532 - Is Attachment Theory Just Bullsh*t?
Let’s revisit attachment theory!
We’re talking about attachment theory again, but this time we’re going to be focusing less on what it is and more about the pros and cons since it has risen in popularity over the past few years. If you want to learn more about attachment theory and attachment styles, check out episode 82 and episode 291 for information on attachment styles and attachment theory and non-monogamy respectively.
Nature vs. nurture: criticism of attachment theory
Some of the biggest criticism about attachment theory comes from Judith Rich Harris in a paper and study published in 2009. Harris thought that children are not given enough attachment theory credit, and their environment and peers play a bigger role in their development than parents do.
Another critic, Elizabeth E. Stock, points out that the death of a parent or divorce would prove to have greater effects on children than the initial development the child had as an infant.
The type of relationship the parents have with each other will have impact on the child as well, not just the relationship the child has with the parent(s).
Some have also pointed out that the dyadic model characteristic of attachment theory cannot address the complexity of real-life social experiences, as infants often have multiple relationships within the family and in child care settings. It is suggested these multiple relationships influence one another reciprocally, at least within a family.
Some research on attachment theory may also not fully account for cultural differences in parenting practices and attachment expressions.
In the attachment model, the mother of the child is viewed as the primary caregiver, but in reality, fathers or siblings can have the same attachment with the infant at the same time. The model does not consider attachments during adolescence, puberty, or adulthood.
Categorizing infants into four behavioral categories is relatively easy, since their capacity for nuance is low. When looking at adult relationships, the lines are more blurry.
People can experience different attachment styles with different people and different relationships. A person might exhibit all four styles throughout their life.
The case for attachment theory (and non-monogamy’s impact)
Although many criticize it, a lot of people view attachment theory as an important tool for information and clarity on their relationship-specific behaviors. Labels and community can also help someone find an identity and work towards healthier relationships.
While attachment theory has its flaws, it also has helped many people feel as though they understand themselves in ways they didn’t before.
Research has shown that those who participate in ethical non-monogamy have more secure attachments, despite the misconception that non-monogamous adults are insecurely attached.
Non-monogamy might be helpful for disorganized attachment styles, because of the option to have different partners fulfill emotional needs uniquely.
Someone might have different attachment styles with different partners, which could potentially allow them to work towards healthier attachment in each relationship.
Engaging and building upon multiple romantic relationships can help decrease feelings of anxiety and insecurity because of the higher frequency with which partners have to discuss intense emotions – in turn, this open communication is a step closer to developing secure attachment.
Jessica Fern’s book Polysecure provides the HEARTS framework for working towards secure attachment in non-monogamy. Check out episode 291 for more about it.
To sum up, attachment theory can be a helpful tool when figuring out why someone responds in certain ways in times of crisis or stress. But we can’t forget that it’s just a theory, one that was created over seventy years ago. Remember that your attachment style can shift over time, and if you’re non-monogamous, use the HEARTS framework and tools like it to foster secure attachments.