Attachment Theory and Research: Implications for Psychodynamic Psychotherapy

Though attachment research today is best conceptualized as integrationist and multidisciplinary, it is important to remember that attachment theory was born out of clinical process. Bowlby [ 1– 3 ] was fi rst and foremost a psychoanalyst, and he drew from clinical experiences with children and adults to conceptualize his theory. Many of his ideas developed in response to dissatisfaction with the prevailing perspectives of the time. Though Melanie Klein, his supervisor at the time, was quite infl uential in his thinking about object relations, her conceptualization of development focused almost exclusively on internal confl ict rather than external events in the child’s family and environment [ 4, 5 ] . Contrary to Klein’s perspective, during the analysis of a 3-year-old boy, Bowlby observed direct links between disturbances in the mother and pathology in the child. Such experiences in analytic treatment formed the basis for his assertion that early attachment diffi culties increase vulnerability to later psychopathology. Bowlby [ 2 ] contended that internal working models of attachment help to explain “the many forms of emotional distress and personality disturbances, including anxiety, anger, depression, and emotional detachment, to which unwilling separations and loss give rise” (p. 201). He held that childhood attachment underlies the “later capacity to make affectional bonds as well as a whole range of adult dysfunctions” including “marital problems and trouble with children, as well as ... neurotic symptoms and personality disorders” (p. 206). Thus, Bowlby [ 1, 3 ] postulated that early attachment experiences have long-lasting effects that tend to persist across the lifespan, are among the major determinants of personality organization, and have specifi c clinical relevance. Despite their shared Chapter 24 Attachment Theory and Research: Implications for Psychodynamic Psychotherapy