Advice about attachment relationships
Today, I present three studies of attachment relationships, each making a valuable contribution to our understanding of the impacts of attachment. The first is the simplest to accept. Dagan et al. (2023) published, “Configurations of Mother-Child and Father-Child Attachment Relationships as Predictors of Child Language Competence: An individual participant data meta-analysis” in Child Development. Here’s the abstract:
An individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted to test pre-registered hypotheses about how the configuration of attachment relationships to mothers and fathers predicts children's language competence. Data from seven studies (published between 1985 and 2014) including 719 children (Mage: 19.84 months; 51% female; 87% White) were included in the linear mixed effects analyses. Mean language competence scores exceeded the population average across children with different attachment configurations. Children with two secure attachment relationships had higher language competence scores compared to those with one or no secure attachment relationships (d = .26). Children with two organized attachment relationships had higher language competence scores compared to those with one organized attachment relationship (d = .23), and this difference was observed in older versus younger children in exploratory analyses. Mother-child and father-child attachment quality did not differentially predict language competence, supporting the comparable importance of attachment to both parents in predicting developmental outcomes.
The findings that having two secure attachment relationships correlates with language competence and having a disorganized relationship interferes with language are not surprising. I especially like the finding that attachments to mothers and fathers are equally important.
The next study looks more at theory. Dugan, Fraley, Gillath & Deboeck (2023) published “Testing the Canalization Hypothesis of Attachment Theory: Examining within-subject variation in attachment security” in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The abstract follows:
According to the canalization hypothesis of attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973), people’s trajectories of attachment security should become increasingly stable and buffered against external pressures as their relationships progress. The present study aimed to examine this hypothesis within the context of romantic relationships. We analyzed longitudinal data collected from 1,741 adults who completed between three and 24 survey assessments (average number of waves analyzed = 6.79, SD = 5.31; median test–retest interval = 35 days). We modeled participants’ within-person fluctuations in partner-specific security as a function of their romantic relationship length. Additionally, we examined whether attachment-related events (e.g., conflict with one’s partner) predict greater within-person fluctuations in security among people involved in newer versus more established romantic relationships. Our results suggest that people in newer romantic relationships demonstrated greater fluctuations in partner-specific attachment anxiety—both generally and in reaction to attachment-related events—compared to those in well-established romantic relationships. However, neither of these trends was observed for partner-specific attachment avoidance. These results provide partial support for the canalization hypothesis but also suggest that canalization processes may be more nuanced than previously assumed.
Given the context in which Bowlby studied attachment decades ago, it makes sense to me that his notion of canalization fits best in stable family relationships. Clearly, early in a relationship attachment, anxiety may fluctuate more frequently. It also makes sense that attachment avoidance does not follow the more stable and better buffered path that secure attachment is likely to follow. This work may be especially helpful in dealing with clients where one partner has a more avoidant style; in that instance, relationship stability may be harder to achieve.
The final study looks at college students. Jeong, Shimono, Mallinckrodt & Baldwin (2023) published “Adult Attachment, Emotional Intelligence, Affect Regulation, and Self-Reported Distress in First-Year College Students at a Predominantly White University” in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Here are edited abstract and impact statements:
The transition to college presents developmental challenges for young adults similar to those presented by Ainsworth et al. (1978) laboratory “strange situation” for young children. For both, adaptation to an unfamiliar environment is facilitated by managing anxiety that otherwise interferes with exploration. According to the Mikulincer and Shaver (2018) model of attachment dynamics, when coping with threats, adults who cannot recruit support from a secure attachment figure engage in one of two secondary strategies: hyperactivation or deactivation. Each strategy is associated with unique patterns of affect regulation deficits that lead to psychological distress (Nielsen et al., 2017). In our study, undergraduates (N = 122; 83% White) 2 months after starting college at a predominantly White university completed survey measures of adult attachment, emotional intelligence, emotion regulation, and psychological distress. More than 25% reported symptoms above a clinical cutoff for significant distress. Cross-sectional correlation findings supported a model with associations between adult attachment insecurity and psychological distress, mediated by emotional intelligence and affect regulation deficits. Consistent with the Mikulincer and Shaver (2018) attachment hyperactivation and deactivation model, attachment anxiety, but not avoidance, was associated with problems in impulse control and repairing negative moods. Avoidance, but not anxiety, was associated with devaluing attending to feelings. Two variables appear to be especially important mediators: lack of clarity about feelings and lack of strategies for emotion regulation.
In this snapshot sample of first-year college students 2 months after their transition to a large, public, predominantly White university, approximately one quarter experienced clinically significant psychological distress. Distress was associated with adult attachment insecurity, which in turn was associated with problems managing strong emotions. Learning to pay attention to feelings, to identify and clarify what one is feeling, and to repair negative moods may be important skills for new college students—especially for those with attachment anxiety.
While the first two studies have fairly predictable findings, I appreciate this one both for drawing the analogy to the Strange Situation in describing the transition to college and for highlighting the Mikulincer and Shaver work on threat. It seems to me that that this work may well apply to other transitions as well.