: In this phase, the bereaved is very aware of the void in his or her life and may try to fill that void with something or someone else. He or she still identifies strongly and may be preoccupied with the deceased.
• Despair and Disorganization: The bereaved now accepts that things have changed and cannot go back to the way they were before. He or she may also experience despair, hopelessness, and anger, as well as questioning and an intense focus on making sense of the situation. He or she might withdraw from others in this phase.
• Reorganization and Recovery: In the final phase, the bereaved person’s faith in life may start to come back. He or she will start to rebuild and establish new goals, new patterns, and new habits in life. The bereaved will begin to trust again, and grief will recede to the back of his or her mind instead of staying front and center (Williams & Haley, 2017).

Of course, one’s attachment style will influence how grief is experienced as well. For example, someone who is secure may move through the stages fairly quickly or skip some altogether, while someone who is anxious or avoidant may get stuck on one of the stages.

We all experience grief differently, but viewing these experiences through the lens of attachment theory can bring new perspective and insight into our unique grieving processes and why some of us get “stuck” after a loss.

If you’re interested in learning about your attachment style, there are many tests, scales, and questionnaires out available for you to take.

Feeny, Noller, and Hanrahan developed the Original Attachment Three-Category Measure in 1987 to test respondents’ adult attachment style. It contains only three items and is very simple, but it can still give you a good idea of which category you fall into: avoidant, anxious/ambivalent, or secure. You can complete the measure yourself or read more about it on page 3 of  this PDF .

Bartholomew and Horowitz’s Relationships Questionnaire added to The Three-Category Measure by expanding it to include the dismissive-avoidant category. You can find it on the same PDF as the Three-Category Measure, starting on page 3.

Fraley, Waller, and Brennan’s Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire-Revised (ECR-R) is a 32-item questionnaire that gives results measured by two subscales related to attachment: avoidance and anxiety (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000). Items are rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). You can find this questionnaire on the final three pages of the PDF mentioned above.

In addition to these scales, there are several less rigorous attachment style tests that can help you learn about your own style of connecting with others. These aren’t instruments often used in empirical research, but they can be helpful tools for learning more about yourself and your attachment style.

Diane Poole Heller developed an Attachment Styles Test, which contains 45 items rated on a three-point scale from “Rarely/Never” to “Usually/Often.” You can find it here , although after completing it you must enter an email to receive your results.

The Relationship Attachment Style Test is a 50-item test hosted on Psychology Today’s website. It covers the four attachment types noted earlier (Secure, Anxious-Ambivalent, Dismissive-Avoidant, Fearful-Avoidant) as well as Dependent and Codependent attachment styles .

If you are interested in taking this test, you can find it at this link . However, be aware that while you receive a free “snapshot report” at the end, you will need to pay to see your full results.

One of the ways in which the principles and concepts of attachment theory have been effectively applied to teaching is the practice of emotion coaching.

Emotion coaching is about helping children to become aware of their emotions and to manage their own feelings particularly during instances of ‘misbehavior.’ It enables practitioners to create an ethos of positive learning behavior and to have the confidence to de-escalate situations when behavior is challenging” (National College for Teaching and Leadership, 2014).

Emotion coaching is more about supporting children in learning about and regulating their own emotions and behavior than it is about “coaching” in the traditional sense. In emotion coaching, teachers are not required—or even encouraged—to promote proper behavior through rewards or punishments.

Instead, emotion coaching involves:

• Teaching students about the world of “in the moment” emotion;
• Showing students strategies for dealing with emotional ups and downs;
• Empathizing with and accepting negative or unpleasant emotions as normal, but not accepting negative behavior;
• Using moments of challenging behavior as opportunities for teaching;
• Building trusting and respectful relationships with the students (National College for Teaching and Leadership, 2014).

According to attachment theory expert Dr. John Gottman, there are five steps to emotion coaching, and they can be practiced by parents, teachers, or any significant adult in a child’s life:

• Tune in: Notice or become aware of your own and the child’s emotions. Make sure you are calm enough to practice emotion coaching, otherwise, you might want to give both of you a quick breather;
• Connect: Use this situation as an opportunity for you to practice and for the child to learn. State objectively (This is important!) what emotions you think the child is experiencing to help them connect their emotions to their behavior;
• Accept and Listen: Practice empathy. Put yourself in the child’s shoes, think about a situation when you felt a similar emotion, and try to remember what it felt like;
• Reflect: Once everyone is calm, go back over what the child said or did, mentioning only what you saw, heard, or understand of the situation. Reflect on what happened and why it happened;
• End with Problem Solving/Choices/Setting Limits: Whenever possible, try to end the situation by guiding or involving the child in problem-solving (Somerset Children & Young People, n.d.).

To learn more about emotion coaching and improve your skills as a parent or teacher, try the following activity.

What Would an Emotion Coach Do?

This short, two-page activity from the Somerset Emotion Coaching Project can help you enhance your understanding of what emotion coaching is—and what it is not.

There are five scenarios presented along with six potential responses. Your task is to read the scenario and decide which response(s) is/are the appropriate emotion coaching response(s).

The first scenario is: “Angry pupil over not wanting to attend a compulsory revision session.”

Your options include:

• Get cross with the pupil for the bad behavior;
• Tell the pupil they will have to complete an extra session due to the bad behavior;
• Help the pupil to think about what they can do about the problem;
• Tell the pupil not to make a big deal about staying after school;
• Validate the pupil’s expression of anger and frustration;
• Soothe the pupil.

This is an excellent activity to do in groups, as you can discuss each option with others and hear different perspectives from your own. In addition to identifying the emotion coaching response(s), you can also discuss which options are dismissive, avoidant, etc.

You can see the rest of the scenarios and try your hand at this activity by clicking here (an automatic download will start when you click on the link).

Emotion Coaching Scripts

Another great resource from the Somerset Emotion Coaching Project, this activity gives you a chance to practice brainstorming emotion coaching-appropriate responses.

As an added bonus, you can use the scripts you develop to guide you the next time you encounter a situation like those described.

There are six scenarios which you are instructed to create a script for:

• A pupil arrives late to class. She refuses to communicate with you and says “Don’t even start, just leave me alone”;
• A young person refuses to sit by her usual friends at a youth center and says that they have been saying unkind comments about her size;
• A boy regularly fails to complete work independently and will often sit passively and contribute little. He rarely presents with disruptive behavior but simply completes very little work. He appears isolated from his peers;
• A nursery child is crying at drop-off time and is clinging to her parent who has to go to work;
• An aggressive, confrontational parent is annoyed because she’s been asked to come in and talk about her son’s behavior. She approaches you and starts the conversation by saying, “You’re always having a go at us”;
• During recess, a group of young boys was fighting and one of them was hurt (not seriously). You approach them and they all look at you with worried expressions.

For each scenario, the instructions encourage you to:

• Recognize the emotion the child is displaying;
• Validate that emotion;
• Label the emotion the child is feeling;
• Empathize with the child;
• Set limits, if appropriate, and problem-solve.

Completing this worksheet provides you with an excellent opportunity to think, plan, and prepare for effective emotion coaching. You can download this activity for your own use here (an automatic download will start when you click on the link).

If you’re interested in learning more about applying attachment theory to teaching, check out Louis Cozolino’s book Attachment-Based Teaching: Creating a Tribal Classroom . He puts forth a simple but potentially game-changing idea: Relationships are the key to better performance rather than rigidly structured curricula.

In addition, our article Attachment Styles in Therapy: Worksheets & Handouts provides useful worksheets pertaining attachment styles.

Emotion coaching can also be used by social workers, to some extent. However, the application of attachment theory to social work is more significant in the three key messages that it espouses:

• It is vital for social workers to offer children and families a safe haven and secure base. This does not mean families should be forever comfortable and come to depend on the social worker, but families should know a social worker can provide a safe place when they are struggling as well as support for moving forward and outward;
• Social workers must be aware of children’s (and their families’) inner experiences and practice mentalization , or “bringing the inside out.” One of the most important factors in finding healing and improving family relations is to ensure that parents have an idea of what is going on in their children’s heads, including how they feel and think about their parents;
• Among the most effective tools in a social worker’s toolbox is the practice of recording parents as they interact with their child and using the videos to coach the parent. Valuable insights can be found in watching oneself parenting, and the social worker can provide in the moment coaching, offering praise for the parents’ strengths alongside suggestions for improvement (Shemmings, 2015).

Of course, there are many ways to apply attachment theory to working with children, especially those who are in the midst of family crises. However, if these three points are attended to, you’ll have the most important bases covered.

For social workers who work with adults, there are some different strategies and key points to keep in mind, specifically:

• Remember that attachment theory applies throughout the entire range of life, and many behaviors and processes are shaped by early attachment, including staying safe, seeking comfort, regulating proximity to the attachment figure, and seeking predictability;
• Keep in mind that attachment patterns are not based on a few key moments, but on thousands of moments throughout early life, and how an attachment figure responds (or does not respond) sets a template for the child’s attachment style in the future. This template affects how the child recognizes and responds to their own emotions and how they interact with attachment figures;
• This early template becomes deeply embedded in the brain and therefore has a significant impact on our ability to regulate our emotions and connect and relate to others in adulthood. This can lead an adult who was abused in childhood to fail to recognize that they are being abused in their intimate relationship, or even cause them to find comfort and stability in the predictability of their situation;
• Remember that attachment behaviors are adaptive to the context in which they were formed. Habits and behaviors that are adaptive in childhood, in an evolutionary sense at least, may become maladaptive and harmful in adulthood;
• Finally, social workers should never think that they are “treating” a set of behaviors and must recognize that the individual’s strategies were formed for a reason and likely helped him or her survive a difficult situation in childhood. The role of a social worker is to help clients avoid overapplying those strategies and to guide them in adding effective, new strategies to their toolboxes (Hardy, 2016).

As with any popular theory in psychology, there are several criticisms that have been raised against it.

Chief among them are the following criticisms:

• Overemphasis on Nurture: This criticism stems from psychologist J. R. Harris, who believes that parents do not have as much of an influence over their child’s personality or character as most people believe. She notes that much of one’s personality is determined by genetics rather than environment (Harris, 1998; Lee, 2003).
• The stressful situation criticism of attachment theory’s limitations notes that the model was based on a child’s reactions in momentary, stressful situations (being separated from one’s parent), and does not provide any insight into how children and parents interact in non-stressful situations;
• Further, the early model did not take into consideration the fact that children can have different kinds of attachments to different people; the attachment with the mother may not represent the attachments formed with others;
• Finally, the mother was viewed as the automatic primary attachment figure in the early model, when the father, stepparent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, or uncle may be the person that the child connects most strongly with (Field, 1996; Lee, 2003).

Although some of these criticisms have faded over time as the theory is injected with new evidence and updated concepts, it is useful to look at any theory with a critical eye.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

A few of the most popular books on attachment theory can be found below:

• Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find—and Keep—Love by Amir Levine and Rachel Heller ( Amazon );
• Attachment in Psychotherapy by David J. Wallin ( Amazon );
• Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications (3rd Edition) by Jude Cassidy and Phillip R. Shaver ( Amazon );
• Theories of Attachment: An Introduction to Bowlby, Ainsworth, Gerber, Brazelton, Kennell, & Klaus by Carol Garhart Mooney ( Amazon );
• Insecure in Love: How Anxious Attachment Can Make You Feel Jealous, Needy, and Worried and What You Can Do About It by Leslie Becker-Phelps ( Amazon );
• Wired for Love: How Understanding Your Partner’s Brain and Attachment Style Can Help You Defuse Conflict and Build a Secure Relationship by Dr. Stan Tatkin ( Amazon ).

There are also several great websites that host insightful essays and informative articles about attachment theory and its applications, including:

• www.communitycare.co.uk : The Community Care website calls itself “The heart of your social care career” and offers many interesting pieces on social work, attachment theory, and working with children and families who are struggling.
• “Attachment Theory” by Saul McLeod:  This article provides an excellent, brief introduction to attachment theory, as well as information on the Harlow experiments, the stages of attachment, and Lorenz’s imprinting theory.
• “A Brief Overview of Adult Attachment Theory and Research” by R. Chris Fraley:  This piece from attachment theory expert R. Chris Fraley also gives readers a thorough and academic introduction to familiarize them with the theory.
• “Attachment Styles at Work: Measurement, Collegial Relationships, and Burnout” by Michael P. Leiter, Arla Day, and Lisa Price:  This article , published in the journal Burnout Research in 2015, dives into the applications of attachment theory in the workplace, a subject we didn’t explore in this piece. The authors share some interesting insights about how one’s attachment style affects their relationships and performance in the workplace.

This piece tackled attachment theory, a theory developed by John Bowlby in the 1950s and expanded upon by Mary Ainsworth and countless other researchers in later years. The theory helps explain how our childhood relationships with our caregivers can have a profound impact on our relationships with others as adults.

Although attachment theory may not be able to explain every peculiarity of personality, it lays the foundations for a solid understanding of yourself and those around you when it comes to connecting and interacting with others.

What do you think about attachment theory? Do you think there are attachment styles not covered by the four categories? Are there any other criticisms of attachment theory you think are valid and worthy of discussion? We’d love to hear your thoughts in the comment section.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Relationships Exercises for free .

• Benoit, D. (2004). Infant-parent attachment: Definition, types, antecedents, measurement and outcome. Paediatrics & Child Health, 9(8) , 541-545.
• Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of Attachment Theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28, 759-775.
• Cherry, K. (2018). The story of Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Attachment Theory: The importance of early emotional bonds. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-attachment-theory-2795337
• Field, T. (1996). Attachment and separation in young children. Annual Review of Psychology, 47 , 541-561.
• Firestone, L. (2013). How your attachment style impacts your relationship.  Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/compassion-matters/201307/how-your-attachment-style-impacts-your-relationship
• Fraley, R. C. (2010). A brief overview of adult attachment theory and research. Retrieved from https://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/attachment.htm
• Hardy, R. (2016). Tips on applying attachment theory in social work with adults. Retrieved from http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/12/06/attachment-theory-social-work-adults/
• Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why our children turn out the way they do. Free Press.
• Herman, E. (2012). Harry F. Harlow, monkey love experiments. Retrieved from http://pages.uoregon.edu/adoption/studies/HarlowMLE.htm
• Kennedy, J. H., & Kennedy, C. E. (2004). Attachment theory: Implications for school psychology. Psychology in the Schools, 41 , 247-259.
• Lee, E. J. (2003). The attachment system throughout the life course: Review and criticisms of attachment theory . Retrieved from http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/lee.html
• McLeod, S. (2017). Erik Erikson. Retrieved from https://www.simplypsychology.org/Erik-Erikson.html
• National College for Teaching and Leadership (2014). An introduction to attachment and the implications for learning and behaviour [PDF Slide Presentation] . Retrieved from https://www.bathspa.ac.uk/media/bathspaacuk/education-/research/digital-literacy/education-resource-introduction-to-attatchment.pdf
• Shemmings, D. (2015). How social workers can use attachment theory in direct work. Retrieved from http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/09/02/using-attachment-theory-research-help-families-just-assess/
• Somerset Children & Young People Health & Wellbeing. (n.d.). Emotion coaching and self-regulation. Retrieved from http://www.cypsomersethealth.org/?ks=1&page=mhtk_secp_5
• Wells, J., Sueskind, B., & Alcamo, K. (2017). Child and adolescent issues. Retrieved from https://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/issues/child-and-adolescent-issues
• Williams, L., & Haley, E. (2017). Before the five stages were the FOUR stages of grief. Retrieved from https://whatsyourgrief.com/bowlby-four-stages-of-grief/

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

muchas gracias por la información

The linked surveys are problematic, when they refer to intimate or close relationships, particularly for persons who’ve only had one close adult relationship. Or none.

Article is defective (‘to’ instead of ‘too’ aside). Cannot – for the life of me – find the four stages of attachment declared at the outset; only four styles. For what’s it’s worth I experienced paternal absence and maternal rejection – prostitute mother and pimp father – which is to say, no parenting or attachment at all – leading to a hotch-potch of all three non-secure ‘styles’.

how does attachment influences personality development in adulthood.

Good question! We answer this question by linking the different attachment styles to adult behaviors traits in this article: https://positivepsychology.com/attachment-style-worksheets/ (see the subsection ‘Attachment Theory in Psychology: 4 Types & Characteristics’)

Hope this helps!

– Nicole | Community Manager

How do I reference this article

You can reference this article in APA 7th as follows: Ackerman, C. A. (2018, April 27). What is Attachment Theory? Bowlby’s 4 stages explained. PositivePsychology.com. https://positivepsychology.com/attachment-theory/

I think that a big limitation when discussing Attachment Theory, that I haven’t seen addressed, is the effect of trauma on a older child past the early defining stage, or an adult. Bullying, accidents and injury, severe illness, family upheaval, or other significant life events can significantly affect a person’s psychological state, and thus alter a Securely Attached style to one of the other types.

Thank you for an informative article! Do you happen to know of any non-profit organizations that focus on stopping the cycle of maladaptive attachment in families? I’m a student with some ideas for a program that I’d like to pitch to some organizations that serve at risk individuals.

Glad you found the article helpful — that sounds like an interesting idea! Your question’s a little tricky. It’s hard to know how explicitly existing services draw on Bowlby’s principles. However, I suspect that the messages of the framework are likely embedded in various parent support groups and educational opportunities. If you’re interested in the U.S. specifically, maybe check out some of the services listed here and inquire about any curriculums.

Thank you, Nicole!

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Managing Chronic Loneliness When Aging: 23 Strategies

Chronic loneliness can affect us all at any point in our lifetimes, but it can be a significant challenge for many older adults as they [...]

Enmeshment: Breaking Free From Overbearing Relationships

When boundaries are unclear, particularly in families, relationships can become overbearing, with individuals experiencing a diminished sense of self (Bacon & Conway, 2023). In such [...]

Can a Disorganized Attachment Style Be Overcome?

No individual needs to be defined by the actions or behavior of their parents. However, the attachment strategies we form early in our lives for [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (51)
• Coaching & Application (58)
• Compassion (25)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (23)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (30)
• Positive Communication (22)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (19)
• Positive Parenting (16)
• Positive Psychology (34)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (18)
• Relationships (44)
• Resilience & Coping (39)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (32)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

3 Positive Relationships Exercises Pack

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is Attachment Theory?

The Importance of Early Emotional Bonds

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Attachment Theory
• Stages of Attachment

Attachment Styles

Attachment theory focuses on relationships and bonds (particularly long-term) between people, including those between a parent and child and between romantic partners. It is a psychological explanation for the emotional bonds and relationships between people.

This theory suggests that people are born with a need to forge bonds with caregivers as children. These early bonds may continue to have an influence on attachments throughout life.

History of the Attachment Theory

British psychologist John Bowlby was the first attachment theorist. He described attachment as a "lasting psychological connectedness between human beings." Bowlby was interested in understanding the anxiety and distress that children experience when separated from their primary caregivers.

Thinkers like Freud suggested that infants become attached to the source of pleasure. Infants, who are in the oral stage of development, become attached to their mothers because she fulfills their oral needs.

Some of the earliest behavioral theories suggested that attachment was simply a learned behavior. These theories proposed that attachment was merely the result of the feeding relationship between the child and the caregiver. Because the caregiver feeds the child and provides nourishment, the child becomes attached.

Bowlby observed that feedings did not diminish separation anxiety. Instead, he found that attachment was characterized by clear behavioral and motivation patterns. When children are frightened, they seek proximity from their primary caregiver in order to receive both comfort and care.

Understanding Attachment

Attachment is an emotional bond with another person. Bowlby believed that the earliest bonds formed by children with their caregivers have a tremendous impact that continues throughout life. He suggested that attachment also serves to keep the infant close to the mother, thus improving the child's chances of survival.

Bowlby viewed attachment as a product of evolutionary processes. While the behavioral theories of attachment suggested that attachment was a learned process, Bowlby and others proposed that children are born with an innate drive to form attachments with caregivers.

Throughout history, children who maintained proximity to an attachment figure were more likely to receive comfort and protection, and therefore more likely to survive to adulthood. Through the process of natural selection, a motivational system designed to regulate attachment emerged.

The central theme of attachment theory is that primary caregivers who are available and responsive to an infant's needs allow the child to develop a sense of security. The infant learns that the caregiver is dependable, which creates a secure base for the child to then explore the world.

So what determines successful attachment? Behaviorists suggest that it was food that led to forming this attachment behavior, but Bowlby and others demonstrated that nurturance and responsiveness were the primary determinants of attachment.

Ainsworth's "Strange Situation"

In her research in the 1970s, psychologist Mary Ainsworth expanded greatly upon Bowlby's original work. Her groundbreaking "strange situation" study  revealed the profound effects of attachment on behavior. In the study, researchers observed children between the ages of 12 and 18 months as they responded to a situation in which they were briefly left alone and then reunited with their mothers.

Based on the responses the researchers observed, Ainsworth described three major styles of attachment: secure attachment, ambivalent-insecure attachment, and avoidant-insecure attachment. Later, researchers Main and Solomon (1986) added a fourth attachment style called disorganized-insecure attachment based on their own research.

A number of studies since that time have supported Ainsworth's attachment styles and have indicated that attachment styles also have an impact on behaviors later in life.

Maternal Deprivation Studies

Harry Harlow's infamous studies on maternal deprivation and social isolation during the 1950s and 1960s also explored early bonds. In a series of experiments, Harlow demonstrated how such bonds emerge and the powerful impact they have on behavior and functioning.  

In one version of his experiment, newborn rhesus monkeys were separated from their birth mothers and reared by surrogate mothers. The infant monkeys were placed in cages with two wire-monkey mothers. One of the wire monkeys held a bottle from which the infant monkey could obtain nourishment, while the other wire monkey was covered with a soft terry cloth.

While the infant monkeys would go to the wire mother to obtain food, they spent most of their days with the soft cloth mother. When frightened, the baby monkeys would turn to their cloth-covered mother for comfort and security.

Harlow's work also demonstrated that early attachments were the result of receiving comfort and care from a caregiver rather than simply the result of being fed.

The Stages of Attachment

Researchers Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy Emerson analyzed the number of attachment relationships that infants form in a longitudinal study with 60 infants. The infants were observed every four weeks during the first year of life, and then once again at 18 months.

Based on their observations, Schaffer and Emerson outlined four distinct phases of attachment, including:

Pre-Attachment Stage

From birth to 3 months, infants do not show any particular attachment to a specific caregiver. The infant's signals, such as crying and fussing, naturally attract the attention of the caregiver and the baby's positive responses encourage the caregiver to remain close.

Indiscriminate Attachment

Between 6 weeks of age to 7 months, infants begin to show preferences for primary and secondary caregivers. Infants develop trust that the caregiver will respond to their needs. While they still accept care from others, infants start distinguishing between familiar and unfamiliar people, responding more positively to the primary caregiver.

Discriminate Attachment

At this point, from about 7 to 11 months of age, infants show a strong attachment and preference for one specific individual. They will protest when separated from the primary attachment figure (separation anxiety), and begin to display anxiety around strangers (stranger anxiety).

Multiple Attachments

After approximately 9 months of age, children begin to form strong emotional bonds with other caregivers beyond the primary attachment figure. This often includes a second parent, older siblings, and grandparents.

Factors That Influence Attachment

While this process may seem straightforward, there are some factors that can influence how and when attachments develop, including:

• Opportunity for attachment : Children who do not have a primary care figure, such as those raised in orphanages, may fail to develop the sense of trust needed to form an attachment.
• Quality caregiving : When caregivers respond quickly and consistently, children learn that they can depend on the people who are responsible for their care, which is the essential foundation for attachment. This is a vital factor.

There are four patterns of attachment, including:

• Ambivalent attachment : These children become very distressed when a parent leaves. Ambivalent attachment style is considered uncommon, affecting an estimated 7% to 15% of U.S. children. As a result of poor parental availability, these children cannot depend on their primary caregiver to be there when they need them.
• Avoidant attachment :   Children with an avoidant attachment tend to avoid parents or caregivers, showing no preference between a caregiver and a complete stranger. This attachment style might be a result of abusive or neglectful caregivers. Children who are punished for relying on a caregiver will learn to avoid seeking help in the future.
• Disorganized attachment : These children display a confusing mix of behavior, seeming disoriented, dazed, or confused. They may avoid or resist the parent. Lack of a clear attachment pattern is likely linked to inconsistent caregiver behavior. In such cases, parents may serve as both a source of comfort and fear, leading to disorganized behavior.
• Secure attachment : Children who can depend on their caregivers show distress when separated and joy when reunited. Although the child may be upset, they feel assured that the caregiver will return. When frightened, securely attached children are comfortable seeking reassurance from caregivers. This is the most common attachment style.

The Lasting Impact of Early Attachment

Children who are securely attached as infants tend to develop stronger self-esteem and better self-reliance as they grow older. These children also tend to be more independent, perform better in school, have successful social relationships, and experience less depression and anxiety.

Research suggests that failure to form secure attachments early in life can have a negative impact on behavior in later childhood and throughout life.

Children diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD), or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) frequently display attachment problems, possibly due to early abuse, neglect, or trauma. Children adopted after the age of 6 months may have a higher risk of attachment problems.

Attachment Disorders

In some cases, children may also develop attachment disorders. There are two attachment disorders that may occur: reactive attachment disorder (RAD) and disinhibited social engagement disorder (DSED).

• Reactive attachment disorder occurs when children do not form healthy bonds with caregivers. This is often the result of early childhood neglect or abuse and results in problems with emotional management and patterns of withdrawal from caregivers.
• Disinhibited social engagement disorder affects a child's ability to form bonds with others and often results from trauma, abandonment, abuse, or neglect. It is characterized by a lack of inhibition around strangers, often leading to excessively familiar behaviors around people they don't know and a lack of social boundaries.

Adult Attachments

Although attachment styles displayed in adulthood are not necessarily the same as those seen in infancy, early attachments can have a serious impact on later relationships. Adults who were securely attached in childhood tend to have good self-esteem, strong romantic relationships, and the ability to self-disclose to others.

A Word From Verywell

Our understanding of attachment theory is heavily influenced by the early work of researchers such as John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Today, researchers recognize that the early relationships children have with their caregivers play a critical role in healthy development. 

Such bonds can also have an influence on romantic relationships in adulthood. Understanding your attachment style may help you look for ways to become more secure in your relationships.

Bowlby J. Attachment and Loss . Basic Books.

Bowlby J. Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect . Am J Orthopsychiatry . 1982;52(4):664-678. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x

Draper P, Belsky J. Personality development in the evolutionary perspective . J Pers. 1990;58(1):141-61. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00911.x

Ainsworth MD, Bell SM. Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation . Child Dev . 1970;41(1):49-67. doi:10.2307/1127388

Main M, Solomon J. Discovery of a new, insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In: Brazelton TB, Yogman M, eds., Affective Development in Infancy. Ablex.

Harlow HF. The nature of love . American Psychologist. 1958;13(12):673-685. doi:10.1037/h0047884

Schaffer HR, Emerson PE. The development of social attachments in infancy . Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1964;29:1-77. doi:10.2307/1165727

Lyons-Ruth K. Attachment relationships among children with aggressive behavior problems: The role of disorganized early attachment patterns . J Consult Clin Psychol. 1996;64(1):64-73. doi:https:10.1037/0022-006X.64.1.64

Young ES, Simpson JA, Griskevicius V, Huelsnitz CO, Fleck C.  Childhood attachment and adult personality: A life history perspective . Self and Identity . 2019;18:1:22-38. doi:10.1080/15298868.2017.1353540

Ainsworth MDS, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall S.  Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation . Erlbaum.

Ainsworth MDS. Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle. In: Attachment Across the Life Cycle . Parkes CM, Stevenson-Hinde J, Marris P, eds. Routledge.

Bowlby J. The nature of the child's tie to his mother . Int J Psychoanal . 1958;39:350-371.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Attachment theory and research.

• Pehr Granqvist Pehr Granqvist Stockholm University
•  and  Robbie Duschinsky Robbie Duschinsky Sidney Sussex College Cambridge
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.51
• Published online: 31 August 2021

Attachment theory was founded by John Bowlby (1907–1990), a British child psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. The theory builds on an integration of evolutionary theory and ethology, cybernetics and cognitive science, as well as psychoanalytic object relations theory. The theory postulates that an attachment behavioral system evolved via natural selection processes. Bowlby conceived of the attachment system as a behavioral control system that continuously monitors the offspring’s proximity to caregivers, which has in turn been associated with protection from dangers and thus increased chances of survival and reproduction in humans’ and many other mammals’ ancestral environments. Attachment is a species-wide phenomenon denoting the strong bonds that children form to their caregiver(s), seeking to maintain proximity and communication, protesting separations, and using the caregiver(s) as a safe haven to return to for comfort and protection and as a secure base to explore the environment from. Attachments take time, maturation, and repeated sequences of interaction to form and are typically observed from the second half of children’s first year of life onward. According to the theory, attachment-related experiences with the caregiver(s) become internalized in the form of cognitive-affective representations of self and others (internal working models [IWMs]) that organize the child’s behavior and displays of affect in relation to the caregiver(s). Although malleable, such IWMs display a certain measure of continuity across time and situations and may generalize to affect the individual’s expectancies and behavioral inclinations in other and later interpersonal relationships. As pioneered by Mary Ainsworth and colleagues, attachments vary in quality, largely depending on the caregiver’s behaviors (e.g., responsivity and sensitivity to the child’s signals), whereas evidence for a direct influence of genetic heritability is limited. Variations in attachment are typically described using two dimensions (secure–insecure, organized–disorganized) subsuming four categories (secure, insecure–avoidant, insecure-resistant–ambivalent, disorganized–disoriented). Much of the empirical research regarding attachment has focused on these variations and their measurement. Ainsworth and colleagues’ Strange Situation Procedure (SSP), applicable for children aged 10–18 months, is often heralded as the “gold standard” attachment measurement tool. The concerted body of research indicates that secure attachment (or associated factors), marked by confidence in the caregiver’s availability, is generally a protective factor in socioemotional development. In contrast, insecure (avoidant and resistant) attachment, characterized by lack of confidence in the caregiver’s availability, is generally a vulnerability factor in development. Disorganized attachment, reflecting confused, conflicted, or apprehensive child behaviors in the presence of the caregiver (in the SSP), is a risk factor in development, most notably for externalizing behavior problems. Notably, the effect sizes observed have typically been small to moderate, and much is unknown about linking mechanisms and moderating influences. Although most readily observed in early childhood, humans form attachments throughout the lifespan. Accordingly, much research has also focused on adult (e.g., spousal) attachment and the intergenerational transmission of attachment from caregivers to their children.

• attachment quality
• development

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 10 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

Character limit 500 /500

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Contributions of Attachment Theory and Research: A Framework for Future Research, Translation, and Policy

Jude cassidy.

University of Maryland

Jason D. Jones

Phillip r. shaver.

University of California, Davis

Attachment theory has been generating creative and impactful research for almost half a century. In this article we focus on the documented antecedents and consequences of individual differences in infant attachment patterns, suggesting topics for further theoretical clarification, research, clinical interventions, and policy applications. We pay particular attention to the concept of cognitive “working models” and to neural and physiological mechanisms through which early attachment experiences contribute to later functioning. We consider adult caregiving behavior that predicts infant attachment patterns, and the still-mysterious “transmission gap” between parental AAI classifications and infant Strange Situation classifications. We also review connections between attachment and (a) child psychopathology, (b) neurobiology, (c) health and immune function, (d) empathy, compassion, and altruism, (e) school readiness, and (f) culture. We conclude with clinical-translational and public policy applications of attachment research that could reduce the occurrence and maintenance of insecure attachment during infancy and beyond. Our goal is to inspire researchers to continue advancing the field by finding new ways to tackle long-standing questions and by generating and testing novel hypotheses.

One gets a glimpse of the germ of attachment theory in John Bowlby's 1944 article, “Forty-Four Juvenile Thieves: Their Character and Home-Life,” published in the International Journal of Psychoanalysis . Using a combination of case studies and statistical methods (novel at the time for psychoanalysts) to examine the precursors of delinquency, Bowlby arrived at his initial empirical insight: The precursors of emotional disorders and delinquency could be found in early attachment-related experiences, specifically separations from, or inconsistent or harsh treatment by, mothers (and often fathers or other men who were involved with the mothers). Over the subsequent decades, as readers of this journal know, he built a complex and highly generative theory of attachment.

