Editing Attachment theory (section)

==Attachment patterns==
[[File:Adult attachment patterns.svg|thumb|Attachment theory styles]]
{{blockquote|The strength of a child's attachment behaviour in a given circumstance does not indicate the "strength" of the attachment bond. Some insecure children will routinely display very pronounced attachment behaviours, while many secure children find that there is no great need to engage in either intense or frequent shows of attachment behaviour.<ref>Howe, D. (2011) Attachment across the lifecourse, London: Palgrave, p.13</ref>}} 
{{blockquote|Individuals with different attachment styles have different beliefs about romantic love period, availability, trust capability of love partners and love readiness.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Honari B, Saremi AA | year = 2015 | title = The Study of Relationship between Attachment Styles and Obsessive Love Style | journal = Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences | volume = 165 | pages = 152–159 | doi = 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.617 | doi-access = free }}</ref>}}

===Secure attachment===
{{Main|Secure attachment}}

A toddler who is securely attached to his or her parent (or other familiar caregiver) will explore freely while the caregiver is present, typically engages with strangers, is often visibly upset when the caregiver departs, and is generally happy to see the caregiver return. The extent of exploration and of distress are affected, however, by the child's temperamental make-up and by situational factors as well as by attachment status. A child's attachment is largely influenced by their primary caregiver's sensitivity to their needs. Parents who consistently (or almost always) respond to their child's needs will create securely attached children. Such children are certain that their parents will be responsive to their needs and communications.<ref>[[Daniel Schacter|Schacter, D.L.]] et al. (2009). Psychology, Second Edition. New York: Worth Publishers. pp.441</ref>

In the traditional Ainsworth et al. (1978) coding of the [[Strange Situation]], secure infants are denoted as "Group B" infants and they are further subclassified as B1, B2, B3, and B4.<ref name="Ainsworth, M.D.S, Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S.">{{cite book | vauthors = Ainsworth MD, Blehar MC, Waters E, Wall S | date = 1978 | title =  Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. | location = Hillsdale, NJ | publisher = Earlbaum }}</ref> Although these subgroupings refer to different stylistic responses to the comings and goings of the caregiver, they were not given specific labels by Ainsworth and colleagues, although their descriptive behaviours led others (including students of Ainsworth) to devise a relatively "loose" terminology for these subgroups. B1s have been referred to as "secure-reserved", B2s as "secure-inhibited", B3s as "secure-balanced", and B4s as "secure-reactive". However, in academic publications the classification of infants (if subgroups are denoted) is typically simply "B1" or "B2", although more theoretical and review-oriented papers surrounding attachment theory may use the above terminology. Secure attachment is the most common type of attachment relationship seen throughout societies.<ref name="Ainsworth,1978a" />

Securely attached children are best able to explore when they have the knowledge of a secure base (their caregiver) to return to in times of need. When assistance is given, this bolsters the sense of security and also, assuming the parent's assistance is helpful, educates the child on how to cope with the same problem in the future. Therefore, secure attachment can be seen as the most adaptive attachment style. According to some psychological researchers, a child becomes securely attached when the parent is available and able to meet the needs of the child in a responsive and appropriate manner. At infancy and early childhood, if parents are caring and attentive towards their children, those children will be more prone to secure attachment.<ref name="Aronoff, J. 2012">{{cite journal | vauthors = Aronoff J |year=2012 |title=Parental Nurturance in the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample: Theory, Coding, and Scores | url = https://archive.org/details/sim_cross-cultural-research_2012-11_46_4/page/315 |journal=Cross-Cultural Research |volume=46 |issue=4 |pages=315–347 |doi=10.1177/1069397112450851|s2cid=147304847 }}</ref>

