ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

IN LIGHT OF ATTACHMENT STYLES

In spite of all the havoc and war in today’s world, it still revolves around love or at least

in the concept of love. All of us have a different perception of what love is but no one

definition can satisfy all the people of the world. Romantic relationships are among the

most interesting yet confusing parts of life. Why do some people have a happy long run

and why do some relationships tumble over the first hurdle.

The first attachment one experiences as an infant is usually with a mother. This

attachment is so deep that it develops an infant and influences self esteem,

expectations, and capability to have stable adult relationships. This paper attempts to

understand how attachment in infancy affects adult romantic relationships.

The theory of attachment was developed by John Bowlby, who was trying to understand

the distress experienced by infants who were separated from their parents. He noticed

that infants cried, tried to prevent separation from their parents that was somehow

similar to other mammalian species.

Bowlby, proposed that these attachment behaviors were responses to separation

anxiety from a primary attachment figure who provides support, protection and care. He

suggested that infants who were able to maintain closeness to an attachment figure

were more likely to achieve a healthy adult relationship.

The attachment behavior system is an important factor in providing clues to how

connections are made between human development and emotions. If the attachment

figure is nearby, attentive and accessible then the child grows up feeling secure, loved

and confident and, if that is not the case then the child feels anxiety and is insecure.

Mary Ainsworth has made a crucial contribution to this theory. She classified three

different infant attachment styles. According to her research, at least three types of

children exist: children with secure relationships with their parents, characterized by low

anxiety and low avoidance. These individuals have a positive perception of self and feel

that they are worthy of love and response positively to emotions.

Low avoidance and high anxiety are characteristic of a preoccupied attachment style.

These individuals tend to have a negative self perception and see themselves as

unworthy of love and have a preoccupation with a need for acceptance from positively

evaluated individuals.

Low anxiety and high resistance is characteristic of anxious resistant attachment style.

People with such an attachment style have a positive perception of self but a negative

perception of others as dependent, clingy and needy.

Finally, an anxious-avoidant attachment style is shown by high anxiety and high

avoidance, which is evident as a discomfort with closeness in relationships.

With further exploration of this theory, it was suggested that childhood attachment styles

may affect relationships in adulthood. According to Hazan and Shaver, the childhood

experiences of attachment produce long lasting affects in romantic relationships in

adulthood. Hazan and Shaver (1987) said that the emotional bond that develops
between two adult romantic partners is a product of the same motivational system that

exists between infants and their care givers.

Attachment is responsible for:

 Outcome of future intimate relationships

 Emotional stability

 Satisfaction with one’s self and others

 Coping with disappointment, discouragement and misfortune

Attachment theory is fundamental to much research surrounding romantic relationships;

research exploring romantic relationships shows that secure and insecure attachment

styles show different behaviors in individuals.

Hazan and Shaver noticed some similarities in the relationship between infants and

caregivers and relationship between adult romantic partners such as:

 feel safe when the other is near and responsive

 engaging in close bodily contact

 feel insecure when the other is unavailable

 exhibit mutual fascination with each other

Hazan and Shaver, in their study on adult attachment styles found that the distribution

of categories in adults is the same as in infancy. In their study, 60% of the adults

perceived themselves as secure, 20% as avoidant and 20% an anxious resistant.

Even though it may be useful to study the link between attachment styles and

relationship functioning, it was not useful in finding similar individual differences

observed in infants may be present among adults.

In a naturalistic study on adults that separated them from their parents at an airport

shoes that their behaviors were linked with attachment related protest and care giving

were obvious and associated with attachment styles (Fraley & Shaver).

In cross cultural studies, it was observed that the most commonly occurring and

desirable attachment style between infants and mothers was a secure pattern of

attachment.(Ijzendoorn & Sagi, 1999).

Similar results emerged in adults seeking a long term relationship related to responsive

care giving qualities such as warmth and attentiveness in potential partners. (Zeifman &

Hazan, 1997).