Unlike other psychoanalytic writers of his generation, Bowlby formed a working relationship with a very talented empirically oriented researcher, Mary Ainsworth. Her careful observations, first in Uganda ( Ainsworth, 1967 ) and later in Baltimore, led to a detailed specification of aspects of maternal behavior that preceded individual differences in infant attachment. Her creation of the Strange Situation ( Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978 ) provided a gold standard for identifying and classifying individual differences in infant attachment security (and insecurity) and ushered in decades of research examining the precursors and outcomes of individual differences in infant attachment. (A PsycInfo literature search using the keyword “attachment” yields more than 15,000 titles).

By the beginning of the 21 st century, the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development based its policy and practice conclusions and recommendations on four themes, one of which was that “early environments matter and nurturing relationships are essential ( Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000 , p. 4) … Children grow and thrive in the context of close and dependable relationships that provide love and nurturance, security, responsive interaction, and encouragement for exploration. Without at least one such relationship, development is disrupted, and the consequences can be severe and long-lasting” (p. 7). This clear and strong statement could be made in large part because of the research inspired by Bowlby's theory and Ainsworth's creative research methods.

Years after Ainsworth's Strange Situation was proposed, Mary Main and colleagues (e.g., George, Kaplan, & Main, 1984 ; Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985 ) provided a way to study the intergenerational transmission of attachment patterns. They and other researchers found that a parent's “state of mind with respect to attachment” predicted his or her infant's pattern of attachment. Moreover, since the 1980's there has been an explosion of research examining attachment processes beyond the parent-child dyad (e.g., in adult romantic relationships), which has supported Bowlby's (1979) belief that attachment is a process that characterizes humans “from the cradle to the grave” (p. 129). In the present article, space limitations lead us to focus principally on attachment processes early in life and consider the adult attachment literature largely in relation to parental predictors of infant attachment.

A Simple Model of Infant-Mother Attachment

During the 70 years since Bowlby's initial consideration of the developmental precursors of adolescent delinquency and psychopathology, researchers have provided a complex picture of the parental and experiential precursors of infant attachment, the links between early attachment-related experiences and later child functioning, the mechanisms involved in explaining these links, and moderators of these linking mechanisms. Much has been learned at each of several analytic levels, including behavior, cognition, emotion, physiology, and genetics. Figure 1 summarizes this literature in a simple model. We have selected several of the components in Figure 1 for further discussion. For each component, following a brief background and review of the current state of knowledge, we offer suggestions for future research, based largely on identification of gaps in theory or methodological innovations that make new lines of discovery possible. We begin by considering one of the central concepts of attachment theory, the internal working model, followed by a consideration of physiological mechanisms that also help to explain the influence of early attachments. Next, we consider the caregiving behavior that predicts infant attachment and the perplexing issue of the transmission gap between parental Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) classifications and infant Strange Situation classifications. We then examine connections between attachment and (a) child psychopathology, (b) neurobiology, (c) health and immune function, (d) empathy, compassion, and altruism, (e) school readiness, and (f) culture. Finally, we discuss the translational application of attachment research to reducing the risk of developing or maintaining insecure attachments and the policy implications of attachment research.

Note . A complete depiction of attachment processes would require several pages. For instance, here we note the parent's own attachment representations as a contributor to parental attachment-related behavior. There are many other important contributors to parental behavior, including culture, SES, parental age, parental personality, child temperament, and presence or absence of a partner, to name a few. Each of the constructs and arrows in Figure 1 could be surrounded by numerous others.

Internal Working Models

One of the key concepts in attachment theory is the “attachment behavioral system,” which refers to an organized system of behaviors that has a predictable outcome (i.e., proximity) and serves an identifiable biological function (i.e., protection). According to Bowlby (1969/1982 ), such a system is organized by experience-based “internal working models” (IWMs) of self and environment, including especially the caregiving environment.

It is by postulating the existence of these cognitive components and their utilization by the attachment system that the theory is enabled to provide explanations of how a child's experiences with attachment figures come to influence in particular ways the pattern of attachment he develops. (pp. 373-374)

Much of the research on these models is based on the notion that, beginning in the first year of life, mentally healthy individuals develop a “secure base script” that provides a causal-temporal prototype of the ways in which attachment-related events typically unfold (e.g., “When I am hurt, I go to my mother and receive comfort”). According to Bretherton (1991 ; Bretherton & Munholland, 2008 ), secure base scripts are the “building blocks” of IWMs. Theoretically, secure children's and adults' scripts should allow them to create attachment-related “stories” in which one person successfully uses another as a secure base from which to explore and as a safe haven in times of need or distress. Insecure individuals should exhibit gaps in, or distortion or even absence of, such a script. H. Waters and colleagues ( H. Waters & Rodrigues-Doolabh, 2001 ; H. Waters & Waters, 2006 ) tested this hypothesis by having children complete story stems that began with a character's attachment behavioral system presumably being activated (e.g., a child rock-climbing with parents hurts his knee). Secure attachment at 2 years of age was positively correlated with the creation of stories involving knowledge of and access to the secure base script at ages 3 and 4. (A similar methodology has been used in studies of young adults; see Mikulincer, Shaver, Sapir-Lavid, & Avihou-Kanza, 2009 .)

New Directions in the Examination of IWM Formation during Infancy

Despite Bowlby's hypothesis that infants develop IWMs during the first year of life (see also Main et al., 1985 ), almost no empirical work has focused on attachment representations during infancy (instead, most research on IWMs has involved children, adolescents, and adults). We believe, as do others ( Johnson et al., 2010 ; Sherman & Cassidy, 2013 ; Thompson, 2008 ), that IWMs can be studied in infancy. Such work is made possible by recent efforts to bridge social-emotional and cognitive developmental research (e.g., Calkins & Bell, 2010 ; Olson & Dweck, 2008 ), along with methodological advances and accumulating research on an array of previously unexplored infant mental capacities.

Attachment researchers have assumed that infants recall the emotional nature of their attachment-related social experiences with specific individuals (e.g., experiences of comfort with vs. rejection by mother), and that they use these memories to create IWMs that guide their attachment behavior in subsequent interactions with these individuals. This claim has been supported with correlational research findings; for example observations indicating that infants' daily interactions with attachment figures are linked to their IWMs reflected in behavior in the Strange Situation ( Ainsworth et al., 1978 ). These findings can now be supplemented with results from experimental studies.

There is a compelling body of experimental work showing that infants extract complex social-emotional information from the social interactions they observe. For example, they notice helpful and hindering behaviors of one “person” (usually represented by a puppet or a geometric figure) toward another, they personally prefer individuals who have helped others, they form expectations about how two characters should behave toward each other in subsequent interactions, and they behave positively or negatively toward individuals based on what they have observed (e.g., Hamlin & Wynn, 2011 ; Hamlin, Wynn, Bloom, & Mahajan, 2011 ). This work could and should be extended to include attachment relationships, revealing in detail how infants form “models” of particular adults and then modify their emotional reactions and social behaviors toward those adults accordingly ( Johnson et al., 2010 ). At present, there is no experimental research showing that infants form expectations about the later social behavior of another person toward them based on the infants' own past interactions with that person – a capacity that is assumed to underlie infants' development of working models of their caregivers.

As explained in detail in another paper ( Sherman & Cassidy, 2013 ), we urge infancy researchers to consider the specific cognitive and emotional capacities required to form IWMs and then to examine these capacities experimentally. Methods used by researchers who study infant cognition, but rarely used by attachment researchers (e.g., eye-tracking, habituation paradigms), will prove useful. For example, habituation paradigms could allow attachment researchers to study infant IWMs of likely mother and infant responses to infant distress (see Johnson et al., 2010 ). Another research area relevant to attachment researchers' conception of IWMs concerns infants' understanding of statistical probabilities. When considering individual differences in how mothering contributes to attachment quality, Bowlby (1969/1982) adopted Winnicott's (1953) conception of “good enough” mothering; that is, mothering which assures a child that probabilistically, and often enough, the mother will prove responsive to the child's signals. Implicit in such a perspective is the assumption that an infant can make probabilistic inferences. Only recently has there been a surge in interest in the methods available to evaluate this assumption of attachment theory (e.g., Krogh, Vlach, & Johnson, 2013 ; Pelucchi, Hay, & Saffran, 2009 ; Romberg & Saffran, 2013 ; Xu & Kushnir, 2013 ).

One useful conceptual perspective, called rational constructivism, is based on the idea that infants use probabilistic reasoning when integrating existing knowledge with new data to test hypotheses about the world. Xu and Kushnir (2013) reviewed evidence that by 18 months of age, infants use probabilistic reasoning to evaluate alternative hypotheses ( Gerken, 2006 ; Gweon, Tenenbaum, & Schulz, 2010 ), revise hypotheses in light of new data ( Gerken, 2010 ), make predictions ( Denison & Xu, 2010 ), and guide their actions ( Denison & Xu, 2010 ). Moreover, infants are capable of integrating prior knowledge and multiple contextual factors into their statistical computations ( Denison & Xu, 2010 ; Teglas, Girotto, Gonzales, & Bonatti, 2007 ; Xu & Denison, 2009 ). Xu and Kushnir (2013) have further proposed that these capacities appear to be domain-general, being evident in a variety of areas: language, physical reasoning, psychological reasoning, object understanding, and understanding of individual preferences. Notably absent from this list is the domain of social relationships, including attachment relationships.

Several questions about probabilistic inferences can be raised: Do infants make such inferences about the likely behavior of particular attachment figures, and could this ability account for qualitatively different attachments to different individuals (e.g., mother as distinct from father)? Do infants use probabilistic reasoning when drawing inferences related to the outcomes of their own attachment behaviors? (This is related to if-then contingencies: “If I cry, what is the probability that χ will occur?”) How complex can this infant reasoning become, and across what developmental trajectory? “If I do χ, the likelihood of outcome y is 80%, but if I do w , the likelihood of y is only 30%.” Do infants consider context? “If I do χ, the likelihood of y is 90% in context q , but only 20% in context r .” How do infants calculate variability in these probabilities across attachment figures?

In sum, it seems likely that infants use statistical inference to understand their social worlds. This ability would seem to be evolutionarily adaptive in relation to attachment figures, because infants could incorporate probabilistic inferences into their IWMs and use them to guide their attachment behavior. Important advances in our understanding of attachment behavior might occur with respect to how and when this incorporation happens, and also with respect to the role of statistical inference in infants' openness to change in response to changing environmental input (e.g., in response to interventions designed to change parental behavior).

Child-Parent Attachment, Response to Threat, and Physiological Mechanisms of Influence

Bowlby's emphasis on cognitive IWMs as the mechanism through which early experiences influence later functioning is understandable given the emerging cognitive emphasis in psychology when he was writing. But scientists are becoming increasingly aware that the effects of attachment-related experiences are carried in the body and brain in ways not easily reducible to cognition. As a way to touch briefly on the physiological processes involved in attachment, we focus here on a central issue in attachment theory: infants' responses to threat as these are shaped by attachment relationships. One of the core propositions of attachment theory is that proximity to an attachment figure reduces fear in the presence of a possible or actual threat. As explained in the previous section, Bowlby thought the mechanism that explained this link is children's experience-based cognitive representation of the availability of an attachment figure. Specifically, it is because securely attached infants are more likely than insecurely attached infants to have mental representations of caregiver availability and responsiveness that they are able to interpret a threat as manageable and respond to it with less fear and anxiety. Yet in species that do not possess human representational capacities, the link between attachment and response to threat clearly exists, suggesting that in humans there is likely to be more to attachment orientations than cognitive IWMs. (For the initial and more extensive discussion of ideas presented in this section, see Cassidy, Ehrlich, and Sherman [2013] .)

Another Level of “Representation” or Internal Structure: Physiology

Since the time of Bowlby's original writings, one important advance that has extended our understanding of the link between attachment and response to threat has roots in Myron Hofer's laboratory in the 1970s. Hofer, a developmental psychobiologist, noticed defensive vocal protest responses to maternal separation in infant rat pups and asked what non-representational process could account for them. He and his colleagues conducted a series of tightly controlled experiments to identify what physiological subsystems, which he called hidden regulators, are disrupted when mothers are removed from their pups (for reviews, see Hofer, 2006 ; Polan & Hofer, 2008 ). The pups exhibit changes in multiple physiological and behavioral systems, such as those controlling heart rate, body temperature, food intake, and exploration. Hofer concluded that mother-infant interactions have embedded within them a number of vital physiological regulatory functions that are disrupted by separation from mother and do not require cognitive mediators. These regulators can be disentangled by experimentally manipulating parts of a “mother”: the food she provides, her warmth, her licking and grooming, etc. Later, Meaney and colleagues (e.g., Liu et al., 1997 ; reviewed in Meaney, 2001 ) found that rat pups that received high levels of maternal licking and grooming and arched-back nursing positions had milder responses to threat and increased exploratory behavior – effects that lasted into adulthood (and in fact, into subsequent generations as a function of maternal affection in each successive generation). This research group further found that individual differences in maternal behavior were mediated by differences in offsprings' gene expression ( Weaver et al., 2004 ), a finding that has opened up a new research domain for researchers studying both animals and humans ( Sharp, Pickles, Meaney, Marshall, Tibu, & Hill, 2012 ; Suomi, 2011 ).

Early Attachment-Related Experiences and Human Infant Biological Response to Stress

In humans, a fully developed stress response system, the HPA axis, is present at birth ( Adam, Klimes-Dougan, & Gunnar, 2007 ). A growing body of research indicates that differences in the quality of early care contribute to variations in the initial calibration and continued regulation of this system. This regulation in turn plays an important role in shaping behavioral responses to threat ( Jessop & Turner-Cobb, 2008 ).

Researchers have examined connections between caregiving experiences and infant stress physiology by comparing infants' cortisol levels before and after a stressful task (e.g., the Strange Situation). For example, Nachmias, Gunnar, Mangelsdorf, Parritz, and Buss (1996) found that inhibited toddlers who were insecurely attached to their caregivers exhibited elevated cortisol levels following exposure to novel stimuli. There is also experimental evidence that mothers' touch buffers infants' cortisol stress response (in this case, during the still-face laboratory procedure in which mothers are asked to cease interacting emotionally with their infants; Feldman, Singer, & Zagoory, 2010 ). Children living in violent families endure particularly stressful caregiving environments, which are extremely dysregulating for them ( Taylor, Repetti, & Seeman, 1997 ). A number of studies have documented the disrupted stress response of maltreated children (e.g., De Bellis et al., 1999 ; Hart, Gunnar, & Cicchetti, 1995 ). Even living in a family in which the violence does not involve them directly has negative consequences for children, and studies suggest that the quality of caregiving in these harsh environments plays an important role in modifying the stress response (e.g., Hibel, Granger, Blair, Cox, & The FLP Investigators, 2011 ).

Attachment as a Regulator of Infant Stress Reactivity: Further Questions

Just as infants are thought to have evolved a capacity to use experience-based information about the availability of a protective caregiver to calibrate their attachment behavioral system ( Main, 1990 ), and given the close intertwining of the attachment and fear systems, it is likely that infants also evolved a capacity to use information about the availability of an attachment figure to calibrate their threat response system at both the behavioral and physiological levels ( Cassidy, 2009 ). And this capacity is probably not solely “cognitive,” which raises important questions for research: How are representational and physiological processes linked and how do they influence each other and affect child functioning? Does the nature of their interaction vary across particular aspects of child functioning and across developmental periods? How can we understand these interactions in relation to both normative development and individual differences?

In humans, representations and physiological (e.g., stress) reactions are thought to affect each other in ways unlikely to occur in other species. Sapolsky (2004) noted that, in humans, representational processes – the anticipation of threat when none currently exists – can launch a stress response. Relatedly, Bowlby (1973) , focusing on the link between attachment and fear, specified representational “forecasts of availability or unavailability” of an attachment figure as “a major variable that determines whether a person is or is not alarmed by any potentially alarming situation” (p. 204). Thus, the representations that others will be unavailable or rejecting when needed – that is, representations that characterize insecure attachment – could contribute to chronic activation of physiological stress response systems, as could the associated representations of others as having hostile intentions ( Dykas & Cassidy, 2011 ). Conversely, in times of both anticipated and actual threat, the capacity to represent a responsive attachment figure can diminish physiological responses associated with threatening or painful experiences (see Eisenberger et al., 2011 ; Coan, Schaefer, & Davidson, 2006 ). Moreover, consideration of linkages between representational and non-representational processes must include the possibility that causality flows in both directions: Physiological stress responses can presumably prompt a person to engage in higher-level cognitive processes to understand, justify, or eliminate the stressor.

When and how do young children use attachment-related representations as regulators of stress? Neither normative trajectories nor individual differences in the use of representations to influence stress reactivity have been examined extensively. Evidence that stress dysregulation can lead to the conscious engagement of representational processes comes from children as young as 4 who are able to describe strategies for alleviating distress (e.g., changing thoughts, reappraising the situation, mental distraction; Sayfan & Lagattuta, 2009 ). Less studied but of great interest are possible “automatic emotion regulation” processes ( Mauss, Bunge, & Gross, 2007 ) that do not involve conscious or deliberate self-regulation. Recent studies of adults show that there are such processes, that there are individual differences in them that might relate to attachment orientations, that they are associated with particular brain regions that are not the same as those associated with conscious, deliberate emotion regulation, and that they can be influenced experimentally with priming procedures.

Many researchable questions remain: Given the extent to which many forms of psychopathology reflect problems of self-regulation in the face of stress (e.g., Kring & Sloan, 2010 ), can “hidden regulators” stemming from infant-mother interactions tell us about the precursors of psychopathology? What about hidden regulators embedded within a relationship with a therapist (who, according to Bowlby [1988] , serves as an attachment figure in the context of long-term psychotherapy)? When change occurs following long-term therapy, does this change emerge through cognitive representations, changes at the physiological level, or both? See Cassidy et al., (2013) for additional suggestions for future research.

Maternal Caregiving and Infant Attachment: Intergenerational Transmission of Attachment and the “Transmission Gap”

In 1985, Main and colleagues published the first evidence of the intergenerational transmission of attachment: a link between a mother's attachment representations (coded from responses to the AAI; George et al., 1984 ) and her infant's attachment to her ( Figure 1 , Path c). Based on findings from Ainsworth's initial study of the precursors of individual differences in infant attachment ( Ainsworth et al., 1978 ), researchers expected this link to be explained by maternal sensitivity: That is, they believed that a mother's state of mind with respect to attachment guides her sensitive behavior toward her infant ( Figure 1 , Path a), which in turn influences infant attachment quality ( Figure 1 , Path b). However, at the end of a decade of research, van IJzendoorn (1995) published a meta-analysis indicating that the strong and well-replicated link between maternal and infant attachment was not fully mediated by maternal sensitivity (see also Madigan et al., 2006 ). van IJzendoorn labeled what he had found as the “ transmission gap .” Moreover, meta-analytic findings revealed that the link between maternal sensitivity and infant attachment, although nearly universally present across scores of studies, was typically considerably weaker than that reported in Ainsworth's original study ( De Wolff & van IJzendoorn, 1997 ).

The transmission gap has been one of the most perplexing issues facing attachment researchers during the past 15-20 years. Immediate attempts to understand it focused largely on measurement of maternal behavior. Many studies have been aimed at understanding why the strength of the association between maternal sensitivity and infant attachment, while not negligible, is lower than the particularly strong effect found in Ainsworth's original study, and lower than attachment researchers expected. These studies have provided important insights, but no consensus has emerged about how to understand maternal behavior as a predictor of infant attachment. Continued efforts in this area are essential, and they will inform both researchers' understanding of the workings of the attachment behavioral system and clinicians' attempts to reduce the risk of infant insecure attachments.

Further consideration of Bowlby's concept of the secure base may help researchers better understand maternal contributors to infant attachment. First, we should note that any consideration of caregiving influences necessitates consideration of differential child susceptibility to rearing influence. According to the differential susceptibility hypothesis ( Belsky, 2005 ; see also Boyce & Ellis, 2005 , on the theory of biological sensitivity to context, and Ellis, Boyce, Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenberg, & van IJzendoorn, 2011 , for an integration of the differential susceptibility hypothesis and the theory of biological sensitivity to context), children vary genetically in the extent to which they are influenced by environmental factors, and for some children the influence of caregiving behavior on attachment may be minimal. Moreover, we underscore that the thinking presented in the present paper relates to the initial development of infant attachment during the first year of life; contributors to security are likely to differ at different developmental periods.

A focus on secure base provision

For Bowlby (1988) , the secure base concept was the heart of attachment theory: “No concept within the attachment framework is more central to developmental psychiatry than that of the secure base” (pp. 163–164). When parents provide a secure base, their children's confidence in the parents' availability and sensitive responsiveness when needed allows the children to explore the environment freely. The secure base phenomenon contains two intertwined components: a secure base from which a child can explore and a haven of safety to which the child can return in times of distress. In fact, as noted earlier, the central cognitive components of secure attachment are thought to reside in a secure base script (i.e., a script according to which, following a distressing event, the child seeks and receives care from an available attachment figure, experiences comfort, and returns to exploration).

If the goal of research is to understand what components of a parent's behavior allow a child to use the parent as a secure base, researchers should focus as precisely as possible on the parent's secure base provision rather than on his or her parental behavior more broadly. Through experience-based understanding of parental intentions and behavior, an infant gathers information to answer a central secure base question: What is my attachment figure likely to do when activation of my attachment system leads me to seek contact? If experiences lead the infant to believe that the parent will be responsive (most of the time) to behaviors related to activation of his/her attachment system, then the infant will use the parent as a secure base, and behavioral manifestations of the secure base script will appear (i.e., the secure base script will be evident in the Strange Situation attachment assessment, and the infant will be classified as secure). In 2000, E. Waters and Cummings, when proposing an agenda for the field in the millennium of the 2000s, urged that the secure-base concept be kept “at center stage in attachment theory and research” (p. 164). We share this opinion, and believe that additional consideration of the secure base notion will provide a useful framework within which to consider parental behavior as a predictor of infant attachment.

Bowlby (1988) emphasized that an infant's sense of having a secure base resides in the infant's confidence that parental sensitive responsiveness will be provided when needed (e.g., specifying “especially should he [the infant] become tired or frightened” [p. 132]). As such, it may be useful for attachment researchers to frame their question as: Which contexts provide the infant with information about the parent's likely behavior when needed – not in all contexts, but specifically in response to activation of the infant's attachment system ? Bowlby (1969/1982) described the relevant contexts as “fall[ing] into two classes: those which indicate the presence of potential danger or stress (internal or external), and those concerning the whereabouts and accessibility of the attachment figure” (p. 373).

Especially during the early years of life, both of these circumstances are likely to be associated with infant distress. This association has led some writers to wonder whether maternal response to infant distress is particularly predictive of infant attachment quality (e.g., Thompson, 1997 ), and there is compelling evidence that this is the case (e.g., Del Carmen, Pedersen, Huffman, & Bryan, 1993 ; Leerkes, 2011 ; Leerkes, Parade, & Gudmundson, 2011 ; McElwain & Booth-LaForce, 2006 ). When infants experience comfort from parental sensitive responses to their distress, they develop mental representations that contribute to security (“When I am distressed, I seek care, and I am comforted”). These representations are then thought to guide secure attachment behavior, and the physiological regulation that comes from regaining calmness in contact with the parent is thought to calibrate the child's stress reactivity systems and feed back into further secure mental representations (e.g., Cassidy et al., 2013 ; Suomi, 2008 ). The greater predictive power of the maternal response to distress, compared to maternal response to non-distress, may emerge from the considerable intertwining of infant distress and the infant's attachment system during the first year of life.

Future studies attempting to predict infant attachment might benefit from a framework that considers two components of parental behavior: (a) parental behavior related specifically to the secure base function of the infant's attachment system as Bowlby described it (see above), and (b) parental response to infant distress. Table 1 presents a 2 (attachment-related or not) × 2 (infant distressed or not) matrix that gives rise to a number of research questions. One key question is the following: Is parental behavior in response to an infant's attachment behavioral system most predictive of infant attachment, regardless of whether or not the infant is distressed (i.e., parental behavior in both cells 1 and 2)? Another set of questions relates to distress: Is parental response to any form of infant distress the most central predictor of infant attachment (i.e., parental behavior in both cells 1 and 3)? Does the termination of the physiological and emotional dysregulation of distress – no matter what the cause – that occurs through parental care solidify a tendency to use the parent as a secure base? Or do the cognitive models that derive from experiences of distress in different contexts (e.g., distress during play versus distress when seeking comfort) contribute differentially to secure base use? Most previous research has not drawn distinctions concerning the context of infant distress; future work that considers this distinction is needed.

Note . The following examples describe 5- to 12-month old infants participating in studies with their mothers in Cassidy's lab. Cell 1 . The context is attachment-related, and the infant is distressed: After having been left alone in an unfamiliar laboratory playroom, a crying 12-month-old crossed the room to her returning mother and reached to be picked up. Cell 2 . The context is attachment-related, and the infant is not distressed: An 8-month-old infant had been playing contentedly for 20 minutes near her mother at home. The mother had been sitting on the floor holding a toddler whose hair she was braiding. When the mother finished and the toddler moved away, the infant crawled to the mother, clambered up on her lap, and snuggled in for a hug; after exchanging tender pats with her mother, the infant returned to play on the floor. The lack of accessibility to the mother may have led to the infant's seeking contact in a manner that did not involve other activities (e.g., play or feeding). Cell 3 . The context is not attachment-related, and the infant is distressed: A 12-month-old infant became distressed when a toy was removed. Cell 4 . The context is not attachment-related, and the infant is not distressed: An infant, with her mother nearby, played happily with toys.

Additional questions raised by Table 1 include: Is it the combination of maternal behavior when the infant's attachment system is central, along with any behavioral response to infant distress, that best predicts infant attachment (i.e., maternal behavior in cells 1, 2, and 3)? Finally, is it the case (as some have suggested; e.g., Pedersen & Moran, 1999) that maternal behavior in all four cells is predictive of infant attachment? Attempts to increase understanding of the precursors of infant attachment will require the development of detailed coding systems.

Finally, it will be crucial for future research conducted within a secure base framework to identify the specific maternal behaviors in response to activation of the infant's attachment system that predict infant security (for one approach, see Cassidy et al., 2005 , and Woodhouse & Cassidy, 2009 , who note that providing physical contact until the infant is fully calmed may be a more powerful predictor of later security than the general sensitivity of the parent's response). Basic research examining the extent to which infant distress occurs in relation to the attachment behavioral system will provide an important foundation for further work.

Additional mediational pathways: Genetics, cognitions, and emotions

Following the discovery of the transmission gap, several studies examined the possibility of a genetic mediating mechanism. However, neither behavior-genetic nor molecular-genetic research so far indicates a genetic component to individual differences in secure vs. insecure attachment, although mixed findings have emerged concerning a genetic vulnerability for infant disorganized attachment ( Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2004 , 2007 ; Bokhorst et al. 2003 ; Fearon et al., 2006 ; Roisman & Fraley, 2008 ). (For evidence that variability in infants' serotonin-transporter-linked polymorphic region 5-HTTLPR predicts not whether infants are secure or insecure, but their subtype of security or subtype of insecurity, see Raby et al., 2012 ). Future research should examine other genes and gene X environment interactions (see Suomi, 2011 , for examples from primate research).

Despite a conceptual model of intergenerational transmission in which maternal behavior is central, examination of additional linking mechanisms purported to underlie maternal behavior, such as maternal cognitions and emotions, will continue to be important. Perhaps such factors may be more reliably measured than maternal behavior, and if they are, mediating relations may emerge to shed light on mechanisms of transmission (e.g., Bernier & Dozier, 2003 ). Moreover, from a clinical standpoint, factors thought to underlie maternal behavior may be more amenable targets of intervention than her behavior itself. For example, continued examination of maternal cognition through the study of constructs such as reflective functioning and maternal insightfulness may shed light on the link between mother and child attachment ( Oppenheim & Koren-Karie, 2009 ; Slade, Sadler, & Mayes, 2005 ). These constructs refer to the extent to which a mother can see the world from her infant's point of view while also considering her own mental state. There is evidence that these and other components of maternal cognition (e.g., perceptions of the baby, attributions about infant behavior and emotions, maternal mindmindedness) are linked to maternal and/or child attachment, and additional research is needed to clarify the extent to which these components mediate the link between the two (e.g., Leerkes & Siepak, 2006 ; Zeanah, Benoit, Hirshberg, Barton, & Regan, 1994 ).

Another aspect of maternal functioning that should prove fruitful for researchers examining the transmission gap is maternal emotion regulation. As Cassidy (2006) has proposed, much maternal insensitivity can be recast as a failure of maternal emotion regulation. That is, when mothers themselves become dysregulated in the face of child behavior or child emotions that they find distressing (particularly child distress), their maternal behavior is more likely to be driven by their own dysregulation rather than the needs of the child (see also Slade, in press ). Evidence that maternal emotion-regulation capacities contribute to problematic parenting and insecure attachment has been reported ( Leerkes et al., 2011 ; Lorber & O'Leary, 2005 ), as have data indicating that maternal state of mind with respect to attachment (i.e., maternal secure base script knowledge) is uniquely related to maternal physiological regulation in response to infant cries (but not in response to infant laughter; Groh & Roisman, 2009 ). Unfortunately, although there is a sound conceptual and empirical basis for maternal emotion regulation as a mediator of the link between maternal and child attachment, there has been no empirical examination of this possibility.

In sum, the direction of future work depends on researchers' goals. If the goal is to understand the maternal behavior that mediates the link between maternal state of mind and child attachment, then the focus, obviously, must be on maternal behavior. If, however, the goal is to understand what factors may guide maternal behavior, and as such may themselves be successful targets of intervention, then examination of factors such as maternal cognitions and emotions should prove useful as well.

Caregiving as a Function of Adult Attachment Style

Although most researchers using self-report measures of adult attachment have not focused on links with parenting, there is a substantial and growing body of literature (more than 50 published studies) that addresses this link (see Jones, Cassidy, & Shaver, 2013 , for a review). Whereas researchers using the AAI have focused mainly on links between adults' AAI classifications and their observed parenting behaviors , attachment style researchers have focused mainly on links between adult attachment style and self-reported parenting cognitions and emotions (reviewed by Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 ). But the few studies in which self-report attachment measures were used to predict parenting behavior have found support for predicted associations (e.g., Edelstein et al., 2004 ; Mills-Koonce et al., 2011 ; Rholes, Simpson, & Blakely, 1995 , Study 1; Selcuk et al., 2010 ). This is especially the case for maternal self-reported attachment-related avoidance (note that each of these studies was conducted with mothers only [Edelstein et al. included 4 fathers], so caution is warranted in generalizing these findings to fathers).

It would be useful to have more studies of adult attachment styles and observed parenting behavior. It would also be important to conduct longitudinal and intergenerational research using self-report measures. Prospective research is needed examining the extent to which adult attachment styles predict both parenting behaviors and infant attachment (see Mayseless, Sharabany, & Sagi, 1997 , and Volling, Notaro, & Larsen, 1998 , for mixed evidence concerning parents' adult attachment style as a predictor of infant attachment). Of related interest to researchers examining attachment styles and parenting will be longitudinal research examining the developmental precursors of adult attachment as measured with self-report measures (see Fraley, Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Tresch Owen, & Holland, 2013 , and Zayas, Mischel, Shoda, & Aber, 2011 , for evidence that self-reported attachment style in adolescence and early adulthood is predictable from participants' mothers' behavior during the participants' infancy and early childhood).

In general, we need more merging of social and developmental research traditions. It would be useful to include both the AAI and self-report attachment style measures in studies of parenting behaviors and cognitions. It would also be useful to know how the two kinds of measures relate similarly and differently to parenting variables. Scharf and Mayseless (2011) included both kinds of measures and found that both of them prospectively predicted parenting cognitions (e.g., perceived ability to take care of children), and in some cases, the self-report measure yielded significant predictions when the AAI did not (e.g., desire to have children). From the viewpoint of making predictions for practical or applied purposes, it is beneficial that both interview and self-report measures predict important outcomes but sometimes do so in non-redundant ways, thus increasing the amount of explained variance.

