Current Psychoanalytic Research 413
414 Chapter 11 Psychoanalysis After Freud
Anxious-ambivalent adults, in contrast, are obsessed with their romantic
partners—they think about them all the time and have trouble allowing them to have
their own lives. They suffer from extreme jealousy, report a high rate of relationship
failures (not surprisingly), and sometimes exhibit a cycle of breaking up and getting
back together with the same partner. Anxious-ambivalent adults tend to have low
and unstable self-esteem, and they like to work with other people but typically feel
unappreciated by coworkers. They are highly emotional under stress and have to
work hard to control their emotions. They describe their parents as having been
intrusive, unfair, and inconsistent.
You will be relieved to learn that secure adults tend to enjoy long, stable
romantic relationships characterized by deep trust and friendship. They have
high self-esteem as well as high regard for others. Under stress, they seek out
others, particularly their romantic partners, for emotional support. They also
offer loyal support to their romantic partners when they need it. They describe
their parents in positive but realistic terms, which they are able to back up with
specific examples. In sum, they are people who are easy to be with (Shaver &
Clark, 1994).
Secure individuals can deal directly with reality because their attachment
experience has been positive and reliable. They have always had a safe refuge from
danger and a secure base from which to explore the world. This idealized descrip-
tion does not mean that secure people never cry, become angry, or worry about
abandonment. But they do not need to distort reality to deal with their sadness,
anger, or insecurity.
According to attachment theory, these patterns are learned in early child-
hood and reinforced in an increasingly self-fulfilling manner across young
adulthood. This pattern of transference can persist across a person's life span,
affecting her approach to work as well as relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). If
an individual learns an avoidant or anxious ambivalent style, change is difficult
but perhaps not impossible. Psychotherapists who use attachment theory try to
teach these people the origins of their relationship styles, the way these styles
lead to self-defeating outcomes, and more constructive ways to relate to others
(Shaver & Clark, 1994).
Recent
years have seen an explosion of research on attachment, which is
moving from a specific area of psychoanalytic research to a program that offers
the potential to integrate large areas of social and personality psychology with
psychoanalytic thought and the study of mental health (Dozier, Stovall, & Albus,
1999; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2005). Some of the research progress is technical.
For example, researchers are moving beyond the three-category classifica-
tion of attachment just described to a two-dimensional model on which people
vary according to their degree of anxiety about relationships, and their degree
of avoidance of relationships. Only a person low on both dimensions would be
considered securely attached. A person high in attachment anxiety characteris-
tically worries that his emotionally significant other people will not be available
at times of need, and deals with it by maintaining extreme vigilance, watching
for signs of rejection almost to the point of paranoia. A person high in attach-
ment avoidance has learned to distrust other people and so strives to maintain
independence and emotional distance, and tries to convince himself that close
emotional relationships are unimportant.? According to one recent experiment,
someone high in both avoidance and anxiety will tend to avoid paying attention to
any signs of emotion from another person, such as angry or happy facial expres-
sions (Dewitte & De Houwer, 2008).
Other research uses increasingly ingenious methods to demonstrate how at-
tachment styles are invoked unconsciously. In one study, participants looked at
a computer screen that showed either a neutral word (hat) or a threatening word
(failure) subliminally, meaning too fast for them to read consciously (Mikulincer,
Gillath, & Shaver, 2002, Study I).' Then theywere asked to indicate on the keyboard,
as quickly as possible, whether each string in a series of letter strings consisted of
words or nonwords—and they were told that proper names counted as words. Some
of the words presented to them were names of people to whom the participants
were emotionally attached (according to a questionnaire they completed earlier),
while other names were of people with whom they were acquainted but to whom
they were not emotionally attached. The results showed that people recognized the
names of attachment figures more quickly in the threat condition than in the neu-
tral condition; this was not true for other acquaintances. The conclusion of the
study was that when people feel threatened, even by the subliminal presentation
of a word with unpleasant connotations, they respond by thinking of the people
to whom they are emotionally attached. In other words, we go to our attachment
figures when we feel under threat, and if they are not physically present, we go to
them in our minds.
Attachment theory, originated by a psychoanalyst who considered himself a
neo-Freudian, John Bowlby, has diverged a long way from its psychoanalytic roots.
Indeed, some would argue it is no longer Freudian (Kihlstrom, 1994), although
attachment theorists themselves tend to disagree (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2005).
Attachment theory provides an example of how far a group of creative psychologists
can develop a basic Freudian idea. In this case, the Freudian idea is that, via
transference, early relationships with parents form a template for future emotion-
ally important relationships throughout life. Notice, too, how attachment theory
Paul Simon wrote a song that has the refrain “I am a rock, I am an island.” If you know the song, this
would be a good time to hum it to yourself.
This study was conducted in Israel, and the words were in Hebrew.
Current Psychoanalytic Research
411
412 Chapter 11 Psychoanalysis After Freud
Further research examines what happens to children with different attachment
styles as they grow into adults and try to develop various elements of a mature life
including satisfying romantic relationships. There are at least 21 different methods
to assess adult attachment style, the grown-up version of the childhood pattern just
described. One of the simplest is this:
Which of these descriptions best describes your feelings?
1. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to
trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am
nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be
more intimate than I feel comfortable being.
2. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry
that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I
want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people
away.
3. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depend-
ing on them. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone
getting too close to me. (Hazan & Shaver, 1987, p. 515)
care, the child might conclude that he or she is not lovable or worth caring about.
This inference is not logical, of course: Just because a negligent caregiver fails to
love and nurture the child does not mean the child is not lovable.
American psychologist Mary Ainsworth tried to make the consequences of
these expectations and conclusions concrete and visible. She invented an exper-
imental procedure called the strange situation, in which a child is briefly separated
from, and then reunited with, his mother. Ainsworth believed that the child's
reactions, both to the separation and to the reunion, could be quite informative-in
particular, one could determine the type of attachment relationship the child had
developed (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). From her research, Ainsworth
classified children into three types, depending on the kinds of expectations they
had about their primary caregivers and how they reacted to the strange situation.
Anxious-ambivalent children come from home situations where their care-
givers' behaviors are "inconsistent, hit-or-miss, or chaotic” (Sroufe, Carlson, &
Shulman, 1993, p. 320). In the strange situation, these children are vigilant about
the mother's
presence
and
grow very upset when she disappears for even a few
minutes. In school, they are often victimized by other children and unsuccessfully
attempt to cling to teachers and peers in a way that only drives these people away,
and leads to further hurt feelings, anger, and insecurity.
Avoidant children come from homes where they have been rebuffed repeatedly
in their attempts to enjoy contact or reassurance. Their mothers tend to dislike
hugs and other bodily contact (Main, 1990). In the strange situation, they do not
appear distressed, but their heart rate reveals tension and anxiety (Sroufe & Waters,
1977). When the mother returns from the brief separation, they simply ignore her.
In school settings, these children are often hostile and defiant, alienating teachers
and peers. As they grow older, they develop an angry self-reliance and a cold, dis-
tant attitude toward other people.
The luckiest ones, secure children, manage to develop a confident faith in
themselves and their caregivers. When the mother returns after the separation,
they greet her happily, with open arms. They are easily soothed when upset,
and they actively explore their environment, returning frequently to the primary
caregiver for comfort and encouragement. They are sure of the caregiver's sup-
port and do not worry about it. This positive attitude carries over into their other
relationships.
One remarkable aspect of these attachment
styles is their self-fulfilling nature (Shaver &
The anxious, clingy child annoys
Clark, 1994). The anxious, clingy child annoys
people and drives them away; the
people and drives them away; the avoidant child
makes people angry; the secure child is likeable
avoidant child makes people angry;
and attracts both caregivers and friends. Thus,
the secure child is likeable and
a child's developing attachment style affects attracts both caregivers and friends.
outcomes throughout life.
According to this measure, if you checked Item 1, you are avoidant; if you
checked Item 2, you are anxious-ambivalent; and if you checked Item 3, you are
secure. When this survey was published in a Denver newspaper, 55 percent of
the respondents described themselves as secure, 25 percent as avoidant, and
20 percent as anxious—the same percentages found in American infants observed
by Ainsworth in the strange situation (Campos, Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, &
Stenberg, 1983).
Studies that examined attachment styles in more detail found that avoidant
individuals are relatively uninterested in romantic relationships; they are also
more likely than secure individuals to have their relationships break up and
grieve less after a relationship ends, even though they admit to being lonely
(Shaver & Clark, 1994). They like to work alone, and they sometimes use work
as an excuse to detach from emotional relationships. They describe their par-
ents as having been rejecting and cold, or else describe them in vaguely positive
ways (“nice") without being able to provide specific examples. (For example,
when asked, "What did your mother do that was particularly nice?" they are typ-
ically stuck.) Avoidant individuals under stress withdraw from their romantic
partners, and instead tend to cope by ignoring stress or denying it exists. For
example, avoidant individuals who were victims of sexual abuse in childhood
tend to be unable to remember the experience 14 years later (Edelstein et al.,
2005). They do not often share personal information, and they dislike people
who do.
Current Psychoanalytic Research
411
412 Chapter 11 Psychoanalysis After Freud
Further research examines what happens to children with different attachment
styles as they grow into adults and try to develop various elements of a mature life
including satisfying romantic relationships. There are at least 21 different methods
to assess adult attachment style, the grown-up version of the childhood pattern just
described. One of the simplest is this:
Which of these descriptions best describes your feelings?
1. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to
trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am
nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be
more intimate than I feel comfortable being.
2. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry
that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I
want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people
away.
3. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depend-
ing on them. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone
getting too close to me. (Hazan & Shaver, 1987, p. 515)
care, the child might conclude that he or she is not lovable or worth caring about.
This inference is not logical, of course: Just because a negligent caregiver fails to
love and nurture the child does not mean the child is not lovable.
American psychologist Mary Ainsworth tried to make the consequences of
these expectations and conclusions concrete and visible. She invented an exper-
imental procedure called the strange situation, in which a child is briefly separated
from, and then reunited with, his mother. Ainsworth believed that the child's
reactions, both to the separation and to the reunion, could be quite informative-in
particular, one could determine the type of attachment relationship the child had
developed (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). From her research, Ainsworth
classified children into three types, depending on the kinds of expectations they
had about their primary caregivers and how they reacted to the strange situation.
Anxious-ambivalent children come from home situations where their care-
givers' behaviors are "inconsistent, hit-or-miss, or chaotic” (Sroufe, Carlson, &
Shulman, 1993, p. 320). In the strange situation, these children are vigilant about
the mother's
presence
and
grow very upset when she disappears for even a few
minutes. In school, they are often victimized by other children and unsuccessfully
attempt to cling to teachers and peers in a way that only drives these people away,
and leads to further hurt feelings, anger, and insecurity.
Avoidant children come from homes where they have been rebuffed repeatedly
in their attempts to enjoy contact or reassurance. Their mothers tend to dislike
hugs and other bodily contact (Main, 1990). In the strange situation, they do not
appear distressed, but their heart rate reveals tension and anxiety (Sroufe & Waters,
1977). When the mother returns from the brief separation, they simply ignore her.
In school settings, these children are often hostile and defiant, alienating teachers
and peers. As they grow older, they develop an angry self-reliance and a cold, dis-
tant attitude toward other people.
The luckiest ones, secure children, manage to develop a confident faith in
themselves and their caregivers. When the mother returns after the separation,
they greet her happily, with open arms. They are easily soothed when upset,
and they actively explore their environment, returning frequently to the primary
caregiver for comfort and encouragement. They are sure of the caregiver's sup-
port and do not worry about it. This positive attitude carries over into their other
relationships.
One remarkable aspect of these attachment
styles is their self-fulfilling nature (Shaver &
The anxious, clingy child annoys
Clark, 1994). The anxious, clingy child annoys
people and drives them away; the
people and drives them away; the avoidant child
makes people angry; the secure child is likeable
avoidant child makes people angry;
and attracts both caregivers and friends. Thus,
the secure child is likeable and
a child's developing attachment style affects attracts both caregivers and friends.
outcomes throughout life.
According to this measure, if you checked Item 1, you are avoidant; if you
checked Item 2, you are anxious-ambivalent; and if you checked Item 3, you are
secure. When this survey was published in a Denver newspaper, 55 percent of
the respondents described themselves as secure, 25 percent as avoidant, and
20 percent as anxious—the same percentages found in American infants observed
by Ainsworth in the strange situation (Campos, Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, &
Stenberg, 1983).
Studies that examined attachment styles in more detail found that avoidant
individuals are relatively uninterested in romantic relationships; they are also
more likely than secure individuals to have their relationships break up and
grieve less after a relationship ends, even though they admit to being lonely
(Shaver & Clark, 1994). They like to work alone, and they sometimes use work
as an excuse to detach from emotional relationships. They describe their par-
ents as having been rejecting and cold, or else describe them in vaguely positive
ways (“nice") without being able to provide specific examples. (For example,
when asked, "What did your mother do that was particularly nice?" they are typ-
ically stuck.) Avoidant individuals under stress withdraw from their romantic
partners, and instead tend to cope by ignoring stress or denying it exists. For
example, avoidant individuals who were victims of sexual abuse in childhood
tend to be unable to remember the experience 14 years later (Edelstein et al.,
2005). They do not often share personal information, and they dislike people
who do.
Preview
File
Edit
View
Go
Tools
Window Help
Fri 2:12 PM
a
lil
The Personality Puzzle Seventh - David C Funder.pdf (page 446 of 833)
Q
Search
The Personality Puzzle Seventh - David C Funder.pdf
Cover (The Personality Puzzle)
Current Psychoanalytic Research 411
412 Chapter 11 Psychoanalysis After Freud
Front Matter
Chapter 1 - The Study of the Person
Part 1 - The Science of Personality: Methods and Assessment
Part II - How People Differ: The Trait Approach
Part III - The Mind and the Body: Biological Approaches to Pers...
Part IV - The Hidden World of the Mind: The Psychoanalytic Ap...
Part V - Experience and Awareness: Humanistic and Cross-Cult...
Part VI - What Personality Does: Learning, Thinking, Feeling, an...
Further research examines what happens to children with different attachment
styles as they grow into adults and try to develop various elements of a mature life
including satisfying romantic relationships. There are at least 21 different methods
to assess adult attachment style, the grown-up version of the childhood pattern just
described. One of the simplest is this:
Which of these descriptions best describes your feelings?
1. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to
trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am
nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be
more intimate than I feel comfortable being.
2. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry
that my partner doesn't really love me or won't want to stay with me. I
want to get very close to my partner, and this sometimes scares people
away.
3. I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depend-
ing on them. I don't often worry about being abandoned or about someone
getting too close to me. (Hazan & Shaver, 1987, p. 515)
Credits
References
care, the child might conclude that he or she is not lovable or worth caring about.
This inference is not logical, of course: Just because a negligent caregiver fails to
love and nurture the child does not mean the child is not lovable.
American psychologist Mary Ainsworth tried to make the consequences of
these expectations and conclusions concrete and visible. She invented an exper-
imental procedure called the strange situation, in which a child is briefly separated
from, and then reunited with, his mother. Ainsworth believed that the child's
reactions, both to the separation and to the reunion, could be quite informative-in
particular, one could determine the type attachment relationship the child had
developed (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). From her research, Ainsworth
classified children into three types, depending on the kinds of expectations they
had about their primary caregivers and how they reacted to the strange situation.
Ancious-ambivalent children come from home situations where their care-
givers' behaviors are "inconsistent, hit-or-miss, or chaotic" (Sroufe, Carlson, &
Shulman, 1993, p. 320). In the strange situation, these children are vigilant about
the mother's presence and grow very upset when she disappears for even a few
minutes. In school, they are often victimized by other children and unsuccessfully
attempt to cling to teachers and peers in a way that only drives these people away,
and leads to further hurt feelings, anger, and insecurity.
Avoidant children come from homes where they have been rebuffed repeatedly
in their attempts to enjoy contact or reassurance. Their mothers tend to dislike
hugs and other bodily contact (Main, 1990). In the strange situation, they do not
appear distressed, but their heart rate reveals tension and anxiety (Sroufe & Waters,
1977). When the mother returns from the brief separation, they simply ignore her.
In school settings, these children are often hostile and defiant, alienating teachers
and peers. As they grow older, they develop an angry self-reliance and a cold, dis-
tant attitude toward other people.
The luckiest ones, secure children, manage to develop a confident faith in
themselves and their caregivers. When the mother returns after the separation,
they greet her happily, with open arms. They are easily soothed when upset,
and they actively explore their environment, returning frequently to the primary
caregiver for comfort and encouragement. They are sure of the caregiver's sup-
port and do not worry about it. This positive attitude carries over into their other
relationships.
