CHOICE THEORY

July 23 2011

What is Choice Theory? Developed by psychiatrist William Glasser, Choice Theory states we are
motivated by a never-ending quest to satisfy the following 5 basic needs woven into our genes: to love
and belong, to be powerful, to be free, to have fun and to survive.

BEHAVIOR IS CHOSEN
Choice theory contends that we are internally motivated, not externally motivated by rewards and
punishment.

Originally called control theory, Glasser switched to choice theory in 1996 to emphasize that virtually
all behavior is chosen .

CHOICE THEORY: WHAT MOTIVATES US?

Choice theory represents an alternative to behaviorism and other external control psychologies.

Rather than seeing people as shaped by rewards and punishment, Choice Theorysuggests that we
always have some capacity to make choices and exercise control in our lives.

Choice Theory teaches that we are always motivated by what we want at that moment. It emphasizes
the importance of building and maintaining positive relationships with others to create a shared vision.
People who develop sharedquality world pictures are motivated to pursue common goals and are
more likely to work collaboratively.

CHOICE THEORY SUMMARY

A basic understanding of Choice Theory requires some knowledge of the following 5 key concepts:
 1. Basic Needs

2. The Quality World

3. Reality & Perception

4. Comparing Place

5. Total Behavior

Choice Theory: The Basic Needs

All people are born with 5 basic needs:

1. to love & belong

2. to be powerful

3. to be free

4. to have fun

5. to survive

All behavior is purposeful, motivated by our incessant desire to satisfy the basic needs woven into our
genes.

The strength of each need varies from person to person.

For example, some are more driven by the social need to love and belong while others are more driven
by the need to be free and autonomous.

1. Choice Theory: The Quality World

Each of us develops a unique Quality World, the source of all motivation.

Whereas the Basic Needs represent nature, The Quality World represents nurture. As we live our
lives and interact with others, we each build this unique Quality World that includes the people,
activities, values, and beliefs that are most important to us as individuals.

Everything we place in our Quality World is need satisfying.

Examples:

I love these people.

I feel a sense of power when I am singing on stage.
I have fun when I am playing outside with my children.
 Throughout our lives, we add and delete pictures from our Quality World. Some people develop
Quality World pictures that are unhealthy and irresponsible.

Examples:

Think of people who only feel a sense of power or freedom when drinking alcohol or taking other drugs.
Think of people who have fun when hurting others physically or emotionally.

Choice Theory suggests that parents, educators, and the community at large can promote
environments that encourage others to develop Quality World pictures that let them satisfy their needs
responsibly.

2. Choice Theory: Reality & Perception

Even though we all live in the Real World, Choice Theory contends that what matters is
our perception of reality.

We behave based on what we perceive to be real, whether we are right or wrong.

Choice Theory states that information passes through three distinct filters as we create our perception
of reality:

1. the sensory filter

2. the knowledge filter

3. the value filter

Because of these filters, two or more people may witness the same event or participate in the same
activity and develop radically different perceptions.

Examples:

We may all agree that Barack Obama is president of the United States, but there are multiple
perceptions about how good or bad a president he is.
Talk to a couple of Red Sox and Yankee fans and youll quickly understand that the same real world
is perceived very differently because of their value filters.

3. Choice Theory: The Comparing Place

Our brain continually compares two images:

1. our perception of reality

2. our Quality World picture of what we want at that moment

The purpose of all behavior is to create a match between what we perceive and what we want.
 When there is a match, we will maintain the behaviors we have chosen. When there is enough of a
mismatch to cause internal discomfort, we automatically search for new behaviors that will create the
match we seek.

Examples:

A classroom teacher looks around the room and notices that the students are actively involved in the
activity she has asked them to do. She gets a positive internal signal and continues her current
teaching strategies
A parent notices that their child is behaving poorly at home and in school. The mismatch between what
the parent wants and what they perceive leads them to try new strategies designed to help the child
behave more responsibly.

4. Choice Theory: Total Behavior

All behavior has four components:

1. acting

2. thinking

3. feeling

4. physiology

When we change any one component of behavior, the other components change as well.

The two easiest components to control directly are acting and thinking. It is virtually impossible to
change your feelings or physiology directly.

Examples:

Imagine you could feel less sad or depressed just because you wanted to.
Imagine a student who is agitated and frustrated and could just calm down because he wanted to.

Since all four components work in concert, however, we have much more control over our feelings and
physiology than we realize. By choosing to act and/or think differently, our feelings and physiology
automatically change.

Practitioners of Choice Theory help people choose responsible actions and thoughts that lead them to
feel better and positively impact their physiology.

HOW CHOICE THEORY IMPACTS LEARNING

When Choice Theory is applied in the classroom, as it has been in schools across the world, it
has a significant impact on how instruction is delivered.

The Teacher As Manager

Glasser contends that teachers need to manage effectively if they hope to successfully teach their
students.

The role of the teacher/manager is to help students see that working hard and doing what the teacher
asks is worth the effort and will add quality to their lives. This is achieved by developing positive
relationships with students and providing active, relevant learning experiences where students can
demonstrate success.

Effective teacher/managers create shared Quality World pictures with their students so students are
motivated to learn what the teacher wants to teach.

The Needs-Satisfying Classroom

When creating lessons, teachers who practice Choice Theory ensure that students can satisfy their
needs by doing what the teacher asks them to do.

