Attachment working models and relationship quality in dating couples
The results of much of this research have found that a person’s attachment style does not change.However, there has been a lack of utilitarian models of attachment that could be used to assist people in understanding and modifying their experience of intimacy and closeness in relationships.They concluded there are three distinct sexual styles that correlate with the three attachment styles. Olson found that individuals desire varying amounts and combinations of the six types of intimacy.In reviewing the research on connections and closeness in relationships, several constructs repeatedly emerge. These findings are comparable with Kunce and Shaver’s (1994) findings that an individual’s attachment style is reflected in different preferences on constructs of intimacy and caregiving Moss and Schwebel (1993) attempted to define intimacy in romantic relationships. This model portrays the sequential development of the five bonding dynamics that emerge from the numerous studies on intimacy, love, caregiving, sex and attachment. is that the five bonding processes are actually expressions of the five commonly accepted categories of a human.and Shaver, P., 1987) They found that there was continuity between the infant’s early experience of attachment and the style of attachment experienced in adult relationships.Their study supported and expanded the typology developed by Ainsworth and her colleagues.
Subsequent studies expanded this individual, object-relations theoretical orientation to include more systemic and transactional concepts.
Love is attachment, and an educational program that omits this intrinsic subject overlooks the core of mate selection in romantic-based cultures.
The need for a unifying, theoretical model of these dynamic components is challenging because of the lack of clarity in even defining the specific inter- and intra-personal components which comprise attachment.
“Love,” “trust,” “commitment,” “affection,” “emotion,” “dependence,” “needs,” and “intimacy” are among a few of the terms which overlap the concept of attachment.
And each of these terms are equally difficult to define (Moss & Schwebel, 1993; Fehr, 1987; Stede, Levita, Mc Land and Kelly, 1982).