Part Four: Exploring How Our Different Attachment Styles Affect Our Interpersonal Relationships and Ability to Navigate Social Networks
So far, I have discussed the broader implications of the processes of accreditation as they emerge from the pressures of conformity and normative influences like in the Solomon Asch study, Labeling theory or the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct, and we have also explored self-assessment and social comparisons through the works of pioneers like Cooley, Festinger and Snyder. Next, I will begin a deeper exploration of the interpersonal dynamics of one-on-one relationships and how we extend those dynamics through social networks by shedding light on the implicit and explicit forms of validation and sanctions that operate within our relationship roles.
Every interpersonal relationship comes with certain roles and expectations. For instance, in a mother-child relationship, the mother is typically expected to provide care, nurture, and guidance, while the child is expected to respect and obey the mother.
These roles are socially accredited, meaning society recognizes and validates them through various rituals, norms, and values. Because these roles are also difficult to quantify with tangible accreditations, the social capital derived from a person's relationship statuses fluctuates as they go through different comparison processes to assess the normative standards and behaviors associated with that specific relationship role. Imagine how the identity and role of a mother may change as they meet with and evaluate other moms in PTA meetings or make comparisons to the norms and values they see portrayed by mother-figures in tv shows and films.
Within interpersonal relationships, implicit accreditation often takes the form of emotional support, understanding, validation, and other intangible forms of recognition. A boyfriend might validate his girlfriend's feelings by being an active listener; a boss might implicitly accredit an employee's hard work by entrusting them with more responsibilities.
Not adhering to the expected roles in a relationship can lead to implicit sanctions. For example, a friend who constantly breaks promises might face the sanction of reduced trust. A classmate who doesn't contribute to group projects might face social exclusion or negative feedback. These implicit forms of accreditation influence cultural norms which in turn, disrupt social hierarchies.
Family is often our first source of socialization and validation. The feedback and validation that we receive from family members significantly influences our early concept of ourselves. Family members serve as role models, and their validation or disapproval can set early standards for what is considered acceptable or desirable behavior. Positive validation within a family, leading to secure attachment bonds, lays the groundwork for healthy self-esteem and confidence, which people carry into other social interactions.
But it's important to remember that the impact of validation on our journey of identity formation also depends on individual personality traits, past experiences, and resilience. As we covered with Snyder's Self-Monitoring scale, some people may be more influenced by peer validation than others.
Attachment theory, as conceptualized by John Bowlby and later expanded by Mary Ainsworth and other social psychologists, examines the significance of early emotional bonds between infants and their caregivers, proposing that these early relationships shape individuals' expectations and interactions in relationships throughout their lives. The theory categorizes attachment styles into secure, anxious, and avoidant, each of which influences how we perceive and respond to intimacy, separation, and social connections as we grow.
Secure attachment styles develop from consistent, responsive caregiving. Some of the key traits of a person with a secure attachment style are confidence in the availability of attachment figures, comfort with intimacy, and autonomy. People with a secure attachment style tend to have healthy, trusting relationships. They are comfortable with intimacy, can depend on others, and are also able to offer support.
Anxious attachment styles tend to develop from inconsistent caregiving, where the caregiver is sometimes attuned to the child’s needs but at other times may be intrusive or emotionally unavailable. Key traits for this style might include being preoccupied with the availability of attachment figures, fear of abandonment, and high sensitivity to partners' actions and moods. Anxiously attached people may seek constant validation and reassurance from their partners, fearing rejection or abandonment. They may exhibit clingy behavior, have a heightened sensitivity to partners’ actions, and struggle with feelings of unworthiness.
People with Avoidant attachment styles develop from caregivers who are emotionally unavailable or reject their needs, encouraging premature self-reliance. They tend to exhibit discomfort with closeness and a strong value on independence and self-sufficiency; and may have difficulty trusting others. Those with an avoidant attachment style may appear distant in relationships, often minimizing the importance of emotional intimacy. They may also prioritize independence and self-reliance, struggling to open up or rely on others.
It's important to note here that attachment styles aren't fixed. While early experiences with our caregivers lay the foundation for these styles, our subsequent relationships and life circumstances can also influence and potentially modify our attachment behaviors.
Understanding your attachment style can offer some crucial insights into personal patterns in relationships, guiding growth and fostering healthier connections. When my partner and I took the attachment style quiz, adapted from Amir Levine and Rachel Heller's bestselling book, "Attached," we both resulted in Secure styles, but mine showed tendencies toward Avoidant and her's also somewhat favored Anxious. Learning about these attachment styles helped us understand how our different upbringings have influenced our adult relationships and it strengthened our romantic partnership.
Just as attachment styles influence our personal relationships, they can also shape how we engage with societal norms, expectations, and the quest for validation within our communities.
Drawing parallels between attachment theory and SAT, we can uncover some fascinating intersections, particularly in how we navigate and internalize societal norms, expectations, and validations, echoing the dynamics of our early attachment experiences.
Different attachment experiences influence our comfort with intimacy and trust, shaping implicit expectations in relationships. The implicit knowledge gained from attachment interactions can be likened to the societal norms we navigate subconsciously, influencing our social capital and interactions within various communities.
Just as securely attached people feel validated and supported, individuals in a society seek accreditation to affirm their identities, behaviors, and beliefs, striving for a sense of belonging and acceptance. Attachment theory's anxious and avoidant styles mirror reactions to social sanctions in SAT. People with an anxious attachment style may experience heightened sensitivity to social rejection or disapproval, mirroring SAT’s concept of fearing social sanctions or ostracization. Conversely, those with an avoidant attachment style may dismiss the importance of societal validation, akin to resisting the pressures of conformity.
Attachment theory acknowledges that attachment styles can evolve with new experiences and relationships, suggesting a capacity for change and adaptation. This mirrors SAT's view on the dynamic nature of societal norms and accreditation processes, which evolve in response to cultural shifts, technological advancements, and collective experiences. Just as people can develop more secure attachment styles through positive relationships, societies can shift towards more inclusive and affirming accreditation practices.
Modern sociological research integrates attachment theory to understand how people form and maintain social networks. For instance, securely attached individuals might have larger, more diverse social networks due to their comfort with intimacy and trust in relationships. Conversely, avoidant individuals might have smaller networks, prioritizing independence and minimizing close connections. Anxious individuals may form networks centered around a few close, intense relationships, reflecting their desire for reassurance and fear of abandonment.
Traditional Social Network Theory (SNT) focuses on how the patterns of relationships between units (individuals, groups, or institutions) influence social outcomes, often at the expense of considering the agency of individuals within these structures. SNT says that the properties and dynamics of networks themselves (such as density, centrality, or connectivity) play a significant role in shaping behaviors, opportunities, and social phenomena.
In contrast, SAT incorporates a significant focus on individual agency within the framework of social interactions and norms. SAT acknowledges that individuals are not merely shaped by their social networks but actively engage with and influence their social environment through processes of social validation and sanctioning.
This is why I think SAT is different from other theories of sociology and social networks. It provides a unique framework for understanding the dynamic interplay between individual agency and social structure. It recognizes that while social networks exert a powerful influence on us as individuals, we individuals also shape the social networks in which we participate. This feedback loop offers a more dynamic and reciprocal view of social interactions than is typically emphasized in theories of social networking.
Marissa King's "Social Chemistry: Decoding the Patterns of Human Connection" introduces another fascinating framework for understanding the different roles people play in social networks. From her work, we can infer how the concepts of Expansionists, Brokers, and Conveners can also be integrated with the principles of Social Accreditation Theory.
Expansionists are people who have vast networks. They know a large number of people and can often serve as connectors across diverse groups. In the context of SAT, Expansionists might be seen as people with high social capital due to their broad connections. They have the potential to facilitate significant social validation due to their wide reach. However, the depth of these connections might vary, and their role in social sanctioning could be complex, as their expansive networks include a wide range of norms and values.
Brokers are those who bridge different social groups or networks. They possess the unique ability to connect disparate groups, facilitating the exchange of information and resources across social divides. From an SAT perspective, Brokers play a crucial role in the dissemination of cultural norms and values, acting as agents of both social validation and sanctioning. They can introduce new ideas or norms from one group to another, challenging existing dynamics and potentially reshaping social accreditation processes within their networks.
Conveners are people who build tight-knit, cohesive groups. Their networks might be smaller than those of Expansionists, but they are characterized by strong, meaningful connections. Conveners excel in creating a sense of belonging and community, which is fundamental to the internal mechanisms of social accreditation. Within SAT, Conveners can be seen as central figures in establishing and reinforcing group norms and values, facilitating deep social validation among group members, and maintaining conformity through implicit and explicit sanctions.
Each of these roles illustrates a different aspect of social dynamics and can significantly impact how individuals and groups navigate the processes of social accreditation. Understanding these roles can help us leverage our natural tendencies to foster more meaningful connections, enhance our social capital, and navigate the complex landscape of social validation and sanctioning more effectively.
Integrating Marissa King's framework of Expansionists, Brokers, and Conveners with attachment styles helps us imagine the diverse ways people form connections, influence social norms, and seek validation within their networks, all of which are influenced by their underlying attachment styles.
Expansionists
- Securely Attached Expansionists might use their vast networks to foster positive relationships, effectively using their broad connections for mutual benefit and support. Their secure attachments allow them to maintain a wide circle while ensuring meaningful interactions within it, facilitating both broad social validation and a nuanced approach to social sanctioning.
- Anxiously Attached Expansionists may seek validation through the sheer size of their networks, equating the number of connections with self-worth. However, this quest for validation might lead to challenges in navigating social sanctions, as they may overreact to perceived rejections or conflicts within their extensive networks.
- Avoidantly Attached Expansionists might build large networks as a way to maintain surface-level connections, avoiding the vulnerabilities that come with closer relationships. Their approach to social accreditation might be more strategic, focusing on maintaining their status and influence within the network while keeping individual connections at arm's length to avoid sanctions that come with deeper scrutiny.
Brokers
- Securely Attached Brokers effectively bridge different groups, bringing a sense of trust and stability to their role as connectors. They can handle the complexities of transferring cultural norms and values between groups, adeptly navigating the social accreditation processes to foster understanding and cohesion between disparate networks.
- Anxiously Attached Brokers might find their role stressful, particularly if they fear rejection from any side. They may excessively worry about the social validation of their bridging role and could struggle with the potential sanctions from either group for their intermediary position, which may challenge existing norms.
- Avoidantly Attached Brokers use their position to maintain control over their interactions, keeping a safe distance from the groups they connect. They may strategically use their role to influence social accreditation processes without committing deeply to either group, preserving their autonomy.
Conveners
- Securely Attached Conveners create tight-knit communities characterized by trust and mutual support. Their attachment style allows them to foster deep social validation within the group and implement sanctions in a way that maintains group cohesion without harming individual relationships.
- Anxiously Attached Conveners may heavily invest in their close-knit group's approval, viewing it as an extension of their self-worth. They might struggle with enforcing sanctions for fear of losing connections, potentially jeopardizing the group's cohesion and norms.
- Avoidantly Attached Conveners might rarely take on this role due to its demand for close, sustained relationships. If they do, they may do so with a specific purpose, using the group to achieve certain goals while maintaining emotional distance. Their approach to social accreditation within the group may focus more on maintaining their independence rather than fostering community.
As you read each of these, you may have found begun analyzing your own network roles and attachment styles. This perspective highlights how individual differences in attachment can influence your ability to form connections, shape and be shaped by social norms, and respond to social validation and sanctions within diverse network roles. Giving you a layered understanding of your capabilities in social network navigation and social accreditation.
Okay, now that I've discussed how our attachment styles from interpersonal relationships go on to shape our abilities to navigate social networks, I'm going to zoom out a bit and return to group dynamics, exploring how the dynamics within social groups, including in-groups and out-groups, go on to shape broader societal norms, influenced by culture and history.
Thanks for sticking with me so far, I really appreciate it. Please reach out to me if you have any questions or suggestions for future blog posts in this series.
If you like this blog, buy me a coffee! https://ko-fi.com/callmebryy
References/Further Reading:
Levine, A., & Heller, R. (2012). Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find–and Keep–Love. TarcherPerigee
King, M. (2021). Social Chemistry: Decoding the Patterns of Human Connection. Dutton