|
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
|
FINAL PROJECT
ATTACHMENT STYLES
|
Contents
INTRODUCTION
Every human is pre programmed to bond with one important
person in his life time. It could be your primary care giver as your mother.
The emotional attachment between you and your mother is the first interactive
attachment you ever had. Greatly this attachment depended upon non verbal
communication. This bonding is the root of every relation you will ever have
had in your life. . We have seen people in general who are afraid of expressing
themselves and understanding emotions of others all this is because of
confusing or broken emotional communication in childhood. This is the reason
what limits them to build a successful relation. This relation could either be
a romantic one or just with close friend or family.
Attachments play an important role in person’s life. If
person had his first healthy attachment with his primary care giver it could shape
his future relationships, ability to maintain emotional balance, and ability to
rebound from disappointment and misfortune.
Stages of Attachment
Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy Emerson analyzed
attachment relationships in infants through longitudinal study the infants were
observed every four weeks during the first year of life, and then once again at
18 months. Based upon their observations, Schaffer and Emerson outlined four
distinct phases of attachment.
1. Pre Attachment Stage
Up to 3 months, no particular attachment to
any care giver was observed. Baby’s responses attract the caretaker towards him
and his positive response encourage him to remain closer to baby
2. Indiscriminate Attachment:
After six months of birth, child starts to
show preferences towards primary and secondary care givers. In this phase they
develop feeling of trust how caretaker responds to their needs. They learn to
depend on others’ which is one of the important components of attachment. They
respond more positively towards primary care giver.
3. Discriminate Attachment
From seven to eleven months children show
strong attachment to one specific individual. They will experience separation
anxiety when separated from primary care giver and will show stranger anxiety
around strangers.
4. Multiple Attachments:
After nine months child began to attach with
other caregivers too. This involves father, older siblings and grandparents.
INSECURE ATTACHMENTS
Attachment is of 2 basic types. : Secure and insecure. In
secure attachments people are more comfortable with closeness and show more
interest in each other life but in insecure relation it’s opposite
Insecure attachment may affect your relation and it starts
with infant’s first attachment. If his first attachment fails to provide him recognition,
structure and safety these insecurities may lead person to TURN UT TURN OFF,
INSECURE attachment style (Appendix B)
Attachments could be in form of love i.e. romantic
attachment or friendship
LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP
Love and friendship are two most important aspects of an
individual’s life. They are a part of every culture and cannot be denied in any
way. These emotions are experienced by all of us all around the world but
expression of these emotions might differ slightly from culture to culture.
Although they both are important but most of the time they
are either misunderstood or are overlapped. Human brains are naturally
wired for connection with others, as we experience loneliness and
rejection as painful threats to survival. This is why, for centuries, for both
biological and cultural reasons humans have believed the need of love and
friendship to be truly fulfilled as Buss (1988), traces love to acts that are
the outcome of evolutionary processes. This is why; both love and friendship
are under the category of close relationships.
According to Kelly et al. Close relationships are those in
which the behavior of two people is highly interdependent. Each individual
frequently and strongly influences the other's behavior.
According to Adam and Allan (1998) “Relationships have a
broader basis than the dyad alone; they develop and endure within a wider
complex of interacting influences which help to give each Relationship Its
Shape And Structure."
Love
Love has been called “the deepest and most meaningful of
sentiments” according to Rubin (1970). Although what constitutes “love”,
according to Aron et al. (2008), can have a myriad of meanings, ranging from
concepts involving an initial state of attraction, to falling in love, to being
or staying in love. Yet even though it is difficult to define love, according to
(Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Sternberg &Weis, 2006), falling in love and
the consideration of such may not ever rise entirely above subjectivity.
According to researchers Esch & Stefano (2005& 2007), almost everyone
can relate to being or falling in love
According to Jackman (1994) love is depicted as bonds of
mutual affection that help to maintain unequal relations between members of
dominant and subordinate groups in society
Definitions
of Love
Love has been defined differently by different psychologists:
According to Berscheid and Walster in 1978 “Love is
described as passionate or companionate.
According to Hendrick and Hendrick in 1986 “love consists of
six different styles.
According to Noller in 1996 it can be mature or immature.
According to social psychologist Zick Rubin, love is
characterized by three different things: attachment, care and intimacy.
Is
Love Biological Or Cultural Phenomena?
According to the biological point of view, love is
considered as a basic human emotion like anger or happiness. This concept is
supported by Shaver, Morgan, and Wu (1996) who maintain that a "love
surge" is a basic emotion.
