REFLECTION OF ATTACHMENT THEORY IN SOCIETY
Introduction
This paper explores the use of attachment theory to inform reflective practice and, in turn, to potentially inform social work practice. This exploration is based on a recent Aotearoa New Zealand Masters research study that explored the relationship between theory and practice, from the vantage point of the social worker (Foley, 2007). This paper begins by providing a brief overview of this study, including a review of current attachment theory literature for social work practitioner use. Next, a summary of the study’s findings is reported. The remainder of this paper attends to the authors’ reflections on how the raw findings might usefully inform reflective practice. It is postulated that knowledge of attachment theory can be useful for the practitioner to increase understanding of both shared and unique protective and adaptive behaviours within a practice setting where their capacity to think, reflect and make meaningful connections may become compromised. Based on these postulations, an exploration of bringing key dynamics of social work practice with children and families into attachment theory is explored. This exploration is followed by the beginning formulations of an attachment theory informed reflective social work practice.
Overview of the study
This study began with a review of the literature on attachment theory and social work practice, where it was clear that interest in attachment theory as a relevant social work practice theory has been sustained over a number of decades (Bowlby 1969, 1973 and 1980; Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991; Cassidy and Shaver, 1999). As such a plethora of relevant literature for this study was found (Fahlberg, 1991; Howe, 2005; Howe, Brandon, Hinings & Schofield, 1999; Nash, Munford, & O’Donoghue, 2005; Atwool, 2006). Surprisingly, studies that investigated social work practitioners’ knowledge of attachment theory to inform their practice, found that attachment theory knowledge was not as prominent as expected (Hesse, 1982; Grigsby, 1994; Hendemark, 2004). In addition, recommendations from these social work practice specific studies each implied a view that advocating for increased attachment theory oriented education would equate with the capacity to use this theory in XXXXXXXX. As XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX to be an XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX of XXXXX studies that theoretical XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX with XXX, and XXX XXXXXX the real time and XXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXX XXXX-XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX, Foley (2007) conducted a XXXXX that sought to XXXXXX XXXXXXXX New Zealand XXXX regarding XXX practice status of attachment XXXXXX and research XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX XX social workers XXXXXX their XXXXXX work practice with children and XXXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXXX keeping in XXXX socio-culturalcontextual XXXXXX, the XXXXXXX XXXXX of XXXX study XXX XXX microsphere of practice. XXXX XXXXX endeavoured to understand XXX journey XX a theory, attachment XXXXXX, XXXXXXX the vehicle of XXX XXXXXX worker in XXXXX practice XXXXXXXXXXXX of XXXXX attachment XXXXXX to XXXXXX XXXXX practice. XX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX (Van Manen, 1990), eight XXXXXX XXXXXXX who self-XXXXXXXXXX XX being XXXXXXXXXX in and knowledgeable XXXXX attachment theory XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXXXXXX XX reflect XX their XXXXXXXXXXX of putting attachment theory into social work XXXXXXXX XXXX children and families. One of the XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX included: ‘XXXX aspects XX XXXXXXXXXX theory have XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXX XX you as a XXXXXX XXXXXX?’ XXXX is, most XX XXX social XXXXXXX in XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX knowledge, but with XXXXX own responses XX the theory
Attachment theory for XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX
XXXXX XXXXX are XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX reviews XX attachment XXXXXX across XXXXXXXXXXX (XXXXXXX & XXXXXX, 1999) within social work, XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX commonly XXXXXXXXXX as XXXX XXXXXXXX to specific XXXXXX of XXXXXXXX XXXX XX the XXXX XXX protection needs XX infants XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX (XXXX, 2005; Schofield & Beek, 2006). XXXXX attachment XXXXXX XX often associated XXXX infants XXX XXXXX children, XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX to examine XXX activation of the XXXXXXXXXX system in adulthood XX XXXXX XX stress/distress (XXXXXXXXXX, Birnbaum, XXXXXXX &XXX; Nachmias, 2000; XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX &XXX; Shaver, XXXX). XXXX is, to explore whether adults continue XX XXXX out a XXXXXXXXXXX other (someone in a caregiving XXXX) at times XX XXXX XXXXXX, XXXX the XXXX of XXXX other providing XXXXXX and support that in turn XXXXXXXXXXX exploration of possible problem-solving routes. XX has XXXX repeatedly XXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX ‘underwent preconscious XXXXXXXXXX XX the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX’ (Mikulincer &XXX; XXXXXX, XXXX, p. XX). XXXXX findings highlight that the attachment XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXX throughout XXX XXXX span XXX optimally XXXXXX in relationship to and XXXX two XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX: XXX caregiver system XXX the XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX. Central to these XXXXXX/XXXXXXXX-based XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX attachment XXXXXX is the XXXXXXXXX of ‘XXX secure base’ (XXXXXX, 1988; Schofield & XXXX, XXXX). XX XXXXXXXXXX theory, an experience of ‘felt security’(Sroufe & Waters, 1977, p. XXXX) XXXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXX XX experience XXXXXX XXXXXXX being overwhelmed. XX turn ‘felt XXXXXXXX’encouraged XXXXXXXXXXX at XXXXXXXXX XXXXX, it kept problem solving mobile, creative and XXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXX proposed that when ‘XXXX XXXXXXXX’at XXXXX XX stress was compromised then XXX way to create XXXXXXXX was to become XXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX processes of the XXXX referred XX as ‘defensive exclusion’ XXX/or ‘XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX’ (XXXXXX, 1980, p. XX). As a XXXXXXXXXXX of XXXXX mind processes, XXXXXXX of experience could XX excluded from XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX not as readily available to remember, share and/or XXXXXX help XXXXXXX XX resolve XXX XXXXXX XXXXX was XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX. Central XX the development XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX has been XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XX the XXXXXXXXXX that XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX of the XXXXXXXXXX-XXXXXXXXXX and exploratory system XXXXXX internalised as XXXXXXXX XXXXXX maps of how XXXXXXXXXXXXX when XXXXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX to as ‘internal XXXXXXX models’, are XXXX XX adaptation and XXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXX unchanged in structure XXXXXX generations (Cassidy & Shaver, XXXX). It is XXXXXXX XXXX XXX greater opportunity for XXXX security on offer XXXX the XXXXXXXXX system XX XXXXX XX XXXX XXXX/stress, the more open, dynamic and creative XXX exploratory XXXXXX can remain XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX. In XXXXXXXX, XXXX ‘XXXX XXXXXXXX’ XX XXXXXXXXXXX in XXXX XXX, it is more likely as Bretherton (XXXX) stated XXXX if ‘XXXXXXXX is defensively excluded from awareness, it XXXXXX be XXXXXXXXXXXX or updated…’(p. 13). XXXXXXXXX attachment theory XXXXXX XXXX in the XXXXXXXX XX ongoing XXXXXX within the XXXXXXXXXX-caregiver XXX exploratory systems, a XXXXXXX XXXXX exists XX how XXXXXXXXXXXXX function XXXX stress XXXXXXXX. In turn, this implicit XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXX expectations of self XXXXXXXXXX XXX’s capacity XX seek out XXX make XXX XX help and XXXXXXX XX XXX times it XX XXXX XXXXXX. Included also XXX XXXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXXX XX how others are XXXXXX to XXXXXXX XX requests XXX XXXX and XXXXXXX. For XXXXXXX, information XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX excluded for XXX purpose XX XXXX-XXXXXXXXXX XXXX unbearable pain. XXX more information is excluded from attention and processing, the less XXXXXXXXXX a person XXX XXXXXX XX considering XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX not fit XXX current view of XXXXX
relationships.