===Anxious-ambivalent attachment===
Anxious-ambivalent attachment is a form of insecure attachment and is also misnamed as "resistant attachment".<ref name="Ainsworth,1978a">{{cite book |title=Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation |vauthors=Ainsworth MD, Blehar M, Waters E, Wall S |publisher=Lawrence Erlbaum Associates |year=1978 |isbn=978-0-89859-461-4 |location=Hillsdale NJ}}</ref><ref name="Plotka 2011 pp. 81–83">{{cite book | last=Plotka | first=Raquel | title=Encyclopedia of Child Behavior and Development | chapter=Ambivalent Attachment | publisher=Springer US | publication-place=Boston, MA | year=2011 | doi=10.1007/978-0-387-79061-9_104 | pages=81–83| isbn=978-0-387-77579-1 |quote=Ambivalent attachment is a form of insecure attachment characterized by inconsistent responses of the caregivers and by the child's feelings of anxiety and preoccupation about the caregiver's availability.}}</ref> In general, a child with an anxious-ambivalent pattern of attachment will typically explore little (in the Strange Situation) and is often wary of strangers, even when the parent is present. When the caregiver departs, the child is often highly distressed showing behaviours such as crying or screaming. The child is generally ambivalent when the caregiver returns.<ref name="Ainsworth, M.D.S, Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S." /> The anxious-ambivalent strategy is a response to unpredictably responsive caregiving, and the displays of anger (ambivalent resistant, C1) or helplessness (ambivalent passive, C2) towards the caregiver on reunion can be regarded as a conditional strategy for maintaining the availability of the caregiver by preemptively taking control of the interaction.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Solomon J, George C, De Jong A |year=1995 |title=Children classified as controlling at age six: Evidence of disorganized representational strategies and aggression at home and at school |journal=Development and Psychopathology |volume=7 |issue=3 |pages=447–463 |doi=10.1017/s0954579400006623|s2cid=146576663 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Crittenden P | date = 1999 | chapter = Danger and development: the organization of self-protective strategies | title = Atypical Attachment in Infancy and Early Childhood Among Children at Developmental Risk | url = https://archive.org/details/atypicalattachme0000unse | veditors = Vondra JI, Barnett D | location = Oxford | publisher = Blackwell | pages = [https://archive.org/details/atypicalattachme0000unse/page/145 145]–171 | isbn = 978-0-631-21592-9 }}</ref>

The C1 (ambivalent resistant) subtype is coded when "resistant behavior is particularly conspicuous. The mixture of seeking and yet resisting contact and interaction has an unmistakably angry quality and indeed an angry tone may characterize behavior in the preseparation episodes".<ref name="Ainsworth, M.D.S, Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S." />

Regarding the C2 (ambivalent passive) subtype, Ainsworth et al. wrote:

{{blockquote|Perhaps the most conspicuous characteristic of C2 infants is their passivity. Their exploratory behavior is limited throughout the SS and their interactive behaviors are relatively lacking in active initiation. Nevertheless, in the reunion episodes they obviously want proximity to and contact with their mothers, even though they tend to use signalling rather than active approach, and protest against being put down rather than actively resisting release&nbsp;... In general the C2 baby is not as conspicuously angry as the C1 baby.<ref name="Ainsworth, M.D.S, Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S." />}}

Research done by McCarthy and Taylor (1999) found that children with [[Adverse childhood experiences|abusive childhood experiences]] were more likely to develop ambivalent attachments. The study also found that children with ambivalent attachments were more likely to experience difficulties in maintaining intimate relationships as adults.<ref name="mccarthy1999avoidant">{{cite news |title=Avoidant/ambivalent attachment style as a mediator between abusive childhood experiences and adult relationship difficulties |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-child-psychology-and-psychiatry_1999-03_40_3/page/465 |last1=McCarthy |first1=Gerard |last2=Taylor |first2=Alan |work=Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry |year=1999 |issue=3 |volume=40 |pages=465–477 |doi=10.1111/1469-7610.00463 |ref=mccarthy1999avoidant}}</ref>

===Dismissive-avoidant attachment===

An infant with a dismissive-avoidant pattern of attachment will avoid or ignore the caregiver—showing little emotion when the caregiver departs or returns. The infant will not explore very much regardless of who is there. Infants classified as dismissive-avoidant (A) represented a puzzle in the early 1970s. They did not exhibit distress on separation, and either ignored the caregiver on their return (A1 subtype) or showed some tendency to approach together with some tendency to ignore or turn away from the caregiver (A2 subtype). Ainsworth and Bell theorized that the apparently unruffled behaviour of the avoidant infants was in fact a mask for distress, a hypothesis later evidenced through studies of the heart-rate of avoidant infants.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Ainsworth MD, Bell SM | s2cid = 3942480 | title = Attachment, exploration, and separation: illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation | url = https://archive.org/details/sim_child-development_1970-03_41_1/page/49 | journal = Child Development | volume = 41 | issue = 1 | pages = 49–67 | date = March 1970 | pmid = 5490680 | doi = 10.2307/1127388 | jstor = 1127388 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Sroufe A, Waters E |year=1977 |title=Attachment as an Organizational Construct | url = https://archive.org/details/sim_child-development_1977-12_48_4/page/1184 |journal=Child Development |volume=48 |issue=4 |pages=1184–1199 |citeseerx=10.1.1.598.3872 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8624.1977.tb03922.x}}</ref>