While on the other hand, quite differently, the cultural
view suggests that love is rather a cultural phenomenon that arises partly due
to social pressures and expectations.
As, a psychologist and author
Lawrence Casler once said, "I don't believe love is part of human nature,
not for a minute. There are social pressures at work."
Love
in Collective and Individualistic Societies
The distinction between
collectivist cultures and individualistic cultures is frequently made in
cross-cultural studies. In collectivist cultures, found in many Asian
countries, an individual's identity is tied to his or her social group. In
individualistic countries, such as the United States and Canada, the
individual's independent identity is prioritized. People from collectivist
cultures expect love to grow as the marriage unfolds over time. There is less
emphasis on romance and infatuation. Instead people emphasize practical
concerns, such as income potential and compatibility with the extended family.
In contrast, people from individualist countries emphasize the passionate side
of love when looking for a spouse. They focus on feelings of excitement and
physical attraction.
Friendship
Friendship is a relationship of mutual affection
between two or more people. As with any relationship, friendships bring support and joy
and occasionally strife in an individual’s life, however one is unable to deny
its importance in life.
Man is a social animal and for centuries he has been living
in gathering. For survival it is must for an individual to make peers or
friends as one is unable to survive without such relations. “Social networks
are an important engine for human evolution,” Fowler said. “Our friends are
sort of like family members. They’re functional kin.”
Anais Nin put it beautifully when she said, "Each
friend represents a world in us, a world possibly not born until they arrive,
and it is only by this meeting that a new world is born."
Familiarity
Promotes Attraction
A study led by psychologist Harry Reis, PhD, at the
University of Rochester in 2011 suggests that familiarity leads to attraction.
Two experiments are reported using a live interaction paradigm in which two
previously unacquainted same-sex persons interacted with each other for varying
amounts of time. Findings strongly supported the “familiarity leads to
attraction.” The more participants interacted, the more attracted they were to
each other.
Friends often do look alike according to researches
conducted by different scientists. This study of people becoming friends with
people that have similar appearances has been under study since The Time of Plato.
Biological
Basis of Friendship
According to a study, our friends are as similar to us genetically
as we would expect our fourth cousins to be. The research suggests that genetic
factors are in unconscious of a person acting like a subtle breeze in the
background, but are strong enough to be measured statistically in a big data
set even if people in their day-to- day lives aren’t consciously aware of it.
Importance
of Friendship
Mostly the cause of modern day problems like divorce
hopelessness anxiety etc are considered to be poverty, stress or unhappiness.
But during some recent researches scientists have suggested that for many years
the world has been ignoring a much valuable and crucial aspect i.e. friendship
and its importance.
Recent researches have proved that friendship plays an
important role in different aspects of life and has proved to be helpful in
difficult times.
Rath et al. undertook a massive study
of friendship. The work revealed some most surprising statistics. The study
suggested that if a person’s best friend eats healthily, he is five times more
likely to have a healthy diet as well. In addition to this it also revealed
that married people say friendship is more than five times as important as
physical intimacy within marriage which shows that if an aspect of friendship
is present in marriage the individuals are more likely to have a healthy
relationship. Further, it showed those who say they have no real friends at
work have only a one in 12 chance of feeling engaged in their job. Conversely,
if you have a “best friend at work”, you are seven times more likely to feel
engaged in your job.
According to an Australian study,
conducted by the Centre for Ageing Studies at Flinders University, that
followed nearly 1,500 older people for 10 years those who had a large network
of friends outlived those with the fewest friends by 22%.
Friendship
in Collectivistic and Individualistic Societies
Recent researches have also shed some light on core aspects
of friendship that do not vary across with culture as well as those aspects
that may vary from one culture to another. It has been noted by different
researchers that only in individualistic western and modern industrialized
societies friendship, like love, is based on more personal relations, free from
social pressure and influence while in collectivistic societies friendship,
similar to love, is rather affected by social influences.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
Attachment Theory and Styles In Relationships:
Attachment theory is an area of psychology that describes
the nature of emotional attachment between humans. Developing healthy emotional
attachments with other people leads to greater happiness, productivity, and stability
in one’s life. Attachment theory isn’t new, and its research is robust. It was
developed in the 1950’s by psychologists John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth and has
evolved and developed up until present day, encompassing the nature of
relationships between family members, romantic interests and even friendships.
Attachment
Strategies
According to psychologists, there are four attachment
strategies people adopt:
Secure anxious,
avoidant, and anxious-avoidant.
