While the topic of romance and love has been at the root of man’s lament, it is still one that’s source eludes clear definition. Understanding romantic attachment through personality psychology might have saved a lot of poets some heartache. A neo-analytical approach to explaining love, such that of Erik Erikson, sees love as the result of a healthy childhood where they are not stuck at the sixth stage of psychosocial developmental (Friedman & Schustack, 2016). In later years, a modern psychologist, Philip Shaver, and his associates explained that the nature of one’s childhood attachment is reflected in their adult relationships and how they perceive romantic attachment. Shaver explained there are three styles of romantic attachments, (a) secure lovers who easily form close relationships, (b) avoidant lovers who have trouble trusting others and feel uncomfortable being close and vulnerable, and (c) anxious-ambivalent lovers who want to have close relationships but are insecure and can be seen as desperate.
Parallel research in different, but related fields brought Bowlby and Ainsworth together as collaborators in developing the Attachment Theory. Bowlby’s theories were conceived through research on the bonding patterns and behaviors between infants and mothers. He noted infant’s emotional reactions upon separation from their primary caregivers in the form of protest, despair or detachment. Assuming model child rearing, the child will be emotionally attached to their caregiver because their emotional needs were responsively met (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
Following along with the example of infant care, an example of an anxious-ambivalent attachment can be visible in an infant if the caregiver has mismatched responsive or responding styles, possibly because the caregiver misreads the infant cues, is slow to respond or is inconsistent in responding. Avoiding attachment may result if an infant perceives or feels rejected by their primary caregiver (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).
When grown up, avoidant lovers might have difficulties forming or sustaining romantic relationships, perhaps they may also choose emotionally or physically unavailable partners. Avoidant lovers may find it difficult sharing their innermost feelings or being honest with their partners. Anxious-ambivalent lovers might want to desperately form attachments but are insecure in their relationships and may seem needy or clingy, which can potentially scare off mates (Friedman & Schustack, 2016).
References
Friedman, H. S., & Schustack, M. W. (2016). Love and Hate. In Personality: Classic theories and modern research (6th ed). (pp. 322-341). Pearson.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Comments
Post a Comment