Internal Working Models of Attachment

Key Takeaways

• Attachment theory posits that individuals develop internal working models of attachment based on their early experiences with caregivers and operate outside of awareness (Bowlby, 1969/1982).
• According to Bowlby (1969), the primary caregiver acts as a prototype for future relationships via the internal working model.
• These models consist of mental representations of the self, others, and relationships that guide thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in attachment-relevant situations throughout life (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999).
• Internal working models of attachment significantly impact social cognition, emotion regulation, relationship dynamics, and psychological well-being (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).
• Recognizing the power of working models provides insight into individual differences in relational functioning and points toward avenues for therapeutic change.

Background on Attachment Theory

John Bowlby originally conceived of attachment theory to explain the intense distress experienced by infants when separated from their caregivers.

He proposed that humans have an innate attachment behavioral system that motivates them to seek proximity, contact, and comfort from significant others (attachment figures) under conditions of threat or distress (Bowlby, 1969/1982).

Origins

This system evolved to promote survival by keeping vulnerable infants close to nurturing caregivers who provide protection, support, and care.

Individual differences in attachment security emerge based on the sensitivity and responsiveness of the caregiver.

John Bowlby (1969/1982) theorized that these early attachment experiences form the foundation for mental representations called internal working models. These models consist of cognitive-affective schemas about the self as worthy/unworthy of care and others as reliable/unreliable sources of support.

The social and emotional responses of the primary caregiver (usually a parent) provide the infant with information about the world and other people and how they view themselves as individuals.

For example, the extent to which an individual perceives himself/herself as being worthy of love and care, and information regarding the availability and reliability of others (Bowlby, 1969). 

Bowlby referred to this knowledge as an internal working model (IWM), which begins as a mental and emotional representation of the infant’s first attachment relationship and forms the basis of an individual’s attachment style. 

Secure attachment develops when caregivers are consistently available and responsive. Insecure attachment develops when caregivers are insensitive, inconsistent, or rejecting.

Infants with secure attachments use their caregiver as a secure base to explore and a safe haven for comfort when distressed.

Insecure infants are anxious about the availability of their caregiver(s) and cannot rely on them for support (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).

Structure of Working Models

Internal working model components are hypothesized to be organized hierarchically, with general representations at the top and relationship-specific representations lower in the hierarchy (Overall, Fletcher, & Friesen, 2003).

Although interconnected, each model is thought to be somewhat distinct and applicable to particular relationships.

For example, an individual may have a general negative working model from childhood experiences but a more positive model regarding their current romantic partner.

Models are also multifaceted, containing semantic and episodic elements representing different levels of abstraction (Beer & Kihlstrom, 1999).

Stability of Working Models

Working models are considered relatively stable over time, operating outside of conscious awareness to guide perceptions, emotions, and behaviors in attachment-relevant situations (Bretherton & Munholland, 1999).

It is through an individual’s internal working model that childhood patterns of attachment are carried forward across the life cycle into adolescence and adulthood. 

According to Bowlby (1969), later relationships are likely to be a continuation of early attachment styles (secure and insecure) because the behavior of the infant’s primary attachment figure promotes an internal working model of relationships, which leads the infant to expect the same in later relationships.

Although working models are generally stable over time, they are not impervious to change and, as such, remain open to modification and revision.  This change could occur due to new experiences with attachment figures or through a reconceptualization of past experiences.

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.

Consequently, individuals in well-established relationships are expected to exhibit fewer fluctuations in their attachment security, both generally and in response to attachment-related events (Hadden et al., 2014)

Components of Working Models

Cognitions relating to the self and others form part of a person’s internal working model of attachment, which also comprises security-based strategies that a person can use to explicitly regulate stress (Bowlby, 1973, Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). 

Attachment researchers describe working models as complex mental networks consisting of various interrelated components, including (Collins & Read, 1994):

1. Memories of attachment experiences.
2. Beliefs and expectations about self and others.
3. Attachment-related goals and needs.
4. Relationship behavioral strategies.

1. Memory

The IWM provides individuals with a template or schema for understanding and interpreting social interactions. It helps people predict how others will behave in relation to them and vice versa.

These include memories of how primary caregivers have responded to the individual’s needs for comfort and security in the past. They form the basis for expectations about how others will respond in the future.

Working models function as semantic networks that organize memory encoding and retrieval (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011). Memories consistent with model content and biases are more easily encoded and recalled.

Adults project congruent aspects of working models onto new people (Mikulincer & Horesh, 1999) and reconstruct fading memories to align with model expectations (Miller & Noirot, 1999).

For example, anxious adults have retrievable rejection memories and may recall partners as more distant than they really are. Avoidant adults suppress attachment memories and needs. Secure adults integrate positive and negative experiences without major biases.

2. Beliefs (Expectations)

Based on past experiences, individuals form beliefs about whether they are worthy of love and support and expectations about the availability, responsiveness, and potential trustworthiness of others.

Working models of attachment comprise implicit and explicit expectations regarding the extent to which significant others can be depended on to provide care in times of need (Baldwin, Fehr, Keedian, & Seidel, 1993; Bowlby, 1973). 

The IWM acts as a lens that filters incoming social information, influencing attention, memory, and interpretation. For instance, a person with a negative IWM might readily recall instances of rejection and overlook positive social cues.

Anxious individuals vigilantly monitor cues relevant to rejection or abandonment. Anxious adults attribute ambiguous behaviors to rejection or lack of care. Avoidant adults assume others are unreliable.

Avoidant individuals direct attention away from attachment-related threats and needs. Secure individuals attend fairly and flexibly based on contextual cues rather than chronic concerns (Fraley, Davis, & Shaver, 1998).

Secure adults make relatively balanced attributions accounting for contextual factors. Biased construal reinforces working model assumptions and associated emotions/behaviors.

Because working models contain relationship beliefs and expectations, they also shape the attributions individuals make to explain partner behaviors (Collins, 1996).

The IWM not only shapes perceptions about others but also about oneself. It informs beliefs such as one’s worthiness of love, competence in relationships, and overall self-concept.

3. Attachment-Related Goals

Goals reflect the desire to form close relationships with others and have attachment needs met.

Each attachment style involves a characteristic hierarchy of interpersonal goals (Mikulincer, 1998). Anxious individuals pursue goals of gaining love, approval, and emotional reassurance.

Avoidant individuals pursue self-reliance, control, and emotional distance.

Secure individuals balance intimacy goals against autonomy needs. Activated goals shape cognitive processing and guide behavioral strategies.

4. Behavioral Strategies

Cognitions relating to the self and others form part of a person’s internal working model of attachment, which also comprise security-based strategies through which a person can use to explicitly regulate stress (Bowlby, 1973, Bretherton & Munholland, 1999). 

Mediated by cognitive biases and emotional responses, working models orchestrate characteristic interpersonal behaviors (Dykas & Cassidy, 2011).

The patterns internalized in the IWM influence individuals’ behavioral strategies in relationships. For instance, avoidantly attached individuals might distance themselves during conflict, reflecting their internalized belief that relying on others is unsafe.

Anxious adults use clinging, controlling strategies to obtain comfort and reassurance. Avoidant adults use distancing strategies to maintain independence.

Secure adults employ flexible, relationship-enhancing behaviors to meet attachment needs while respecting autonomy. Behavior then feeds back into working models to reinforce security/insecurity patterns.

The IWM plays a role in how individuals manage and express their emotions in the context of relationships. For instance, an individual with an anxious attachment style might become overly distressed at the idea of separation due to their internalized belief that they could be abandoned.

Adult Attachment Styles

According to Bowlby’s theory (1988), when we form our primary attachment, we also make a mental representation of what a relationship is (internal working model), which we then use for all other relationships in the future i.e., friendships, working, and romantic relationships.

The different attachment styles may be viewed as internal working models of “relationships” that evolved out of event experiences (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985).

Researchers have identified individual differences in adult attachment styles that reflect the security of internal working models.

Self-report measures and interview techniques assess orientations toward intimacy, dependency, and close relationships corresponding to secure versus insecure working models (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000).

Adults with secure attachments feel comfortable with intimacy, can depend on others, and do not worry about abandonment. Their positive working models allow them to effectively regulate attachment needs and use relationships as sources of support.

In contrast, insecure attachment styles reflect more negative working models and difficulty meeting attachment needs.

Adults with anxious attachment fear rejection, require excessive reassurance, and doubt their worthiness of love. Avoidant adults distrust relationship partners, strive for independence, and suppress attachment needs (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

References

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). Social-cognitive conceptualization of attachment working models: Availability and accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.94

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Beer, J. S., & Kihlstrom, J. F. (1999). Representations of self in close relationships: A test of continuity in internal working models in child and adult attachment. Unpublished manuscript.

Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89-111). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Cloitre, M., Stovall-McClough, K. C., Miranda, R., & Chemtob, C. M. (2004). Therapeutic alliance, negative mood regulation, and treatment outcome in child abuse-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.411

Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 810–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.810

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.

Dykas, M. J., & Cassidy, J. (2011). Attachment and the processing of social information across the life span: theory and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 137(1), 19–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021367

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 (p. 86–132). The Guilford Press.

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350

Fraley, R. C., Davis, K. E., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Dismissing-avoidance and the defensive organization of emotion, cognition, and behavior. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (p. 249–279). The 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.

Levy, K. N., Johnson, B. N., Clouthier, T. L., Scala, J. W., & Temes, C. M. (2015). An attachment theoretical framework for personality disorders. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 56(2), 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000025

Mikulincer, M. (1997). Adult attachment style and information processing: Individual differences in curiosity and cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1217–1230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1217

Mikulincer, M., & Horesh, N. (1999). Adult attachment style and the perception of others: The role of projective mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 1022–1034. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.1022

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2016). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Miller, J. B., & Noirot, M. (1999). Attachment memories, models, and information processing. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(2), 147–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407599162002

Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Friesen, M. D. (2003). Mapping the intimate relationship mind: Comparisons between three models of attachment representations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12), 1479–1493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203251519