Mothers and Fathers

It is unclear whether it is best to think of a single kind of parental caregiving system in humans or of separate maternal and paternal caregiving systems. Harlow proposed separate maternal and paternal systems in primates (e.g., Harlow, Harlow, & Hansen, 1963 ). Within a modern evolutionary perspective, the existence of separate maternal and paternal caregiving systems is readily understood. Because mothers and fathers may differ substantially in the extent to which the survival of any one child enhances their overall fitness, their parenting behavior may differ. In addition, the inclusion of fathers in future attachment research is crucial. We contend that the field's continued focus on mothers is more likely to reflect the difficulty of recruiting fathers as research participants than a lack of interest in fathers. Bowlby, after all, was careful to use the term “attachment figure” rather than “mother,” because of his belief that although biological mothers typically serve as principal attachment figures, other figures such as fathers, adoptive mothers, grandparents, and child-care providers can also serve as attachment figures. Presumably, it is the nature of the interaction rather than the category of the individual that is important to the child. Also, addition of fathers will permit examination of attachment within a family systems perspective ( Byng-Hall, 1999 ; Johnson, 2008 ). Future research should examine (a) whether the precursors of infant-father attachment are similar to or different from the precursors of infant-mother attachment; (b) whether the Strange Situation best captures the quality of infant-father attachments (some have suggested that it does not; Grossmann Grossman, Kindler, & Zimmermann, 2008 ); (c) the influence of infants' relationships with fathers and father figures on their subsequent security and mental health; (d) possible differences in the working models children have of mothers and fathers; and (e) possible influences of parents' relationship with each other on the child's sense of having, or not having, a secure base ( Bretherton, 2010 ; Davies & Cummings, 1994 ).

Attachment and Psychopathology

As mentioned at the outset of this article, Bowlby was a clinician interested in the influence of early experiences with caregivers on children's later mental health and delinquency ( Bowlby, 1944 , 1951 ). Yet following a line of thinking that later came to characterize the developmental psychopathology approach (e.g., Cicchetti, 1984 ), Bowlby developed attachment theory as a framework for investigating and understanding both normal and abnormal development ( Sroufe, Carlson, Levy, & Egeland, 1999 ). Given space limitations and the focus of this journal, we will concentrate on relations between attachment and child psychopathology ( Figure 1 , Path d; see Cassidy & Shaver, 2008 , and Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005a , for reviews of attachment and psychosocial functioning more broadly). The vast majority of existing studies have, however, not focused on clinically diagnosed psychopathology, but have been concerned with relations between attachment and continuous measures of internalizing and externalizing symptoms (e.g., assessed with the Child Behavior Checklist [CBCL]; Achenbach, 1991 ).

Bowlby's Theory of Attachment and Psychopathology

Bowlby used Waddington's (1957) developmental pathways model to explain how early attachment relates to later developmental outcomes, including psychopathology. According to this model, developmental outcomes are a product of the interaction of early childhood experiences and current context (at any later age). Early attachment is not expected to be perfectly predictive of later outcomes. Moreover, attachment insecurity per se is not psychopathology nor does it guarantee pathological outcomes. Instead, insecurity in infancy and early childhood is thought to be a risk factor for later psychopathology if subsequent development occurs in the context of other risk factors (e.g., poverty, parental psychopathology, abuse). Security is a protective factor that may buffer against emotional problems when later risks are present (see Sroufe et al., 1999 , for a review).

Attachment and Internalizing/Externalizing Behavior Problems: State of the Field

Over the past few decades, there have been many studies of early attachment and child mental health. The findings are complicated and difficult to summarize, as explained by Fearon, Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, Lapsley, and Roisman (2010 , p. 437): “With the sheer volume, range, and diversity of studies…it has become virtually impossible to provide a clear narrative account of the status of the evidence concerning this critical issue in developmental science” (italics added). Studies contributing to this body of work have used diverse samples and different methods and measures, and have yielded inconsistent and, at times, contradictory results. Fortunately, two recent meta-analyses ( Fearon et al., 2010 ; Groh, Roisman, van IJzendoorn, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Fearon, 2012 ) provide quantitative estimates of the degree of association between child attachment and internalizing/externalizing symptoms.

The meta-analyses revealed that insecurity (avoidant, ambivalent, and disorganized combined) was related to higher rates of internalizing and externalizing symptoms (though the link appears to be stronger for externalizing symptoms). When the subtypes of insecurity were examined individually, avoidance and disorganization were each significantly related to higher rates of externalizing problems, but only avoidance was significantly related to internalizing problems. Ambivalence was not significantly related to internalizing or externalizing. Contrary to expectations, neither meta-analysis yielded much support for an interaction of child attachment and contextual risk in predicting behavior problems. For example, neither meta-analysis found support for the predicted child attachment by SES interaction. However, given that high versus low SES is a rather imprecise measure of the numerous psychosocial risk factors that could contribute (individually and additively) to behavior problems, along with evidence from large sample studies supporting an attachment by risk interaction (e.g., Fearon & Belsky, 2011 ), these results should be interpreted cautiously. In sum, the answer to the question “Is early attachment status related to later mental health difficulties?” is a resounding yes, but the precise nature of the connections remains unclear.

Attachment and Psychopathology: Gaps in the Research and Future Directions

More research is needed on mechanisms, or mediators, that help to explain how insecurity, or a particular form of insecure attachment, leads in some cases to psychopathology. These mechanisms should be considered at different levels of analysis: neurological, hormonal, cognitive, behavioral, and social-interactional. Mediators may include difficulties in emotion regulation and deficits in social skills, for example. Given the documented links between early attachment and emotion regulation and physiological stress responses ( Cassidy, 1994 ; Spangler & Grossmann, 1993 ), as well as the role of emotion dysregulation and HPA axis irregularities in psychopathology ( Gunnar & Vazquez, 2006 ; Kring & Sloan, 2010 ), emotion regulation seems to be a promising target for mechanism research. More research is also needed on potential moderators and risk factors, such as age, gender, personality, traumas and losses, SES, exposure to family and neighborhood violence. Researchers should consider the cumulative effects of multiple risk factors as well as interactions among risk factors ( Belsky & Fearon, 2002 ; Fearon & Belsky, 2011 ; Kazdin & Kagan, 1994 ).

Given that most research on the mental health sequelae of early attachment has focused on internalizing and externalizing symptoms in non-clinical samples, future research should focus more on clinically significant problems and consider specific clinical disorders. The CBCL is not a measure of psychopathology, although it does indicate risk for eventual psychopathology ( Koot & Verhulst, 1992 ; Verhulst, Koot, & Van der Ende, 1994 ). Future research should address why the link between attachment and problematic behaviors is stronger for externalizing than for internalizing problems, and whether this difference holds for diagnosable pathology (e.g., conduct disorder or major depression). This may be partially a measurement issue. The CBCL is often completed, with reference to a child, by a parent, a teacher, or both. It may be easier to see and remember externalizing behaviors than it is to notice whether a child is experiencing anxiety, sadness, or internal conflicts. Another important diagnostic issue is comorbidity. It is very common for clinicians to assign a person to multiple diagnostic categories. Perhaps attachment theory and related measures could help to identify common processes underlying comorbid conditions and suggest where their roots lie ( Mineka, Watson, & Clark, 1998 ). One likely possibility is emotion regulation and dysregulation influenced by early experiences with parents.

Moreover, additional research is needed on the precise nature of the early childhood predictive factors and issues of causation. Is the issue really attachment status at age 1, for example, or is it continual insecure attachment across years of development? Also, we need to know whether attachment status per se is the issue or whether, for example, poor parenting predicts both attachment classification and psychopathology. Answering these questions will require studies using repeated assessments of attachment, parenting, context, and psychopathology. Further, there is increasing recognition of the importance of genetics and gene-by-environment interactions in understanding the development of psychopathology (e.g., Moffitt, 2005 ). Given preliminary evidence for genetic influences on disorganized attachment ( Lakatos et al., 2000 ) as well as evidence for a gene-by-early-maternal-sensitivity interaction in predicting mental health outcomes ( Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2006 ), this area of inquiry is a very promising avenue for further research. There is also growing evidence concerning environmental effects on gene expression (i.e., epigenetics; Meaney, 2010 ). Especially interesting is the possibility that secure attachment may protect a child from the expression of risky genotypes (see Kochanska, Philibert, & Barry, 2009 , for preliminary evidence).

The Neuroscience of Attachment

Recent methodological advances (e.g., fMRI) have enabled researchers to investigate the neural correlates of attachment in humans. Initial theoretical formulations and empirical findings from the nascent subfield of “attachment neuroscience” ( Coan, 2008 ) have begun to provide answers to important questions about the neurobiology of attachment. Recent advances in this area include: (a) identifying key brain structures, neural circuits, neurotransmitter systems, and neuropeptides involved in attachment system functioning (see Coan, 2008 , 2010 , and Vrtička & Vuilleumier, 2012 , for reviews); (b) providing preliminary evidence that individual differences in attachment can be seen at the neural level in the form of differential brain responses to social and emotional stimuli ( Vrtička & Vuilleumier, 2012 ); (c) demonstrating the ability of attachment figures to regulate their spouses' neural threat response (i.e., hidden regulators; Coan et al., 2006 ); and (d) advancing our understanding of the neurobiology of parenting (see Parsons, Young, Murray, Stein, & Kringelbach, 2010 , for a review).

These early findings suggest important directions for attachment research. First, the vast majority of research on the neurobiology of attachment has been conducted with adults (yet see Dawson et al., 2001 ; White et al., 2012 ). However, researchers have the tools to examine the neural bases of attachment in younger participants. It is feasible to have children as young as 4 or 5 years old perform tasks in a functional magnetic resonance imaging scanner ( Byars et al., 2002 ; Yerys et al., 2009 ), and less invasive measures such as EEG are commonly used with infants and even newborns. Additional investigations with younger participants could move the field of attachment neuroscience forward in important ways. For example, researchers could find ethically acceptable ways to extend the work of Coan and colleagues (2006) to parents and children: Just as holding the hand of a spouse attenuates the neural threat response in members of adult couples, holding the hand of a caregiver may have a similar effect on children. Researchers should also extend the sparse literature on how individual differences in attachment in children relate to differential neural responses to social and emotional stimuli.

Second, there is a need for longitudinal investigations that address several important unanswered questions: (a) What does child-parent attachment formation look like at the neural level in terms of the circuits involved and changes in neurobiology over time? (b) What is the role of developmental timing (i.e., sensitive and critical periods in brain development) in the formation of neural circuits associated with attachment? (c) Is the neural circuitry associated with attachment the same for children, adolescents, and adults? Some researchers have suggested that the neural circuitry associated with attachment may be different at different ages ( Coan, 2008 ).

Third, future research should examine the ability of experience to change neural activity in brain regions related to attachment, and should explore potential clinical implications of these findings. For example, Johnson et al. (2013) compared the ability of spousal hand-holding to buffer neural responses to threat before and after couples underwent Emotion-Focused Therapy (EFT). They found that EFT increased the ability of hand-holding to attenuate threat responses; similar examination of both parent and child neural activity in response to attachment-related interventions would be informative.

Fourth, it is important for future research to identify which, if any, brain regions are specific to attachment and which are shared with other related social constructs such as caregiving or affiliation more broadly. There is initial evidence that caregiving and attachment involve both unique and overlapping brain regions ( Bartels & Zeki, 2004 ).

Finally, given the inherent interpersonal nature of attachment, future research should attempt to study attachment-related neural processes in situations that approximate as closely as possible “real” social interactions ( Vrtička & Vuilleumier, 2012 ). To date, all studies of the neuroscience of attachment have focused on the neural activity of only one partner in a relationship. By capitalizing on further methodological advances in neuroimaging (e.g., hyperscanning; Montague et al., 2002 ) researchers may be able to examine simultaneously the neural activity of a parent and child while they are interacting.

Attachment, Inflammation, and Health

Evidence is accumulating that attachment insecurity in adulthood is concurrently associated with negative health behaviors (e.g., poor diet, tobacco use; Ahrens, Ciechanowski, & Katon, 2012 ; Huntsinger & Luecken, 2004 ; Scharfe & Eldredge, 2001 ) and problematic health conditions (e.g., chronic pain, hypertension, stroke, heart attack; McWilliams & Bailey, 2010 ). Despite these intriguing cross-sectional findings in adult samples, much less is known about how early attachment relates to long-term health outcomes. One longitudinal study ( Puig, Englund, Collins, & Simpson, 2012 ) reported that individuals classified as insecurely attached to mother at 18 months were more likely to report physical illnesses 30 years later. Two other studies found that early insecure attachment was associated with higher rates of obesity at age 4.5 ( Anderson & Whitaker, 2011 ) and 15 ( Anderson, Gooze, Lemeshow, & Whitaker, 2012 ). Additional longitudinal investigations of the links between early attachment and health outcomes are needed to replicate these findings in different samples using a wider variety of health measures (e.g., medical records, biomarkers, onset and course of specific health problems).

Another goal for future research is to advance our understanding of the processes or mechanisms by which early attachment is related to later health outcomes. Recent proposals that early psychosocial experiences become “biologically embedded” at the molecular level and influence later immune system functioning (e.g., inflammation) provide a promising model with which to pursue this kind of research (see Miller, Chen, & Parker, 2011 , for a review of the conceptual model and its empirical support). In brief, the model proposes that early adverse experiences result in immune system cells with a “proinflammatory phenotype” and neuroendocrine dysregulation leading to chronic inflammation. Inflammation, in turn, is involved in a variety of aging-related illnesses including cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases, and certain types of cancer ( Chung et al., 2009 ).

As mentioned earlier, there is mounting evidence that early experiences with caregivers (including their influence on attachment) contribute to the calibration and ongoing regulation of the HPA axis (e.g., cortisol reactivity, diurnal cortisol rhythms), a system that is central to the body's stress response ( Adam et al., 2007 ; Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007 ; Luijk et al., 2010 ; Spangler & Grossmann, 1993 ). The HPA axis also plays an integral role in inflammatory responses and immune system functioning. In addition, there is evidence that early maternal warmth (retrospectively reported) can buffer the deleterious effects of early adversity on pro-inflammatory signaling in adulthood ( Chen, Miller, Kobor, & Cole, 2011 ; see also Pietromonaco, DeBuse, & Powers, 2013 , for a review of the links between adult attachment and HPA axis functioning). Finally, studies show that attachment in adulthood is concurrently related to biomarkers of immunity: attachment-related avoidance is related to heightened levels of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 (IL-6) in response to an interpersonal stressor ( Gouin et al., 2009 ) and to lower levels of natural killer cell (NK) cytotoxicity (NK cells are involved in immune defense; Picardi et al., 2007 ); attachment-related anxiety is related to elevated cortisol production and lower numbers of T cells ( Jaremka et al., 2013 ).

These initial findings provide an empirical basis for researchers to pursue further the connections between attachment and health. Future research should prospectively examine the relation between early attachment security and biomarkers of inflammation in adulthood. Further, researchers should attempt to elucidate the relations among attachment, HPA axis functioning, inflammation, and the immune system to better understand the biological processes underlying the link between early experience and later health outcomes.

Attachment and Empathy, Compassion, and Altruism

Shortly after the development of the Strange Situation, which allowed researchers to validly assess infants' attachment orientations, there was strong interest in the potential links between attachment security and prosocial motives and behaviors (e.g., empathy, compassion). From a theoretical standpoint, there are reasons to expect that secure children – whose own needs have been responded to in a sensitive and responsive way – will develop the capacity to respond to the needs of others empathically. Several early investigations confirmed the association between child attachment security and empathic responding ( Kestenbaum, Farber, & Sroufe, 1989 ; Sroufe, 1983 ; Teti & Ablard, 1989 ). Over the past 24 years, however, the link between child attachment status and prosocial processes (e.g., empathy, helping, altruism) has received surprisingly little research attention (though see Panfile & Laible, 2012 ; Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxler, Richardson, Susman, & Martinez, 1994 ; van der Mark, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2002 ). In contrast, social/personality psychologists have generated substantial and compelling empirical support for a connection between adult attachment and prosocial motives and behaviors.

Mikulincer, Shaver, and colleagues ( Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001 ; Mikulincer, Shaver, Gillath, & Nitzberg, 2005 ; Mikulincer, Shaver, Sahdra, & Bar-On, in press ) have demonstrated that both dispositional and experimentally augmented attachment security (accomplished through various forms of “security priming”) are associated with several prosocial constructs, including reduced outgroup prejudice, increased compassion for a suffering stranger and willingness to suffer in her place, and the ability and willingness of one partner in a couple to listen sensitively and respond helpfully to the other partner's description of a personal problem. In addition, surveys completed in three different countries (United States, Israel, the Netherlands) revealed that more secure adults (measured by self-reports) were more likely to volunteer in their communities (e.g., by donating blood or helping the elderly). Avoidant respondents were much less likely to volunteer, and although anxious respondents volunteered, their reasons for doing so (e.g., to receive thanks, to feel included) were less generous than those of their more secure peers ( Gillath et al., 2005 ).

Further study of how early attachment relates to various forms of prosocial behavior is needed. Developmental attachment researchers would benefit from using the experimental techniques that Mikulincer, Shaver, and colleagues used. Are young children who were classified as secure in the Strange Situation (especially in comparison to children classified as avoidant) more willing to help a suffering individual or more willing to interact with a child from a different ethnic group? Can experimental security “boosts” increase tolerance, empathy, compassion, and altruism in children? There is already robust experimental evidence that infants as young as 14 to 18 months readily engage in altruistic behavior (e.g., retrieving an out-of-reach object for a stranger; see Warneken & Tomasello, 2009 , for a review). To the best of our knowledge, however, no study has examined whether variations in infant attachment predict individual differences in this kind of instrumental helping behavior (although the potential for attachment-related differences has been proposed by Dweck; see Tomasello, Dweck, Silk, Skyrms, & Spelke, 2009 ). Warneken and Tomasello (2009) have proposed that these early helping behaviors reflect a biological predisposition for altruism in infants that begins to be influenced by social and cultural experiences only “a year or two after [the infants] have started behaving altruistically” (p. 400). However, given the innumerable social experiences that infants encounter in the first year of life and the pioneering work by Johnson and colleagues ( Johnson, Dweck, & Chen, 2007 ; Johnson et al., 2010 ) showing that 12- to 16-month-old infants with different attachment patterns have different expectations about others' helpfulness, it may be possible to observe attachment-related individual differences in early helping behaviors earlier than Warneken and Tomasello suggest.

Attachment and School Readiness

In recent years researchers, educators, and policy makers have been increasingly interested in understanding factors that predict children's school readiness and in developing and testing programs that may better prepare children (particularly at-risk children) for school entry. In his 2013 State of the Union Address at the beginning of his second term, President Obama proposed implementing universal, high-quality preschool for all American children with the idea that these early preparatory experiences will enhance school readiness and future academic performance. The focus of much of the initial research on school readiness has been on children's basic cognitive skills such as early literacy and numeracy abilities (e.g., Duncan et al., 2007 ). More recently, researchers have recognized the importance of other competencies such as emotion regulation and social skills (e.g., High and the Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care and Council on School Health, 2008 ). Further, High et al. listed “strong nurturing relationships” as one of the universal needs of children that must be met to promote school readiness and positive educational outcomes (p. e1009).

The conclusions reached by High et al. suggest that child attachment security is an important factor to consider when studying school readiness and developing programs designed to improve school readiness (for initial empirical evidence, see Belsky & Fearon, 2002 , and Stacks & Oshio, 2009 ). Decades of research have provided substantial evidence that early attachment security is associated with better emotion regulation capacities and greater social competence (e.g., Cassidy, 1994 ; Sroufe et al., 2005a ; Thompson, 2008 ). In addition, research has demonstrated that secure attachment is associated with better academic performance ( Granot & Mayseless, 2001 ) as well as enhanced cognitive skills and executive functions ( Bernier, Carlson, Deschênes, & Matte-Gagné, 2012 ; Jacobsen, Edelstein, & Hofmann, 1994 ). Thus, as research on school readiness continues to advance, greater consideration of the direct and indirect influences of early attachment security on school readiness is warranted. For example, researchers should test mediational models in which attachment security predicts greater emotion regulation or social competence, which in turn predicts greater school readiness. In addition, both parenting and school readiness interventions could consider whether increasing parental secure base provision fosters a child's school readiness. Moreover, consideration of the extent to which preschool teachers perform secure base and safe haven functions for their young students, and whether these components of the student-teacher relationship relate to young children's classroom functioning will be important (see Commodari, 2013 ).

Attachment and Culture

Bowlby (1969/1982 ) viewed the attachment behavioral system as a product of human evolutionary history, making it cross-culturally universal. Ainsworth's (1967 ; Ainsworth et al., 1978 ) early studies in Uganda and the US provided empirical support for similar attachment processes in very different cultures. Although some researchers have disputed the cross-cultural validity of core tenets of attachment theory (e.g., Rothbaum, Weisz, Pott, Miyake, & Morelli, 2000 ), decades of research strongly suggest that the basic phenomenon and the major kinds of individual differences are universal (see van IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008 , for a review). Three hypotheses rooted in attachment theory have been examined and supported in cross-cultural research: that secure attachment is the most prevalent pattern in all cultures and is viewed as the most desirable pattern; that maternal sensitivity influences infant attachment patterns; and that secure infant attachment predicts later social and cognitive competence.

Yet much more research is needed. As psychological knowledge, research, and applications become increasingly global, it will become more feasible to map the detailed effects of cross-cultural and contextual differences in parenting, co-parenting, community care, environmental harshness and instability, and conflicts and war on attachment patterns and attachment-related mental health problems. It will be increasingly important to define “culture” and “context” more specifically. Within any large and diverse society, and in every large urban area (in a world increasingly urbanized), there are many cultures and subcultures. Moreover, within any modern society there are large differences in ethnicity, religion, diet, education, income, economic security, and threats to health and the availability of medical care. It is therefore important not to think of differences only between nation states but also within different groups and contexts within each nation.

Translating Attachment Research to Clinical Practice Interventions with Infants and Young Children at Risk for Insecure Attachment

Just as the study of individual differences in attachment began with the study of infants, so the systematic study of how to create attachment-related change focused initially on attempts to alter the developmental trajectory of infants who are at risk of developing or maintaining insecure attachments. Given the substantial and converging longitudinal research underscoring the risks associated with insecure attachment (e.g., poorer mental and physical health and lower social competence), the need to intervene to reduce the risk of insecure attachment is clear. In the past 20 years, researchers and clinicians have developed numerous therapeutic programs to prevent or reduce insecure attachment ( Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, & Juffer, 2003 ; Egeland, Weinfield, Bosquet, & Cheng, 2000 ; see Berlin, Zeanah, & Lieberman, 2008 , for a review). Despite the fact that a handful of attachment interventions have shown initial success (e.g., Bernard et al., 2012 ; Cassidy et al., 2011 ; Cicchetti, Rogosch, & Toth, 2006 ; Hoffman, Marvin, Cooper, & Powell, 2006 ; Klein Velderman, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Juffer, & van IJzendoorn, 2006 ; Lieberman, Weston, & Pawl, 1991 ; Lyons-Ruth & Easterbrooks, 2006 ; Sadler et al., 2013 ; Toth, Rogosch, Manly, & Cicchetti, 2006 ; van den Boom, 1994 , 1995 ), we have as yet a collection of individual initiatives with little replication. More research is needed to identify the critical targets of attachment interventions and to understand the process of change.

Targets of early intervention

What should an intervention target? Until recently, this question was framed largely as: Should interventions target parental behavior, parental representations, or both? Greater specificity is required. When an intervention targets parental behavior, what specific components of behavior should be targeted? We discussed potential aspects of parental behavior earlier. When an intervention targets parental representations, what specific components should be targeted? Should interventions target representations of the parent her- or himself, of the infant, of the relationship; of the baby as an entity with a mind (e.g., mentalizing approaches; Slade et al., 2005 ); or maternal attributions about the infant's behavior ( Bugental et al., 2002 )?

Several studies (described earlier) suggest additional intervention targets. For example, the evidence that maternal emotion regulation capacities influence parenting ( Dix, 1991 ; Leerkes, Crockenberg, & Burrous, 2004 ; Lorber & Slep, 2005 ; Smith & O'Leary, 1995 ) suggests that targeting maternal emotion regulation capacities might be useful in bringing about change (e.g., the Circle of Security intervention; Hoffman et al., 2006 ). Another target of intervention is suggested by research with non-human primates and other mammals that demonstrates the soothing and regulatory functions that physical contact with an attachment figure can provide ( Hofer, 1994 , 2006 ; Meaney, 2001 ; Suomi, 2008 ; see Feldman, Singer, & Zagoory, 2010 , for such evidence in humans; see also Field, 2011 ). Interventions focused on infant-mother contact may prove useful (see Anisfeld, Casper, Nozyce, & Cunningham, 1990 , for a randomized trial in which mothers assigned to carry their infants in soft baby carriers were more likely to have infants who were securely attached at age 1). Of course, consideration of intervention targets necessarily requires considering moderators of intervention effectiveness. Targeting certain components may be more effective for some mothers than others.

The desire to intervene to reduce the risk of insecure attachment rests on the assumption that doing so in turn reduces the risk of poor child functioning, including a reduction in behavior problems and psychopathology. Remarkably, although there are a number of studies, described above, that show a link between insecure attachment and behavior problems and psychopathology, much less research has focused on whether intervening to reduce the risk of insecure attachment actually leads to a reduction in later problems (yet see Dozier et al., 2006 ; Moss et al., 2011 ; Klein Velderman et al., 2006 ; van den Boom, 1995 ; Van Zeijl et al., 2006 ). Future intervention research should test the change model according to which improving parenting reduces the risk of insecure attachment, which in turn reduces child behavior problems and psychopathology. Given that behavior problems associated with early insecure attachment may not emerge until later in development, and the evidence that the link between insecure attachment and behavior problems grows stronger over time ( Fearon & Belsky, 2011 ), longitudinal studies with long-term outcome assessments will be an important component of future intervention research.

Intervention development and issues of implementation

No attachment intervention has yet achieved widespread implementation. When following the typical efficacy-to-effectiveness clinical model, researchers initially design an intervention with a highly specified protocol, and only once it has proven to be efficacious in a tightly controlled setting do they begin to consider the adaptations needed for effectiveness in real-world settings. With attachment-based infant interventions, the problem has been that initial interventions are typically very expensive, and real-world social agencies attempting to meet the needs of at-risk infants cannot afford them. This is an unfortunate situation, especially because, over the past decade, there has been a call for researchers to attend to issues of implementation during the early stages of intervention planning. For instance, an argument that “the focus on feasibility in the prevention research cycle should not be restricted to the effectiveness stage” has been put forward by Ialongo and colleagues (2006) .

Several components of early attachment-based interventions make implementation at a broad public health level impractical. Many such interventions involve videotaping individual parent-infant interactions and providing individualized parental feedback (e.g., Dozier et al., 2006 ; Klein Velderman et al., 2006 ). This requires considerable resources: extensive training and supervision of staff; expertise and time to create individual diagnostic and treatment plans; and time, space, equipment, skills, and parental assent for individual videotaping. From an attachment perspective, the problem is how to provide an individualized approach that does not require expensive highly skilled staff. This problem has not been easy to solve (e.g., Berlin, Ziv, Amaya-Jackson, & Greenberg, 2005 ). Continued attempts to develop interventions that are widely and affordably implementable are important.

We urgently need evaluations of comprehensive theory- and research-based intervention protocols that can be widely implemented among families whose infants and children are at elevated risk for developing or maintaining insecure attachments . Addressing this need is in keeping with the NIMH (2008) strategic plan's objective of moving interventions to “common practice” more quickly and of examining interventions in “the care setting in which they are delivered” (p. 35). Continued testing of attachment-based interventions should occur further down the efficacy-to-effectiveness stream – with affordable protocols that can be provided through existing service delivery mechanisms. Expensive interventions are not implementable on a broad scale within the current American health care and educational structures.

Intervention development and testing are enormously expensive, yet replication of existing interventions is crucial. We propose that the dedication of resources to development of new interventions occur only when theory, clinical perspectives, or research indicate that existing interventions lack an important component that could reasonably contribute to change.

Interventions during Adolescence

Adolescence is a period of increased risk-taking behavior and mental health disorders ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2012 ; Roberts, Attkisson, & Rosenblatt, 1998 ), and attempts to reduce these problematic symptoms and behaviors are important. The dramatic biological and cognitive changes that occur during adolescence have led some researchers to consider this period as a second sensitive period (e.g., Andersen & Teicher, 2008 ; Guttmannova et al., 2011 ), and as such, adolescents may be particularly open to environmental interventions that can lead to improved functioning.

Interventions designed to help adolescents are typically targeted at the reduction of specific problems (e.g., depression or delinquency), and there are many effective interventions for helping troubled adolescents (e.g., Dishion & Kavanagh, 2003 ; Stein, Zitner, & Jensen, 2006 ). Yet given evidence that the link between attachment security and healthy functioning continues to exist in adolescence ( Dykas, Ziv, & Cassidy, 2008 ; Kobak & Sceery, 1988 ; see Allen, 2008 , for a review), increasing adolescent attachment security may also be an effective means of reducing adolescent problems. In other words, does an intervention focused on the adolescent-parent attachment relationship increase the likelihood of reduced problematic adolescent behavior? There has been remarkably little research on this important question. Moreover, the associations among intervention, attachment, and psychopathology may be more complex in adolescence than they are in infancy and early childhood. Another important way to examine the connections among these factors is to design studies to determine whether reducing adolescent psychopathology contributes to secure adolescent attachment.

In an intervention designed to enhance adolescent-parent attachment security – with the idea being that increased security will reduce the prevalence of adolescent problems – questions about intervention approaches arise. For instance, should an intervention include the parent, the adolescent, or both? Bretherton (1992) described Bowlby as the first family therapist because of his proposition that change in a child's attachment to a parent is possible only when there is change within the interaction between the child and the parent (see also Byng-Hall, 1999 ). There has been almost no examination of this proposition in adolescence. One randomized controlled trial ( Diamond et al., 2010 ) showed that Attachment-Based Family Therapy (ABFT) was more efficacious than Enhanced Usual Care in reducing adolescents' depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation.

Policy Implications

Throughout this article we have suggested topics for future research. At least as important are the needs for application of the findings already obtained and increased collaborations among researchers, policy makers, educators, and child service workers. Here we list a few important areas for such efforts.

Attachment research has clearly established the importance of early experiences with parents for child development. Yet far too many parents enter parenthood with insufficient knowledge about child development and the importance of the early parent-child relationship, and without the knowledge and skills needed to parent in a sensitive, responsive manner. Unfortunately, there is almost no future-parent education at any grade level in public schools. In American schools, there seems to be a greater focus on education about sex than about successful parenting. (And most sex education classes do not deal with other aspects of couple relationships, even though there is a considerable body of attachment-related research relevant to establishing and maintaining healthy couple relationships – a foundation for healthy parent-child relationships.) Even at the college level, there are few courses aimed at preparing young adults for healthy marriages and parenting. Researchers and educators should work together to develop future-parent curricula that could be implemented as part of high school and university education. There are several empirically supported parent training programs based on attachment research (described earlier; see Berlin et al., 2008 , for a review), but these have yet to be made a part of general education.

In the context of dramatic social and economic changes, many parents are struggling to strike a balance between work and family responsibilities and to find quality care for their children while the parents are at work or school. There is a need for more flexible work arrangements that recognize child care as a prime societal concern. This includes re-examination of parental leave policies that require parents to return to work too soon after childbirth, either because of company policy or because of financial necessity. In addition, greater attention to the training and screening of childcare workers and prospective foster parents is warranted. In a review of attachment theory and its implications for society, Sweeney (2007) suggested, among several policy implications, “legislative initiatives reflecting higher standards for credentialing and licensing childcare workers, requiring education in child development and attachment theory, and at least a two-year associate's degree course as well as salary increases and increased stature for childcare positions” (p. 342). The massive NICHD childcare study showed that high quality daycare is compatible with secure attachment of young children to their parents, and also that when home conditions make secure attachment unlikely, high quality daycare can increase children's chances of achieving attachment-related security ( NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1997 ).

Policies directed at helping families in which one or both parents serve in the military could also be informed by attachment theory and research. Military service often entails frequent moves within the United States and separation of at least one parent from the family during periods of service overseas. In thousands of cases, the separation ends with a soldier's death, and his or her family is left to cope with the tragedy. Attention to helping spouses and children cope effectively with attachment-related stresses that have the potential to damage their lives for years to come has increased in recent years (e.g., Maholmes, 2012 ; see also Riggs & Riggs, 2011 , for consideration of military families within an attachment theory framework), but there continues to be a need for research-informed interventions that consider the particular challenges faced by military families (for discussion, see Miller, Miller, & Bjorklund, 2010 ; Paris et al., 2010 ).

We end with a brief mention of policy implications related to parental incarceration. Elsewhere ( Cassidy, Poehlmann, & Shaver, 2010 ) we have provided reviews and studies related to this issue. Often, incarcerated parents are unable to see their children, and pressures are placed on the rest of extended families, and in many cases on the foster care system. For each adult placed in prison, there are likely to be, on average, more than one or two people outside of prison who suffer from the incarceration. Policy makers could consider the separations and losses that accompany parental incarceration within an attachment framework. Research is needed to assess the value of greater contact between incarcerated individuals and their children, and of parenting interventions that can take place as part of rehabilitation.

