Tag Archives: Attachment

Ambivalent Attachment – In Childhood and Marriage

Posted on by

Back in the 1970s, Mary Ainsworth conducted what may be the most important psychological study ever.  It was the Strange Situation Stuambivalentdy and this link describes it clearly.  Basically, Ainsworth and her associates observed mothers and babies in the first year of their lives and then brought them into her lab where a room was set up for them – a chair for mom and toys on the floor for baby.  There were a few steps to the procedure, but basically, mom would leave the room and then return.  Ainsworth noted the reactions of the babies when mom left and when she returned.  Those reactions varied, but could essentially be classified into three categories, each of which described the “attachment” bond that existed between mother and child.   The great majority of babies were “securely attached” and they responded with great distress when mom left the room, but were able to be comforted by her upon return.  A smaller group were termed “avoidantly attached” and these babies didn’t display outwardly any distress at mom’s exit and seemed to be engaged more with their toys than her, so it seemed like they hardly noticed when she came back in the door.  Another group of babies were “ambivalently attached” and they, by far, showed the greatest distress, both upon their mother’s leaving and upon her return.  When mom came back to the room, she could not calm her child.  The baby would lean into her for comfort and then arch away from her, crying intensely.  The child would kick at her and be very hard to comfort.  Observations of these ambivalently attached babies also reflected that when mom was sitting in the room, they were often preoccupied with her continuing presence, making sure periodically that she was there.

Ainsworth and her associates found there to be a connection between the highly activated, anxious and distressed behavior of these babies and the quality of parental care and “attunement” they had received at home.  More specifically, what they had observed in the previous year of spending hour upon hour in each parent’s home was that the “ambivalently attached” babies experienced very inconsistent attutnement.  Sometimes they would be lovingly cared for when distressed and other times ignored or even rebuked.

Now comes a New York Times article which describes numerous current studies that demonstrate that the same inconsistent care and connection in marriage results in ongoing baseline, high levels of anxiety and distress.  It turns out that inconsistent, trustable, love correlates to high blood pressure, lowered immunity and other indicia of a chronic keyed-up, insecure state.  What we find so painful as babies is the same thing that undermines our well-being as adults, as we relate to our primary care-giver – be it a parent or an adult intimate partner.

That Intuitive Sense of Safety

Posted on by

As one who has worked in the field oembracef intimate relationships for many years, one abiding fascination of mine is the question: What draws us to our partner?    Sadly, many who are in conflict and estranged don’t remember, or dismiss the idea that they were really attracted at all.  As Dan Gilbert says in his wonderful book Stumbling to Happiness, we see both the past and the future through our present experience.  So if we’re really alienated from our lover, we have an almost impossible time thinking of how we felt when we were first drawn to that person.  However, I have observed another reality in my work.

When we get beyond the physical attraction and compatibility, I find over and over that what drew individuals to one another is the force of an intuitive sense of safety.  Like magnetic attraction, it is unseen and not easily measured, while at the same time, it is intense in its invisible strength.   Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy is based upon Attachment.   This is a deep need in the center of our being for connection and it exists in all of its intensity when we are infants and persists until our dying day.  However, many of us (perhaps most of us) had these tender, vital and consuming needs thwarted when we were very young.  This left many with a deep, yet not consciously recognized, sense of shame for our fundamental being (after all this is what was rejected when these needs were unfulfilled).  Perhaps we may not resonate to the word or notion of “shame” but somewhere inside we carry some combination and gradation of feeling completely alone or inadequate or unlovable.  We may silently despair of ever being with another person and being truly accepted – to find that safe harbor where we don’t have to protect ourselves from buffeting winds of judgment or rejection “if they really knew what was inside.”  Most of us who carry these wounds inside, learn to cope and carry on.  We can be very attractive, smart, sociable, supportive, accomplished or supremely self-sufficient.  Any one or a combination of these attributes – or any number of others – help us get through life.  Yet, there is a niggling voice, if we are attuned to it, which yearns for a safe place – “where I can be myself.”

I think what often draws us into the intense bond of an adult intimate relationship is that the voice whispers to us (so that whether we actually hear it, the voice registers) that “Here, you have found someone who understands.”  Somehow, you intuitively sense that this person may have experienced loss, or fear, or shame in the recesses of their early life that somehow resonates with your own and that they are safe.  If this is so, then it certainly explains the intensity of the hurt, anger and sense of betrayal when, in the throes of the inevitable intimate conflict, this person flips from uniquely safe, to dreadfully unsafe.  To have taken the risk to open up, only to be judged and rejected is horribly destabilizing.

But there is good news!  With time and working with a good couples therapist, we can find that the judgment and rejection were actually the reaction of their partner to their own fears and pain of feeling rejected themselves.  It takes time, but that safety can be regained.   This will be the subject of future posts.

Attachment as a Hardwired Emotion (Part 3)

Posted on by

neurons.3The seventh basic emotion circuit that was found by Jaak Panksepp (see prior posts) is what he, unfortunately, calls the “panic” circuit.  He calls it that because of the panicked reaction of young animals who are separated from their mothers.  I prefer to call it by its more appropriate and descriptive name, the Attachment Circuit.   Panksepp describes the distressed cries of animals – identical to the distressed cries of separated young, which are evoked by the stimulation of a particular neuronal circuit in the brain.  The distress is caused by separation.  The resolution of the distress is caused by reunification.  Panksepp’s work confirms what has been argued by attachment therapists like Dr. Sue Johnson – the co-developer of Emotionally Focused Therapy.  We have a deep and biologically determined need for connection.  When that connection is threatened, we become distressed and anxious.  When we become distressed and anxious, we are inclined to react automatically.  This is the painful dance that we see in the distressing cycle we almost always observe with couples who are in conflict.  Brent Atkinson, a marital therapist and author, has created an entire approach to couples therapy based on Panksepp’s  work.  Atkinson repeats that individuals are overtaken by the intensity of their emotional reactivity.  This is precisely the same kind of description that Sue Johnson uses to describe how a couple is overtaken by the force of their cycle.  Imagine, when both people’s brain circuits are firing so fast and strong that they are swept up into the maelstrom, seemingly without any control – at least not until they are helped to s….l….o…..w it down and realize when they, themselves, are being overtaken by these strong, automatic, emotional discharges in the brain.  The belief of emotionally focused therapists is that once we are able to slow it down and gain awareness of our process, we can create safety for ourselves and our partner.  That’s at least what goes on in my office, anyway.

Adult Attachment

Posted on by

How comfortable are we being close in our intimate relationships?   Do our internal alarm bells go off frequently as we feel our partner pulling away from us?  Or is it the opposite – we begin to sweat when they seek to be too close.  Do our partners describe us as “clingy” or “aloof?”

Many of us struggle to one degree or another with connections.  We often repeat the same dramas and frustrations in our relationships, if we allow ourselves to get close enough to risk the pain or aggravation to begin with – a risk that we willingly take for the love, comfort and companionship we gain.  As with so much in life, there is nothing inherently wrong with our tendencies in one direction or another.  The trouble, and pain, often arise when, as we so often will, find ourselves bonding with someone who has a contrasting style.  Our need for space will feel to our partner like heartlessness and even contempt.  (It’s hard to feel contempt from our partner and not freak out.)  On the other side, our need for assurance will feel to our partner as clinginess. (It’s hard to feel that intensity and not close up and withdraw.)  However, as is usually the case one person is not contemptuous and the other isn’t clingy.  It’s the terribly painful cycle that gets triggered.  There is an interesting test available on the web here:   Adult Attachment Style which can give you and your partner some insight into your tendencies and where the gaps may be which you can fill in with understanding and compassion.