Secure: People with secure attachment strategies
are comfortable displaying interest and affection. They are also comfortable
being alone and independent. They’re able to correctly prioritize their
relationships within their life and tend to draw clear boundaries and stick to
them. Secure attachment types obviously make the best romantic partners, family
members and even friends. They’re capable of accepting rejection and moving on
despite the pain, but are also capable of being loyal and sacrificing when
necessary. They have little issue trusting people they’re close to, and are
trustworthy themselves. According to research, over 50% of the population is
secure attachment types. Secure attachment is developed in childhood by infants
who regularly get their needs met, as well as receive ample quantities of love
and affection.
Anxious: Anxious attachment types are often
nervous and stressed about their relationships. They need constant reassurance
and affection from their partner. They have trouble being alone or single.
They’ll often succumb to unhealthy or abusive relationships. They have trouble
trusting people, even if they’re close to them. Their behavior can be
irrational, sporadic, and overly-emotional and complain that every one of the
opposite sex are cold and heartless.
Avoidant: Avoidant attachment types are
extremely independent, self-directed, and often uncomfortable with intimacy.
They’re commitment-phobic and experts at rationalizing their way out of any
intimate situation. They regularly complain about feeling “crowded” or
“suffocated” when people try to get close to them. In every relationship, they
always have an exit strategy. And they often construct their lifestyle in such
a way to avoid commitment or too much intimate contact.
Anxious-Avoidant: Anxious-avoidant attachment
types (also known as the “fearful type”) bring together the worst of both
worlds. Anxious-avoidant is not only afraid of intimacy and commitment, but
they distrust and lash out emotionally at anyone who tries to get close to
them. Anxious-avoidant often spend much of their time alone and miserable, or
in abusive or dysfunctional relationships. According to studies, only a small
percentage of the population qualifies as anxious-avoidant types, and they
typically have a multitude of other emotional problems in other areas of their
life
RELATIONSHIP CONFIGURATIONS
Different attachment types tend to configure themselves into
relationships in predictable ways. Secure types are capable of dating (or
handling, depending on your perspective) both anxious and avoidant types.
They’re comfortable enough with themselves to give anxious types all of the
reassurance they need and to give avoidant types the space they need without
feeling threatened themselves.
Anxious and avoidant frequently end up in relationships with
one another more often than they end up in relationships with their own types.
That may seem counter-intuitive, but there’s logic behind the madness. Avoidant
types are so good at putting others off that oftentimes it’s only the anxious
types who are willing to stick around and put in the extra effort to get them
to open up. For instance, a man who is avoidant may be able to successfully
shirk a secure woman’s pushes for increased intimacy. After which, the secure
woman will accept the rejection and move on. But an anxious woman will only
become more determined by a man who pushes her away. She’ll resort to calling
him for weeks or months on end until he finally caves and commits to her. This
gives the avoidant man the reassurance he needs that he can behave
independently and the anxious woman will wait around for him. Often these
relationships produce some magnitude of dysfunctional equilibrium as they fall
into a pattern of chaser-chasee, which are both roles the anxious and avoidant types
need in order to feel comfortable with intimacy.
Researches:
According to Bowlby (1969), the human infant is born with a
biologically programmed system evolved to allow for the formation of an
emotional bond, or attachment, with a primary caregiver. This attachment system
allows or the infant to use their caregiver as a “secure base” (Ainsworth &
Wittig, 1969) from which to explore their environment and whom, in times of
danger or perceived threat, can be used as a source of comfort and protection.
The attachment pattern an infant develops is dependent upon the nature of their
caregiver’s interactions with them. Through extensive home observations and use
of the strange situation, Ainsworth et al. (1971, 1978) were able to determine
that in cases where the caregiver was repeatedly and consistently responsive to
their child’s attachment needs, that child would develop a fundamental trust in
their availability, that is, a secure attachment pattern.
In cases of inconsistent or limited responsiveness to attachment
needs, Ainsworth et al. (1978) put forward that the child would be unable to
develop that same trust in caregiver availability and would instead develop one
of two insecure attachment patterns: an anxious–ambivalent or avoidant
attachment pattern. Fundamental to these different attachment patterns is the
concept of internal working models: representations that reflect, and develop
in response to, specific interpersonal experiences, particularly those with
early primary caregivers (Bowlby, 1973).
