Motivation and emotion/Book/2026/Attachment styles and relatedness motivation

Attachment styles and relatedness motivation:
How do attachment styles affect the need for relatedness?

Overview

Scenario Harry and Caitlin have both recently started university and are adjusting to their new environment. Figure 1. People and stands at the Museum Reserve, Orientation Week Harry throws himself into orientation week, joining clubs and making an effort to sit next to people he recognises. However, when plans are made without him or his messages go unanswered, he wonders whether people actually like him. After hanging out with some new friends, he replays conversations and wonders what he could have done differently Caitlin chats easily with people at events and joins a few clubs, but she often turns down invitations to catch up outside of university. When conversations turn more personal or people begin trying to get to know her better, she makes an excuse to leave early and may decide not to attend next time. Although she enjoys being included, she finds keeping some distance more comfortable.

• Explain relatedness as a basic psychological need within self-determinantion theory and briefly explain its importance for psychological functioning, belonging, motivation, and wellbeing
  • e.g. feeling connected, accepted, and that we belong is associated with better ... (source)
• Briefly introduce attachment theory (remebering to keep it shallow as we delve deeper into definiton and explanations in the section) and how people may differ in how the need for relatedness is experienced and expressed
• central issue of the chapter;

I don't know if i'm thinking to deeply into the chapter question, but the way i want to answer it consists of two parts three parts Do attachment styles effect the need for relatedness Do different attachment styles affect the strength of the need itself or the way it's regulated and expressed hard to argue/look into how attachment styles affect the need for relatedness with establishing whether or not there is an effect in the first place.

• outline the aim of the chapter: to draw on psychological theory and research to examine how secure, anxious, avoidant and fearful-avoidant attachment styles may influence relatedness motivation, and the reverse (whether experiences of relatedness may also contribute to changes in attachment over time). probably not necessary but sounds interesting to look into

Focus questions How does self-determination theory explain relatedness as a basic psychological need? How does attachment theory conceptualise different styles of attachment? How are attachment styles understood in adulthood? How do different attachment styles influence relatedness motivation? How might experiences of relatedness shape attachment over time?

Self-determination theory

• Self-determination theory (SDT) is an approach to human motivation that seeks to explain what motivates people to act and the conditions that support or undermine motivation.
• Developed by Ryan and Deci (2002), SDT aims to explain human motivation by integrating theories that emphasised natural human growth (humanistic, psychoanalytic, and developmental theories) with those that focused on how behaviour is shaped by environmental and cognitive factors (behavioural and cognitive perspectives)
• SDT assumes that individuals have an inherent tendency towards psychological growth, mastery, and connection with others, that the desire for growth drives behaviour (Ryan & Deci, 2002)
• A central feature of SDT is that motivation differs not only in amount, but also in quality
• Amotivation: refers to a lack of intention or motivation to engage in a behaviour, potentially due to (Ryan & Deci, 2020)
• Intrinsic Motivation: refers to engaging in a behaviour or activity because it is inherently interesting, enjoyable, or satisfying (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2020)
  • SDT posits that satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness helps support and maintain intrinsic motivation, contributing to greater engagement, persistence, and satisfaction.
• Extrinsic Motivation: refers to “behaviours done for reasons other than their inherent satisfaction” (Ryan & Deci, 2020)
  • SDT doesn’t treat all extrinsic motivation as equal. Instead, it breaks it into 4 subtypes according to how autonomous (i.e. doing an activity of your own free will because it feels personally important, valuable, or enjoyable) the motivation is (Ryan & Deci, 2020)
    • External regulation: behaviours driven by externally imposed rewards and punishments

      

      Figure 2. Self-Determination Theory Motivation ContinuumNote: To replicate into a higher quality version for book chapter

    • Introjected regulation: extrinsic motivation that has been partially internalised, i.e. behaviour regulated by internal rewards of self-esteem (need for success) and avoidance of anxiety, shame, fear of failure
    • Identified regulation: behaviours driven by personal importance/value of activity
    • Integrated regulation: most autonomous/intrinsic form of extrinsic motivation, behaviour driven by not only recognition of the value of the behaviour, but finds it congruent with core interests and values

• Motivation within SDT can therefore be understood along a continuum of self-determination, based on the extent to which behaviour is experienced as autonomous (see Figure 2)

considering breaking this part into subsections (i.e. overview of SDT → motivation within SDT → intro to three needs sections) However would that be too many (would it improve readability/clarity?) Additionally, this overview of theory may be too deep (i.e. is all this info necessary, am I straying from the main focus)

• Additionally, SDT proposes that for healthy psychological growth and wellbeing depends on the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs; autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
• Within SDT, the three basic psychological needs help shape the quality of a person’s motivation. When these needs are supported, people are more likely to experience intrinsic motivation and more autonomous forms of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2020)
• Need satisfaction occurs when the environment provides experiences that allow a psychological need to be fulfilled. Need satisfaction is considered psychologically nourishing and supports motivation, psychological growth, effective functioning, and wellbeing (Chen et al., 2015; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013)
• Need frustration occurs when a psychological need is actively obstructed or undermined. (Chen et al., 2015; Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013) Necessary?

Autonomy

• Defined within SDT as an individuals need to experience a sense of ownership of their behaviour and feel psychologically free (Deci & Ryan, 2000)
• Importantly, autonomy doesn't imply the need to act independently from others, but rather the need to act with a sense of choice and volition, even when following the desires of others (Van den Broeck et al., 2016)
• Autonomy satisfaction involves experiencing self-determination, willingness, and volition when carrying out an activity, whereas autonomy frustration involves feeling controlled through external or self-imposed pressures.(Chen et al., 2015)

Competence

• Defined as the need to feel a sense of mastery over the environment and to develop skills (Deci & Ryan, 2000)
• Is considered part of our natural tendency to explore, develop skills, and seek out challenges that allow abilities to be tested and improved (Van den Broeck et al., 2016)
• Competence satisfaction involves feeling effective and capable of achieving desired outcomes, whereas competence frustration involves feelings of failure, inadequacy, and doubts about one's ability to succeed (Chen et al., 2015)

Relatedness

• Refers to the need to feel connected to others, including both the need to care for others and to feel cared for, valued, and significant to others (Van den Broeck et al., 2016)
• Relatedness satisfaction involves experiencing genuine connection and closeness to others, and a sense of belonging, whereas relatedness frustration involves experiences of rejection, exclusion, disconnection, or loneliness (Chen et al., 2015)
  

Attachment theory and attachment styles

• Attachment thoery was first developed by British Psychoanalyst John Bowlby, who sought to understand the anxiety and distress infants experience when separated from their primary caregivers
• Bowlby observed that infants use attachment behaviours (e.g. crying, clinging, following) to prevent separation from, or re-establish proximity to, their caregivers. (Bowlby, 1958)
• He argued that these attachment behaviours were evolutionary and adaptive functions; infants who were able to maintain proximity to an attachment figure (someone who provides support, protection, and care) would be more likely to survive to reproductive age, making proximity-seeking a survival mechanism; He coined this the attachment behavioural system, an innate psychobiological mechanism that motivates individuals to seek and maintain closeness to a primary caregiver or attachment figure for safety and protection (Bowlby, 1982)
• Although Bowlby considered the attachment system to be universal, he recognised that infants could differ in how attachment was experienced and expressed; He theorised that early attachment experiences with caregivers contribute to an internal working model (a mental representations of expectations of whether attachment figures are available and responsive, and whether the self is worthy of care and support)
• An infants internal working model is thought to guide how they respond to situations that activate their attachment system (i.e. distress, separation),
• Beginning at 6 months, infants start to anticipate specific caregivers responses to their distress and shape their own behaviour accordingly (Sroufe, 1988); expectations on whether support will be available influence whether the infant seeks proximity and reassurance, intensifies attachment behaviours, or withdraws and suppresses attachment needs (i.e. the quality/type of attachment that an infant develops is largely determined by the caregiver’s response to the infant when the infant’s attachment system is ‘activated’) (Bretherton & Munholland, 2008; Collins & Allard, 2004; Sherman et al., 2015)
• While Bowlby provided a theoretical understanding, Mary Ainsworth extended his work by examining how differences in attachment were expressed in infant's behaviour.
• Mary Ainsworth was an American Canadian developmental psychologist who developed the Strange Situation procedure, which involved observing infants during brief separations from and reunions with their caregivers
• During the procedure, attention is paid to four aspects of the infant's behaviour (Ainsworth et al., 1978):
  • The amount of exploration the infant engaged in (e.g. playing with new toys) throughout.
  • The infant's reactions to the departure of their caregiver.
  • The infant's response to being alone with a stranger.
  • The infant's behaviour when reunited with their caregiver.
• Based on these observations, the infants were categorised into three groups that would become foundation of attachment styes.

again considering breaking this part into subsections (i.e. attachment behavioural systems, internal working model, Mary Ainsworth and strange situation procedure). again considering clarity, if info is neccessary, potential topic straying

Secure attachment

• Typical behaviour (Vaughn & Waters, 1990)
  • uses the caregiver as a secure base, exploring independently while checking back or returning to caregiver when needed
  • seeks caregiver when attachment behavioural system is activated (i.e. when distressed, hurt, tired, etc.)
  • usually accepts comfort and settles once reassurance is provided
• Strange Situation (Group B) (Perasso, 2023; Zeanah et al., 2011)
  • Balances exploration of the environment with maintaing proximity to caregiver
  • moderate distress by separation from caregiver, on reunion seeks or welcomes contact from caregiver and accepts comfort and reassurance
  • typically return to exploration once settled
• Developmental Factors/Caregiver response (Benoit, 2004)
  • associated with caregiving that is usually available and responds appropriately (generally sensitive, responsive, and consistent) when the infant signals distress or a need for support
  • Internal Working Model (Sherman et al., 2015)
    • Repeated experiences of having needs responded to positively may lead the infant to expect that the caregiver will be available and responsive when support is required.
    • The infant can therefore express distress and seek proximity without needing to excessively intensify or suppress attachment behaviour.

Anxious-ambivalent attachment

• Typical behaviour (Benoit, 2004)
  • May remain highly attentive to the caregiver rather than exploring freely.
  • Can become easily distressed by separation or uncertainty about the caregiver's availability, seeking frequent proximity, attention, or reassurance.
  • Can have difficulty settling even when comfort is offered.
  • May appear clingy while also showing frustration, anger, or resistance toward the caregiver.
• Strange Situation (Group C) (Perasso, 2023; Zeanah et al., 2011)
  • Typically show absent/low interest in exploring environment throughout procedure,
  • intensely distressed and visibly upset once separated from caregiver
  • Extreme reactions of fear and distress toward the stranger
  • During reunion are difficult to calm down even when picked up and reassured by caregiver, may initially seek comfort then resist or reject caregivers' effort to comfort them
• Developmental Factors/Caregiver response (Benoit, 2004)
  • Associated with caregiving that may be inconsistent or unpredictable.
  • The caregiver may sometimes respond to distress but may be unavailable or less responsive at other times.
  • Internal working model (Sherman et al., 2015)
    • Availability of caregiver is experienced as uncertain or unpredictable.
    • Expectation that support cannot be consistently available develops, causing infant to become particularly attentive to the caregiver’s availability and intensify attachment signals in an attempt to obtain a response (maximising or hyperactivating attachment strategy)

Anxious-avoidant attachment

• Typical behaviour (Benoit, 2004)
  • May appear unusually independent and spend more time focused on objects, activities, or exploration than on the caregiver
  • May show relatively little outward distress when hurt, upset, or separated despite still experiencing physiological or emotional distress
  • Is less likely to openly seek comfort or reassurance from the caregiver, may turn away, ignore, or minimise contact even when distressed
  • Tends to suppress or minimise visible attachment signals
• Strange Situation (Group A) (Perasso, 2023; Zeanah et al., 2011)
  • often remain focuses on exploration rather than proximity to caregiver
  • show minimal or no distress by the separation from caregiver
  • May appear relatively unaffected by the presence of the stranger compared with other attachment classifications.
  • show limited interest or excitement upon reunion with caregiver, often ignoring or avoiding interactions
• Developmental Factors/Caregiver response (Benoit, 2004)
  • Associated with caregiving that may be relatively unresponsive, rejecting, or uncomfortable with expressions of distress and bids for comfort.
    • Internal working model (Sherman et al., 2015)
      • infant may have developed an expectation that attempts to obtain comfort or support are unlikely to be met with a responsive reaction.
      • As a result, attachment signals may be minimised or suppressed (deactivating or minimising attachment strategy).

