I have a confession to make. When it comes to Bowlbian attachment theory, I am “team developmental psychology.” How many teams are there? you may ask. As pointed out in the 2015 edited volume entitled Attachment Theory and Research: New Directions and Emerging Themes, there are two main camps. The first camp—developmental psychology—hinges around the axis formed by Mary Ainsworth and Mary Main. Ainsworth was Bowlby’s longtime collaborator. Main studied under Ainsworth. Ainsworth is best known for developing the Strange Situation Assessment that assesses for attachment functioning in toddlers. Ainsworth developed the Strange Situation based on the observations she made of mothers and their infants in villages in Uganda. Since its inception in the 1970s the Strange Situation has been widely used to assess for attachment functioning in toddlers. I have described the Strange Situation in earlier posts. Main wished to develop an assessment that could be used with adults. Main, along with her husband, Erik Hesse, developed the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). Likewise, I have described the AAI in some detail in earlier posts. The AAI is modeled after the Strange Situation and uses linguistic analysis to arrive at an attachment category such as securely attached, insecurely attached, earned secure, or unresolved with respect to trauma. Research shows that there is a high degree of correlation between the results of the Strange Situation used with children and the AAI used with adults suggesting that attachment style or category remains rather consistent over time as one develops psychologically.
The second camp—social psychology—hinges primarily around the work of Phillip Shaver. Shaver has done much to promote the idea that the best way to research and understand attachment functioning is to view it within dyadic relationships such as mother-child, romantic partners, and even adult children and their parents. The social psychology camp is often known as the “love camp” in that attachment is looked at through the lens of loving relationships. Quick aside: Sir Richard Bowlby, John’s son, once told us during a workshop that his father actually did consider calling his theory of attachment a “theory of love” but decided against it given that there were so many preconceived notions surrounding the idea of love. In many respects, the social psychology camp has thrown off caution and embraced the “theory of love” frame. The social psychology camp uses many different forms of assessment tools from self-report questionnaires to diary studies as talked about in Attachment Theory and Research. So, do these two camps get along? Well, it’s messy. Allow me to explain.
As I have said many times before, attachment is a behavioral system. In my last blog series, I attempted to describe what a behavioral system is using concepts pulled from organic systems theory. As it turns out I found these concepts in the volume edited by Elkhonon Goldberg entitled Executive Function in Health and Disease. Simply, a behavioral system is goal-directed as well as goal-corrected, two concepts Bowlby used in his trilogy on attachment. Another point that Bowlby often made was that attachment existed within a biological milieu that contained other behavioral systems such as the big ones we know well: caregiving/receiving and sex. The rub between the developmental and social camps really centers on this idea of multiple behavioral systems. The developmental camp wishes to concern itself with just looking at and assessing the attachment behavioral system largely isolated from other behavioral systems. In contrast, the social camp welcomes the three big behavioral systems, again, attachment, caregiving/receiving, and sex. To illustrate this point consider a sampling of chapter topics contained in the edited volume Attachment Theory and Research:
- Chapter One—Early Attachment Experiences and Romantic Functioning
- Chapter Three—The Role of Sex in Adult Romantic Attachment
- Chapter Seven—The Interplay of the Sexual and Attachment Systems during Relationship Development
- Chapter Ten—Attachment Theory in Organizational Settings
- Chapter Eleven—Health and Attachment Processes
- Chapter Twelve—Attachment and Aged Care
- Chapter Thirteen—Psychopathology and Attachment
- Chapter Fifteen—Attachment: A Guide to a New Era of Couple Interventions
Just from the above chapter topics one gets the impression that the social camp is about applied attachment: attachment and romance; attachment and sex; attachment and the work environment; attachment and our health; attachment and elder care; attachment and psychopathology; and attachment and couple’s therapy. You simply do not see this level of applied attachment in the developmental camp. Sure, there is a permeable barrier between these two camps, however, there is but a trickle of information that passes from side to side. Why might this be?