Learning increases and disruption diminishes when students know that they are able to connect, feel a
sense of competence and power, have some freedom, and enjoy themselves in a safe, secure
environment. (Chapter 10 of The Motivated Student: Unlocking the Enthusiasm for Learning offers a
specific strategy that helps teachers plan lessons with their students needs in mind)

Common Characteristics

Classrooms and schools that apply Choice Theory share the following 3 characteristics:

1. Coercion is minimized. Rather than trying to make students behave by using rewards and
punishments, teachers build positive relationships with their students, managing them without coercion.
Coercion never inspires quality.

2. Focus on quality. Teachers expect mastery of concepts and encourage students to re-take tests
and continue to work on assignments until they have demonstrated competence or quality. The
emphasis is on deep learning demonstrated through the ability to apply what has been learned.

3. Self-evaluation. Self-evaluation is a cornerstone of Choice Theory. Given helpful information

(rubrics, models, exemplars, etc.) students take on greater ownership of their learning by evaluating
their own performance routinely. Encouraging students to self-evaluate promotes responsibility and
helps students pursue goals and become skilled decision-makers because they are more actively
involved in their education.

JAMES MARCIAS IDENTITY STATUSES

James Marcia is a Canadian developmental psychologist who expanded on Eriksons Stages of Psychosocial Development.
His research and writings have largely focused on adolescent development. His work was to identify and classify processes
that adolescents go through when they experience identity crises. The four processes that Marcia defined are:

Foreclosure

In this state, an adolescent may blindly accept whatever ideology or values system that has been given to them from their
parents or family members. This indicates a pseudo-identity that is too rigid or fixed to meet lifes future crises (Slavin).

Identity Diffusion

This state is a struggle of identity that is marked by no real progress in deciding an occupation or ideology of ones own.
There is no commitment to anything or ability to develop ones sense of self. An individual may have had an identity crisis,
but it would not have been resolved (Slavin).

Moratorium

This state marks little real commitment to an ideology or occupation but is also a state of experimentation. It also marks an
ongoing identity crisis and the examination of alternate life choices (Slavin).

Identity Achievement

This state is the state of clarity and of development of ones identity. It marks a commitment to an ideology or more direction
in terms of occupational goals. These decisions have been autonomously made and developed by a formed ego identity.

So, how does this apply to teaching adolescents? Well, as Marcia said, the successful resolution of industry and identity
leaves one with the skills and confidence they will need to pursue a career or vocational direction (Marcia). Though Marcia
did not believe that the identity process began and ended in adolescence, it is clear that he felt that this state was a
vulnerable state for a person. As instructors, this means we need to be providing a safe learning environment where
adolescents can not only learn but interact, meet their need for intimacy and explore identity.

Diana Baumrind's (1966)

Prototypical Descriptions of 3
Parenting Styles
First paper where prototypes are published:
Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of Authoritative Parental Control on
Child Behavior, Child Development, 37(4), 887-907.

Second, and most often cited, paper with extensive discussion of

parenting styles:
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three
patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology Monographs,
75(1), 43-88.

The permissive parent attempts to behave in a nonpunitive,

acceptant and affirmative manner towards the child's impulses,
desires, and actions. She [the parent] consults with him [the child]
about policy decisions and gives explanations for family rules. She
makes few demands for household responsibility and orderly
behavior. She presents herself to the child as a resource for him to
use as he wishes, not as an ideal for him to emulate, nor as an
active agent responsible for shaping or altering his ongoing or
future behavior. She allows the child to regulate his own activities
as much as possible, avoids the exercise of control, and does not
encourage him to obey externally defined standards. She attempts
to use reason and manipulation, but not overt power to accomplish
her ends (p. 889).

The authoritarian parent attempts to shape, control, and evaluate

the behavior and attitudes of the child in accordance with a set
standard of conduct, usually an absolute standard, theologically
motivated and formulated by a higher authority. She [the parent]
values obedience as a virtue and favors punitive, forceful
measures to curb self-will at points where the child's actions or
beliefs conflict with what she thinks is right conduct. She believes
in keeping the child in his place, , in restricting his autonomy, and
in assigning household responsibilities in order to inculcate
respect for work. She regards the preservation of order and
traditional structure as a highly valued end in itself. She does not
encourage verbal give and take, believing that the child should
accept her word for what is right (p. 890).

The authoritative parent attempts to direct the child's activities but

in a rational, issue-oriented manner. She [the parent] encourages
verbal give and take, shares with the child the reasoning behind
her policy, and solicits his objections when he refuses to conform.
Both autonomous self-will and disciplined conformity are valued.
[She values both expressive and instrumental attributes, both
autonomous self-will and disciplined conformity] ... Therefore she
exerts firm control at points of parent-child divergence, but does
not hem the child in with restrictions. She enforces her own
perspective as an adult, but recognizes the child's individual
interests and special ways. The authoritative parent affirms the
child's present qualities, but also sets standards for future conduct.
She uses reason, power, and shaping by regime and
reinforcement to achieve her objectives, and does not base her
decisions on group consensus or the individual child's desires. [...
but also does not regard herself as infallible, or divinely inspired.]
(p. 891) [Note that portions in brackets are significant additions to
the prototype in Baumrind (1967).]

Background Information: Child Qualities &

Parenting Styles

Authoritative Parenting
lively and happy disposition
self-confident about ability to master tasks.
well developed emotion regulation
developed social skills
less rigid about gender-typed traits (exp: sensitivity in
boys and independence in girls)

Authoritarian Parenting
anxious, withdrawn, and unhappy disposition
poor reactions to frustration (girls are particularly
likely to give up and boys become especially hostile)
do well in school (studies may show authoritative
parenting is comparable)
not likely to engage in antisocial activities (exp: drug
and alcohol abuse, vandalism, gangs)

Permissive Parenting
poor emotion regulation (under regulated)
rebellious and defiant when desires are challenged.
low persistence to challenging tasks
antisocial behaviors

Background Information: Why does

authoritative parenting work?
Control that appears fair and reasonable (i.e. not arbitrary) to the
child is far more likely to be complied with and internalized.

Nurturing parents who are secure in the standards they hold for
their children provide models of caring concern as well as
confident, self-controlled behavior. A child's modeling of these
parents provides emotion regulation skills, emotional
understanding, and social understanding.

Parents who combine warmth and rational and reasonable control

are likely to be more effective reinforcing agents. They praise
children for striving to meet their expectations and making good
use of disapproval, which works best when applied by an adult
who has been warm and caring.

Authoritative parents make demands that fit with children's ability

to take responsibility for their own behavior. Children subsequently
learn that they are competent individuals who can do things
successfully for themselves. This fosters high self-esteem,
cognitive development, and emotional maturity.

Lesson Plan Excerpt: The fourth parenting

style

Sorry I haven't had a chance to prepare this section yet. Right now
my priority need to be completing my dissertation. I hope to
prepare this lesson plan excerpt in the summer. Here is an
outline. The basic idea is that you ask students to draw up
diagrams for how the parenting styles relate. That might seem
obtuse to students so you can start them out by suggesting a
model: draw three blobs on the board and put a parenting style in
each blob. Then say your model is that each of three styles is
completely distinct from the others. That should spark on some
discussion which typically leads to a "line" model where
authoritative is a kind of middle point between the other two.
Further debate (possibly needing your nudge) should bring out
that you really need to distinct (i.e. orthogonol) lines. From there
you can get the standard two-by-two matrix and fill in the
reminaining style. Then explain previous research about this.

Lesson Plan Excerpt: Role Play of Parenting

 Sorry I haven't had a chance to prepare this section yet. Right now
my priority need to be completing my dissertation. I hope to
prepare this lesson plan excerpt in the summer. Here is an
outline. As the instructor, you role-play the adolescent child and
the class plays the 'parents'. Set up the scenario where the parent
asks a child to do a chore. The child says "no." Ask for permissive
parenting responses. Then ask for authoritarian parenting
responses. This is typically very easy for students to do. If you
keep your demeanor relaxed and repond with humor, students end
up laughing as the model these scenarios. Finally ask for
authoritative parenting repsponses. These role-playing tasks are
pretty easy and essentially review the basic ideas for students.
Now extend the scenario by responding to the parent's
authoritative suggestions with somethign like, "You never make
(sibling_name) do the dishes!!!!" Now repeat the different styles.
When you reach authoritative parenting, students will probably
have difficulty. Most will drift into permissive parenting styles. A
typical authoritative solution is to acknowledge the child's feelings,
still assert a parenting role to insure the chore is done now, and
arrange to work on issue for the future. (e.g. "You feel
(sibling_name) does not do as many chores as you. Please wash
the dishes now. We'll talk about chores as a family tonight after
dinner."). Here is a place to note how you can have high control
and a high level of empathy. A second point to mention when
students are having trouble is the difference between 'hot' and
'cold' cognition.

emotional intelligence (EQ)

emotional intelligence theory (EQ - Emotional Quotient)
Emotional Intelligence - EQ - is a relatively recent behavioural model, rising to prominence with Daniel
Goleman's 1995 Book called 'Emotional Intelligence'. The early Emotional Intelligence theory was originally
developed during the 1970s and 80s by the work and writings of psychologists Howard Gardner (Harvard), Peter
Salovey (Yale) and John 'Jack' Mayer (New Hampshire). Emotional Intelligence is increasingly relevant to
organizational development and developing people, because the EQ principles provide a new way to understand
and assess people's behaviours, management styles, attitudes, interpersonal skills, and potential. Emotional
Intelligence is an important consideration in human resources planning, job profiling, recruitment interviewing
and selection, management development, customer relations and customer service, and more.
Emotional Intelligence links strongly with concepts of love and spirituality: bringing compassion and humanity to
work, and also to 'Multiple Intelligence' theory which illustrates and measures the range of capabilities people
possess, and the fact that everybody has a value.
The EQ concept argues that IQ, or conventional intelligence, is too narrow; that there are wider areas of
Emotional Intelligence that dictate and enable how successful we are. Success requires more than IQ (Intelligence
Quotient), which has tended to be the traditional measure of intelligence, ignoring essential behavioural and
character elements. We've all met people who are academically brilliant and yet are socially and inter-personally
inept. And we know that despite possessing a high IQ rating, success does not automatically follow.
Different approaches and theoretical models have been developed for Emotional Intelligence. This
summary article focuses chiefly on the Goleman interpretation. The work of Mayer, Salovey and David
Caruso (Yale) is also very significant in the field of Emotional Intelligence, and will in due course be
summarised here too.

emotional intelligence - two aspects

This is the essential premise of EQ: to be successful requires the effective awareness, control and management of
one's own emotions, and those of other people. EQ embraces two aspects of intelligence:

Understanding yourself, your goals, intentions, responses, behaviour and all.