Infants are depicted as dismissive-avoidant when there is:

{{blockquote|...&nbsp;conspicuous avoidance of the mother in the reunion episodes which is likely to consist of ignoring her altogether, although there may be some pointed looking away, turning away, or moving away&nbsp;... If there is a greeting when the mother enters, it tends to be a mere look or a smile&nbsp;... Either the baby does not approach his mother upon reunion, or they approach in "abortive" fashions with the baby going past the mother, or it tends to only occur after much coaxing&nbsp;... If picked up, the baby shows little or no contact-maintaining behavior<!-- This is within a quote, might be the original spelling -->; he tends not to cuddle in; he looks away and he may squirm to get down.<ref name="Ainsworth, M.D.S, Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S." />}}

Ainsworth's narrative records showed that infants avoided the caregiver in the stressful Strange Situation Procedure when they had a history of experiencing rebuff of attachment behaviour. The infant's needs were frequently not met and the infant had come to believe that communication of emotional needs had no influence on the caregiver.

Ainsworth's student [[Mary Main]] theorized that avoidant behaviour in the Strange Situation Procedure should be regarded as "a conditional strategy, which paradoxically permits whatever proximity is possible under conditions of maternal rejection" by de-emphasising attachment needs.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Main M |year=1979 |title=The "ultimate" causation of some infant attachment phenomena | url = https://archive.org/details/sim_behavioral-and-brain-sciences_1979-12_2_4/page/640 |journal=Behavioral and Brain Sciences |volume=2 |issue=4 |pages=640–643 |doi=10.1017/s0140525x00064992|s2cid=144105265 }}</ref>

Main proposed that avoidance has two functions for an infant whose caregiver is consistently unresponsive to their needs. Firstly, avoidant behaviour allows the infant to maintain a conditional proximity with the caregiver: close enough to maintain protection, but distant enough to avoid rebuff. Secondly, the cognitive processes organizing avoidant behaviour could help direct attention away from the unfulfilled desire for closeness with the caregiver—avoiding a situation in which the child is overwhelmed with emotion ("disorganized distress"), and therefore unable to maintain control of themselves and achieve even conditional proximity.<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Main M | date = 1977 | chapter = Analysis of a peculiar form of reunion behaviour seen in some day-care children. | veditors = Webb R | title = Social Development in Childhood | url = https://archive.org/details/socialdevelopmen00hyma | pages = [https://archive.org/details/socialdevelopmen00hyma/page/33 33]–78 | location = Baltimore | publisher = Johns Hopkins | isbn = 978-0-8018-1946-9 }}</ref>

==={{Anchor|disorganized attachment}}Disorganized/disoriented attachment===
Beginning in 1983, Crittenden offered A/C and other new organized classifications (see below). Drawing on records of behaviours discrepant with the A, B and C classifications, a fourth classification was added by Ainsworth's colleague Mary Main.<ref name=":0">{{cite book |title=Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention |last1=Main |first1=Mary |last2=Solomon |first2=Judith |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=1990 |isbn=978-0-226-30630-8 |editor-last=Greenberg |editor-first=Mark T. |location=Chicago |pages=121–60 |chapter=Procedures for Identifying Infants as Disorganized/Disoriented during the Ainsworth Strange Situation |editor2-last=Cicchetti |editor2-first=Dante |editor3-last=Cummings |editor3-first=E. Mark |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WzHIfiCXE8EC&pg=PA121}}</ref> In the Strange Situation, the attachment system is expected to be activated by the departure and return of the caregiver. If the behaviour of the infant does not appear to the observer to be coordinated in a smooth way across episodes to achieve either proximity or some relative proximity with the caregiver, then it is considered 'disorganized' as it indicates a disruption or flooding of the attachment system (e.g. by fear). Infant behaviours in the Strange Situation Protocol coded as disorganized/disoriented include overt displays of fear; contradictory behaviours or affects occurring simultaneously or sequentially; stereotypic, asymmetric, misdirected or jerky movements; or freezing and apparent dissociation. Lyons-Ruth has urged, however, that it should be more widely "recognized that 52% of disorganized infants continue to approach the caregiver, seek comfort, and cease their distress without clear ambivalent or avoidant behavior"<!-- Presuming spelling from the original -->.<ref>Karlen Lyons-Ruth, Jean-Francois Bureau, M. Ann Easterbrooks, Ingrid Obsuth, Kate Hennighausen & Lauriane Vulliez-Coady (2013) Parsing the construct of maternal insensitivity: distinct longitudinal pathways associated with early maternal withdrawal, Attachment & Human
Development, 15:5–6, 562–582</ref>

