Parental Attachment and Peer Relationships in Adolescence: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Health Care Sciences & Services | Psychology
Contributor:
Isabel Martínez

Attachment theory is a social-emotional development theory that was originally developed by John Bowlby in order to explain the bond between babies and their caretakers. The basic premise is that an individual’s security and trust toward others in later life stages are molded by their experiences with relationship patterns and the emotional availability of their caretakers, that is to say, their attachment figures. Later, Ainsworth carried out some of the first studies on the individual differences which manifest in attachment, observing how this system is activated and discovering differences based on the behaviors of the caretakers. Through a standardized laboratory procedure called “strange situation”, Ainsworth recorded systematic observations on mother–child interactions in the first year of life, as well as the reaction of the child during separation from and reunion with the mother.

  • attachment styles
  • friendship
  • peer relationships
  • adolescence

1. Introduction

Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall [1] proposed the first classification of attachment styles that distinguished between secure, insecure ambivalent, and insecure avoidant attachment. Secure attachment is produced when the caretakers demonstrate physical and emotional warmth, trust, and availability. When placed in the strange situation, in which the attachment figure is not present, the child tends to feel anxious upon being separated from the caretaker and then calm when the caretaker returns [1]. Children with this style of attachment experience comfort with privacy and closeness, tend to search for support, present low anxiety and evasiveness, and confront stress well [2]. Insecure ambivalent attachment occurs when the caretaker is available only on certain occasions. During the strange situation, the child suffers great anguish followed by difficulty calming down when the attachment figure reappears, with fluctuations between anger and worry [1]. Children with insecure ambivalent attachment develop high anxiety, the need for closeness, worry about establishing relationships, and fear of rejection [2]. Lastly, in insecure avoidant attachment, the caretaker does not attend to the baby’s cues that signal the need for protection. In the strange situation under this type of attachment, this child experiences indifference, in addition to anguish and anger in some cases, upon becoming separated from their mother and later demonstrates indifference upon reuniting with her [1]. Children with insecure avoidant attachment develop self-sufficiency and a preference for emotional distancing from others [2]. Years later, Main and Solomon [3] incorporated a fourth category, disorganized attachment. This typology presents characteristics of the two previous styles, insecure ambivalent and insecure avoidant, demonstrating contradictory behaviors and disorganization.
Family has a key function in the development of an individual as the primary group of belonging [4][5]. The first emotional bonds, values, beliefs, and habits are formed within the family [6][7]. Drawing from attachment theory, research established that the emotional and familial history of a person predicts their type of attachment as an adult [8].

2. Attachment in Adolescence

Attachment theory has expanded in recent decades, with its influence over relationships other than the paternal-filial being explained, as well as how attachment influences in later development stages [9]. In this developmental period, adolescents prepare to develop their potential and begin adulthood [10]. The emotional, cognitive, and social transformations of the adolescent are delineated by attachment processes previously established [11]. Indeed, the empirical evidence indicates that adolescents, in general, experience an increased need for privacy and a decrease in emotional closeness, expressions of affection, and time spent with parents [9]. There are higher levels of ambivalence and lower levels of idealization from adolescents towards their parents [12].
Autonomy development in adolescence entails a continuation of child-like exploration, as well as attachment framework, alongside having to find a balance between new scenarios and needs [13]. Similar to what occurred in the strange situation, adolescents feel more secure when they perceive availability and support from their parents. Therefore, in spite of the paternal-filial relationship changes, when there is a quality relationship, the bond between them is still characterized by warmth, with the parents being important attachment figures even until emerging adulthood [9]. In the process of adolescent development, the internal working models guide the child in the construction of their relational world with their past experiences as the base. The internal working models are frameworks or internal maps of each person in which the relationship with other significant individuals is constructed and represented. According to Bowlby [14], these internal models allow the child to predict and interpret the conduct of their attachment figures given that such internal models define the internal working models consisting of expectations and beliefs about the self and others. In the future, these models are integrated in the personality and guide social relations. “Every situation we meet with in life is construed in terms of the representational models we have of the world about us and of ourselves. Information reaching us through our sense organs is selected and interpreted in terms of those models, its significance for us and those we care for is evaluated in terms of them, and plans of action executed with those models in mind. On how we interpret and evaluate each situation, moreover, turns also how we feel” [15] (p. 229). These models will allow the child or adolescent to evaluate the availability of their attachment figures and act accordingly [16][17].
Individual differences exist in the distancing process of the adolescent with their parents, which could prove more problematic in teens with insecure attachment (insecure-avoidant, insecure-ambivalent, and insecure-disorganized). It has been shown that via secure attachment, conflicts with parents are navigated in a healthy way, with a greater tendency from both parents and child to communicate with each other and find solutions. Adolescents with secure attachment demonstrate confidence defending their opinion to their parents, knowing that there will be no negative consequences and that the relationship will remain intact [11]. However, adolescents with insecure attachment experience emotional distancing from their parents in a stressed manner. These adolescents foresee a threat in the relationship with their parents during the autonomy-seeking process. It has been found that the adolescents with insecure-evasive attachment tend to avoid conflict and opportunities for solutions, while adolescent with insecure-ambivalent attachment show intense involvement which can diminish increasingly throughout the autonomy-seeking process of the adolescent [18].