Understanding others, and their feelings.

emotional intelligence - the five domains

Goleman identified the five 'domains' of EQ as:

1. Knowing your emotions.

2. Managing your own emotions.
3. Motivating yourself.
4. Recognising and understanding other people's emotions.
5. Managing relationships.

Emotional Intelligence embraces and draws from numerous other branches of behavioural, emotional and
communications theories, such as NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), Transactional Analysis, and empathy. By
developing our Emotional Intelligence in these areas and the five EQ domains we can become more productive and
successful at what we do, and help others to be more productive and successful too. The process and outcomes of
Emotional Intelligence development also contain many elements known to reduce stress for individuals and
organizations, by decreasing conflict, improving relationships and understanding, and increasing stability, continuity
and harmony.

emotional intelligence competence framework, case studies,

examples, tools, tests, information and related theory references
The following excellent free Emotional Intelligence materials in pdf file format (Acrobat Reader required to view) are
provided with permission of Daniel Goleman on behalf of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence,
which is gratefully acknowledged:

The Emotional Competence Framework - a generic EQ competence framework produced by Daniel Goleman and
CREI covering in summary:

personal competence - self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation

social competence - social awareness, social skills
'Emotional Intelligence: what is it and why it matters'. An excellent information paper by Dr Cary Cherniss originally
presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, in New Orleans, April
2000. This is a detailed history and explanation of Emotional Intelligence.

The Business Case for Emotional Intelligence - a paper by Dr Cary Cherniss featuring 19 referenced business and
organizational case studies demonstrating how Emotional Intelligence contributes to corporate profit performance.
The paper is an excellent tool which trainers, HR professionals and visionaries can use to help justify focus,
development, assessment, etc., of EQ in organizations.

Guidelines for Promoting Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace - a paper chiefly constructed by Cary Cherniss and
Daniel Goleman featuring 22 guidelines which represent the best current knowledge relating to the promotion of EQ in
the workplace, summarised as:

paving the way

assess the organization's needs

assessing the individual
delivering assessments with care
maximising learning choice
encouraging participation
linking goals and personal values
adjusting individual expectations
assessing readiness and motivation for EQ development

doing the work of change

foster relationships between EQ trainers and learners

self-directed change and learning
setting goals
breaking goals down into achievable steps
providing opportunities for practice
give feedback
using experiential methods
build in support
use models and examples
encourage insight and self-awareness

encourage transfer and maintenance of change (sustainable change)

encourage application of new learning in jobs

develop organizational culture that supports learning

evaluating the change - did it work?

 evaluate individual and organizational effect

MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Piaget believed that children move through levels of morality as they develop and mature. He studied
the process of moral development, basing his research on patterns of children's reasoning about
moral decisions. His theory is very similar to that of Lawrence Kohlberg, and his research shows the
stages individuals go through in achieving morality. As a result, education works best when aimed at
the appropriate level of the individuals. Piaget believed that moral development is linked to cognitive
growth, saying that children make better moral judgements when they are cognitively mature enough
to see things from more than one perspective. He undertook a number of experiments and research to
determine how children reason, focusing on areas such as clumsiness, stealing and lying, and he
made up stories about each issue that asked the child to make a judgement about behaviour that
society frowned upon. He states that there are two main stages of moral reasoning, and although the
age at which the child may achieve each stage varies, the sequence is the same

Piaget said that up the age of two, infants have no consciousness of rules, and their activity is not
governed by anything but their own motor abilities. They have no grasp of social cooperation, and
everything is viewed from their own desires and dislikes. After the age of two, up to the age of seven,
children are in the first stage of Piaget's moral development, where they are very rigid in their beliefs
of moral concepts. Piaget termed this first stage the "Morality of Constraint" . They evaluated
Piaget's stories on the basis of the material result, independent of the intent behind it. Because
children of this age are egotistical, they cannot comprehend that there may be more than one way of
looking at a moral situation and cannot assess the level of intention behind the behaviour. Children at
this stage are heteronomous, where they believe that rules are inflexible and behaviour is either right
or wrong, with no room for negotiation and compromise according to the situation (Duska and
Whelan, 1975). For example, a five year old child may see one child trip and knock a chair through a
ranch slider, breaking the glass, and the next day see another child throwing a stone through a glass-
house pane. Despite one being an accident, and the other being a deliberate act, the child in the phase
of morality of constraint will view both occasions as being wrong and needing punishment. If the
chair falling through the window caused a bigger hole in the glass than the rock going through the
glass-house, then a child in this phase will consider the first child to be naughtier and more deserving
of punishment. (Papalia, Olds and Feldman, 1998). Children up to the age of seven have great respect
for rules as they do not have the cognitive ability to see them as anything but sacred. Initially
children have unilateral respect, where the adult has the control and the child cannot experience
mutuality in the relationship. This reinforces the stage of heteronomy, as rules are seen as coming
from the adult and being reinforced by them. The child respects the adult and therefore is more
inclined to obey. They believe that those who have done wrong should be severely punished.

As children develop relationships with their peers, they meet as equals, which encourages the stage
after heteronomy - that of autonomy. The equality provides the social environment for them to work
cooperatively together, changing rules through mutual consent. At this point, usually after the age of
seven, children gradually move into the second stage of morality, which Piaget called the morality of
cooperation. It is characterised by flexibility and the ability to compromise and change rules as
required, generally with mutual consent of others involved in the rule making. As children mature
and become more cognitively advanced, they come into contact with a wide range of view points in
their day to day activities, such as school, neighbours, and friends. They learn that no rule is
unchangeable and definitions of right and wrong vary according to the situation. As heteronomy
decreases and autonomy develops the child sees rules being of mutual consent rather than sacred and
not subject to alteration. The child's ability to cooperate increases as rules are seen in the concept of
both practice and theory, and as they mature, children have life experiences which help them
determine their own moral standard. They are no longer egotistical and can consider more than one
viewpoint to a situation, which enables them to make moral judgements based on the intent behind
the behaviour. The rules provide structure for cooperation, there is an understanding that rules and
regulations are required to maintain order within communities. Children at this age believe that
punishment for breaking rules should be fair and restore the social bond, and it should relate to the
offence committed.

Moral development is closely interwoven with a child's cognitive development. Children cannot
learn more than their cognitive abilities allow, and it is necessary to acknowledge children's ability to
reason and understand the principles of the rules in their life is decreed by their age and mental
development.

Features of the two stages of moral development include:

Morality of Constraint Stage I

Child views an act as being right or wrong with no room for change, and believes others will see it
the same way. They cannot put themselves in others shoes.

Child judges behaviour in terms of physical consequences, not the intent behind the behaviour.

Child obeys the rules because they have been set by adults and as a result are sacred and
unalterable.

Due to the rules being sacred, child feels obliged to conform to adult rules and standards.

Child believes that punishment defines the wrongness of the act an act is bad if it elicits
punishment

Child confuses moral law with physical law, and believes that any accident or misfortune that
happens after a wrongdoing is a punishment willed by God

Morality of Cooperation Stage II

Child can see from others point of view

Child judges acts by intentions, not consequences

Child recognises that rules are not absolute and can be changed, even by themselves

Child learns to recognise that their own values and abilities count, and learn to be realistic when
judging others
 Child believe punishment should show the culprit what is right and wrong in order to help them
learn better behaviour in the future.

Child does not confuse natural misfortune with punishment.

A more comprehensive documentation of Piaget's, Kohlberg's and several other researchers

prominent in the child development field, is worth while reading, as is a web-based magazine
titled "Self Help"

Attachment in children
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mother and child

Attachment in children is "a biological instinct in which proximity to an attachment figure is sought when the child
senses or perceives threat or discomfort. Attachment behaviour anticipates a response by the attachment figure which
will remove threat or discomfort".[1][2][3] Attachment also describes the function of availability, which is the degree to
which the authoritative figure is responsive to the child's needs and shares communication with them. Childhood
attachment can define characteristics that will shape the child's sense of self, their forms of emotion-regulation, and
how they carry out relationships with others.[4] Attachment is found in all mammals to some degree, especially
nonhuman primates.
Attachment theory has led to a new understanding of child development. Children develop different patterns of
attachment based on experiences and interactions with their caregivers at a young age. Four different attachment
classifications have been identified in children: secure attachment, anxious-ambivalent attachment, anxious-avoidant
attachment, and disorganized attachment. Attachment theory has become the dominant theory used today in the
study of infant and toddler behavior and in the fields of infant mental health, treatment of children, and related fields.

Contents
[hide]

1Attachment theory and children

2Attachment classification in children: the Strange Situation Protocol
3Attachment patterns
o 3.1Secure attachment
o 3.2Anxious-resistant insecure attachment
o 3.3Anxious-avoidant insecure attachment
o 3.4Disorganized/disoriented attachment
o 3.5Later patterns and the dynamic-maturational model
o 3.6Significance of patterns
4Criticism
o 4.1Ecological validity and universality of Strange Situation attachment classification distributions
o 4.2Discrete or continuous attachment measurement
5See also
6References
7Recommended reading
Attachment theory and children[edit]
Main article: Attachment theory
Attachment theory (Bowlby 1969, 1973, 1980) is rooted in the ethological notion that a newborn child is biologically
programmed to seek proximity with caregivers, and this proximity-seeking behavior is naturally selected.[5][6][7] Through
repeated attempts to seek physical and emotional closeness with a caregiver and the responses the child gets, the
child develops an internal working model (IWM) that reflects the response of the caregiver to the child. According to
Bowlby, attachment provides a secure base from which the child can explore the environment, a haven of safety to
which the child can return when he or she is afraid or fearful. Bowlby's colleague Mary Ainsworth identified that an
important factor which determines whether a child will have a secure or insecure attachment is the degree of
sensitivity shown by their caregiver:
The sensitive caregiver responds socially to attempts to initiate social interaction, playfully to his attempts to initiate
play. She picks him up when he seems to wish it, and puts him down when he wants to explore. When he is
distressed, she knows what kinds and degree of soothing he requires to comfort him and she knows that sometimes
a few words or a distraction will be all that is needed. On the other hand, the mother who responds inappropriately
tries to socialize with the baby when he is hungry, play with him when he is tired, or feed him when he is trying to
initiate social interaction.[8]
However, it should be recognized that "even sensitive caregivers get it right only about 50 percent of the time. Their
communications are either out of synch, or mismatched. There are times when parents feel tired or distracted. The
telephone rings or there is breakfast to prepare. In other words, attuned interactions rupture quite frequently. But the
hallmark of a sensitive caregiver is that the ruptures are managed and repaired."[9]

