This paper reveals a
theory of personality based on the formation of intimate relationships during
the early stages of a person's lifetime. During infancy, childhood,
adolescence, and young adulthood, new needs and tensions arise in the
individual. In attempt to seek ways of adapting to these newfound stresses,
people develop different kinds of intimate relationships that ultimately form
their personality. Relationships formed during each stage of life serve as a
prototype for interactions in later stages. For this reason, there exists a
continuum of relationships formed throughout a lifetime that shape and mold
specific personality traits.
Neither intimacy nor
individual development can exist alone. The birth of a child initiates a human
being into a life-long process of mutual adaptation between the child, his or
her intimate relationship partners and the broader social environment. Intimate
interactions and relationships affect adaptations to the changing needs and
stresses that evolve with each stage of development throughout one's lifetime.
Intimate interactions from early life serve as the basis upon which
relationships later in life are formed. Environmental contingencies to which
individuals must adapt are rooted in these relationships. In an attempt to
adapt to other people's styles of relating, one must adjust his or her own
behaviors (
From the time of birth,
every individual is biologically predisposed to approach the world with his or
her own personal style. Studies of infants suggest that some variability in
human behavior may result directly or indirectly from genetic differences.
Developmental psychologists term these differences as dimensions of
temperament. Based on chemical, biological, experiential, interpersonal, and
social factors, different dimensions of temperament manifest themselves over
time and across different situations. Psychologists Buss and Plomin have
proposed the existence of four basic temperament dimensions present in human
beings (McAdams, 1989):
According to this theory,
persons are inherently born with tendencies to develop these four temperaments
to different levels. These dimensions are present in infancy and continue to
grow throughout childhood and adulthood. The social environment reacts to these
tendencies, modifying and shaping them in different ways. Such modifications
are the results of interpersonal relationships that begin to form during early
life. The development of a unique interpersonal style is a function of
temperament (McAdams, 1989).
A human being's first intimate
relationship is the mother-child relationship. According to Freud (1949), a
human being's first encounter with intimate behavior is with his or her mother
during the act of breast-feeding. "The act of sucking is the most
primitive manner of knowing the innermost self of another, and to suck the
other into one's innermost" (McAdams, 1989, p. 139). During infancy, the
baby obtains nourishment and pleasure from sucking at the mother's breast, thus
reducing tension caused by the hunger drive. Engagement in such a
tension-relieving activity during this early stage serves as the prototype for
relationships that develop later on in life. Life-stage-related changes in
stress, tension, and needs are based on the outcome of such coping attempts
formed during infancy. The need for security and comfort play an important role
in shaping the interactions with caregivers (McAdams, 1989, pp. 71-81).
According to the Bowlby
and Ainsworth (1991), the love between a mother and an infant is the result of
an attachment bond formed during the first year of life. Interactions between a
child and his or her mother form behavioral patters that are reflected in later
relationships. An example of the development of personality as a result of this
bond can be seen in the securely attached infant. As a result of sensitivity
and responsiveness on the part of the caregiver, an infant may develop a
"secure" attachment style (Rothbard & Shaver, 1994). Infants who
develop "secure" personality types feel confident and at ease when
relating to others. They learn how to take turns, how to lead and follow, and
how to express and receive. The attachment bond serves as a prototype and
provides the earliest pattern for warm and close relationships (McAdams, 1989,
pp. 140-143).
During preschool years, a
child's need for autonomy and individuation influences his or her intimate
interactions with peers. Children look to share and communicate while enjoying
the company of their peers. These interactions are based on the quest for
coexistence between their newfound independence and the love they experienced
during infancy.
Aspects of the parent-child relationship
affect the efficacy of children's adaptations. Competencies acquired through
interactions with parents are reflected in children's interactions with peers.
In laboratory studies, children who show more self-reliance and control are
found to have parents who are nurturing. In contrast, children who are less
autonomous are found to have parents who are more permissive (Prager, 1995, p.
89). In nursery school and kindergarten, children who had developed a secure
attachment bond during infancy are described by their teachers as more socially
competent and popular. They are observed to show more dominance and initiative
(McAdams, 1989, p. 143).