3. Adolescence, Friendship, and Attachment

Kerns [19] showed that children generalize the behaviors assimilated with their parents to their peers and friendships that they develop throughout their life so that adolescents with positive parental figures have greater social competency. According to Bowlby [20], the association between attachment and peer relationships can be explained by internal working models (IWM). IWM make it possible for children to know who their attachment figure is and their availability when they need it [21]. Children’s experiences with their caretakers in everyday interactions are integrated to form long-lasting representations with emotional components that will modulate later conduct [22].
Furman, Simon, Shaffer, and Bouchey [23] proved that the IWMs of adolescents with their parents are similar to the IWMs that they establish with their peers and friends. Attachment theorists maintain that the quality of extrafamilial relationships, particularly with peers, is directly influenced by the experiences of attachment with their caretakers [24]. Children with an avoidant attachment style expect rejection in the context of relationships, and therefore they are more likely to be hostile and antisocial with others, inciting others to reject them, such as peers. These behaviors could also be a defense mechanism to protect themselves from others’ rejection. By contrast, children with ambivalent attachment tend to be socially isolated [25]. A secure attachment organization allows for coherency in emotional experiences with peers, while an insecure model is more characterized by exclusion or inability to integrate information, which consequently leads to distorted communication and difficulty in social functioning [11]. Attachment theory suggests that individuals with insecure attachment have a negative image of themselves and others in terms of relationships, resulting in great problems forming intimate bonds in the peer group [26]. Mind theory, the ability to attribute mental states and intentions to others, as well as the ways in which it is related to the quality of attachment present in adolescents has also been studied. It was observed that the sociocognitive constructions and anomalies in the processing of social information is linked to insecure attachment, as well as biased and less positive attributions about their peers [27]. As children move further into adolescence, there is greater integration with the peer group [28]. Friends carry out important functions, with time spent with friends progressively increasing, to the point that self-disclosure and intimacy are reached in some more stable friendships [29]. At this time, conversations where worries related to age garner importance and emotional support is lent [30]. Privacy/intimacy/closeness with friends in adolescence assists in exploration and self-knowledge [31].
On the other hand, classic attachment theory is formulated in sex-neutral terms and does not predict or explain the emergence of differentiated styles according to sex. However, there are findings powerfully challenge the standard sex-neutral model, since many of the outcomes related with individual differences in attachment have differences depending on ecological and social factors [32]. Studies have shown that women and men tend to be socialized differently from birth [33]: men are less emotional and less nurturing than women, and thus they may perceive social relationships differently and, consequently, interact differently. Research is consistent, with the observed gender difference being that when stressed, males tend to engage in “fight or flight” behaviors, while females tend to engage in “tend and befriend” behaviors [34]. Differences by sex in both the structure and the content of peer relationships has been observed [35]. Interactions among boys centers around larger friendship groups with a focus toward comradeship, control, or competence. However, girls are centered more by intimate dyads of friendship based on self-disclosure, emotional expression, and interdependence [36][37]. The scientific literature has suggested that girls, in comparison with boys, have the need to establish more harmonious relationships [37]. Despite the findings in differences by sex, no consensus has been found on the exact nature of these differences in adolescents [38].

