2.4.1. Secure base
Children are viewed as secure when they show distress, or protest, on separation; actively seek the parent on reunion; are successfully soothed quickly if distressed; and return to exploratory play (Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 4). They communicate their negative emotion blatantly, and “balance their orientation between caregiver and environment” (Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 4). There are two categories of insecure
attachment at opposite ends on a scale: avoidant and resistant. Secure attachment falls
midway between these two extremes (Slade, 1999, cited in Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 4). Children, whose parents had insecure attachments to their own parents, are most likely to experience insecure attachment or bonding. Parents’ perceptions of their own childhood attachments, predict their children’s classification in 75 per cent of cases. When parents face insecurity, whether economic or emotional, they can find it harder to provide the parenting, needed for secure attachment (Moullin, Waldfogel & Washbrook, 2014: 17).
2.4.2. Insecure-avoidant
Insecure-avoidant attachment refer to children, who do not protest much on separation;
treat strangers similarly to their parents; and do not show much or any attachment behaviour when reunited with the parent, meaning that they ignore the parent, turning away as s/he re-enters the room and/or tries to engage them in social interaction (Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 5). Alternatively, they may hover nervously close by (Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 5). The child’s exploration is also suppressed and does
not return to the same levels as before the separation. They minimize obvious displays of negative emotion and orientate themselves towards the environment, rather than the care-giver (Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 5). The insecure-avoidant infant seldom cries when separated from the primary care-giver and does not desire any contact upon his/her return (Papalia, Olds & Feldman, 1999, cited in Malekpour, 2007: 87). The insecure-avoidant infant does not protest in an unfamiliar setting, when the mother departs, instead, the infant usually diverts attention from her departure and actively explores, while she is out of the room. This pseudo independent behaviour often appears to be positive to an onlooker (Papalia, Olds & Feldman, 1999, cited in Malekpour, 2007: 87). An insecure-avoidant infant also does not acknowledge the caregiver’s return to the room, immediately, but rather averts his/her gaze and, at first, moves away when s/he approaches (Lyons-Ruth & Zeanah, 1993, cited in Malekpour, 2007: 87).
2.4.3. Anxious-avoidant
Anxious/avoidant attached children are believed to have had experiences with
emotional arousal that was not re-stabilized by the caregiver, or subjected to over- arousal through intrusive parenting. They, therefore, over-regulate their influence and avoid possible distressing situations (Sroufe, 1996, cited in Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 5). Pei (2011: 4) claims that anxious-avoidant attachment is reflected in the infant’s avoidance of the care-giver and the inclination to remain occupied with his/her toys. A history, or presence, of anxious-avoidant attachment style, accounts for aggressive behaviours in toddlerhood, childhood and adolescence (Pei, 2011: 5).
2.4.4. Insecure-resistant
Insecure-resistant (angry-ambivalent or ambivalent-resistant) children display
separation distress and proximity-seeking on reunion, but instead of being soothed while being held, they squirm and sometimes kick, cling anxiously to the parent or furiously bury themselves in his/her lap. They orientate toward the care-giver, rather than the environment, even though they are not comforted (Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 5). Insecure/resistant attached children display hyper activated emotional arousal, meaning that they under-regulate their affect impetuously, heightening their demonstration of distress, possibly in an effort to obtain the desired response of the care-giver (Sroufe, 1996, cited in Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 5). According to
Brotherson (2005: 2), children, who become anxious and seek their parents, but then strive to get away, are unwilling to explore the environment, become upset effortlessly and display frustration with their parents’ responses to them. Zimberoff and Hartman (2002: 5) argue that there is a low threshold for threat, as the child becomes preoccupied with receiving contact from the care-giver, but becomes frustrated even when it is offered.
Both the avoidant and the resistant patterns of insecure infants curb exploratory play; their behaviour represents an inconsistently unfortunate compromise, as the exploration, essential for development, is forfeited in exchange for security (Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 5). Both display distress at separation, however, upon reunion, some infants do not seem to have a consistent pattern, exercising both avoidant and resistant behaviours, or vacillating between avoidance and resistance. At times, they can also display extreme ambivalence, especially when reuniting with the parent (Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 5).
2.4.5. Disorganized attachments
According to Malekpour (2007: 88), disorganized attachment occurs when the parents, either have so many unresolved emotional issues from their own past that they have no mental space left for their child, or, when they are perceived by the infant as a more serious threat. The child is biologically driven to seek safety through closeness to the care-giver. When the parent is seen as the source of fear, which may be the result of neglect, the contradiction cannot be resolved, and the child’s faith in the world of relationships is destroyed by the ‘care-giver’ as s/he is left with no logical means of relating to other people.
Main and Hesse (1990, cited in Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 6) suggest that central to the disorganized attachment pattern is an infant’s commencement of an attachment behaviour sequence that is then repressed by fear, which could be a response to frightened and/or frightening parental behaviour, or confusion due to inconsistent indicators from the caregiver (Main & Hesse, 1990, cited in Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 6). Disorganization is not a classification per se, but a dimension that may accompany any of the other classifications, and is considered a potentially pathological form of attachment (Main & Hesse, 1990, cited in Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 6). In
their analysis, Main and Hesse (1990, cited in Zimberoff & Hartman, 2002: 6) furthermore emphasize that for the disorganized infant, the parent, not the situation, is the source of distress.
The researcher, therefore, suggests that, by applying the research knowledge of the different attachment styles, it is possible to reveal a child’s security with a parent. Any form of insecure attachment whether avoidant, resistant, ambivalent, anxiousness or disorganization has been proven to stem from the parental childhood and upbringing. Research and literature has further established that, when bonding challenges occurred in the parents’ childhood, they would struggle to connect and form attachments with their own children. When it becomes evident that the parents are the root of distress, mental consequences result for both the attachment figure and the child searching for proximity. For the rationale of this study, it can be observed that a securely attached relationship between a parent and a child is crucial, to deal with the effects of any traumatic event that occurs, which either leads to separation or severe challenges for the child in the long-term.