Such peer interactions characterized by
autonomy, sensitivity, empathetic concern, and ability to verbalize emotions
reflect the formation of intimate friendships later on (Prager, 1995, p. 87).
It is thus apparent that behavioral patterns resulting from relationships
formed during infancy are reflected in peer interactions. In turn, these
interactions serve as a basis for relationships that develop in the next stage
of life.
Children entering
adolescence must begin to adapt to the adult world and its institutions while
coming to terms with emerging parts of themselves. They discover themselves as
having new emotional and sexual needs. As they make these discoveries,
adolescents begin to realize the limitations of their parents. Taking
responsibility for aspects of their own character requires distancing from
authoritative figures (Graham & Lafollette, 1989, p. 223).
Over the course of social
development, the role of friends and parents changes significantly. During
early adolescence, the amount of time that North American children spend with
their family drops roughly in half (Westen, 1996, p. 547). As an adolescent undergoes
physical and emotional changes, he or she seeks out relationships that enhance
efforts to adapt to new needs and stresses. Adolescents seek to share their
thoughts and feelings with those who are experiencing similar changes. Intimate
interactions increase between friends during this stage in life because they
provide teens with opportunities for self-clarification. Through the formation
of coconstructive dialogues between friends, teens can participate together in
exploring and constructing selves.
Referring back to the example of the
securely attached infant, it can be inferred that the ability to construct such
dialogues directly stems from earlier interactions. The secure infant's
sensitive and autonomous personality traits were reflected in relationships
with peers. These traits reappear in the dialogues formed with friends during
adolescence. The egalitarian authority structure of friendship lends itself to
such exchanges and relieves the pressure adolescents might feel to yield to the
views of adult supremacy (Youniss, 1980).
During late adolescence,
one must first confront the problem of multiple selves. For the first time, an
adolescent realizes that his or her personality changes from one situation to
the next. This is the stage of life during which one looks to craft a narrative
of the self that provides a sense of sameness and continuity. The desire to
discover how one is the same from one situation to the next dominates the
desire to discover how one is the same as other people. The importance of
intimate friendship and romance formed during early adulthood stems from the
valuable and adaptive contribution dialogues made with friends during
adolescence. Personality differences can be identified by capacities to form
intimate relationships characterized by commitment, depth, and partner
individuation based on interactions of early life (Prager, 1995, pp. 131-133).
During the transformation
from adolescence to early adulthood, a person seeks to discover the self
through story in historical and biographical terms. Whereas the child views his
or her past as a simple series of factual events, a curiosity is invoked in a
young adult who seeks to uncover the meaning and the validity of these facts.
For the first time, one does not search for oneself in others, but rather
confronts the other as a separate person with whom one longs to connect
(McAdams, 1989, pp. 156-159). The ability of an individual to combine his or
her multiple selves and to create a well-articulated life story results in the
ability to guide one's actions, emotions, and personality traits.
Intimate relationships
formed during infancy, childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood give rise to
continuing relationships, and ultimately to individual development. These life
stages are associated with richer bodies of knowledge about intimacy than any
other (Savin-Williams & Berndt, 1990). Relationships are formed as adaptive
measures necessary for coping with adjustments and transitions. Concerns with
the self and with one's ability to adapt cause people to seek identity through
intimacy. Children seek to develop autonomy while maintaining the ability to
retreat to their caregiver for support. Adolescents are concerned with developing
individuation while still seeking acceptance of those around them. Young adults
confront the challenge of molding an adult identity. Relationships provide
context in which children, adolescents, and young adults can resolve
life-stage-related preoccupations about their individual personality.
In Cardillo's "Intimate
Relationships: Personality Development Through Interaction During Early
Life," she introduces the reader to the concept that intimate
relationships that one develops in infancy form the basis of relationships
throughout a lifetime, and form the basis of people's personality. Cardillo
identifies a number of developmental stages and gives examples of factors that
directly and indirectly influence the development of an individual's
personality traits. She has thoroughly researched each stage and is able to
relate to the reader the essential changes a person experiences on the road to
adulthood and fully developed personality. Her proposed theory is well outlined
and well written and derives strength from its strong roots in attachment
theory, on which it is based. Attachment theorists have discovered years ago
what developmental scientists and researchers from around the world have come
to see as the most acceptable perspective on attachment, that of ethological
theory. And this is where Cardillo's first weakness comes to light.
Although references are made to
"adaptations to changing needs and stresses," Cardillo does not
discuss the ethological nature of attachment theory. Ethologists believe that
children's behaviors can be best understood in terms of their adaptive value.
Therefore, ethologists seek a full understanding of the entire
organism-environment system, including physical, social, and cultural aspects
(Hinde, 1989). Although ethology emphasizes the genetic and biological roots of
development, learning is also considered important because it lends flexibility
and adaptiveness to behavior. This would certainly challenge Cardillo's summary
statement that "development of a unique interpersonal style is a function
of temperament." Although the interaction between a child's temperament
and environment certainly plays an important role in the development of a
"personal style," we cannot ignore the influence learning has on each
individual's development, and it deserves some attention as a factor important
to the development of personality.
Cardillo goes on to introduce us to both
psychodynamic and behaviorist factors that potentially play an important part
in the development of intimate relationships. "During infancy, the baby
obtains nourishment and pleasure from sucking at the mother's breasts thus
reducing tension caused by the hunger drive." Cardillo states that
engagement in such tension relieving activity (relieving the hunger drive)
during this early stage of intimacy serves as the prototype for relationships
that develop later on in life. However, I tend to disagree.
We need only to remember
What is most lacking in this paper is a
thorough discussion of empirical evidence supporting attachment theory. This is
important because the author agrees that intimate relationships formed during
infancy form the basis of individual development. Throughout Cardillo's
argument she refers back to the importance of secure attachment and the role it
plays in the development of intimate relationships throughout a person's life.
It seems clear that Cardillo is a proponent of attachment theory and that she
has taken the essential arguments of attachment theory as a basis of her own theory.
That is why this paper requires a thorough discussion and overview of
attachment theory as well as a critical review of evidence to support it.
It is simply not possible to discuss the
essence of attachment theory in one paragraph as Cardillo has done. We are
introduced to Bowlby and Ainsworth in three sentences even though Bowlby and
Ainsworth are the pioneers of attachment theory. What Cardillo should have done
is provide the reader with a good understanding of attachment theory by
identifing how Ainsworth measured attachment and how she identified the
different forms of attachment. Also, it would be helpful to highlight how the
development of secure attachment in infancy influences a person's intimate
relationships in later life. In addition, because so much of Cardillo's theory
is based on attachment theory, it would have been helpful if she had discussed
the strengths and weaknesses of attachment theory in general by looking at
recent research.
We simply cannot ignore the extensive body
of research, generated by the work of Ainsworth and Bowlby, focused on
understanding the social, emotional, and interpersonal development of children.
There is substantial empirical evidence that questions, challenges, and
supports the existence of the core elements of attachment theory. This type of
review and highlight of research in support of the foundations of attachment
theory should have been used to strengthen Cardillo's proposed theory and would
have shed a much brighter light on Cardillo's hypothesis, which the hypothesis
deserves.
Cardillo's arguments in "Intimate
Relationships: Personality Development Through Interaction During Early
Life" discuss how the intimate relationships one has in the early stages
of one's life (such as mother-child, friendships, and peer interaction) form
one's personality. They do so through their influence on the ways one adapts
and reacts to new stages and environments in one's young life.
Cardillo's assertion that intimate
relationships formed during the early stages of life ultimately gives rise to
an individual's personality development is an insightful and well-supported
theory. She states that these relationships are formed as adaptive measures
necessary for coping with the adjustments and transitions that come with the
various stages of maturation in one's early life. I agree with the majority of
her points, and even those that seem to be on rather shaky ground are based in
relevant psychological theory.