Disorganised-disoriented attachment

• Disorganised-disoriented attachment was introduced later by Main and Solomon (1986).
• The classification emerged from observations of infant behaviours that did not fit comfortably within Ainsworth’s original secure, resistant, and avoidant classifications.
• Typical behaviour (Granqvist et al., 2017)
  • Behaviour toward the caregiver may be inconsistent or difficult to predict, can show unusual combinations of proximity-seeking and withdrawal.
  • May have difficulty developing a consistent strategy for obtaining comfort when distressed.
  • Behaviour can become particularly confused or disorganised during situations involving fear, stress, or uncertainty.
• Strange Situation (Duschinsky, 2018; Zeanah et al., 2011)
  • Display contradictory, confused, fearful, or disoriented behaviours, particularly during reunion with the caregiver, e.g. may approach caregiver and then withdraw, freeze, show incomplete or misdirected movements, unusual postures, or signs of apprehension toward the caregiver.
• Developmental Factors/Caregiver response (Benoit, 2004)
  • Has been associated with caregiving that is frightening, frightened, highly disrupted, or unpredictable.
  • It is also found at higher rates in some contexts involving significant adversity (Zeanah et al., 1997)
    • Internal working model (Sherman et al., 2015)
      • more difficult to explain through one coherent internal working model because the infant does not appear to have a consistent strategy for obtaining safety.
      • One proposed explanation is that the caregiver may simultaneously represent a potential source of safety and a source of fear or uncertainty, creating conflict between approaching the caregiver for protection and moving away from them.

potential information to be added for book chapter more information in development of each attachment style outside of caregiver response and IWM e.g. temperament and child characteristics, broader family/contextual influences criticisms of attachment styles whether attachment patterns and Strange Situation behaviour are expressed similarly across cultures

1 Disorganised-disoriented attachment is characterised by a breakdown or lack of a coherent strategy for responding to attachment-related distress. TRUE. FALSE. 2 How do internal working models help explain differences between infant attachment patterns? They determine how strongly an infant is biologically attached to their caregiver. They shape expectations about whether caregivers will be available and responsive when support is needed. They determine how much distress every infant experiences during separation.

Adult attachment theory

should this be a level 3 heading?

• Attachment theory was later extended beyond infancy to explain how attachment may continue into adulthood

• Hazan and Shaver (1987) were among the first researchers to apply Bowlby and Ainsworth’s attachment framework to adults.
  • They proposed that the same attachment behavioural system underlying infant attachment could continue to operate in adulthood, and that internal working models developed through earlier attachment experiences may continue to shape attachment-related expectations and behaviour.
  • Their early adult attachment model adapted Ainsworth’s three infant attachment classifications (secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent) for use in adulthood.
  • Bartholomew (1990), and Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) later refined adult attachment by proposing that attachment in adulthood could be understood through two underlying dimensions:
    • Model of self: Reflects a person's sense of self-worth and whether they feel worthy of love and support. (Bartholomew, 1990)
    • Model of others: Reflects whether a person expects others to be available, trustworthy, and supportive (Bartholomew, 1990)

• Combining positive and negative models of the self and others produced four adult attachment styles, Secure, Anxious-preoccupied, Dismissive-avoidant, Fearful-avoidant. To expand on each one in final book chapter

• Adult attachment styles are thought to reflect the continuation and development of infant internal working models, although attachment is not considered completely fixed and may change across time and experience (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)
• Adult attachment is therefore generally conceptualised as differences in the way individuals regulate attachment-related needs and respond when the attachment system is activated, rather than as four separate personality types (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991)

Attachment styles and the need for relatedness

• Self-determination theory proposes that relatedness is a universal psychological need, suggesting that all individuals have a need to feel connected, valued, and that they belong.
• However, attachment styles may influence how this need is experienced, expressed, pursued, or satisfied.
• An important focus of this section will therefore be whether attachment styles actually influence the strength of the need for relatedness itself, or whether they primarily affect the way individuals respond to and regulate that need.
• The section will also consider whether differences in attachment style are associated with relatedness need satisfaction or frustration, rather than simply differences in how much relatedness people need.
• Finally, the chapter will examine whether the relationship may work in both directions, with repeated experiences of relatedness satisfaction or frustration potentially contributing to changes in attachment over time.