Social work XXXXXXXX XXXX attachment theory
XXXXXX work XXXX XXXXXXXX XXX families is often conducted XXXXXX XXXX anxiety, uncertainty XXX emotion. Within this emotional context, XXX social worker XX both ethically XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX to XXXXXXX, XXXXX and XXX with coherence. However, Fonagy, Steele and Steele (1991) assert that ‘XXX-in, XXX-out, social workers (XXX XXXXX agencies) practise in XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX environments XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX, XXXXXXXXX strategies XXX adaptive behaviour
s’ (p. 205). XX addition, in a social work XXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXX of XXXXXX work service XXXXXXXXX XXXXX structures the XXXXXX worker-XXXXXX relationship with XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX in the XXXXXX/help provider XXXX XXX XXX client in XXX XXXXXX/XXXX seeking role. Therefore, regardless of XXX XXXXXX XXXX XXXXX of XXXXXXXX, when a XXXXXXX XX XXXXXX/XXXXXXXX is XXXXXXXXXX for the social XXXXXX XXX or the client, XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX can be XXXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX following. First, XXXXXX responses XX the social worker XXX XXX XXXXXX XX distress-XXXXXX; second, XXX XXXXXX XX these responses on XXX XXXXXXXX of the XXXXXX XXXXXX and XXX client XX reflect on and XXXX become exploratory XXXXXXX possible XXXXXXXXX; and third the social worker’s XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX XXXXX XXX social XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX the XXXXXX’s capacity XX experience being helped and supported. XX a XXXXXX XXXX relationship it is XXXXX the XXXXXX worker who XX XXXXXXX with the XXXXXX XX co-XXXXXXXXX a XXXXXX base XXXXXX the XXXXXX’s family and XXXXXXXXX. At best a XXXXXX base XX where XXX conditions for XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XX ‘felt security ’XXX on XXXXX. Within an XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX informed social worker-XXXXXX relationship, it XX XXX task of XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX, in XXX XXXX of XXXXXX to assess and, XXXXX XXXXXXXX, structure XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX client that will optimally provide XXX conditions for the client to experience ‘felt security’. XXXXX in XXXXXXXXX it is easy to XXXXXX with the XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXX goals XX XXXXXXXXX help, XXXXXXX and the XXXXXXXXXX XXX felt security for XXXXXXX, most XXXXXX XXXXXXX will have stories and XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX offered XX XXXXXXX in XXXX XX rejected, XXX made use of, XXXXXX XXXXXXX. We XXXX from practice XXXX XXXXX some XXXXXXX XXX meet the XXXXXXXX for XXXX XXXXX, XXX XXXX XXXXXXXX needs, who concur XXXX the XXXXXX XXXXXX that they XXXX help are XXXX XX XXXXX the most challenging to a XXXXXX XXXXXX’s sense XX efficacy. XXXXXXX, fear and XXXXXXXXXXXX can XXXXXXX overshadow XXX original XXXXX XX XXXXXXX/offer social XXXX service. XX XXXXXXXX, some XX XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXX high XXXXX, can XXXX be XXX clients XXX are XXX XXXX difficult XX XXXXXX XX XXX to spend XXXX with. X XXXXXX worker XXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, ashamed, XXXXXXX about XXXXX own XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX to these XXXXXXX. XXX XXXXXXX, a XXXXXX worker who wishes XX XXXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX themselves at work acting in XXXX XXXX are XXXXXXXXXXXX, inconsistent, avoiding XXXXXXXXXX to XXXXX XXXXX and dismissing or XXXXXXXXXX a family’s needs. XXXXXX social work practice XXXXXXXX XX Ruch (2005a; XXXXX; 2007) advocates XXXX XXX XXXXXX workers XX engage in best practice, social XXXXXXX XXXX organisational support to XXXXXXX their XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX. XXXX (2007) proposes XXX way XX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX in this XXXXXXXXX XX to XXXX up XXX secure base that their respective practice agencies XXXXX XX social workers to XXXXXXX them in their practice. Therefore, by XXXXXXXXXX organisational XXXXXXX, a XXXXXX worker XX more XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX security within their organisation, in turn, XXXXXXXXXX a XXXXXX XXXXXX’s reflective capacities (XXXX, 2005b, p. XXX). XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX can XXXXXXX XXXXXXX this proposition. Attachment XXXXXX can XX XXXXXX to XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX concerning XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX stressful/overwhelming experiences/situations, and XXXXX XXXXX relationships reflect a XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX. XX XXXX attachment theory could XX XXXX XX inform reflective practice, XXX XXXXX where it XX XXXXXXXX agreed XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX and their practice XXXX view, XXX theoretical XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX, often within a XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX.
