See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254360550

Family of Origin Theory,

Attachment Theory and the
Genogram
Article in Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy December 2004
DOI: 10.1300/J398v03n04_03

CITATIONS

READS

1,757

1 author:
Martin Rovers
Saint Paul University
8 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Martin Rovers

Retrieved on: 03 September 2016

This article was downloaded by: [University of Ottawa]

On: 08 January 2015, At: 09:50
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Journal of Couple &

Relationship Therapy:
Innovations in Clinical and
Educational Interventions
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcrt20

Family of Origin Theory,

Attachment Theory and the
Genogram
Martin Rovers PhD

Faculty of Human Sciences of Saint Paul

University , 223 Main Street, Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada , KIS IC4
Published online: 03 Oct 2008.

To cite this article: Martin Rovers PhD (2004) Family of Origin Theory, Attachment
Theory and the Genogram, Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy: Innovations in
Clinical and Educational Interventions, 3:4, 43-63, DOI: 10.1300/J398v03n04_03
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J398v03n04_03

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,

and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

Family of Origin Theory,

Attachment Theory and the Genogram:
Developing a New Assessment Paradigm
for Couple Therapy
Martin Rovers

ABSTRACT. Although family of origin theory and attachment theory

have their own distinctive conceptual frameworks, this paper argues that
both theories can also be understood as different perspectives on the same
human experience, the development of attachment and relationship patterns within the womb of the family. Both theories have developed a
continuum of attachment patterns. This paper attempts to bridge corresponding attachment patterns and structures a new paradigm for attachment. The genogram is suggested as a more simplified and useful assessment map of attachment patterns. Finally, the paper offers a case study
exploring the implications for couple therapy. [Article copies available for
a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail
address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.
com> 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Family of origin, attachment, differentiation, secure base,

couple assessment

Martin Rovers, PhD, is a Psychologist, an AAMFT Clinical Member and Approved

Supervisor, and Professor in the Faculty of Human Sciences of Saint Paul University,
223 Main Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, KIS IC4. He has a private practice in marriage and family therapy and is a therapist at the Ottawa Couple and Family Institute
(E-mail: mrovers@ ustpaul.uottawa.ca).
Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, Vol. 3(4) 2004
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JCRT
2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J398v03n04_03

43

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

44

JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY

To understand attachment, one must begin to fathom how each person is inextricably interwoven within broader interactional systems, the
most fundamental of which is the family. Bowen (1978) highlighted the
emotional atmosphere of the family system, including interpersonal relationship patterns ranging from differentiation to fusion/emotional cutoff. Williamson (1991) refined Bowens concept of differentiation and
addressed the paradoxical issue of leaving home while choosing to belong within the family. Although Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980, 1988), in
his work on attachment patterns, focussed mostly on children, he insisted that attachment phenomena are lifelong, a straightforward continuation (Bowlby, 1969) of attachment in childhood. Other authors
have explored adult attachment as it plays out in romantic and parenting
relationships (Weiss, 1982; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Main, Kaplan &
Cassidy, 1985; Brennan, Clark & Shaver, 1998; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Fraley & Waller, 1998). Many have combined the theory of
attachment with various assessment measures. Some (Davis & Jones,
1992; Rastogi & Wampler, 1999) have brought these two theories together in research. Yet few have explored family of origin theory, concepts and assessment tools as possibilities to shed further light on
attachment styles and vice versa. This paper attempts to bridge family
of origin theory and attachment theory through a common conceptual
model of attachment and suggests the genogram as a more simplified
assessment map when doing therapy with couples.
FAMILY OF ORIGIN THEORY
A family of origin can be conceptualized as the living unit in which a
person has his or her beginnings physiologically, psychically, and emotionally (Hovestadt, Anderson, Piercy, Cochran & Fine, 1985). Accordingly, it is within the context of ones family of origin experiences that
ones current self-image, values, behaviors, attitudes, and style of relating to others germinate. To varying degrees throughout ones life, these
early experiences can continue to influence growth and development.
Murray Bowen (1976, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988) placed people
within the context of the dynamics of their family system, which is seen
as an emotional unit, constituting an interlocking network of relationships. More specifically, people are viewed within the context of a
larger multigenerational system. Bowen (1976, 1978) defined ones family of origin experience as the emotional atmosphere of ones family,
which includes interpersonal relationship patterns, role-related behav-

