Attachment Theory

History

Attachment theory was first coined by a British psychologist and psychoanalyst named John Bowlby in the 1950s. Bowlby studied the emotional, developmental, and cognitive impact of separation between infants and their primary caregivers. According to Bowlby’s theory, children look to their primary caregivers when they are in need and how the caregiver response impacts their child’s emotional development. In 1969 John Bowbly introduced attachment theory as a psychological framework to understand the emotional bonds formed in close relationships, originally rooted in the interaction behavior between an infant and their primary caregiver (Davis & Jowett, 2010; Felton & Jowett, 2015). Nearly a decade later Mary Ainsworth, a colleague of Bowlby’s, provided empirical research to support attachment theory, resulting in the categorization of different attachment styles (Felton & Jowett, 2015). Attachment theory was expanded on by countless other researchers, most notably Mary Ainsworth. Ainsworth created an observational technique called “the Strange Situation” in 1969, in which childhood behavior was closely observed specifically when a child was reunited with their primary caregiver after being separated for a short time.

Attachment Types

The four types of attachment styles are: secure, avoidant, anxious-ambivalent, and disorganized. Each of these types of attachment styles are rooted in an individual’s childhood relationships to their primary caregivers, have been found to greatly impact the structure and behavioral patterns of an individual’s close relationships into adulthood. Here’s a summary of the different attachment styles.

1. Secure Attachment

In times of need, secure attachment reflects confidence in the availability and dependability of close relationships (Felton & Jowett, 2015). In childhood, caregivers had positive intentions to immediately and appropriately respond to the infants needs, and repair ruptures in the relationship. Children feel safe and trust they can rely on their caregivers.  As a result, the children generally feel secure to use their caregiver as a “secure base” while they continue to explore their surroundings.  

2. Avoidant Attachment

Avoidant attachment is marked by a minimal display of distress during separation in close relationships, and few attempts and maintaining contact (Felton & Jowett, 2015). In childhood primary caregivers cannot be trusted to fulfill the child’s needs. The child’s primary caregiver is either not present to them, or emotionally available. The child might feel as though the caregiver does not know or care to know who they are as a person inside and they feel disconnected. As a result, the child or adult acts indifferent when the caregiver leaves and returns. They typically put up a guard as a self-defense mechanism or act emotionally distant. They also do not continue to explore their surroundings when the care giver is present.

As adults, avoidant attachment often shows up as a rigidly defined and fragile sense. Adults with avoidant attachment tend to not be open to new experiences. Adults may might describe love as fleeting or extremely rare, they may experience problems with intimacy and often separate the act of sex from “love”. They are more likely to focus on physical sensations or performance during sexual encounters and their romantic relationships oftentimes lack emotion. Avoidant adults also tend to dismiss or ignore their own personal needs, as well as the needs of their loved ones, express less empathy and emotional support, and are also likely to struggle with sharing emotional feelings or deep personal thoughts

3. Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment

Anxious-ambivalent attachment, or simply anxious attachment, constantly desires proximity and displays withdraw symptoms such as anxiety, stress, and occasional anger in stressful situations such as separation from a close relationship (Felton & Jowett, 2015). Children with ambivalent attachment towards their primary caregiver are likely to show signs ambivalence towards their caregiver or ignore them when they are reunited, but show signs of anger, confusion, or defiance when the caregiver leaves.

4. Disorganized Attachment

In disorganized attachment, children are frightened by their primary caregiver. In this case the child feels confused by the conflict emotions of both needing their caregiver, but also feeling threatened by them. As a result, the child might display signs of confusion, anger, or depression.

Attachment & Sport

Within the past two decades, a growing number of researchers have begun to explore the application of attachment theory in sport (Davis et al., 2013). The majority of research studies and literature that examine athlete and coach attachment relationships in the context of sport teams consistently suggest that an athlete’s secure attachment relationship with both their teammates and coach does result in higher quality friendships with teammates (Carr 2009; Diaconu-Gherasim & Duca, 2018) and coaches (Davis et al., 2013), increased self-esteem and self-acceptance (Peng et al., 2020), and ultimately a greater sense of well-being and more satisfaction in sport (Davis & Jowett, 2010). This is significant because examining relationship systems in sports through the lens of attachment theory has the potential to provide valuable insight into communication styles, behavioral patterns, and affect regulation among participants (Dizdari & Seiler, 2020).

Closing

In attachment theory, it is important to understand that one person does not necessarily stay the same throughout the course of their entire life with every relationship that they are in. People change, especially after devoting time to processing their childhood experiences and relationships in counseling. There is significant research that tells us that childhood experiences definitely impact development, however it’s really important to remember that the trajectory can be changed. In other words, you cannot blame your parents for the relationships that you are struggling with as an adult. Your current relationships are actually mostly influenced by how you have processed your childhood relationships.

Referenes

Carr, S. (2009). Adolescent-parent attachment characteristics and quality of youth sport friendship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 653–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. psychsport.2009.04.001.

Davis, L., & Jowett, S. (2013). Attachment styles within the coach-athlete dyad: Preliminary investigation and assessment development. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 7, 120-145. 

Diaconu-Gherasim, L. R., & Duca, D. S. (2018). Parent-Adolescent Attachment and Interpersonal Relationships in Sports Teams: Exploring the Gender Differences. Gender Issues, 35(1), 21–37. https://doi-org.uws.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s12147-017-9190-0

Dizdari, H., & Seiler, R. (2020). Key players in sport teams. An exploratory study on the effects of attachment styles on intra-team relational networks. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 51. https://doi-org.uws.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101798

Felton, L., & Jowett, S. (2015). On understanding the role of need thwarting in the association between athlete attachment and well/ill-being. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 25, 289-298. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24593151/

Siegel, D. J. (2011). The neurobiology of “we”: How relationships, the mind, and the brain interact to shape who we are. Sounds True. https://www.soundstrue.com/products/the-neurobiology-of-we