Teach about Attachment Theory and dramatize how attachment styles become stable with a demonstration of canalization. This version of the demonstration is arranged to help frame big ideas in social psychology class, though I also use this demonstration in developmental psychology.

Attachment Theory & Canalization in a Social Psychology Class

On the last day of class, I pull together diverse examples to illustrate common threads from throughout the semester. I hope to leave students with a cohesive picture of Social Psychology. Here are some examples of our role of construal in shaping the social situation. How do our beliefs impact our reality?

What about relationships? Despite the historical significance of Attachment Theory (e.g., refuting Freudian claims; challenging behaviorism), coverage in Social Psychology textbooks is usually limited to the prototypical descriptions by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) and connections to other aspects of relationships, such as the modes of self-disclosure by each attachment style (Collins & Freeney, 2004; Mashek & Sherman, 2004).

I recommend enhancing coverage of Attachment Theory in Social Psychology classes with discussion of canalization (Bowlby, 1969). In genetics, canalization is the process by which the same phenotype emerges across different environments because it is difficult to break out of a "canal." Once an internal working model establishes an attachment style, regardless of environmental variations (different relationships), we keep re-affirming our attachment style. To illustrate canalization more concretely, I perform an quick audience-participation play of growth across the lifespan facing each new kind of relationship. The dramatic impression this makes on students is apparent in their faces. While I dramatize the different relationships, I divide the room into fifths from my right to left (students' left to right) and mimic each relationship from that position creating a mental timeline of the lifespan across the classroom.

Bowlby suggested attachment styles remain the same from the formation of an internal working model from early childhood through the lifespan. If an infant is securely attached to his or her parents, the child becomes securely attached to friends, securely attached to girlfriends/boyfriends, securely attached to a spouse, and securely attached to his or her own children.

Canalization is most easily recognized in an insecure attachment style. Let's consider an Anxious-Ambivalent Style. Then repeat the process with the Avoidant attachment style.

• Parent: What if my parent isn't always there for me? Sometimes my parents are there for me, but sometimes they're not. Parents are just not reliable, so whenever I have the chance, I'll hold tightly to them because I never know when I might lose that connection.
• Friends: Now I'm older and starting my first real friendships. But how do friendships work? With no previous friendships, I look to the most central relationship in my life - my parents. Will this friendship be unreliable too? I'd better cling tightly to make sure. It goes well sometimes. Great! There's conflict sometimes. I better absolutely avoid that because I don't want my friendship to go away. Of course nobody can give in all the time, so sometimes I lash out in a moment my friend thinks comes from nowhere. My friend plays with someone else. Oh no, it's going to end so I better hold even tighter. If I'm clinging like this, what happens to the friendship? (It falls apart.) See!!! I'm right, relationships aren't reliable so next time I'll do even better holding on! So what happens to the next friendship, and the next, and the next? (I keep digging myself deeper into a Òcanal.Ó)
• Boyfriend/Girlfriend: Now a teenager, how do I date? Having never dated, how do I know what it's like? (Friendships.) So what happens when we fight? What if my romantic partner wants to hang out with friends instead of me? So what happens? The relationship fails and I'm even more convinced that I better cling tighter next time to avoid the loss of unreliable relationships. I've dug the canal deeper.
• Spouse: Spouses are essentially a kind of romantic relationship and the pattern continues.
• Children: Now as a parent, I love my child and want to be close. But sometimes kids want to be independent. Children get angry. I get angry, but I better not show any displeasure or my child might pull away. Perhaps this is not the best parenting strategy. And one day my teen screams, "I hate you!" And maybe in my ambivalence I withdraw from him or her. I'm insecurely attached to my child. More disconcerting, my child is forming an insecure attachment style to me. And the pattern continues to the next generation.

Approximately one-third of class will be concerned as you show data of the stability of attachment style over time (e.g., Vaughn et al., 1979) and how attachment style continues to the next generation (e.g., Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985). Emphasize that research shows that the canalization is not nearly as strong as Bowlby suggested; the current events in someone's life (e.g., parent's death, divorce, a stable romantic relationship) matter more than attachments from years past (Fraley, 2002). Furthermore, most people don't take psychology and don't recognize how much a role we play in our own environment. You can make choices to behave differently and experience "reality" differently.

---

For more relevant information, see the answer to a question about the role of infants' memory in the formulation of attachment styles.

devpsy.org  >  teaching  >  individual differences  >  canalization & attachment

K. H. Grobman

k h g @ d e v p s y . o r g

© 2003 - 2015