Colouring Connections: A Crayon Analogy for Crittenden’s Dynamic-Maturational Model

Attachment theory, first conceptualised by John Bowlby, proposes that an infant’s early relationship with primary caregivers shapes their expectations and behaviours in future relationships (Bowlby, 1953; 1969). Bowlby’s foundational framework saw development by Mary Ainsworth, who showed distinct infant attachment styles through observational research (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Patricia Crittenden’s Dynamic-Maturational Model (DMM) of attachment is a pivotal contribution in this domain, which argues that individuals craft attachment strategies as adaptive reactions to their caregiving environments. These strategies, anchored in early life experiences, remain flexible, adapting to present contexts and historical traumas. This paper introduces the crayon analogy to elucidate the manifold nature of attachment strategies. Mirroring a child’s choice of crayons for an artwork, individuals use diverse attachment strategies, symbolised by specific crayon hues, to navigate their relational challenges.

Let us imagine a box holding a spectrum of colourful crayons like those found in playrooms. A ‘blue crayon’ in this analogy supplies an evocative representation of the avoidant attachment pattern, characterised in the empirical literature by inhibition of proximity-seeking inclinations and a compulsive reliance on self-sufficiency (Ainsworth et al., 1978). As the analogy suggests, comparable to a child absorbed in solitary play with a blue crayon, individuals classified as avoidantly attached employ an array of defensive strategies to minimise expressions of attachment needs, instead prioritising autonomy and emotional distance (Main, 1996).

The avoidant attachment has been theorised to emerge under unresponsive or rejective caregiving conditions, where outward displays of vulnerability and bids for comfort are routinely dismissed or punished (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Main & Solomon, 1986). To attenuate the distress provoked by such rebuff, the avoidantly attached child develops a defensive posture of extreme self-reliance, suppressing attachment fears and desires through behavioural and cognitive distancing mechanisms (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Behaviourally, this manifests as reticence to start proximity-seeking, while cognitively, avoidant individuals often deny attachment needs and dismiss the importance of intimate bonds (Fraley et al., 2000).

Empirical investigations using biometric assessments substantiate those individuals classified as avoidantly attached exhibit heightened physiological and neural reactivity to attachment-related threats despite overt displays of calm composure, indicative of active suppression of attachment activation (Diamond et al., 2006; Gillath et al., 2005). Neuroimaging studies prove that exposure to such attachment threats engages cortical networks associated with emotion regulation in avoidant subjects more than their securely attached counterparts, reflecting a neural underpinning of defensive exclusion of attachment-related emotions (Vrtička et al., 2008).

The ‘blue crayon’ analogy supplies a compelling depiction of the avoidant attachment orientation, capturing its defensive exclusion of attachment needs despite latent desires for closeness. Recognition of the adaptive origins of attachment avoidance may guide clinicians toward compassionate interventions to address maladaptive manifestations of this pattern in adulthood. Exploring the defensive function of avoidance eases the cognitive and emotional processing of inhibited attachment needs required for therapeutic change.

Within this framework, a ‘green crayon’ analogy supplies an evocative depiction of the secure attachment pattern, empirically characterised by flexible affect regulation and an adaptive balance between autonomy and intimacy in close relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). As the analogy illustrates, like a child who comfortably alternates between solitary play and social collaboration, secure individuals seamlessly show independent exploration and reliance on others for care as contextual demands dictate (Waters & Cummings, 2000).

According to attachment theory, the secure pattern is cultivated by sensitive caregivers who consistently meet the child’s distress signals with appropriate nurturance, supplying a haven in times of need (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Through repeated interactions with available and responsive attachment figures, the securely attached child develops a schema of relationships as benevolent and trustworthy, along with a sense of intrinsic self-worth (Bowlby, 1988). Consequently, secure individuals are adept at flexibly using or choosing not to use relationships for safety and exploration, calibrated to contextual cues.

Empirically, attachment security has been associated with multiple indices of social competence and psychological well-being, including constructive coping, resilience, empathic perspective-taking, and fulfilling relationships in adulthood (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Neurobiological studies reveal that exposure to attachment-related threats engages neural networks associated with flexible emotional regulation in secure subjects, in contrast to the suppressed or heightened reactivity characteristic of avoidant and ambivalent patterns, respectively (Vrtička et al., 2008).

