Attachment and Close
Relationships: A Life Span
Perspective
Levitt, M. J. (1991). Attachment and
close relationships: A life-span
perspective. In J. L. Gerwitz & W. M.
Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with
attachment (pp. 183-205). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Abstract
Intersections of infant attachment theory with models
of close relationships and social support in adulthood
are proposed within the framework of the social
convoy model elaborated by Kahn and Antonucci
(1980). Close relationships across the life span are
viewed as continuations of early attachment relations,
governed by similar processes and serving similar
functions. The primary process is hypothesized to be
the establishment and maintenance of relationship
expectations, forged through familiarity with
relationship partners and mutually contingent
feedback, and influenced by cultural norms and past
relationship experiences. Relationships are thought to
be stabilized and given continuity through mutual
adaptation to partner expectations, modulation of
conflict, and maintenance of behavior within the limits
of partner tolerance. Developmental changes in
existing relationships and structural changes over the
life course in the individual's circle of close
relationships are thought to ensue from changes in
cognitive ability, individual maturation, and age-related
social norms. Changes in the ability to modulate
conflict may also play a role in the evolution of
relationships. Consistent with an attachment model
personal well-being is hypothesized to be related
primarily to close relationships rather than to support
networks as a whole, and data are cited to suggest
that one such relationship may be sufficient.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Introduction
 Life span theory has described
significance of “social support network”.
 “Social support convoy” is suggested as a
substitute phrase because it emphasizes
“the importance of viewing the social
network as a dynamic structure that
changes with the development of the
individual and alterations in the
environment” (p. 184).
 The convoy model is influenced by
theories of attachment and social roles.
 Dyadic relationships are seen as the basic
units for convoy structure and function.
 The model predicts continuity and change in
convoy relationships.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Attachment Relationships
 Definition of attachment relationships:
“those which, if severed, would
precipitate the marked affective
behavioral disruption labeled as grief” (p.
184).
 Conceptualization of support convoy for
research purposes: a series of concentric
circles with the individual at the center
(see Figure 10.1 on p. 185).
 Level of influence is assessed by subjective
placement of close relationships by the
respondent.
 Distinction between close relationships and
other relationships: close relationships share a
common general factor that includes
“interpersonal communication, shared
understanding and affectional exchange,
mutual fostering of personal growth, and
emotional and instrumental support” (p. 186).
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Research Related to Social
Support Convoy
 Evidence seems to offer support for
characteristics of a close relationship.
 Provision of care when ill seems to be
completed by the person identified as
closest to respondent.
 Number of persons placed in the inner
circle of the social convoy diagram seems
to be close family members and
occasionally one or two close friends.
 Number of persons placed in the inner
circle of the social convoy diagram seems
to be limited (one average 3-5
individuals). Parents are typically placed
in the inner circle.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Hypotheses to Investigate Attachment
Relationships Across the Life Span
 The individual exists within a social
convoy from the beginning of life.
Parents exert a direct influence on
availability of other social relationships.
 The infant develops a limited number of
attachment relationships with specific
convoy members. These relationships
form the initial core of the individual’s
social convoy.
 “Inner circle relationships change as a
function of change within the individuals
involved or alterations in the external
environment. These include both
idiosyncratic changes, and normative
changes associated with maturation,
aging, and the imposition of age-related
norms” (p. 192).
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Hypotheses
(cont.)
 The boundaries of one’s inner circle are
permeable and movement into it is
governed by the processes that govern
attachment formation and dissolution.
 Once established, relationships are
stabilized and maintained by core
relationships.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Attachment Processes
 Infant and adult relationships are
characterized by reciprocity of exchange.
Basic assumptions:
 Adult relationships are governed by processes
of reciprocal exchange.
 Individuals are aware of equity or inequity
within the relationship. Lack of equity can
lead to dissolution of the relationship.
 These mutually contingent response
patterns seem to influence attachment.
 It seems clear that capacity for maintaining
relationships is not equivalent between infant
and caregiver.
 Caregiving may seem one-sided in the short-
term but long-term expectations influence
perceptions of equity.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Attachment Processes
(cont.)
 Generalized Expectancy Model:
 Contingent responding by caretaker is thought
to reinforce a child’s general expectations
about self-efficacy.
 Contingent responding by caretaker may also
influence generalized expectations about the
nature of the caregiver-child relationship.
 In adults, shared expectations about
contingent feedback are built during early
phases of the relationship when
responsiveness and self-disclosure are high.
Expectations are maintained through
communication and mutual
accommodation. This occurs less often
over time.
As relationships change over time, so do
expectations.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Relationship Change and
Continuity Across the Life-Span
Figure 10.5. Hypothesized model of processes governing relationship change and
continuity across the life-span (Levitt, 1991, p. 199).
Past
Interactions
with
Relationship
Partners
SocialCognitve
Development
Social
Norms
(Life-Stage
Related)
Expectations
Tested
Expectations
Regarding
Partner
Behavior
Expectations
Violated
Relationship
Change-Neg.
Expectations
Exceeded
Relationship
Change-Pos.
Expectations
Confirmed
Relationship
Stability
Expectations
Untested
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Close Relationships and Personal
Well-Being
 Research suggests that attachment is
associated with well-being, but research
on well-being also suggests that social
important is important.
 Close relationships seem to be more
important predictors of well-being than
general support networks.
 Category of close relationship (e.g.,
mother, father) does not seem to be
critical: “What is suggested is that
personal well-being across the life span,
as well as in infancy, is dependent on the
presence of at least one close
relationship” (p. 199).
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Conclusions
 Close relationships across the life span
can be conceptualized as attachment
relationships because they seem to be
governed by similar processes and serve
similar functions.
 The presence of at least one close
relationship contributes to individual wellbeing.
 Proposed major underlying process:
“establishment and maintenance of
expectations about the relationship,
forged through familiarity with one’s
relationship partner, mutually contingent
feedback, and cultural norms regarding
appropriate relationship behavior, and
colored by one’s past relationship
experiences” (p. 200).
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Conclusions
 Relationships are stabilized and given
continuity via regulating processes (e.g.,
mutual adaptation, modulation of conflict).
 Factors outside the relationship also
contribute to stabilization.
 Developmental changes in existing
relationships and structural relationships
across the life span in close relationships
are influenced by
 changes in individual cognitive ability;
 individual maturation;
 age-related norms;
 changes in ability to modulate conflict.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson