Canalization Hypothesis of Attachment Theory

The canalization hypothesis of attachment theory, proposed by John Bowlby, suggests that as relationships progress, individuals’ attachment working models (i.e., their beliefs and expectations about the availability and responsiveness of attachment figures) become increasingly stable and resistant to change or external pressures. This process of canalization is thought to contribute to the development of more enduring patterns of attachment security or insecurity in close relationships over time.

Dugan, K. A., Fraley, R. C., Gillath, O., & Deboeck, P. R. (2023). Testing the canalization hypothesis of attachment theory: Examining within-subject variation in attachment security. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000488

Key Points

• The study aimed to test the canalization hypothesis of attachment theory, which suggests that people’s trajectories of attachment security should become increasingly stable and resistant to external pressures as their relationships progress.
• The researchers found that people in newer romantic relationships demonstrated greater fluctuations around their individual trajectories of partner-specific attachment anxiety compared to those in more established relationships. This trend was not observed for partner-specific attachment avoidance.
• Attachment-related events, such as conflicts with one’s partner, were associated with greater fluctuations in partner-specific attachment anxiety among those in newer versus more established relationships. The subjective valence of events also influenced fluctuations in attachment security.
• The findings provide partial support for the canalization hypothesis and highlight the nuanced nature of attachment dynamics in adult romantic relationships.

Rationale

Attachment theory posits that people develop working models of attachment based on their experiences in close relationships, which guide their interactions with others (Collins et al., 2004).

These working models are believed to be flexible and can be refined based on ongoing relationship experiences (Arriaga et al., 2018; Collins et al., 2004).

Waddington’s (1957) writings on the development of biological cells and his analogy of a marble rolling down a hill, known as the epigenetic landscape (Fraley & Brumbaugh, 2004).

In the early stages of a relationship, attachment working models are relatively malleable, similar to a marble at the top of a hill that can easily change direction. External forces can easily influence the trajectory of newer working models (J. G. Holmes & Rempel, 1989; Kelley, 1979; Murray, 1999; Murray et al., 2006).

However, Bowlby (1973) proposed that as relationships progress, the developmental trajectories of working models should become increasingly stable through a process known as canalization.

As relationships progress, attachment working models become more stable, and individuals tend to stick closely to their established trajectory, even when faced with external pressures.

This canalization process is facilitated by increased stability in the relationship environment (Fraley & Roisman, 2015) and self-reinforcing cognitive processes within the working models themselves.

Consequently, individuals in well-established relationships are expected to demonstrate less extreme fluctuations in their partner-specific attachment security, generally and in response to attachment-related events (Hadden et al., 2014).

Despite the centrality of the canalization hypothesis in attachment theory, it has rarely been studied empirically.

The present research addressed this gap by examining within-person fluctuations in partner-specific attachment security as a function of romantic relationship length and response to attachment-related events.

Method

The study analyzed longitudinal data from 1,741 adults who completed between three and 24 online survey assessments of their attachment styles and life experiences from yourPersonality Project (see Fraley et al., 2021).

The median test-retest interval was 35 days.

Procedure

Participants completed surveys on their attachment styles, personality traits, and life experiences through a website. Those who met the eligibility criteria were invited to participate in a paid longitudinal study involving additional assessments every 30 days.

Sample

The final analytic sample included 1,741 participants, with 83.74% identifying as female and 76.11% as White. The average age of participants was 35.43 years (SD = 11.29).

Measures

The study used the Experiences in Close Relationships-Relationship Structures questionnaire (ECR-RS) to assess partner-specific attachment anxiety and avoidance.

Participants also reported on the occurrence and subjective valence of various life events.

1. “My partner and I got into a fight or argument” (n = 4,140 event occurrences across people and waves)
2. “My partner and I were physically apart from one another for more than 2 days due to work, travel, school, and so forth” (n = 4,462)
3. “My partner did something special for me” (n = 3,066; examined in exploratory analyses)

The study also measured other life events not specific to romantic relationships, with at least 600 occurrences within and across people:

4. “I got ill or sick” (n = 2,859)
5. “I started a new job” (n = 1,072)
6. “I accomplished something I was proud of” (n = 3,219)
7. “I took a vacation or went on holiday” (n = 3,281)
8. “I moved to a new location” (n = 783)
9. “I found out a close friend or family member was seriously ill” (n = 914)
10. “A close friend or family member passed away” (n = 660)
11. “I visited with friends or family that I do not get to see often” (n = 4,241)

Statistical measures

The researchers used mixed-effects location scale (MELS) models to examine within-person fluctuations in partner-specific attachment security as a function of romantic relationship length and attachment-related events.

Results

H1: People involved in newer romantic relationships should demonstrate greater within-person fluctuations around their individual trajectories of partner-specific security compared to those in more established romantic relationships,

Consistent with the first hypothesis, people in newer romantic relationships demonstrated greater fluctuations around their individual trajectories of partner-specific attachment anxiety compared to those in more established relationships.

The extent to which people fluctuated in partner-specific anxiety declined more rapidly across the first few years of a romantic relationship and then declined more gradually before starting to plateau.

However, this trend was not observed for partner-specific attachment avoidance, as the extent to which people fluctuated around their trajectories of avoidance did not differ across various stages of romantic relationships.

H2: We would expect to find that attachment-related events are associated with greater fluctuations in partner-specific security among those in newer versus more established romantic relationships.

The findings provided some support for the second hypothesis in the context of partner-specific attachment anxiety.

Attachment-related events, such as conflicts with one’s partner, were associated with greater fluctuations in partner-specific attachment anxiety among those in newer versus more established relationships.

The extent to which people fluctuated in attachment anxiety following a fight or argument with their partner tended to decrease more rapidly across the first few years of a relationship and then eventually plateaued at a level above typical fluctuations at conflict-free times.

Additionally, people in newer romantic relationships demonstrated greater fluctuations in partner-specific anxiety on occasions when their partner did something special for them, while those in established relationships tended to deviate less from their overall trajectories of anxiety during such events.

However, for partner-specific attachment avoidance, the occurrence of attachment-related events was not associated with greater fluctuations among those in newer versus more established relationships.

Insight

The findings suggest that the developmental dynamics of attachment anxiety and avoidance in adult romantic relationships may differ.

Partner-specific attachment anxiety appears to be more reactive to environmental cues and relationship experiences, particularly in newer relationships.

The canalization of attachment anxiety trajectories might be facilitated by the formation of a full-fledged attachment bond, the transition from passionate to companionate love, and the development of trust in one’s partner.

In contrast, partner-specific attachment avoidance seems less influenced by relationship length and external pressures, possibly due to its association with self-regulation and partner selection processes.

Strengths

• The study used a large sample size and intensive longitudinal data, which allowed for the examination of within-person fluctuations in attachment security over time.
• The use of MELS models enabled the researchers to directly model residual within-person fluctuations in attachment security as a function of relationship predictors at both the within-person and between-person levels.

Limitations

• The sample was predominantly White and female, limiting the generalizability of the findings to more diverse populations.
• The observational nature of the data precludes causal conclusions about the associations between relationship length, attachment-related events, and fluctuations in attachment security.

Implications

The findings highlight the importance of considering both average levels and within-person fluctuations in attachment security when studying adult romantic relationships.

Interventions aimed at promoting secure attachment and relationship well-being should take into account the different developmental dynamics of attachment anxiety and avoidance.

Future research should investigate the potential benefits and drawbacks of fluctuations in attachment security at different stages of romantic relationships and explore ways to promote adaptive levels of stability in attachment trajectories.

References

Primary reference

Dugan, K. A., Fraley, R. C., Gillath, O., & Deboeck, P. R. (2023). Testing the canalization hypothesis of attachment theory: Examining within-subject variation in attachment security. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000488

Other references

Arriaga, X. B., Kumashiro, M., Simpson, J. A., & Overall, N. C. (2018). Revising working models across time: Relationship situations that enhance attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 71-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317705257

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Volume II: Separation, anxiety and anger. Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Volume III: Loss, sadness and depression. Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Volume I: Attachment. Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)

Collins, N. L., Guichard, A. C., Ford, M. B., & Feeney, B. C. (2004). Working models of attachment: New developments and emerging themes. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 196-239). Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., & Brumbaugh, C. C. (2004). A dynamical systems approach to conceptualizing and studying stability and change in attachment security. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp. 86-132). Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2015). Early attachment experiences and romantic functioning. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and research: New directions and emerging themes (pp. 9-38). Guilford Press.

Hadden, B. W., Smith, C. V., & Webster, G. D. (2014). Relationship duration moderates associations between attachment and relationship quality: Meta-analytic support for the temporal adult romantic attachment model. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 42-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313501885

Holmes, J. G., & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close relationships (pp. 187-220). Sage Publications.

Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes. Erlbaum.

Murray, S. L. (1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1001_3

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 641-666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641

Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of genes: A discussion of some aspects of theoretical biology. Allen & Unwin.

Keep Learning

1. How might the findings of this study inform our understanding of relationship dynamics and the development of trust in adult romantic relationships?
2. What are some potential factors that could contribute to the observed differences in the developmental dynamics of attachment anxiety and avoidance in romantic relationships?
3. How can the insights gained from this research be applied to clinical practice and interventions aimed at promoting secure attachment and relationship well-being?
4. What are some possible directions for future research on the canalization of attachment trajectories across different types of relationships (e.g., parent-child, friendships) and throughout the lifespan?