Another rub between the two camps centers on assessment. Self-report and diary studies have been criticized for one many reason: to quote the indomitable Dr. House, “Patients lie.” With respect to attachment, critics of self-reports and diary studies will contend that there is no way to know whether the attachment behavioral system is in an active state when the self-report or diary studies were conducted. In contrast, both the Strange Situation and the Adult Attachment Interviews were specifically designed to first trigger the attachment behavioral system and then to assess its functioning while in an active or “hot” state. With self-report and diary studies, one has no idea what exactly is being assessed. This is especially true when you bring in more than one behavioral system. Both the Strange Situation and the Adult Attachment Interviews are designed to activate and assess only one behavioral system: attachment.
It’s interesting that Attachment Theory and Research reports that there is little correlation between assessments of attachment conducted within the social camp using self reports and diaries (among others), and the developmental camp using the Strange Situation and AAI. Quite frankly, I find this troubling. However, it’s not surprising given that social-focused assessments use self-report and diary tools and do not control for the possibility of more than one behavioral system. This is not to say that the social camp is misguided: they are not. By all indications they have gathered significant observational data. I think where their work shines is in the area of multiple behavioral systems. Even Bowlby wrote that in a biological milieu containing multiple behavioral systems one of the big challenges for an organism is how these often conflicting behavioral systems can be brought under some form of executive control. From reading Attachment Theory and Research I get the impression that the social camp is very comfortable dealing with multiple behavioral systems—such as attachment, caregiving/receiving, and sex—without actually putting forth any insights concerning how conflicting behavioral systems are ultimately brought to a state of balance and harmony. As an example, a male frog “knows” he has to croak in order to attract a mate. This same frog also knows that to croak is to bring attention to one’s self and risk predation. What is a frog to do? Much of the animal kingdom lacks a well-developed prefrontal cortex (PFC) that affords executive control. As such behavioral systems are controlled and integrated by innate programming. Having spent five years running a horse breeding farm I know firsthand that if a mare is not receptive, it is dangerous to bring a stud into her proximity. A mare’s well-timed kick could do serious damage to a stallion. So, yes, I am here suggesting that EF or executive functioning is key to the process of balancing and harmonizing often conflicting behavioral systems outside of innate control systems. And I think that Attachment Theory and Research touches on this point but never really embraces it. Let me explain.
Attachment Theory and Research in its chapters describes behaviors that are often associated with either the dimension of anxiety or the dimension of dismissiveness. According to the social assessments talked about in Attachment Theory and Research, persons who are high in anxiety over-amplify attachment behavior. They become very dependent. Those high in avoidance damp-down attachment behavior. They become very independent. Both are forms of attachment insecurity. In general the social camp describes behaviors associated with insecure attachment such as risk-taking behavior, hyper-sexuality, and even behaviors detrimental to health such as smoking and taking illicit drugs. When I read about these associations between forms of insecure attachment and behavior, I am immediately reminded of the many YouTube videos ADHD (attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder) and Executive Function expert Russell Barkley has put out in which he describes a similar set of behaviors. As I wrote about in an earlier post, Dr. Barkley lost his brother to a tragic car accident. Dr. Barkley’s brother was diagnosed with ADHD. According to Dr. Barkley, it is not uncommon for persons diagnosed with ADHD to drive in a reckless manner resulting in car crashes and even fatalities. Dr. Barkley has often commented that he would like to change the name ADHD to EFDD or Executive Function Deficit Disorder. As Dr. Barkley points out in his videos, persons diagnosed with ADHD have a difficult if not impossible time accessing the Executive Functions housed in the upper cortical regions of the brain such as the PFC.
