Links between attachment theory and systemic

practice: some proposals

Jane Akister
a
and Janet Reibstein
b
This paper considers some of the current thinking in relation to
attachment theory and systemic theory in understanding the develop-
ment of adult couple relationships in terms of their attachment to each
other and of their adaptations as a family. There is an increasing interest
in adults attachments to their own parental (attachment) gures, how
these have an impact on the attachment relationship they have with their
own children, and to the idea that adult partners can become attachment
gures for each other with the potential for development being lifelong.
Discussion focuses on attachment issues within the family group and the
relevance of these to systemic practice.
Introduction
Interest in the relationships between attachment theory and family
systems theory has developed rapidly in recent years with attempts to
look at the possibilities for merging or integrating these theories and
to examine the role of adult attachment categories.
The eld of attachment has exploded, including a handbook of
attachment (Cassidy and Shaver, 2002) and the Journal of Attachment
and Human Development (from 1999). In addition, looking at the links
between attachment theory and family systems theory a book by
Erdman and Caffery (2003), Attachment and Family Systems and a
special edition of Family Process (winter 2002) have been published. A
paper by Kozlowska and Hanney (2002) gives a full review of
attachment categorizations for children and adults and the recent
developments in these, including Crittendens clinically relevant
Dynamic Maturational Model with its expanded categories (Critten-
den, 2001). It is not possible to fully review these sources which
provide a wealth of material but the details are included for those
readers who wish to access the wider materials available.
rThe Association for Family Therapy 2004. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Journal of Family Therapy (2004) 26: 216
0163-4445 (print); 1467 6427 (online)
a
Senior Lecturer, School of Social and Community Studies, Anglia Polytechnic
University, East Road, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UK. E-mail: j.akister@apu.ac.uk
b
Lecturer in Psychology, Exeter University, UK.
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
There has been a great deal of research into mother/child
attachment styles, describing these and exploring the stability, over
time, of attachment categorizations in young children (e.g. Belsky
et al., 1996). Continuities have been found in low-risk samples. In
many ways the question which has now become of interest is whether
and how change can occur in the quality of relationships so that the
attachment categories may change. Research has also looked at adult
attachment categorizations, both asking how the heritage from family
of origin has an impact on and affects family life (see Akister, 1998),
and also looking at the interactive and potentially developing nature
of attachment relations with the attachment gure (Cook, 2000;
Feeney, 2003). Increasingly, particularly in the research into adult
attachment styles, there are ndings suggesting that the concepts of
attachment categories can alter through the individuals development
and across the life cycle (Mikulincer et al., 2002).
The possibilities for linking or merging attachment theory and
family systems theory are themes in the recent literature. The ideas of
merging or not merging attachment and family systems theory
indicate quite different approaches to work with families, one
supporting seeing individuals alongside family therapy, whereas the
other would suggest restricting it to family work. This paper will
explore some of the current ideas in relation to the child and adult
attachment classications, their development and relevance to the
couple relationships and to family therapy practice.
Attachment theory and family systems theory
What can these two theories offer either together or separately to our
understanding of family processes? Should they be merged or kept
distinct? It could be argued that they are different simply because
they address different processes. This would mean that they could be
both distinct and able to be merged (see Network Model below).
However, it could also be argued that these theories compete over
ways of understanding the family and could be more useful clinically
if their core ideas were merged into one theory, which would also help
us to focus on their differences (see Family Assessment Model below).
The Network and Family Assessment models are described briey to
give substance to this debate and also for the reader to keep in mind
these possibilities when considering some of the ideas presented later
in relation to the couple as an attachment partnership and the family
as an attachment system.
Attachment theory and systemic practice 3
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
Attachment theory offers unique data about the dyadic relation-
ship, over and above the current conceptualizations in family therapy,
and this information is useful in clinical practice. This view is reected
in a paper by Kozlowska and Hanney, which focuses on this
relationship:
Being able to recognise the strategies children use within a dyadic
relationship provides useful information about how the dyad has related
in the past and helps clinicians formulate questions and hypothesis, and
plan family interventions. Attachment patterns are observable. They do
not require the infants or young children to articulate verbally their
contribution to the relationship, but do require the child to relate to the
parent as he or she always does, thus telling a story about the parent
child relationship. In other words in attending to the attachment
relationship, clinicians take into account the young childs non-verbal
story of their experiences in the childcarer context.
(Kozlowska and Hanney, 2002, p. 288)
Similarly, adult attachment theory could offer useful information
when working with intergenerational issues and family of origin
issues. It provides a useful schema to explore the ongoing impact of
past relationships and gives useful information about issues of
unresolved loss or trauma.
Kozlowska and Hanney (2002) look at the question of whether
family systems theory and attachment theory should be integrated or
remain distinct. If they remain distinct should they be used in parallel
or combined in some other way? A problem arises when trying to
categorize attachment within families, as children may have different
attachments to each of their parents so that it is not possible to
categorize a family based on one of these attachment relationships.
They suggest that the relationship between attachment theory and
family systems theory is best viewed using the Network Paradigm.
The Network Model
This paradigm allows for an alternative conceptualization of how
attachment theory and family systems theory could be integrated, and
moves away from the dichotomy of the theories as either distinct or
able to be merged into one theory.
The Network Model refers to the application of general systems
theory to living systems. A key characteristic of living systems is the
tendency to form multi-levelled structures of systems within systems.
4 Jane Akister and Janet Reibstein
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
Although each system remains distinct, it is simultaneously part of a
more complex system that is distinct in its own right. Clearly each
system is complex and will be governed by laws that are specic to
that systems structure. Thus, for example, each attachment system
(dyad) is governed by its own specic rules that will differ from those
which govern the whole family system. Inherent in the Network
Model is the understanding that although the information from the
different levels of the system is unique, it is neither more nor less
fundamental than information from another level (Capra, 1997).
With this model, the integration of family and attachment theories
implies the ability to recognize each level as distinct yet intercon-
nected. Using the Network Model, the integration of attachment and
family systems theories does not mean either merging them or
keeping them distinct. Rather, integration refers to the ability to
recognize each level of complexity (e.g. dyad versus family) as distinct
yet interconnected, and it enables our attention to move through
different levels as required.
Clinically this means clear assessment of both attachment and
family systems and an appraisal of their relevance to current
problems and concerns. Some of the areas which may be important
in terms of the marital relationship and the couple and family as
attachment systems are considered below.
The Family Attachment Model
In contrast to the Network Model the Family Attachment Model is
based on a proposed integration of attachment and systemic theories as
a way of assessing family attachment. The approach argues that the
key elements of attachment processes are affect regulation, inter-
personal understanding, information processing and the provision of
comfort within intimate relationships. They see these as equally
applicable to family processes, provided that attachment processes at
the individual level are linked to family processes using the shared
frames or representations of emotions, cognitions and behaviour, and
also that there is explicit consideration of the nature and quality of the
dynamic between attachment and other processes in family life and a
conceptualization of the relationship between individual and family
processes (Hill et al., 2003).
Taking attachment theory as the starting point, the authors
describe how, although the research has taken an overwhelmingly
individual perspective, attachment theory is concerned with the
Attachment theory and systemic practice 5
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
implication of relational processes for individuals (Hill et al., 2003).
The Family Attachment Measure (FAM) is proposed, which is an
adaptation of the Adult Attachment Interview, but given to the family
group, in which members are asked to consider questions about
relationships and a range of safety, discipline and attachment issues in
the present. The idea of integration of these two key theories is
attractive. The authors are correct to highlight the fact that the
classical measure of attachment (the Strange Situation Test), looking
at the interaction process between motherinfant dyads, has always
been systemic, but, in view of the difculties experienced by
researchers in using the Adult Attachment Interview, and the
increasing tendency to use self-report measures, we will have to
await further publications to understand the place for the FAM.
Clinically the idea of merging the two theories has appeal, since the
notion of understanding the nature of the families attachment
relationships through a family interview is exciting. It is also
challenging when placed alongside other information which needs
to be accessed in family assessment (e.g. Bentovim and Bingley Miller,
2002).
Adult attachment and dating and marital relationships
Hazan and Shaver (1987) proposed that romantic love is an
attachment process and these ideas have been fundamental to the
development of ideas concerning the partner as an attachment gure.
They were concerned to create a coherent framework for under-
standing love, loneliness and grief at different points in the life cycle
(p. 511). They considered that attachment theory could provide such
a framework and also explain how both healthy and unhealthy forms
of love originate as reasonable adaptations to specic social
circumstances. Hazan and Shaver felt that the evidence of continuity
from adult/child studies of attachment (e.g. Main et al., 1985) added
plausibility to the notion that a persons adult style of romantic
attachment is also affected by attachment history. Their research
supported the idea of three different love styles rather than three
points along a love continuum: Attachment researchers often vacillate
between using the terms secure, avoidant and anxious/ambivalent to
describe relationships and using them to categorise people. We have
focused here on personal continuity, but we do not wish to deny that
relationships are complex, powerful phenomena with causal effects
beyond those predictable from personality variables alone (Hazan
6 Jane Akister and Janet Reibstein
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
and Shaver, 1987 p. 521). The question of continuity and change in
attachment style is also raised in this paper:
It would seem overly pessimistic from the perspective of insecurely
attached people to conclude that continuity is the rule rather than the
exception between early childhood and adulthoody. It seems likely
that continuity between childhood and adult experiences decreases as
one gets further into adulthood.
(Hazan and Shaver, 1987, p. 522)
There has been ongoing debate as to whether attachment style is a
characteristic of the individual or of a specic relationship. Partners
characteristics can either maintain existing working models or
promote change for better or worse (Cook, 2000; Feeney, 2003).
Using data from a study of dating couples, Feeney illustrates four key
points:
The couple relationship can either foster or erode the sense of
security of its members.
Pursuerdistancer cycles are especially relevant to an under-
standing of couples attachment relationships.
Transition points provide a particular challenge for the couple
system, as partners seek to re-establish familiar interaction
patterns or to develop new patterns.
There is mutual inuence between the couple unit and other
subsystems of the family.
(Feeney, 2003, p. 152)
Feeney concludes that attachment theory has a particular strength in
addressing the emotions and motivations associated with intimate
relating, whereas systems theory highlights the need to consider the
broader context in which individuals and relationships are em-
bedded.
Cook (2000) used the Social Relations Model (Kenny and
LaVoie, 1984; Cook, 1994) to look at the interpersonal aspects of
adult attachment relationships. They start with Brethertons observa-
tion that there is a serious problem with the notion that early models
of attachment gures become the basis of generalized working
models for potential partners. The problem derives from the fact that
the quality of a childs relationship to the mother can be quite
different from the quality of relationships to other attachment gures;
that is, the attachment relationship with the mother is not the
Attachment theory and systemic practice 7
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
prototype for all others (Bretherton, 1985). Cook studied 208 intact
families with two siblings, and highlighted how social processes
contribute to the development and maintenance of internal working
models of relationships. Individuals representations of others are
also signicantly determined by characteristics of the partner,
demonstrating that internal working models do accommodate to
information about the partner and are not solely cognitive construc-
tions (Cook, 2000, p. 293).
Mikulincer et al. (2002) review studies which have examined the
contribution of adult attachment styles to dating and marital relation-
ships. Based on these ndings they propose an integrative systemic
theoretical model delineating how the links between partners
attachment security and the quality of their couple relationship
occurs. They go on to discuss the implications of this model for
understanding how attachment style and couple relationship combine
to affect the family system and parentchild relationships.
Despite the strong evidence of association between security of
attachment and relationship quality y we cannot infer causality from
correlational data.yGiven the ambiguity here there are two alternative
courses of action with regard to the formation of theoretical models.
One is to wait until intervention studies establish the direction of effects.
A second alternative is to question the linear causal premise and wonder
instead whether the linkage is bidirectional, with attachment and
relationship quality involved in circular patterns of inuence, as family
systems theory suggests.
(Mikulincer et al., 2002, p. 413)
The systemic theoretical model
The data reviewed by Mikulincer et al. (2002) clearly indicate that the
sense of attachment security is associated with:
Positive beliefs about couple relationships
The formation of more stable couple relationships
Satisfaction with dating relationships and marriage
High levels of intimacy, commitment and emotional involvement
within the relationship
Positive patterns of communication.
They propose a systemic model whereby the changes in any aspect
of the system affect other parts of the system. (For a full description
8 Jane Akister and Janet Reibstein
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
see Mikulincer et al., 2002.) They propose that partners inuence
each other in complex, bidirectional ways so that, for example, a
sense of attachment security in one partner can facilitate the
autonomy needs in the other partner which can, in turn, foster that
partners sense of attachment security. Equally, attachment insecurity
in one member is likely to have ripple effects through the whole
system. These dynamics mean that changes which occur in one part of
the system (e.g. parent/child relationship) can alter some aspect of the
association between security of attachment and couple relationship
quality. These ideas, while forming the bedrock of family therapy,
need careful appraisal in any clinical encounter since it is quite
possible that attachment security or insecurity may not ripple
through the system in any predictable way.
This model relates to the position taken in Hill et al.s article (2003)
in which attachment categories are determined by observing
interactions within the whole system, and brings us back to the
question of how as family therapists we can best address and
understand the contributions of the attachment and family systems
when faced with a family in distress.
Extension to the wider family system
Some research nds concordance between mothers adult attachment
and their attachment relationship with their child (e.g. Van
Ijzendoorn, 1995). It has been widely assumed that quality of the
parent/child relationship is the linking mechanism that adults who
are securely attached themselves tend to provide a secure base for
their children. Mikulincer et al. suggest that the relationship between
the parents plays a central role in the generational transmission of
working models of attachment and that marital quality may play a
causal role in affecting parenting style and childrens adaptation:
Extrapolating from these ndings, and subject to replication and
extension of the results, we conclude that the transmission of
attachment relationships from grandparents to parents to children is
not simply a matter of parenting. When a person learns early on that he
or she is worthy of love, and that adults will be responsive and available
in times of need, he or she is more likely to establish satisfying
relationships with other partners, and to have the inclination and ability
to work toward solving relationship problems and regulating emotions
so that they do not escalate out of control.
(Mikulincer et al., 2002, p. 42)
Attachment theory and systemic practice 9
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
Restructuring adult attachment
One interesting strand in the development of clinical work with
couples is emotionally focused couples therapy (EFT), a therapy
which enables couples to redene and repair their attachment bond
( Johnson and Best, 2003). Habitual attachment responses are viewed
as strategies that are inuenced by the patterns of interaction in
particular relationships. While not proposing to describe the details of
this particular model, it is a signicant development in the idea of
attachment style being able to be altered through the therapeutic
process. Research suggests that a signicant percentage of people do
change their attachment style, or ways of engaging others, over time
(Davila et al., 1999).
Negative attachment-related events, particularly abandonments and
betrayals can cause seemingly irreparable damage to close relationships.
Many partners enter therapy not only in general distress but also with
the goal of bringing closure to such events, thus restoring lost intimacy
and trust. During the therapy process, however, these events, which we
have termed attachment injuries, often re-emerge in an alive and
intensely emotional manner, much like a traumatic ashback, and
overwhelm the injured partner.
(Johnson et al., 2001, p. 145)
The concept of an attachment injury does not focus so much on the
specic content of a painful event but on the attachment signicance
of such events. The attachment injury occurs when one partner fails
to respond to the expectation of comfort and caring in times of
danger or distress. The incident may then become a clinically
recurring theme and creates an impasse that blocks relationship
repair in couples therapy. The authors see the concept of attachment
injury as having importance for both clinicians and researchers.
Clinically it may help explain why some couples have difculty
responding to therapy. For research, the delineation of specic
problems and tasks in therapy facilitates enquiry into pivotal factors in
the change process. They predict that these factors will be both
relational and personal to particular partners ( Johnson et al., 2001).
The couple as an attachment partnership
Within the eld of couples work a wide range of signicant research
and theorizing has implicitly developed attachment ideas. It is beyond
the scope of this paper to look at the way attachment ideas have been
10 Jane Akister and Janet Reibstein
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
embedded within work as diverse as that of Gottman (cf. Gottman,
1994) and Reibstein (cf. Reibstein, 1997a, b), or to look at how
attachment issues may be apparent in specic situations such as
divorce (cf. Fisher and Crandall, 1998; Reibstein, 1998). However,
there have been recent studies explicitly looking at attachment within
couples, using attachment styles to ask questions about the interactive
nature of individuals internal working models of relationships in the
specic relationship leading to an understanding of change and
development within those relationships.
Some studies have looked at how differing adult attachment styles
may be connected to effective or ineffective care-giving within the
relationship and also suggest mediating mechanisms such as social
support knowledge and prosocial orientation (Feeney and Collins,
2001). Others have looked at specic relationship styles, such as
Morrison et al. (1997), who found that respondents with avoidant or
ambivalent attachment described more hostility in their relationships
than did secure participants (n5151 men, 217 women). In addition,
Scott and Cadova (2002) looked at whether attachment styles
moderated the relationship between marital adjustment and depres-
sive symptoms among husbands and wives. Their ndings suggest a
relationship between insecurity and a predisposition to depressive
symptoms in marital relationships (n591 married couples). Cohn
et al. (1992) found that husbands classied as secure showed more
positive interactions with their wives than did insecure husbands.
These studies give some indication of the usefulness of considering
couples relationships from both the systemic and attachment
perspectives.
However, as Birtchnell (1997) points out, attachment theory is
essentially a child-centred theory and is not readily adaptable to the
relating of adults. None the less, the work on adult attachment, and
particularly the development of ideas as to how the components of
relationships develop over time, used in conjunction with systemic
theories of family relationships such as those proposed by the
Network Model, provide a way to view the next stage of family
development: the birth of a child and the beginning of a three-person
family.
The family as an attachment system
Research on romantic jealousy is consistent with the idea that jealousy
is in part the product of threats to attachment relationships. In
Attachment theory and systemic practice 11
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
jealousy-provoking situations, people react not only to the possible
loss of a romantic partner but also to the possible loss of an
attachment gure (Sharpsteen and Kirkpatrick, 1997). Jealousy is
clearly often construed in relation to threats or attachment injuries
from a real or perceived adult competitor. Not insignicant, however,
are the experiences of jealousy in relation towards ones own
offspring. The often much longed-for child arrives and disrupts the
patterns of the couples relationship. The system has to alter to
accommodate the new member and the couples attachment relation-
ship will need to accommodate to their both having new attachments
to their child. Rivalry is a dynamic that has always been talked about
in relation to all interfamily relationships, from Freuds intergenera-
tional rivalry through to romantic jealousy and sibling rivalry (Dunn,
1995).
Mikulincer and Florian (1999) look at the relation between
spouses self-reports of attachment style and their perceptions of
family dynamics in parents of small children (n593 families).
During this stage of family development, the initial dyadic relation-
ship is transformed into a more complex pattern of familial
interaction, which should be examined from the family dynamic
perspective (p. 70). They used Faces III (Olsen et al., 1985) to explore
their view that some of the basic components of internal working
models would be most directly manifested in the dimensions of family
cohesion and adaptability. They found that spouses who reported a
secure style scored relatively high family cohesion and adaptability,
spouses who reported an avoidant style scored relatively low levels on
these two dimensions and those who reported an anxious-ambivalent
style scored relatively high family cohesion but low family adaptability.
This may enable those with secure attachment styles to adapt
successfully to a wide variety of life events while being able to
maintain warm and close relationships within their families.
The analysis of ideal representations of family dynamics showed
that what people differing in attachment styles reveal in their
perception of family cohesion ts the intimacy level they ideally want
within the family, so that secure and anxious-ambivalent individuals
family interactions seem to be guided by intimacy-related goals,
whereas avoidant persons family relationships seem to be guided by
distance goals (Mikulincer and Florian, 1999).
These ndings do have implications for working with families and
suggest the need to take into account adult attachment theory as well
as systemic theory.
12 Jane Akister and Janet Reibstein
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
For example, when familial conicts emerge around the theme of
cohesiveness, the therapist should also consider the possibility of goal
incongruency, in addition to a search for emotional inhibitions and
interpersonal skills deciencies. Therapeutic resources can be invested
in the clarication of each spouses hidden agenda regarding intimacy
in the relationship. However, when family distress evolves from lack of
family adaptability, the therapist may focus on interpersonal decien-
cies, related emotional inhibitions, and defensive processes.
(Mikulincer and Florian, 1999, p. 79)
These ndings concur with the concepts discussed earlier in this
paper of the interrelationship between attachment style and the
actors involved in the partnership. (However, it could also reect the
different reporting styles of secure and insecure spouses rather than
demonstrating a direct link between attachment and family pro-
cesses.)
Discussion
There have been enormous steps during the past ve years in
appraising the interactions between attachment and systemic theore-
tical basis. The contribution to understanding the dilemmas faced by
individuals throughout the life cycle by the two theories is well
established.
Research has taken different approaches, particularly to assessing
adult attachment, and this seems to be leading to varying construc-
tions for developing our understanding. Thus, groups using the
Adult Attachment Interview are proposing an integration of the two
theories (e.g. Hill et al., 2003), whereas groups assessing adult
attachment using self-report are developing the theories in parallel
(e.g. Kozlowska and Hanney, 2002). Underlying both these strands is
the recognition of the contribution both attachment and systemic
theory have to make to our understanding of the development of
individuals within the context of families throughout the life cycle.
That attachment style can develop and may change throughout an
individuals life, in the context of experiences in relationships,
enhances the understanding of family systems (e.g. Mikulincer et al.,
2002). The original work on romantic relationships and attachment
strategies (e.g. Hazan and Shaver, 1987) formed the platform to begin
to understand the processes involved in moving from being a couple
to a family with three or more members (e.g. Mikulincer and Florian,
1999).
Attachment theory and systemic practice 13
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
Overall there is wide support in the research ndings for
practitioners to pay close attention to the attachment styles and
relationships (dyadic) within the family as well as working with the
family systems. The duality of approach enables a more detailed
understanding of the family dynamics. Using the concepts embodied
in the Network Model also supports the practice of combining family
and individual therapies as appropriate. The risk of trying to
integrate these extremely complex ideas into one approach might
be to return to earlier times when family therapy was used to the
exclusion of other relevant therapies.
References
Akister, J. (1998) Attachment theory and systemic practice: research update.
Journal of Family Therapy, 20: 353366.
Belsky, J., Campbell, S. B., Cohn, J. F. and Moore, G. (1996) Instability of infant
parent attachment stability. Developmental Psychology, 32: 921924.
Bentovim, A. and Bingley Miller, L. (2002) The Family Assessment. DOH: Pavilion.
Birtchnell, J. (1997) Attachment in an interpersonal context. British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 70: 265279.
Bretherton, I. (1985) Attachment theory: retrospect and prospect. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1-2, Serial No. 209), 335.
Capra, F. (1997) The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. London:
Flaming.
Cassidy, J. and Shaver, P. R. (eds) (2002) Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research
and Clinical Applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Cohn, D. A., Silver, D. H., Cowan, C. P. and Cowan, P. A. (1992) Working models
of childhood attachment and couples relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 13:
432449.
Cook, W. L. (1994) A structural equation model of dyadic relationships within the
family system. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62: 500509.
Cook, W. L. (2000) Understanding attachment security in family context. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78: 285294.
Crittenden, P. M. (2001) Organisation, alternative organisations and disorganisa-
tion: competing perspectives on endangered children. Contemporary Psychology, 46:
593596.
Davila, J., Karney, B. R. and Bradbury, T. N. (1999) Attachment change processes
in the early years of marriage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76:
783802.
Dunn, J. (1995) From One Child to Two. New York: Ballantine Books.
Erdman, P. and Caffery, T. (2003) Attachment and Family Systems. New York and
Hove: Brunner Routledge.
Feeney, J. A. (2003) The systemic nature of couple relationships: an attachment
perspective. In P. Erdman and T. Caffery, Attachment and Family Systems. New
York and Hove: Brunner Routledge.
14 Jane Akister and Janet Reibstein
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
Feeney, B. C. and Collins, (2001) Predictors of caregiving in adult intimate
relationships: an attachment theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80: 972994.
Fisher, J. V. and Crandall, L. E. (1998) Complex attachment: patterns of relating in
the couple. Sexual and Marital Therapy, 12: 211223.
Gottman, J. (1994) Why Marriages Succeed or Fail. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Hazan, C. and Shaver, P. R. (1987) Romantic love conceptualised as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 511524.
Hill, J., Fonagy, P., Saer, E. and Sargent, J. (2003) The ecology of attachment in
the family: the theoretical basis for the development of a measure. Family Process,
42: 205221.
Johnson, S. M. and Best, M. (2003) A systemic approach to restructuring
adult attachment. The EFT model of couples therapy. In P. Erdman and
T. Caffery, Attachment and Family Systems. New York and Hove: Brunner
Routledge.
Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A. and Millikin, J. W. (2001) Attachment injuries in
couple relationships: a new perspective on impasse in couples therapy. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 27: 145155.
Kenny, D. A. and LaVoie, L. (1984) The Social Relations Model. In L. Berkowitz
(ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142182). Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.
Kozlowska, K. and Hanney, L. (2002) the network perspective: an integration of
attachment and family systems theories. Family Process, 43: 285312.
Main, M., Kaplan, N. and Cassidy, J. (1985) Security in infancy, childhood and
adulthood: a move to the level of representations. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 50: 66104.
Marvin, R. S. and Stewart, R. B. (1990) A family systems framework for the study
of attachment. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti and E. M. Cummings.,
Attachment in the Pre-school Years. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Mikulincer, M. and Florian, V. (1999a) The association between spouses self-
reports of attachment styles and representations of family-dynamics. Family
Process, 38: 6983.
Mikulincer, M. and Florian, V. (1999b) The association between parental reports
of attachment style and family dynamics, and offsprings report of adult
attachment style. Family Process, 38: 243257.
Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Cowan, P. A. and Cowan, C. P. (2002) Attachment
security in couple relationships: a systemic model and its implications for family
dynamics. Family Process, 43: 405434.
Morrison, T. L., Urquiza, A. J. and Goodlin-Jones, B. L. (1997) Attachment and
the representation of intimate relationships in adulthood. Journal of Psychology,
131: 5771.
Olsen, D. H., Porter, J. and Lavee, Y. (1985) Faces III. St. Paul, MN: Family Social
Science, University of Minnesota.
Reibstein, J. (1997a) Love Life. London: Fourth Estate.
Reibstein, J. (1997b) Rethinking marital love: defining and strengthening key
factors in successful partnerships. Journal of Sexual and Marital Therapy, 12: 237
247.
Reibstein, J. (1998) Attachment, pain and detachment for the adults in divorce.
Journal of Sexual and Marital Therapy, 13: 351360.
Attachment theory and systemic practice 15
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice
Scott, R. L. and Cordova, J. V. (2002) The influence of adult attachment styles on
the association between marital adjustment and depressive symptoms. Journal
of Family Psychology, 16: 199208.
Sharpsteen, D. J. and Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997) Romantic jealousy and adult
romantic attachment. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 72: 627640.
Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995) Adult attachment representation, parental
responsiveness and infant attachment: a meta-analysis on the predictive validity
of the adult attachment interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 387403.
16 Jane Akister and Janet Reibstein
r 2004 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice