Attachment

John Bowlby, the first attachment theorist, described attachment behavior as “seeking and maintaining proximity to another individual.”⁴⁵⁸ He stated that “attachment behavior is conceived of as any form of behavior that results in a person attaining and retaining proximity to some other differentiated and preferred individual.”⁴⁵⁹ The lifelong importance of the attachment is emphasized in his statement that “confidence in the availability of attachment figures, or lack of such confidence, is built up slowly during the years of immaturity—infancy, childhood and adolescence—and whatever expectations are developed during those years tend to persist relatively unchanged throughout the rest of life.”⁴⁶⁰ Bowlby identified three stages of a child’s separation from his or her mother: protest, despair and

454 DeHart, Pelham & Tennen 2006, 5-8, 13-15.

455 Koole, Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg 2001, 669-670.

456 Ryan & Brown 2003, 71-73.

457 Assor, Roth & Deci 2004, 84.

458 Bowlby 1969, 194.

459 Bowlby 1977, 203.

460 Bowlby 1973, 235.

58

detachment. In the first stage, a child vigorously protests by crying and actively searching for its mother (and the child is resistant to others’ soothing efforts). During the second stage, the child is in despair, sad and passive but still preoccupied with the mother's return. In the last stage, the stage of emotional detachment, the child shows signs of losing interest in his or her mother.⁴⁶¹ Bowlby defined attachment behavior as “any form of behavior that results in a person attaining or maintaining proximity to some other clearly identified individual who is conceived as better able to cope with the world.” He claimed that “for a person to know that an attachment figure is available and responsive gives him a strong and pervasive feeling of security, and so encourages him to value and continue the relationship.”⁴⁶²

Construct of Attachment

Measures of Attachment

Mary Ainsworth, who became Bowlby’s lifelong collaborator, developed the Strange Situation Test for studying individual differences in attachment patterns. Based upon the responses the researchers observed, Ainsworth described three major styles of attachment:

secure attachment, insecure-ambivalent attachment, and insecure-avoidant attachment.⁴⁶³ More recently, Bartholomew and Horowitz proposed a model of four continuous and categorical prototypic adult attachment patterns, secure, preoccupied, fearful, and dismissive.

The two-dimensional patterns are based on the combination of an individual’s abstract self-image as positive or negative (“the self as worthy of love and support or not other”) and abstracted image of others as positive or negative (“people are seen as trustworthy and available vs. unreliable and rejecting”) (Figure 2).⁴⁶⁴ The self model suggests “the degree to which a person has internalized a sense of his or her self-worth and the other model indicates the degree to which others are generally expected to be available and supportive.”⁴⁶⁵ Bartholomew and Horowitz developed The Relationship Questionnaire (The RQ), a modified version of the previous four attachment style models. The RQ has descriptions of secure,⁴⁶⁶ dismissing-avoidant,⁴⁶⁷ preoccupied,⁴⁶⁸ and fearful-avoidant⁴⁶⁹ attachment styles.

461 Bowlby 1969, 26-27.

462 Bowlby 1988, 25-26.

463 Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters & Wall 1978, 311-321.

464 Bartholomew & Horowitz 1991, 227-228.

465 Bartholomew & Shaver 1998, 31.

466 “It is easy for me to become emotionally close to others. I am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t worry about being alone or having others not accept me.”

467 “I am comfortable without close emotional relationships. It is very important to me to feel independent and self-sufficient, and I prefer not to depend on others or have others depend on me.”

468 “I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others, but I often find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don’t value me as much as I value them.”

469 “I am uncomfortable getting close to others. I want emotionally close relationships, but I find it difficult to trust others completely, or to depend on them. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.”

59 self which include internal representations of themselves and others are complementary to those of the attachment figure.⁴⁷¹ Similarly, Helen B. Lewis emphasized the importance of shame in lifelong attachments in stating that “shame is seen as a means by which people try to preserve their loving relationships to others.”⁴⁷² Hesse noted the importance of emotions in discussions concerning attachment For example, dismissingly attached individuals attempt to avoid the topic of emotionally loaded attachments and their narratives lack expressions of emotional vulnerability.⁴⁷³

Consedine and Magai studied the relations between attachment (the RSQ) and emotions. The results showed that attachment security was negatively associated with shame, guilt, and contempt and positively associated with joy and interest. In contrast, dismissive or avoidant attachment (dismissive responses) was negatively associated with shame, fear, and joy and positively associated with interest. Attachment ambivalence (fearful avoidance) was positively associated with shame, disgust, anxiety, and joy. The authors interpreted “the negative association between dismissive responses and that of shame and fear as indicative of a tendency towards affect ‘minimization’ and the routing of threatening negative emotions from the consciousness.”⁴⁷⁴ Elsewhere, Magai discussed the different motives individuals have for drinking as a dismissing act and a preoccupied manner of attachment. While individuals with a dismissing style may drink to enhance a positive affect, individuals with a preoccupied manner of coping might drink to reduce a negative affect.⁴⁷⁵ Schore

60

demonstrated “the tight coupling between the psychobiological processes that underlie attachment and shame dynamics.” This means that a child’s development of an attachment style is his or her manner of shame regulation.⁴⁷⁶ Mills contended that there is a connection between attachment and shame, stating that “repeated experiences of unrepaired misattunement and associated shame will lead to insecure attachment, dysregulated shame, and proneness to shame.”⁴⁷⁷

Irons and Gilbert studied the relations of attachment, social comparison and submissive behavior. Based on their findings, they stated that insecure children “may emerge from social environments where they have become attuned to the power of others to shame, reject or hurt them and cannot be relied on to be reliable allies or sources of comfort.” Thus, “these children may become overly focused on social comparisons, worry about rejection, and shame, and defend themselves via avoidant and/or submissive strategies.”⁴⁷⁸ When Lopez et al. explored relations among adult attachment styles and proneness to shame, they found that preoccupied and fearful individuals were more shame-prone than secure and dismissive individuals.⁴⁷⁹ The study of Gross and Hansen showed that preoccupied and fearful attachment styles (the RSQ) were significantly and positively correlated with shame (the BSRS) and secure attachment was significantly and negatively correlated with shame. The most puzzling finding of the study was the nonsignificant relationship between dismissing attachment style and shame. Gross and Hansen hypothesized that “perhaps the quality of the positive self for dismissing individuals is more defensive and fragile than that of securely attached persons.” According to them, this negative other stance may be developed for self-protection, to provide “a pseudo-positive sense of self” which in turn may cause dismissive individuals to “consciously report low shame while internally distrusting their own worthiness.”⁴⁸⁰

Attachment and Self-Esteem

Research connects attachment styles to defensive behaviors. Levy et al. speculated that dismissive individuals, although they have a high self-reported self-esteem, are more defensive than secure individuals.⁴⁸¹ Cassidy found that securely attached children describe themselves in a positive light yet they possess a capacity to admit normal imperfections, “a combination that reflects the confidence to explore and reveal both strong and weak points of the self.”⁴⁸² The study of Baldwin and Kay indicated that individuals with dismissing attachment styles actively inhibit emotions to process the signals of rejection and to downplay negative experiences and memories.⁴⁸³ This kind of defensiveness among dismissing individuals was visible in the study where Dozier and Kobak monitored the skin conductance level while they administered the Adult Attachment Interview. The study showed that “subjects employing deactivating strategies showed marked increases in skin

476 Schore 1998, 57-64.

477 Mills 2005, 36.

478 Irons & Gilbert 2005, 335.

479 Lopez, Gover, Leskela, Sauer, Schirmer & Wyssmann 1997, 193-195.

480 Gross & Hansen 2000, 902-904.

481 Levy, Blatt & Shaver 1998, 417.

482 Cassidy 1988, 128-130.

483 Baldwin & Kay 2003, 282-286.

61

conductance levels from baseline to questions asking them to recall experiences of separation, rejection, and threat from parents.” According to the authors, individuals using deactivating strategies often downplay the influence of early childhood attachment experiences, report extremely positive relationships with their parents, display restricted recall of attachment memories and respond with little apparent emotion to memories of separations or rejections from parents.⁴⁸⁴

Origins of Attachment

The results of McCormick and Kennedy’s study showed that individuals with secure attachment (the RMS) reported that their parents were more accepting and encouraged them to be more independent than individuals with insecure attachment.⁴⁸⁵ Magai suggested that fearful attachment is associated with child-rearing practices that involve physical punishment and withdrawal of love. She stated that “a fearful avoidant parent, who is shame-sensitive himself or herself, may set up conditions for the intergenerational transmission of shame and insecure attachment in the child through the undue use of coercive (shaming) disciplinary practices.”⁴⁸⁶ Brennan and Shaver studied the relationship between attachment styles (The RQ) and parenting. They found that individuals with secure attachment styles recalled more accepting relationships with mothers and fathers than individuals with insecure attachment styles. Secure and dismissing individuals had similar recollections of parents fostering their independence and similar degrees of idealization of their parents. However, their perceptions differed from dismissing individuals’ perceptions of parental rejection. Concerning the parents’ mortality status, Brennan and Shaver found that “individuals with deceased parents were more likely to be dismissing individuals than were individuals whose parents were both still living.”⁴⁸⁷

Cassidy postulated that as a result of consistent rejection by parents in times of children’s expressions of negative affect avoidant individuals learn to minimize emotional expressions as a coping strategy. The strategies of avoidance and the masking of negative affects reduce the child’s arousal levels and “thereby prevent the direct, possibly dangerous expression of anger toward the attachment figure.” By suppressing negative emotions the avoidant child attempts to maintain a connection with the attachment figure. According to Cassidy, the behavior of ambivalent children who feel extreme distress concerning separation and who have difficulties staying calm during reunions is very different than that of avoidant infants.

The negative emotionality of the ambivalent child “may be exaggerated and chronic because the child recognizes that to relax and allow herself to be soothed by the presence of the attachment figure is to run the risk of losing contact with the inconsistently available parent.”

Using heightened negative emotionality as a strategy to gain the mother’s attention, the child attempts to increase the importance of the relationship and to remain close to the attachment figure.⁴⁸⁸

484 Dozier & Kobak 1992, 1473-1475, 1477-1478.

485 McCormick & Kennedy 1994, 15.

486 Magai 1999, 793.

487 Brennan & Shaver 1998, 859-864.

488 Cassidy 1994, 234-235, 240-241.

62

1.5. Perfectionism

Even though there is a great amount of research focusing on perfectionism, researchers seem to not agree on a definition for perfectionism. Literature and researchers most commonly emphasize the tendency to establish excessively high personal performance standards.⁴⁸⁹ Three decades ago Hamachek differentiated between two forms of perfectionism. He labeled the positive form “normal perfectionism” and the negative form “neurotic perfectionism” and pointed out that the strivings of normal perfectionists bring them satisfaction at the conclusion of a task but neurotic perfectionists do not feel satisfied because they feel that they can never do anything well enough.⁴⁹⁰ Flett and Hewitt defined normal perfectionism as

“driving for reasonable and realistic standards that leads to a sense of self-satisfaction and enhanced self-esteem” and neurotic perfectionism as “a tendency to strive for excessively high standards and is motivated by fears of failure and concern about disappointing others.”⁴⁹¹ In the research and literature normal and neurotic perfectionism are also called positive and negative perfectionism,⁴⁹² adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism,⁴⁹³ and healthy and unhealthy perfectionism.⁴⁹⁴

