There are a couple discussions they do not have to be long Unit 4 – Discussion A Worldview Perspective Transformation ( p 28-29) Identify a psycho-cultural assumption (either about the way you feel
CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS IN ADULTHOOD As was discussed in a previous section of this workbook, a key component of psychological well-being is having positive relations with others. Carol Ryff described a high scorer on this dimension as having “warm, satisfying, trusting relations with others; is concerned about the welfare of others; capable of strong empathy, affection, and intimacy; and understands give and take of human relationships.” And, as Martin Seligman notes, these relationships can include family, friends, and co-workers. What follows focuses on the basic human propensity to form close relationships. It draws on attachment theory (discussed previously), and is focused in particular on pair bonding, most usually associated with romantic love. Having said that, much of what follows can also apply to other close, non-romantic relationships in a person’s life. The starting point for this discussion will be the work of Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver, who based their ideas on those of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHILDHOOD AND ADULT ATTACHMENT In infancy and childhood, the parent (the attachment figure) provides care and security to the infant, while the infant seeks but does not provide care and security in return. In adulthood, adult attachment relationships are generally reciprocal, with each partner both giving and receiving care and security. Also, in infancy and childhood the attachment figure is the parent, but in adulthood the “primary attachment figure is most commonly a peer, usually a sexual partner” (Hazan & Shaver, 1994, p.8.). Hazen and Shaver view relationship formation and maintenance in the context of interacting behavioral systems, with attachment playing a dominant role. In looking at the “pair bond” (two persons in a close relationship), they see three behavioral systems interacting: attachment, care giving, and sexual mating. Within the behavioral system of attachment, they see three dynamics at play: proximity maintenance (the desire for closeness with the partner), safe haven (a place to turn for comfort and support—“especially during times of illness, danger, or threat”), and secure base (an assurance that the relationship has permanence and that it promotes “feeling of security and confidence” which facilitates exploration) (Hazan & Shaver, 1994, Fraley & Shaver, 2000, p. 138). THE FORMATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP There is a typical sequence to the formation of the relationship, which brings together the behavioral systems described above. First there is the need for proximity, usually supported by the desire for a romantic relationship and sexual mating. As a by-product of this closeness, the safe haven component kicks in. In the beginning of a relationship mutual attraction and sexual passion are the dominant dynamics. But over time the safe haven component becomes more important. So while physical attraction and sexual passion get folks together, “what matters most is whether the partner serves as a reliable haven of safety.” The secure base aspect of attachment theory has to do with providing partners with assurance that they will remain in the relationship over time and with a sense of security that enables them to confidently interact with the outside world. This is the function that marriage performs: “a legally binding, public promise to care for the partner until death” (Hazan & Shaver, 1994, p. 11). WHAT KEEPS RELATIONSHIPS TOGETHER? Central to a successful relationship is trust. As with children, adults need to have trust in their attachment figure. “Can I trust my partner to be available and responsive to my needs?” Having trust in a partner promotes openness, self-disclosure, and communication. It is also contributes to adults being able to argue constructively. It is not that successful relationships are conflict free; it is more a case that partners in successful relationships are better at solving the problems that arise in their relationship (Hazan & Shaver, 1994, p. 16). DIFFERING CATEGORIES AND DIMESNIONS OF ATTACHMENT FOR ADULTS Hazan’s and Shaver’s model of attachment identifies three categories. The first attachment category is secure, and is associated with the kinds of behaviors described above. There are two insecure categories: The anxious/ambivalent category is characterized by such things as obsessing over the partner’s responsiveness, jealousy, anxiety, low self esteem, and subordinating one’s own needs to those of the partner. The avoidant category is characterized by the avoidance of intimate relationships, reluctance to commit to another person, avoidance of social situations, and “compensatory engagement in nonsocial activities” (Hazan & Shaver, 1994, p. 16.) While recognizing the value of Hazan and Shaver’s categories for understanding relationships between attachment styles and relationship functioning, researcher Kelly Brennan and her colleagues felt that the categories did not allow for the individual differences that exist among adults. So they took Hazan’s and Shaver’s categories and set them up as dimensions that that are applicable to all people. What has come out of this is the proposition that “there are two fundamental dimensions with respect to adult attachment patterns” (Fraley, 2010, p. 5). Each of these can be considered as a continuum, with persons scoring somewhere between high and low. In this model, we are not in one or the other category, but rather are measured against both. R. Chris Fraley has summarized these variables in the following manner: Attachment –related Anxiety: “People who score high on this variable tend to worry whether their partner is responsive, attentive, etc. People who score on the low end of this variable are more secure in the perceived responsiveness of their partners.” Attachment-related Avoidance: “People on the high end of this dimension prefer not to rely on others or open up to others. People on the low end of this dimension are more comfortable being intimate with others and are more secure depending upon and having others depend on them. A prototypical secure adult is low on both these dimensions” (Fraley, 2010, p. 5). To see where you fit on these dimensions, you may complete the ECR-R Adult Attachment Questionnaire at: http://www.web-research-design.net/cgi-bin/crq/crq.pl (You will need to register when you get to the website. Once there you will see two options. Form A speaks to your general attachment style and includes friends, family, and partners. Form B focuses more on partner/romantic attachment styles.) CONCLUDING THOUGHT At the risk of stating the obvious, the forgoing discussion offers important suggestions as to how to strengthen relationships, romantic and otherwise. In particular, it underscores the importance of being present to our partners–providing care, a secure haven, and a secure base. That’s the glue that best keeps us together.