Information to be added for book chapter: Research evidence examining attachment anxiety/avoidance, relatedness motivation, basic psychological need satisfaction/frustration, and possible reciprocal effects between attachment and relatedness.

Conclusion

• The Conclusion is arguably the most important section
• Draft clear take-home message(s), even at the topic development stage
• Together, the Overview and Conclusion should summarise the problem, its significance, and how psychological science contributes to understanding and addressing it
• Recommended length: 150 to 330 words

Suggestions for this section: What is the answer to the sub-title question based on psychological theory and research? What are the answers to the focus questions? What are the practical, take-home messages?

See also

• Attachment in adults (Wikipedia)
• Self-determination theory (Wikipedia)

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of Intimacy: An Attachment Perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(2), 147-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590072001

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment Styles Among Young Adults: A Test of a Four-Category Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Benoit, D. (2004). Infant-parent attachment: Definition, types, antecedents, measurement and outcome. Paediatrics & Child Health, 9(8), 541-545. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/9.8.541

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's tie to his mother. Int J Psychoanal, 39(5), 350-373.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664-678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x

Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications, 2nd ed. (pp. 102-127). The Guilford Press.

Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., Duriez, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., Mouratidis, A., Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Soenens, B., Van Petegem, S., & Verstuyf, J. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216-236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1

Collins, N. L., & Allard, L. M. (2003). Cognitive Representations of Attachment: The Content and Function of Working Models. In Garth J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes (pp. 60-85). Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470998557.ch3

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Duschinsky, R. (2018). Disorganization, fear and attachment: working towards clarification. Infant Ment Health J, 39(1), 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21689

Granqvist, P., Sroufe, L. A., Dozier, M., Hesse, E., Steele, M., van Ijzendoorn, M., Solomon, J., Schuengel, C., Fearon, P., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., Steele, H., Cassidy, J., Carlson, E., Madigan, S., Jacobvitz, D., Foster, S., Behrens, K., Rifkin-Graboi, A., Gribneau, N.,…Duschinsky, R. (2017). Disorganized attachment in infancy: a review of the phenomenon and its implications for clinicians and policy-makers. Attachment & Human Development, 19(6), 534-558. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2017.1354040

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J Pers Soc Psychol, 52(3), 511-524. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-351

Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of An Insecure Disorganized Disoriented Attachment Pattern. In T. B. Brazelton & M. W. Yogman (Eds.), Affective development in infancy (pp. 95-124). Ablex Publishing.

Perasso, G. (2023). Strange Situation Procedure (SSP). In T. K. Shackelford (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Sexual Psychology and Behavior. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_128-1

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In Handbook of self-determination research. (pp. 3-33). University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Sherman, L. J., Rice, K., & Cassidy, J. (2015). Infant capacities related to building internal working models of attachment figures: A theoretical and empirical review. Developmental Review, 37, 109-141. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.06.001

Sroufe, L. A. (1988). The role of infant-caregiver attachment in development. In Clinical implications of attachment. (pp. 18-38). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A Review of Self-Determination Theory’s Basic Psychological Needs at Work. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1195-1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058

Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. (2013). On Psychological Growth and Vulnerability: Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Need Frustration as a Unifying Principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 263-280. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032359

Vaughn, B. E., & Waters, E. (1990). Attachment Behavior at Home and in the Laboratory: Q-Sort Observations and Strange Situation Classifications of One-Year-Olds. Child Development, 61(6), 1965-1973. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130850

Zeanah, C. H., Berlin, L. J., & Boris, N. W. (2011). Practitioner review: clinical applications of attachment theory and research for infants and young children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 52(8), 819-833. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02399.x

Zeanah, C. H., Boris, N. W., & Larrieu, J. A. (1997). Infant Development and Developmental Risk: A Review of the Past 10 Years. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(2), 165-178. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199702000-00007

External links

• Bowlby and Attachment Theory: Insights and Legacy (attachmentproject.com)
• Self-Determination Theory of Motivation (simplypsychology.org)