Attachment classification in children: the Strange Situation Protocol[edit]

See also: Attachment measures

William Blake's poem "Infant Joy" explores how to name a child and feel emotionally attached to it. This copy, Copy AA, printed
and painted in 1826, is currently held by the Fitzwilliam Museum.[10]

The most common and empirically supported method for assessing attachment in infants (12 months 20 months) is
the Strange Situation Protocol, developed by Mary Ainsworth as a result of her careful in-depth observations of infants
with their mothers in Uganda(see below).[11] The Strange Situation Protocol is a research, not a diagnostic, tool and
the resulting attachment classifications are not 'clinical diagnoses.' While the procedure may be used to supplement
clinical impressions, the resulting classifications should not be confused with the clinically diagnosed 'Reactive
Attachment Disorder (RAD).' The clinical concept of RAD differs in a number of fundamental ways from the theory and
research driven attachment classifications based on the Strange Situation Procedure. The idea that insecure
attachments are synonymous with RAD is, in fact, not accurate and leads to ambiguity when formally discussing
attachment theory as it has evolved in the research literature. This is not to suggest that the concept of RAD is without
merit, but rather that the clinical and research conceptualizations of insecure attachment andattachment disorder are
not synonymous.
The 'Strange Situation' is a laboratory procedure used to assess infant patterns of attachment to their caregiver. In the
procedure, the mother and infant are placed in an unfamiliar playroom equipped with toys while a researcher
observes/records the procedure through a one-way mirror. The procedure consists of eight sequential episodes in
which the child experiences both separation from and reunion with the mother as well as the presence of an unfamiliar
stranger.[11] The protocol is conducted in the following format unless modifications are otherwise noted by a particular
researcher:

Episode 1: Mother (or other familiar caregiver), Baby, Experimenter (30 seconds)
Episode 2: Mother, Baby (3 mins)
Episode 3: Mother, Baby, Stranger (3 mins or less)
Episode 4: Stranger, Baby (3 mins)
Episode 5: Mother, Baby (3 mins)
Episode 6: Baby Alone (3 mins or less)
Episode 7: Stranger, Baby (3 mins or less)
Episode 8: Mother, Baby (3 mins)
Mainly on the basis of their reunion behaviours (although other behaviours are taken into account) in the Strange
Situation Paradigm (Ainsworth et al., 1978; see below), infants can be categorized into three 'organized' attachment
categories: Secure (Group B); Avoidant (Group A); and Anxious/Resistant (Group C). There are subclassifications for
each group (see below). A fourth category, termed Disorganized (D), can also be assigned to an infant assessed in
the Strange Situation although a primary 'organized' classification is always given for an infant judged to be
disorganized. Each of these groups reflects a different kind of attachment relationship with the mother. A child may
have a different type of attachment to each parent as well as to unrelated caregivers. Attachment style is thus not so
much a part of the child's thinking, but is characteristic of a specific relationship. However, after about age five the
child exhibits one primary consistent pattern of attachment in relationships.[12]
The pattern the child develops after age five demonstrates the specific parenting styles used during the
developmental stages within the child. These attachment patterns are associated with behavioural patterns and can
help further predict a child's future personality.[13]