A XXXXXXX XXXXX XX attachment theory informed XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX work XXXXXXXX
While XXXXXX XXXX has a XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX of reflective models of social work practice (XXX example see: XXXXXXX, XXXX; XXXX, 2005a XXX XXXXX), XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX provides a lens in which XX view XXX reflective XXXXXXX itself XXX to gain XXXXXXX understanding and XXXXXXX XXX XXXX each XXXXXX XXXXXX within each XXXXXX social XXXX-XXXXXX relationship XXX XXXXXX of that XXXXXXXXXXXX for XXXXXXXXXX. XXXX follows is XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX of an attachment theory XXXXXXXX framework XXX XXXXXXXXXX practice. Central XX this XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX XXX attachment XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX: the XXXXXXXXXX-caregiver and XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXX secure XXXX. XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX in turn XXX XXXXXX the development of XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX for XXX within a reflective XXXXXXXX setting. XX such, it is XXXXXXXXX here that XXX following XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX: the XXXXXX worker’s internal XXXXXXX XXXXX; how the social worker XXXXXXXXX in the presence XX XXXXXXX affect and XXXXXX XXX how they XXXXXX XX XXXXXX when in a helper-XXXXXXXXXX XXXX; knowledge about defensive exclusion strategies used, when XXXX XXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. XXX XXX purposes of an attachment theory model XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX: XXXXXXXXX of self becomes XXXXXXXXX of XXXXXXX how XXX XXXXX, XXXXXX XXX XXXX when XXXXXXXX and when XXXXXXX XX be in a help provider role XX XXXX time. To develop XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX informed XXXXXXXXX that XXX structured so XXXX XX all XXXXX the challenge to think XXX XXX in a XXXXXXXXXX way XX XXXXXXX (XXXXX, XXXX, p. XXX). X XXXXXXX XXXXXXX is XXXXXXXXX in the XXXXXXX XXXXX: Secure-base XXXXXXXXXX questions. This diagram has XXXX developed XXXX XXXXXXX XX XXX XXXX XX XXXXXX, XXXXX, Scott XXXXXX, XXXXXXX-XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, Lewis, Palomino et XX. (XXXX), who XXXXXX infant-parent XXXXXXXXXXX keep in mind a XXX question XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX. XXXX is: ‘XXXX it feels XXXX XX be XXXX XXXXXXXXXX infant in this XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX particular XXXXXXXXX at XXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX’ (p. 186). XXX XXXXX XXXXXX it XX XXXXXXXX XX extend XXX XXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX practice XXXXXXXXXX social worker-client relationships
XXXXXXX XX XXXXXX childhood XX XXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX in XXXXXX childhood XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX adolescence, XXXXXXXXXXX evolve in response to new developmental XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX, for example an expanding social XXXXX due to XXXXXX (Kerns &XXX; XXXXXXXX, in XXXXX) XXX greater XXXXXXXX and independence in XXXXXXXXXXX (XXXXX, 2008). A XXXXXXX XXXXXXX and XXXX XX self-regulate may also impact XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX such XXXX XXXXXXXX may alter XXX amount XXX type XX XXXXXXXXXX they XXXXXXX or XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX (XXXXXX & XXXXXXX, XXXX). Kerns XXX Brumariu (in XXXXX) note, however, that there is not a decreased XXXX for an XXXXXXXXXX figure, XXX XXXXXXX a shift XXXX the XXXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXX to XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XX a caregiver (XXXXXX, XXXX). XXXX the regulation XX XXXXXXXX, or XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX intensity in a given context (XXXXXXX & Bonnano, 