4. Quality of Relationships and Psychological Adjustment

Numerous empirical studies support the importance of friendship and the establishment of bonds in the development of adaptation, especially in childhood and adolescence [39]. For example, Nangle, Erdley, Newman, Mason, and Carpenter [40] showed that friendship predicted short-term psychological well-being. In childhood, the presence of psychological difficulties is associated with peer relationships and the number of close individuals that the child has is related to psychological adjustment and emotional well-being [41]. During childhood and adolescence, friendships provide an environment in which social competencies are developed and self-esteem is formed, boosting health throughout the lifetime. Additionally, peers and friends are a source of instrumental and emotional support, which eases access to other resources, whether they be material or symbolic, which provides for emotional well-being [42].
Adolescents who report having positive relationships present with greater self-esteem and less anxiety or depression. Some authors affirm that interpersonal loss or not forming close, supportive relationships contributes to clinical symptomology [43]. For the majority of people, relationships with others forms a central point in their lives. The development, maintenance, and dissolution of bonds are sources of intense emotions, both joy and happiness as well as angst and sadness. Individuals who have positive and long-lasting relationships have lower mortality rates, less depression, and a lower presence of psychological and physical health problems. Contrastingly, people with weak links have greater rates of mortality, loneliness, unhappiness, and depression [44].
In attachment research, it has been demonstrated that adolescents who have insecure attachment representations tend to be more hostile and anxious with their peers than adolescents with secure attachment representations [45]. Similarly, self-concept also plays an important role in social competency. Adolescents who are considered to be well-regarded by their friends score higher in self-esteem. On the other hand, considering oneself as lacking in social ability has a negative influence on self-esteem, which can even lead to depressive feelings [43][46]. As Campbell [47] indicated, dissatisfaction with oneself produces a more damaging effect on the feeling of well-being than dissatisfaction with any other domain of life. A study by Cole, Martin, Powers, and Truglio [48] showed that adolescents’ perception of their relational competency predicted depression months later; thus, perceiving oneself as lacking in this ability is a risk factor for mental health. Therefore, the extent to which adolescents establish and maintain quality, positive relationships with their peers is considered a protective factor in social-emotional adjustment throughout the lifetime, which supports better adaptation [49].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ijerph19031064