Attachment patterns[edit]
"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".[14]
Secure attachment[edit]
A toddler who is securely attached to its 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 by the child's temperamental make-up
and by situational factors as well as by attachment status, however. 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.[15]
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.[11] 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. B1's have been referred to as 'secure-reserved', B2's as 'secure-inhibited',
B3's as 'secure-balanced,' and B4's as 'secure-reactive.' In academic publications however, 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.
Securely attached children are best able to explore when they have the knowledge of a secure base 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 in 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.[16]
Anxious-resistant insecure attachment[edit]
Anxious-resistant insecure attachment is also called ambivalent attachment.[17] In general, a child with an anxious-
resistant attachment style will typically explore little (in the Strange Situation) and is often wary of strangers, even
when the caregiver is present. When the caregiver departs, the child is often highly distressed. The child is generally
ambivalent when they return.[11] The Anxious-Ambivalent/Resistant strategy is a response to unpredictably responsive
caregiving, and that the displays of anger or helplessness 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.[18][19]
The C1 subtype is coded when:
"...resistant behavior is particularly conspicuous. The mixture of seeking and yet resisting contact and interaction has
an unmistakeably angry quality and indeed an angry tone may characterize behavior in the preseparation
episodes..."[11]
The C2 subtype is coded when:
"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...In general the
C2 baby is not as conspicuously angry as the C1 baby."[11]
Anxious-avoidant insecure attachment[edit]
A child with the anxious-avoidant insecure attachment style will avoid or ignore the caregiver showing little emotion
when the caregiver departs or returns. The child will not explore very much regardless of who is there. Infants
classified as anxious-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 theorised that the
apparently unruffled behaviour of the avoidant infants is in fact as a mask for distress, a hypothesis later evidenced
through studies of the heart-rate of avoidant infants.[20][21]
Infants are depicted as anxious-avoidant insecure when there is:
"...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...If there is a greeting when the
mother enters, it tends to be a mere look or a smile...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...If picked up, the baby shows little or no contact-maintaining behavior; he tends not to cuddle in; he looks
away and he may squirm to get down."[11]
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 child's needs are frequently not met and
the child comes to believe that communication of needs has no influence on the caregiver. Ainsworth's student Mary
Main theorised that avoidant behaviour in the Strange Situational 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.[22] 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 organising 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 ('disorganised
distress'), and therefore unable to maintain control of themselves and achieve even conditional proximity.[23]
Disorganized/disoriented attachment[edit]
Ainsworth herself was the first to find difficulties in fitting all infant behaviour into the three classifications used in her
Baltimore study. Ainsworth and colleagues sometimes observed '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 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'.[24] 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 behaviour, however, was the only clue to the extent of her stress".[25]
Drawing on records of behaviours discrepant with the A, B, and C classifications, a fourth classification was added by
Ainsworth's colleague Mary Main.[26] 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 'disorganised' as it indicates a disruption or flooding of the attachment system (e.g. by fear). Infant
behaviours in the Strange Situation Protocol coded as disorganised/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 wider
'recognized that 52% of disorganized infants continue to approach the caregiver, seek comfort, and cease their
distress without clear ambivalent or avoidant behavior.'[27]
There is 'rapidly growing interest in disorganized attachment' from clinicians and policy-makers as well as
researchers.[28] Yet the Disorganized/disoriented attachment (D) classification has been criticised by some for being
too encompassing.[29] 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
the D classification might be too encompassing and might treat too many different forms of behaviour as if they were
the same thing.[30] 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).[31] 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 disorganised attachment behaviour (simultaneous approach-avoidance; freezing, etc.) enables a
degree of proximity in the face of a frightening or unfathomable parent'.[32] However, 'the presumption that many
indices of "disorganisation" are aspects of organised patterns does not preclude acceptance of the notion of
disorganisation, especially in cases where the complexity and dangerousness of the threat are beyond children's
capacity for response'.[33] 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'.[34]
Main and Hesse[35] found that 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.[36] In fact, 56% of mothers who
had lost a parent by death before they completed high school subsequently had children with disorganized
attachments.[35] Subsequently studies, whilst emphasising the potential importance of unresolved loss, have qualified
these findings.[37] For example, Solomon and George found that unresolved loss in the mother tended to be associated
with disorganised attachment in their infant primarily when they had also experienced an unresolved trauma in their
life prior to the loss.[38]
Later patterns and the dynamic-maturational model[edit]
Studies of older children have identified further attachment classifications. Main and Cassidy observed that
disorganized behaviour in infancy can develop into a child using caregiving-controlling or punitive behaviour in order
to manage a helpless or dangerously unpredictable caregiver. In these cases, the child's behaviour is organised, but
the behaviour is treated by researchers as a form of 'disorganization' (D) since the hierarchy in the family is no longer
organised according to parenting authority.[39]
Patricia McKinsey Crittenden has elaborated classifications of further forms of avoidant and ambivalent attachment
behaviour. 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).[40]
Crittenden's ideas developed from Bowlby's proposal that 'given certain adverse circumstances during childhood, the
selective exclusion of information of certain sorts may be adaptive. Yet, when during adolescence and adult the
situation changes, the persistent exclusion of the same forms of information may become maladaptive'.[41]
Crittenden She proposed that the basic components of human experience of danger are two kinds of information:[42]
1. 'Affective information' the emotions provoked by the potential for danger, such as anger or fear. Crittenden terms
this 'affective information'. In childhood this information would include emotions provoked by the unexplained absence
of an attachment figure. Where an infant is faced with insensitive or rejecting parenting, one strategy for maintaining
the availability of their attachment figure is to try to exclude from consciousness or from expressed behaviour any
emotional information that might result in rejection.
2. Causal or other sequentially-ordered knowledge about the potential for safety or danger. In childhood this would
include knowledge regarding the behaviours that indicate an attachment figure's availability as a secure haven. If
knowledge regarding the behaviours that indicate an attachment figure's availability as a secure haven is subject to
segregation, then the infant can try to keep the attention of their caregiver through clingy or aggressive behaviour, or
alternating combinations of the two. Such behaviour may increase the availability of an attachment figure who
otherwise displays inconsistent or misleading responses to the infant's attachment behaviours, suggesting the
unreliability of protection and safety.[43]
Crittenden proposes that both kinds of information can be split off from consciousness or behavioural expression as a
'strategy' to maintain the availability of an attachment figure: 'Type A strategies were hypothesized to be based on
reducing perception of threat to reduce the disposition to respond. Type C was hypothesized to be based on
heightening perception of threat to increase the disposition to respond'[44] 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. By contrast, type B strategies effectively utilise both kinds of information
without much distortion.[45] For example: a toddler may have come to depend upon a type C strategy of tantrums in
working to maintain the availability of an attachment figure whose inconsistent availability has led the child to distrust
or distort causal information about their apparent behaviour. This may lead their attachment figure to get a clearer
grasp on their needs and the appropriate response to their attachment behaviours. Experiencing more reliable and
predictable information about the availability of their attachment figure, the toddler then no longer needs to use
coercive behaviours with the goal of maintaining their caregiver's availability and can develop a secure attachment to
their caregiver since they trust that their needs and communications will be heeded.
Significance of patterns[edit]
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%.'[46]
Secure children have more positive and fewer negative peer reactions and establish more and better friendships.
Insecure-ambivalent children have a tendency to anxiously but unsuccessfully seek positive peer interaction whereas
insecure-avoidant children appear aggressive and hostile and may actively repudiate positive peer interaction. On
only a few measures is there any strong direct association between early experience and a comprehensive measure
of social functioning in early adulthood but early experience significantly predicts early childhood representations of
relationships, which in turn predicts later self and relationship representations and social behaviour.
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.[47] 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.[48]