One remarkable aspect of these attachment
styles is their self-fulfilling nature (Shaver &
The anxious, clingy child annoys
Clark, 1994). The anxious, clingy child annoys
people and drives them away; the
people and drives them away; the avoidant child
makes people angry; the secure child is likeable
avoidant child makes people angry;
and attracts both caregivers and friends. Thus,
the secure child is likeable and
a child's developing attachment style affects attracts both caregivers and friends.
outcomes throughout life.
Glossary
Name Index
Subject Index
According to this measure, if you checked Item 1, you are avoidant; if you
checked Item 2, you are anxious ambivalent; and if you checked Item 3, you are
secure. When this survey was published in a Denver newspaper, 55 percent of
the respondents described themselves as secure, 25 percent as avoidant, and
20 percent as anxious-the same percentages found in American infants observed
by Ainsworth in the strange situation (Campos, Barrett, Lamb, Goldsmith, &
Stenberg, 1983).
Studies that examined attachment styles in more detail found that avoidant
individuals are relatively uninterested in romantic relationships; they are also
more likely than secure individuals to have their relationships break up and
grieve less after a relationship ends, even though they admit to being lonely
(Shaver & Clark, 1994). They like to work alone, and they sometimes use work
as an excuse to detach from emotional relationships. They describe their par-
ents as having been rejecting and cold, or else describe them in vaguely positive
ways ("nice") without being able to provide specific examples. (For example,
when asked, "What did your mother do that was particularly nice?" they are typ-
ically stuck.) Avoidant individuals under stress withdraw from their romantic
partners, and instead tend to cope by ignoring stress or denying it exists. For
example, avoidant individuals who were victims of sexual abuse in childhood
tend to be unable to remember the experience 14 years later (Edelstein et al.,
2005). They do not often share personal information, and they dislike people
who do.
Screen Shot
2020-0...05.25 F
primates) evolved a strong fear of being alone, especially in unusual, dark, or dangerous places, and
especially when tired, injured, or sick. This fear motivates us to desire protection from someone,
preferably someone with an interest in our survival and well-being. In other words, we want
someone who loves us. This desire is especially strong in infancy and early childhood, but it never
truly goes away; it forms the basis of many of our most important interpersonal relationships
(Bowlby, 1969/1982).
Page 1 of 2
653 words
QX
English (United States)
Focus
12OBBELTOFOONRA 100•-m
MAR
O
13
00)
átvm AN
O
X
W
ANS
Preview
File
Edit
View
Go
Tools
Window Help
Fri 2:13 PM
a
Til
The Personality Puzzle Seventh - David C Funder.pdf (page 448 of 833)
Q
Search
The Personality Puzzle Seventh - David C Funder.pdf
Cover (The Personality Puzzle)
Current Psychoanalytic Research 413
414 Chapter 11 Psychoanalysis After Freud
Front Matter
Chapter 1 - The Study of the Person
Part 1 - The Science of Personality: Methods and Assessment
Part II - How People Differ: The Trait Approach
Part III - The Mind and the Body: Biological Approaches to Pers...
Part IV - The Hidden World of the Mind: The Psychoanalytic Ap...
Part V - Experience and Awareness: Humanistic and Cross-Cult...
Part VI - What Personality Does: Learning, Thinking, Feeling, an...
Credits
Anxious-ambivalent adults, in contrast, are obsessed with their romantic
partners–they think about them all the time and have trouble allowing them to have
their own lives. They suffer from extreme jealousy, report a high rate of relationship
failures (not surprisingly), and sometimes exhibit a cycle of breaking up and getting
back together with the same partner. Anxious-ambivalent adults tend to have low
and unstable self-esteem, and they like to work with other people but typically feel
unappreciated by coworkers. They are highly emotional under stress and have to
work hard to control their emotions. They describe their parents as having been
intrusive, unfair, and inconsis
You will be relieved to learn that secure adults tend to enjoy long, stable
romantic relationships characterized by deep trust and friendship. They have
high self-esteem as well as high regard for others. Under stress, they seek out
others, particularly their romantic partners, for emotional support. They also
offer loyal support to their romantic partners when they need it. They describe
their parents in positive but realistic terms, which they are able to back up with
specific examples. In sum, they are people who are easy to be with (Shaver &
Clark, 1994).