References

  1. Ainsworth, M.D.S.; Blehar, M.; Waters, E.; Wall, S. Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1978.
  2. Mikulincer, M.; Shaver, P.R.; Pereg, D. Attachment theory and affect regulation: The dynamics, development, and cognitive consequences of attachment-related strategies. Motiv. Emot. 2003, 27, 77–102.
  3. Main, M.; Solomon, J. Discovery of an insecure-disorganized/disoriented attachment pattern. In Affective Development in Infancy; Brazelton, T.B., Yogman, M.W., Eds.; Ablex Publishing: Norwood, NJ, USA, 1986; pp. 95–124.
  4. Serna, C.; Martínez, I. Parental Involvement as a Protective Factor in School Adjustment among Retained and Promoted Secondary Students. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7080.
  5. Martínez, I.; Murgui, S.; Garcia, O.F.; Garcia, F. Parenting and Adolescent Adjustment: The Mediational Role of Family Self-Esteem. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2021, 30, 1184–1197.
  6. Galdós, J.sS.; Sánchez, I.M. Relationship between cocaine dependence treatment and personal values of openness to change and conservation. Adicciones 2010, 22, 51–58.
  7. Saiz, J.; Álvaro, J.L.; Martínez, I. Relation between personality traits and personal values in cocaine-dependent patients. Adicciones 2011, 23, 125–132.
  8. Dávila, Y. La influencia de la familia en el desarrollo del apego. An. Univ. Cuenca. 2015, 57, 121–130.
  9. Oliva, A.D. Apego en la adolescencia. Acción Psicol. 2011, 8, 55–65.
  10. Borrás-Santisteban, T. Adolescencia: Definición, vulnerabilidad y oportunidad. Correo Cient. Méd. 2014, 18, 5–7.
  11. Allen, J.P. The attachment system in adolescence. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, 3rd ed.; Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 419–435.
  12. Collins, W.A.; Steinberg, L. Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development; Eisenberg, N., Damon, W., Lerner, R.M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 1003–1067.
  13. Delgado, I.G.; Oliva, A.D.; Sánchez-Queija, I. Apego a los iguales durante la adolescencia y la adultez emergente. An. Psicol. 2011, 27, 155–163.
  14. Bowlby, J. The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds; Hogarth: London, UK, 1979.
  15. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss, Volume 3: Loss, Sadness and Depression; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
  16. Cook, W.L. Understanding attachment security in family context. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 78, 285–294.
  17. Duchesne, S.; Larose, S. Adolescent parental attachment and academic motivation and performance in early adolescence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 37, 1501–1521.
  18. Allen, J.P.; Land, D. Attachment in adolescence. In Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications, 1st ed.; Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 419–435.
  19. Kerns, K.A. Individual differences in friendship quality: Links to child-mother attachment. In The Company They Keep: Friendship in Childhood and Adolescence; Bukowski, W.M., Newcomb, A.F., Hartup, W.W., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996; pp. 137–157.
  20. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss, Volume 2: Separation; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
  21. Marrone, M.; Diamond, N.; Juri, L. La Teoría Del Apego: Un Enfoque Actual; Prismática: Madrid, Spain, 2001.
  22. Pinedo, P.P.; Santelices, A.A.P. Apego adulto: Los modelos operantes internos y la teoría de la mente. Ter. Psicol. 2006, 24, 201–209.
  23. Furman, W.; Simon, V.A.; Shaffer, L.; Bouchey, H.A. Adolescents’ working models and styles for relationships with parents, friends, and romantic partners. Child Dev. 2002, 73, 241–255.
  24. Thompson, R.A. The Development of the Person: Social Understanding, Relationships, Conscience, Self. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development; Eisenberg, N., Damon, W., Lerner, R.M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 24–98.
  25. Rosenblum, K.L.; Dayton, C.J.; Muzik, M. Infant social and emotional development: Emerging competence in a relational context. In Handbook of Infant Mental Health, 3rd ed.; Zeanah, C.H., Jr., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 80–103.
  26. Bartholomew, K. Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. J. Soc. Pers. Relatsh. 1990, 7, 147–178.
  27. Dykas, M.J.; Cassidy, J. Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: Theory and evidence. Psychol. Bull. 2011, 137, 19–46.
  28. Poncela, A.M.F. Adolescencia, crecimiento emocional, proceso familiar y expresiones humorísticas. Educar 2014, 50, 445–466.
  29. Cassidy, J. Truth, lies, and intimacy: An attachment perspective. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2001, 3, 121–155.
  30. Spangler, G.; Zimmermann, P. Emotional and adrenocortical regulation in early adolescence: Prediction by attachment security and disorganization in infancy. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2014, 38, 142–154.
  31. Parker, J.G.; Gottman, J.M. Social and emotional development in a relational context: Friendship interaction from early childhood to adolescence. In Peer Relationships in Child Development; Berndt, T.J., Ladd, G.W., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 95–131.
  32. Del Giudice, M. Sex differences in attachment styles. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2019, 25, 1–5.
  33. Bem, S.L. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequiality; Yale University Press: New Heaven, CT, USA, 1993.
  34. Scharfe, E. Sex differences in attachment. In Encyclopedia if Evolutionary Psychological Science; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 1–5.
  35. De Goede, I.H.; Branje, S.J.; Meeus, W.H. Developmental changes and gender differences in adolescents’ perceptions of friendships. J. Adolesc. 2009, 32, 1105–1123.
  36. Galambos, N.L. Gender and gender role development in adolescence. In Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, 3rd ed.; Lerner, R.M., Steinberg, L., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 233–262.
  37. Maccoby, E.E. Gender and relationships: A developmental account. Am. Psychol. 1990, 45, 513–520.
  38. Erdley, C.A.; Nangle, D.W.; Newman, J.E.; Carpenter, E.M. Children’s friendship experiences and psychological adjustment: Theory and research. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2001, 91, 5–24.
  39. Rubin, K.H.; Bukowski, W.M.; Parker, J.G. Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development, 6th ed.; Eisenberg, N., Damon, W., Lerner, R.M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 571–645.
  40. Nangle, D.W.; Erdley, C.A.; Newman, J.E.; Mason, C.A.; Carpenter, E.M. Popularity, friendship quantity, and friendship quality: Interactive influences on children’s loneliness and depression. J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 2003, 32, 546–555.
  41. Gaertner, A.E.; Fite, P.J.; Colder, C.R. Parenting and friendship quality as predictors of internalizing and externalizing symptoms in early adolescence. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2010, 19, 101–108.
  42. Kwame, S.S.; Pamela, S.J. Childhood friendships and psychological difficulties in young adulthood: An 18-year follow-up study. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2015, 24, 815–826.
  43. Sullivan, H. The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1953.
  44. Engels, C.M.E.; Finkenauer, C.; Meeus, W.; Deković, M. Parental attachment and adolescents’ emotional adjustment: The associations with social skills and relational competence. J. Couns. Psychol. 2001, 48, 428–439.
  45. Kobak, R.R.; Sceery, A. Attachment in late adolescence: Working models, affect regulation, and representations of self and others. Child Dev. 1988, 59, 135–146.
  46. Hartup, W.W.; Stevens, N. Friendships and adaptation across the life span. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1999, 8, 76–79.
  47. Campbell, A. The Sense of Well-Being in America; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1981.
  48. Cole, D.A.; Martin, J.M.; Powers, B.; Truglio, R. Modeling causal relations between academic and social competence and depression: A multitrait-multimethod longitudinal study of children. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1996, 105, 258–270.
  49. Dykas, M.J.; Ziv, Y.; Cassidy, J. Attachment and peer relations in adolescence. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2008, 10, 123–141.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback