Wednesday 28 January 2015

Attachment styles- avoidant attachment


qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm

FINAL PROJECT

ATTACHMENT STYLES










Contents




 







 

 

INTRODUCTION

Every human is pre programmed to bond with one important person in his life time. It could be your primary care giver as your mother. The emotional attachment between you and your mother is the first interactive attachment you ever had. Greatly this attachment depended upon non verbal communication. This bonding is the root of every relation you will ever have had in your life. . We have seen people in general who are afraid of expressing themselves and understanding emotions of others all this is because of confusing or broken emotional communication in childhood. This is the reason what limits them to build a successful relation. This relation could either be a romantic one or just with close friend or family.
Attachments play an important role in person’s life. If person had his first healthy attachment with his primary care giver it could shape his future relationships, ability to maintain emotional balance, and ability to rebound from disappointment and misfortune.

Stages of Attachment

1.     Pre Attachment Stage

 

 

2.      Indiscriminate Attachment:

3.     Discriminate Attachment

4.     Multiple Attachments:


INSECURE ATTACHMENTS

Attachment is of 2 basic types. : Secure and insecure. In secure attachments people are more comfortable with closeness and show more interest in each other life but in insecure relation it’s opposite
Insecure attachment may affect your relation and it starts with infant’s first attachment. If his first attachment fails to provide him recognition, structure and safety these insecurities may lead person to TURN UT TURN OFF, INSECURE attachment style (Appendix B)
Attachments could be in form of love i.e. romantic attachment or friendship

LOVE AND FRIENDSHIP

Love and friendship are two most important aspects of an individual’s life. They are a part of every culture and cannot be denied in any way. These emotions are experienced by all of us all around the world but expression of these emotions might differ slightly from culture to culture.
Although they both are important but most of the time they are either misunderstood or are overlapped.  Human brains are naturally wired for connection with others, as we experience loneliness and rejection as painful threats to survival. This is why, for centuries, for both biological and cultural reasons humans have believed the need of love and friendship to be truly fulfilled as Buss (1988), traces love to acts that are the outcome of evolutionary processes. This is why; both love and friendship are under the category of close relationships.
According to Kelly et al. Close relationships are those in which the behavior of two people is highly interdependent. Each individual frequently and strongly influences the other's behavior.
According to Adam and Allan (1998) “Relationships have a broader basis than the dyad alone; they develop and endure within a wider complex of interacting influences which help to give each Relationship Its Shape And Structure."

Love

Love has been called “the deepest and most meaningful of sentiments” according to Rubin (1970). Although what constitutes “love”, according to Aron et al. (2008), can have a myriad of meanings, ranging from concepts involving an initial state of attraction, to falling in love, to being or staying in love. Yet even though it is difficult to define love, according to (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Sternberg &Weis, 2006), falling in love and the consideration of such may not ever rise entirely above subjectivity. According to researchers Esch & Stefano (2005& 2007), almost everyone can relate to being or falling in love
According to Jackman (1994) love is depicted as bonds of mutual affection that help to maintain unequal relations between members of dominant and subordinate groups in society


Definitions of Love
Love has been defined differently by different psychologists:
According to Berscheid and Walster in 1978 “Love is described as passionate or companionate.
According to Hendrick and Hendrick in 1986 “love consists of six different styles.
According to Noller in 1996 it can be mature or immature.
According to social psychologist Zick Rubin, love is characterized by three different things: attachment, care and intimacy. 
Is Love Biological Or Cultural Phenomena?
According to the biological point of view, love is considered as a basic human emotion like anger or happiness. This concept is supported by Shaver, Morgan, and Wu (1996) who maintain that a "love surge" is a basic emotion.
While on the other hand, quite differently, the cultural view suggests that love is rather a cultural phenomenon that arises partly due to social pressures and expectations.
As, a psychologist and author Lawrence Casler once said, "I don't believe love is part of human nature, not for a minute. There are social pressures at work."
Love in Collective and Individualistic Societies
The distinction between collectivist cultures and individualistic cultures is frequently made in cross-cultural studies. In collectivist cultures, found in many Asian countries, an individual's identity is tied to his or her social group. In individualistic countries, such as the United States and Canada, the individual's independent identity is prioritized. People from collectivist cultures expect love to grow as the marriage unfolds over time. There is less emphasis on romance and infatuation. Instead people emphasize practical concerns, such as income potential and compatibility with the extended family. In contrast, people from individualist countries emphasize the passionate side of love when looking for a spouse. They focus on feelings of excitement and physical attraction.

