Are There Really Patterns Of Attachment? Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives

Ainsworth's description of attachment patterns in the Strange Situation is one of the best known and most enduring descriptive insights in developmental psychology. In view of the importance of the Avoidant, Secure, Resistant (ABC) classification system to attachment theory and research, it is surprising that attachment theorists have paid so little attention to whether these categories represent a true taxonomy or a mere measurement convention. It is also surprising that there has been so little discussion of mechanisms that might produce truly distinct patterns of attachment. Fraley and Spieker's MAXCOV analysis of attachment patterns in the Strange Situation brings welcome attention to questions that for too long have gone unasked and unanswered. It is also a welcome introduction and illustration of the logic, value, and difficulties of taxonomic search methods that deserve to be better known in developmental psychology. This comment focuses on three questions. What does attachment theory predict or require with regard to the taxonomic versus dimensional structure of individual differences? How can taxonomic analyses of Strange Situation variables contribute to our understanding of individual differences in attachment security? And, most importantly, are we asking the right questions? We conclude that attachment theory is indifferent to the structure (taxonomic or dimensional) of individual differences. Nonetheless, taxonomic search methods can make important descriptive and theoretical contributions to the study of attachment, especially if the focus of research is broadened to include secure base behavior in naturalistic settings. Mary Ainsworth's description of avoidant, secure, and resistant (ABC) attachment patterns in the Strange Situation is one of the best known and most enduring insights in developmental psychology. It has been the basis for extremely productive research designs, data analytic strategies, further descriptive insights, assessment at older ages, and a number of interesting theoretical extrapolations. At the same time, attachment researchers have been fairly criticized for reifying the ABC classifications, too readily generalizing them beyond the reunion context in which they were discovered, and treating them as traits rather than relationship specific. In view of the importance of the ABC classification system, it is surprising that attachment theorists have paid so little attention to whether these categories represent a true taxonomy or a mere measurement convention. It is also surprising that there has been so little discussion of mechanisms that might produce truly distinct patterns of attachment. Fraley and Spieker's MAXCOV analyses of attachment patterns in the Strange Situation bring welcome attention to these issues. It is also a welcome introduction and illustration of the logic, value, and difficulties of taxonomic search methods that deserve to be better known in developmental psychology. An Inordinate Fondness For Types One of the primary goals of science is to simplify. One of the most basic simplifications is to group similar entities into categories. Valid taxonomies "carve Nature at it joints." In doing so they add information that goes beyond mere descriptive Developmental Psychology (2003, in press)