The benefit of this category was hinted at earlier in Ainsworth's own experience finding difficulties in fitting all infant behaviour into the three classifications used in her Baltimore study. Ainsworth and colleagues sometimes observed {{blockquote|tense movements such as hunching the shoulders, putting the hands behind the neck and tensely cocking the head, and so on. It was our clear impression that such tension movements signified stress, both because they tended to occur chiefly in the separation episodes and because they tended to be [[prodrome|prodromal]] to crying. Indeed, our hypothesis is that they occur when a child is attempting to control crying, for they tend to vanish if and when crying breaks through.<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Ainsworth MD, Blehar M, Waters E, Wall S | date = 1978 | title = Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation | location = Hillsdale, NJ | publisher = Lawrence Erlbaum | page = 282 | isbn = 978-0-89859-461-4 }}</ref>}} Such observations also appeared in the doctoral theses of Ainsworth's students. Crittenden, for example, noted that one abused infant in her doctoral sample was classed as secure (B) by her undergraduate coders because her strange situation behaviour was "without either avoidance or ambivalence, she did show stress-related stereotypic headcocking throughout the strange situation. This pervasive behavior, however, was the only clue to the extent of her stress".<ref>{{cite thesis | vauthors = Crittenden PM | title = Mother and Infant Patterns of Attachment | degree = Ph.D. | publisher = University of Virginia | date = May 1983 | page = 73 }}</ref>

There is rapidly growing interest in disorganized attachment from clinicians and policy-makers as well as researchers.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Kochanska G, Kim S | title = Early attachment organization with both parents and future behavior problems: from infancy to middle childhood | journal = Child Development | volume = 84 | issue = 1 | pages = 283–96 | year = 2013 | pmid = 23005703 | pmc = 3530645 | doi = 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01852.x }}</ref> However, the disorganized/disoriented attachment (D) classification has been criticized by some for being too encompassing, including Ainsworth herself.<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Svanberg PO | date = 2009 | chapter = Promoting a secure attachment through early assessment and interventions. | veditors = Barlow J, Svanberg PO | title = Keeping the Baby in Min | pages = 100–114 | location = London | publisher = Routledge }}</ref> In 1990, Ainsworth put in print her blessing for the new 'D' classification, though she urged that the addition be regarded as "open-ended, in the sense that subcategories may be distinguished", as she worried that too many different forms of behaviour might be treated as if they were the same thing.<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Ainsworth M | date = 1990 | chapter = Epilogue | title = Attachment in the Preschool Years | veditors = Greenberg MT, Ciccheti D, Cummings EM | location = Chicago, IL | publisher = Chicago University Press | pages = 463–488 }}</ref> Indeed, the D classification puts together infants who use a somewhat disrupted secure (B) strategy with those who seem hopeless and show little attachment behaviour; it also puts together infants who run to hide when they see their caregiver in the same classification as those who show an avoidant (A) strategy on the first reunion and then an ambivalent-resistant (C) strategy on the second reunion. Perhaps responding to such concerns, George and Solomon have divided among indices of disorganized/disoriented attachment (D) in the Strange Situation, treating some of the behaviours as a 'strategy of desperation' and others as evidence that the attachment system has been flooded (e.g. by fear, or anger).<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Solomon J, George C | date = 1999 | chapter = The place of disorganization in attachment theory. | veditors = Solomon J, George C | title = Attachment Disorganization | url = https://archive.org/details/attachmentdisorg0000unse | pages = [https://archive.org/details/attachmentdisorg0000unse/page/27 27] | location = NY | publisher = Guilford }}</ref>