Brief Conclusions

Our goal in this article has been to provide a current “state of the art” description of what is known in many important areas of attachment research, discuss gaps in current knowledge, and suggest important avenues for future research and for creating and evaluating practical interventions. Although we have, by design, focused on issues within attachment research specifically, an important enterprise for the future is to consider how attachment is differentiated from, and integrated with, other features of development. As our colleague Alan Sroufe responded when asked his views on the future of attachment research (personal communication, 2012; see also Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005b ), “There is a lot more to personal development than attachment, and there is a lot more even to parenting than attachment. The task is to describe how all of this fits and works together.” That task arises with respect to every phase of development – infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. And the range of issues and factors to be considered is somewhat different at every stage or phase of development.

Certain large goals of any worthy society – the mental and physical health of its members, the optimal development of each individual's interests and capacities, and a safe environment free of violence and hatred – are likely to be achieved only to the extent that infants and children receive the benefits of what Bowlby and Ainsworth called a safe haven and a secure base, which as far as we can see imaginatively into the future are likely to depend on responsive attachment figures. Partly through the efforts of Bowlby, Ainsworth, and their intellectual offspring, it has been possible to improve hospital procedures, reduce child abuse, contribute to better parenting, increase understanding of the development of psychopathology, and to provide a much better understanding of our social nature as mammals, primates, and human beings. With the goal of a mentally and physically healthy human race in mind, we can simultaneously be proud of the accomplishments of attachment researchers and look forward to participating in addressing the many intellectual, clinical, and educational challenges remaining.

Acknowledgments

Author Note: The writing of this article was supported by awards to Jude Cassidy from NIDA (R21 DA025550), to Jason Jones from NIDA (F31 DA033848), and to Phillip Shaver from the Fetzer Institute. The authors are grateful to Susan S. Woodhouse for engaging in extensive conversations about maternal response to distress, and to Kenneth N. Levy for helpful suggestions about links between attachment and psychopathology.

Invited contribution to the 25 th anniversary edition of Development and Psychopathology .

Contributor Information

Jude Cassidy, University of Maryland.

Jason D. Jones, University of Maryland.

Phillip R. Shaver, University of California, Davis.

• Achenbach TM. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Adam EK, Klimes-Dougan B, Gunnar MR. Social regulation of the adrenocortical response to stress in infants, children, and adolescents. In: Coch D, Dawson G, Fischer KW, editors. Human behavior and the developing brain: Atypical development. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2007. pp. 264–304. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahrens KR, Ciechanowski P, Katon W. Associations between adult attachment style and health risk behaviors in an adult female primary care population. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2012; 72 :364–370. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ainsworth MDS. Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of love. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ainsworth MDS, Blehar M, Waters E, Wall S. Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen JP. The attachment system in adolescence. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 419–435. [ Google Scholar ]
• Andersen SL, Teicher MH. Stress, sensitive periods and maturational events in adolescent depression. Trends in Neurosciences. 2008; 31 :183–191. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson SE, Gooze RA, Lemeshow S, Whitaker RC. Quality of early maternal-child relationship and risk of adolescent obesity. Pediatrics. 2012; 129 :132–140. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson SE, Whitaker RC. Attachment security and obesity in US preschool aged children. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2011; 165 :235–242. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anisfeld E, Casper V, Nozyce M, Cunningham N. Does infant carrying promote attachment? An experimental study of the effects of increased physical contact on the development of attachment. Child Development. 1990; 61 :1617–1627. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH. No association of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) and 521 C/T promotor polymorphisms with infant attachment disorganization. Attachment and Human Development. 2004; 6 :211–218. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH. Gene-environment interaction of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) and observed maternal insensitivity predicting externalizing behavior in preschoolers. Developmental Psychobiology. 2006; 48 :406–409. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH. Research review: Genetic vulnerability or differential susceptibility in child development: The case of attachment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2007; 48 :1160–1173. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F. Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129 :195–215. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartels A, Zeki S. The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage. 2004; 21 :1155–1166. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Belsky J. Differential susceptibility to rearing influence: An evolutionary hypothesis and some evidence. In: Ellis BJ, Bjorklund DF, editors. Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005. pp. 139–163. [ Google Scholar ]
• Belsky J, Fearon R. Infant-mother attachment security, contextual risk, and early development: A moderational analysis. Development and Psychopathology. 2002; 14 :293–310. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berlin LJ, Zeanah CH, Lieberman AF. Prevention and intervention programs for supporting early attachment security. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 745–761. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berlin LJ, Ziv Y, Amaya-Jackson L, Greenberg MT. Enhancing early attachments: Theory, research, intervention, and policy. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernard K, Dozier M, Bick J, Lewis-Morrarty E, Lindhiem O, Carlson E. Enhancing attachment organization among maltreated children: Results of a randomized clinical trial. Child Development. 2012; 83 :623–636. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernier A, Carlson SM, Deschênes M, Matte-Gagné C. Social factors in the development of early executive functioning: A closer look at the caregiving environment. Developmental Science. 2012; 15 :12–24. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bernier A, Dozier M. Bridging the attachment transmission gap: The role of maternal mind-mindedness. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2003; 27 :355–365. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bokhorst CL, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Fearon P, van IJzendoorn MH, Fonagy P, Schuengel C. The importance of shared environment in mother-infant attachment security: A behavioral-genetic study. Child Development. 2003; 74 :1769–1782. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their character and home-life. International Journal of Psychoanalysis. 1944; 25 :19–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. Maternal care and mental health. World Health Organization Monograph (Serial No 2) 1951 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. 2nd. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1969/1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. Attachment and loss: Vol 2. Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1973. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London, UK: Tavistock; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby J. A secure base. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyce W, Ellis BJ. Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology. 2005; 17 :271–301. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bretherton I. Pouring new wine into old bottles: The social self as internal working model. In: Gunnar M, Sroufe LA, editors. Minnesota Symposia in Child Psychology: Self processes in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1991. pp. 1–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bretherton I. The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology. 1992; 28 :759–775. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bretherton I. Fathers in attachment theory and research: A review. Early Child Development and Care. 2010; 180 :9–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bretherton I, Munholland KA. Internal working models in attachment relationships. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. The Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 102–127. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bugental D, Ellerson P, Lin EK, Rainey B, Kokotovic A, O'Hara N. A cognitive approach to child abuse prevention. Journal of Family Psychology. 2002; 16 :243–258. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byars A, Holland SK, Strawsburg RH, Bommer W, Dunn R, Schmithorst VJ, Plante E. Practical aspects of conducting large-scale functional magnetic resonance imaging studies in children. Journal of Child Neurology. 2002; 17 :885–890. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byng-Hall J. Family couple therapy: Toward greater security. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1999. pp. 625–645. [ Google Scholar ]
• Calkins SD, Bell MA, editors. Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy J. Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1994; 59 :228–283. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy J. Intervention with parents and infants: An emotion regulation approach. Paper presented as part of the NIMH workshop, Developmental and Translational Models of Emotion Regulation and Dysregulation: Links to Childhood Affective Disorders; Bethesda, MD. 2006. Apr, [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy J. New directions in attachment research. Paper presented at the Attachment pre-conference of the meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development; Denver, CO. 2009. Mar, [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy J, Ehrlich KB, Sherman LJ. Child-parent attachment and response to threat: A move from the level of representation. In: Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, editors. Nature and development of social connections: From brain to group. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy J, Poehlmann J, Shaver PR. An attachment perspective on incarcerated parents and their children. Attachment & Human Development. 2010; 12 :285–288. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy J, Woodhouse S, Cooper G, Hoffman K, Powell B, Rodenberg MS. Examination of the precursors of infant attachment security: Implications for early intervention and intervention research. In: Berlin LJ, Ziv Y, Amaya-Jackson LM, Greenberg MT, editors. Enhancing early attachments: Theory, research, intervention, and policy. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005. pp. 34–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassidy J, Woodhouse SS, Sherman LJ, Stupica B, Lejuez CW. Enhancing infant attachment security: An examination of treatment efficacy and differential susceptibility. Development and Psychopathology. 2011; 23 :131–148. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2012) Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2011; 61 (SS-4):1–162. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen E, Miller GE, Kobor MS, Cole SW. Maternal warmth buffers the effects of low early-life socioeconomic status on proinflammatory signaling in adulthood. Molecular Psychiatry. 2011; 16 :729–737. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chung HY, Cesari M, Anton S, Marzetti E, Giovannini S, Seo AY, Leeuwenburgh C. Molecular inflammation: Underpinnings of aging and age- related diseases. Ageing Research Reviews. 2009; 8 :18–30. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cicchetti D. The emergence of developmental psychopathology. Child Development. 1984; 55 :1–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cicchetti D, Rogosch FA, Toth SL. Fostering secure attachment in infants in maltreating families through preventive interventions. Development and Psychopathology. 2006; 18 :623–649. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coan JA. Toward a neuroscience of attachment. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 241–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Coan JA. Adult attachment and the brain. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2010; 27 :210–217. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coan JA, Schaefer HS, Davidson RJ. Lending a hand: Social regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science. 2006; 17 :1032–1039. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Commodari E. Preschool teacher attachment, school readiness and risk of learning difficulties. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2013; 28 :123–133. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.03.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies PT, Cummings E. Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin. 1994; 116 :387–411. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dawson G, Ashman SB, Hessl D, Spieker S, Frey K, Panagiotides H, Embry L. Autonomic and brain electrical activity in securely and insecurely attached infants of depressed mothers. Infant Behavior and Development. 2001; 24 :135–149. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Bellis MD, Baum AS, Birmaher B, Keshavan MS, Eccard CH, Boring AM, Ryan ND. Developmental traumatology part I: Biological stress systems. Biological Psychiatry. 1999; 45 :1259–1270. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Del Carmen R, Pedersen FA, Huffman LC, Bryan YE. Dyadic distress management predicts subsequent security of attachment. Infant Behavior and Development. 1993; 16 :131–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denison S, Xu F. Integrating physical constraints in statistical inference by 11-month-old infants. Cognitive Science. 2010; 34 :885–908. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Wolff MS, van IJzendoorn MH. Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development. 1997; 68 :571–591. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diamond GS, Wintersteen MB, Brown GK, Diamond GM, Gallop R, Shelef K, Levy S. Attachment-based family therapy for adolescents with suicidal ideation: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2010; 49 :122–131. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dishion TJ, Kavanagh K. Intervening in adolescent problem behavior: A family- centered approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dix T. The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptative processes. Psychological Bulletin. 1991; 110 :3–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dozier M, Peloso E, Lindhiem O, Gordon M, Manni M, Sepulveda S, Levine S. Developing evidence-based interventions for foster children: An example of a randomized clinical trial with infants and toddlers. Journal of Social Issues. 2006; 62 :767–785. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan GJ, Dowsett CJ, Claessens A, Magnuson K, Huston AC, Klebanov P, Japel C. School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology. 2007; 43 :1428–1446. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dykas MJ, Cassidy J. Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 2011; 137 :19–46. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dykas MJ, Ziv Y, Cassidy J. Attachment and peer relations in adolescence. Attachment & Human Development. 2008; 10 :123–141. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Edelstein RS, Alexander K, Shaver PR, Schaaf JM, Quas JA, Lovas GS, Goodman GS. Adult attachment style and parental responsiveness during a stressful event. Attachment & Human Development. 2004; 6 :31–52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egeland B, Weinfield NS, Bosquet M, Cheng V. Remembering, repeating, and working through: Lessons from attachment-based intervention. In: Osofsky J, Fitzgerald H, editors. WAIMH handbook of infant mental health, Volume 4: Infant mental health in groups at high risk. New York, NY: Wiley; 2000. pp. 37–89. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenberger NI, Master SL, Inagaki TK, Taylor SE, Shirinyan D, Lieberman MD, Naliboff BD. Attachment figures activate a safety signal-related neural region and reduce pain experience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011; 108 :11721–11726. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis BJ, Boyce W, Belsky J, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH. Differential susceptibility to the environment: An evolutionary–neurodevelopmental theory. Development and Psychopathology. 2011; 23 :7–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fearon R, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH, Lapsley A, Roisman GI. The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children s externalizing behavior: A meta-analytic study. Child Development. 2010; 81 :435–456. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fearon R, Belsky J. Infant–mother attachment and the growth of externalizing problems across the primary school years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2011; 52 :782–791. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fearon P, van IJzendoorn MH, Fonagy P, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Schengel C, Bokhorst CL. In search of shared and nonshared environmental factors in security of attachment: A behavior-genetic study of the association between sensitivity and attachment security. Developmental Psychology. 2006; 42 :1026–1040. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldman R, Singer M, Zagoory O. Touch attenuates infants' physiological reactivity to stress. Developmental Science. 2010; 13 :271–278. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Field T. Massage therapy: A review of recent research. In: Hertenstein MJ, Weiss SJ, editors. The handbook of touch: Neuroscience, behavioral, and health perspectives. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. pp. 455–468. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fraley RC, Roisman GI, Booth-LaForce C, Tresch Owen M, Holland AS. Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles: A longitudinal study from infancy to early adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2013; 104 :817–838. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• George C, Kaplan N, Main M. Adult Attachment Interview protocol. University of California; Berkeley: 1984. Unpublished manuscript. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerken LA. Decisions, decisions: Infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible. Cognition. 2006; 98 :B67–B74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerken LA. Infants use rational decision criteria for choosing among model of their input. Cognition. 2010; 115 :362–368. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillath O, Shaver PR, Mikulincer M, Nitzberg RE, Erez A, van IJzendoorn MH. Attachment, caregiving, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in an attachment-theoretical framework. Personal Relationships. 2005; 12 :425–446. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gouin J, Glaser R, Loving TJ, Malarkey WB, Stowell J, Houts C, Kiecolt-Glaser JK. Attachment avoidance predicts inflammatory responses to marital conflict. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 2009; 23 :898–904. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Granot D, Mayseless O. Attachment security and adjustment to school in middle childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2001; 25 :530–541. [ Google Scholar ]
• Groh A, Roisman GI. Adults' autonomic and subjective emotional responses to infant vocalizations: The role of secure base script knowledge. Developmental Psychology. 2009; 45 :889–893. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Groh AM, Roisman GI, van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Fearon R. The significance of insecure and disorganized attachment for children's internalizing symptoms: A meta-analytic study. Child Development. 2012; 83 :591–610. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grossmann K, Grossmann KE, Kindler H, Zimmermann P. A wider view of attachment and exploration: The influence of mothers and fathers on the development of psychological security from infancy to young adulthood. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 857–879. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunnar M, Quevedo K. The neurobiology of stress and development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58 :145–173. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gunnar MR, Vazquez D. Stress neurobiology and developmental psychopathology. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ, editors. Developmental psychopathology, Vol 2: Developmental neuroscience. 2nd. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2006. pp. 533–577. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guttmannova K, Bailey JA, Hill KG, Lee J, Hawkins J, Woods M, Catalano RF. Sensitive periods for adolescent alcohol use initiation: Predicting the lifetime occurrence and chronicity of alcohol problems in adulthood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2011; 72 :221–231. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gweon H, Tenenbaum JB, Schulz LE. Infants consider both the sample and the sampling process in inductive generalization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2010; 107 :9066–9071. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamlin J, Wynn K. Young infants prefer prosocial to antisocial others. Cognitive Development. 2011; 26 :30–39. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamlin J, Wynn K, Bloom P, Mahajan N. How infants and toddlers react to antisocial others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011; 108 :19931–19936. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harlow HF, Harlow MK, Hansen EW. The maternal affectional system of rhesus monkeys. In: Rheingold L, editor. Maternal behavior in mammals. New York, NY: Wiley; 1963. pp. 254–281. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart J, Gunnar M, Cicchetti D. Salivary cortisol in maltreated children: Evidence of relations between neuroendocrine activity and social competence. Development and Psychopathology. 1995; 7 :11–26. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hibel LC, Granger DA, Blair C, Cox MJ, the FLP Investigators Maternal sensitivity buffers the adrenocortical implications of intimate partner violence exposure during early childhood. Development and Psychopathology. 2011; 23 :689–701. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• High PC. Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption and Dependent Care, & Council on School Health. Pediatrics. 2008; 121 :1008–1015. School readiness. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofer MA. Hidden regulators in attachment, separation, and loss. In: Fox N, editor. The development of emotion regulation, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Vol. 59. 1994. pp. 192–207. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofer MA. Psychobiological roots of early attachment. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2006; 15 :84–88. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoffman KT, Marvin RS, Cooper G, Powell B. Changing toddlers' and Preschoolers' attachment classifications: The circle of security intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2006; 74 :1017–1026. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huntsinger ET, Luecken LJ. Attachment relationships and health behavior: The mediational role of self-esteem. Psychology & Health. 2004; 19 :515–526. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ialongo NS, Rogosch FA, Cicchetti D, Toth SL, Buckley J, Petras H, Neiderhiser J. A developmental psychopathology approach to the prevention of mental health disorders. In: Cicchetti D, Cohen DJ, editors. Developmental psychopathology, Vol 1: Theory and method. 2nd. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2006. pp. 968–1018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacobsen T, Edelstein W, Hofmann V. A longitudinal study of the relation between representations of attachment in childhood and cognitive functioning in childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology. 1994; 30 :112–124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaremka L, Glaser R, Loving T, Malarkey W, Stowell J, Kiecolt-Glaser J. Attachment anxiety is linked to alterations in cortisol production and cellular immunity. Psychological Science. Advance online publication 2013 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jessop DS, Turner-Cobb JM. Measurement and meaning of salivary cortisol: A focus on health and disease in children. Stress: The International Journal on the Biology of Stress. 2008; 11 :1–14. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SM. Couple and family therapy: An attachment perspective. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 811–829. [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SM, Coan JA, Moser MB, Beckes L, Smith A, Dalgleish T, Merali Z. Soothing the threatened brain: Leveraging contact comfort with Emotionally Focused Therapy. 2013 Manuscript submitted for publication. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SC, Dweck CS, Chen FS. Evidence for infants' internal working models of attachment. Psychological Science. 2007; 18 :501–502. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson SC, Dweck CS, Chen FS, Stern HL, Ok S, Barth M. At the intersection of social and cognitive development: Internal working models of attachment in infancy. Cognitive Science. 2010; 34 :807–825. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones JD, Cassidy J, Shaver PR. Parents' self-reported attachment styles and their parenting behaviors, emotions, and cognitions: A review. 2013 Manuscript submitted for publication. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kazdin AE, Kagan J. Models of dysfunction in developmental psychopathology. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 1994; 1 :35–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kestenbaum R, Farber EA, Sroufe LA. Individual differences in empathy among preschoolers: Relation to attachment history. New Directions for Child Development. 1989; 44 :4451–4464. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klein Velderman M, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Juffer F, van IJzendoorn MH. Effects of attachment-based interventions on maternal sensitivity and infant attachment: Differential susceptibility of highly reactive infants. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006; 20 :266–274. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kobak R, Sceery A. Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Development. 1988; 59 :135–146. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kochanska G, Philibert RA, Barry RA. Interplay of genes and early mother-child relationship in the development of self-regulation from toddler to preschool age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2009; 50 :1331–1338. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koot HM, Verhulst FC. Prediction of children's referral to mental health and special education services from earlier adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1992; 33 :717–729. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kring AM, Sloan DM. Emotion regulation and psychopathology: A transdiagnostic approach to etiology and treatment. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krogh L, Vlach HA, Johnson SP. Statistical learning across development: Flexible yet constrained. Frontiers in Psychology. 2013; 3 :1–11. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lakatos K, Toth I, Nemoda Z, Ney K, Sasvari-Szekely M, Gervai J. Dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene polymorphism is associated with attachment disorganization in infants. Molecular Psychiatry. 2000; 5 :633–637. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leerkes EM. Maternal sensitivity during distressing tasks: A unique predictor of attachment security. Infant Behavior and Development. 2011; 34 :443–446. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leerkes EM, Crockenberg SC, Burrous CE. Identifying components of maternal sensitivity to infant distress: The role of maternal emotional competencies. Parenting: Science & Practice. 2004; 4 :1–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leerkes EM, Parade SH, Gudmundson JA. Mothers' emotional reactions to crying pose risk for subsequent attachment insecurity. Journal of Family Psychology. 2011; 25 :635–643. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leerkes EM, Siepak KJ. Attachment linked predictors of women's emotional and cognitive responses to infant distress. Attachment and Human Development. 2006; 8 :11–32. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lieberman AF, Weston DR, Pawl JH. Preventive intervention and outcome with anxiously attached dyads. Child Development. 1991; 62 :199–209. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu D, Diorio J, Tannenbaum B, Caldji C, Francis D, Freedman A, Meaney MJ. Maternal care, hippocampal glucocorticoid receptor gene expression and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal responses to stress. Science. 1997; 277 :1659–1662. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorber MF, O'Leary SG. Mediated paths to overreactive discipline: Mothers' experienced emotion, appraisals, and physiological responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2005; 73 :972–981. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorber MF, Slep A. Mothers' emotion dynamics and their relations with harsh and lax discipline: Microsocial time series analyses. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2005; 34 :559–568. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luijk MPCM, Saridjan N, Tharner A, van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Jaddoe VWV, Tiemeier H. Attachment, depression, and cortisol: Deviant patterns in insecure-resistant and disorganized infants. Developmental Psychobiology. 2010; 52 :441–452. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyons-Ruth K, Easterbrooks M. Assessing mediated models of family change in response to infant home visiting: A two-phase longitudinal analysis. Infant Mental Health Journal. 2006; 27 :55–69. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Madigan S, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH, Moran G, Pederson DR, Benoit D. Unresolved states of mind, anomalous parental behavior, and disorganized attachment: A review and meta-analysis of a transmission gap. Attachment & Human Development. 2006; 8 :89–111. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maholmes V. Adjustment of children and youth in military families: Toward developmental understandings. Child Development Perspectives. 2012; 6 :430–435. [ Google Scholar ]
• Main M. Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Recent studies, changing methodologies, and the concept of conditional strategies. Human Development. 1990; 33 :48–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Main M, Kaplan N, Cassidy J. Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1985; 50 :66–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mauss IB, Bunge SA, Gross JJ. Automatic emotion regulation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2007; 1 :146–167. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayseless O, Sharabany R, Sagi A. Attachment concerns of mothers as manifested in parental, spousal, and friendship relationships. Personal Relationships. 1997; 4 :255–269. [ Google Scholar ]
• McElwain NL, Booth-LaForce C. Maternal sensitivity to infant distress and nondistress as predictors of infant-mother attachment security. Journal of Family Psychology. 2006; 20 :247–255. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McWilliams LA, Bailey S. Associations between adult attachment ratings and health conditions: Evidence from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Health Psychology. 2010; 29 :446–453. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meaney MJ. Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2001; 24 :1161–1192. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meaney MJ. Epigenetics and the biological definition of gene×environment interactions. Child Development. 2010; 81 :41–79. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2001; 81 :97–115. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Gillath O, Nitzberg RE. Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005; 89 :817–839. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Sahdra BK, Bar-On N. Can security-enhancing interventions overcome psychological barriers to responsiveness in couple relationships? Attachment & Human Development in press. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, Sapir-Lavid Y, Avihou-Kanza N. What's inside the minds of securely and insecurely attached people? The secure-base script and its associations with attachment-style dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 97 :615–633. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller GE, Chen E, Parker KJ. Psychological stress in childhood and susceptibility to the chronic diseases of aging: Moving toward a model of behavioral and biological mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin. 2011; 137 :959–997. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller HB, Miller L, Bjorklund D. Helping military children cope with parental deployment: Role of attachment theory and recommendations for mental health clinicians and counselors. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health. 2010; 12 :231–236. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mills-Koonce W, Appleyard K, Barnett M, Deng M, Putallaz M, Cox M. Adult attachment style and stress as risk factors for early maternal sensitivity and negativity. Infant Mental Health Journal. 2011; 32 :277–285. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mineka S, Watson D, Clark L. Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Annual Review of Psychology. 1998; 49 :377–412. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moffitt TE. The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology: Gene-environment interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin. 2005; 131 :533–554. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Montague PR, Berns GS, Cohen JD, McClure SM, Pagnoni G, Dhamala M, Fisher RE. Hyperscanning: Simultaneous fMRI during linked social interactions. NeuroImage. 2002; 16 :1159–1164. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moss E, Dubois-Comtois K, Cyr C, Tarabulsy GM, St-Laurent D, Bernier A. Efficacy of a home-visiting intervention aimed at improving maternal sensitivity, child attachment, and behavioral outcomes for maltreated children: A randomized control trial. Development and Psychopathology. 2011; 23 :195–210. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nachmias M, Gunnar M, Mangelsdorf S, Parritz RH, Buss K. Behavioral inhibition and stress reactivity: The moderating role of attachment security. Child Development. 1996; 67 :508–522. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) NIMH strategic plan. 2008 Retrieved from: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/strategic-planning-reports/nimh-strategic-plan-2008.pdf .
• NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. The effects of infant child care on infant-mother attachment security: Results of the NICHD study of early child care. Child Development. 1997; 68 :860–879. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olson K, Dweck C. A blueprint for social cognitive development. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2008; 3 :193–202. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oppenheim D, Koren-Karie N. Infant-parent relationship assessment: Parents' insightfulness regarding their young children's internal worlds. In: Zeanah CR, editor. Handbook of infant mental health. 3rd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2009. pp. 266–280. [ Google Scholar ]
• Panfile TM, Laible DJ. Attachment security and child's empathy: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2012; 58 :1–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Paris R, DeVoe ER, Ross AM, Acker ML. When a parent goes to war: Effects of parental deployment on very young children and implications for intervention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2010; 80 :610–618. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parsons CE, Young KS, Murray L, Stein A, Kringelbach ML. The functional neuroanatomy of the evolving parent-infant relationship. Progress in Neurobiology. 2010; 91 :220–241. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pederson DR, Moran G. The relationship imperative: Arguments for a broad definition of attachment. Journal of Family Psychology. 1999; 13 :496–500. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pelucchi B, Hay JF, Saffran JR. Learning in reverse: Eight-month-old infants track backwards transitional probabilities. Cognition. 2009; 113 :244–247. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Picardi A, Battisti F, Tarsitani L, Baldassari M, Copertaro A, Mocchegiani E, Biondi M. Attachment security and immunity in healthy women. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2007; 69 :40–46. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pietromonaco PR, DeBuse CJ, Powers SI. Does attachment get under the skin? Adult romantic attachment and cortisol responses to stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2013; 22 :63–68. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polan HJ, Hofer MA. Psychobiological origins of infant attachment and its role in development. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 158–172. [ Google Scholar ]
• Puig J, Englund MM, Simpson JA, Collins W. Predicting adult physical illness from infant attachment: A prospective longitudinal study. Health Psychology. 2012 Advance online publication. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raby K, Cicchetti D, Carlson EA, Cutuli JJ, Englund MM, Egeland B. Genetic and caregiving-based contributions to infant attachment: Unique associations with distress reactivity and attachment security. Psychological Science. 2012; 23 :1016–1023. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Radke-Yarrow M, Zahn-Waxler C, Richardson DT, Susman A. Caring behavior in children of clinically depressed and well mothers. Child Development. 1994; 65 :1405–1414. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rholes WS, Simpson JA, Blakely BS. Adult attachment styles and mothers' relationships with their young children. Personal Relationships. 1995; 2 :35–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Riggs SA, Riggs DS. Risk and resilience in military families experiencing deployment: The role of the family attachment network. Journal of Family Psychology. 2011; 25 :675–687. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts RE, Attkisson C, Rosenblatt A. Prevalence of psychopathology among children and adolescents. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 1998; 155 :715–725. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roisman GI, Fraley RC. A behavior-genetic study of parenting quality, infant attachment security, and their covariation in a nationally representative sample. Developmental Psychology. 2008; 44 :831–839. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Romberg AR, Saffran JR. Expectancy learning from probabilistic input by infants. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. 2013; 3 :610. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00610. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rothbaum F, Weisz J, Pott M, Miyake K, Morelli G. Attachment and culture: Security in the United States and Japan. American Psychologist. 2000; 55 :1093–1104. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sadler LS, Slade A, Close N, Webb DL, Simpson T, Fennie K, Mayes LC. Minding the Baby: Improving early health and relationship outcomes in vulnerable young families in an interdisciplinary reflective parenting home visiting program. 2013 Manuscript under invited revision. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sapolsky RM. Why zebras don't get ulcers. 3rd. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company, LLC; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sayfan L, Lagattuta K. Scaring the monster away: What children know about managing fears of real and imaginary creatures. Child Development. 2009; 80 :1756–1774. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scharf M, Mayseless O. Buds of parenting in emerging adult males: What we learned from our parents. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2011; 26 :479–505. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scharfe E, Eldredge D. Associations between attachment representations and health behaviors in late adolescence. Journal of Health Psychology. 2001; 6 :295–307. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selcuk E, Günaydin G, Sumer N, Harma M, Salman S, Hazan C, Ozturk A. Self-reported romantic attachment style predicts everyday maternal caregiving behavior at home. Journal of Research in Personality. 2010; 44 :544–549. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharp H, Pickles A, Meaney M, Marshall K, Tibu F, Hill J. Frequency of infant stroking reported by mothers moderates the effect of prenatal depression on infant behavioural and physiological outcomes. PLOS ONE. 2012; 7 :e45446. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherman LJ, Cassidy J. Infant capacities related to building internal working models of attachment figures: A theoretical and empirical review. 2013 Manuscript submitted for publication. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slade A. Imagining fear: Attachment, threat, and psychic experience. Psychoanalytic Dialogues in press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Slade A, Sadler L, Mayes LC. Maternal reflective functioning: Enhancing parental reflective functioning in a nursing/mental health home visiting program. In: Berlin L, Ziv Y, Amaya-Jackson L, Greenberg M, editors. Enhancing early attachments: Theory, research, intervention, and policy. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005. pp. 152–177. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith AM, O'Leary SG. Attributions and arousal as predictors of maternal discipline. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1995; 19 :459–471. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spangler GG, Grossmann KE. Biobehavioral organization in securely and insecurely attached infants. Child Development. 1993; 64 :1439–1450. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sroufe LA. Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of adaptation in preschool: The roots of maladaptation and competence. In: Perlmutter M, editor. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology: Vol 16. Development and policy concerning children with special needs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1983. pp. 41–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sroufe LA, Carlson EA, Levy AK, Egeland B. Implications of attachment theory for developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology. 1999; 11 :1–13. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sroufe LA, Egeland B, Carlson EA, Collins W. The development of the person: The Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005a. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sroufe LA, Egeland B, Carlson EA, Collins W. Placing early attachment experiences in developmental context: The Minnesota Longitudinal Study. In: Grossmann KE, Grossmann K, Waters E, editors. Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005b. pp. 48–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stacks AM, Oshio T. Disorganized attachment and social skills as indicators of Head Start children's school readiness skills. Attachment & Human Development. 2009; 11 :143–164. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stein RE, Zitner LE, Jensen PS. Interventions for adolescent depression in primary care. Pediatrics. 2006; 118 :669–682. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Suomi SJ. Attachment in rhesus monkeys. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 173–191. [ Google Scholar ]
• Suomi SJ. Risk, resilience, and gene-environment interplay in primates. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2011; 20 :289–298. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sweeney GM. Why childhood attachment matters: Implications for personal happiness, families and public policy. In: Loveless S, Homan T, editors. The family in the new millennium. Westport, CT: Praeger; 2007. pp. 332–346. [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor SE, Repetti RL, Seeman TE. Health psychology: What is an unhealthy environment and how does it get under the skin? Annual Review of Psychology. 1997; 48 :411–447. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teglas E, Girotto V, Gonzales M, Bonatti L. Intuitions of probabilities shape expectations about the future at 12 months and beyond. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2007; 104 :19156–19159. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teti DM, Ablard KE. Security of attachment and infant-sibling relationships: A laboratory study. Child Development. 1989; 60 :1519–1528. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson RA. Sensitivity and security: New questions to ponder. Child Development. 1997; 68 :595–597. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson RA. Early attachment and later development: Familiar questions, new answers. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. The Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 348–366. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tomasello M, Dweck CS, Silk JB, Skyrms B, Spelke ES. Why we cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Toth SL, Rogosch FA, Manly J, Cicchetti D. The efficacy of toddler-parent psychotherapy to reorganize attachment in the young offspring of mothers with major depressive disorder: A randomized preventive trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2006; 74 :1006–1016. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Boom DC. The influence of temperament and mothering on attachment and exploration: An experimental manipulation of sensitive responsiveness among lower-class mothers with irritable infants. Child Development. 1994; 65 :1457–1477. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van den Boom DC. Do first-year intervention effects endure? Follow-up during toddlerhood of a sample of Dutch irritable infants. Child Development. 1995; 66 :1798–1816. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van der Mark IL, van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ. Development of empathy in girls during the second year of life: Associations with parenting, attachment, and temperament. Social Development. 2002; 11 :451–468. [ Google Scholar ]
• van IJzendoorn MH. Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin. 1995; 117 :387–403. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van IJzendoorn MH, Sagi-Schwartz A. Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual dimensions. In: Cassidy J, Shaver PR, editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2nd. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. pp. 880–905. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Zeijl J, Mesman J, van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Juffer F, Stolk MN, Alink LA. Attachment-based intervention for enhancing sensitive discipline in mothers of 1- to 3-year-old children at risk for externalizing behavior problems: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2006; 74 :994–1005. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Verhulst FC, Koot HM, Van der Ende J. Differential predictive value of parents' and teachers' reports of children's problem behaviors: A longitudinal study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 1994; 22 :531–546. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Volling BL, Notaro PC, Larsen JJ. Adult attachment styles: Relations with emotional well-being, marriage, and parenting. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies. 1998; 47 :355–367. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vrtička P, Vuilleumier P. Neuroscience of human social interactions and adult attachment style. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2012; 6 :1–17. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waddington CH. The strategy of the genes. London, UK: Allen & Unwin; 1957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Warneken F, Tomasello M. Varieties of altruism in children and chimpanzees. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2009; 13 :397–402. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waters E, Cummings E. A secure base from which to explore close relationships. Child Development. 2000; 71 :164–172. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waters HS, Rodrigues-Doolabh L. Are attachment scripts the building blocks of attachment representations? Paper presented at the meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2001 Apr; Retrieved from www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/srcd2001/srcd2001.htm .
• Waters HS, Waters E. The attachment working models concept: Among other things, we build script-like representations of secure base experiences. Attachment & Human Development. 2006; 8 :185–197. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weaver ICG, Cervoni N, Champagne FA, D'Alessio AC, Sharma S, Seckl JR, Meaney MJ. Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior. Nature Neuroscience. 2004; 7 :847–854. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• White LO, Wu J, Borelli JL, Rutherford HV, David DH, Kim–Cohen J, Crowley MJ. Attachment dismissal predicts frontal slow-wave ERPs during rejection by unfamiliar peers. Emotion. 2012; 12 :690–700. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winnicott D. Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International Journal of Psychoanalysis. 1953; 34 :89–97. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Woodhouse SS, Cassidy J. Development of a culturally appropriate parenting assessment: Implications for prevention. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association; Toronto. 2009. Aug, [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu F, Denison S. Statistical inference and sensitivity to sampling in 11-month old infants. Cognition. 2009; 112 :97–104. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu F, Kushnir T. Infants are rational constructivist learners. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2013; 22 :28–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yerys BE, Jankowski KF, Shook D, Rosenberger LR, Barnes K, Berl MM, Gaillard WD. The fMRI success rate of children and adolescents: Typical development, epilepsy, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and autism spectrum disorders. Human Brain Mapping. 2009; 30 :3426–3435. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zayas V, Mischel W, Shoda Y, Aber JL. Roots of adult attachment: Maternal caregiving at 18 months predicts adult peer and partner attachment. Social Psychological and Personality Science. 2011; 2 :289–297. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zeanah CH, Benoit D, Hirshberg L, Barton ML, Regan C. Mothers' representations of their infants are concordant with infant attachment classifications. Developmental Issues in Psychiatry and Psychology. 1994; 1 :1–14. [ Google Scholar ]

Social Work Haven

Attachment Theory | Child Development Essay Sample

Sharing is caring.

Critically analyse a child developmental theory, make clear links between this theory and your child observational study. Additionally, you are required a discussion on how this observation has enhanced your knowledge on child development in relation to social work.

The purpose of this essay is to critically analyse and evaluate a child development theory,   which I will link to an observation study that I carried out in the nursery. For the purpose of confidentiality, I use the pseudonym Peter Adam for the boy I observed. Peter was chosen for this observation with no predisposition of his culture, ethnicity and gender and religious and linguistic background.

He is a lively and energetic 37-month-old English boy. He is the first child in his home and lives with his mother and dad and his little brother who attends the same nursery. Peter relates very well with his peers, and he is very supportive of them.

Several developmental theories came to mind prior to the observation, including Vygotsky’s and Piaget’s cognitive development theories, but attachment is the theory that I found to fit better because it makes up one of the most vibrant models in developmental psychology and its relationship are critical to a young child ideal development. To that effect, this essay will focus on the strengths and weaknesses of Bowlby’s attachment theory and how it fits with Peter and its application to social work practice.

Attachment Theory on Child Development

Renowned as the first exponent of attachment theory Bowlby (1973), argues that attachment theory brings together social, emotional and cognitive aspects of development. Bowlby derives his ideas significantly from Darwin, but Freud also influenced him. Bowlby was a psychoanalyst who drew from clinical experience with children and adults to conceptualise his theory (Wilson et al., 2011).

Bowlby (1969) claims that the purpose of attachment is to raise the child’s prospects of survival because it safeguards the infant from physical and psychological harm. He points out that some aspects of cognitive sensor-motor development and building of strong relationships are also essential for attachment theory.

The nature, form and development of relationships are crucial to social work practice. Bowlby also believe that separating a child from a parental figure can cause much anxiety and can have a lasting effect if it prolongs the separation during his or her first four years. In his view, maternal attachment is important for healthy psychological development and that children need to develop it by the time they reached one-year-old.

However, research from Emerson and Schaffer (1964) concluded that babies and young children can develop attachment to more than one primary caregiver.  They also believe that infants need some time before they are developmentally ready to form an honest attachment to another person. For them, the first time a child can be attached to his or her caregiver is at the age of seven to nine months. This is the age that infants enter Piaget’s fourth sensory motor sub stage and the point where if they see anything hidden from them, they can locate it.

Bowlby’s theory was developed at the time when most mothers did not work and stayed at home as full-time carers. At the same time, there were little, if any, nurseries or child care centres for children (Riddall-Leech, 2005).  Today, there are varieties of nurseries to choose from and most mothers take up work.

Bowlby believes that maternal deprivation in infancy and lack of secure attachment could mean that children could not be able to form lasting relationships later in life and are likely to be offenders in society. However, in his subsequent studies, Bowlby (1988) concluded that circumstances can shape a later relationship pattern, as an early attachment to the later social pattern is not necessarily direct.  This raises questions for social workers as to when to take children from their caregivers, as missing the critical period could mean that children could face several difficulties in later life; including mental health issues.

However, careful analysis of the theory can help social workers to know when to intervene as it provides the model of analysis in judging the quality of relationships.  It is important in child protection, as it can support social workers to remove a child where there are serious concerns in relation to attachment.  The fundamental theories that are influential to the attachment theory are psychoanalytic, learning, cognitive and Ethological.

According to Grossman (1995), attachment is multiple relationships among others, and it is the actual foundation of solid individual development. He believes that strong attachment help children to form relationships with others in later years.

Nevertheless, Marrone (2014) argues that attachment is a way of conceptualising the tendency of people to make healthy, affectionate bonds.   He explains the many forms of emotional distress and personality disorders such as anxiety, depression and anger to which apathetic separation and loss give rise to.

Strong attachment is crucial in social work practice as it promotes the establishment of strong relationships. Ainsworth & Wittig (1969) claim that Children may show attachment behaviours to attract their caregiver’s attention positively, such as cooing, smiling, and may also cry for their caregivers to soothe them. They seek for closeness in other to feel secure. Bowlby emphasises the importance of safeguarding the young and maintaining their survival.

With regards to an attachment behaviour system, a child maintains closer proximity to the mother or the caregiver. Bowlby (1988) states that attachment behaviour is any form of behaviour that results in a person maintaining closeness to a preferred individual who is considered as a better able to cope with the world.

However, Bowlby (1969) points out that pure attachment behaviour happens within the first six months of a child’s life. For the first two to six months, the child can differentiate between known and unknown attachment figures and become more responsive to the caregiver. By the age of one, children are able to display a sequence of attachment behaviours. This means that children use their mothers or caregivers as a safe base when they start walking and exploring their environment.

Ainsworth & Wittig (1969) in their studies came out with three types of attachment behaviour. They developed the strange situation pattern and claim that children are classified into one of the three groups. In their opinion, children are Avoidant (Type A), Secure (Type B), or Ambivalent (Type C). The aim of the study was to assess the extent of trust a child has in the physical and emotional availability and receptiveness of his or her mother or caregiver. Type A and C are considered as insecure attachment and when children fall under those types, they are likely to face long term emotional effect such as loneliness and difficulty forming relationships.

Secure and insecure attachment

Secure attachment is when a child developed confidence in his or her caregiver and uses his or her caregiver to discover objects and relate to other people (Ainsworth et al., 1978).  The child usually has in mind that regardless of what he or she does, the mother or caregiver will be available in times of need.

A child is considered being secure if the child can explore beyond his or her comfort zone and be mindful that he or she will be protected when frighten, comforted when distress and looked after when needed (Bowlby, 1988).   To this effect, securely attached children see their caregivers as reliable sources of protection and security. They rely on their caregivers for support when they are in a difficult situation.

Sroufe, Carlson & Schulman (1993), claim that unlike insecurely attached children, children that are securely attached express their emotions healthier, mostly skilled with their peers at conversation, and usually have higher self-esteem. Peter at the age of 37 months already demonstrates some of these qualities which also support the fact that he is securely attached. He communicates freely with his peers and confidently engages with them.

It is also possible that he will grow into preadolescent with high self-esteem as he is already interacting positively with his peers and the nursery staff. Furthermore, Waters, Wippman and Sroufe (1979) found that children between 3 and 4 age group who are considered being secure at 15 months of age are more likely to be self-directed and adore learning new cognitive skills. Appendix 1 shows that Peter at the time of my observation said what he needed to say, went to areas of play he wanted and needed to be and enjoyed learning new cognitive skills.

Patterson & Moran (1988) claim that securely attached children display competence in their environment, eager to explore the environment and are usually sociable. Peter displays most of secure attachment qualities when I was observing him. He was confident and energetic in his environment. He was also kind to his peers and responsive to them and the staff.

As shown in Appendix 1, Peter was very interested in pretend plays. He made eye contact with me and instinctively looked away at my first encounter with him.  He later came back and demanded to know why I was in the nursery because I was not one of the staff. I smiled, and he ran away laughing.

Soon, it was time for a snack. Peter quickly washed his hands and went and sat next to his name patiently. The teacher came and asked the colour of the cup he wanted so he could give him milk, and he said red. Peter took the milk and said thank you to the teacher. His communication with the staff and his relationship with his peers show that he was a confident and active boy. Bretherton (1990) outlined that a secure attachment relationship mirrors support, care and love. Peter attachment relationship with the staff and mother gave evidence of care, love and support.

During my third visit, I observed Peter’s mother drop him and his little brother at the nursery. He waves at his mother and said “see you later” bearing in mind that his mother was coming back. He quickly settles down, went to his friends and said “hello” he took a train and started to play on the train track. He called his friends to join him, they came over to him and were playing with the trains together; taking turns.

According to Stern (1997), a crucial aspect of growth of attachment is the synchronised routines that mothers and their children formed during the initial phases of children’s life. In an agreement with Stern (1977), I noticed that Peter was aware of his routine; the time his mother drops him and the time he gets picked up.

Just before his mother came to pick him, he picked up a toy phone and said “mum I am waiting, it is almost time” and he quickly went back to his friends to play.

This was rather surprising to me, and I wonder whether it was a coincident. When his mother came to pick him up, upon noticing her, he gave a big smile and ran to the other room to inform his brother about the presence of their mother. His mother joined them in the room and he was already smiling and playing with his brother with excitement. This suggests that Peter’s mother has established a strong routine at the initial stages of his life, which he has now happily adapted.

From my observation of Peter, I can conclude that he is securely attached as he did not show any sign of avoidant, resistant and disorganised; characteristics that are typical of insecure children.

For children with insecure types of attachments, avoidant is a demonstration of the fact that children are unclear about the responses of their mothers or caregivers. They are usually not sure if their caregiver or mother will respond or support them when needed. Children in this category are always prone to anxiety and have a tendency to be clingy.

They are usually fearful of exploring outside their comfort zone and are not excited upon seeing their caregiver or mother. Children under this category are mostly not distress when their mother or caregiver is not around; they could be distress for various reasons such as being left on their own rather than the absence of the caregiver. Caregivers of those children are often regarded as insensitive and often unemotional or express rather cold emotions (Ainsworth, 1979).

Shemmings & Shimmings (2011) claim that Disorganised attachment refers to fleeting behaviours displayed by children if they are found in anxious situations in the presence of an abusive caregiver. With regards to Disorganised attachment, children may display bizarre behaviours such as pulling their hair.

They may also exhibit strange behaviours such as avoiding their mother, but they are very distressed on separation from their caregiver or mother. They will often seek closeness to strangers instead of the caregiver. Shemmings (2011) concludes that disorganised attachment is significant in children with severe neurological abnormalities such as autism and Down syndrome.

Cole (2004) argues that children who in their first year of life are in homes or institutions that lack sufficient and consistent care cried constantly at the beginning and later lapsed into a state of depression.

He also claims that children who are in institutions that lack manners of stimulation and ordinary contacts are certain to show aggressive behaviour and are unlikely to establish a proper relationship with others when they grow older. However, if relevant professionals such as social workers are mindful of such children, they might be able to support them to shape their lives. This could be achieved by early intervention.

“Attachment theory provides comprehensive relationship based theory of personality development and our psychological progress through life” (Howe et al., 1999, p.10). Those who work with children mostly depend on attachment theory to make some kind of decisions, as it helps them to understand the importance of developing close relationships.

Similarly, Hersov (1994) argues that some aspect of attachment theory has a continuous impact on child care policies and practices. Cortina & Marrone (2003) claims that attachment theory describes moods that are associated with trauma, anxiety, anger and sadness. Attachment support and offers security and protection against stress.

The theory of attachment has been of great assistance to social workers and psychologist. It has improved their understanding of how to deal with some issues such as relationships and extraordinary conducts that are reported by those working or dealing with children. Hersov (1994) agrees that attachment theory has brought major changes in daily child care, hospitals, adoption and fostering. He claims that attachment theory has helped social workers to remove abused children from their parents or caregivers.

Notwithstanding the strength of attachment theory, intellectuals like Thomas, Goldberg and Chess point to some limitations. Thomas and Chess (1977), states that Bowlby’s attachment theory mostly refers to women as caregivers. Such “monotropic” thinking is outdated and too feminist. A child in today’s world is able to develop an attachment with the father or any caregiver if they are looked after under optimal condition. By focussing on mothers as caregivers, attachment theory exposes them to undue criticism if the ideal condition did not succeed.

Goldberg (2000) suggests that early attachment helps in the development of a child, but does not determine later development. However, along with other influences, early attachment does make a significant contribution in later years. Bowlby’s early attachment assertion has also been criticised by feminist writers of the theory been mother-infant relationship.

To his credit, Bowlby accepted the weakness in over emphasising the mother-infant relationship in his later writing.  According to Shemmings (2011), Bowlby stopped using the term mother and instead used various terms such as an attachment figure, a principal caregiver or a primary caregiver. Bowlby (1988) also changed his early perception of maternal deprivation, as it is not relevant in today’s world.

Scholars will now agree that children form an attachment relationship from more than one adult and there will not be any adverse effect if the child is separated from the caregiver for a period (Main & Weston, 1981).

Rutter et al. (1976) studied a group of boys who have been separated from their mothers for a period during their infancy.  They found that, contrary to Bowlby’s theory, the majority of the children did not become antisocial and that those who did were not because of separation, but the challenges that often follow the separation that caused the problem. On account of this, losing a mother at birth will not affect the child if he or she is looked after in an ideal condition.

Harris (1998) is of the view that children are most easily influenced by their peers in shaping their personality than their attachment figures. In his view, a child who is brought up in a neighbourhood with a high level of crime or anti-social behaviour is most likely to be associated with crime irrespective of the influence of his or her caregiver.

Harris also made reference to various twin studies which have concluded that personality traits are established from parents’ genes, and that siblings who are brought up by the same parents in the same household, but who mature into different types of people. In his view attachment theorist, especially Bowlby, places far too much blame on parents for negative behaviours of their children. Field (1996) also claims that Bowlby places too much emphasis on parental attachment and suggests that the concept needs to be broadened.

In spite of the criticisms by the likes of Harris, Weston, Field and Lamb of Bowlby, attachment theory has been widely used by professionals such as social workers and psychologist.  The theory has been used to help children with bizarre behaviours, relationship problems, and to save many vulnerable children from abusive homes.

As a social work student, the attachment theory has enhanced my understanding of child development and why children may display certain behaviours. It has also improved my knowledge on why some adults or teenagers may have relationship problem and has reinforced social work value not to be judgemental.

Furthermore, attachment theory is important because it is the central idea of any discussion of children’s social development. However, as attachment theory is used by people from various professions, cultures and traditions, the scope needs to be broadened to reflect the complexity of human behaviour.

Social Work Got You Losing Your Mind?

Download your free mental capacity assessment sample now, leave a comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Attachment Theory and Emotion Experience in Life Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

The attachment theory and life experiences, works cited.

This paper reports on the attachment theory and how life experience affects one’s emotional attachment to others. Attachment theory advanced by John Bowlby in the early 1950s, seeks to explain how early life relations affects an individual’s emotional bonding in future Hutchison (89).

The theory gives an understanding of the different personalities as relates to emotional relationships. The theory was first focused on the relationship between children and their parents, but was later expanded to look at the whole lifespan. The theory looks at ones attachment as being influenced by both psychological conditions and the social environment.

According to the proponents of the attachment theory, children develop a bond with their caregivers, which grow into an emotional bond. Further research on the theory indicates that life experiences in childhood direct the course of one’s personality as well as the social and emotional development throughout his or her life.

Besides the explanation advanced by the theory regarding the connection between a baby and its mother or a care giver, the theory also seeks to explain the attachment between adults Hutchison (43). Among adults, an emotional attachment is felt more especially during bereavement or separation of spouses. Babies are born without the ability to move or feed themselves.

They depend on care givers to for these needs; they however have pre-programmed set of behavior that comes into action due to the environmental stimuli. Environmental stimuli may trigger a sense of fear or distress in the baby making it cry for help from the mother or the care giver. The protection or comfort offered to the baby makes it develop a stronger emotional bond with the mother and others who are closer to it.

Children grow to relate comfort from distress to the people who are close to them during their early stages of development. The nature of the environment a child grows in, together with the “psychological framework builds up a child’s internal working model” Hutchison (52).

The internal working model comprises of the development of expectations that an individual perceives in social interactions. The theory explains the effect of challenging parenting such as; neglect or abuse. Parents and caregivers should endeavor to develop an environment that makes children feel secure and comfortable.

The type of relationship parents establish with their children at their early stages of development determines the type of emotional attachment a child develops with them. A child who grows up in a loving and sensitive environment develops secure relationships in with others.

Such a child grows to recognize others as being caring, loving and reliable. They also develop high self esteem and learn to deal with negative feelings. Research indicates that people who grow up in secure attachment relationships are able to demonstrate good social aptitude throughout their life.

On the contrary, children brought up in unsecure environment develop an avoidant attachment. An unsecure environment to children is often characterized by fear, anxiety and rejection. This type of environment makes a child make children to downplay their emotional feelings.

There is a group of children who grow up with care givers that are not consistent in responding to their emotional needs. Their care givers are sometimes sensitive, and sometimes insensitive to their feelings. Such children develop “an attachment seeking habit as they try to conquer the insensitivity of their caregivers” Hutchison (34).

This sort of behavior by children is referred to as ambivalent attachment, where the children seek to compensate for the inconsistent responsiveness by the caregiver. Such a child tries to manage other people’s attention through behavior sets such as; seduction, bullying rage and necessity.

Hutchison, Elizabeth . Dimensions of human behavior: The changing life course. 4th Ed . Thousand oaks, CA: Sage publications, 2011. Print

• American Revolution in Historical Misrepresentation
• Telstra Corporation: Situation Analysis
• The Lottery Literary Analysis – Summary & Analytical Essay
• Development Theories in Child Development
• The Theory of Human Change and Growth
• Compare and Contrast Child Developmental Theories
• Self Efficacy, Stress & Coping, and Headspace Program
• Definition and Theories of Environmental Psychology
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 21). Attachment Theory and Emotion Experience in Life. https://ivypanda.com/essays/attachment-theory/

"Attachment Theory and Emotion Experience in Life." IvyPanda , 21 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/attachment-theory/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Attachment Theory and Emotion Experience in Life'. 21 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Attachment Theory and Emotion Experience in Life." June 21, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/attachment-theory/.

1. IvyPanda . "Attachment Theory and Emotion Experience in Life." June 21, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/attachment-theory/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Attachment Theory and Emotion Experience in Life." June 21, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/attachment-theory/.

Attachment Theory in Early Childhood Education

Here’s what you need to know about building healthy attachments for children in your classroom.

• brightwheel
• Child development

“ But I don’t want to go! ” If you’re a parent or primary caregiver of a young child, you may have heard some version of this sentiment during morning drop-offs at school or daycare when it’s time to say goodbye. The attachment children form with their parents is powerful and vital for their safety and security, but it’s not the only important bond created in early childhood.  

Attachment theory suggests that healthy bonds between educators and children in the classroom can help lead to greater social-emotional regulation, higher confidence in taking on new challenges, and even improved academic performance later in life.

What is attachment theory? 

Attachment theory is a psychological and evolutionary theory that focuses on the relationships or bonds between people, including between a child and their caregiver. 

In the 1950s, British psychologist John Bowlby was the first to analyze the attachment theory, describing it as a “lasting psychological connectedness between human beings.” His work was later expanded on in the 1970s by an American psychologist, Mary Ainsworth, who identified three specific styles of attachment that children had with their parents or caregivers.

Bowlby attachment theory

Bowlby’s work was focused on understanding the anxiety and distress that children experienced when separated from their caregivers. While earlier theories suggested that attachment was a learned behavior, Bowlby believed children were born with an innate drive to seek and remain close to attachment figures (such as parents or educators). 

According to Bowlby, there were four distinct characteristics of childhood attachment: 

• Proximity maintenance : The desire for children to be near the people they’re attached to.
• Safe haven : The desire to return to the attachment figure for comfort and safety in the face of a fear or threat.
• Secure base : The view of attachment figures as a base of security from which children can explore their surrounding environments.
• Separation distress : The anxiety that occurs in the absence of the attachment figure.

Ainsworth attachment theory

Building on Bowlby’s research, Mary Ainsworth performed a now-famous study titled “Strange Situation.” In the study, children between the ages of 12-18 months began in a room with only their parents. While the child explored the room with parental supervision, a “stranger” would enter, talk with the parent, and approach the child. The parent would quietly leave the room and soon re-enter to comfort the child. 

Based on the various reactions each child in the experiment had, Ainsworth found three distinct attachment styles: secure attachment, ambivalent attachment, and avoidant attachment. Additional studies around Ainsworth’s work have revealed that early attachment styles could help predict children’s behaviors later in life.

Attachment styles

Later research around attachment theory, performed by Main and Solomon, expanded on Ainsworth’s findings and added a fourth style of attachment: disorganized attachment. Here is a deeper look at the four distinct styles:

Secure attachment

The most common attachment style in children, secure attachment is seen in children who show distress when separated from their caregiver and joy when reunited. These children are comfortable seeking reassurance from their attachment figure when feeling nervous or frightened. 

Ambivalent attachment

Children with an ambivalent attachment style become highly distressed when a caregiver leaves for any amount of time. While considered uncommon, this style of attachment results when children cannot depend on their caregiver to return when needed. 

Avoidant attachment

Children with the avoidant attachment style show no preference between their caregivers and strangers. This is often the result of abuse, neglect, or punishment for children relying on their parents or caregiver. 

Disorganized attachment

Children with disorganized attachment styles show no distinct behavior when separated or reunited with their caregivers. The disorganized pattern of behavior is likely associated with inconsistent caregiver behavior, where the child sees their guardian as both a source of comfort and fear. 

Why is attachment important in child development? 

Research suggests that failing to form secure attachments during early childhood can have strong, negative impacts on children later in life. They often display lower self-esteem, lower self-confidence, and less independence than their peers. On the other hand, children who display healthy attachment traits often experience more success in early childhood education , displaying improved socialization and academic performance. 

Additionally, studies have shown that children who are more securely attached are more empathetic, less disruptive, less aggressive, and more mature than those with ambivalent or avoidant styles. For early childhood educators, this means children with better social-emotional skills who can better express their feelings, listen and follow instructions, and get along with their classmates.

How to promote secure attachment

Early childhood educators are tasked with creating positive connections between children’s home environment and their learning environment. This helps build healthy attachment traits in the classroom and also supports children in developing strong self-regulation skills to manage their emotions and behaviors. A few ways that educators can promote secure attachment in the classroom include:

• Connecting with families to learn more about each child : Understanding children’s home lives can help educators mirror routines to create a more familiar and comforting environment. A tool like brightwheel’s communication app allows educators and administrators to easily connect with families to send real-time messages, emergency alerts, child updates, and much more.
• Showing sensitivity and empathy : Treating children with compassion and empathy can help them view educators as a secure base, allowing them to explore their learning environment safely. 
• Displaying positive behavior through body language : When interacting with children, body language like eye contact or positive facial expressions allows them to feel seen and heard. 
• Responding calmly to outbursts or requests : Modeling appropriate behavior helps teach children how to interact properly with peers and manage their own emotions when they’re scared, angry, sad, or frustrated.

While healthy attachment traits start in the home, educators are tasked with reinforcing healthy habits (or managing unhealthy habits) as soon as children enter the classroom. Creating an environment that establishes trust, promotes positive social behaviors, and builds a connection between you and your children is critical to a child’s overall development and learning.

Activities Across Developmental Domains

Developmentally-appropriate activity ideas for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers.

Subscribe to the brightwheel blog

Recent Posts

• Exciting Summer Camp Activities for Your Childcare Program June 6, 2024
• Navigating Childcare Grants and Other Funding Resources in Idaho June 5, 2024
• Average Daycare Director Salary Statistics 2024 June 5, 2024
• How to Start a Daycare in New York June 5, 2024
• Navigating Childcare Grants and Other Funding Resources in Alaska June 4, 2024

Posts by Tag

• Running a business (208)
• Child development (164)
• Curriculum (83)
• Financial health (60)
• Small business funding (47)
• Staff development (47)
• Family engagement (40)
• COVID-19 (30)
• Technology (27)
• Family communications (15)
• Staff retention (15)
• ECE career growth (13)
• For Parents (10)
• Diversity and inclusion (9)
• Enrollment (7)
• Staff appreciation (7)
• Marketing (6)
• Public policy (6)
• Staff hiring (5)
• ECE current events (4)
• Family retention (4)
• Salary guides (4)
• Leadership (2)

Advertisement

The 4 attachment styles in relationships, and how to find yours.

Here's everything you need to know about the four attachment styles. Plus, how to find your own attachment style.

Why are some people very aloof and unattached in their relationships, while others are clingy and need constant validation ? According to attachment theory, it's because different people have different attachment styles .

Here's everything you need to know about the four attachment styles, how they're formed in childhood, and how to develop a secure attachment style.

What is an attachment style? 

An attachment style is a specific pattern of behavior in and around relationships. There are four adult attachment styles: secure attachment , anxious attachment , avoidant attachment , and fearful-avoidant (aka disorganized) attachment.

According to attachment theory, first developed by psychologist Mary Ainsworth and psychiatrist John Bowlby in the 1950s, a person's attachment style is shaped and developed in early childhood in response to their relationships with their earliest caregivers.

Essentially, our adult attachment style is thought to mirror the dynamics we had with our caregivers as infants and children .

Attachment style includes the way we tend to respond emotionally to others, how we usually interact with partners in relationships, and how we behave when it comes to relationships in general, according to therapist Alyssa "Lia" Mancao, LCSW .

Some research measures the four attachment styles based on an individual's levels of avoidance and anxiety in relationships, as seen in the chart below.

The four attachment styles

There are four main attachment styles:

Secure attachment

Anxious attachment, avoidant attachment.

• Fearful-avoidant attachment

Secure attachment style refers to the ability to form secure, loving relationships with others. A person with a secure attachment style is able to trust others and be trusted, love and accept love, and become close to others with relative ease.

They're not afraid of intimacy , nor do they feel panicked when their partners need time or space away from them. They're able to depend on others without becoming totally dependent.

About 56% of adults have a secure attachment type, according to foundational attachment research by social psychologists Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver in the 1980s.

Secure attachment is considered the healthy ideal for relationships. All other attachment styles that are not secure are known as insecure attachment styles .

More about the secure attachment style:

• How To Know If Someone Has A Secure Attachment Style
• 5 Tips To Have A More Secure Attachment Style

Anxious attachment style is a type of insecure attachment style marked by a deep fear of abandonment . People with an anxious attachment style tend to be very insecure about their relationships, often worrying that their partner will leave them and thus always hungry for validation.

Anxious attachment is associated with "neediness" or clingy behavior in relationships , such as getting very anxious when your partner doesn't text back fast enough and constantly feeling like your partner doesn't care enough about you.

Anxious attachment is also known as anxious-preoccupied attachment , and it generally aligns with the anxious-ambivalent attachment style or anxious-resistant attachment style observed among children. Some 19% of adults have the anxious attachment type, according to Hazan and Shaver's research.

More about the anxious attachment style:

• Anxious Attachment Style: Causes, Signs & How To Heal
• Anxious Preoccupied Attachment: Signs, Causes & More

Avoidant attachment style is a type of insecure attachment style marked by a fear of intimacy. People with an avoidant attachment style tend to have trouble getting close to others or trusting others in relationships, because they ultimately don't believe their needs can get met in a relationship.

In relationships, avoidant people typically maintain some distance from their partners or are largely emotionally unavailable . They may even find relationships suffocating and avoid them completely, preferring to be independent and rely on themselves.

Avoidant attachment is also known as dismissive-avoidant attachment , and it generally aligns with the anxious-avoidant attachment style observed among children. Some 25% of adults have the avoidant attachment type, according to Hazan and Shaver.

More about the avoidant attachment style:

• Avoidant Attachment Style In Relationships
• Fearful-Avoidant Attachment: 13 Signs
• 5 Signs You're Dating An Avoidant + What To Do About It
• Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment: Signs, Causes + More

Fearful-avoidant attachment (aka disorganized)

Fearful-avoidant attachment style is a combination of both the anxious and avoidant attachment styles. People with fearful-avoidant attachment both desperately crave affection and want to avoid it at all costs.

They're reluctant to develop a close romantic relationship , yet at the same time, they feel a dire need to feel loved by others. 

Fearful-avoidant attachment is also known as disorganized attachment because the attachment behaviors displayed by these individuals can seem inconsistent and oscillate between the extremes of avoidance and anxiousness.

In general, the fearful-avoidant attachment style is relatively rare and not well-researched. But we do know it's associated with significant psychological and relational risks 1 , including difficulty regulating emotions, heightened sexual behavior, and increased risk for violence in their relationships.

More about the fearful-avoidant attachment style:

• Disorganized Attachment In Adults: 9 Signs + How To Heal

The attachment styles quiz

Below are the descriptions of the main attachment types used in Hazan and Shaver's foundational research on attachment theory. Read the statements and pick the one that most resonates with you:

• I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me.
• I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away.
• I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being.

Once you've picked the number you most resonate with, scroll back up to the descriptions of each attachment style in the previous section of this article.

The number you picked here corresponds with your attachment style in the list up there.

(Note: Fearful-avoidant attachment, the fourth and rarest attachment type, was not studied in Hazan and Shaver's research and is not included in this mini attachment quiz. The two more detailed quizzes below can tell you if this may be your attachment type.)

Here are two more attachment style quiz options to try:

• A simple, five-minute attachment style quiz developed by mindbodygreen
• A longer attachment survey created by R. Chris Fraley, Ph.D. , a psychologist at the University of Illinois who has researched attachment theory in depth. His test is more involved and based on the parameters studied in the scientific research.

RELATED: Attachment Style Quiz: A 5-Minute Test To Find Out What Your Attachment Style Is

eHarmony.com

How attachment styles are formed

Attachment styles are typically developed in infancy based on our relationships with our earliest caregivers. Researchers believe attachment style is formed within our first year of living, between 7 to 11 months of age, according to mental health counselor Grace Suh, LMHC, LPC .

According to Mancao, it's "determined by how the primary caregiver responds to the child's cues when they are experiencing emotional stress."

"Human beings are born helpless, so we are hardwired at birth to search for and attach to a reliable caregiver for protection," Peter Lovenheim , author of The Attachment Effect , writes at mbg .

"The quality of that first bond—loving and stable or inconsistent or even absent—actually shapes the developing brain, influencing us throughout life in how we deal with loss and how we behave in relationships."

Here's a quick primer on what circumstances lead to each of the four attachment types :

• Secure attachment: Caregivers are responsive and attuned to their child's needs, says Mancao.
• Anxious attachment: "Caregivers are inconsistent, unpredictable with affections, sometimes overly involved, and intermittently withdrawn," says Suh. It's the unpredictable fluctuation between caregivers being emotionally available and then distant that leads children to be anxious about all their future relationships , Mancao adds.
• Avoidant attachment: Caregivers are not responsive, and they are often dismissive and distant, Suh explains. They're consistently emotionally disconnected from their child, "resulting in the child believing that their needs won't get met," Mancao says.
• Fearful-avoidant attachment: "The type of an environment that influences a disorganized attachment involves a caregiver who is frightening or traumatizing, leading to the child to experience a deep sense of fear and a lack of trust in others despite wanting close connections," Mancao says. They may be neglectful or even abusive, Suh adds, such that the child develops a "poor understanding of boundaries" and is "confused about what a healthy relationship looks like."

Caregivers are not the only ones who shape your attachment style, however. People's attachment styles may also be influenced by other significant relationships throughout their lives, such as friendships and past romantic relationships.

"A person can have had a secure attachment during childhood; however, betrayals and infidelity in adulthood can lead to an insecure attachment," says Mancao. 

It's also possible to have a different attachment style in different situations, according to Mancao. 

"While we may have a primary attachment style, depending on our relationships, we may feel more secure with one person than we do with another," she explains. "For many people, their attachment style is not the same in every relationship they encounter. Things that contribute to this are their counterpart's (romantic or platonic) personality and feelings of safety."

RELATED: How To Tell Someone's Attachment Style On A First Date

How to change your attachment style

Identify your relationship patterns.

Start by thinking about your relationship with your parents as a child, says Suh. She recommends asking yourself questions like:

• How were they toward you as a child?
• How did you respond to them?
• To whom did you go for comfort when you had a problem?
• Were they negligent or reliable?

This will help you get more clarity on what may have shaped your attachment style.

"Assess your current and past attachment style and identify if there are any patterns in choosing romantic partners," Suh says. "Be aware of your childhood history; the familiarity is comforting, whether it was good or bad. Meaning, your past unhealthy relationship patterns from childhood can recreate in adulthood."

Work on your self-esteem

Low self-esteem is a common characteristic across all insecure attachment styles, says Suh.

"Learn to embrace, value, love, and care for yourself first," she recommends. "If you cannot fathom what self-love is because you were neglected, abused, and dismissed as a child, you can start with self-tolerance and self-neutrality. This can look like, 'I'm a person, and everyone deserves to be valued' instead of forcing yourself with empty words of, 'I'm beautiful and valuable.'" 

(Here's more on learning to love yourself , plus how to raise your self-esteem after a breakup specifically.)

Get in touch with your real needs

At the end of the day, all insecure attachment styles are people who tend to form insecure relationships because of deeply held fears that their relationships will not work out.

So it's important to figure out how to make yourself feel more secure in your relationships. Part of that involves being aware of what your needs and desires are in relationships. 

"Learn to be assertive and set boundaries. Honor what you feel, and express your needs in words without manipulation and hidden meanings," Suh says. "Securely attached people are often direct and appropriately confrontational to create a healthy and meaningful relationship."

Don't be afraid to seek therapy

"Therapy is helpful, both individual and couples," Suh says. "A quality therapist will help you to dive into your attachment style, past wounds, ways to identify, establish appropriate boundaries, and promote a healthy relationship."

What are the 4 attachment styles?

The four attachment styles are secure, anxious, avoidant, and fearful-avoidant (also known as disorganized). The latter three are all considered types of insecure attachment.

What is the most common attachment style?

The most common attachment style is secure. Foundational attachment research from the 1980s found approximately 56% of adults have a secure attachment style.

What is the rarest attachment style?

The rarest attachment style is the fearful-avoidant type, which is actually a combination of the anxious and avoidant attachment styles.

What is the unhealthiest attachment style?

The fearful-avoidant attachment style is often thought to be the most difficult, and it's the attachment style most linked with psychological and relational difficulties. However, all three insecure attachment styles (avoidant, anxious, and fearful-avoidant) tend to struggle in relationships in their own ways. Secure attachment often considered the healthy ideal to aspire toward in relationships.

Are avoidants insecure?

The avoidant attachment style is actually a form of insecure attachment, so in that sense, yes, avoidants are insecure. People with this attachment style form insecure attachments with others or avoid attachment completely because they fear their needs can't or won't be met in relationships.

What attachment style is clingy?

The anxious attachment style is most associated with clingy behavior in relationships, although people with a fearful-avoidant attachment can also display some of these anxious tendencies.

Can your attachment style change?

"Yes, it is possible for a person to change their attachment style," Mancao says. "However, this takes a lot of work, patience, and intention if a person is shifting from an insecure to a secure attachment strategy."

The history of attachment theory

Although often referenced as "Bowlby's attachment theory," attachment theory as we know it today was developed by several researchers over the course of the late 20th century. British psychoanalyst John Bowlby developed the concept of attachment behaviors around the 1950s.

His theory was that children's tendency to emotionally attach to their caregivers and to become distressed and seek them out in their absence was an adaptive evolutionary trait, something that allowed children to survive by clinging to an attachment figure who provided support, protection, and care when they were too young to care for themselves.

Mary Ainsworth, a psychologist and one of Bowlby's colleagues, expanded on Bowlby's original attachment theory by identifying individual differences in how infants handled separations from their parents.

Her famous "strange situation" experiment in 1969 identified four attachment types among infants: secure, anxious-resistant, avoidant, and disorganized.

Later in the 1980s, social psychologists Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver began to apply Ainsworth and Bowlby's attachment theory to adult romantic relationships, giving birth to the concept of the adult attachment styles we know today.

In 1998, research psychologist Kelly Brennan and her colleagues further expanded on adult attachment, demonstrating two distinct dimensions that shape attachment patterns: attachment-related anxiety and attachment-related avoidance.

People can be low in both, high in one and low in the other, or high in both, which determines their attachment style. (See above graphic.)

Today, there's some criticism of attachment theory among psychologists who say it's a stretch to believe caregivers can so dramatically shape infants' future relationships from such a young age. Indeed, thus far, studies attempting to draw a line between infant attachment patterns and their adult attachment styles have only found "small to moderate" correlations, according to Fraley himself .

"Based on these kinds of studies, it seems likely that attachment styles in the child-parent domain and attachment styles in the romantic relationship domain are only moderately related at best," Fraley writes in a University of Illinois article.

But the concept of attachment styles is enduring for a reason: It gives people language to describe the distinct ways they show up in their relationships, and it challenges them to look to their past experiences to help them understand why they are the way they are.

RELATED: Ambivalent Attachment: 7 Signs, Causes + Steps To Heal

Mary Ainsworth and the strange situation

In 1969 and subsequent years, psychologist Mary Ainsworth and her colleagues ran experiments known as The Strange Situation that identified and observed attachment behaviors in children.

Her team brought mothers and their infants into the lab and had them play in a room with toys on the floor and with various other adults coming in and out of the room.

At some point, the mothers would get up and leave the room without their child. After a while, they'd return.

The researchers wanted to observe how children responded first to their caregiver leaving and later to their caregiver returning to them.

Here are some of the patterns they observed:

• Some children explored and played freely when their mother was in the room, became distressed when she left, and then were able to be soothed and comforted upon her return. These children were labeled as securely attached .
• Some children tended to avoid or ignore mothers even before she left and showed little emotion when left and when she returned. Ainsworth and her colleagues hypothesized that this avoidant behavior masked their true distress, and some further research tracking avoidant infants' heart rates confirmed this theory. These children were labeled as anxious-avoidant .
• Some children were already a bit distressed before the mother left, showed significant distress when she did, and were hard to comfort when she returned. The researchers sometimes observed a desire to "punish" their mothers for leaving by continuing to act out despite being relieved that she'd returned. These children were labeled anxious-ambivalent or anxious-resistant .
• Finally, some children showed largely inconsistent behaviors, including general aimlessness throughout the experiment, fear of the caregiver, or even aggressiveness toward them. Sometimes they'd have these moments of out-of-place behaviors and then fall into one of the other categories, or they'd be a mix of several. These children were labeled as having disorganized attachment . 
• https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0092623X.2019.1566946?journalCode=usmt20&

Enjoy some of our favorite clips from classes

What Is Meditation?

Mindfulness/Spirituality | Light Watkins

Box Breathing

Mindfulness/Spirituality | Gwen Dittmar

What Breathwork Can Address

The 8 limbs of yoga - what is asana.

Yoga | Caley Alyssa

Two Standing Postures to Open Up Tight Hips

How plants can optimize athletic performance.

Nutrition | Rich Roll

What to Eat Before a Workout

How ayurveda helps us navigate modern life.

Nutrition | Sahara Rose

Messages About Love & Relationships

Love & Relationships | Esther Perel

Love Languages

More on this topic.

Reviewers Are Buying Two Of This Vibrator (So They're Never Without One)

Carleigh Ferrante

How Do You Want To Parent Your Kids? A Psychotherapist's 5 Tips To Identifying Parenting Philosophies

Lia Avellino, LCSW

Is Your Kid Dealing With "Big Feelings"? This Science-Backed Protocol Might Help

Kimberly Snyder

Women Are Calling This Tiny Vibrator A Game-Changer For Their Sex Lives (& It's Oh-So-Quiet)

Nurses Walk 9,000+ Steps Every Shift – Here Are The Shoes They Swear By For Support

Jamey Powell

I've Tried A Dozen Red Light Tools But Always Come Back To This One & It's 25% Off

Popular Stories

• News stories
• Blog articles
• NSPCC Learning podcast
• Why language matters
• Sign up to newsletters
• Safeguarding in Education Update
• CASPAR email alert
• Key topics home
• Safeguarding and child protection
• Child abuse and neglect
• Child health and development
• Safer recruitment
• Case reviews
• Online safety
• Research and resources home
• NSPCC research
• Safeguarding resources
• How Safe conference
• Self-assessment tool
• Schools and colleges
• Training home
• Basic safeguarding courses
• Advanced training
• Elearning courses
• Designated person training
• Schools and education courses
• Services home
• Direct work: children and families
• Talk Relationships
• Consultancy
• Library and Information Service
• Support for local communities
• NSPCC Helpline
• Speak out Stay safe schools service
• My learning
• Self-assessment
• /g,'').replace(/ /g,'')" v-html="suggestion">

Attachment and child development

What is attachment theory and why is it important.

Attachment is a clinical term used to describe "a lasting psychological connectedness between human beings” (Bowlby, 1997) 1 . In particular, attachment theory highlights the importance of a child’s emotional bond with their primary caregivers. Disruption to or loss of this bond can affect a child emotionally and psychologically into adulthood, and have an impact on their future relationships.

Only specially trained and qualified professionals should assess a child’s attachment style. However, it’s important for all adults working with children to understand what attachment is and know how to help parents and carers become attuned to their child’s needs. You might do this by working with them directly, or by signposting families to other appropriate services. In the long term, this can help improve wellbeing and provide positive outcomes for both the child and their caregivers.

Understanding attachment in the early years

Children can form attachments with more than one caregiver, but the bond with the people who have provided close care from early infancy is the most important and enduring (Bowlby, 1997) 2 .

It’s important that parents and carers are attuned and responsive to their baby’s needs and are able to provide appropriate care. This includes recognising if their baby is hungry, feeling unwell or in need of closeness and affection (Howe, 2011) 3 .

Forming an attachment is something that develops over time for a child, but parents and carers can start to form an emotional bond with their child before they are born. Sometimes a parent or carer may have difficulty forming this bond, for example if they are experiencing mental health issues or don’t have an effective support network.

On this page, you’ll find information on:

• why attachment is important
• how children develop attachment
• attachment issues, insecure and secure attachment and behaviours to look out for
• how trauma can affect attachment
• how you can support parents and carers to develop a bond with their child.

Need specific information?

Our information specialists are here to help you find research, guidance and best practice.

Find out more

Stages of attachment

The first two years of a child’s life are the most critical for forming attachments (Prior and Glaser, 2006) 1 .

During this period, children develop an ‘internal working model’ that shapes the way they view relationships and operate socially. This can affect their sense of trust in others, self-worth and their confidence interacting with others (Bowlby, 1997) 2 .

When are attachments formed?

Attachments are formed in different ways during the phases of a child’s development.

Antenatal (before birth)

During the antenatal period, parents and carers can form a bond with their child. Any bonds formed before birth can have a positive impact on the relationship between babies and their caregivers once the child is born (Condon and Corkindale, 1997) 3 .

Birth until 6 weeks

This is sometimes referred to as the pre-attachment phase because the baby doesn’t appear to show an attachment to any specific caregiver. However, parents and carers who provide a nurturing environment and are responsive to their babies needs can lay the foundation for secure attachments to form (Bowlby, 1997) 4 .

6 weeks until 6-8 months

During this stage of their development, a baby might start to show a preference for their primary and secondary caregivers (often the mother and father).

6-8 months until 18 months-2 years

During this period a child begins to show a strong attachment to their primary caregivers. Babies start to develop separation anxiety during this phase and can become upset when their caregiver leaves, even for short periods (Bowlby, 1997) 5 .

18 months – 2 years onwards

At this point children are likely to become less dependent on their primary caregiver, particularly if they feel secure and confident the caregiver will return and be responsive in times of need (Bowlby, 1997) 6 .

Types of attachment

A child’s need for attachment is part of the process of seeking safety and security from their caregiver.

What does secure attachment look like?

In secure caregiver-child relationships, the caregiver is usually sensitive and tuned in to the child’s needs. They are able to provide care that is predictably loving, responsive and consistent.

Young children who have formed a secure attachment to their caregiver may display the following patterns of behaviour during times of stress or exploration:

• proximity maintenance – wanting to be near their primary caregiver
• safe haven - returning to their primary caregiver for comfort and safety if they feel afraid or threatened
• secure base – treating their primary caregiver as a base of security from which they can explore the surrounding environment. The child feels safe in the knowledge that they can return to their secure base when needed
• separation distress - experiencing anxiety in the absence of their primary caregiver. They are upset when their caregiver leaves, but happy to see them and easily comforted when they return

(Ainsworth et al, 2015) 1 .

Benefits of secure attachment

When caregivers react sensitively to ease their child’s distress and help them regulate their emotions, it has a positive impact on the child’s neurological, physiological and psychosocial development (Howe, 2011) 2 .

Children with secure attachments are more likely to develop emotional intelligence, good social skills and robust mental health (Howe, 2011) 3 .

Effects of insecure attachment

Not receiving comfort and security in the early years can have a negative effect on children’s neurological, psychological, emotional and physical development and functioning (Newman, 2015) 4 .

Babies and young children who have attachment issues may be more likely to develop behavioural problems such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or conduct disorder (Fearon et al, 2010) 5 .

Children who have attachment issues can have difficulty forming healthy relationships when they grow up. This may be because their experiences have taught them to believe that other people are unreliable or untrustworthy (Bowlby, 1997) 6 .

Adults with attachment issues are at a higher risk of entering into volatile relationships and having poor parenting skills, behavioural difficulties and mental health problems (Howe, 2011) 7 .

> Find out more about how trauma affects child brain development

Further reading

Take a look at our reading list on child attachment.

> View the reading list on the NSPCC Library catalogue

Attachment issues

Factors affecting attachment.

Some circumstances can make it more challenging for a child and their caregivers to form a pattern of secure attachment. These may include:

• abuse, maltreatment and trauma experienced by the parent or child
• parental mental health difficulties
• parental substance misuse
• the child having multiple care placements
• parents being separated from their baby just after birth, for example if the baby is receiving neonatal care
• stress such as having a low income, being a single parent, or being a young parent
• bereavement or loss of another caregiver that a child had an attachment with

(Bowlby, 1989) 1 .

Signs that a child may have attachment issues

Children’s behaviour can be influenced by a wide range of circumstances and emotions. 

Indicators that a baby or toddler might not have a secure attachment with their caregiver will emerge as a pattern of behaviour over time, particularly during moments of stress or exploration. This pattern might include:

• being fearful or avoidant of a parent or carer
• becoming extremely distressed when their carer leaves them, even for a short amount of time
• rejecting their caregiver’s efforts to calm, soothe, and connect with them
• not seeming to notice or care when their caregiver leaves the room or when they return
• being passive or non-responsive to their carer
• seeming to be depressed or angry
• not being interested in playing with toys or exploring their environment

(Howe, 2011) 2 .

As children with attachment issues get older, these behaviour patterns might evolve. As well as being evident during times of stress, some behaviours may start to become obvious at other times. These may include the child:

• finding it difficult to ask for help
• struggling to form positive relationships with adults and peers
• struggling to concentrate
• struggling to calm themselves down
• both demanding and rejecting attention or support at the same time
• becoming quickly or disproportionately angry or upset, at times with no clear triggers
• appearing withdrawn or disengaged from activities
• daydreaming, being hyperactive or constantly fidgeting or moving

(Mentally Healthy Schools, 2020) 3 .

If you think a child may have attachment issues, you should refer them to a suitably trained health and social care professional for a full assessment. You should follow your organisation’s procedures to make a health and social care referral, or contact your local authority children’s social care services.

Trauma and attachment

The signs of attachment issues can be similar to indicators that a child is experiencing other challenges, such as:

• mental health problems
• additional needs
• abuse and neglect .

This means it’s important to consider everything that’s going on in a child’s life and make sure they and their family are provided with appropriate support.

Think about all your previous experiences with the child and their caregivers, to help you build a clear picture of their relationships and recognise any concerning patterns of behaviour.

The impact of trauma and attachment

Children who have experienced abuse, neglect and trauma might develop coping strategies that can make it more complicated to recognise attachment issues.

For example, one sign of secure attachment is that children see their caregiver as a secure base to explore from. But children who have experienced neglect , for example, might display independent behaviour in order to protect themselves from the emotional pain of not having their needs met (Marvin et al, 2002) 1 .

It is also possible for a child to develop an attachment to someone who is maltreating them (Blizard & Bluhm, 1994) 2 .

As well as affecting attachment, experiencing trauma can have an impact on a child’s brain development. Children might need extra support to help strengthen the architecture of their brain.

What to do if you’re worried that a child is experiencing or at risk of abuse or neglect

If a child is in immediate danger, call the police on 999.

If you’re worried about a child but they are not in immediate danger, you should share your concerns.

• Follow your organisation’s child protection procedures without delay . These should provide clear guidelines on the steps you need to take if a child discloses abuse. They will state who in your organisation has responsibility for safeguarding or child protection and who you should report your concerns to.
• Contact your local child protection services . Their contact details can be found on the website for the local authority the child lives in.
• Contact the police . They will assess the situation and take the appropriate action to protect the child.
• Contact the NSPCC Helpline on 0808 800 5000 or by emailing [email protected] . Our child protection specialists will talk through your concerns with you, give you expert advice and take action to protect the child as appropriate. This may include making a referral to the local authority.

> Find out more about recognising and responding to abuse

If your organisation doesn't have a clear safeguarding procedure or you're concerned about how child protection issues are being handled in your own, or another, organisation, contact the Whistleblowing Advice Line to discuss your concerns.

> Find out about the Whistleblowing Advice Line on the NSPCC website

When you're not sure

The NSPCC Helpline can help when you’re not sure if a situation needs a safeguarding response. Our child protection specialists are here to support you whether you’re seeking advice, sharing concerns about a child, or looking for reassurance.

Whatever the need, reason or feeling, you can contact the NSPCC Helpline on 0808 800 5000 or by emailing [email protected]

Our trained professionals will talk through your concerns with you. Depending on what you share, our experts will talk you through which local services can help, advise you on next steps, or make referrals to children’s services and the police.

> Find out more about how the NSPCC Helpline can support you

Supporting children and families

Building positive relationships.

It’s important for anyone who works with children and families to support parents and carers in building positive relationships with their child. Having positive interaction and play with caregivers can help a child’s brain to develop healthily.

> See our early years resources which you can share with parents and caregivers

Video feedback programmes can also be used by specially trained social care professionals to help caregivers improve their interactions with their child. This involves caregivers being filmed when they are interacting with their child and then watching the recording with a trained practitioner, who gives them feedback and helps them build on their strengths.

Support for parents and carers

If parents are struggling with their own issues, it may make it harder for them to bond with their child and provide consistant and responsive care. They may have:

• experienced abuse of trauma themselves
• drug and/or alcohol dependencies
• mental health issues.

> Find out more about parental mental health

> Learn more about parental substance misuse

Services for children and families

The NSPCC has many services that children and families can be referred to, from supporting parents and carers in taking care of their children to preventing sexual abuse and overcoming abuse.

Our services might be suitable for children and families you are working with:

• Pregnancy in Mind helps parents who are at risk of or experiencing mild to moderate anxiety and depression during pregnancy. The service helps build parents’ capacity to provide sensitive, responsive care to their babies and keep these skills developed postnatally and as their children develop

Browse for more services

Take a look at our reading list about child attachment interventions, support and treatment.

> View the list on the NSPCC Library catalogue

Supporting children’s mental health

Children with attachment issues may have problems expressing or controlling their emotions and forming positive relationships, which might affect their mental health.

It’s important to make sure children and young people have access to mental health support.

> Find out more about child mental health

> See the NSPCC’s advice for parents and carers on how to support their child’s mental health

If a child or young person needs confidential help and advice you can always direct them to Childline. Calls to 0800 1111 are free and children can also contact Childline online . Children under the age of 12 can be directed to the Childline Kids website .

We also have a series of posters and wallet cards you can download for free. These can be printed and displayed in your setting to encourage children to contact Childline if they need to talk.

Understanding child brain development

Learn more about trauma-informed approaches and how you can help children overcome adverse childhood experiences.

Child mental health

Explores different mental health issues and risk and vulnerability factors as well as how to recognise when a child needs help and how to respond.

Protecting children from neglect

Understand more about neglect, how to recognise it and how to protect children and young people from it.

Services for children & families

Discover our current services for children and families across the UK and Channel Islands.

Attachment Theory and Sexual Offending: Making the Connection

• Published: 06 February 2024
• Volume 26 , pages 134–141, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Melissa D. Grady   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8064-6084 1 &
• Jamie Yoder 2  

637 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to discuss how attachment theory can be applied to explain sexual violence. Specifically, it discusses how the development of certain risk factors contributes to these behaviors and how attachment-based models can be used to address this issue through prevention and therapeutic interventions.

Recent Findings

Recent research demonstrates that individuals who commit sexual offenses have higher rates of insecure attachment styles and that these styles are associated with a number of criminogenic risk factors associated with sexual offending. Such risk factors include cognitive processing difficulties, affect dysregulation, and challenges in interpersonal relationships, among others. Fortunately, treatment interventions have been shown to foster more secure attachment styles and reduce these risk factors.

Attachment theory is a viable theory to both understand and intervene with those who have committed sexual violence to reduce the risk factors associated with sexual violence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Insecurity, Control, and Abuse: What Attachment Theory Can Teach Us About Treating Intimate Partner Violence

Attachment Theory and Offending

Attachment style and less severe forms of sexual coercion: a systematic review, papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • of importance.

Bowlby J, ed. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. attachment. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1982.

Bowlby J. Forty-four juvenile thieves: their characters and home lives. Int J Psycho-Anal. 1944;XXV:19–2.

Coates SW, Bowlby J, Margaret SM. Their lives and theories. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2004;52:571–1. Accessed May 10, 2016.

Shilkret R, Shilkret CJ. Attachment theory. In: Berzoff J, Flanagan LM, Hertz P, editors. Inside out and outside in. 4th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 2016. p. 196–19.

Google Scholar  

Bretherton I. The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Dev Psychol. 1992;28(5):759–75. Accessed 5/10/2016.

Benoit D. Infant-parent attachment: definitions, types, antecedents, measurement and outcomes. Paediatric Child Health. 2004;9:541–5.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bowlby J. A secure base: parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic books; 2008.

Bowlby J, ed. Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. separation: anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1973.

Hazan C, Shaver PR. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52:511–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Collins NL, Read SJ. Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990;58(4):644–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.644 .

Main M, Solomon J. Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth strange situation. In: Greenber MT, Cicchetti D, Cummings M, editors. Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1990. p. 121–60.

Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. 4th ed. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing; 2017.

Andrews DA, Bonta J, Wormith JS. The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Crim Justice Behav. 2011;38(7):735–55.

Hanson RK, Morton-Bourgon K. The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: a meta-analysis of recidivism studies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2005;73(6):1154–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hanson RK, Thornton D, Helmus L, Babchishin KM. What sexual recidivism rates are associated with static-99R and static-2002R scores? Sex Abuse-J Res Tr. 2016;28(3):218–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215574710 .

Lovins B, Lowenkamp CT, Latessa EJ. Applying the risk principle to sex offenders: can treatment make some sex offenders worse? Prison J. 2009;89(3):344–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885509339509 .

Leroux EJ, Pullman LE, Motayne G, Seto MC. Victim age and the generalist versus specialist distinction in adolescent sexual offending. Sexual Abuse: J Res Treat. 2016;28(2):79–5.  http://sax.sagepub.com/content/28/2/79 . Abstract. Accessed Oct 19, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063214535814 .

Seto MC. The motivation-facilitation model of sexual offending. Sexual Abuse. 2019;31(1):3–2.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1079063217720919 .

Seto MC, Lalumière ML. What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2010;136:526–75.

• Miller S, Klockner K. Attachment styles and attachment based change in offenders in a prison therapeutic community. J Forensic Psychol Res Pract. 2019;19(3):260–77.  https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2019.1603956 .  This study demonstrated that individuals who committed sexual offenses can become more securely attached after participating in a prison-based treatment program.

Smallbone S, Dadds MR. Childhood attachment and adult attachment in incarcerated adult male sex offenders. J Interpers Violence. 1998;13:555–73.

McKillop N, Smallbone S, Wortley R, Andjic I. Offenders’ attachment and sexual abuse onset. Sex Abuse. 2012;24(6):591–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063212445571.Accessed8/14/20172:24:29PM.

Beech AR, Mitchell IJ. A neurobiological perspective on attachment problems in sexual offenders and the role of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors in the treatment of such problems. Clin Psychol Rev. 2005;25(2):153–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2004.10.002 .

• Loinaz I, Sánchez LM, Vilella A. Understanding empathy, self-esteem, and adult attachment in sexual offenders and partner-violent men. J Interpers Violence. 2021;36(5–6):2050–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518759977 .  Discusses some of the challenges in measuring these constructs with this population.

Gunst E, Watson JC, Desmet M, Willemsen J. Affect regulation as a factor in sex offenders. Aggress Violent Beh. 2017;37:210–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.007 .

Masten AS, Cicchetti D. Developmental cascades. Dev Psychopathol. 2010;22(3):491–5.

Cicchetti D, Banny A. A developmental psychopathology perspective on child maltreatment. In: Lewis M, Rudolph K, editors. Handbook of developmental psychopathology. New York, NY: Springer; 2014. p. 723–41.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Brown A, Yoder J. Symptoms of post-traumatic stress and sexual concerns: the intermediary effects of executive functioning on profiles of youth who have sexually harmed. J Interpers Violence. 2020.

Yoder J, Leibowitz GS, Peterson L. Parental and peer attachment characteristics: differentiating between youth sexual and nonsexual offenders and associations with sexual offense profiles. J Interpers Violence. 2018;33(17):2643–63.

Yoder J, Grady MD, Precht M. Relationships between early life victimization, antisocial traits, and sexual violence: executive functioning as a mediator. J Child Sex Abuse. 2019;28(6):667–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2019.1588819.

Burton DL, Demuynck S, Yoder J. Executive dysfunction predicts delinquency but not characteristics of sexual aggression among adolescent sexual offenders. Sex Abuse-J Res Tr. 2016;28:707–21.

Lisak D, Ivan C. Deficits in intimacy and empathy in sexually aggressive men. J Interpers Violence. 1995;10(3):296–8.

Crittenden PM. Internal representation models of attachment relationships. J Infant Mental Health. 1990;11:259–77.

Roche DN, Runtz MG, Hunter MA. Adult attachment: A mediator between child sexual abuse and later psychological adjustment. J Interpers Violence. 1999;14(2):184–7.  https://doi.org/10.1177/088626099014002006.

Allen JP, Tan JS. The multiple facets of attachment in adolescence. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. 2016;399–15.

Grady MD, Looman J, Abracen J. Childhood abuse, attachment, and psychopathy among individuals who commit sexual offenses. Sex Addict Compuls. 2019;26(1–2):77–2. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720162.2019.1620660.

Abracen J, Looman J. Combining attachment theory and complex post‐traumatic stress disorder and theories of sexual offending. 2015;83–6.

Reavis JA, Looman J, Franco KA, Rojas B. Adverse childhood experiences and adult criminality: how long must we live before we possess our own lives? Perm J. 2013;17(2):44–8. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/12-072 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Garofalo C, Bogaerts S. Attachment and personality disorders among child molesters: the role of trust. Sexual Abuse: J Res Treat. 2017;31(1):94–24. Accessed March 23, 2018.

Ward T, Beech AR. An integrated theory of sexual offending. In: Laws DR, O’Donohue WT, editors. Sexual deviance: Theory, assessment, and treatment. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 21–6.

Mitchell IJ, Beech AR. Towards a neurobiological model of offending. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011;31:872–88.

Lyn TS, Burton DL. Adult attachment and sexual offender status. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2004;74:150–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.74.2.150 .

Baker E, Beech AR, Tyson M. Attachment disorganization and its relevance to sexual offending. J Fam Violence. 2006;21:221–31.

Lyn TS, Burton DL. Attachment, anger and anxiety of male sexual offenders. J Sex Aggress. 2005;11(2):127–37.

Ward T, Hudson SM, Marshall WL. Attachment style in sex offenders: a preliminary study. J Sex Res. 1996;33(1):17–26.

Yoder J, Hodge AI, Ruch D. Intra-and extra-familial victimization experiences: differentiating between incarcerated serious youth offenders and youth rapists. J Interpers Violence. 2019;34(15):3199–228.

Miner MH, Romine RS, Robinson BE, Berg D, Knight RA. Anxious attachment, social isolation, and indicators of sex drive and compulsivity predictors of child sexual abuse perpetration in adolescent males. Sexual Abuse: J Res Treat. 2014;1–22.

Grady MD, Shields JJ. The relationship between attachment dimensions and emotion regulation in individuals who have committed sexual crimes. J Sex Aggress. 2018;24(1):51–5.

Skinner-Osei P, Mangan L, Liggett M, Kerrigan M, Levenson JS. Justice-involved youth and trauma-informed interventions. Justice Policy J. 2019;1–25.

Center for Disease Control. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs).  https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/childabuseandneglect/acestudy/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fviolenceprevention%2Facestudy%2Findex.html . Updated 2016.

Bartholomew K, Horowitz LM. Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;61(2):226–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226 .

Unger JAM, De Luca RV. The relationship between childhood physical abuse and adult attachment styles. J Fam Violence. 2014;29(3):223–34.

Notaro PC, Volling BL. Parental responsiveness and infant-parent attachment: a replication study with fathers and mothers. Infant Behav Dev. 1999;22(3):345–52.  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638399000120 .

Perry BD. Bonding and attachment in maltreated children. The Child Trauma Center. 2001;3:1–17.

Yoder J, Dillard R, Leibowitz GS. Family experiences and sexual victimization histories: a comparative analysis between youth sexual and nonsexual offenders. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2018;62(10):0306624X17738063.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17738063 . Accessed March 21, 2018.

Levenson JS. Adverse childhood experiences and subsequent substance abuse in a sample of sexual offenders: Implications for treatment and prevention. Vict Offenders. 2015;1–26.

• Grady MD, Yoder J, Brown A. Childhood maltreatment experiences, attachment, sexual offending: testing a theory. J Interpers Violence. 2021;36(11–12):NP6183–NP6217.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518814262 . Accessed Nov 26, 2018. This study examined the direct and indirect relationships between abuse and traumatic experiences, anxious-avoidant and ambivalent-anxious attachment styles, and regulation deficits among youth who committed sexual crimes.

Levenson JS, Willis GM, Prescott DS. Adverse childhood experiences in the lives of female sex offenders. Sex Abuse-J Res Tr. 2015;27:258–83.