2009), is XXXXXXXXXXXX key as children's XXXXXX XXXXXX XXX independence XXXX (Allen, XXXX; Kerns &XXX; Brumariu, in press). XXX goal XX XXXX paper XX to review XXXX we XXXXXXXXX know regarding how parent-child attachment XX related XX children's emotional competencies. Cassidy (XXXX) provided an XXXXXXXXX review of XXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX, XXX to our XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXX XXXX a comprehensive review XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX recently. In addition, XX XXX time XX Cassidy's XXXXXX almost XXX XXXX XX attachment XXXXXXX on infancy or XXXXX childhood. X XXXXXXX XXXX of XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX the role XX attachment in XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX. XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX exclusively XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX in XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX and adolescence, XX XXXX XX a XXXX when emotion regulation XXXXXX are XXXXXXXXXXXX critical XXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX need to be able XX regulate XXXXXXXX in XXXXXXXX where parents XXX XXX XXXXXXXXX (e.g., XXXXXX, XXXXX, XXXXXX teams). XX begin XXXX a XXXXX, selective review XX evidence XXXX attachment XX related XX parental XXXXXXX socialization, which XXXX XXX groundwork for XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX. We then XXXXXX empirical studies of XXXXXXXXXX XXX emotion XXX XXXXXXXX in middle childhood XXX XXXXXXXXXXX, which XX the XXXX of our paper. Finally, XX discuss XXXX in which emotion processes may be an XXXXXXXXX link between XXXXXXXXXX, well-being, and peer XXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXX future XXXXXXXXXX for research.
XXXXXXX XX early XXXXXXXXX
XXX idea XXXX romantic relationships may XX attachment XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXX a XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX research XX XXXXX relationships. There XXX at least three critical XXXXXXXXXXXX of XXXX idea. First, XX XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX, then XX XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX differences in adult relationships XXXX XXXXXXXXX observed in XXXXXX-caregiver relationships. XX may XXXXXX some XXXXXX, for XXXXXXX, XX be secure in their XXXXXXXXXXXXX--XX feel XXXXXXXXX XXXX their XXXXXXXX XXXX be XXXXX XXX them XXXX needed, and XXXX XX depending XX others and XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXXX. XX XXXXXX XXXXXX other XXXXXX, in contrast, XX be insecure in XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX. For example, XXXX insecure XXXXXX may be anxious-XXXXXXXXX: they XXXXX that others XXX not love them XXXXXXXXXX, XXX be easily XXXXXXXXXX or XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XX unmet. XXXXXX may be XXXXXXXX: XXXX may XXXXXX XXX to XXXX XXX much XXXXX close relationships, XXX XXX XXXXXX XXX XX be XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX people or XX have others be XXX dependent upon XXXX.
Second, XX adult romantic relationships XXX attachment relationships, then the way XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX "XXXX" XXXXXX be similar to XXX XXX infant-caregiver XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX. In XXXXX words, the same XXXXX of factors that facilitate XXXXXXXXXXX in children (i.e., having a XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX) should XXXXXXXXXX exploration among XXXXXX (i.e., XXXXXX a responsive XXXXXXX). The kinds of XXXXXX XXXX make an XXXXXXXXXX figure "XXXXXXXXX" XXX infants (i.e., responsiveness, availability) are XXX XXXXX XX XXXXXXX XXXXXX should find desirable in XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. XX XXXXX, XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX functioning in XXXXXXXXX in XXX XXXX way XXXX XX in XXXXXXXXX.
