1. Attachment Styles
Week 4

2. Secure attachment
 (55-65% in non-clinical populations) In the Strange Situation (SS), the infants used the mother as a secure base from which to explore. The infants noticed when mom left the room and protested. When mother returned, the infant went straight to the mother to be held, was easily reassured, and quickly returned to play.
In the home, these parents were emotionally available, perceptive, and responsive to infant’s needs and mental states.
The internal working model of these infants is likely to be one that expects that their needs will be known and met, that they will be attuned to and emotionally regulated, and that they can freely explore their environment in safety.

3. Avoidant attachment
 (20-30% in low risk samples) In the SS infants did not use the mum much as a secure base from which to explore. When the mother began to leave the room, the infant might move toward her, but often did not. When the mother returned, the infant acted like she was not even there and just continued playing.
In the home, these parents were seen to be emotionally unavailable, imperceptive, unresponsive, and rejecting. Some were responsive in many non-emotional interactions, but were very dismissive and non-responsive when the infant was emotionally needy, frustrated, or angry.  These infants often expressed random aggression, and were more clingy and demanding in the home then securely attached infants.
The internal working model is likely, “mom does not respond to my emotions, especially when I am needy or angry, so I will shut down my needs and try to become independent.” The infants then protect themselves from this difficult situation by dissociating from contact with their normal need for connection, and repress their emotions more generally. This is a “deactivating” strategy with respect to attachment.

4. Ambivalent attachment
 (5-15% of low risk samples) Infants were more alert of the whereabouts of mother while playing. They were very upset when she left the room, immediately went to her upon return and got very clingy. Their behaviour upon reunion alternated between outbursts of anger and going limp, and in either case the infant was not soothed by the presence of the caregiver even if the mother was seen to be caring and emotionally available.
In these homes, the mother was inconsistently available for the infant, and when she was available she was often pre-occupied and un-attuned to the infant in her responses. These infants were the most anxious, clingy, and demanding at home.
The likely internal working model here is “even if mother is available physically, she will likely not be able to soothe me.” These infants respond by “over-activating” their attachment system.

5. Disorganized Attachment
 (20-40% in non-clinical populations) And up to 80% in situations of abuse. Infants who became disorganized in the SS when their mothers left the room, and also expressed disorganized patterns of behaviour on return (move towards mother, then away; freeze; go into a corner). They were not soothed if they made contact with the mother.
The homes of these infants often had physical or sexual abuse histories, psychologically disturbed parents, and/or parents with substance abuse.
Their inner working model of this relationship is not functional, and is one where the “supposed” source of soothing is also the source of danger — a situation of “fright without solution” — leaving their mind state and behaviour very disorganized.

6. Attachment Styles Secure Attachment (55-65%)
Avoidant Attachment (20-30%)
Ambivalent Attachment (5-15%)
Disorganised Attachment (20-40%)
Discuss

7. Western Concept of a Person Attachment Styles
Comparison
Western Concept of a Person
Attachment Styles

8. Western Concept of a person

9. Western Concept of a person
Post 1900s

10. Salman Rushdie – Midnight’s Children
“In the modern age we have come to understand our own selves as composites often contradictory, even internally incompatible. We understand that each of us is many different people. Our younger selves differ from our older selves; we can be bold in the company of lovers and timorous before our employers; principled when we instruct our children and corrupt when offered some secret temptation; we are serious and frivolous, loud and quiet, aggressive and easily abashed. The 19th century concept of the integrated self has been replaced by the jostling of I’s and yet unless we are damaged or deranged we usually have a relatively clear sense of who we are. I agree with my many selves to call all of them “me”.

11. Looking Ahead
What this means for parents raising children in today's world is sweeping. We need cultural changes - changes in expectation, in our view of parents, in our definitions of feminism and masculinity, in our economic systems and medical understandings.
In its broader applications, attachment theory requires us to rethink most of what our society has taught us. We must let go of old learning and erroneous information in order to re-attune to our own connective instincts. While this cannot be accomplished quickly, what we can do is apply this new knowledge to our own lives.

12. Ourselves
Perhaps the most difficult application of attachment theory lies in our own childhoods. Most of us were not raised within the attachment paradigm. We may worry about the choices we have made with our children, or the implications of our own childhoods on our current lives.
The brain is a flexible and complex organ that is always capable of new learning. The acceptance, belief, and practice of attachment parenting can be a healing experience for the parent while creating the best possible environment for the child.