These representations
are to be carried 834 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(6–7) by
individuals into adulthood. Functioning in similar ways as in childhood, they
serve to guide and influence how individuals attend to, interpret, and behave in
later close relationships (Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 2000). According
to Bowlby (1973), individuals hold two complementary internal models, a model
of self, that is, how acceptable and loveable one is in the eyes of their
attachment figure, and a model of other, concerning how responsive and
available one’s attachment figure is perceived to be.
Although originally conceptualized as falling under one of
three categories (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), subsequent to this, adult
attachment has also been as divided into four attachment styles (Bartholomew,
1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) emerging from two underlying
dimensions: anxiety, concerning the extent to which individuals worry about
abandonment and rejection; and avoidance, concerning the extent to which
individuals limit intimacy with others (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998;
Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000).
Tel Aviv university psychologist Dr. Sharon Dekel and Barry
Farber (2012), did research on question that if certain behavior; avoidant
attachment; is due to innate personality traits. They did their study on 58
adults aged between 22 to 28.The results shown that 22.4 percent of
participants that were involved in research were avoidant when it comes to
their relationship. This behavior was categorized by demonstrating anxiety
about intimacy. All in all they showed less personal satisfaction in their
relationships than others who are in stable relationships. Dekel and farber do
believe that basis of this commitment issue lies in adult trying to meet childhood
needs. Both secure and avoidant attachments have desire to be intimate but
avoidant are usually conflicted about this need due to complicated parent child
relation when they were younger. They based this research on attachment theory.
They believe that child hood experiences have strong affect on adult relations.
Dekel said that people in avoidant attachment are most likely to follow
‘infant-mother’ intimacy model. In this they attempt to fulfill their unmated
childhood needs. Their tendency to avoid dependence on partner is actually a
defense mechanism rather than avoidance of intimacy. Dekel explained that they
are actually looking for somebody who accepts them as they are meeting their
need as well as stay calm.
OPERATIONAL
DEFINITIONS
CLOSE
The CLOSE means to what extent a person is comfortable with
closeness and intimacy
ANXIETY
The ANXIETY
means to what extent a person is worried about being abandoned or unloved.
DEPENDENCE
The DEPEND means to what extent a person feels he/she can
depend on others to be available when needed
AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT STYLE
People having avoidant attachment style as defined by Collin
& Reed (1990) these people feel uncomforted in getting close to others.
They want to make close relations but they found difficult to depend on others.
They avoid close relations because they don’t trust others. They possess mixed
feelings at one hand they want to make emotionally close relations and on the other
hand they become nervous when others make close relations with them. They
suppress and hide their feelings because of their mixed feeling and un-trust to
others.
METHODOLOGY
HYPOTHESIS
People having avoidant attachment style avoids to get closer
and intimate in close relations.
PARTICIPANTS
The participants in our study include 50 randomly selected
undergrad students of FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY and NUML UNIVERSITY.
Sampling involved. Nine students said they are committed, six were married and
thirty-five were single. Age group of students involved 18-28 years.
INSTRUMENT
Revised Adult Attachment Scale (Collins, 1996 )- Close
Relationships Version is a 18 item five-point likert type questionnaire that
provides a measure of attachment styles on the basis of closeness, dependence
and anxiety. It yields two score: AVOIDANCE; or discomfort with closeness and
dependency and ANXIETY; fear of abandonment.
Scale contains three subscales, each composed of six items. The three subscales are CLOSE, DEPEND, and ANXIETY. The CLOSE scale measures the extent to which
a person is comfortable with closeness and intimacy. The DEPEND scale measures the extent to which
a person feels he/she can depend on others to be available when needed. The ANXIETY subscale measures the extent to
which a person is worried about being abandoned or unloved. . This distribution
with respect each attachment style was recommended in original scale. It was
kept same for the present study. Each statement was scored on a scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Highest score on subscale
determine the preferred attachment Demographic detail of questionnaire included
age, education; year of graduation, gender and status either they are single,
committed or married. (Appendix A).
PROCEDURE
In this study questionnaire were distributed to 50
participants. Oral consent was taken from all of the participants and none of
them had any issue on use of data for research. Once the questionnaire was
given participants were asked to fill demographics first. Time of starting was
recorded and participants were encouraged if they will do it without their
friend’s suggestions. Our sample involved 23 females and 27 males. Maximum time
taken by every participant was five minutes. And it took 3 days to complete the
data collection involving going to the location. Participants were encouraged
to ask questions if they have any difficulty. Participants were informed about
the purpose of research and answers to their every query were provided. No ethical
barrier was breached during this research.