Crittenden also argues that some behaviour classified as Disorganized/disoriented can be regarded as more 'emergency' versions of the avoidant and/or ambivalent/resistant strategies, and function to maintain the protective availability of the caregiver to some degree. Sroufe et al. have agreed that "even disorganized attachment behaviour (simultaneous approach-avoidance; freezing, etc.) enables a degree of proximity in the face of a frightening or unfathomable parent".<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Sroufe A, Egeland B, Carlson E, Collins WA | date = 2005 | title = The Development of the person: the Minnesota study of risk and adaptation from birth to adulthood | url = https://archive.org/details/developmentperso00phdl_935 | location = NY | publisher = Guilford Press | page = [https://archive.org/details/developmentperso00phdl_935/page/n261 245] | isbn = 978-1-59385-158-3 }}</ref> However, "the presumption that many indices of 'disorganization' are aspects of organized patterns does not preclude acceptance of the notion of disorganization, especially in cases where the complexity and dangerousness of the threat are beyond children's capacity for response."<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Crittenden P | date = 1999 | chapter = Danger and development: the organization of self-protective strategies | title = Atypical Attachment in Infancy and Early Childhood Among Children at Developmental Risk | url = https://archive.org/details/atypicalattachme0000unse | veditors = Vondra JI, Barnett D | location = Oxford | publisher = Blackwell | pages = [https://archive.org/details/atypicalattachme0000unse/page/159 159]–160 | isbn = 978-0-631-21592-9 }}</ref> For example, "Children placed in care, especially more than once, often have intrusions. In videos of the Strange Situation Procedure, they tend to occur when a rejected/neglected child approaches the stranger in an intrusion of desire for comfort, then loses muscular control and falls to the floor, overwhelmed by the intruding fear of the unknown, potentially dangerous, strange person."<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Crittenden P, Landini A | date = 2011 | title = Assessing Adult Attachment: A Dynamic-Maturational Approach to Discourse Analysis | location = NY | publisher = W.W. Norton | page = 269 }}</ref>

Main and Hesse<ref name="MaineHesse">{{cite book |title=Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research, and Intervention |last1=Main |first1=Mary |last2=Hesse |first2=Erik |publisher=University of Chicago Press |year=1993 |isbn=978-0-226-30630-8 |editor-last=Greenberg |editor-first=Mark T. |location=Chicago |pages=161–84 |chapter=Parents' Unresolved Traumatic Experiences Are Related to Infant Disorganized Attachment Status: Is Frightened and/or Frightening Parental Behavior the Linking Mechanism? |editor2-last=Cicchetti |editor2-first=Dante |editor3-last=Cummings |editor3-first=E. Mark |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WzHIfiCXE8EC&pg=PA161}}</ref> found most of the mothers of these children had suffered major losses or other trauma shortly before or after the birth of the infant and had reacted by becoming severely depressed.<ref name="Parkes">{{cite book |title=Love and Loss | first = Colin Murray | last = Parkes |publisher=Routledge, London and New York |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-415-39041-5 |page=13}}</ref> In fact, fifty-six per cent of mothers who had lost a parent by death before they completed high school had children with disorganized attachments.<ref name=MaineHesse /> Subsequent studies, while emphasising the potential importance of unresolved loss, have qualified these findings.<ref name="pmid16818417">{{cite journal | vauthors = Madigan S, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Van Ijzendoorn MH, Moran G, Pederson DR, Benoit D | title = Unresolved states of mind, anomalous parental behavior, and disorganized attachment: a review and meta-analysis of a transmission gap | journal = Attachment & Human Development | volume = 8 | issue = 2 | pages = 89–111 | date = June 2006 | pmid = 16818417 | doi = 10.1080/14616730600774458 | s2cid = 1691924 }}</ref> For example, Solomon and George found unresolved loss in the mother tended to be associated with disorganized attachment in their infant primarily when they had also experienced an unresolved trauma in their life prior to the loss.<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Solomon J, George C | date = 2006 | chapter = Intergenerational transmission of dysregulated maternal caregiving: Mothers describe their upbringing and child rearing. | veditors = Mayseless O | title = Parenting representations: Theory, research, and clinical implications | url = https://archive.org/details/parentingreprese00ofra | pages = [https://archive.org/details/parentingreprese00ofra/page/265 265]–295 | location = Cambridge, UK | publisher = Cambridge University Press | isbn = 978-0-521-82887-1 }}</ref>

=== Categorization differences across cultures ===
Across different cultures deviations from the Strange Situation Protocol have been observed.  A Japanese study in 1986 (Takahashi) studied 60 Japanese mother-infant pairs and compared them with Ainsworth's distributional pattern. Although the ranges for securely attached and insecurely attached had no significant differences in proportions, the Japanese insecure group consisted of only resistant children, with no children categorized as avoidant.  This may be because the Japanese child rearing philosophy stressed close mother infant bonds more so than in Western cultures.  In Northern Germany, Grossmann et al. (Grossmann, Huber, & Wartner, 1981; Grossmann, Spangler, Suess, & Unzner, 1985) replicated the Ainsworth Strange Situation with 46 mother infant pairs and found a different distribution of attachment classifications with a high number of avoidant infants: 52% avoidant, 34% secure, and 13% resistant (Grossmann et al., 1985).  Another study in Israel found there was a high frequency of an ambivalent pattern, which according to Grossman et al. (1985) could be attributed to a greater parental push toward children's independence.

