ICPR Abstracts: Session 25

---

Session 25: Symposium

A Controlling Attachment Pattern:
Theoretical Considerations and Relevant Findings

Ofra Mayseless
University of Haifa
Rachel Seginer, Ruth Sharabany, and
Michal Talbi-Abarbanel, University of Haifa
Ruth Sharabany, Gilat Edry, and Ofra Mayseless
University of Haifa
Kim Bartholomew (discussant)
Simon Fraser University

Attachment patterns are seen as exemplifying different 
strategies which infants, children and adults adopt in order 
to achieve proximity and contact with an attachment 
figure. To date several such strategies have been proposed 
and observed in various contexts. The most widely known 
are the three patterns originally identified by Ainsworth: 
secure, avoidant and ambivalent. They have recently been 
described both in childhood and in adulthood (Cassidy, 
1994) as involving: a) open and flexible communication 
about attachment (secure), b) minimization of attachment 
expressions (avoidant), or c) heightening of these 
expressions (ambivalent). Any one of these strategies is 
depicted as serving the function of keeping in proximity 
with attachment figures.
        During the last decade a fourth attachment 
pattern has been identified in infancy. This fourth pattern 
became known as the disorganized pattern since its most 
prominent characteristic involved either an incoherent 
pattern of responses in the Strange Situation (e.g., 
showing both avoidant and ambivalent behaviors), or 
direct markers of disorganization (sitting still for more 
than 30 sec.)  Studies conducted later with these infants 
demonstrated that many of them exhibit  yet another 
pattern as they grow up (Main, Kaplan & Cassidy, 1985; 
Crittenden, 1993). Some of them seem to develop a 
controlling cheerful behavior towards their caregivers, 
others seemed controlling punitive towards them, and yet 
another group identified by Crittenden seemed to behave 
in a highly submissive and compliant manner towards 
their caregiver. Thus, the disorganized pattern in infancy 
seem to be the starting point of varied trajectories of 
attachment patterns. While the adult manifestations of  
secure, avoidant and ambivalent patterns have been 
studied quite extensively, the adult characteristics of the 
various patterns growing out of the disorganized pattern 
are less obvious. For example one might speculate that the 
compulsive compliant pattern described in the pre-school 
years is parallel to the fearful pattern described by 
Bartholomew (1990) in adulthood. The proposed 
symposium focuses on the controlling pattern identified in 
the preschool years and in particular on the controlling-
cheerful pattern and will present: a) a theoretical 
delineation of this pattern, b) a measurement tool, and  c) 
findings related to this pattern.
        Theoretically (Mayseless, in press) it is 
suggested that the controlling pattern is related to the 
compulsive caregiving pattern described by Bowlby. Thus, 
children and adults who adopt this pattern gain proximity 
and contact with their caregivers by taking care of their 
caregivers' needs and by parenting them. The controlling 
person utilizes his or her caregiving system in the service 
of attachment, namely offers care in order to get close. It 
has been proposed (George & Solomon, 1993; Mayseless, 
in press) that this pattern may evolve in situations when 
the original caregiver was not able to provide protection 
and assurance and herself/himself needed protection, 
which the child learned to give. Thus, similar to the 
avoidant pattern the child learned to inhibit his or her own 
distress expressions, but unlike the avoidant  the child 
instead learned to offer protection, help and care in order 
to achieve proximity. Thus, in the orientation towards 
people and in the sense of efficacy the controlling pattern 
resembles the secure one. However, unlike the secure 
pattern the controlling one does not trust people and does 
not rely on others in times of distress. In addition the type 
of help given is usually "controlling" and over protective.
        A measure to identify this controlling type in 
adulthood was proposed (Mayseless, 1990) and employed 
in several studies conducted in Israel. The first 
presentation (Ofra Mayseless) includes a summary of 
several studies conducted to explore psychometric 
properties of the measure of the controlling pattern and to 
observe some of its most prominent characteristics. In two 
studies involving 296 subjects the measure showed 
satisfactory internal and test-retest reliability (n=40) and 
was correlated as expected with both secure and insecure 
types and with love experiences. In another study 
involving 120 subjects, differences in self-disclosure, style 
of caregiving and vocational choices were explored. 
Controlling people tended to show less self-disclosure than 
secure ones and more compulsive and dominant caregiving 
style compared to the other patterns. In addition, in 
vocations involving care-giving (nurses, counselors, 
psychologists) there was a higher proportion of the 
Controlling pattern compared to other professions (e.g., 
secretaries).
        The second presentation by Rachel Seginer 
(Ruth Sharabany & Michal Talbi-Abarbanel) explores the 
future orientation of controlling adults as compared with 
that of other attachment patterns. Future orientation 
consists of the images individuals hold concerning their 
future and serves as a necessary precondition for setting 
personal goals, exploring future options, and making 
commitments concerning major role transitions. The 
special importance of future orientation for understanding 
transition to adulthood, and Bowlby's (1969, 1973) 
conjecture that future expectations, goals and plans are 
shaped by internal working models of the self led the 
researchers to examine the relation between future 
orientation constructions and attachment styles in young 
adults.  To that end data were collected from 183 (70% 
women) single college preparatory students  (mean age 
21.5)  who responded to the future orientation 
questionnaire (Seginer, Nurmi, & Poole, 1991) and the 
Hazan & Shaver (1987) and Mayseless (1990a) 
attachment questionnaires, with additional categories 
following Bartholomew (1990).
        The findings indicated that (a) controlling 
respondents invested in the construction of their future 
orientation as much or more than did secure respondents 
(who invested more in the construction of their future 
orientation than did the avoidant and the anxious-
ambivalent respondents); and (b) the controlling further 
differed from the secure in their tendency to score lower 
than the secure respondents on positive affect towards 
both work and career and marriage and family prospective 
life domains.  In this respect the controlling resembled the 
other insecure respondents.  Commonalities and 
differences between the future orientation of secure and 
controlling attachment styles and their implications for 
transition to adulthood  will be discussed.
     The third presentation by Ruth Sharabany (Gilat Edry 
& Ofra Mayseless) focuses on interrelations between the 
ecological structure of child upbringing, and the type of 
attachment pattern of the person, and its reflection in the 
person's close relationship pattern. Specifically, the 
influence of different upbringing ecologies of kibbutzim in 
Israel was examined. The kibbutzim  in Israel offer a 
special experiment of child upbringing in being a normal, 
European, middle class setting of small rural communal 
communities. Yet, within the various kibbutzim, some 
practice communal child rearing where the child sleeps in 
children houses which function as surrogates to regular 
family setting, and others practice familial child rearing, 
where children sleep in the parents house, but spend the 
day in a day-care center. These special settings have many 
reflections on the nature of the children's close relations 
(Josselson, Lieblich, Sharabany, & Wiseman, in press; 
Sharabany & Wiseman, 1993, in press). The questions 
asked in the reported study were: Do adults who were 
brought up in these settings differ in terms of their 
attachment styles, in line with such findings in infancy 
(Aviezer et al, 1995) and childhood (Regev, Bet-Halahmi, 
& Sharabany, 1988)? Furthermore, are there differences in 
the network of close relationships which are associated 
either with the setting, or with the attachment pattern? The 
sample included 152 women age 28-52 who were raised in 
one of two types of sleeping arrangement - communal (99) 
and familial (53). Self report of attachment classifications 
followed the Hazan & Shaver measure with the inclusion 
of the controlling type (Mayseless, 1990) and the fearful 
pattern (Bartholomew, 1990).
        No difference was found between the two 
sleeping arrangements in percentage of secure subjects. 
However, the two settings differed in the frequency of the 
Controlling pattern, the communal one showing the larger 
proportion. With regard to significant relations, women 
from familial setting reported higher secure-base ratings 
for their siblings, while women from the communal setting 
reported more that they had "nobody" to turn to for safe-
heaven. However, there was no difference in the 
description of their relations with their peer group, using 
comradeship ratings (Sharabany, 1982).
        Comparing women with different attachment 
classifications, across the various kibbutzim-types showed 
that secure women rated their mothers and their best-
friend in childhood higher than did insecure ones 
(including the controlling); the latter indicated more 
frequently that they had "nobody" to turn to in childhood. 
With regard to comradeship aspects - security was 
correlated with seeking help from the group, while 
insecurity was correlated with both conformity, and 
opposition to the group. The impact of the socialization 
setting is demonstrated by the higher frequency of 
insecure-controlling pattern in the Communal group. 
Theoretical issues will be discussed  regarding the 
possible antecedents of such association.