Secure individuals can deal directly with reality because their attachment
experience has been positive and reliable. They have always had a safe refuge from
danger and a secure base from which to explore the world. This idealized descrip-
tion does not mean that secure people never cry, become angry, or worry about
abandonment. But they do not need to distort reality to deal with their sadness,
anger, or insecurity.
According to attachment theory, these patterns are learned in early child-
hood and reinforced in an increasingly self-fulfilling manner across young
adulthood. This pattern of transference can persist across a person's life span,
affecting her approach to work as well as relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1990). If
an individual learns an avoidant or anxious-ambivalent style, change is difficult
but perhaps not impossibl sychotherapists who use attachment theory try
teach these people the origins of their relationship styles, the way these styles
lead to self-defeating outcomes, and more constructive ways to relate to others
(Shaver & Clark, 1994).
Recent years have seen an explosion of research on attachment, which is
moving from a specific area of psychoanalytic research to a program that offers
the potential to integrate large areas of social and personality psychology with
psychoanalytic thought and the study of mental health (Dozier, Stovall, & Albus,
1999; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2005). Some of the research progress is technical.
For example, researchers are moving beyond the three-category classifica-
tion of attachment just described to a two-dimensional model on which people
vary according to their degree of anxiety about relationships, and their degree
of avoidance of relationships. Only a person low on both dimensions would be
considered securely attached. A person high in attachment anxiety characteris-
tically worries that his emotionally significant other people will not be available
at times of need, and deals with it by maintaining extreme vigilance, watching
for signs of rejection almost to the point of paranoia. A person high in attach-
ment avoidance has learned to distrust other people and so strives to maintain
independence and emotional distance, and tries to convince himself that close
emotional relationships are unimportant. According to one recent experiment,
someone high in both avoidance and anxiety will tend to avoid paying attention to
any signs emotion from another person, such as angry or happy facial expres-
sions (Dewitte & De Houwer, 2008).
Other research uses increasingly ingenious methods to demonstrate how at-
tachment styles are invoked unconsciously. In one study, participants looked at
a computer screen that showed either a neutral word (hat) or a threatening word
(failure) subliminally, meaning too fast for them to read consciously (Mikulincer,
Gillath, & Shaver, 2002, Study I).* Then they were asked to indicate on the keyboard,
as quickly as possible, whether each string in a series of letter strings consisted of
words or nonwords and they were told that proper names counted as words. Some
of the words presented to them were names of people to whom the participants
were emotionally attached (according to a questionnaire they completed earlier),
while other names were of people with whom they were acquainted but to whom
they were not emotionally attached. The results showed that people recognized the
names of attachment figures more quickly in the threat condition than in the neu-
tral condition; this was not true for other acquaintances. The conclusion of the
study was that when people feel threatened, even by the subliminal presentation
of a word with unpleasant connotations, they respond by thinking of the people
to whom they are emotionally attached. In other words, we go to our attachment
figures when we feel under threat, and if they are not physically present, we go to
them in our minds.
Attachment theory, originated by a psychoanalyst who considered himself a
neo-Freudian, John Bowlby, has diverged a long way from its psychoanalytic roots.
Indeed, some would argue it is no longer Freudian (Kihlstrom, 1994), although
attachment theorists themselves tend to disagree (Shaver & Mikulincer, 2005).
Attachment theory provides an example of how far a group of creative psychologists
can develop a basic Freudian idea. In this case, the Freudian idea is that, via
transference, early relationships with parents form a template for future emotion-
ally important relationships throughout life. Notice, too, how attachment theory
References
Glossary
Name Index
Subject Index
Paul Simon wrote a song that has the refrain "I am a rock, I am an island." If you know the song, this
would be a good time to hum it to yourself.
This study was conducted in Israel, and the words were in Hebrew.
Screen Shot
2020-0...05.25 F
primates) evolved a strong fear of being alone, especially in unusual, dark, or dangerous places, and
especially when tired, injured, or sick. This fear motivates us to desire protection from someone,
preferably someone with an interest in our survival and well-being. In other words, we want
someone who loves us. This desire is especially strong in infancy and early childhood, but it never
truly goes away; it forms the basis of many of our most important interpersonal relationships
(Bowlby, 1969/1982).
Page 1 of 2
653 words
QX
English (United States)
Focus
+
100%
MAR
2
O
13
00)
étym
AN
O
X
W
Purchase answer to see full
attachment