Adaptive and Maladaptive Perfectionism

Stumpf and Parker found that adaptive perfectionism is related to conscientiousness and maladaptive perfectionism to a lack of self-esteem. They stated that adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism “appear not to be opposite poles on a single continuum, but separate and largely independent factors.”⁴⁹⁵ Rice et al. described adaptive perfectionists as individuals who “hold themselves to high expectations but do not worry excessively about meeting those expectations,” who have moderate concerns about making mistakes, who have a need for order and organization, who have an unwillingness to procrastinate, and who have high expectations but did not experience much criticism from their parents. According to their description, maladaptive perfectionists are individuals who hold high personal standards but also seem “to experience some intra- and interpersonal turmoil associated with those expectations,” who have high concerns about making mistakes, who tend to procrastinate, who doubt their actions and feel tense and anxious, and who report having highly critical parents who had unrealistic expectations of their children.⁴⁹⁶ Bieling et al. stated that “the most pernicious aspects of perfectionism are not necessarily having high or ‘perfect goals’

for self and others, or being organized, but rather concern or preoccupation over mistakes, doubts that one is doing the right thing, and a history of others having high expectations that have been internalized.” In addition, they suggest that “standards that are self imposed seem

489 Hamachek 1978, 27-28; Burns 1980, 34; Pacht 1984, 387; Flett & Hewitt 2002, 5, 13-14.

490 Hamachek 1978, 27-28.

491 Flett & Hewitt 2002, 11.

492 Terry-Short, Owens, Slade & Dewey 1995; Burns & Fedewa 2005.

493 Cox, & Enns & Clara 2002; Rice & Ashby 2007.

494 Trumpeter & Watson & O’Leary 2006; Stoeber & Otto 2006.

495 Stumpf & Parker 2000, 846-849.

496 Rice, Ashby & Slaney 1998, 311; Rice & Mirzadeh 2000, 241-248; Rice & Dellwo 2002, 191-195.

63

to produce less harm than standards that are perceived as externally imposed.”⁴⁹⁷ Burns and Fedewa found that maladaptive perfectionists tend to engage in rumination and “tend to be categorical thinkers, viewing the world in black and white terms.” When having problems they tend to avoid them rather than trying actively to solve them.⁴⁹⁸

Perfectionism and Shame

Hamachek stated that “shameful feelings are what the perfectionist grows up with.”

However, he made it clear that normal perfectionists feel pride and a deep sense of satisfaction at the conclusion of a task, whereas neurotic perfectionists do not experience this satisfaction but feel elevated levels of shame and guilt.⁴⁹⁹ Sorotzkin noted that “the inevitable failure to live up to the perfectionist standards results in profound shame” which he further suggested “attacks the very fabric of the self.” According to him, a less-than-perfect performance evokes shame-based thoughts of “I am worthless,” “I am nobody.”⁵⁰⁰ Loader stated that striving for perfection by always getting it right, is one protective mechanism against the experience of shame.⁵⁰¹ Klibert et al. found that Socially Prescribed Perfectionism had a significant positive correlation with shame and guilt and significant negative correlation with self-esteem. Contrastingly, Self-Oriented Perfectionism had an insignificant relationship with shame, guilt and self-esteem. They suggested that Socially Prescribed Perfectionists feel that they have external pressure to be their best and that causes them to fear the failure and desire to avoid embarrassment and shame.⁵⁰² The positive correlation between Socially Prescribed Perfectionism and shame-proneness has been revealed also in some other studies of perfectionism. In contrast, Self-Oriented Perfectionism and Other-Oriented Perfectionism have been found to be unrelated to shame-proneness. Similar to shame-proneness people, Socially Prescribed Perfectionists seem to be socially sensitive individuals who fear the criticism of others and who try to avoid the possibilities of others detecting their imperfections.⁵⁰³ Compared with Self-Oriented Perfectionists, Socially Prescribed perfectionists’ concerns with others’ standards, opinions and negative evaluation, and self-discrepancy⁵⁰⁴ make them more vulnerable to shame experiences. Specifically, Socially Prescribed Perfectionists have both actual/own versus ideal/own⁵⁰⁵ and actual/own versus ought/other⁵⁰⁶ discrepancies.⁵⁰⁷

497 Bieling, Israeli & Antony 2004, 1383.

498 Burns & Fedewa 2005, 108-111.

499 Hamachek 1978, 31.

500 Sorotzkin 1985, 567-568.

501 Loader 1998, 45-46.

502 Klibert, Langhinrichsen-Rohling & Saito 2005, 148-155.

503 Wyatt & Gilbert 1998, 76-77; Fee & Tangney 2000, 179-180; Hewitt, Flett, Sherry, Habke, Parkin, Lam, McMurtry, Ediger, Fairlie & Stein 2003, 1317-1321.