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

Martin Rovers

45

iour and expectations, and rules that characterize relationships within the
family in which an individual is reared. Family relational patterns result
from combined overt and covert expectations and attributions of family
members.
Family and couple relationship interactions tend to be highly reciprocal, patterned and repetitive. Family systems theory predicts that interactional patterns are reproduced from generation to generation. As a result, Bowen hypothesized that levels of individuation and intimacy within the family of origin are reproduced in current relationships with spouses and significant others (Bowen, 1978). Said simply, the family is the
principal transmitter of knowledge, attitudes, roles and habits which,
through word and example, shape a persons personality and instill modes
of thinking and ways of acting, especially attachment patterns, that become habitual in life.
Everyone must continually struggle with balancing togetherness and
the capacity for intense intimacy in relationships and individuality and
the capacity for independent thinking and goal-oriented action. One of
the key concepts of Bowens family theory is an understanding of the
importance of differentiation of self. Differentiation is the process by
which a person manages individuality and togetherness in a relationship. Kerr and Bowen (1988) consider differentiation of the self as the
ability to function as an individual while being a part of the group. Differentiation permits a person to function individually, and yet be emotionally involved with others, and to do both simultaneously at profound depth. Said another way, differentiation permits one to be secure
in relationships.
The process of differentiation involves balancing the togetherness
and individuality forces (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 71). Exactly how this
balancing is expressed in theory and managed in everyday life has
been hotly debated. Williamson (1991) reworked Bowens concept of
differentiation of self by introducing the concept of personal authority
in the family system. He defines personal authority as a synthesizing
construct connecting individuation and intimacy. In addressing the question, how does the adult leave the home psychologically in a very complete sense and still belong emotionally with the family of origin
(Williamson, 1991, p. 4), he suggests that one needs to balance individuation and intimacy in some sense of harmony or security. KnudsonMartin (1994), speaking from a feminist and sociopolitical perspective,
criticized Bowen for seeming to emphasize individuality as the vehicle
for moving towards positive togetherness; a vision of two separate individuals engaging each other, solving problems, meeting each others

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

46

JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY

needs, becoming intimate (Knudson-Martin, 2002, p. 116). KnudsonMartin (1994) developed a differentiation model wherein individuality
and togetherness are seen as separate capacities that both require development and can lead towards differentiation. Horne and Hicks (2002) presented a zipper model wherein togetherness and individuality are seen
more as reciprocal dimensions that come together to cooperate towards
differentiation. This paper will present another model for contemplating
differentiation of self, a model ameliorated by attachment theory.
Bowen (1978) developed a scale of differentiation primarily as a theoretical framework to describe the differentiation or emotional fusion/separation people achieve from their families of origin. Differentiation exists along a continuum ranging from poor differentiation to
high levels of differentiation. The scale of differentiation is a continuum
and arbitrary numbers of 0-100 are assigned to the scale. A high score
represents better differentiation when a person has fully resolved emotional attachment to his/her family. This person is autonomous in the
sense that he/she is able to be self-determining. The differentiated person has learned to balance the interplay between individuality and togetherness, both of which are good and necessary dimensions in life and
love. This person has attained maturity and security of self.
A lower score represents undifferentiation with her/his family. For
Bowen (1978), there are two ways to manage undifferentiation: fusion
and emotional cutoff. They are very different, indeed, opposite expressions of undifferentiation and extremes in terms of relational patterns.
Fusion is defined as ways that people borrow or lend a self to another.
Fused people have never resolved or untangled the original symbiotic
relationship with mother and/or father and these people desperately
seek togetherness by being loved, accepted, or guided though life. With
this definition, fusion has been more commonly referred to as enmeshment (Bograd, 1988). Bowen added emotional cutoff to his theory at a
later time to describe the way some people manage their undifferentiation by immature separation or distancing from each other, the
process of separation, isolation, withdrawal, running away, or denying
(Bowen, 1976, p. 84) important relationships, especially parents. Cutoff
and distance mean the same thing (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). Cutoff can be
enforced through physical distance and/or through various forms of withdrawal, but the person who runs away from home is as emotionally attached as the one who stays home and uses internal mechanisms to control the attachment (Bowen, 1978, p. 535). Emotional cutoff can be
described as the flip side of fusion (Titelman, 1998). Relationship patterns vary: at one extreme are members who are very distant from or in

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

Martin Rovers

47

conflict with each other . . . at the other extreme is what is called emotional fusion or stuckness (McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985, p. 7). People
can be viewed as operating on a continuum of fusion to differentiation
to emotional cut-off (McGoldrick & Carter, 2001). Therefore, the scale
of differentiation can be reconceptualized to look a bit more like this:
Enmeshment/Fusion

Differentiation

Emotional Cutoff

0. . . . . . . . . . 25. . . . . . . 50 . . . 75 . . . . . 100. . . . . . . . . .75. . . .50. . . . . . 25. . . . . . . . . .0

Bowen (Kerr & Bowen, 1988) divided his scale of differentiation

into four ranges of functioning. He defined some characteristics of each
range and he called for further research to make more precise distinctions between levels of differentiation. On the undifferentiated end (0-25)
of the scale, people live in a feeling world and are unable to differentiate
between thoughts and feelings. Decisions are based on what feels right
and responses can range from automatic compliance to extreme oppositional behavior (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 101). People in the upper part
of this range need to maintain a sufficient system of dependent relationships to function in life. People in the 25-50 range lack beliefs and convictions of their own. They are suggestible and quick to imitate others to
gain acceptance or to seek out the ideal close relationship or, at the other
end of the continuum, to be avoidant or fearful of relationship. Bowen
suggested that most people probably function within the 50-75 range.
These people can make choices and are secure enough to move back and
forth between relationships and goal-directed activity. They are well
able to balance individuation and togetherness. They have a good sense
of their own authority (Williamson, 1991). Bowen suggested that few
people function in the 75-100 range and he left the 95-100 range as an
ideal. People in the 75-95 range are principle-oriented and goal directed. Secure within themselves, they can listen without reacting. They
can respect the identity of others and enjoy relationships.
Family of origin theory sets out a variety of ways or a continuum of
attachment or belonging patterns ranging from enmeshed to differentiated to cutoff. These attachment patterns are learned within the womb
of the family and are seen to function throughout life. Therefore, the
foundation stones of present day attachment patterns can be discerned
and better understood by assessing family of origin experiences.
ATTACHMENT THEORY
Bowlbys attachment theory has increased awareness of the importance of early attachment experiences on interpersonal relationships

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

48

JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY

throughout life. Bowlby described the process of intergenerational transmission of attachment from parent to child. Attachment theory rests on
the concept of an attachment behavioral system, a homeostatic process
that regulates infant proximity-seeking and contact-maintaining behaviors with one or a few specific individuals who provide physical or psychological safety or security (Sperling & Berman, 1994, p. 5). Attachment behavior is activity that promotes closeness to ones attachment
figure. This secure base or at least felt security (Scoufe & Waters,
1977) is the primary purpose for attachment behavior (Simpson & Rholes,
1998). There are common variations, patterns, or working models to
explain the way attachment is learned. The internal working model is a
representation based upon experiences of attachment from family of origin history in conjunction with current interactions between self and
significant others. For the secure attachment pattern, a delicate balance
is sought between seeking proximity to the caregiver and exploration,
between connectedness and autonomy. This is similar to Bowens
theory where the concept of differentiation is characterized by the balance/ imbalance of two life forces or instincts: the force of togetherness
and the force of individuality (Titelman, 1998, p. 14).
Differences in individual attachment behavior are grouped into two
categories: secure and anxious/insecure (Bowlby, 1973). From these,
four attachment patterns for children have been described: secure,
avoidant, and ambivalent (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978)
while preoccupied was added later (Main & Solomon, 1990). Secure
children showed the most adaptive behaviors. Secure attachment not
only provides comfort and protection as the need arises, but also enables
autonomy and the exploration of the environment. Secure children are
confident of the availability of caregivers and confident of their own interactions in the world (Weinfield, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 1999).
Interdependence, that balance of intimacy and autonomy, is one good
sign of the secure bond (Johnson & Greenberg, 1992).
The patterns of insecure attachment might best be viewed as strategies for coping with a difficult interpersonal world learned over the years
from infancy to adolescence to adulthood. Avoidant children are characterized by the belief that when one needs care one will not be responded to helpfully. Avoidant children showed avoidance of proximity during reunion, often turning away or ignoring the parent. These
children are less likely to show affective sharing, and more likely to appear distressed (Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969). They make little effort to
maintain contact with the caregiver. Ambivalent children sought contact but often in a resistant or angry fashion. They very much want con-

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

Martin Rovers

49

tact or proximity, but they do not seem to be calmed or secure in that connection. They tend to be more passive, to be clinging and uncomfortable
in exploring the world. A disorganized pattern was recognized as a distinct pattern later (Main & Solomon, 1990) and can be defined as children who were not consistent in any attachment strategy. All attachment
patterns are highly influenced by experiences within the family of origin.
Attachment and Couple Relationships
Bowlbys attachment theory provides the theoretical model to account for adult love relationships which concentrates on such issues as
emotional bonds, as well as adaptive needs for protection, security, and
connectedness with significant others (Johnson, 1996; Dankoski, 2001).
Recent literature has begun to examine the relationship between attachment patterns learned in childhood and adult attachment patterns in couple relationships. Important differences exist between parent-child and
couple attachments, such as the more reciprocal nature of the couple
and the role of sexuality (Weiss, 1982). However, the work of adult attachment by Hazan and Shaver (1987) and Bartholomew and Horowitz
(1991) has drawn parallels with the work of Bowlby.
Hazan and Shaver (1987) used Ainsworth et al.s (1978) attachment
patterns as descriptors for adults. They contend that romantic love can
be viewed as an attachment process and that the three major attachment
styles of childhood are manifest in romantic love. Adults who identified
themselves as secure could get closer to others and be more comfortable
being dependent upon others. They had little worry about abandonment.
Adults who saw themselves as avoidant acknowledged their discomfort
with closeness and difficulty in trusting others. These adults got nervous when love came too close. Adults with an ambivalent pattern worried that their partner did not really love them and thus wanted to get
very close and hold onto their partners.
Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) followed a similar pattern but
broke the avoidant pattern into two subgroups, fearful and dismissing. The fearful group wanted close relationships but found it difficult
to trust and were afraid of rejection. The dismissive group did not want
close relationships and wanted more of an independent, lone-ranger
stance. Both fearful and dismissive demonstrate similar avoidant of
intimacy behaviors. Although Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) and
Hazan and Shaver (1987) do not match up entirely, there is rough correspondence between them. The fearful group shows similarities to the
disorganized group (Howe, Brandon, Hinings & Schofield, 1999).

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

50

JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY

Attachment theory is intergenerational, especially in regard to assessing and predicting adult attachment patterns based upon what these people experienced as children. Bowlby stated that because . . . children
tend unwittingly to identify with parents and therefore adopt, when they
become parents, the same patterns of behavior that they themselves have
experienced during their childhood, patterns of interaction are transmitted more or less faithfully from one generation to the next (1969,
p. 323).
Past attachment behaviors can be transferred to present relationships
(Main & Hesse, 1990, 1999). Turned around, present relationship patterns can be better understood by uncovering experiences or working
models of childhood and characteristics of past attachment figures, especially parents, by observing, researching and realizing unfinished
business of childhood which still organizes present processes (Simpson &
Rholes, 1998). Clients current and past family climate can be quite predictive of present attachment styles (Diehl, Elnick, Bourbeau & LaLouvie-Vief, 1998). The genogram will be introduced later as one means
to better identify current and past family climate.
FAMILY OF ORIGIN THEORY
AND ATTACHMENT THEORY:
A SYNTHESIS
To illustrate attachment patterns, Bowlby borrowed a schema from
the biologist Waddingtons theory of epigentic developmental pathways (Simpson & Rholes, 1998). This schema pictures a wide range of
normal development in the center of the pathways, and more dysfunctional development on both extremes (see Figure 1).
In Bowlbys theory of development, there is no single route to normality or secure-enough attachment pattern. Development is not blocked by particular experiences of deficits but rather re-routed or constrained into increasingly particular pathways over the wide range of
normal to abnormal development (Caperton-Brown, 1992). A full classification schema, suggested by Goldbergs (1991) research, found that
attachment classifications can range from secure to marginally secure to
insecure. Even the normal or secure range is made up of numerous
pathways, or branches, or clusters. The road to security is not a primrose
path, but a process which involves risks, choices and anxieties. This
schema conceives a continuous measure, moving away from set categorical traits of attachment patterns. In addition, this schema leaves space
for changes and healing as one experiences new attachment figures in

Martin Rovers

51

FIGURE 1. Schema of Attachment Patterns

balancing

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

Togetherness

Individuation

Secure
Differentiated
Fearful
Ambivalent/
Preoccupied

Avoidant/
Dismissive

Enmeshed

Cutoff

Birth

Enmeshed
25
0

50

75

Differentiated
100

75

50

25

Cutoff
0

Direction for Therapy

Towards further individuation

Towards further togetherness

adolescence and adulthood. Falling in love or the birth of a child can necessitate conscious re-evaluations of relationship patterns. Therapy,
such as a re-examination of ones family of origin attachment patterns
or emotionally focused couple therapy, can also fashion changes in
present attachment patterns.
Family of origin theory demonstrated a continuum of relationship
styles from enmeshed to differentiated to cutoff. Attachment theory offered four attachment patterns for adults ranging from ambivalent/pre-

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

52

JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY

occupied to secure to fearful to avoidant/dismissive. A full range of possible attachment patterns, based upon both family of origin theory and attachment theory, can be illustrated by means of Bowlbys multi-pathway schema. In this way, the normal secure/differentiated development
in the center of the pathways presents the healthy range of possibilities
of different blends of individuation and intimacy that can operate in ones
life. In a similar vein as Knudson-Martin (1994), this schema enables
people to live and relate while leaning more on one side of the pathways, be that with preference for individuation or togetherness, according to their own life experiences, and still reach the goal of secure/
differentiation. This schema more clearly accents these various pathways to secure/differentiated and both forces of individuation and togetherness are given equal, reciprocal importance. On the one hand,
there is a want for autonomy, freedom and individuation AND, on the
other hand, there is a need for intimacy, closeness, and togetherness.
These apparently opposite needs are a necessary and healthy part of
life and may change in their intensity and function depending upon
ones stage of life and experiences on the way. Franz and White (1985)
put forth a universal model of human development wherein differentiation of self and attachment are seen as two separate strands in psychological development, each of which needs to be well developed. The
zipper model (Horne & Hicks, 2002) also depicts a coming together of
individuation and togetherness but achieving this differentiation of self
is not seen to fit as nicely in the center as suggested by a zipper metaphor. Each person has a natural preference towards individuation or togetherness while the other side will also be solidly present for the
secure/differentiated person. The pathways taken through life can have
some leeway depending upon life experiences and the pathways traveled can be redirected or rerouted somewhat as a result of life experiences or therapy. In this schema, there is room for growth and change
and the possibility to better balance oneself towards the middle secure/differentiated attachment position.
If ones attachment patterns are located towards the outsides of the
schema, one begins to experience more dysfunctional expressions of attachment such as ambivalent/preoccupied and enmeshed on the one
side, and fearful, avoidant/dismissive and cutoff on the other side. Enmeshment and cut-off would be seen as most dysfunctional as described
by Bowen (1978). Enmeshed and cut-off people live in a feeling world
and are unable to differentiate between thoughts and feelings. Enmeshed people are suggestible and quick to imitate others to gain acceptance or to seek out the ideal close relationship, while, at the other end of

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

Martin Rovers

53

the continuum, cut-off people are avoidant or fearful of relationship, sometimes seen as lone rangers. Enmeshed and cut-off people are both in the
realm of insecure/undifferentiated and thus can be sort of back doors to
each other. Many highly enmeshed or cut-off people can shift from an
enmeshed attachment pattern to cut-off quickly or reactively, a sort of
need-you-desperately or dump-you-quickly knee jerk reaction (Bowen,
1978). Secure/differentiated people tend to be more uniform and regular
in their attachment patterns, treating people in a similar and consistent
manner.
It is strongly noted, however, that all these attachment patterns lie on
a descriptive continuum and that exact diagnosis is not always possible
or desirable. The Bowen scale of differentiation allows graphic, albeit
more theoretical, assessments to be made that may help clients find a
possible place to position and know themselves on the range of attachment patterns. Within this range of possible attachment patterns, and
since no one scores a perfect secure/differentiated 100, there can be a
variety of relationship expressions that probably tips each individuals
attachment pattern either towards secure or insecure, towards greater
emphasis on individuation or togetherness. It helps choreograph the clients dance of attachment/differentiation more distinctly. By depicting
potential placement on the schema of attachment patterns for clients, the
picture can well be worth a thousand words both for their past and present attachment patterns and for direction in their therapy.
There are many possible attachment patterns on this schema, at least six
specified from enmeshed to secure/differentiated to cut-off. Although
perhaps at first perplexing to the client, the different patterns illustrated
enable clients and therapist to talk about movement towards a more secure/differentiated place for the clients and possible areas of insecurity
in relationships and to mutually arrive at some descriptors for clients.
Pathways taken in life are dependent upon many past experiences,
but especially family of origin legacy. Some childhood experiences
may have caused a person to incline or move further into the direction of
enmeshed/ambivalent. Other experiences within the family of origin
may have had the effect of swaying a person into the direction of fearful/avoidant/dismissive and cutoff. A detailed family of origin history,
using instruments like the genogram, would expose childhood attachment patterns and enable the client to become more aware of antecedents of present relationship problems, thus gaining a more complete
picture of present attachment patterns. By means of this schema of attachment patterns, the client would have more self-knowledge and a
better foundation upon which to engage in relationships.

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

54

JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY

Therapy is also delineated on this schema. The person whose attachment pattern leans on the enmeshed/ambivalent side would be seen as
being fearful of further individuation and therefore, more individuating
steps would be the direction of therapy. On the other hand, the person
who prefers the cutoff/avoidant side of this attachment schema would
be seen as being fearful of intimacy and steps towards a deeper connectedness would be called for in therapy. Implications for therapy are elaborated on later in this paper.
THE GENOGRAM
How does a therapist and a client acquire and hold the data that would
delineate ones family of origin history and especially ones attachment
pattern of relationships? With such a variety of attachment possibilities,
and a vast array of life stories, how can the dimensions of ones unfinished business be accessed and brought to fruition in the present therapeutic process and made more clear for both therapist and client? How
can a client more easily understand oneself, especially the family of origin base in which their attachment pattern was born and become a more
active player in their own healing?
The genogram, or family tree, is a clinical method of taking, storing,
and processing (Tomson, 1985, p. 34) relationship information. Whereas the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) (George, Kaplan, & Main,
1996) and the Family Background Questionnaire (Melchert & Sayger,
1998) are highly complex and time-consuming assessment tools, the
genogram is a relatively simple, non-intrusive, easily up-dated tool
which provides a quick reference for complex patterns of relationships.
As such, the genogram can be used as a source of assessment and hypothesis for therapy. Like the AAI, the genogram can help reveal memories of childhood relationships with parents, together with current
partner attachment patterns, to delineate recurring relationship patterns.
This flexibility allows the clinician to make better assessments of both
partners, thus providing an excellent panorama of attachment patterns
and the balance of individuation and togetherness in the relationship.
The genogram is both a therapeutic intervention and part of the process
of counselling (McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985).
Genogram construction can reveal attachment patterns, whether enmeshed or cutoff, or the attachment possibilities that lie between the
two. In couple therapy, each partner can then understand their own and
their partners attachment pattern, begin to know and accept self and un-

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

Martin Rovers

55

derstand and appreciate possible couple differences. Repetitive patterns

of functioning suggest the possibility of these attachment patterns continuing in the present and into the future (McGoldrick & Gerson, 1985).
Reciprocal and cyclical relationship patterns can be pictured.
As the genogram is being constructed, two lines of questions, similar
in content to parts of the Adult Attachment Interview, are developed:
(1) felt memory-words for significant others, especially parents and
partners and (2) relationship space/place within the family context.
Each partner is asked to enumerate 3-5 nice descriptor words that
come to mind when they, especially as a child between the ages of 5-10,
remember their father/mother. In a similar fashion, each is asked to
identify 3-5 not-so-nice words for mom and dad. A similar exercise
can be done for siblings. Carefully listening to both the experiences and
process of how the client communicated these descriptor words can reveal attachment patterns. Therapists find it profitable to observe and
take note of any comments made by the partners, as well as non-verbal
communication during the genogram construction.
Adults with a secure/differentiated attachment pattern tend to describe their family of origin experiences and their own dynamics as consistently responsive (Holmes, 1997); sense of personal identity; positive
view of self and others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991); easy to get
close to others (Hazen & Shaver, 1990); balanced autonomy and
connectedness (Bowen, 1978: McGoldrick & Carter, 2001). They value
attachment and can realistically talk about it.
Adults with an enmeshed/ambivalent/preoccupied attachment pattern tend to describe their family of origin experiences and their own dynamics as inconsistently responsive (Holmes, 1997); negative view of
self, positive view of others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991); parents
lacking in love but not rejecting; parents unreliable; a fight for parental
attention; confused discussion of relationships; passive and/or angry
speech; dependency; we-ness (Bowen, 1978); compulsive care giving (West & Sheldon-Keller, 1994); and others are reluctant to get as
close as I would like (Hazen & Shaver, 1990). These adults are still
caught in old struggles for personal identity.
Adults with an avoidant/dismissive/cutoff attachment pattern oftentimes describe their family of origin experiences with parents as well as
their own dynamics as consistently unresponsive (Holmes, 1997); positive view of self, negative view of others (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991); compulsive self-sufficiency (West & Sheldon-Keller, 1994);
parents were rejecting, distant, withdrawn away a lot; false claim to normality; independent, invulnerable and deny need for relationships; emo-

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

56

JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY

tional distancing (Bowen, 1978); detached from feelings; consequences of negative behavior go unchecked; and uncomfortable being too
close to others (Hazen & Shaver, 1990). They downplay the importance
of intimate relationships. The case study will further amplify this assessment.
The process/feelings attached to the experience of finding words is also
revealing. Some people are hesitant to say anything nice or not-so-nice.
Others cant find the words. For some, speaking the words can bring
forth feelings of pride and love, for others feelings of pain or hurt. All
these can reveal attachment patterns ranging from enmeshed to secure
to cutoff. The schema of attachment patterns can be shown to clients to
help them locate themselves, but some caution and professional judgement is needed here, for many people may be uncomfortable talking
about parents, feeling like they may be blaming parents, or fearful to
identify him/herself before a partner with whom there is still present
conflict. On the other hand, partners can be very helpful in observing the
others attachment patterns within family of origin as the partner often
has a more objective view.
A second line of questions tries to uncover space/place within the
family system. Where did this client fit in the affections of father/
mother? Who was moms/dads favorite child when the client was 5-10
years old? With whom was one closest? Mom? Dad? Sibling? Other?
How would the client describe their relationship pattern with Dad? Mom?
Sibling? Answers can also point toward a specific attachment pattern.
CASE STUDY
Mary and Joe came into therapy to deal with couple distance and continuous conflict, including verbal abuse towards each other (see Figure
2). Mary and Joe have known each other for 11 years, have lived together for five years, and have been married for two years. They have no
children. Presenting issues include: family of origin interference, especially by Joes mother; arguing over affection and sex, and quarrelling
about how much money can be spent on family members for birthdays.
Mary is the more verbal of the couple and complains how Joes mother
controls him. Joe phones home almost every day and especially after a
fight, to talk and seek guidance from his mom. A strong antagonism has
developed between Mary and Joes parents, to the point that Mary will
no longer visit Joes family. Joe complains that Mary is mean-spirited,
argumentative, and distant. His requests for affection are spurned.

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

Martin Rovers

57

Mary is the middle of three children, but functions as the family leader and arbitrator since her older brother is out of it, doing drugs and
jail time. Mary has been in open conflict with dad since her teenage
years and has put him in his place. On the other hand, Mary also has
little time for mom, whom she sees as weak and passive. Joe suggests
that on the outside, Mary is independent and capable, and on the inside,
Mary is depressed, closed, and cold.
Joe is the younger of two. His older sister moved away from home to
attend university and never comes home very much. There is much
conflict between the two siblings. Joe describes his father as his best
friend and my strength. His dad also is narrow and can be harsh with
his words. Joe describes his mother as kind, but one who is never
wrong. He feels her control, but renames it concern for him. Joe relates
how mom can also give the cold shoulder when Joe does not do all
that is asked of him.
In the genogram construction, Mary presented as quite cut off from
her own family, including a dismissive demeanor with her own parents
as well as with Joe and his family. Conflict with dad in her early years
set her up as the family heavy who had to defend mom and other siblings. When family members turn to her for intervention, Mary tends to
lecture them on what to do. Although Mary preaches a gospel of independence, especially for Joe, she presents as insecure in herself, somewhat depressed and alone. Mary has fought so many battles, especially
for others, that she has not had time to know herself. Therapy has focussed on her understanding of these family dynamics and giving her
permission to work on her own self-care and happiness. Mary began to
see her own dismissive/cutoff attachment pattern and earnestly desired
to reconnect on her own terms with others. On the schema of attachment patterns, Mary might be scored as a 45-50 on the avoidant/dismissive/cutoff side of the schema of attachment patterns. In therapy,
Mary began moving closer to Joe and her family of origin, especially
her parents, while stating clearly what she will allow and for what she
will no longer accept responsibility. This more mature sense of connection and intimacy also enabled Mary to feel better about herself.
Joe presents a picture of a strongly enmeshed person who is unable to
take much of an independent stance, especially by saying no to parents. Joe is preoccupied with what others, especially mom, may think/
feel and he has a strong need for the approval and affection of significant others. In therapy, Joe was ambivalent about early suggestions that
he leave father and mother and cling to his wife and that he could practice this by phoning home less frequently and thus take a more inde-

58

JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

FIGURE 2. Couple Genogram

My strength
my best friend
funny-talker
fast to get angry
narrow-minded

passionate
funny
gone/worked away
alcoholic
verbally abusive
mean/scary

kind
strong
no faults
controlling
shouts

vindictive

1942

1943

60

Joseph

59
dependent

Elizabeth

loving
sweet
passive
not speak up
fear to confront

1939

1938
64
Primo

m. 1962

blaming

63
Paulina

m. 1969

1964

1971

1977

38
Paula

31
Primo

Susan

therapist
independent
always gone

drugs
jail
1967
35

25
at home
quiet
1973
29

verbal abuse

Joe

Mary
LT. 5 yrs, m. 2 yrs

I need assurance
wants more hugs and affection
perfectionist
fears new things
phone mom every day
fast temper

left home at age 17

capable/independent
Dont touch me
family negotiator
angry/yells a lot
depressed/impatient

pendent stance vis-a-vis his mother. Even when Joe began to take some
distance and a more objective stance, his comments exhibited much fear
about the reactions of others. On the schema of attachment patterns, Joe
might be seen as a 45-50 on the preoccupied/enmeshed side of the
schema of attachment patterns. As Joe began to individuate more with
mom, he found himself better able to listen to Mary.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THERAPY
The therapeutic task for each partner is two-fold: (1) to become aware
of ones own level of differentiation, including ones attachment pattern

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

Martin Rovers

59

as it operates in relationship, and (2) to gently restructure ones interactional pattern towards a more secure, differentiated position (Bowen,
1978; McGoldrick & Carter, 2001).
The schema for attachment patterns presented in this paper has positive implications for therapy. Using the genogram allows for a quick assessment of relationship patterns for use in therapy and this can be
scored/marked and illustrated on the scale of differentiation on the
schema of attachment patterns. Although meant more as a global assessment of attachment, best obtained through a mutual dialogue between client and therapist, clients can visualize their own score on the
scale of differentiation as well as the score of their partner. Bowen
strongly suggested that clients need to, first of all, understand their own
family of origin dynamics and become objective observers and researchers of their progress towards differentiation. This objective assessment of the genogram and the clients positioning on the schema of
attachment patterns can assist each partner to know oneself more
deeply, including how their insecure attachment pattern or undifferentiation was born in the family of origin and how it might function and
have an impact in the couple relationship today.
Family of origin therapy is not to relive an old memory or to blame
parents for all that may have gone wrong in life. Rather, a review of
family of origin relationship patterns, from the there and then can provide a working model or blueprint of present functioning and thus
help clients obtain a better grasp of the here and now. Unfinished business of the past is probably one therapeutic issue clients trip over again
and again. The old family of origin map/attachment patterns that have
been followed most of life needs adjustment and updating to better fit
present adult life relationships. Knowing where one came from, in
terms of attachment patterns, enables one to seek paths and pathways
towards the middle ground of more secure/differentiated relationships
in present relationships. In other words, the client can stand more solidly on the two feet of past and present attachment patterns, by observing his or her family of origin functioning and by focusing on present
emotional attachments.
At the same time, the genogram and the schema of attachment patterns also permits people to see their partner more objectively and begin
to appreciate their partners insecure attachment pattern and undifferentiation to be somewhat equal to their own. Partners can also learn to
appreciate their own and their partners attachment pattern as a wound
that each brings into the relationship, rather than some supposed deliberate meanness. The genogram and the schema of attachment patterns

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

60

JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY

helps clients to picture, understand and appreciate the couple relationship more concretely and fathom the cycle of their dance of attachment.
Each couple dances a distinct dance of individuation and togetherness,
but, according to Bowen and Bowlby, most of the dance steps were previously learned within the family of origin.
This schema is also useful in planning therapy. Positions on the
schema of attachment patterns can point the direction for therapy, especially when viewed as endeavours to bring balance to the two forces of
togetherness and separateness. Each person needs intimacy, connectedness, love, security AND, at the same time, individuation, independence, autonomy. The balancing of these in some middle fashion has
been called the secure enough base and place of differentiation. Partners
who score lower on the side of enmeshment will need to move in the direction of individuation, learning to make decisions of their own, speaking their own mind and feelings and connecting with others as choice.
Partners who score lower on the cutoff side will need to learn to find
ways to connect and become more intimate with others, partner, family
members, and significant friends.
CONCLUSION
When it comes to loving and being loved, people often tend to react
in patterns reflective of the past, specifically attachment patterns absorbed in the family of origin. These attachment patterns have become
interwoven into ways of thinking and being, thus providing an internal
diagram or working model for being in a close relationship. Parents
whose love over time integrates the childs inner experiences in ways
that make it possible for the child to understand, nurture, and care for
her/himself, and through this, create a space for his/her private personal
growth, encourages the child to move towards his or her differentiation
of self or more secure attachment pattern. In contrast, in a poorly differentiated family, the child tends to function in reaction to others and
tends to become more enmeshed or cut-off. Attachment patterns that
have been absorbed from family of origin can become interwoven into
our present day relationships. Becoming aware of attachment patterns
helps partners know themselves more deeply, better handle their own
emotional reactivity, become more acute observers of the dance of attachment, and help partners focus on the couples attachment pattern,
and bring thoughtfulness to bear in seeking new pathways towards a secure/differentiated position.

Martin Rovers

61

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of Attachment:
A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. & Wittig, B. (1969). Attachment and exploratory behavior of
one-year-olds in a strange situation. In B.M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of Infant Behavior, 4, 111-136. London: Methuen.
Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A
test of the four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
226-244.
Bogard, M. (1988). Enmeshment, Fusion or Relatedness? A Conceptual Analysis. New
York: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Bowen, M. (1976). Theory in the practice of psychotherapy. In P.J. Guerin (Ed.), Family Therapy: Theory and Practice. New York: Gardner Press.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. New York: Jason Aronson.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Vol.1: Attachment. London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2: Separation. London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss: Vol. 3: Loss. London: Hogarth Press.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base. Clinical Application of Attachment Theory. London:
Routledge.
Brennan, K.A., Clark, C.L., & Shaver, P.R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
romantic attachment: An integrative approach. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes
(Eds.), Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.
Caperton-Brown, E.H. (1992). Ethnic and Gender Differences in Intergenerational
Family Processes. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation; University of Houston.
Dankoski, M.E. (2001). Pulling on the heart strings: An emotionally focused approach
to family life cycle transitions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 177187.
Davis, B. & Jones, L.C. (1992). Differentiation of self and attachment among adult
daughters. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 13, 321-331.
Diehl, M., Elnick, A.B., Bourbeau, L.S., & La Louvie-Vief, G. (1998). Adult attachment styles: Their relations to family context and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1656-1669.
Fraley, R.C. & Waller, N.G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the typological model. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment Theory and Close
Relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.
Franz, C.E. & White, K.M. (1985). Individuation and attachment in personality development: Extending Eriksons theory. Journal of Personality, 53, 224-256.
George, C., Kaplan, N., & Main, M. (1985). An Adult Attachment Interview: Interview
Protocol. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley.
Goldberg, S. (1991). Recent developments in attachment theory and research. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 393-400.
Havestraldt, A.J., Anderson, W.T., Piercy, F.P., Cochran, S.W., & Fine, M. (1985). A
family of origin scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11, 287-297.

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

62

JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY

Hazan, C. & Shavar, P.R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Holmes, J. (1997). Attachment, autonomy, intimacy: Some clinical implications of attachment theory. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 70, 231-248.
Horne, K.B. & Hicks, M.W. (2002). All in the family: A belated response to KnudsonMartins feminist revision of Bowen Theory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28,103-113.
Howe, D., Brandon, M., Hinings, D., & Schofield, G. (1999). Attachment Theory,
Child Maltreatment and Family Support: A Practice and Assessment Model. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnson, S.M. & Grenberg, L.S. (1992). Emotionally focused therapy: Restructuring
attachments. In S.H. Budman, M.F. Hoyt, & S. Friedman (Eds.), The First Session
in Brief Therapy (pp. 204-224). New York: Guilford Press.
Johnson, S. (1996). Creating Connections: The Practice of Emotionally Focused Therapy. Levittown, PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Kerr, M. & Bowen, M. (1988). Family Evaluations: An Approach Based on Bowen
Theory. New York: W.W. Norton.
Knudson-Martin. C. (1994). The female voice: Applications of Bowens family systems theory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 20, 35-46.
Knudson-Martin, C. (2002). Expanding Bowens legacy to family therapy: A response
to Horne and Hicks. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 115-118.
Main, M. & Hesse, E. (1990). Parents unresolved traumatic experiences are related to
infant disorganized attachment status: Is frightened and/or frightening parental behavior the linking mechanism? In Greenberg, M.T, & Cicchetti, D. (Eds.), Attachment in the Preschool Years: Theory, Research and Intervention. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Main, M. & Hesse, E. (1999). Second-generation effects of unresolved trauma in nonmaltreating parents: Dissociated, frightened and threatening parental behavior. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 19, 481-540.
Main, M. & Solomon, J. (1990). Procedures for identifying infants as disorganized/disoriented during the Strange Situation. In M.T. Goldberg, D. Ciccetti, & E. M.
Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in Preschool Years: Theory, Research and Intervention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.),
Growing Points of Attachment Theory and Research, Monographs for the Society
for Research in Child Development, 50, 66-104.
McGoldrick, M. & Gerson, R. (1985). Genograms in Family Assessment. New York:
W.W. Norton.
McGoldrick, M. & Carter, B. (2001). Advances in coaching: Family therapy with one
person. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 281-300.
Melchert, T.P. & Sayger, T.V. (1998). The development of an instrument for measuring family of origin characteristics. Educational and Psychological Measurements,
58, 99-118.
Rastogi, M. & Wampler, K.S. (1999). Adult daughters perceptions of the motherdaughter relationship: A cross-cultural comparison. Family Relations, 48, 327-336.

Downloaded by [University of Ottawa] at 09:50 08 January 2015

Martin Rovers

63

Simpson, J.A. & Rhodes, W.S. (1998). Attachment Theory and Close Relationships.
New York: Guilford Press.
Sperling, M.B. & Berman, W.H. (1994). Attachment in Adults: Clinical and Developmental Perspectives. New York: The Guilford Press.
Sroufe, L.A. & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child
Development, 48, 1184-1199.
Titelman, P. (1998). Clinical Applications of Bowen Family Systems Theory. New
York: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Tomson, P. (1985). Genograms in general practice. Journal of the Royal Society of
Medicine Supplement, 78, 34-39.
Weinfield, N.S., Sroufe, L.A., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E.A. (1999). The nature of individual differences in infant-caregiver attachment. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Weiss, R.S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C.M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hindes
(Eds.), (1992). The Place of Attachment in Human Behavior. New York: Basic
Books.
West, M.L. & Sheldon-Keller, A.E. (1994). Patterns of Relating: An Adult Attachment
Perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Williamson, D. (1991). The Intimacy Paradox: Personal Authority in the Family System. New York: Guilford Press.

SUBMITTED: 8/16/02
ACCEPTED: 10/24/02