As I read Attachment Theory and Research I was struck by how many times the authors framed healing from insecure attachment in Executive Function terms without explicitly making this connection. As examples, in Chapter One—Early Attachment Experiences and Romantic Functioning, Fraley and Roisman write “Broadly defined, social competence [emphasis in original] refers to the set of social, emotional, and cognitive skills needed for adaptation to a broad array of developmental contexts and challenges.” The authors continue, “For one person to serve as an attachment figure for another person … one must be able to take the other person’s perspective, have empathy, and be able to resolve conflicts in effective ways.” Interestingly the authors point out that “Bowlby believed that supportive and responsive interactions between parents and their children are crucial for children’s development of these broad skills.” This set of broad skills are in fact the ecosystem of Executive Function skills such as empathy, perspective-taking, and resolving conflict. In Chapter Nine—Adult Attachment Style and Parenting, Jones, Cassidy, and Shaver write, “Parents who have difficulty regulating their own emotions, and who respond to others with insufficient empathy, compassion, and forgiveness, may struggle with the challenges and stresses of child rearing.” Emotion regulation, empathy, and even compassion are all part of the EF ecosystem. In Chapter Eleven—Health and Attachment Processes, Pietromonaco et al. write, “[I]n adults, attachment security has been associated with greater self-control,, as well as more effective behavioral regulation in a variety of domains (e.g., analyzing a problem, concentrating on a task, task persistence …).” Again, analyzing a problem, concentrating on a task, and task persistence or all part of the EF ecosystem. As Barkley points out, ADHD is characterized by a person’s inability to appropriately focus attention, appropriately shift attention, and stay on task. Simply put, attachment security is associated with the development of robust Executive Functioning.
So, confession number two: while I respect the many accomplishments that both the developmental and social camps have achieved, I think I’m now entrenched in the Executive Function ecosystem as a paradigm that best describes what is going on with attachment behavior as well as how often conflicting behavioral system come to be harmonized and integrated. Now this also means that the organism must possess the ability to approximately disintegrate behavioral systems when the environment dictates. As I have said before, when being chased by a lion a person typically does not plan for his or her child’s college education. This gets at the heart of progressive segregation whereby a biological whole is able to break apart into constitutive parts so as to better function. Simply put, the middle brain is better suited to allow the organism to escape danger. And, interestingly, Attachment Theory and Research mentions one of my favorite examples of this principle of organic systems. In Chapter Thirteen—Psychopathology and Attachment, Ein-Dor and Doron write, “When exposed to an experimentally created threatening situation (a room gradually filling with smoke because of a malfunctioning computer, the most anxious person in a group was the most likely to detect the presence of a threat … which contributed to the effectiveness of this person’s social group in dealing with the threat.” So, all this to say that the social camp and the developmental camp are two blind men trying to describe an elephant that would be robust Executive Functioning. And, yes, there are a smattering of articles out there that look at the connection between EF and attachment. I plan to talk about these studies in a future post. Yes, these two camps do have some apparently irreconcilable differences. However, I think they could be brought together under the umbrella of Goldbergian Executive Functioning as I suggest in my previous blog series. Any takers out there looking for a great PhD study (hint, hint)? I think I have sketched out the beginnings of just such a research project. If only I were twenty years younger. As a friend of mine once quipped, “So many great PhD projects … so little time.”
Postscript:
I should point out that the developmental side also glosses over the Executive Functions implications of their approach to Bowlbian attachment. In my opinion, the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) actually is a great assessment for the development of EF skills (as I pointed out in my last blog series). As an example, during the AAI the interviewee has to keep the mind of the interviewer “in mind” (i.e., intersubjectivity) as the interviewee provides answers to questions posed by the interviewer. This is a form of perspective-taking, an EF skill. As another example, one of the dimensions used to code an AAI interview is reflectivity: is the interviewee able to reflect on his or her narrative as it is being provided. Here’s an example. The following response would be coded “reflective”:
“I hate my stepdad. Well, actually, I did hate my stepdad when he came into our lives back when I was eight or nine. Today, we’re not close but we get along. I realize now that I was a little shit back then and made his life miserable. It’s too bad that stepdads often take the brunt of a divorce. You know, he hanged in there. I give him credit for that.”
Also note that the above response maintains a sense of time: what happened in the past appropriately contrasted with today’s feelings and reflections. Our ability to engage in time travel is also an EF skill. Again, it’s too bad that both the social and developmental sides do not put explicit value on Executive Functioning. An EF perspective might allow these two blind men to see the EF elephant. In fairness, recent studies looking at the attachment-EF connection may suggest that the social and developmental sides are in fact beginning to embrace EF. I’ll let you know what I find.