DATA ANALYSIS
Data was inserted in excel sheet where in every sheet data
for anxiety, closeness, avoidance and dependence was entered. For subscales six
items were recorded. Sum for every participant was calculated as well as the
mean of every participant separately for every subscale. Questions with asterisk
sign was entered as reverse score i.e. 5=1, 4=2, 3=3, 2=4, and 1=5;
Scoring Patterns:
Average the ratings for the six items that compose each subscale
as indicated below.
Scale Item
CLOSE 1 6 8* 12 13* 17*
DEPEND 2* 5 7* 14 16* 18*
ANXIETY 3 4
9 10 11
15
* Items with an asterisk should be reverse scored before
computing the subscale mean.
Alternative
Scoring:
If you would like to compute only two attachment dimensions – attachment anxiety (model of self) and attachment avoidance (model of other) – you can use the following scoring
procedure:
Scale Items
ANXIETY 3 4
9 10 11
15
AVOID 1* 2
5* 6* 7
8 12* 13
14* 16 17 18
* Items with an asterisk should be reverse scored before
computing the subscale mean.
RESULTS
As mentioned above mean and sum for every subscale was calculated.
It was observed that participants with high score on close, dependence and
anxiety had relatively high score on avoidant attachment too.
People who score low on attachment related anxiety more tend
to be secure in their partner response in spite of those who had high score on
this variable. Mean for this scale was 17.4
Other variable was attachment related closeness. People
having high score in this dimension don’t rely on others or open up to others
easily whereas those who are on lower end are more comfortable on openness and
are more intimate . Mean for this scale was
19.4
Third variable was attachment related dependence.
People having high score in this scale are less dependent on their partners and
prefer to work y themselves. Mean for this scale was 16.62
All these three subscales
help us to observe that people with high score on closeness, dependence and
anxiety had high score on avoidant attachment too. Mean for this scale
was 35.76. This affirms that people with this
type of attachment have difficulty on relying on others in close relations.
DISCUSSION
Results had clearly shown
that people with avoidant style attachment have difficulty in getting close to
others. They tend to avoid relation because of their inability to trust others.
These styles have deep roots in their childhood. They categorize their parents
having less warmth to each other and child too. Passer and Smith explained
avoidant persons as angry aggressive isolated. They actually possess mixed
feelings of desiring for close and intimate elation and on other hand having
difficulty getting close to others. They start to hide feelings resulting in
inability to be in intimate relation. They often avoid intimacy by using
excuses (such as long work hours), or may fantasize about other people during
sex. Research has also shown that adults with an avoidant attachment style are
more accepting and likely to engage in casual sex. Other common characteristics
include a failure to support partners during stressful times and an inability
to share feelings, thoughts, and emotions with partners.
In spite of all these
inabilities researches have shown that they have ability to be in long term
relation and stable one too.
Although insecure
adults tend to have less satisfying relationships, their relationships are not
always less stable. For example, in a four-year prospective study, Lee
Kirkpatrick and Cindy Hazan (1994) found that the relationships of
avoidant respondents were quite stable over time despite their initial, negative ratings of relationship
quality. Likewise, in a four-year prospective study of newlyweds, Joanne Davila
and Thomas Bradbury (2001) found that insecure individuals were more likely to
be involved in unhappy but stable marriages over time. These studies suggest
that insecure adults may be more willing than secure adults to tolerate unhappy
relationships, perhaps because they are less confident about their available
alternatives.
CONCLUSION
every person has innate ability to bond with some person in his life. Initially it’s his primary care taker till 11 months of age after that he start to accepts other attachments in his life such as father , siblings etc. these relation are basic roots how he will behave in his future relationships over span of life. These relationships could either be with someone he love i.e. romantic relation or someone who is closer to him i.e. family and friends. We all experience love and friendship in different ways as it depend greatly on culture in which we are living in but these are expressed differently and its expression depends upon type of attachment style we follow. Although this too has basis in our childhood depending upon relation we had with our primary caretaker. Yet Collin in his attachment theory gave four kinds of attachments i.e. secure, anxious, avoidant, and anxious-avoidant. Above research has shown that people with avoidant attachment style are more tend to be insecure in their relation. They are less dependent on others as well as they have issues with intimacy too. But this does not means that they are incapable of having long term relation. In fact studies have shown that people with insecure relationship style are more capable of forming long term relations rather than secure ones.
every person has innate ability to bond with some person in his life. Initially it’s his primary care taker till 11 months of age after that he start to accepts other attachments in his life such as father , siblings etc. these relation are basic roots how he will behave in his future relationships over span of life. These relationships could either be with someone he love i.e. romantic relation or someone who is closer to him i.e. family and friends. We all experience love and friendship in different ways as it depend greatly on culture in which we are living in but these are expressed differently and its expression depends upon type of attachment style we follow. Although this too has basis in our childhood depending upon relation we had with our primary caretaker. Yet Collin in his attachment theory gave four kinds of attachments i.e. secure, anxious, avoidant, and anxious-avoidant. Above research has shown that people with avoidant attachment style are more tend to be insecure in their relation. They are less dependent on others as well as they have issues with intimacy too. But this does not means that they are incapable of having long term relation. In fact studies have shown that people with insecure relationship style are more capable of forming long term relations rather than secure ones.
Appendix A
Revised Adult Attachment Scale
(Collins, 1996) - Close Relationships Version
|
SINGLE
|
|
COMMITTED
|
|
MARRIED
|
EDUCATION:____________
STATUS :
The following questions concern how you generally
feel in important close relationships in your life. Think about
your past and present relationships with people who have been especially
important to you, such as family members, romantic partners, and close friends.
Respond to each statement in terms of how you generally feel in
these relationships.
Please use the scale below by placing a number between 1 and
5 in the space provided to the right of each statement.
1---------------2---------------3---------------4---------------5
Not at all characteristic of me
very characteristic of me
1) I find it
relatively easy to get close to people. ________
2) I find it
difficult to allow myself to depend on others. ________
3) I often
worry that other people don't really love me. ________
4) I find that
others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. ________
5) I am
comfortable depending on others. ________
6) I don’t
worry about people getting too close to me. ________
7) I find that
people are never there when you need them. ________
8) I am
somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. ________
9) I often
worry that other people won’t want to stay with me. ________
10) When I show
my feelings for others, I'm afraid they will not feel the ________
same about
me.
11) I often
wonder whether other people really care about me. ________
12) I am
comfortable developing close relationships with others. ________
13) I am uncomfortable
when anyone gets too emotionally close to me. ________
14) I know that
people will be there when I need them. ________
15) I want to get
close to people, but I worry about being hurt. ________
16) I find it
difficult to trust others completely. ________
17) People often
want me to be emotionally closer than I feel comfortable being. ________
18) I am not sure
that I can always depend on people to be there when I need them. ________
Appendix B
|
Attachment Style
|
Parental Style
|
Resulting Adult Characteristics
|
|
Secure
|
Aligned with the
child; in tune with the child’s emotions
|
Able to create
meaningful relationships; empathetic; able to set appropriate boundaries
|
|
Avoidant
|
Unavailable or
rejecting
|
Avoids closeness or
emotional connection; distant; critical; rigid; intolerant
|
|
Ambivalent
|
Inconsistent and
sometimes intrusive parent communication
|
Anxious and insecure;
controlling; blaming; erratic; unpredictable; sometimes charming
|
|
Disorganized
|
Ignored or didn’t see
child’s needs; parental behavior was frightening/traumatizing
|
Chaotic; insensitive;
explosive; abusive; untrusting even while craving security
|
|
Reactive
|
Extremely unattached
or malfunctioning
|
Cannot establish
positive relationships; often misdiagnosed
|
REFERENCES
Works Cited
Fraley, Chris’s. university of Illinois.
A Brief Overview of Adult Attachment Theory and Research. Retrived from https://internal.psychology.illinois.edu/~rcfraley/attachment.htm
Achenbach, J. (14, July).
health and science. the washigton post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/research-human-friendships-based-on-genetic-similarities-beyond-the-superficial/2014/07/14/8aea04fe-0ab5-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html
Cohen, L. J. ( 2011, February 7). The Psychology of Love. Handy
Psychology Answers. Retrieved from
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/handy-psychology-answers/201102/the-psychology-love
Keller, M. (n.d.). A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Friendship
Research. Retrieved from https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/volltexte/institut/dok/full/keller/acrosscu/ISSBD.pdf
Valeo, T. (n.d.). The Health Benefits of Good Friends. WebMD:
Better information. Better health. Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/good-friends-are-good-for-you
Collingwood, J. (2008). The Importance of
Friendship. Psych Central. Retrieved on Decembe 13, 2014,
from http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-importance-of-friendship/0001381
Weiss,
R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. M. Parkes & J.
Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp.
111-184). New York: Wiley
Retrieved from http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/12/11/attachment-style-may-factor-into-fear-of-commitment/48925.html
No comments:
Post a Comment