=== Later patterns and the dynamic-maturational model ===
Techniques have been developed to guide a child to verbalize their state of mind with respect to attachment. One such is the "stem story", in which a child receives the beginning of a story that raises attachment issues and is asked to complete it. This is modified for older children, adolescents and adults, where semi-structured interviews are used instead, and the way content is delivered may be as significant as the content itself.<ref name="Schaffer">{{cite book |title=Introducing Child Psychology | vauthors = Schaffer R |publisher=Blackwell |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-631-21628-5 |location=Oxford |pages=83–121}}</ref> However, there are no substantially validated measures of attachment for middle childhood or early adolescence (from 7 to 13 years of age).<ref name="AACAP-2005">{{cite journal | vauthors = Boris NW, Zeanah CH | title = Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with reactive attachment disorder of infancy and early childhood | journal = Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry | volume = 44 | issue = 11 | pages = 1206–19 | date = November 2005 | pmid = 16239871 | doi = 10.1097/01.chi.0000177056.41655.ce | url = http://www.aacap.org/galleries/PracticeParameters/rad.pdf | url-status = dead | access-date = September 13, 2009 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090824051123/http://www.aacap.org/galleries/PracticeParameters/rad.pdf | others = Work Group on Quality Issues | archive-date = August 24, 2009 }}</ref>

Some studies of older children have identified further attachment classifications. Main and Cassidy observed that disorganized behaviour in infancy can develop into a child using caregiver-controlling or punitive behaviour to manage a helpless or dangerously unpredictable caregiver. In these cases, the child's behaviour is organized, but the behaviour is treated by researchers as a form of disorganization, since the hierarchy in the family no longer follows parenting authority in that scenario.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Main M, Cassidy J | date = 1988 | title = Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6. | url = https://archive.org/details/sim_developmental-psychology_1988-05_24_3/page/415 | journal = Developmental Psychology | volume = 24 | issue = 3 | pages = 415–426 | doi = 10.1037/0012-1649.24.3.415 }}</ref>

American psychologist [[Patricia McKinsey Crittenden]] has elaborated classifications of further forms of avoidant and ambivalent attachment behaviour, as seen in her [[dynamic-maturational model of attachment and adaptation]] (DMM). These include the caregiving and punitive behaviours also identified by Main and Cassidy (termed A3 and C3, respectively), but also other patterns such as compulsive compliance with the wishes of a threatening parent (A4).<ref>{{cite book | vauthors = Crittenden PM | date = 2008 | title = Raising Parents: Attachment, Parenting and Child Safety | location = London | publisher = Routledge }}</ref>

Crittenden's ideas developed from Bowlby's proposal: "Given certain adverse circumstances during childhood, the selective exclusion of information of certain sorts may be adaptive. Yet, when during adolescence and adulthood the situation changes, the persistent exclusion of the same forms of information may become maladaptive".<ref>{{cite book | last = Bowlby |first =John |title=Loss: Sadness and depression|page=45 |year=1980 |place=New York|publisher=Basic Books|series = Attachment and Loss|volume = III|isbn =978-0-465-04237-1}}</ref>

Crittenden theorizes the human experience of danger comprise two basic components:<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Strathearn L, Fonagy P, Amico J, Montague PR | title = Adult attachment predicts maternal brain and oxytocin response to infant cues | journal = Neuropsychopharmacology | volume = 34 | issue = 13 | pages = 2655–66 | date = December 2009 | pmid = 19710635 | pmc = 3041266 | doi = 10.1038/npp.2009.103 }}</ref>

