It is difficult to reconcile a world, no more than fifty years ago, where parents were discouraged from visiting their children in hospital for fear of upsetting them, with the central place an understanding of attachment theory now holds. Originally proposed by Bowlby to explain the emotional tie of a child to their parent, it has expanded to include ‘adult romantic relationships, the origins of developmental continuity and change, developmental psychopathology, and public policy problems concerning divorce and custody, childcare, and child protection.’
Where are we Now?
With such a plethora of ideas it is important to consider what we currently know about attachment theory’s fundamental concepts. This challenge was met by authors Thompson, Simpson & Berlin (2022) who posed 9 key questions to 75 commentators in the attachment field. They were curious to investigate where theoretical consensus existed and where debate continued and new questions or problems that have appeared that require further exploration.
What Did They Ask?
The authors devised 9 ‘fundamental questions’ they believed were central to current attachment thinking and asked respondents to comment on the state of theory in relation to each. These questions were, ‘what constitutes an attachment relationship, how to measure the security of attachment, the nature and functioning of internal working models, stability and change in attachment security, the legacy of early attachment relationships, attachment and culture, responses to separation and loss, how attachment-based interventions work, and how attachment theory informs systems and services for children and families.’
Did They Agree?
While there is no question that attachment theory has grown and evolved over the past half century there are significant differences in the views of the contributors. While there is agreement about the function of attachment relationships in the provision of a safe haven and secure base there were a range of views about how these relationships differ from one another and about the development of attachment relationships across the lifespan and significance of early relationships.
Another key area of difference relates to internal working models (IWM), a concept central to Bowlby’s theory. The views collated were described as ‘diverse’ reflecting the theoretical, range with ‘no clear consensus about what IWMs are and how they operate’.
In Conclusion
The authors conclude that ‘we believe that attachment theory needs an integrated lifespan view of attachment and its development, one that has a central theoretical focus on IWMs, how they operate, and how they develop and change over the life course.’ This requires a synthesis of work conducted by developmental, clinical, and social/personality researchers to create a more coherent, consolidated perspective. A focus on IWM is important in understanding which interventions are effective and why they work.
It appears that attachment theory is a significant construct that has stood the test of time but one that requires ‘considerable development and refinement in theory, especially reconciling the different understandings of attachment that exist in different research communities, as well as development in methodology, particularly measuring IWMs better and more directly.’
Ross A. Thompson, Jeffry A. Simpson & Lisa J. Berlin (2022) Taking perspective on attachment theory and research: nine fundamental questions, Attachment & Human Development, 24:5, 543-560, DOI: 10.1080/14616734.2022.2030132
©Copyright Bower Place Pty. Ltd. 2024
