Attachment Theory tells us how important the early bond humans form with their caregivers is, as it leads to the development of an internal working model of relationships. These internal working models operate outside of our consciousness and influence our beliefs about relationships, including how we feel and act within them. So we may not “see” them, but they are acting and influencing nevertheless.
John Bowlby (February 26, 1907 – September 2, 1990) was a psychoanalyst and psychologist who founded the core concepts of attachment theory. As part of his work in attachment, he also coined the term “internal working model.”
While training at The British Psychoanalytic Institute under the influence of the founder of play therapy, Melanie Klein, Bowlby developed a sense of frustration regarding psychoanalysis’ approach. Why? Well, Psychoanalysis attributes emotional distress predominantly to inner functioning, but Bowlby’s experiences working at a residential home for troubled children taught him different.
Based on his experience, he proposed that babies are born with an innate survival mechanism; an attachment behavioral system. This system motivates babies to seek protection from danger in the form of proximity and soothing from their caregivers.
Continuing further, he suggested that individual differences in attachment security, and developmental outcomes, are dependent on caregiver attunement and responsivity to children’s needs. In other words, if caregivers are sensitive to their children’s cues and consistently respond accurately, the child will likely develop a secure bond. However, if caregivers are misattuned or inconsistently responsive to their child’s needs, or behave chaotically towards them, the child may develop an insecure bond.
These early representations of relationships and how they will be treated within them lead the child to develop an internal working model.
DISCOVER YOUR ATTACHMENT STYLE
From an attachment perspective, the nature of an internal working model of attachment is dependent on two formative factors: how dependable and responsive the child deems their caregivers to be and whether they determine themselves to be acceptable or not.
To put it in Bowlby’s own words; “In the working model of the self…a key feature is how acceptable or unacceptable (they themselves) are in the eyes of (their) attachment figures.”
So, these repeated interactions with caregivers teach the child whether other people can be relied upon to meet their needs and this stays with us as we grow up. Additionally, based on the child’s determination of their caregiver’s reliability, they make a judgment about themselves regarding whether they’re “worthy” or “unworthy” of care.
It’s important to note that it’s possible to have more than one working model, people can have different ones for varying situations and forms of relationships. Plus, internal working models are constantly under revision as a child learns new information. Therefore, repeated exposure to new behaviors and treatment can overwrite a previous model, which is part of the reason it is possible to earn a secure attachment.
However, if a child does not experience situations which challenge their existing internal working model, they carry their previous one into adulthood, affecting beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors for either the positive or negative.
They impact our beliefs and attitudes, which in turn means our behaviors are intricately connected to internal working models, with each influencing and reinforcing the other. Negative experiences or trauma can lead to poor self-perceptions, as well as distrust of others and maladaptive beliefs about how relationships and the world functions.
If we take the four attachment styles (secure, anxious, avoidant, and disorganized/fearful avoidant), then we can also view them as forms of internal working models, each one possessing distinct characteristics and beliefs.
Research has demonstrated that adult attachment styles continue to reflect childhood internal working models, affecting beliefs and behaviors in relationships.
Adults with secure attachment typically feel comfortable with intimacy and mutual dependence in relationships. Their healthy internal working model facilitates emotion regulation, closeness, trust, and support seeking when necessary.
The insecure attachment internal working model, in contrast, leads to unhealthy attitudes and behaviors in relationships. For example, people high on the dimension of anxious attachment may deeply fear abandonment, leading to validation seeking behaviors and consistent proximity seeking.
Those high on the dimension of avoidant attachment often fear rejection and expect hurt, so they withdraw from emotional closeness and vulnerability. The disorganized attachment internal working model is more tumultuous than that of anxious and avoidant, consisting of a conflicting representation of the self, others, and the world.
To begin with, we can start with three groups:
These groups can all be influenced by the individual components of internal working models, such as:
Memories of early attachment experiences: Early memories provide a framework or schema for how all future relational interactions should work, including how the individual will be treated within them.
Beliefs and expectations of the self and others: How childhood needs were met by caregivers forms an expectation of how reliable people are in general, as well as the belief of the self being “worthy” or “unworthy” of care.
Attachment goals: Almost everyone desires a meaningful bond and love, but how we aim to achieve this can be shaped by our attachment styles. For instance, anxious attachment goals are for proximity and emotional validation. In contrast, avoidant attachment goals are typically those of self-reliance, protection, and control.
Behavioral or self-protective strategies: Early experiences can shape how we react to distress and threat through actions or self protective strategies. For example, the anxious dimension is associated with protest behaviors such as conflict to achieve validation and proximity. However, avoidant protective strategies are to withdraw from emotional closeness and erect impassible personal boundaries. Those who alternate between anxious and avoidant dimensions (disorganized attachment) may experience behavioral extremes of both.
By the time internal working models have developed (approximately three years of age), they are considered to be stable traits, which means they can be resistant to change. However, with awareness and consistent effort, it is still possible to change an internal working model at any stage of life.
In general, the pathways to changing internal working models are:
An internal working model of attachment is a template or cognitive schema for the self, the world, and relationships which people form based on their bond with caregivers in the early years of development. If caregivers are attuned and responsive to a child’s needs, the child typically develops an adaptive, healthy model in which they value their own worth and trust others.
In contrast, if caregivers are misattuned, inconsistent, or rejecting to a child’s needs, the child risks developing a maladaptive internal working model in which they have poor self-perceptions and distrust others.
Internal working models tend to be stable over time, therefore they can be resistant to change. However, it is possible to change an internal working model, and develop more secure traits, by trying therapy, engaging in new, consistently healthy experiences, and developing awareness and understanding of how a model develops and is maintained.
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 102–127). The Guilford Press.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of attachment: The structure and function of working models. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (p. 53–90). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.
Pârvan, A. (2017). Changing internal representations of self and other: Philosophical tools for attachment-informed psychotherapy with perpetrators and victims of violence. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, 24(3), 241-255.
Stroebe, M., & Boerner, K. (2010). Continuing bonds in adaptation to bereavement: Toward theoretical integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 259–268.