Roots of Attachment Instructor Guide Instructor Facilitation Guide
The Roots of Attachment
"From Bowlby to Hazan: Analyzing the internal working models that bridge infancy and adult romance."
Module Objectives
• Trace the evolution of attachment theory from infant behavior (Ainsworth) to adult cognitive schemas (Hazan & Shaver).
• Define and operationalize the "Internal Working Model" (IWM).
• Analyze longitudinal data connecting childhood temperament to adult relationship quality.
At a Glance
Total Duration: 90 Minutes
Target Audience: Undergraduate Psych
Materials: Diary Analysis Handout, Slide Deck
Instructional Workflow
01
The Diary Hook (15 mins)
Distribute the "Internal Scripts" worksheet first.
Have students read the three anonymous diary entries. Ask them to highlight keywords that signal how the author views Self (worthy vs. unworthy) and Others (reliable vs. unreliable).
Facilitator Note: "Do not give them the terms 'Secure' or 'Avoidant' yet. Let them describe the behavior in their own words—'needy,' 'cold,' or 'balanced'—to see the patterns naturally."
02
Bowlby & Ainsworth (25 mins)
Briefly lecture on the evolutionary necessity of attachment (Bowlby) and the experimental "Strange Situation" (Ainsworth).
Key Point 1
Proximity Seeking
Attachment as a survival mechanism, not just a biological drive for food (Harlow's monkeys ref).
Key Point 2
The Secure Base
The paradox: Secure attachment facilitates exploration, not dependency.
03
The Cognitive Bridge (30 mins)
Introduce Hazan & Shaver (1987). Explain how they moved from observable behaviors in infants to Internal Working Models (IWMs) in adults.
Discussion Question:
"If your primary caregiver was inconsistently available, what 'rule' might you write for yourself about how love works? How does that rule manifest when your adult partner doesn't text back for 4 hours?"
Internal Scripts: Answer Key
Diary Entry A (Avoidant/Dismissive)
"I don't get why they need to spend every night together. It feels suffocating..."
Psychological Marker:
Emphasis on autonomy over intimacy. High View of Self (independent), Low View of Others (intruding/unreliable). Deactivation of attachment needs.
Diary Entry B (Anxious/Preoccupied)
"I checked their location three times today. I'm sure they're losing interest..."
Psychological Marker:
Hyper-vigilance. Low View of Self (unworthy of love), High View of Others (essential for stability). Hyper-activation of attachment system.
Diary Entry C (Secure)
"We had a tough talk about our weekend plans, but I know we'll figure it out..."
Psychological Marker:
Effective affect regulation. High View of Self (lovable), High View of Others (responsive/available). Conflict seen as manageable.
Preparation Checklist
Queue YouTube clip: Harlow’s Rhesus Monkey Study (Optional)
Print 1 copy of "Internal Scripts" per student
Download dataset: Fraley (2002) Meta-analysis summary for Slide 14
Internal Scripts Worksheet Internal Scripts
Attachment Analysis Activity
Name:
Date:
Instructions: Read the following anonymous diary entries. For each entry, identify how the author views themselves (Self-Model) and how they view romantic partners (Other-Model). Look for patterns in their expectations, fears, and behaviors.
Entry A
"I don't get why they need to spend every night together. It feels suffocating. Every time Chris asks me what I'm doing next weekend, I feel this urge to just... disappear. I care about them, but I need my space. Why is that so hard for people to understand? I'm better off handling things on my own anyway. Relying on someone else just feels like a trap."
View of Self (Internal Working Model)
View of Others (Reliability/Safety)
Entry B
"I checked their location three times today. I know I shouldn't, but I'm sure they're losing interest. They didn't heart my last photo, and the text response was... shorter? Maybe I'm too much. I feel like I'm constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop. I just need them to tell me we're okay, just for tonight."
View of Self (Internal Working Model)
View of Others (Reliability/Safety)
Entry C
"We had a tough talk about our weekend plans, but I know we'll figure it out. It was frustrating, sure, but I don't feel like the relationship is at risk because we disagree. I told them I needed some focus time for my project, and they understood. It feels good to be seen and to see them back."
View of Self (Internal Working Model)
View of Others (Reliability/Safety)
Synthesis: The "Internal Script"
Based on your analysis, choose ONE of the entries and formulate the "Universal Rule" this person likely follows in their relationships. (Example: "If I show vulnerability, then people will...")
Selected Entry & Rule Formulation
Adult Attachment Styles Slides Lesson 02
Adult Attachment Styles
From Infancy to Intimacy: Mapping the Four-Category Model of Attachment in Adult Dyads.
The Two Dimensions
Attachment-Related Anxiety
"Am I worthy of love?"
Fear of rejection, abandonment, and hyper-vigilance toward partner's cues.
Attachment-Related Avoidance
"Are others reliable/safe?"
Discomfort with intimacy, over-reliance on self, and deactivation of needs.
High Anxiety Low Anxiety High Avoidance Low Avoidance
Preoccupied
Fearful-Avoidant
Secure
Dismissive-Avoidant
The Secure Attachment
Cognitive Model
"I am lovable and capable; others are generally dependable and responsive."
Conflict Behavior
Open communication, comfort with vulnerability, and low defensiveness during stress.
Key Stat
~60%
of General Population
Video Case Study: The Conflict
As you watch the 2-minute argument, look for Attachment Strategies.
Hyper-activation: Clinging, protesting, checking, and demanding reassurance.Deactivation: Stoning-walling, intellectualizing, withdrawing, and emotional numbing.
"Partner Conflict: The Dishes Argument"
(External Video Resource Recommended)
Observation Mode
Operationalizing Attachment
Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR)
Psychologists measure attachment using Likert-scale items that tap into internal scripts.
"I worry that romantic partners won’t care about me as much as I care about them."
This item targets the Anxiety dimension.
"I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners."
This item targets the Avoidance dimension.
Next Activity:
In your workshop handout, you will score a simulated ECR profile and diagnose the attachment style.
ECR Scoring Workshop Handout Psychometric Lab Workshop
ECR Scoring Profile
Experiences in Close Relationships – Revised (ECR-R)
LAB ID: PSY-ATT-42
DATE:
01 Operationalization Strategy
The ECR-R is the "gold standard" for measuring adult attachment. It doesn't put people in boxes; it measures two continuous dimensions . This allows researchers to see the nuance in attachment security.
Dimension 1: Anxiety
Assesses the degree to which a person is worried about being rejected, abandoned, or unloved.
A participant responds to 36 items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). Some items are reverse-scored to ensure validity.
Dimension 2: Avoidance
Assesses the degree to which a person limits intimacy and maintains emotional distance.
02 Case Profile: Participant #814
Analyze the raw scores below for a fictional participant. Calculate the dimension averages and plot the final diagnostic result.
Anxiety Subscale (Sample)
Item Statement Score (1-7) "I worry that partners won't care as much." 6 "I often worry that my partner will leave me." 7 "I do not often worry about being abandoned." (R) 1 Mean Anxiety Score: ____
Avoidance Subscale (Sample)
Item Statement Score (1-7) "I prefer not to show a partner how I feel." 2 "I am very comfortable being close to others." (R) 6 "I try to avoid getting too close to my partner." 2 Mean Avoidance Score: ____
Diagnostic Decision
1. Quantitative Analysis
Is the participant "High" or "Low" on each dimension (using a median cut-off of 4.0)?
High Anxiety (> 4.0)
High Avoidance (> 4.0)
2. Final Clinical Classification
SECURE
PREOCCUPIED
DISMISSIVE
FEARFUL
Coordinate Plot
ANXIETY (+) AVOIDANCE (+)
ANX-HIGH
ANX-HIGH
Triangular Theory Slides Lesson 03
The Geometry
of Love
Sternberg’s Triangular Theory: Deconstructing Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment.
The Three Vertices
Intimacy
The "Warm" Component
Feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness. The emotional core of the relationship.
Passion
The "Hot" Component
Drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, and sexual consummation. Motivational arousal.
Commitment
The "Cold" Component
The decision that one loves another and the long-term commitment to maintain that love. Cognitive.
Taxonomy of Loving
CONSUMMATE Romantic Fatuous Companionate
Intimacy
Commitment
Passion
Liking: Intimacy only (Friendship)
Infatuation: Passion only (Love at first sight)
Empty Love: Commitment only (Stagnant relationships)
Consummate Love: All three components.
Temporal Shifts: How Love Evolves
Love is not a static state. The geometry of the triangle changes over time.
Passion: Tends to peak early and plateau or decline.
Intimacy: Grows steadily as partners self-disclose.
Commitment: Increases in discrete steps (labels, moving in, marriage).
Time in Relationship
Intensity
Plotting Love Worksheet Plotting Love
Sternberg's Typology Activity
Observer:
Task: Read the three relationship scenarios below. For each, estimate the levels of Intimacy , Passion , and Commitment (Low, Medium, or High). Then, plot the relationship on the triangle provided and categorize it using Sternberg's typologies.
01 The "Spark" Couple
"Leo and Maya met three weeks ago. They spend every waking moment together, can't keep their hands off each other, and talk for hours about their dreams. However, they haven't discussed exclusivity, and Leo is still seeing other people casually. They don't know much about each other's childhoods yet."
Intimacy
Passion
Commitment
Sternberg Classification:
02 The "Comfort" Couple
"Sarah and Tom have been married for 30 years. They are each other's best friends and share everything. They have a joint bank account, adult children, and wouldn't dream of leaving one another. However, the physical intimacy and 'excitement' faded decades ago."