504 See more about Higgins’s Self-Discrepancy Theory in chapter 1.2.3. External and Internalized Shame.

505 According to Higgins (1987, 322), if an individual possesses actual/own versus ideal/own discrepancy “the current state of his or her actual attributes, from the person's own standpoint, does not match the ideal state that he or she personally hopes or wishes to attain.”

506 According to Higgins (1987, 322), if an individual possesses actual/own versus ought/other discrepancy “the current state of his or her actual attributes, from the person’s own standpoint, does not match the state that the person believes some significant other person considers to be his or her duty or obligation to attain.”

507 Hankin, Roberts & Gotlib 1997, 670-672; Tangney 2002, 205-211.

64

Mann studied the relationship of shame-proneness (The Shame-Proneness Scale)⁵⁰⁸ and perfectionism (The Hewitt & Flett MPS) to college student adjustment. The results showed that shame-proneness related positively to socially prescribed perfectionism.⁵⁰⁹ The findings of Ashby et al. support the associations between shame and Socially Prescribed Perfectionism that have been found to be maladaptive.⁵¹⁰ The study of Stoeber et al. showed that healthy perfectionists (individuals high in perfectionist strivings and low in perfectionist concerns) felt more pride and less shame and guilt than unhealthy perfectionists (individuals high in both perfectionist strivings and perfectionist concerns). As an indicator of their adjustments, healthy perfectionists also felt more pride and less shame and guilt than non-perfectionists (individuals with low perfectionist strivings).⁵¹¹

Perfectionism and Self-Presentation

Hewitt et al. made a close link between perfectionism and an ideal self. They suggested that certain perfectionists “have developed an ideal self with a public perspective in mind.” It means that those individuals are focused primarily on a form of impression management which involves self-presentational attempts to create an image of perfection, an image of being flawless, in public situations. The strategies involve excuse-making (self-handicapping) or active concealment of self-related information. However, Hewitt et al.

noted that there is a distinction between “the desire to appear perfect and the skill or ability to appear perfect.” That is because some individuals have problems “with excessive levels of nondisplay of imperfection in that they have strong needs to present themselves as perfect, and yet, do not have confidence in being able to do so.” The notion that “the need for the self to appear to be perfect to others may be a compensatory mechanism used to defend against feelings of inadequacy and to guard against concerns over rejection” seems to be closely associated with experiences of shame. Hewitt et al. made an attempt to suggest that there may be an even stronger association between shame and perfectionist self-presentation.⁵¹²

Origins of Perfectionism

Hollender stated that the perfectionist “continues to strive in the hope of winning parental approval: ‘If I try a little harder, if I do a little better, if I become perfect, my parents will love me.’”⁵¹³ According to Hamachek, “neurotic (maladaptive) perfectionism develops from children's need for acceptance from parents who hold high standards of accomplishment but are never satisfied with their children's striving toward these standards or are inconsistent with their approval.” Hamachek noted that “neurotic perfectionism (excessive concern about

Hollender stated that the perfectionist “continues to strive in the hope of winning parental approval: ‘If I try a little harder, if I do a little better, if I become perfect, my parents will love me.’”⁵¹³ According to Hamachek, “neurotic (maladaptive) perfectionism develops from children's need for acceptance from parents who hold high standards of accomplishment but are never satisfied with their children's striving toward these standards or are inconsistent with their approval.” Hamachek noted that “neurotic perfectionism (excessive concern about

In document The Nature, Origins, and Consequences of Finnish Shame-Proneness : A Grounded Theory Study (sivua 57-0)