Criticism[edit]
Michael Rutter describes the procedure in the following terms:[49]
Father and child

"It is by no means free of limitations (see Lamb, Thompson, Gardener, Charnov & Estes, 1984).[50] To begin with, it is
very dependent on brief separations and reunions having the same meaning for all children. This may be a major
constraint when applying the procedure in cultures, such as that in Japan (see Miyake et al., 1985), where infants are
rarely separated from their mothers in ordinary circumstances.[51] Also, because older children have a cognitive
capacity to maintain relationships when the older person is not present, separation may not provide the same stress
for them. Modified procedures based on the Strange Situation have been developed for older preschool children (see
Belsky et al., 1994; Greenberg et al., 1990) but it is much more dubious whether the same approach can be used in
middle childhood.[52][53] Also, despite its manifest strengths, the procedure is based on just 20 minutes of behaviour. It
can be scarcely expected to tap all the relevant qualities of a child's attachment relationships. Q-sort procedures
based on much longer naturalistic observations in the home, and interviews with the mothers have developed in order
to extend the data base (see Vaughn & Waters, 1990).[54] A further constraint is that the coding procedure results in
discrete categories rather than continuously distributed dimensions. Not only is this likely to provide boundary
problems, but also it is not at all obvious that discrete categories best represent the concepts that are inherent in
attachment security. It seems much more likely that infants vary in their degree of security and there is need for a
measurement systems that can quantify individual variation".

Ecological validity and universality of Strange Situation attachment classification

distributions[edit]
With respect to the ecological validity of the Strange Situation, a meta-analysis of 2,000 infant-parent dyads, including
several from studies with non-Western language and/or cultural bases found the global distribution of attachment
categorizations to be A (21%), B (65%), and C (14%).[55] This global distribution was generally consistent with
Ainsworth et al.'s (1978) original attachment classification distributions.
However, controversy has been raised over a few cultural differences in these rates of 'global' attachment
classification distributions. In particular, two studies diverged from the global distributions of attachment classifications
noted above. One study was conducted in North Germany in which more avoidant (A) infants were found than global
norms would suggest, and the other in Sapporo, Japan, where more resistant (C) infants were found.[56][57]Of these two
studies, the Japanese findings have sparked the most controversy as to the meaning of individual differences in
attachment behaviour as originally identified by Ainsworth et al. (1978).
In a recent study conducted in Sapporo, Behrens et al. (2007) found attachment distributions consistent with global
norms using the six-year Main & Cassidy scoring system for attachment classification.[39][58] In addition to these findings
supporting the global distributions of attachment classifications in Sapporo, Behrens et al. also discuss the Japanese
concept of amae and its relevance to questions concerning whether the insecure-resistant (C) style of interaction may
be engendered in Japanese infants as a result of the cultural practice of amae.
A separate study was conducted in Korea, to help determine if mother-infant attachment relationships are universal or
culture-specific. The results of the study of infant-mother attachment were compared to a national sample and showed
that the four attachment patterns, secure, avoidance, ambivalent, and disorganized, exist in Korea as well as other
varying cultures.[59]
Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg conducted a meta-analysis of various countries, including Japan, Israel, Germany,
China, the UK and the USA using the Strange Situation. The research showed that though there were cultural
differences, the four basic patterns, secure, avoidance, ambivalent, and disorganized can be found in every culture in
which studies have been undertaken, even where communal sleeping arrangements are the norm. Selection of the
secure pattern is found in the majority of children across cultures studied. This follows logically from the fact that
attachment theory provides for infants to adapt to changes in the environment, selecting optimal behavioural
strategies.[60] How attachment is expressed shows cultural variations which need to be ascertained before studies can
be undertaken.[60]
Discrete or continuous attachment measurement[edit]
Regarding the issue of whether the breadth of infant attachment functioning can be captured by a categorical
classification scheme, it should be noted that continuous measures of attachment security have been developed
which have demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. These have been used either individually or in
conjunction with discrete attachment classifications in many published reports.[61][62] The original Richter's et al. (1998)
scale is strongly related to secure versus insecure classifications, correctly predicting about 90% of cases.[62] Readers
further interested in the categorical versus continuous nature of attachment classifications (and the debate
surrounding this issue) should consult a paper by Fraley and Spieker and the rejoinders in the same issue by many
prominent attachment researchers including J. Cassidy, A. Sroufe, E. Waters & T. Beauchaine, and M. Cummings.[63]