Social neuroscience research proposes that brain structures are involved in attachment

functions (Coan, 2010).

A secure relationship entails care, love and support and allows the individuals in the

relationship to blossom and strengthen their capabilities; the proper functioning of an

attachment style is said to be vital in most stable long term relationships.(Cann et al,

2008).

Secure infants tend to be well adjusted. Adult attachment research has seen similar

patterns. It’s safe to say that secure adults are more satisfied than insecure adults.

Adult relationships are enduring, encompassing trust, commitment and interdependence

(Feeney, Noller, & Callan, 1994). Based on research, adults in a secure relationship

seek and give support when needed. (Simpson et al. 1996).

It is worthy of noting that attachment styles don’t have hard and fast rules. An individual

may not show same levels of avoidance and anxiety over time or across different

relationships. Many longitudinal studies insinuate that working models run toward

stability from infancy to adulthood, and adjust to some extent but do not carry into adult

life (Fraley, 2002; Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell, &Albersheim, 2000).

In contrast with secure people, relationships of anxious people are filled with insecurity,

conflict and jealousy.(Campbell, Simpson, Boldry, & Kashy, 2005;Collins & Read, 1990;

Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Levy & Davis, 1988; Simpson, Rholes, &Phillips, 1996). Hence,

highly avoidant individuals have low satisfaction, trust and commitment (Collins & Read,

1990; Levy & Davis, 1988) and avoidant people are not able to give or seek support to

their partners (B. Feeney & Collins, 2001; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992).

The theory of adult attachment has its share of controversies and complications. The

most concerning point is that an individual’s attachment style as an adult is a result of

his or her experiences with the parent figure.

In retrospect, it was found that adults who were secure in their relationships were able

to remember their childhood relationships with their parents as affectionate, accepting

and caring (Feeney & Noller, 1990).

The concern that emerges is whether attachment styles stay the same from infancy to

adulthood? The first concern is, how similar security is with different people in their lives

and secondly, with respect to these relationships, how stable is security over life time?
Fraley, in his study, collected results of one’s present attachment style with a parent and

a current romantic partner and found correlations ranging from 0.20-0.50 (i.e. small to

moderate) between the two relationships.

In context of the second concern, a longitudinal study analyzed the link between

security at age 1 and age 20 of the same people in their adult relationships and a

correlation of 0.17 was found between these two variables (Steele, Waters, Crowell, &

Treboux, 1998).

Based on these studies, it is evident that the attachment styles with parents and

romantic partners are moderately related. Some researchers feel that the most crucial

point of this theory is that the attachment style that originates in infancy, influences

behavior, feeling and thoughts well into adulthood (Fraley & Shaver, 2000).

The quality of a relationship has also been studies in adult romantic relationships with

reference to attachment styles (Levy & Davis, 1988). Davis noticed slight correlations

between love style and attachment style measures that gave limited support to the

relationships proposed by Hazan and Shaver.

Empirical evidence was also found that supported all three attachment styles: positive

relationship characteristics existed in a secure attachment; low satisfaction was

positively related to avoidant attachment style; and anxious attachment style was

negatively linked to positive relationship characteristics.

A study done recently by Hendrick and Hendrick supported the above; they assessed

many measures of love that included attachment items of Hazan and Shaver.
Among the subscale of these measures, reliable relationships were also observed. Love

addiction is another interesting factor surfaced by attachment styles (Cowan & Kinder,

1985; Peele, 1975) that is an extreme search and need for love depicted by intense

dependency. It could be equated with anxious-ambivalent attachment style.

Self esteem is thought to have an important role in attachment styles. Attachment

theory brings to light the influence of interrelated models of self and of relationships in

the continuum of attachment styles; hence the possibility that self esteem may be linked

with attachment styles.

Self esteem may be linked to attitudes toward love, although the relationship between

self esteem, forms of romantic love and self actualization are intricate (Dion & Dion,

1985, 1988; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). On the other hand, some researchers

suggest a negative relationship between self esteem and the extreme forms of love

(Tennov, 1979).