Brown A, Yoder J, Fuschi K. Trauma and maternal attachment as risks for executive function deficits among youth who have sexually harmed. Sexual Abuse. In Press.

Baglivio MT, Epps N, Swartz K, Huq MS, Sheer A, Hardt NS. The prevalence of adverse childhood experiences (ACE) in the lives of juvenile offenders. J Juv Justice. 2014;3(2):1–23.

Levenson JS, Willis GM, Prescott D. Trauma-informed care: transforming treatment for people who sexually abuse. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press; 2017.

Yoder J, Precht M. Victimization experiences and executive dysfunction as discriminating risk indicators for youth offender typologies. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2020;64(1):63–2.

Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: the adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14(4):245–58.

Zaremba LA, Keiley MK. The mediational effect of affect regulation on the relationship between attachment and internalizing/externalizing behaviors in adolescent males who have sexually offended. Children Youth Serv Rev. 2011;33(9):1599–607.  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740911001101 . Accessed April 17, 2017.

Grady MD, Levenson JS, Bolder T. Linking adverse childhood effects and attachment: a theory of etiology for sexual offending. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2017;18(4):433–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015627147 .

Ward T. The explanation of sexual offending: from single factor theories to integrative pluralism. J Sex Aggress. 2014;20(2):130–41.

• Brown A, Yoder J, Fushi K. Trauma and maternal caregivers as risks for executive function deficits among youth who have sexually harmed. Sexual Abuse. 2022;34(1):24–1.  This study explored relationships between trauma events, trauma symptoms, and attachment characteristics, and their relationship to executive functioning in a sample of youth who committed sexual harm and found relationships between trauma events, symptomatology, and maternal attachment characteristics.

Grady MD, Yoder J. An examination of the psychometric properties of the caregiving styles questionnaire. 2018.

Yoder J, Grady MD, Brown A, Dillard R. Criminogenic needs as intervening mechanisms in the relation between insecure attachments and youth sexual violence. Sexual Abuse. 2019;32(3):247–72.

Yoder J, Brown A, Grady M, Dillard R, Kennedy N. Positive caregiving styles attenuating effects of cumulative trauma among youth who commit sexual crimes. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2020:0306624X20952390.

Grady MD, Yoder J, Brown A. Childhood maltreatment experiences, attachment, sexual offending: testing a theory. J Interpers Violence. 2018.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/088626051881426 .

Yoder J, Grady MD, Dillard R. Maternal caregiving practices and child abuse experiences as developmental antecedents to insecure attachments: differential pathways between adolescents who commit sexual and non-sexual crimes. Sexual Abuse. 2019;31(7):837–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218784557 .

Peacock S, Konrad S, Watson E, Nickel D, Muhajarine N. Effectiveness of home visiting programs on child outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1–14.

Tobon AL, Condon E, Sadler LS, Holland ML, Mayes LC, Slade A. School age effects of minding the baby—an attachment-based home-visiting intervention—on parenting and child behaviors. Dev Psychopathol. 2022;34(1):55–7.

Filene JH, Kaminski JW, Valle LA, Cachat P. Components associated with home visiting program outcomes: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013;132(Supplement_2):S100-S9.

Sadler LS, Slade A, Close N, et al. Minding the baby: enhancing reflectiveness to improve early health and relationship outcomes in an interdisciplinary home-visiting program. Infant Ment Health J. 2013;34(5):391–5.

Eyberg S. Parent-child interaction therapy: Child Fam Behav Ther. 1988;10(1):33–6. https://doi.org/10.1300/J019v10n01_04.Accessed3/5/20181:26:08PM.

Thomas R, Abell B, Webb HJ, Avdagic E, Zimmer-Gembeck MJ. Parent-child interaction therapy: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2017;140(3):1–15.

Bratton S, Landreth G, Kellam T, Blackard S. Child parent relationship therapy (CPRT) treatment manual [includes CD-ROM]. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge; 2006.

Bratton S, Landreth G, Lin YD. What the research shows about child parent relationship therapy (CPRT): a review of controlled outcome research. In: Baggerly J, Ray J, Bratton S, editors. Child-centered play therapy research: The evidence-base for effective practice. Hobken, NJ: Wiley. 2010;269–94.

Cohen JA, Mannarino AP, Deblinger E. Treating trauma and traumatic grief in children and adolescents. 2nd ed. Guilford Publications; 2017.

Cohen JA, Deblinger E, Mannarino AP. Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy for children and families. Psychother Res. 2018;28(1):47–7.

Cohen JA, Deblinger E, Mannarino AP, Steer R. A multisite randomized trial for sexually abused children with symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004;43:393–40.

Cohen JA, Mannarino AP, Knudsen K. Treating sexually abused children: 1 year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Child Abuse Negl. 2005;29(2):135–45.

Klohnen EC, Weller JA, Luo S, Choe M. Organization and predictive power of general and relationship-specific attachment models: one for all, and all for one? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005;31:1665–82.

Crowell JA, Treboux D, Waters E. Stability of attachment representations: the transition to marriage. Dev Psychol. 2002;38:467–79.

Parish M, Eagle MN. Attachment to the therapist. Psychoanal Psychol. 2003;20:271–86.

Mikulincer M, Shaver PR, editors. Attachment in adulthood: structure, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2007.

Grady MD, Swett L, Shields JJ. The impact of a sex offender treatment programme on the attachment styles of incarcerated male sexual offenders. J Sex Aggress. 2016;22(1):123–36.

Cozzarelli C, Hoekstra SJ, Bylsma WH. General versus specific mental models of attachment: are they associated with different outcomes? Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2000;26:605–18.

Bovard-Johns R, Yoder JR, Burton DL. Therapeutic alliance with juvenile sexual offenders: the effects of trauma symptoms and attachment functioning. J Offender Rehabil. 2015;54(4):296–15.

Slade A, Holmes J. Attachment and psychotherapy. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;25:152–6.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) xx-xxxx. 2014.

Ardino V. Offending behaviour: the role of trauma and PTSD. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2012;3(1):18968. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v3i0.18968.

Cheng J, O’Connell ME, Wormith JS. Bridging neuropsychology and forensic psychology: executive function overlaps with the central eight risk and need factors. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2019;63(4):558–73.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306624X18803818 .

Holley SR, Ewing ST, Stiver JT, Bloch L. The relationship between emotion regulation, executive functioning, and aggressive behaviors. J Interpers Violence. 2017;32(11):1692–707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515592619 .

van der Kolk BA. Clinical implications of neuroscience research in PTSD. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1071(1):277–93.

Wojciechowski TW. PTSD as a risk factor for the development of violence among juvenile offenders: a group-based trajectory modeling approach. J Interpers Violence. 2020;35(13–14):2511–35.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260517704231 .

Pettus-Davis C, Renn T, Lacasse JR, Motley R. Proposing a population-specific intervention approach to treat trauma among men during and after incarceration. Psychol Men Mas. 2019;20(3):379–93.

Blagden NJ, Winder B, Hames C. “They treat us like human Beings”—experiencing a therapeutic sex offenders prison: impact on prisoners and staff and implications for treatment. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2016;60(4):371–96. http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/60/4/371.abstract .

Sachs NM, Miller J. Beyond responsivity: client service engagement in a reentry demonstration program. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2018;62(13):4295–13.  http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306624X18763762 .

Stinson JD, Clark MD. Motivational interviewing with offenders: engagement, rehabilitation, and reentry. New York: Guilford Publications; 2017.

Sturgess D, Woodhams J, Tonkin M. Treatment engagement from the perspective of the offender: reasons for noncompletion and completion of treatment—a systematic review. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2016;60(16):1873–96.

Grady MD, Levenson JS. Integrating trauma treatment and sexual offending treatment. 2020.

Grady MD, Levenson JS. Prevalence rates of adverse childhood experiences in a sample of minor-attracted persons: a comparison study. Traumatology. 2021;27(2):227.

Levenson JS, Socia KM. Adverse childhood experiences and arrest patterns in a sample of sexual offenders. J Interpers Violence. 2016;31(10):1883–911. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515570751 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Catholic University of America, 620 Michigan Ave, NE, Washington DC, 20064, USA

Melissa D. Grady

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA

Jamie Yoder

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melissa D. Grady .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests.

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Grady, M.D., Yoder, J. Attachment Theory and Sexual Offending: Making the Connection. Curr Psychiatry Rep 26 , 134–141 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-024-01488-2

Download citation

Accepted : 24 January 2024

Published : 06 February 2024

Issue Date : April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-024-01488-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Attachment theory
• Sexual offending
• Sexual violence
• Therapeutic interventions
• Attachment styles
• Criminogenic risk factors

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

End the Phone-Based Childhood Now

The environment in which kids grow up today is hostile to human development.

Listen to this article

Listen to more stories on curio

This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here .

S omething went suddenly and horribly wrong for adolescents in the early 2010s. By now you’ve likely seen the statistics : Rates of depression and anxiety in the United States—fairly stable in the 2000s—rose by more than 50 percent in many studies from 2010 to 2019. The suicide rate rose 48 percent for adolescents ages 10 to 19. For girls ages 10 to 14, it rose 131 percent.

The problem was not limited to the U.S.: Similar patterns emerged around the same time in Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand , the Nordic countries , and beyond . By a variety of measures and in a variety of countries, the members of Generation Z (born in and after 1996) are suffering from anxiety, depression, self-harm, and related disorders at levels higher than any other generation for which we have data.

The decline in mental health is just one of many signs that something went awry. Loneliness and friendlessness among American teens began to surge around 2012. Academic achievement went down, too. According to “The Nation’s Report Card,” scores in reading and math began to decline for U.S. students after 2012, reversing decades of slow but generally steady increase. PISA, the major international measure of educational trends, shows that declines in math, reading, and science happened globally, also beginning in the early 2010s.

Read: It sure looks like phones are making students dumber

As the oldest members of Gen Z reach their late 20s, their troubles are carrying over into adulthood. Young adults are dating less , having less sex, and showing less interest in ever having children than prior generations. They are more likely to live with their parents. They were less likely to get jobs as teens , and managers say they are harder to work with. Many of these trends began with earlier generations, but most of them accelerated with Gen Z.

Surveys show that members of Gen Z are shyer and more risk averse than previous generations, too, and risk aversion may make them less ambitious. In an interview last May , OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman and Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison noted that, for the first time since the 1970s, none of Silicon Valley’s preeminent entrepreneurs are under 30. “Something has really gone wrong,” Altman said. In a famously young industry, he was baffled by the sudden absence of great founders in their 20s.

Generations are not monolithic, of course. Many young people are flourishing. Taken as a whole, however, Gen Z is in poor mental health and is lagging behind previous generations on many important metrics. And if a generation is doing poorly––if it is more anxious and depressed and is starting families, careers, and important companies at a substantially lower rate than previous generations––then the sociological and economic consequences will be profound for the entire society.

What happened in the early 2010s that altered adolescent development and worsened mental health? Theories abound , but the fact that similar trends are found in many countries worldwide means that events and trends that are specific to the United States cannot be the main story.

I think the answer can be stated simply, although the underlying psychology is complex: Those were the years when adolescents in rich countries traded in their flip phones for smartphones and moved much more of their social lives online—particularly onto social-media platforms designed for virality and addiction . Once young people began carrying the entire internet in their pockets, available to them day and night, it altered their daily experiences and developmental pathways across the board. Friendship, dating, sexuality, exercise, sleep, academics, politics, family dynamics, identity—all were affected. Life changed rapidly for younger children, too, as they began to get access to their parents’ smartphones and, later, got their own iPads, laptops, and even smartphones during elementary school.

Jonathan Haidt: Get phones out of schools now

Related Podcast

As a social psychologist who has long studied social and moral development, I have been involved in debates about the effects of digital technology for years. Typically, the scientific questions have been framed somewhat narrowly, to make them easier to address with data. For example, do adolescents who consume more social media have higher levels of depression? Does using a smartphone just before bedtime interfere with sleep? The answer to these questions is usually found to be yes, although the size of the relationship is often statistically small, which has led some researchers to conclude that these new technologies are not responsible for the gigantic increases in mental illness that began in the early 2010s.

But before we can evaluate the evidence on any one potential avenue of harm, we need to step back and ask a broader question: What is childhood––including adolescence––and how did it change when smartphones moved to the center of it? If we take a more holistic view of what childhood is and what young children, tweens, and teens need to do to mature into competent adults, the picture becomes much clearer. Smartphone-based life, it turns out, alters or interferes with a great number of developmental processes.

The intrusion of smartphones and social media are not the only changes that have deformed childhood. There’s an important backstory, beginning as long ago as the 1980s, when we started systematically depriving children and adolescents of freedom, unsupervised play, responsibility, and opportunities for risk taking, all of which promote competence, maturity, and mental health. But the change in childhood accelerated in the early 2010s, when an already independence-deprived generation was lured into a new virtual universe that seemed safe to parents but in fact is more dangerous, in many respects, than the physical world.

My claim is that the new phone-based childhood that took shape roughly 12 years ago is making young people sick and blocking their progress to flourishing in adulthood. We need a dramatic cultural correction, and we need it now.

Brain development is sometimes said to be “experience-expectant,” because specific parts of the brain show increased plasticity during periods of life when an animal’s brain can “expect” to have certain kinds of experiences. You can see this with baby geese, who will imprint on whatever mother-sized object moves in their vicinity just after they hatch. You can see it with human children, who are able to learn languages quickly and take on the local accent, but only through early puberty; after that, it’s hard to learn a language and sound like a native speaker. There is also some evidence of a sensitive period for cultural learning more generally. Japanese children who spent a few years in California in the 1970s came to feel “American” in their identity and ways of interacting only if they attended American schools for a few years between ages 9 and 15. If they left before age 9, there was no lasting impact. If they didn’t arrive until they were 15, it was too late; they didn’t come to feel American.

Human childhood is an extended cultural apprenticeship with different tasks at different ages all the way through puberty. Once we see it this way, we can identify factors that promote or impede the right kinds of learning at each age. For children of all ages, one of the most powerful drivers of learning is the strong motivation to play. Play is the work of childhood, and all young mammals have the same job: to wire up their brains by playing vigorously and often, practicing the moves and skills they’ll need as adults. Kittens will play-pounce on anything that looks like a mouse tail. Human children will play games such as tag and sharks and minnows, which let them practice both their predator skills and their escaping-from-predator skills. Adolescents will play sports with greater intensity, and will incorporate playfulness into their social interactions—flirting, teasing, and developing inside jokes that bond friends together. Hundreds of studies on young rats, monkeys, and humans show that young mammals want to play, need to play, and end up socially, cognitively, and emotionally impaired when they are deprived of play .

One crucial aspect of play is physical risk taking. Children and adolescents must take risks and fail—often—in environments in which failure is not very costly. This is how they extend their abilities, overcome their fears, learn to estimate risk, and learn to cooperate in order to take on larger challenges later. The ever-present possibility of getting hurt while running around, exploring, play-fighting, or getting into a real conflict with another group adds an element of thrill, and thrilling play appears to be the most effective kind for overcoming childhood anxieties and building social, emotional, and physical competence. The desire for risk and thrill increases in the teen years, when failure might carry more serious consequences. Children of all ages need to choose the risk they are ready for at a given moment. Young people who are deprived of opportunities for risk taking and independent exploration will, on average, develop into more anxious and risk-averse adults .

From the April 2014 issue: The overprotected kid

Human childhood and adolescence evolved outdoors, in a physical world full of dangers and opportunities. Its central activities––play, exploration, and intense socializing––were largely unsupervised by adults, allowing children to make their own choices, resolve their own conflicts, and take care of one another. Shared adventures and shared adversity bound young people together into strong friendship clusters within which they mastered the social dynamics of small groups, which prepared them to master bigger challenges and larger groups later on.

And then we changed childhood.

The changes started slowly in the late 1970s and ’80s, before the arrival of the internet, as many parents in the U.S. grew fearful that their children would be harmed or abducted if left unsupervised. Such crimes have always been extremely rare, but they loomed larger in parents’ minds thanks in part to rising levels of street crime combined with the arrival of cable TV, which enabled round-the-clock coverage of missing-children cases. A general decline in social capital ––the degree to which people knew and trusted their neighbors and institutions–– exacerbated parental fears . Meanwhile, rising competition for college admissions encouraged more intensive forms of parenting . In the 1990s, American parents began pulling their children indoors or insisting that afternoons be spent in adult-run enrichment activities. Free play, independent exploration, and teen-hangout time declined.

In recent decades, seeing unchaperoned children outdoors has become so novel that when one is spotted in the wild, some adults feel it is their duty to call the police. In 2015, the Pew Research Center found that parents, on average, believed that children should be at least 10 years old to play unsupervised in front of their house, and that kids should be 14 before being allowed to go unsupervised to a public park. Most of these same parents had enjoyed joyous and unsupervised outdoor play by the age of 7 or 8.

But overprotection is only part of the story. The transition away from a more independent childhood was facilitated by steady improvements in digital technology, which made it easier and more inviting for young people to spend a lot more time at home, indoors, and alone in their rooms. Eventually, tech companies got access to children 24/7. They developed exciting virtual activities, engineered for “engagement,” that are nothing like the real-world experiences young brains evolved to expect.

The first wave came ashore in the 1990s with the arrival of dial-up internet access, which made personal computers good for something beyond word processing and basic games. By 2003, 55 percent of American households had a computer with (slow) internet access. Rates of adolescent depression, loneliness, and other measures of poor mental health did not rise in this first wave. If anything, they went down a bit. Millennial teens (born 1981 through 1995), who were the first to go through puberty with access to the internet, were psychologically healthier and happier, on average, than their older siblings or parents in Generation X (born 1965 through 1980).

The second wave began to rise in the 2000s, though its full force didn’t hit until the early 2010s. It began rather innocently with the introduction of social-media platforms that helped people connect with their friends. Posting and sharing content became much easier with sites such as Friendster (launched in 2003), Myspace (2003), and Facebook (2004).

Teens embraced social media soon after it came out, but the time they could spend on these sites was limited in those early years because the sites could only be accessed from a computer, often the family computer in the living room. Young people couldn’t access social media (and the rest of the internet) from the school bus, during class time, or while hanging out with friends outdoors. Many teens in the early-to-mid-2000s had cellphones, but these were basic phones (many of them flip phones) that had no internet access. Typing on them was difficult––they had only number keys. Basic phones were tools that helped Millennials meet up with one another in person or talk with each other one-on-one. I have seen no evidence to suggest that basic cellphones harmed the mental health of Millennials.

It was not until the introduction of the iPhone (2007), the App Store (2008), and high-speed internet (which reached 50 percent of American homes in 2007 )—and the corresponding pivot to mobile made by many providers of social media, video games, and porn—that it became possible for adolescents to spend nearly every waking moment online. The extraordinary synergy among these innovations was what powered the second technological wave. In 2011, only 23 percent of teens had a smartphone. By 2015, that number had risen to 73 percent , and a quarter of teens said they were online “almost constantly.” Their younger siblings in elementary school didn’t usually have their own smartphones, but after its release in 2010, the iPad quickly became a staple of young children’s daily lives. It was in this brief period, from 2010 to 2015, that childhood in America (and many other countries) was rewired into a form that was more sedentary, solitary, virtual, and incompatible with healthy human development.

In the 2000s, Silicon Valley and its world-changing inventions were a source of pride and excitement in America. Smart and ambitious young people around the world wanted to move to the West Coast to be part of the digital revolution. Tech-company founders such as Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin were lauded as gods, or at least as modern Prometheans, bringing humans godlike powers. The Arab Spring bloomed in 2011 with the help of decentralized social platforms, including Twitter and Facebook. When pundits and entrepreneurs talked about the power of social media to transform society, it didn’t sound like a dark prophecy.

You have to put yourself back in this heady time to understand why adults acquiesced so readily to the rapid transformation of childhood. Many parents had concerns , even then, about what their children were doing online, especially because of the internet’s ability to put children in contact with strangers. But there was also a lot of excitement about the upsides of this new digital world. If computers and the internet were the vanguards of progress, and if young people––widely referred to as “digital natives”––were going to live their lives entwined with these technologies, then why not give them a head start? I remember how exciting it was to see my 2-year-old son master the touch-and-swipe interface of my first iPhone in 2008. I thought I could see his neurons being woven together faster as a result of the stimulation it brought to his brain, compared to the passivity of watching television or the slowness of building a block tower. I thought I could see his future job prospects improving.

Touchscreen devices were also a godsend for harried parents. Many of us discovered that we could have peace at a restaurant, on a long car trip, or at home while making dinner or replying to emails if we just gave our children what they most wanted: our smartphones and tablets. We saw that everyone else was doing it and figured it must be okay.

It was the same for older children, desperate to join their friends on social-media platforms, where the minimum age to open an account was set by law to 13, even though no research had been done to establish the safety of these products for minors. Because the platforms did nothing (and still do nothing) to verify the stated age of new-account applicants, any 10-year-old could open multiple accounts without parental permission or knowledge, and many did. Facebook and later Instagram became places where many sixth and seventh graders were hanging out and socializing. If parents did find out about these accounts, it was too late. Nobody wanted their child to be isolated and alone, so parents rarely forced their children to shut down their accounts.

We had no idea what we were doing.

The numbers are hard to believe. The most recent Gallup data show that American teens spend about five hours a day just on social-media platforms (including watching videos on TikTok and YouTube). Add in all the other phone- and screen-based activities, and the number rises to somewhere between seven and nine hours a day, on average . The numbers are even higher in single-parent and low-income families, and among Black, Hispanic, and Native American families.

These very high numbers do not include time spent in front of screens for school or homework, nor do they include all the time adolescents spend paying only partial attention to events in the real world while thinking about what they’re missing on social media or waiting for their phones to ping. Pew reports that in 2022, one-third of teens said they were on one of the major social-media sites “almost constantly,” and nearly half said the same of the internet in general. For these heavy users, nearly every waking hour is an hour absorbed, in full or in part, by their devices.

In Thoreau’s terms, how much of life is exchanged for all this screen time? Arguably, most of it. Everything else in an adolescent’s day must get squeezed down or eliminated entirely to make room for the vast amount of content that is consumed, and for the hundreds of “friends,” “followers,” and other network connections that must be serviced with texts, posts, comments, likes, snaps, and direct messages. I recently surveyed my students at NYU, and most of them reported that the very first thing they do when they open their eyes in the morning is check their texts, direct messages, and social-media feeds. It’s also the last thing they do before they close their eyes at night. And it’s a lot of what they do in between.

The amount of time that adolescents spend sleeping declined in the early 2010s , and many studies tie sleep loss directly to the use of devices around bedtime, particularly when they’re used to scroll through social media . Exercise declined , too, which is unfortunate because exercise, like sleep, improves both mental and physical health. Book reading has been declining for decades, pushed aside by digital alternatives, but the decline, like so much else, sped up in the early 2010 s. With passive entertainment always available, adolescent minds likely wander less than they used to; contemplation and imagination might be placed on the list of things winnowed down or crowded out.

But perhaps the most devastating cost of the new phone-based childhood was the collapse of time spent interacting with other people face-to-face. A study of how Americans spend their time found that, before 2010, young people (ages 15 to 24) reported spending far more time with their friends (about two hours a day, on average, not counting time together at school) than did older people (who spent just 30 to 60 minutes with friends). Time with friends began decreasing for young people in the 2000s, but the drop accelerated in the 2010s, while it barely changed for older people. By 2019, young people’s time with friends had dropped to just 67 minutes a day. It turns out that Gen Z had been socially distancing for many years and had mostly completed the project by the time COVID-19 struck.

Read: What happens when kids don’t see their peers for months

You might question the importance of this decline. After all, isn’t much of this online time spent interacting with friends through texting, social media, and multiplayer video games? Isn’t that just as good?

Some of it surely is, and virtual interactions offer unique benefits too, especially for young people who are geographically or socially isolated. But in general, the virtual world lacks many of the features that make human interactions in the real world nutritious, as we might say, for physical, social, and emotional development. In particular, real-world relationships and social interactions are characterized by four features—typical for hundreds of thousands of years—that online interactions either distort or erase.

First, real-world interactions are embodied , meaning that we use our hands and facial expressions to communicate, and we learn to respond to the body language of others. Virtual interactions, in contrast, mostly rely on language alone. No matter how many emojis are offered as compensation, the elimination of communication channels for which we have eons of evolutionary programming is likely to produce adults who are less comfortable and less skilled at interacting in person.

Second, real-world interactions are synchronous ; they happen at the same time. As a result, we learn subtle cues about timing and conversational turn taking. Synchronous interactions make us feel closer to the other person because that’s what getting “in sync” does. Texts, posts, and many other virtual interactions lack synchrony. There is less real laughter, more room for misinterpretation, and more stress after a comment that gets no immediate response.

Third, real-world interactions primarily involve one‐to‐one communication , or sometimes one-to-several. But many virtual communications are broadcast to a potentially huge audience. Online, each person can engage in dozens of asynchronous interactions in parallel, which interferes with the depth achieved in all of them. The sender’s motivations are different, too: With a large audience, one’s reputation is always on the line; an error or poor performance can damage social standing with large numbers of peers. These communications thus tend to be more performative and anxiety-inducing than one-to-one conversations.

Finally, real-world interactions usually take place within communities that have a high bar for entry and exit , so people are strongly motivated to invest in relationships and repair rifts when they happen. But in many virtual networks, people can easily block others or quit when they are displeased. Relationships within such networks are usually more disposable.

From the September 2015 issue: The coddling of the American mind

These unsatisfying and anxiety-producing features of life online should be recognizable to most adults. Online interactions can bring out antisocial behavior that people would never display in their offline communities. But if life online takes a toll on adults, just imagine what it does to adolescents in the early years of puberty, when their “experience expectant” brains are rewiring based on feedback from their social interactions.

Kids going through puberty online are likely to experience far more social comparison, self-consciousness, public shaming, and chronic anxiety than adolescents in previous generations, which could potentially set developing brains into a habitual state of defensiveness. The brain contains systems that are specialized for approach (when opportunities beckon) and withdrawal (when threats appear or seem likely). People can be in what we might call “discover mode” or “defend mode” at any moment, but generally not both. The two systems together form a mechanism for quickly adapting to changing conditions, like a thermostat that can activate either a heating system or a cooling system as the temperature fluctuates. Some people’s internal thermostats are generally set to discover mode, and they flip into defend mode only when clear threats arise. These people tend to see the world as full of opportunities. They are happier and less anxious. Other people’s internal thermostats are generally set to defend mode, and they flip into discover mode only when they feel unusually safe. They tend to see the world as full of threats and are more prone to anxiety and depressive disorders.

A simple way to understand the differences between Gen Z and previous generations is that people born in and after 1996 have internal thermostats that were shifted toward defend mode. This is why life on college campuses changed so suddenly when Gen Z arrived, beginning around 2014. Students began requesting “safe spaces” and trigger warnings. They were highly sensitive to “microaggressions” and sometimes claimed that words were “violence.” These trends mystified those of us in older generations at the time, but in hindsight, it all makes sense. Gen Z students found words, ideas, and ambiguous social encounters more threatening than had previous generations of students because we had fundamentally altered their psychological development.

Staying on task while sitting at a computer is hard enough for an adult with a fully developed prefrontal cortex. It is far more difficult for adolescents in front of their laptop trying to do homework. They are probably less intrinsically motivated to stay on task. They’re certainly less able, given their undeveloped prefrontal cortex, and hence it’s easy for any company with an app to lure them away with an offer of social validation or entertainment. Their phones are pinging constantly— one study found that the typical adolescent now gets 237 notifications a day, roughly 15 every waking hour. Sustained attention is essential for doing almost anything big, creative, or valuable, yet young people find their attention chopped up into little bits by notifications offering the possibility of high-pleasure, low-effort digital experiences.

It even happens in the classroom. Studies confirm that when students have access to their phones during class time, they use them, especially for texting and checking social media, and their grades and learning suffer . This might explain why benchmark test scores began to decline in the U.S. and around the world in the early 2010s—well before the pandemic hit.

The neural basis of behavioral addiction to social media or video games is not exactly the same as chemical addiction to cocaine or opioids. Nonetheless, they all involve abnormally heavy and sustained activation of dopamine neurons and reward pathways. Over time, the brain adapts to these high levels of dopamine; when the child is not engaged in digital activity, their brain doesn’t have enough dopamine, and the child experiences withdrawal symptoms. These generally include anxiety, insomnia, and intense irritability. Kids with these kinds of behavioral addictions often become surly and aggressive, and withdraw from their families into their bedrooms and devices.

Social-media and gaming platforms were designed to hook users. How successful are they? How many kids suffer from digital addictions?

The main addiction risks for boys seem to be video games and porn. “ Internet gaming disorder ,” which was added to the main diagnosis manual of psychiatry in 2013 as a condition for further study, describes “significant impairment or distress” in several aspects of life, along with many hallmarks of addiction, including an inability to reduce usage despite attempts to do so. Estimates for the prevalence of IGD range from 7 to 15 percent among adolescent boys and young men. As for porn, a nationally representative survey of American adults published in 2019 found that 7 percent of American men agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I am addicted to pornography”—and the rates were higher for the youngest men.

Girls have much lower rates of addiction to video games and porn, but they use social media more intensely than boys do. A study of teens in 29 nations found that between 5 and 15 percent of adolescents engage in what is called “problematic social media use,” which includes symptoms such as preoccupation, withdrawal symptoms, neglect of other areas of life, and lying to parents and friends about time spent on social media. That study did not break down results by gender, but many others have found that rates of “problematic use” are higher for girls.

Jonathan Haidt: The dangerous experiment on teen girls

I don’t want to overstate the risks: Most teens do not become addicted to their phones and video games. But across multiple studies and across genders, rates of problematic use come out in the ballpark of 5 to 15 percent. Is there any other consumer product that parents would let their children use relatively freely if they knew that something like one in 10 kids would end up with a pattern of habitual and compulsive use that disrupted various domains of life and looked a lot like an addiction?

During that crucial sensitive period for cultural learning, from roughly ages 9 through 15, we should be especially thoughtful about who is socializing our children for adulthood. Instead, that’s when most kids get their first smartphone and sign themselves up (with or without parental permission) to consume rivers of content from random strangers. Much of that content is produced by other adolescents, in blocks of a few minutes or a few seconds.

This rerouting of enculturating content has created a generation that is largely cut off from older generations and, to some extent, from the accumulated wisdom of humankind, including knowledge about how to live a flourishing life. Adolescents spend less time steeped in their local or national culture. They are coming of age in a confusing, placeless, ahistorical maelstrom of 30-second stories curated by algorithms designed to mesmerize them. Without solid knowledge of the past and the filtering of good ideas from bad––a process that plays out over many generations––young people will be more prone to believe whatever terrible ideas become popular around them, which might explain why v ideos showing young people reacting positively to Osama bin Laden’s thoughts about America were trending on TikTok last fall.

All this is made worse by the fact that so much of digital public life is an unending supply of micro dramas about somebody somewhere in our country of 340 million people who did something that can fuel an outrage cycle, only to be pushed aside by the next. It doesn’t add up to anything and leaves behind only a distorted sense of human nature and affairs.

When our public life becomes fragmented, ephemeral, and incomprehensible, it is a recipe for anomie, or normlessness. The great French sociologist Émile Durkheim showed long ago that a society that fails to bind its people together with some shared sense of sacredness and common respect for rules and norms is not a society of great individual freedom; it is, rather, a place where disoriented individuals have difficulty setting goals and exerting themselves to achieve them. Durkheim argued that anomie was a major driver of suicide rates in European countries. Modern scholars continue to draw on his work to understand suicide rates today.

Durkheim’s observations are crucial for understanding what happened in the early 2010s. A long-running survey of American teens found that , from 1990 to 2010, high-school seniors became slightly less likely to agree with statements such as “Life often feels meaningless.” But as soon as they adopted a phone-based life and many began to live in the whirlpool of social media, where no stability can be found, every measure of despair increased. From 2010 to 2019, the number who agreed that their lives felt “meaningless” increased by about 70 percent, to more than one in five.

An additional source of evidence comes from Gen Z itself. With all the talk of regulating social media, raising age limits, and getting phones out of schools, you might expect to find many members of Gen Z writing and speaking out in opposition. I’ve looked for such arguments and found hardly any. In contrast, many young adults tell stories of devastation.

Freya India, a 24-year-old British essayist who writes about girls, explains how social-media sites carry girls off to unhealthy places: “It seems like your child is simply watching some makeup tutorials, following some mental health influencers, or experimenting with their identity. But let me tell you: they are on a conveyor belt to someplace bad. Whatever insecurity or vulnerability they are struggling with, they will be pushed further and further into it.” She continues:

Gen Z were the guinea pigs in this uncontrolled global social experiment. We were the first to have our vulnerabilities and insecurities fed into a machine that magnified and refracted them back at us, all the time, before we had any sense of who we were. We didn’t just grow up with algorithms. They raised us. They rearranged our faces. Shaped our identities. Convinced us we were sick.

Rikki Schlott, a 23-year-old American journalist and co-author of The Canceling of the American Mind , writes ,

The day-to-day life of a typical teen or tween today would be unrecognizable to someone who came of age before the smartphone arrived. Zoomers are spending an average of 9 hours daily in this screen-time doom loop—desperate to forget the gaping holes they’re bleeding out of, even if just for … 9 hours a day. Uncomfortable silence could be time to ponder why they’re so miserable in the first place. Drowning it out with algorithmic white noise is far easier.

A 27-year-old man who spent his adolescent years addicted (his word) to video games and pornography sent me this reflection on what that did to him:

I missed out on a lot of stuff in life—a lot of socialization. I feel the effects now: meeting new people, talking to people. I feel that my interactions are not as smooth and fluid as I want. My knowledge of the world (geography, politics, etc.) is lacking. I didn’t spend time having conversations or learning about sports. I often feel like a hollow operating system.

Or consider what Facebook found in a research project involving focus groups of young people, revealed in 2021 by the whistleblower Frances Haugen: “Teens blame Instagram for increases in the rates of anxiety and depression among teens,” an internal document said. “This reaction was unprompted and consistent across all groups.”

How can it be that an entire generation is hooked on consumer products that so few praise and so many ultimately regret using? Because smartphones and especially social media have put members of Gen Z and their parents into a series of collective-action traps. Once you understand the dynamics of these traps, the escape routes become clear.

Social media, in contrast, applies a lot more pressure on nonusers, at a much younger age and in a more insidious way. Once a few students in any middle school lie about their age and open accounts at age 11 or 12, they start posting photos and comments about themselves and other students. Drama ensues. The pressure on everyone else to join becomes intense. Even a girl who knows, consciously, that Instagram can foster beauty obsession, anxiety, and eating disorders might sooner take those risks than accept the seeming certainty of being out of the loop, clueless, and excluded. And indeed, if she resists while most of her classmates do not, she might, in fact, be marginalized, which puts her at risk for anxiety and depression, though via a different pathway than the one taken by those who use social media heavily. In this way, social media accomplishes a remarkable feat: It even harms adolescents who do not use it.

From the May 2022 issue: Jonathan Haidt on why the past 10 years of American life have been uniquely stupid

A recent study led by the University of Chicago economist Leonardo Bursztyn captured the dynamics of the social-media trap precisely. The researchers recruited more than 1,000 college students and asked them how much they’d need to be paid to deactivate their accounts on either Instagram or TikTok for four weeks. That’s a standard economist’s question to try to compute the net value of a product to society. On average, students said they’d need to be paid roughly $50 ($59 for TikTok, $47 for Instagram) to deactivate whichever platform they were asked about. Then the experimenters told the students that they were going to try to get most of the others in their school to deactivate that same platform, offering to pay them to do so as well, and asked, Now how much would you have to be paid to deactivate, if most others did so? The answer, on average, was less than zero. In each case, most students were willing to pay to have that happen.

Social media is all about network effects. Most students are only on it because everyone else is too. Most of them would prefer that nobody be on these platforms. Later in the study, students were asked directly, “Would you prefer to live in a world without Instagram [or TikTok]?” A majority of students said yes––58 percent for each app.

This is the textbook definition of what social scientists call a collective-action problem . It’s what happens when a group would be better off if everyone in the group took a particular action, but each actor is deterred from acting, because unless the others do the same, the personal cost outweighs the benefit. Fishermen considering limiting their catch to avoid wiping out the local fish population are caught in this same kind of trap. If no one else does it too, they just lose profit.

Cigarettes trapped individual smokers with a biological addiction. Social media has trapped an entire generation in a collective-action problem. Early app developers deliberately and knowingly exploited the psychological weaknesses and insecurities of young people to pressure them to consume a product that, upon reflection, many wish they could use less, or not at all.

The trap here is that each child thinks they need a smartphone because “everyone else” has one, and many parents give in because they don’t want their child to feel excluded. But if no one else had a smartphone—or even if, say, only half of the child’s sixth-grade class had one—parents would feel more comfortable providing a basic flip phone (or no phone at all). Delaying round-the-clock internet access until ninth grade (around age 14) as a national or community norm would help to protect adolescents during the very vulnerable first few years of puberty. According to a 2022 British study , these are the years when social-media use is most correlated with poor mental health. Family policies about tablets, laptops, and video-game consoles should be aligned with smartphone restrictions to prevent overuse of other screen activities.

The trap here, as with smartphones, is that each adolescent feels a strong need to open accounts on TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and other platforms primarily because that’s where most of their peers are posting and gossiping. But if the majority of adolescents were not on these accounts until they were 16, families and adolescents could more easily resist the pressure to sign up. The delay would not mean that kids younger than 16 could never watch videos on TikTok or YouTube—only that they could not open accounts, give away their data, post their own content, and let algorithms get to know them and their preferences.

Most schools claim that they ban phones, but this usually just means that students aren’t supposed to take their phone out of their pocket during class. Research shows that most students do use their phones during class time. They also use them during lunchtime, free periods, and breaks between classes––times when students could and should be interacting with their classmates face-to-face. The only way to get students’ minds off their phones during the school day is to require all students to put their phones (and other devices that can send or receive texts) into a phone locker or locked pouch at the start of the day. Schools that have gone phone-free always seem to report that it has improved the culture, making students more attentive in class and more interactive with one another. Published studies back them up .

Many parents are afraid to give their children the level of independence and responsibility they themselves enjoyed when they were young, even though rates of homicide, drunk driving, and other physical threats to children are way down in recent decades. Part of the fear comes from the fact that parents look at each other to determine what is normal and therefore safe, and they see few examples of families acting as if a 9-year-old can be trusted to walk to a store without a chaperone. But if many parents started sending their children out to play or run errands, then the norms of what is safe and accepted would change quickly. So would ideas about what constitutes “good parenting.” And if more parents trusted their children with more responsibility––for example, by asking their kids to do more to help out, or to care for others––then the pervasive sense of uselessness now found in surveys of high-school students might begin to dissipate.

It would be a mistake to overlook this fourth norm. If parents don’t replace screen time with real-world experiences involving friends and independent activity, then banning devices will feel like deprivation, not the opening up of a world of opportunities.

The main reason why the phone-based childhood is so harmful is because it pushes aside everything else. Smartphones are experience blockers. Our ultimate goal should not be to remove screens entirely, nor should it be to return childhood to exactly the way it was in 1960. Rather, it should be to create a version of childhood and adolescence that keeps young people anchored in the real world while flourishing in the digital age.

In recent decades, however, Congress has not been good at addressing public concerns when the solutions would displease a powerful and deep-pocketed industry. Governors and state legislators have been much more effective, and their successes might let us evaluate how well various reforms work. But the bottom line is that to change norms, we’re going to need to do most of the work ourselves, in neighborhood groups, schools, and other communities.

Read: Why Congress keeps failing to protect kids online

There are now hundreds of organizations––most of them started by mothers who saw what smartphones had done to their children––that are working to roll back the phone-based childhood or promote a more independent, real-world childhood. (I have assembled a list of many of them.) One that I co-founded, at LetGrow.org , suggests a variety of simple programs for parents or schools, such as play club (schools keep the playground open at least one day a week before or after school, and kids sign up for phone-free, mixed-age, unstructured play as a regular weekly activity) and the Let Grow Experience (a series of homework assignments in which students––with their parents’ consent––choose something to do on their own that they’ve never done before, such as walk the dog, climb a tree, walk to a store, or cook dinner).

Even without the help of organizations, parents could break their families out of collective-action traps if they coordinated with the parents of their children’s friends. Together they could create common smartphone rules and organize unsupervised play sessions or encourage hangouts at a home, park, or shopping mall.

P arents are fed up with what childhood has become. Many are tired of having daily arguments about technologies that were designed to grab hold of their children’s attention and not let go. But the phone-based childhood is not inevitable.

We didn’t know what we were doing in the early 2010s. Now we do. It’s time to end the phone-based childhood.

This article is adapted from Jonathan Haidt’s forthcoming book, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness .

​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Disorganized Attachment Style: Traits and Ways to Cope

Anna Drescher

Mental Health Writer

BSc (Hons), Psychology, Goldsmiths University, MSc in Psychotherapy, University of Queensland

Anna Drescher is a freelance writer and solution-focused hypnotherapist, specializing in CBT and meditation. Using insights from her experience working as an NHS Assistant Clinical Psychologist and Recovery Officer, along with her Master's degree in Psychotherapy, she lends deep empathy and profound understanding to her mental health and relationships writing.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Julia Simkus

Editor at Simply Psychology

BA (Hons) Psychology, Princeton University

Julia Simkus is a graduate of Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. She is currently studying for a Master's Degree in Counseling for Mental Health and Wellness in September 2023. Julia's research has been published in peer reviewed journals.

On This Page:

Disorganized attachment, also known as fearful-avoidant , is an insecure attachment style characterized by a fear of close relationships. 

A person with a disorganized attachment style will often feel conflicted about how to behave in relationships and will use both anxious (emotional hyper-activation) and avoidant (emotional deactivation) strategies to soothe their fears. 

They have contradictory intentions regarding close relationships, wanting commitment and closeness while simultaneously downplaying the importance of intimacy.

This paradoxical behavior, unstable identity, and unpredictable mental state can have a negative impact on their ability to maintain healthy relationships.

To understand how disorganized attachment impacts relationships and how to manage this style of attachment , it is important to first understand how it develops. 

The Development of Disorganized Attachment Style

Disorganized attachment develops due to certain biological predispositions (e.g., genetics and temperament) in combination with growing up in or experiencing a fear-inducing environment.

Infants have an innate drive to seek proximity to their caregivers/ attachment figures when they are distressed or frightened. However, when a caregiver is also the source of the fear, an infant intuitively wants to avoid the attachment figure.

This results in a strange situation for the child: they want and need to approach the source of fear in order to alleviate the fear. Main and Solomon (1990) refer to this as “fright without solution.”

Children who experience abuse, neglect, or extreme inconsistency in care are at a higher risk of developing disorganized attachment. These experiences can disrupt the child’s sense of safety and trust in their caregivers.

It is important to note that disorganized attachment is not always the result of abuse or maltreatment in childhood as it is commonly believed .

Not every child who has been abused develops a disorganized attachment style, and not every individual with a disorganized attachment style was abused in childhood. 

However, while a caregiver might not be abusive toward the child, they still might not be a source of safety. Parents with unresolved trauma or loss might project their distressed and volatile mental states onto their child.

For example, a study by Hughes et al. (2001) found that infants born to a mother who had previously experienced a stillbirth were more likely to develop a disorganized attachment style.

These women were not abusive towards their infants, but their lingering trauma from the stillbirth impacted their ability to care for their next-born children.

Children who grow up in adverse environments are also more likely to develop signs of disorganized attachment. This can include experiences such as neglect, physical or emotional abuse, parental substance abuse, domestic violence, or other forms of significant adversity.

It’s important to note that disorganized attachment is not caused by a single event but rather develops over time in response to a pattern of caregiving that leaves the child feeling frightened, confused, or unsafe.

Potentially Frightening Parental Behaviors

• Exhibiting threatening expressions or gestures toward the child
• Conveying dissociative behavior (e.g., severe mood swings; showing multiple identities)
• Displaying submissive behavior toward the child
• Sexual and/or physically abusing the child or another member of the household
• Presenting disorganized attachment behavior toward the infant (i.e., the parent has a disorganized attachment style)
• Mocking or humiliating the child
• Seeking reassurance from the child/ leaning on the child for emotional support
• Emotionally withdrawing from the child
• Leaving/separating from the child for unusually long periods of time

Signs of Disorganized Attachment in Children

Mary Main and Judith Solomon noticed that some babies, especially those who had been mistreated, behaved in unusual ways during the Strange Situation test , where babies are briefly separated from their parents.

These behaviors didn’t fit into the usual categories described by Mary Ainsworth and suggested that the babies had trouble connecting with their caregivers.

There are two forms of behavior that have been observed in disorganized children which are not seen in secure, avoidant, or anxious children:

• Contradictory behaviors : They display sequential or simultaneous contradictory behavior patterns, such as strong avoidance and strong contact-seeking, or distress combined with avoidance. For example, they may cry for their mother when they have been separated, but once they are reunited, the infant appears to be avoidant of the mother’s touch or attempts at soothing the child.
• Fearful or apprehensive behavior : For example, the child may seem afraid or wary of the parent, even while seeking comfort from them.

Disorganized children appear doubtful and apprehensive of their caregivers because of these contradictory motivations: they want to approach, but because they are fearful, they also want to avoid.

These contradictory behavior patterns are thought to reflect an underlying disorganization or disruption of the attachment system, where the child experiences conflicting impulses or emotions in relation to the caregiver.

These children have a heightened sensitivity to stress and are not easily comforted by their caregivers, remaining in a state of distress for extended periods of time.  

As disorganized attachment continues beyond infancy, new behaviors start to emerge. These behavioral problems usually starting in later childhood and adolescence.

Examples include:

• Showing aggression and hostility to their caregiver (e.g., hitting the parent)
• Taking on the role of the parent (i.e., controlling interactions, attempting to soothe the parent)
• Withdrawing from the caregiver
• Resistance to being held or touched: The child may stiffen, squirm away, or push against the parent when they attempt to provide physical comfort or affection
• Preferring strangers over their caregivers
• Freezing, stilling, and slowed movements and expressions, with the child appearing “dazed”
• Confusion when reunited: After separation, the child may seem unsure whether to approach or avoid the parent, appearing dazed or disoriented.
• Inconsistent responses to the parent: The child’s reactions to the parent seem unpredictable, varying from clingy to avoidant without clear reasons for the changes.

It is important to be aware that all children display some degree of disorganized behaviors when they are overly tired, sick, in pain, stressed, or have a neurological disturbance.

Thus, observing disorganized behavior some of the time is not enough to classify a child as disorganized. The behavior must be consistent and meet a certain threshold of intensity. 

Disorganized Attachment Signs in Adults

Like disorganized children, disorganized adults will experience conflicted emotions in relationships that vacillate between anxiety and avoidance.

Avoidant individuals tend to seek distance and independence because their caregivers were unreliable, punitive, and/or unsupportive during their childhood. They fear further rejection, and thus, disregard their need for attachment and intimacy.

Paradoxically, this fear of abandonment results in a heightened need for attachment, leading to clingy and attention-seeking behavior.

Put shortly, disorganized individuals fear abandonment and intimacy, resulting in the contradictory “approach and avoid” behavior.

They will cling to others to satisfy their need for closeness and attention, but when others get too close, they will push them away and shut down.

Their behavior is inconsistent and chaotic because the simultaneous fear of rejection and intimacy results in wanting to be close while also wanting to distance themselves.

Other signs and features of disorganized attachment in adults include:

• Having an unstable sense of self : e.g., extreme mood swings; multiple or conflicting identities.
• Difficulty trusting others : Adults with disorganized attachment may find it challenging to trust others , often feeling suspicious or wary of people’s intentions. They hold inconsistent views of others and relationships with others (i.e., people are a source of fear and a source of comfort).
• Unstable relationships : They may experience a pattern of intense, unstable relationships characterized by frequent breakups, conflicts, and emotional volatility.
• Fear of intimacy : Despite craving closeness, they may fear intimacy and struggle with vulnerability, often pushing others away when relationships become too close.
• Inconsistent behavior : Their actions and reactions may seem contradictory or unpredictable, vacillating between seeking closeness and withdrawing from others.
• Difficulty regulating emotions : They may struggle with intense or overwhelming emotions, experience sudden mood swings, or have trouble calming down when upset.
• Sensitivity to perceived rejection : They may be hypervigilant to signs of rejection or abandonment, often overreacting to minor cues or misinterpreting others’ actions.
• Unresolved trauma : Many adults with disorganized attachment have a history of unresolved childhood trauma , abuse, or neglect that continues to impact their relationships and emotional well-being.
• Dissociation or numbness : In response to stress or emotional triggers, they may experience dissociation (feeling disconnected from oneself or reality) or emotional numbness.
• Difficulty with boundaries : They may struggle to set and maintain healthy boundaries in relationships, either being overly rigid or overly porous.
• Persistent feelings of emptiness : Adults with disorganized attachment may experience chronic feelings of emptiness, loneliness, or disconnection, even when in relationships.
• Impulsivity or reckless behavior: They may engage in impulsive or self-destructive behaviors as a way of coping with emotional pain or seeking attention.
• Difficulty with self-reflection : They may have limited insight into their own thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, finding it challenging to reflect on their experiences and learn from them.
• Feeling angry and aggressive towards their rejecting and unresponsive caregivers : This anger is displayed towards attachment figures and sometimes even transferred to other “innocent” people as well.

Triggers of Disorganized Attachment

Relationships are triggering for disorganized individuals because they are conflicted about what they want. While they do not trust others, they also desperately want to love and to be loved.

They anticipate being hurt, disappointed, and rejected by significant others, making them hyper-vigilant to signs that the other person is going to abandon them.

When they experience a trigger, their anxious and avoidant behavior is activated. This can be very confusing and upsetting to the other person in the relationship.

However, because the threat of abandonment and rejection feels warranted to the disorganized individual, they may feel entitled to their extreme reactions.

Examples of emotional triggers for disorganized attachment include:

• Any sign of rejection, distance, or abandonment (e.g., not responding to messages or phone calls; not coming home on-time; spending a lot of time away from home; seeming distant and uninterested)
• Inconsistency and hot-cold behavior (e.g., texting a lot one week and then not texting at all the next)
• Avoidant behaviors (e.g., shutting down communication; walking away from conversation; giving the silent treatment)
• Intimacy-seeking behaviors (e.g., making plans for future commitment; romantic gestures; wanting emotional support; physical contact and intimacy; vulnerability)
• Feeling criticized (either real or imagined)

While individuals with “organized” insecure attachments (e.g., avoidant and anxious) have consistent and comprehensible triggers, disorganized individuals have triggers that are incoherent and complicated because of their internal conflict. 

Thus, dealing with these triggers and developing a more secure attachment requires the disorganized person to address their inner conflict and manage their anxiety and avoidance through self-regulation strategies.

Self-Regulation Strategies for Disorganized Attachment Triggers

Unfortunately, most people with disorganized attachment styles have experienced a traumatic event at some point in their life. These experiences often result in identity confusion, difficulties with emotion regulation, low self-esteem, substance misuse, and mental health problems, which can precipitate future traumas.

Thus, learning how to manage your emotions and feel more secure in your relationships is essential for improving your overall quality of life and well-being.  

Even when our beliefs about ourselves are negative and unhelpful, we search for information that confirms these beliefs as it makes the world seem more predictable and coherent ( self-verification theory ).

This often means falling into relationships with people who treat you poorly because it feels “normal” and “deserved.”

It is important to be aware that these behaviors are not your fault. Your difficulties and insecurities with attachment developed because your needs were not met early in life. These resulting thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are coping mechanisms that individuals use to deal with and alleviate emotional distress, reduce anxiety, and restore a sense of control.

The good news is that we can learn to manage our attachment insecurities by taking responsibility for our healing journey.

Although you can do a lot of this work individually, therapy is recommended for people with a disorganized attachment style.

A therapist can help you to identify your unhelpful beliefs and behaviors, examine your triggers, navigate challenges, and offer comfort.

Here is some advice on how to self-regulate your triggers and feel more confident in your life and relationships:

Practice Acceptance and Compassion

Your insecure attachment likely developed for reasons that were beyond your control. Therefore, treat yourself with compassion. Notice when you’re being self-critical or overly harsh with yourself, and instead, practice self-kindness. Be gentle and patient with yourself and treat yourself with the same kindness, understanding, and support that you would offer a close friend.

Accept where you are now and focus on finding ways to heal and move forward. When you accept yourself as you are, with both your strengths and imperfections, you will cultivate the power and motivation to transform.

Develop Self-Awareness

Without knowing and understanding your triggers, beliefs, and behaviors, you cannot change them. That’s why it’s important to develop self-awareness.

To do so, educate yourself on attachment theory and the disorganized attachment style. It will give you insight into how it develops and how it manifests across your life and in your relationships. Take time to observe your thoughts, emotions, and behaviors without judgment. Eventually, you will start to understand why you feel, think, and behave in certain ways.

You can try practicing mindfulness to cultivate present-moment awareness and non-judgmental acceptance of your thoughts and emotions. Keep a journal to notice patterns, process emotions, and keep track of your progress.

Use Grounding Techniques

When you experience an emotional trigger, an alarm goes off in your brain, activating your fight or flight response. This means your rational brain is “shut down” and you are operating on auto-pilot, reacting in unconscious ways that you have little control over.

Practicing grounding techniques consistently can help you to manage your emotions, both in general and in the moments when you are feeling triggered.

Grounding techniques include:

• Breathing exercises
• Progressive muscle relaxation
• Meditation and yoga
• Engaging and connecting with nature mindfully
• Hot or cold sensory experiences (e.g., drinking hot tea or holding an ice cube in your hand)

Comfort Your Inner Child

A helpful technique to heal the wounds of the past is to mentally revisit your childhood and engage with your child-self with understanding, compassion, and support. 

Because of your inconsistent, neglectful, and possibly even abusive caregiving experiences, you were not adequately acknowledged, cared for, or addressed during childhood. By comforting your inner child, you can provide a sense of validation and acceptance to your child-self.

You can revisit and reimagine past experiences from a more compassionate and supportive perspective. Tell your child-self that it was not their fault and acknowledge that it’s okay to feel sad or angry about the way you may have been treated.

Comforting your inner child can take away some of the power that the past may still have over you so you are able to step into your adult self with more confidence.

Grow Your Self-Esteem and Self-Worth

The inner conflict you experience and the instability of your emotions can make it difficult to know who you are and what you want. The back and forth between wanting others to love and support you and wanting them to leave you can be exhausting.

It is important to realize that your desire for closeness and comfort is healthy; the reason why you feel anxious and avoidant is because of fear. By working on improving your self-esteem and self-worth — either through therapy or self-reflective practices — you can learn to let go of this fear and acknowledge your need to connect with others.

Developing self-love takes time and patience, but by promoting a more cohesive sense of self, you will foster a stronger foundation for healthier attachment patterns.

You will understand that your needs are valid, you are worthy of love, and you are safe to express your emotions without judgment.

Establish and Maintain Boundaries

Here is some advice on establishing boundaries:

• Identify what your values are/ what is important to you
• Put everyone else’s opinions and needs aside – what do YOU need from a relationship?
• Examine your relationships – what are the unhealthy aspects?
• Ask yourself, what does it mean to be a healthy, independent adult?
• Focus on your strengths and the things you do well
• Identify and utilize your protective factors (e.g., certain relationships, social support, work, school/ university, values, problem-solving skills, etc.)
• Now, think about establishing boundaries with significant others. Do you want a relationship with them? What do you want to share and not share with them? Where are your limits?

Once you have established your boundaries, you can communicate them to others when the time is appropriate. Let them know how you will respond if they do not respect your boundaries.

Remember, saying no to someone else often means you are saying yes to yourself. When you have a healthy, trusting relationship with yourself, you are much more able to have healthy relationships with other people, too.

Try Out Secure Behaviors

Once you have established a practice of self-regulation strategies, you can try implementing some secure behaviors. This will show that you are capable of managing your own emotions.

Initially, your anxiety might be quite high and you might want to withdrawal, but if you start with small changes and keep practicing, the feeling of discomfort and anxiety will subside.

When you feel triggered it can be helpful to ask yourself: how would a secure person think and behave in this situation? For example:

• Talk to a loved one about how you are feeling in a calm and constructive way
• When you get a sense that someone is rejecting you, ask yourself what other explanations there might be for their behavior – are they actually trying to hurt and reject you?
• Put yourself in someone else’s shoes – how would you see your actions in someone else’s position?
• When your emotions are starting to feel overwhelming, practice grounding techniques, go for a walk, or do something else that you enjoy 
• Express your needs and boundaries to someone without backtracking and without compromise
• Allow someone else to support you and listen to their advice without thinking they are not interested, do not care, or have some sort of ulterior motive

Disorganized Attachment Style Traits in Relationships

Attachment theory suggests that our early relationships and childhood experiences significantly shape our social and emotional development throughout our lifespan.

Disorganized attachment is one of the three types of insecure attachment styles. It is marked by unpredictability, emotional instability, and distrust in relationships.

People with a disorganized attachment style are typically the most difficult to have a relationship with because of their inconsistency and unpredictability.

Although it can be challenging, there are ways to build a healthy and stable relationship with disorganized individuals.

To do so, it is important for both individuals to understand the disorganized attachment style and the associated behavior. It is also helpful to know the partner’s attachment style and how it may interact with disorganized attachment.

Relationships with Disorganized Adults

The following are some of the traits and behaviors that come with being in a relationship with someone with a disorganized attachment style. It is important to remember that this is an overview; not all disorganized individuals behave and think in the same ways. 

Trust Issues

Growing up with caregivers who did not feel like a source of safety and acted in unpredictable and potentially abusive ways increases the chances of a child developing trust issues . Furthermore, throughout their life, they may have had subsequent traumatic experiences that negatively impacted their ability to trust.

As a result, disorganized individuals tend to be very suspicious of their partner’s intentions and actively look for evidence of deceit and other breaches of trust. They might be jealous and scrutinize your friendships and activity on social media.

Although this comes from a place of fear and not wanting to be rejected and abandoned, it can be damaging to the health of a relationship and cause both people hardship.

Difficulties with Communication and Inconsistent Behavior

One of the main traits of disorganized attachment is simultaneously fearing abandonment and fearing intimacy. Individuals with this attachment style oscillate between acting clingy and acting avoidant.

Disorganized individuals often lack a stable sense of identity, making it difficult to access their emotions. They may struggle to know what’s real and what’s not.

This inner conflict means disorganized individuals often do not know what they need or want because it can vary from moment to moment. Their behavior tends to be inconsistent and unpredictable.

Consequently, their communication can be chaotic and difficult to follow, and partners often do not know how to help. If they do try to offer their support, they might be pushed away, but if they give their partner space, they might make their partner feel abandoned.

If their partner has an avoidant attachment style, their avoidant behavior may trigger anxious behavior in a disorganized individual (e.g., demanding attention and communication; excessively texting and calling).

If they have an anxious attachment style, their anxious behavior may trigger a disorganized individual’s need for avoidance (e.g., shutting down communication; breaking up with their partner)

Mood Swings and Difficulties Regulating Emotions

Disorganized attachment is often accompanied by extreme mood swings and difficulties with managing emotions.

One moment they might be happy, excited, and loving, and the next moment they might be hateful and somber. Or, they might have “good” weeks or months followed by a period of poor mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety, social withdrawal).

This attachment style is also associated with anger, which stems from being rejected by their caregivers and using anger to cope. This anger might then be transferred to other people, especially romantic partners, who are confronted with hostile outbursts.

Growing up, these individuals likely did not learn healthy ways to manage their emotions. They also have likely experienced significant trauma which may still be unresolved. Although this might explain the causes of anger and emotional instability, it does not excuse abusive behavior.

Anxious Behavior

An anxious attachment style is characterized by a strong fear of abandonment and rejection and being highly dependent on others for reassurance. This fear can lead to clinginess, jealousy, and preoccupation within relationships.

When disorganized individuals sense rejection and abandonment, it can trigger anxious behavior as a way to cope with their fear.

Subsequently, they often need significant reassurance and attention from their partner and will become distressed if their partner can not provide this. They might overstep your boundaries and personal space in an attempt to get closer to you.

The chaotic nature of the disorganized attachment style means that when they are displaying anxious behavior, it can generate guilt and shame, and they may suddenly become hostile, uncommunicative, and/or avoidant.  

Avoidant Behavior

Avoidant attachment is characterized by suppressing the need for closeness and reassurance and being highly independent. This is the result of emotional and physical rejection, which leads to a fear of intimacy and the use of avoidance as a way to cope.

Disorganized individuals also use avoidance as a way to cope, but unlike avoidant individuals, they want close relationships while also fearing them (rather than not seeking them at all). 

They can be very focused on their own needs and find it difficult to empathize with others. When there is a conflict or someone wants to communicate about their feelings, they might find this overwhelming and withdraw as a result. 

They might also reject physical intimacy (e.g., hugging or touching) and avoid sharing how they feel or disclosing personal information.

Another common avoidance strategy is to sabotage the relationship, especially when things are going well. They might be very critical and focus on the negative aspects of the relationship, find reasons to break up, or actually break up with their partner. They might even have an affair or treat their partner in a way that makes them feel unloved and irrelevant.

Although it is usually subconscious, sabotaging behavior tends to come from wanting to confirm the beliefs they already hold about other people and relationships: that they cannot be trusted and everyone abandons them.

Dating Someone with a Disorganized Attachment Style

As discussed above, being in a relationship with a disorganized individual can be challenging and confusing. However, like everybody else, they also have positive and attractive traits so working through the difficulties can be rewarding and worthwhile for both.

The following advice is written for those in close relationships with disorganized individuals. However, for the relationship to work, it is important that both people involved work on their insecurities and behaviors and seek help if necessary.

Communication

For any relationship to work, open and effective communication is key. That means, expressing needs and problems in a calm and constructive way and actively listening.

Active listening involves:

• Asking open-ended questions and listening to the response without interfering or shutting down 
• Validating what they are saying by asking follow-up questions, nodding, and verbally agreeing with them
• Showing interest by holding eye contact, turning your body towards them, and uncrossing your arms

The aim of communication should be to find a solution, not to point fingers or cause the other person suffering. Ask yourself whether you want the relationship to work, and if your answer is yes, focus your attention on solutions, not problems.  

An important element of looking after your health as well as the health of your relationship is to establish and maintain strong boundaries.

Disorganized people often do not have strong boundaries and may therefore expect you to not have any either. For both of you, it is a good idea to come up with behaviors that you will not tolerate and what the consequences of a boundary breach will be.

For example, if someone shouts aggressively, the other person will walk away and not communicate until the violent behavior has stopped.

Compassion and Patience

Generally, people with a disorganized attachment style are not intentionally malicious or difficult. They just have not learned how to cope with their emotions or how to feel and behave in a relationship.

Although that does not excuse them from working on their insecurities and complex behaviors, they would benefit from having a partner who shows them compassion and patience.

Remember that they want to love and be loved but struggle to express their feelings and needs clearly. 

They have likely experienced a lot of trauma and would probably find it helpful to have someone who is there for them. That does not even have to involve talking; sometimes it is enough to just be in their presence and let them know that you are on their side. 

Acknowledge when things are going well, focus on their positives, and tell your partner know what you like about them, as this will soothe some of their anxiety. But make sure you are also looking after your own well-being.

It can be useful to seek the help of a couple’s therapist who can help you to navigate your relationship difficulties. They can identify unhealthy patterns and help each person communicate their needs and issues in a way that makes sense to the other person.

It is important that both partners are willing and committed to making the therapy worthwhile.

Granqvist, P. et al. (2017). Disorganized attachment in infancy: a review of the phenomenon and its implications for clinicians and policy-makers. Attachment & Human Development , 19(6), 534-558.

Hughes, P., Turton, P., Hopper, E., McGauley, G.A. & Fonagy, P. (2001). Disorganised attachment behaviour among infants born subsequent to stillbirth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 42(6), 791-801.

Lyons-Ruth, K., & Jacobvitz, D. (2008). Attachment disorganization: Genetic factors, parenting contexts, and developmental transformation from infancy to adulthood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2 nd ed., pp. 666–697). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Main, M., & Hesse, E. (2006). Frightened, threatening, dissociative, timid-deferential, sexualized, and disorganized parental behavior: A coding system for frightened/frightening (FR) parent-infant interactions. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention (pp. 121–160). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Paetzold, R., Rholes, W. & Kohn, J. (2015). Disorganized Attachment in Adulthood: Theory, Measurement, and Implications for Romantic Relationships. Review of General Psychology , 19 (2).

Related Articles

Dating Tips , Adult Attachment

Can Two People With An Anxious Attachment Style Date?

Adult Attachment , Dating Tips

How To Know If Your Date Has A Secure Attachment Style

Adult Attachment , Relationships

Insecure vs. Secure Attachment in Relationships

What Is It Like To Date Someone With An Anxious Attachment?

Adult Attachment

Anxious vs. Avoidant Attachment

How to Date Someone with an Avoidant Attachment Style