Friendship

Friendship is a relationship of mutual affection between two or more people. As with any relationship, friendships bring support and joy and occasionally strife in an individual’s life, however one is unable to deny its importance in life.
Man is a social animal and for centuries he has been living in gathering. For survival it is must for an individual to make peers or friends as one is unable to survive without such relations. “Social networks are an important engine for human evolution,” Fowler said. “Our friends are sort of like family members. They’re functional kin.”
Anais Nin put it beautifully when she said, "Each friend represents a world in us, a world possibly not born until they arrive, and it is only by this meeting that a new world is born."
Familiarity Promotes Attraction
 A study led by psychologist Harry Reis, PhD, at the University of Rochester in 2011 suggests that familiarity leads to attraction. Two experiments are reported using a live interaction paradigm in which two previously unacquainted same-sex persons interacted with each other for varying amounts of time. Findings strongly supported the “familiarity leads to attraction.” The more participants interacted, the more attracted they were to each other.
Friends often do look alike according to researches conducted by different scientists. This study of people becoming friends with people that have similar appearances has been under study since The Time of Plato.
Biological Basis of Friendship
According to a study, our friends are as similar to us genetically as we would expect our fourth cousins to be. The research suggests that genetic factors are in unconscious of a person acting like a subtle breeze in the background, but are strong enough to be measured statistically in a big data set even if people in their day-to- day lives aren’t consciously aware of it.

Importance of Friendship
Mostly the cause of modern day problems like divorce hopelessness anxiety etc are considered to be poverty, stress or unhappiness. But during some recent researches scientists have suggested that for many years the world has been ignoring a much valuable and crucial aspect i.e. friendship and its importance.
Recent researches have proved that friendship plays an important role in different aspects of life and has proved to be helpful in difficult times.
Rath et al. undertook a massive study of friendship. The work revealed some most surprising statistics. The study suggested that if a person’s best friend eats healthily, he is five times more likely to have a healthy diet as well. In addition to this it also revealed that married people say friendship is more than five times as important as physical intimacy within marriage which shows that if an aspect of friendship is present in marriage the individuals are more likely to have a healthy relationship. Further, it showed those who say they have no real friends at work have only a one in 12 chance of feeling engaged in their job. Conversely, if you have a “best friend at work”, you are seven times more likely to feel engaged in your job.
According to an Australian study, conducted by the Centre for Ageing Studies at Flinders University, that followed nearly 1,500 older people for 10 years those who had a large network of friends outlived those with the fewest friends by 22%.
Friendship in Collectivistic and Individualistic Societies
Recent researches have also shed some light on core aspects of friendship that do not vary across with culture as well as those aspects that may vary from one culture to another. It has been noted by different researchers that only in individualistic western and modern industrialized societies friendship, like love, is based on more personal relations, free from social pressure and influence while in collectivistic societies friendship, similar to love, is rather affected by social influences.


LITERATURE REVIEW:

Attachment Theory and Styles In Relationships:

Attachment theory is an area of psychology that describes the nature of emotional attachment between humans. Developing healthy emotional attachments with other people leads to greater happiness, productivity, and stability in one’s life. Attachment theory isn’t new, and its research is robust. It was developed in the 1950’s by psychologists John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth and has evolved and developed up until present day, encompassing the nature of relationships between family members, romantic interests and even friendships.
Attachment Strategies
According to psychologists, there are four attachment strategies people adopt:
 Secure anxious, avoidant, and anxious-avoidant.
Secure: People with secure attachment strategies are comfortable displaying interest and affection. They are also comfortable being alone and independent. They’re able to correctly prioritize their relationships within their life and tend to draw clear boundaries and stick to them. Secure attachment types obviously make the best romantic partners, family members and even friends. They’re capable of accepting rejection and moving on despite the pain, but are also capable of being loyal and sacrificing when necessary. They have little issue trusting people they’re close to, and are trustworthy themselves. According to research, over 50% of the population is secure attachment types. Secure attachment is developed in childhood by infants who regularly get their needs met, as well as receive ample quantities of love and affection.
Anxious: Anxious attachment types are often nervous and stressed about their relationships. They need constant reassurance and affection from their partner. They have trouble being alone or single. They’ll often succumb to unhealthy or abusive relationships. They have trouble trusting people, even if they’re close to them. Their behavior can be irrational, sporadic, and overly-emotional and complain that every one of the opposite sex are cold and heartless.
Avoidant: Avoidant attachment types are extremely independent, self-directed, and often uncomfortable with intimacy. They’re commitment-phobic and experts at rationalizing their way out of any intimate situation. They regularly complain about feeling “crowded” or “suffocated” when people try to get close to them. In every relationship, they always have an exit strategy. And they often construct their lifestyle in such a way to avoid commitment or too much intimate contact.
Anxious-Avoidant: Anxious-avoidant attachment types (also known as the “fearful type”) bring together the worst of both worlds. Anxious-avoidant is not only afraid of intimacy and commitment, but they distrust and lash out emotionally at anyone who tries to get close to them. Anxious-avoidant often spend much of their time alone and miserable, or in abusive or dysfunctional relationships. According to studies, only a small percentage of the population qualifies as anxious-avoidant types, and they typically have a multitude of other emotional problems in other areas of their life
RELATIONSHIP CONFIGURATIONS 
Different attachment types tend to configure themselves into relationships in predictable ways. Secure types are capable of dating (or handling, depending on your perspective) both anxious and avoidant types. They’re comfortable enough with themselves to give anxious types all of the reassurance they need and to give avoidant types the space they need without feeling threatened themselves.
Anxious and avoidant frequently end up in relationships with one another more often than they end up in relationships with their own types. That may seem counter-intuitive, but there’s logic behind the madness. Avoidant types are so good at putting others off that oftentimes it’s only the anxious types who are willing to stick around and put in the extra effort to get them to open up. For instance, a man who is avoidant may be able to successfully shirk a secure woman’s pushes for increased intimacy. After which, the secure woman will accept the rejection and move on. But an anxious woman will only become more determined by a man who pushes her away. She’ll resort to calling him for weeks or months on end until he finally caves and commits to her. This gives the avoidant man the reassurance he needs that he can behave independently and the anxious woman will wait around for him. Often these relationships produce some magnitude of dysfunctional equilibrium as they fall into a pattern of chaser-chasee, which are both roles the anxious and avoidant types need in order to feel comfortable with intimacy.

Researches:

According to Bowlby (1969), the human infant is born with a biologically programmed system evolved to allow for the formation of an emotional bond, or attachment, with a primary caregiver. This attachment system allows or the infant to use their caregiver as a “secure base” (Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969) from which to explore their environment and whom, in times of danger or perceived threat, can be used as a source of comfort and protection. The attachment pattern an infant develops is dependent upon the nature of their caregiver’s interactions with them. Through extensive home observations and use of the strange situation, Ainsworth et al. (1971, 1978) were able to determine that in cases where the caregiver was repeatedly and consistently responsive to their child’s attachment needs, that child would develop a fundamental trust in their availability, that is, a secure attachment pattern.
In cases of inconsistent or limited responsiveness to attachment needs, Ainsworth et al. (1978) put forward that the child would be unable to develop that same trust in caregiver availability and would instead develop one of two insecure attachment patterns: an anxious–ambivalent or avoidant attachment pattern. Fundamental to these different attachment patterns is the concept of internal working models: representations that reflect, and develop in response to, specific interpersonal experiences, particularly those with early primary caregivers (Bowlby, 1973).
 These representations are to be carried 834 Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 26(6–7) by individuals into adulthood. Functioning in similar ways as in childhood, they serve to guide and influence how individuals attend to, interpret, and behave in later close relationships (Pietromonaco & Feldman Barrett, 2000). According to Bowlby (1973), individuals hold two complementary internal models, a model of self, that is, how acceptable and loveable one is in the eyes of their attachment figure, and a model of other, concerning how responsive and available one’s attachment figure is perceived to be.
Although originally conceptualized as falling under one of three categories (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), subsequent to this, adult attachment has also been as divided into four attachment styles (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) emerging from two underlying dimensions: anxiety, concerning the extent to which individuals worry about abandonment and rejection; and avoidance, concerning the extent to which individuals limit intimacy with others (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000).
Tel Aviv university psychologist Dr. Sharon Dekel and Barry Farber (2012), did research on question that if certain behavior; avoidant attachment; is due to innate personality traits. They did their study on 58 adults aged between 22 to 28.The results shown that 22.4 percent of participants that were involved in research were avoidant when it comes to their relationship. This behavior was categorized by demonstrating anxiety about intimacy. All in all they showed less personal satisfaction in their relationships than others who are in stable relationships. Dekel and farber do believe that basis of this commitment issue lies in adult trying to meet childhood needs. Both secure and avoidant attachments have desire to be intimate but avoidant are usually conflicted about this need due to complicated parent child relation when they were younger. They based this research on attachment theory. They believe that child hood experiences have strong affect on adult relations. Dekel said that people in avoidant attachment are most likely to follow ‘infant-mother’ intimacy model. In this they attempt to fulfill their unmated childhood needs. Their tendency to avoid dependence on partner is actually a defense mechanism rather than avoidance of intimacy. Dekel explained that they are actually looking for somebody who accepts them as they are meeting their need as well as stay calm.




 

 

OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS

CLOSE

The CLOSE means to what extent a person is comfortable with closeness and intimacy

ANXIETY

The ANXIETY means to what extent a person is worried about being abandoned or unloved.

DEPENDENCE

The DEPEND means to what extent a person feels he/she can depend on others to be available when needed

AVOIDANT ATTACHMENT STYLE

People having avoidant attachment style as defined by Collin & Reed (1990) these people feel uncomforted in getting close to others. They want to make close relations but they found difficult to depend on others. They avoid close relations because they don’t trust others. They possess mixed feelings at one hand they want to make emotionally close relations and on the other hand they become nervous when others make close relations with them. They suppress and hide their feelings because of their mixed feeling and un-trust to others.


 

METHODOLOGY

HYPOTHESIS

People having avoidant attachment style avoids to get closer and intimate in close relations.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants in our study include 50 randomly selected undergrad students of FATIMA JINNAH WOMEN UNIVERSITY and NUML UNIVERSITY. Sampling involved. Nine students said they are committed, six were married and thirty-five were single. Age group of students involved 18-28 years.

INSTRUMENT

Revised Adult Attachment Scale (Collins, 1996 )- Close Relationships Version is a 18 item five-point likert type questionnaire that provides a measure of attachment styles on the basis of closeness, dependence and anxiety. It yields two score: AVOIDANCE; or discomfort with closeness and dependency and ANXIETY; fear of abandonment.  Scale contains three subscales, each composed of six items.  The three subscales are CLOSE, DEPEND, and ANXIETY.  The CLOSE scale measures the extent to which a person is comfortable with closeness and intimacy.  The DEPEND scale measures the extent to which a person feels he/she can depend on others to be available when needed.  The ANXIETY subscale measures the extent to which a person is worried about being abandoned or unloved. . This distribution with respect each attachment style was recommended in original scale. It was kept same for the present study. Each statement was scored on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Highest score on subscale determine the preferred attachment Demographic detail of questionnaire included age, education; year of graduation, gender and status either they are single, committed or married. (Appendix A).

PROCEDURE

In this study questionnaire were distributed to 50 participants. Oral consent was taken from all of the participants and none of them had any issue on use of data for research. Once the questionnaire was given participants were asked to fill demographics first. Time of starting was recorded and participants were encouraged if they will do it without their friend’s suggestions. Our sample involved 23 females and 27 males. Maximum time taken by every participant was five minutes. And it took 3 days to complete the data collection involving going to the location. Participants were encouraged to ask questions if they have any difficulty. Participants were informed about the purpose of research and answers to their every query were provided. No ethical barrier was breached during this research.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data was inserted in excel sheet where in every sheet data for anxiety, closeness, avoidance and dependence was entered. For subscales six items were recorded. Sum for every participant was calculated as well as the mean of every participant separately for every subscale. Questions with asterisk sign was entered as reverse score i.e. 5=1, 4=2, 3=3, 2=4, and 1=5;
Scoring Patterns: 
Average the ratings for the six items that compose each subscale as indicated below. 
 Scale                          Item
CLOSE           1    6   8* 12   13*   17*
DEPEND        2* 5   7* 14   16*   18*
ANXIETY      3   4    9    10   11    15
* Items with an asterisk should be reverse scored before computing the subscale mean.
Alternative Scoring:
If you would like to compute only two attachment dimensions – attachment anxiety (model of self) and attachment avoidance (model of other) – you can use the following scoring procedure:
Scale               Items  
ANXIETY      3   4    9    10   11    15
AVOID           1*  2  5*  6*  7  8  12*  13  14*  16  17  18
* Items with an asterisk should be reverse scored before computing the subscale mean.

RESULTS

As mentioned above mean and sum for every subscale was calculated. It was observed that participants with high score on close, dependence and anxiety had relatively high score on avoidant attachment too.
People who score low on attachment related anxiety more tend to be secure in their partner response in spite of those who had high score on this variable. Mean for this scale was 17.4
Other variable was attachment related closeness. People having high score in this dimension don’t rely on others or open up to others easily whereas those who are on lower end are more comfortable on openness and are more intimate .  Mean for this scale was 19.4
 Third variable was attachment related dependence. People having high score in this scale are less dependent on their partners and prefer to work y themselves. Mean for this scale was 16.62
All these three subscales help us to observe that people with high score on closeness, dependence and anxiety had high score on avoidant attachment too. Mean for this scale was 35.76. This affirms that people with this type of attachment have difficulty on relying on others in close relations.

 





DISCUSSION

Results had clearly shown that people with avoidant style attachment have difficulty in getting close to others. They tend to avoid relation because of their inability to trust others. These styles have deep roots in their childhood. They categorize their parents having less warmth to each other and child too. Passer and Smith explained avoidant persons as angry aggressive isolated. They actually possess mixed feelings of desiring for close and intimate elation and on other hand having difficulty getting close to others. They start to hide feelings resulting in inability to be in intimate relation. They often avoid intimacy by using excuses (such as long work hours), or may fantasize about other people during sex. Research has also shown that adults with an avoidant attachment style are more accepting and likely to engage in casual sex. Other common characteristics include a failure to support partners during stressful times and an inability to share feelings, thoughts, and emotions with partners.
In spite of all these inabilities researches have shown that they have ability to be in long term relation and stable one too.
Although insecure adults tend to have less satisfying relationships, their relationships are not always less stable. For example, in a four-year prospective study, Lee Kirkpatrick and Cindy Hazan (1994) found that the relationships of avoidant respondents were quite stable over time despite their initial, negative ratings of relationship quality. Likewise, in a four-year prospective study of newlyweds, Joanne Davila and Thomas Bradbury (2001) found that insecure individuals were more likely to be involved in unhappy but stable marriages over time. These studies suggest that insecure adults may be more willing than secure adults to tolerate unhappy relationships, perhaps because they are less confident about their available alternatives.



CONCLUSION
every person has innate ability to bond with some person in his life. Initially it’s his primary care taker till 11 months of age after that he start to accepts other attachments in his life such as father , siblings etc. these relation are basic roots how he will behave in his future relationships over span of life. These relationships could either be with someone he love i.e. romantic relation or someone who is closer to him i.e. family and friends. We all experience love and friendship in different ways as it depend greatly on culture in which we are living in but these are expressed differently and its expression depends upon type of attachment style we follow. Although this too has basis in our childhood depending upon relation we had with our primary caretaker. Yet Collin in his attachment theory gave four kinds of attachments i.e. secure, anxious, avoidant, and anxious-avoidant. Above research has shown that people with avoidant attachment style are more tend to be insecure in their relation. They are less dependent on others as well as they have issues with intimacy too. But this does not means that they are incapable of having long term relation. In fact studies have shown that people with insecure relationship style are more capable of forming long term relations rather than secure ones.

   

 

 

 



   Appendix A

Revised Adult Attachment Scale (Collins, 1996) - Close Relationships Version
SINGLE
COMMITTED
MARRIED
AGE:_______                                          GENDER:___________________
EDUCATION:____________                             STATUS :                                                          
The following questions concern how you generally feel in important close relationships in your life. Think about your past and present relationships with people who have been especially important to you, such as family members, romantic partners, and close friends. Respond to each statement in terms of how you generally feel in these relationships.
Please use the scale below by placing a number between 1 and 5 in the space provided to the right of each statement. 
1---------------2---------------3---------------4---------------5
       Not at all characteristic of me                                                                     very characteristic of me                                                                                                     
1)         I find it relatively easy to get close to people.                                                            ________
2)         I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on others.                                              ________
3)         I often worry that other people don't really love me.                                     ________
4)         I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.                                   ________
5)         I am comfortable depending on others.                                                                      ________
6)         I don’t worry about people getting too close to me.                                      ________
7)         I find that people are never there when you need them.                                            ________
8)         I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others.                                     ________
9)         I often worry that other people won’t want to stay with me.                                    ________
10)       When I show my feelings for others, I'm afraid they will not feel the                       ________
            same about me.                                                                     
11)       I often wonder whether other people really care about me.                           ________
12)       I am comfortable developing close relationships with others.                                    ________
13)       I am uncomfortable when anyone gets too emotionally close to me.             ________
14)       I know that people will be there when I need them.                                      ________
15)       I want to get close to people, but I worry about being hurt.                          ________
16)       I find it difficult to trust others completely.                                                   ________
17)       People often want me to be emotionally closer than I feel comfortable being.          ________
18)       I am not sure that I can always depend on people to be there when I need them.    ________
     



 Appendix B



Attachment Style
Parental Style
Resulting Adult Characteristics
Secure
Aligned with the child; in tune with the child’s emotions
Able to create meaningful relationships; empathetic; able to set appropriate boundaries
Avoidant
Unavailable or rejecting
Avoids closeness or emotional connection; distant; critical; rigid; intolerant
Ambivalent
Inconsistent and sometimes intrusive parent communication
Anxious and insecure; controlling; blaming; erratic; unpredictable; sometimes charming
Disorganized
Ignored or didn’t see child’s needs; parental behavior was frightening/traumatizing
Chaotic; insensitive; explosive; abusive; untrusting even while craving security
Reactive
Extremely unattached or malfunctioning
Cannot establish positive relationships; often misdiagnosed

 

 




REFERENCES

Works Cited

Achenbach, J. (14, July). health and science. the washigton post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/research-human-friendships-based-on-genetic-similarities-beyond-the-superficial/2014/07/14/8aea04fe-0ab5-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html
Cohen, L. J. ( 2011, February 7). The Psychology of Love. Handy Psychology Answers. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/handy-psychology-answers/201102/the-psychology-love
Keller, M. (n.d.). A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Friendship Research. Retrieved from https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/volltexte/institut/dok/full/keller/acrosscu/ISSBD.pdf
Valeo, T. (n.d.). The Health Benefits of Good Friends. WebMD: Better information. Better health. Retrieved from http://www.webmd.com/balance/features/good-friends-are-good-for-you
Collingwood, J. (2008). The Importance of Friendship. Psych Central. Retrieved on Decembe  13, 2014, from http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-importance-of-friendship/0001381
Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 111-184). New York: Wiley
Retrieved from http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/12/11/attachment-style-may-factor-into-fear-of-commitment/48925.html


No comments:

Post a Comment