Here, the ‘green crayon’ illuminates the adaptive poise of secure attachment, stemming from a history of attuned caregiving. This analogical representation highlights the integration of autonomy and connectedness integral to attachment security and contextualises associated empirical findings on flexible affect regulation. Understanding the caregiving conditions that foster security supplies insight into promoting resilience across the lifespan.

The ‘red crayon’ analogy provides a compelling emblem of the ambivalent attachment pattern, empirically identified by inconsistent caregiving marked by unreliable availability and inadequate responsiveness to the child’s attachment needs (Ainsworth et al., 1978). As the analogy depicts, like a child insistently asking for a playmate’s commitment to their shared activity, ambivalent individuals show a relentless preoccupation with eliciting validation and reassurance from relationship partners (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994).

To attract the attention of inconsistently responsive caregivers, the ambivalently attached child learns to heighten displays of attachment needs, resulting in a pervasive anxiety about the trustworthiness of others (Cassidy & Berlin, 1994). Hyperactivation of the attachment system becomes an entrenched defensive strategy as a means of coercing greater proximity and care from the caregiver (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Consequently, ambivalent individuals’ internal working models harbour fears of unworthiness and concerns about the fragility of relationships, manifesting behaviourally as urgent attempts to gauge a partner’s availability and secure their affection (Collins et al., 2004).

Empirically, the ambivalent pattern is associated with affective lability, ruminative fixation on attachment relationships, and a dependence on others for self-validation (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Neuroimaging studies reveal heightened threat-related amygdala activation in ambivalent subjects during attachment-related cues, reflecting chronic attachment anxiety (Vrtička et al., 2008).

The ‘red crayon’ offers a vivid emblem of the turbulence of ambivalent attachment resulting from unreliable caregiving. Recognition of the adaptive function of attachment hyperactivation provides a compassionate framework to address its maladaptive residues through therapeutic reassurance. Exploring the origins of attachment anxiety is central to fostering earned security.

A ‘purple crayon’ analogy supplies an evocative depiction of the disorganised attachment pattern, empirically identified by contradictory, unpredictable caregiving behaviour that engenders apprehension or fear in the child (Main & Solomon, 1986). As the analogy illustrates, akin to a child erratically shifting between solitary play and urgent proximity-seeking, disorganised individuals show an array of disjointed attachment behaviours reflecting the absence of a coherent regulatory strategy (Hesse & Main, 2000).

According to attachment theory, inconsistent caregiving that actively alarms the child, or occurs in the context of parental fear, prevents the formation of an organised attachment strategy (Main & Hesse, 1990). Fraught attempts to formulate a unified means of eliciting safety and care from a frightening or frightened caregiver result in contradictory attachment behaviours oriented around minimising further distress (Hesse & Main, 2000). Consequently, disorganised individuals often exhibit dissociative displays, temporary cognitive disconnection, and dysregulated affect in attachment relationships (Liotti, 2004).

Empirically, disorganised attachment has been associated with early trauma, maltreatment, loss, and subsequent vulnerability to dissociative tendencies, relational dysfunction, and psychiatric difficulties in adulthood (Liotti, 2004; Riggs & Jacobvitz, 2002). Neurobiological research indicates disrupted integration between emotional regulation and behavioural response systems in disorganised individuals when faced with attachment threat cues (Gander & Buchheim, 2015).

Our ‘purple crayon’ offers an illuminating analogy for the collapse in attachment strategy coherence that characterises disorganised attachment stemming from frightening caregiver interactions. Recognising the source of attachment disorganisation in inconsistent and alarming caregiving allows for compassionate therapeutic approaches to rebuild security.

Here a ‘glittery crayon’ analogy provides an evocative emblem of the unresolved attachment pattern identified in adults through disjointed discourse regarding loss or trauma that reflects a breakdown in integrative functioning when discussing distressing attachment-related experiences (Main & Hesse, 1990). As the glittery crayon analogy denotes, comparable to a drawing that dazzles yet perplexes, unresolved individuals exhibit disorganised behaviours when attachment systems are activated, indicating a struggle to integrate adverse experiences (Hesse & Main, 2000).