XXXXX, whether an XXXXX XX secure or insecure in XXX or her XXXXX relationships may XX a XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX XXX or her experiences XXXX his or her primary XXXXXXXXXX. Bowlby believed XXXX XXX XXXXXX representations or XXXXXXX models (i.e., XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, "rules" or "XXXXXXX" for behaving XXX XXXXXXXX) that a child XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX a function of XXX or her caregiving experiences. XXX XXXXXXX, a XXXXXX child tends to believe XXXX others XXXX XX there XXX him or her because previous XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX led XXX or her to XXXX XXXXXXXXXX. XXXX a child XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX expectations, he or she XXXX tend XX XXXX out XXXXXXXXXX experiences that XXX consistent with those expectations XXX perceive XXXXXX in a way that XX colored by XXXXX XXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXX, XXXX XXXX of XXXXXXX should promote XXXXXXXXXX in attachment patterns XXXX XXX XXXX course, although it XX possible XXXX a person's XXXXXXXXXX pattern XXXX change if XXX or her relational XXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX with XXX or her expectations. XX XXXXX, if we assume XXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX are attachment XXXXXXXXXXXXX, it XX possible that children XXX XXX secure as XXXXXXXX will grow up XX be secure in their XXXXXXXX relationships. Or, relatedly, XXXX people XXX are XXXXXX as adults in XXXXX relationships XXXX XXXXX parents XXXX XX more XXXXXX to forge secure relationships with XXX partners.
Conclusion
XX conclusion, XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX theory and social XXXX have XXXXXX a longstanding relationship, XXX potential XXX social XXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXXXXXX theory for their own XXXXXXXX XXX professional XXXXXXXXXXX has XXXX explored here. XXXXXXXXXXXX the attachment-XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXXX system in relationship XX the secure XXXX and XXXXXXXX XXXX to XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX-XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXX the potential XXX XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX any XXXXXX XXXX interaction XXXXXXXXXXX in a context of stress and/or distress. The XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX of how XXX XXXXX XXXXXXX these XXXXXXXXXXX underpinnings into a XXXXXXXXXX practice XXXXXXX are XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XX XXXXXXXX-based XXXXXXXXXXXXX with the social XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX generous XXXXXX XX share their XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XX work.XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX usually XXXX up in a supportive XXXXXXXXXXX where parents XXXX consistently XXXXXXXXXX to XXXXX XXXXX. XXXXXX XXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX are generally comfortable with being open XXXXX themselves, XXXXXX XXX help, XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX to XXXX on them at an emotional level. XXXX XXXX a XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX life, are XXXXXXXXXXX with closeness, and XXXX physical and/or XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XX XXXXX rejected or XXXXXXXXXXX.
Securely XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX are generally consistent XXX reliable in their behaviors XXXXXX their partner. XXXX tend to include XXXXX XXXXXXX in decisions that XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX relationsh
XXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX, M.X.S., XXXXXX, X.C., XXXXXX, X., &XXX; XXXX, S. (XXXX). XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX: X XXXXXXXXXXXXX study of XXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX. U.S.X.: XXXXXXXX Erlbaurn Associates. Ainsworth, X.X.S., & XXXXXX, X. (1991). An XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX personality development. American XXXXXXXXXXXX, 46, 331-XXX. XXXXXX, N. (XXXX). Attachment XXX XXXXXXXXXX: Implications XXX XXXXXXXX in XXXX. XXXXX XXXX in Practice, 12(X), XXX-330. Bowlby, X. (1969). XXXXXXXXXX and loss XXX.1: Attachment. XXXXXX: The XXXXXXX XXXXX. XXXXXX, J. (XXXX). Attachment XXX XXXX XXX.X: Separation, anxiety XXX anger. London: The XXXXXXX XXXXX. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss Vol.X: Loss, XXXXXXX XXX depression. XXXXXX: XXX Hogarth XXXXX. XXXXXX, X. (XXXX). A secure base. New XXXX: XXXXX Books. Bretherton, I. (XXXX). XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX: Retrospect XXX XXXXXXXX. XX I. Bretherton & X. Waters (XXX.), Growing XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX and XXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXX of the Society for XXXXXXXX in Child XXXXXXXXXXX, XX (1-2, XXXXXX No.XXX), 3-XX.
">