Cultural Aspects
Researchers propose that culture and attachment style may have a strong effect on

people’s way of thinking, behaving and feelings in romantic relationships. Attachment

styles vary greatly among cultures and that impacts on people’s romantic preferences,

ease when facing commitments and the dynamics of marital and romantic relationships.

Developmental theorists suggest that even though infancy is crucial, romantic

relationships may be explored in adolescence.

Erikson (1982) observed that a number of developmental tasks have to achieved in an

individual’s lifespan. Generally, theorists have focused mostly on infants’ first

developmental task: attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987) or learning to trust (Erikson

1982).

Mature relationships: According to Erikson, are characterized by the ability to balance

intimacy and interdependence. In love schemas model, there are six possible

categories in which people can be placed:

Secure- these are comfortable with emotional closeness and independence.

Clingy- they desire too much closeness but feel uneasy when forced to be independent.

Skittish- these individuals desire independence, but if forced to get too close they may

feel suffocated and leave.

Fickle- the fickle are uneasy with closeness and independence.

Then finally, there are two types of people who are not at all interested in relationships.

Casual- these people are only interested in problem free relationships.

Uninterested- they are not interested in any type of relationship romantic or otherwise,

with anyone or at anytime.

Hatfield and Rapson (2005) designed a scale to measure these six attachment styles.
In a prodigious study (Schmitt, 2008), 17000 men and women were interviewed from 56

nations. The results were as he predicted, in most cultures people claim to possess a

secure attachment style. The author says that parent-child bonds are universal across

cultures in human psychology.

Sprecher et al (1994) interviewed Americans, Russians and Japanese. It was found that

men and women identified themselves as secure in their relationships in all three

cultures. Doherty and his colleagues (1994), who interviewed Americans of Chinese,

European, Japanese and Pacific Islander ancestry, established similar results.

Culture does slightly affect how men and women define themselves. Sprecher et al

(1994) found that American men are more likely to possess a secure schema than are

Russian or Japanese men. American and Japanese women are more likely to possess

secure schemas than are Russian women.

Soon and Malley-Morrison (2002) suggested that, in general, East Asian’s are

collectivist in contrast to their western counterparts who are individualistic. They

endeavor for self-acceptance via the approval of highly valued others. In Schmitt’s study

of 56 nations, it was found that East Asians are prone to preoccupied style (clingy).

Chisholm (1999), struggled to provide an evolutionary explanation for societal

differences in people’s attachment styles. He argued that cultures which have plenty of

resources; people are able to possess long-term relationships and invest in secure

attachments, monogamy and a few high-quality offspring. In contradiction to cultures of

poverty, people have no other choice but to adopt short-term relationships.

Scholars think that gender with combination of culture is responsible for shaping men’s

and women’s attachment styles. Throughout time gender inequality has been prevalent.

Women were oppressed and often considered inferior than most. In such a situation,

women would be likely to fall into the clingy or dependent love category. Men on the

contrary, probably fell into the category of the casual and uninterested.

Historians believe gender equality influences people to perceive themselves as secure

and worthy of the same benefits as their partners.

Cultures differ greatly in values (Schwartz, 1992), self-schemas (Marcus & Kityama

1991), and cultural orientations (Triandis, 1992; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). More

specifically, culture may impact and shape romantic preferences, comfort with serious

romantic commitments, the fate of marriage and reaction to the separation or

termination of a relationship (Choo at al. 1996; Hatfield, Rapson, & Martel, 2007;

Hatfield, Singelis, et al., 2007).

Conclusion
Regrettably, scholarly research exploring the impact of culture, gender and attachment

style on romantic relations remains inadequate. Ideally, there would already be a body

of research on people’s views and visions of love in religious and secular communities;

in peaceful and warlike countries; urban and rural cities; and in poor and affluent

countries. Presently, some scholars hold the view that attachment style is a cultural

constant. Currently, it may be wished that researchers and clinicians instill more time to

attachment styles and their cultural influences and differences.