User:Khm23183/sandbox

Recently within the world of social psychology there has been an increase of interest among attachment styles and their connection to the six styles of love. Most psychologists are looking at the longitudinal behavioral effects of early childhood to adolescence and adulthood. Behavioral psychologist Mary Ainsworth developed the techniques known as the Strange Situation Classification (SSC) to empirically view the possible variations of attachment styles between children (Ainsworth & Bell, 1978). Results indicated four variations of attachment styles; secure, avoidant, ambivalent, disorganized. Each of these attachment styles has defining characteristics. A majority of children, within Ainsworth’s pool of participants, showed a secure attachment style, while children with avoidant attachment styles were the second most frequent style. The other two, ambivalent and disorganized attachment styles, are estimated to be parallel in their levels of frequency.

With behavioral psychology the theory is that the cognitive processes will adapt/ change over time due to external stimuli. Psychologists are becoming more interested in the effects that attachment styles have on relationships. More recently there has been research indicating whether one’s attachment style might affect their attachment style to another individual, during adulthood (Feeny & Noller 1990). Along with the results that Ainsworth provided from her study the probability of participants with a secure attachment the couples from Jeffry Simpson’s study of attachment styles in a relationship. The results of his work reveal that the couples with a secure attachment are interdependent, committed, trusting, and satisfied more than any of the other styles of attachment. (Simpson, 1990) The other attachment styles (avoidant, ambivalent, disorganized) show low frequencies of positive attitudes and emotions, while emitting more negative in the relationship. With a repeated measures design this study permitted the evaluation of the relationships over an extended period of time. There is also inquiry whether the work of Sigmund Freud may or may not factor into attachment styles (Albershiem  & Merrick). The influences that early childhood experiences have an individual, the similarities of close relationships between infancy and adulthood, and the complexity of an infant’s emotional, cognitive, and social life. (Albersheim & Merrick). This was study was conducted on a smaller sample size, resulting with lower external validity, however proves to be an indictor of the direction in which attachment styles affect relationships in adulthood.

Many believe the phrase “opposites attract” which isn’t partially true. Research has indicated that those in a relationship and the spouses indicate altering attachment styles the relationship has no affect at all (Volling, Notaro & Larsen, 1998). In fact those in relationships and were classified with secure attachment sought those also with secure attachment styles. However, this seeking for similarity only exists for secure attachment, for it is rare that an individual with ambivalent or avoidant attachment styles would also seek a relationship with an individual with a similar attachment style (Volling, Notaro & Larsen, 1998).

For those with an attachment style other than secure it is factual that they will encounter a more difficult time than others to establish a relationship. Those with an avoidant attachment style typically exhibits an emotionally distance from others, lacking the intimacy within a relationship. According to Sternberg’s triangular theory with the lack of intimacy (assuming the individuals posses the other two components, passion and commitment) their relationship would be that of fatuous love (Stenberg, 1986).

Overall within the four attachment styles the main three, secure, avoidant, ambivalent, all have their own characteristics that play into the possibility of a relationship and the type of relationship it might be.

References

Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Volling, B. L., Notaro, P. C., & Larsen, J. J.. (1998). Adult Attachment Styles: Relations with Emotional Well-Being, Marriage, and Parenting. Family Relations, 47(4), 355–367.

Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 281-291.

Simpson, Jeffry A. "Influence of Attachment Styles on Romantic Relationships." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59.5 (1990): 971-80. Web.

Sternberg, R. (n.d.). Triangular Conceptualization of "Love" PsycEXTRA Dataset. Web.

Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 94-109.

Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment Security in Infancy and Early Adulthood: A Twenty-Year Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 71(3), 684-689.