# Emotions provoked by the potential for danger, which Crittenden refers to as "affective information." In childhood, the unexplained absence of an attachment figure would cause these emotions. A strategy an infant faced with insensitive or rejecting parenting may use to maintain availability of the attachment figure is to repress emotional information that could result in rejection by said attachment figure.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Andrea|first=Crittenden, Patricia McKinsey Landini|url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/768809528|title=Assessing adult attachment : a dynamic-maturational approach to discourse analysis|date=2011|publisher=W.W Norton & Co|isbn=978-0-393-70667-3|oclc=768809528}}</ref>
# Causal or other sequentially ordered knowledge about the potential for safety or danger, which would include awareness of behaviours that indicate whether an attachment figure is available as a secure haven. If the infant represses knowledge that the caregiver is not a reliable source of protection and safety, they may use clingy and/or aggressive behaviour to demand attention and potentially increase the availability of an attachment figure who otherwise displays inconsistent or misleading responses to the infant's attachment behaviours.<ref name="landa2013">{{cite journal | vauthors = Landa S, Duschinsky R |s2cid=17508615 |title=Crittenden's dynamic–maturational model of attachment and adaptation |journal=Review of General Psychology |volume=17 |issue=3 |pages=326–338 |year=2013 |doi=10.1037/a0032102 }}</ref>

Crittenden proposes both kinds of information can be split off from consciousness or behavioural expression as a 'strategy' to maintain the availability of an attachment figure (see [[#disorganized attachment|disorganized/disoriented attachment]] for type distinctions). Type A strategies split off emotional information about feeling threatened, and Type C strategies split off temporally-sequenced knowledge about how and why the attachment figure is available.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Crittenden PM, Newman L |date=July 2010 |title=Comparing models of borderline personality disorder: Mothers' experience, self-protective strategies, and dispositional representations |journal=Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry |volume=15 |issue=3 |pages=433–51 |doi=10.1177/1359104510368209 |pmid=20603429 |s2cid=206707532}}</ref> In contrast, Type B strategies use both kinds of information without much distortion.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Crittenden PM | title = Children's strategies for coping with adverse home environments: an interpretation using attachment theory | url = https://archive.org/details/sim_child-abuse-neglect_1992_16_3/page/329 | journal = Child Abuse & Neglect | volume = 16 | issue = 3 | pages = 329–43 | year = 1992 | pmid = 1617468 | doi = 10.1016/0145-2134(92)90043-q | access-date = | doi-access = free }}</ref> For example, a toddler may have come to depend upon a Type C strategy of tantrums to maintain an unreliable attachment figure's availability, which may cause the attachment figure to respond appropriately to the child's attachment behaviours. As a result of learning the attachment figure is becoming more reliable, the toddler's reliance on coercive behaviours is reduced, and a more secure attachment may develop.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Benoit |first1=Diane |title=Infant-parent attachment: Definition, types, antecedents, measurement and outcome |journal=Paediatrics & Child Health |date=October 2004 |volume=9 |issue=8 |pages=541–545 |doi=10.1093/pch/9.8.541|pmid=19680481 |pmc=2724160 }}</ref>

===Significance of patterns===
Research based on data from longitudinal studies, such as the [[National Institute of Child Health and Human Development]] Study of Early Child Care and the Minnesota Study of Risk and Adaption from Birth to Adulthood, and from cross-sectional studies, consistently shows associations between early attachment classifications and peer relationships as to both quantity and quality. Lyons-Ruth, for example, found that "for each additional withdrawing behavior displayed by mothers in relation to their infant's attachment cues in the Strange Situation Procedure, the likelihood of clinical referral by service providers was increased by 50%."<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Lyons-Ruth K, Bureau JF, Easterbrooks MA, Obsuth I, Hennighausen K, Vulliez-Coady L | title = Parsing the construct of maternal insensitivity: distinct longitudinal pathways associated with early maternal withdrawal | journal = Attachment & Human Development | volume = 15 | issue = 5–6 | pages = 562–82 | year = 2013 | pmid = 24299135 | pmc = 3861901 | doi = 10.1080/14616734.2013.841051 }}</ref>

There is an extensive body of research demonstrating a significant association between attachment organizations and children's functioning across multiple domains.<ref name="PPP">{{cite book |title=Psychotherapy of abused and neglected children |url=https://archive.org/details/psychotherapyabu00pear |vauthors=Pearce JW, Pezzot-Pearce TD |publisher=Guilford press |year=2007 |isbn=978-1-59385-213-9 |edition=2nd |location=New York and London |pages=[https://archive.org/details/psychotherapyabu00pear/page/17 17]–20}}</ref> Early insecure attachment does not necessarily predict difficulties, but it is a liability for the child, particularly if similar parental behaviours continue throughout childhood.{{sfn|Karen|1998|pp=248–66}} Compared to that of securely attached children, the adjustment of insecure children in many spheres of life is not as soundly based, putting their future relationships in jeopardy. Although the link is not fully established by research and there are other influences besides attachment, secure infants are more likely to become socially competent than their insecure peers. Relationships formed with peers influence the acquisition of social skills, intellectual development and the formation of social identity. Classification of children's peer status (popular, neglected or rejected) has been found to predict subsequent adjustment.<ref name="Schaffer" /> Insecure children, particularly avoidant children, are especially vulnerable to family risk. Their social and behavioural problems increase or decline with deterioration or improvement in parenting. However, an early secure attachment appears to have a lasting protective function.<ref name="bercasapp">{{cite encyclopedia |year=2008 |title=The Influence of Early Attachments on Other Relationships |encyclopedia=Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications |publisher=Guilford Press |location=New York and London |pages=333–47 |isbn=978-1-59385-874-2 |vauthors=Berlin LJ, Cassidy J, Appleyard K |veditors=Cassidy J, Shaver PR}}</ref> As with attachment to parental figures, subsequent experiences may alter the course of development.<ref name="Schaffer" />

Studies have suggested that infants with a high-risk for [[autism spectrum disorders]] (ASD) may express attachment security differently from infants with a low-risk for ASD.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Haltigan JD, Ekas NV, Seifer R, Messinger DS | title = Attachment security in infants at-risk for autism spectrum disorders | journal = Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders | volume = 41 | issue = 7 | pages = 962–7 | date = July 2011 | pmid = 20859669 | pmc = 4486071 | doi = 10.1007/s10803-010-1107-7 }}</ref> Behavioural problems and social competence in insecure children increase or decline with deterioration or improvement in quality of parenting and the degree of risk in the family environment.<ref name=bercasapp/>

Some authors have questioned the idea that a [[wikt:taxonomy|taxonomy]] of categories representing a qualitative difference in attachment relationships can be developed. Examination of data from 1,139 15-month-olds showed that variation in attachment patterns was continuous rather than grouped.<ref name="FraSpe">{{cite journal | vauthors = Fraley RC, Spieker SJ | title = Are infant attachment patterns continuously or categorically distributed? A taxometric analysis of strange situation behavior | journal = Developmental Psychology | volume = 39 | issue = 3 | pages = 387–404 | date = May 2003 | pmid = 12760508 | doi = 10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.387 }}</ref> This criticism introduces important questions for attachment typologies and the mechanisms behind apparent types. However, it has relatively little relevance for attachment theory itself, which "neither requires nor predicts discrete patterns of attachment."<ref name="WatBea">{{cite journal | vauthors = Waters E, Beauchaine TP | title = Are there really patterns of attachment? Comment on Fraley and Spieker (2003) | url = https://archive.org/details/sim_developmental-psychology_2003-05_39_3/page/417 | journal = Developmental Psychology | volume = 39 | issue = 3 | pages = 417–22; discussion 423–9 | date = May 2003 | pmid = 12760512 | doi = 10.1037/0012-1649.39.3.417 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.128.1029 }}</ref>

There is some evidence that gender differences in attachment patterns of [[Adaption|adaptive]] significance begin to emerge in middle childhood. There has been a common tendency observed by researchers that males demonstrate a greater tendency to engage in criminal behaviour which is suspected to be related to males being more likely to experience inadequate early attachments to primary caregivers.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hayslett-Mccall |first1=Karen L. |last2=Bernard |first2=Thomas J. |date=February 2002 |title=Attachment, masculinity, and self-control |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136248060200600101 |journal=Theoretical Criminology |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=5–33 |doi=10.1177/136248060200600101 |s2cid=143624197 |issn=1362-4806|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Insecure attachment and early psycho[[social stress]] indicate the presence of environmental risk (for example poverty, mental illness, instability, minority status, violence). Environmental risk can cause insecure attachment, while also favouring the development of strategies for earlier reproduction. Different reproductive strategies have different adaptive values for males and females: Insecure males tend to adopt avoidant strategies, whereas insecure females tend to adopt anxious/ambivalent strategies, unless they are in a very high risk environment. [[Adrenarche]] is proposed as the endocrine mechanism underlying the reorganization of insecure attachment in middle childhood.<ref name="delguid">{{cite journal | vauthors = Del Giudice M | title = Sex, attachment, and the development of reproductive strategies | journal = The Behavioral and Brain Sciences | volume = 32 | issue = 1 | pages = 1–21; discussion 21–67 | date = February 2009 | pmid = 19210806 | doi = 10.1017/S0140525X09000016 | s2cid = 5396375 }}</ref>