According to Main and Hesse (1990), the unresolved classification, assessed using the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), corresponds to the disorganised attachment style seen in children. When attachment systems are triggered through discussion of loss or trauma, unresolved adults show temporary lapses in reasoning and discourse monitoring, reflecting a collapse in integrative functioning when confronted with overwhelming attachment distress (George & West, 2012). This manifests as disjointed behaviours in attachment relationships, reflecting periodic cognitive-emotional disconnect when attachment needs arise (Solomon et al., 1995).

Empirically, the unresolved status has been associated with childhood maltreatment, traumatic grief, and various psychiatric difficulties, showing an ongoing struggle to assimilate adverse attachment experiences (Riggs & Jacobvitz, 2002; Stovall-McClough & Cloitre, 2006). Neurobiological research links unresolved states with atypical amygdala-prefrontal cortex functioning when processing attachment-related emotions (Buchheim et al., 2008).

Our ‘glittery crayon’ offers an evocative rendering of the disorganised behaviours stemming from overwhelming attachment-related distress that define unresolved states of mind. Appreciating the source of behavioural disconnection in frightening childhood events allows for sensitive therapeutic approaches to resolve attachment trauma.

Crittenden’s Dynamic-Maturational Model (DMM) is a testament to the evolving understanding of human relational dynamics. By conceptualising attachment not as rigid categories but as fluid, adaptive strategies, the DMM offers a nuanced perspective on the elaborate dance of human relations. The crayon analogy, employed throughout this exploration, has hopefully illuminated the manifold nature of these strategies, underscoring the adaptability inherent in human relational behaviours.

Each crayon, from the autonomous ‘blue’ to the complex ‘glittery,’ stands for a unique strategy, born from the crucible of early caregiving experiences and honed by later relational encounters. These strategies, while diverse, share a common thread—they are all adaptive responses to the individual’s environment aimed at achieving the fundamental human need for security and connection.

The implications of the DMM extend beyond academic discourse. For practitioners in the fields of psychology, counselling, and education, an understanding of these attachment strategies can inform therapeutic interventions, fostering greater empathy and tailored support. For individuals, recognising one’s crayon colour may pave the way for further introspection, healing, and growth.

Crittenden’s DMM supplies a nuanced framework for understanding the adaptive nature of attachment strategies. For clinicians, recognising a patient’s crayon colours may inform empathetic therapeutic approaches tailored to their attachment style and history. Further research is needed to investigate the longitudinal outcomes of attachment-based clinical interventions. The author hopes that this analogy serves as a reminder that relational behaviours, no matter how perplexing they might appear, are rooted in a deep-seated quest for emotional connection and security and the regulatory function of the same. As the field of attachment theory continues to evolve, the DMM stands as a beacon, guiding scholars and practitioners towards a more compassionate and comprehensive understanding of the human relational experience across the life cycle.

Listed below are Patricia Crittenden’s key publications related to her Dynamic-Maturational Model of attachment:

Books:

• Crittenden, P.M. (2008). Raising Parents: Attachment, Representation, and Treatment. Routledge.
• Crittenden, P.M. (2002). Attachment, Information Processing, and Psychiatric Disorder. World Psychiatry, 1(2), 72–75.
• Crittenden, P.M. (2000). A Dynamic-Maturational Approach to Continuity and Change in Pattern of Attachment. In P.M. Crittenden & A.H. Claussen (Eds.), The Organization of Attachment Relationships: Maturation, Culture, and Context. Cambridge University Press.

Important Papers:

• Crittenden, P.M. (2016). Raising Children: The Developing Child. Minding the Child.
• Crittenden, P.M. (2005). Attachment Theory, Psychopathology, and Psychotherapy: The Dynamic-Maturational Approach. Psicoterapia, 30(171), 171-182.
• Crittenden, P.M. (2004). The Preschool Assessment of Attachment: Construct Validity in Clinically Referred and Low-Income Samples. Development and Psychopathology, 16(2), 297–318.
• Crittenden, P.M. (1995). Attachment and Psychopathology. In S. Goldberg, R. Muir & J. Kerr (Eds.), John Bowlby’s Attachment Theory: Historical, Clinical, and Social Significance. The Analytic Press.
• Crittenden, P.M. (1992). The Quality of Attachment in the Preschool Years. Development and Psychopathology, 4(2), 209-241.
• Crittenden, P. M. (1990). Internal Representational Models of Attachment Relationships. Infant Mental Health Journal, 11(3), 259–277.

By Paul Wadey M.Res M.Sc MBACP (Accred.)

The moral right of the author has been asserted.