Intimacy
Passion
Commitment
Sternberg Classification:
03 The "Impulse" Couple
"Jake and Elena met in Vegas. After a whirlwind weekend of intense attraction, they got married on a whim. They don't actually know each other's last names or anything about their values, but they are 'all in' on making this marriage work because they find each other irresistible."
Intimacy
Passion
Commitment
Sternberg Classification:
Critical Synthesis
In your opinion, which of these three components is the strongest predictor of relationship longevity? Why? (Refer to temporal shifts in your answer).
Investment Model Slides Lesson 04
The Price of
Persistence
Social Exchange and Rusbult’s Investment Model: Why We Stay When We’re Unhappy.
Social Exchange Theory
Relationships are built on a marketplace logic of maximizing rewards and minimizing costs.
The Equation:
Outcome = Rewards - Costs
Comparison Level (CL)
Your expectations. "What do I deserve in a partner?"
CL for Alternatives (CLalt)
Your perception of other options. "Could I do better elsewhere?"
Rusbult’s Model of Commitment
Satisfaction
Outcome vs. Comparison Level
Alternatives
Quality of other potential partners
Investment
The Sunk Cost
Ultimate Predictor
COMMITMENT PERSISTENCE
Why Do They Stay?
The Investment Model explains why people remain in low-satisfaction or even abusive relationships.
"I've put 10 years into this. If I leave now, all that time, effort, and shared history is wasted."
Commitment Drivers:
Low Alternatives: "Nobody else would want me."
High Investments: Kids, shared home, social networks.
Subjective Satisfaction: Outcomes still outweigh CL.
Stay-Leave Case Study The Stay-Leave Decision
Social Exchange Case Analysis
Lab Record: INV-2026-X
Investigator Name
Case Review Date
CASE NARRATIVE: THE MILLER DYAD
"Mark and Julia have been together for 7 years. Mark frequently criticizes Julia's career choices and spends very little time engaged in their relationship (Low Satisfaction). However, they recently bought a house together, and Julia's entire social life is tied to Mark’s family (High Investment). Julia also believes that at 35, her chances of finding another partner who wants children are extremely slim, and the dating apps seem 'terrifying' (Low Alternatives)."
Component Breakdown
Model Component Evidence from Case Value (+ / -) Satisfaction Quality of Alternatives
|
| Investment Size | |
|
Outcome Prediction
Based on the model, how likely is Julia to stay in the relationship? Explain how the "Sunk Cost" of her investments might override her low satisfaction.
Diagnostic Verdict
PERSIST
TERMINATE
COMMITMENT = (SATISFACTION - ALT) + INVESTMENT
Conflict and Repair Slides Lesson 05
The Anatomy of
Breakup
Conflict, Repair, and the Predictors of Relationship Dissolution.
The Predictors of Divorce
Criticism
Attacking personality rather than a specific behavior.
"You always forget..."
Contempt
The #1 Predictor.
Mockery, eye-rolling, and taking a position of superiority.
"You're pathetic."
Defensiveness
Victimizing oneself to ward off an attack.
"It's not my fault!"
Stonewalling
Withdrawing from interaction as a way to avoid conflict.
Silence / Exit.
The Demand-Withdraw Pattern
A self-perpetuating cycle often rooted in Attachment Insecurity.
The Anxious Part:
Demands closeness, raises concerns, and protests perceived distance.
The Avoidant Part:
Withdraws, avoids conflict, and deactivates to maintain autonomy.
DEMAND WITHDRAW
Attachment Panic Cycle
The "Secret Sauce": Repair
It’s not the absence of conflict that predicts success. It is the presence of effective repair attempts.
Softened Start-up
Bringing up a problem gently and using "I" statements.
De-escalation
Using humor or physical touch to break the tension during an argument.
Accepting Influence
Being willing to compromise and take your partner's perspective seriously.
Relationship Repair Kit Worksheet The Repair Kit
Maintenance Strategy Formulation
Clinician:
Workshop Objective: Use your knowledge of Gottman's 'Four Horsemen' and Attachment Theory to formulate evidence-based repair strategies for high-conflict interactions.
Interaction Triage
Translate these "Horsemen" statements into "Softened Start-ups" or healthy repair attempts.
CRITICISM
"You are so lazy. You never help with the chores unless I yell at you."
Repair Strategy (I-Statement)
CONTEMPT
"Oh, here we go again. You're going to 'explain' it to me? Like you're some kind of expert?"
Repair Strategy (Appreciation/Needs)
STONEWALLING
[Silence / Walks away and slams door during a difficult talk]
Repair Strategy (Self-Soothing)
Mastery Challenge: The Repair Ritual
Select ONE of the following attachment dyads (Anxious-Avoidant or Avoidant-Avoidant). Formulate a "Maintenance Ritual"—a specific, recurring activity this couple could implement to proactively build Intimacy and prevent Attachment Panic .
Anxious-Avoidant
Avoidant-Avoidant
