Attachment Theories
I created this critical commentary for my graduate theories of human development class at the University of Rochester. The professor asked us to read "Interpersonal and genetic origins of adult attachment styles" by Fraley, Roisman, Booth-LaForce, Owen, and Holland (2013) and "Attachment. A pancultural need but a cultural construct" from Keller (2016) and provide a critical commentary, which I have provided below.
Attachment Theories
I thoroughly enjoyed both of these readings! Thank you for allowing me to read them.
My opinion of attachment theory was that it was a popular and modern understanding of how the nurturing behavior of our parents instructs and forms the way we as adults choose to relate to our friends and romantic partners. Importantly, attachments can be of 3 kinds, anxious, avoidant, which are both insecure, or secure.
One quote that captures my previous views on attachment could be Frayley et al. with,
“During the last 30 years, attachment theory has become one of the leading theoretical frameworks for the social psychological study of close relationships and personality dynamics (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). The majority of attachment research has emphasized individual differences in self-reported attachment styles—relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in close relationships.”
Although after reading Frayley’s work, my view on attachment theory has completely shifted. I was highly impressed with the incisive thinking and scientific attitude that Frayley brought to the topic. From Frayley I was able to see how attachment theory still has a valid place, but is not as all encompassing or as simplistic as I may have believed.
Frayley wanted to expand the conception of early caregiver experience to include more factors, instead of simply primary maternal attention, (the primary domain of interest in attachment theory), he expanded the horizon to consider developmental domains such as social competence and friendship as other potential sources of influence.
A quote from near the end of Frayley’s paper which I think summarizes how my perceptions were extended is,
“Attachment theory is sometimes portrayed as implying that adult attachment styles are largely rooted in early attachment experiences (e.g., Hendrick & Hendrick, 1994). Although the present findings suggest that individual differences in adult attachment may have their origins, in part, in developmental experiences, it is important to note that, in absolute terms, the associations we report were relatively small. Collectively, the antecedents we examined explained, at most, 29% of the variation in global avoidance, for example. Thus, it is certainly not the case that individual differences in adult attachment are largely a result of early caregiving experiences, at least with respect to the factors investigated in the present report.””
I also thoroughly enjoyed Keller's short paper. Similarly, a quote from Keller that would have summarized my initial view on attachment theory,
“Attachment theory can be considered as the most important theory for children’s socioemotional development during the first years of life with substantial implications also for the application in clinical and educational fields.”
Keller’s key point, as I understood it, is that attachment theory only works in a western system where the caregiving relationship is dyadic. Attachment theory does not apply to much of the rest of the world where children are raised in a multi caregiver environment.
Keller’s points were extremely eye opening for me. I had not considered this view and I became convinced by the end of her paper that she was very valid, touching on a topic worthy of much more research.
A quote that summarizes my end perspective from Keller is,
“Multiple attachment relationships must differ in form, function, and dynamics from monotropic one-to-one arrangements.”
When considering the role of cultural practices, Kellers paper illuminated to me the potential that having a mother as a primary caregiver, as we historically have in the west, may be an artificial and subjective assignment, a result of the culture in the west. Frayley’s paper indicated that social interactions and friendships play a large role in the development of attachment and it is not just a primary caregiver alone. So far as social relationships and friendship styles are defined by culture, then attachment style too would be heavily shaped by culture.
As for economic constraints, from Keller's paper I received the idea that having enough resources to dedicate a primary caregiver in a one to one relationship with a child may not be the reality for many parts of the world, nor optimal for child development. So economic situations will influence how a child is cared for, individually or by the group. Frayley did also factor in economic situations in his research as a control factor; he did not report any correlation between socioeconomic status and attachment, which I find interesting. I wonder if this is a limitation of Frayley’s sample that it was not culturally or socioeconomically diverse enough to see differences that may exist, with 77.5% of participants being white and presumably all participants residing in the US.
Overall I thoroughly enjoyed both of these papers. I came away with a sense that attachment theory is not a “silver bullet” and in fact it may be even a bit over-hyped as a popular idea when in reality it is many factors contribute to how an adult relates to others, and we should keep an open mind and keep exploring new areas of research instead of attributing too much to attachment theory.