The divisions in the article, both those
of the stage divisions, and the different theories present in psychology that
are applicable to her apparent theory, are well defined. I take issue, however,
with her neglect of the final stage of life, adulthood. There are many new
relationships that occur only in adulthood that have great influence in
continuing to form an individual's personality. An example of these would be
that of one's life-mate, and that of the adult's relationship with his or her
own children. Evidently both of these are among the most intimate relationships
one can experience in life, and their absence in this article somewhat weakens
Cardillo's work.
The author asserts that, "Neither
intimacy nor individual development can exist alone." Her theory goes on
to prove this point by identifying the effects of an individual's social
environment on his or her adaptation to each stage of life. This creates the
need for each type of intimate relationship. The only problem that exists in
her theory is its lack of testability. Her inclusion of manners through which
to test her theory would add much more substance and credibility to her
article. Cardillo does a good job of addressing the issues of multiple selves,
but her section regarding the topic of self-definition is somewhat lacking. She
neglects to go into sufficient detail about one's "self-concept."
Self-concept is defined by Carlson and Buskist (1997) as one's knowledge,
feelings, and ideas about oneself--in short, one's self identity (p. 486).
Cardillo has written a well-supported and
intriguing article linking the important topic of intimate relationships with
that of personality development. Also, except for a few minor flaws, it
succeeds in producing a great theory in personality.
I agree with Cardillo that the
mother-child relationship is an important first step in determining how the
child will learn to perceive his or her relationships with other people. Early
bonding with the mother not only teaches the baby warmth and affection, but it
also seems to have a physiological effect. Although it is an extreme example,
some babies who are separated from their mothers for a long period of time may
be at risk for a type of depression known as "anaclitic depression,"
(Carson, Butcher, & Mineka, 1996) which, in severe cases, causes the baby
to literally waste away and die. The lack of human contact during the first few
months of life is critical, not only to mental development, but to
physiological development as well. To support this idea, Cardillo uses Freud's
"sucking" theory, in which the baby derives pleasure from
"sucking the innermost" of his mother's self. Yet, there are plenty
of mothers who do not breast-feed for various reasons, and their children grow
up just fine; this suggests that there are other factors involved in developing
an attachment bond between mother and child, factors that do not involve
breast-feeding.
Cardillo nicely explains the secure
attachment style. However, I would have liked to see more empirical evidence
backing up the existence of such an attraction between people. I am surprised
that Cardillo does not mention the other two attachment styles--namely,
avoidant and ambivalent. These attachment styles are important as well, and
there seem to be implications involved when two people with different
attachment styles attempt a relationship. Within a science that stresses the
importance of comparing differences between groups, I am surpised that only one
of the attachment styles was elaborated on, and neither of the others
mentioned.
More detail might have been offered when
describing the nature of childhood peer interaction. Again, Cardillo only seems
to describe children on a continuum of autonomy, from "less"
autonomous to "more" autonomous, based on a continuum of
"security" as related to attachment style. However, there is more to
security than that. Cardillo also only describes two types of parents--"nurturing"
and "permissive." Obviously, there are many more kinds of parents,
such as overprotective, abusive, negligent, etc. Insecure children will
obviously exhibit vastly different qualities than their "secure"
counterparts. However, there is no way of knowing this from reading Cardillo's
paper, because she has no other attachment style descriptions with which to
compare!
Cardillo makes a nice attempt to explain
what goes on in adolescence and early adulthood in terms of intimate
relationships. However, her paper seems to have an abrupt ending, and leaves me
wondering if she thinks that adults have everything figured out. Is it true
that once one hits adulthood, one stops "searching for oneself"? Is
is true that one stops seeking one's identity in the people one dates? Is it
true one stops yearning for compassion from one's ambivalent family? Adulthood
is not a time of complete security in one's intimate relationships. Throughout
life there are plenty of ups and downs, and even adults must learn how to deal
with new people and new situations in their lives, while still keeping track of
the old ones. I would have liked to see some closure in this paper regarding
the growth process that adults experience, as they continue their search for
intimacy.
The commentaries made by my peers in reference
to my paper entitled, "Intimate Relationships: Personality Development
Through Interaction During Early Life," refer to the general lack of major
components concerning certain aspects of my theory. Pendry argues the
necessity of more background information concerning the attachment theory. Pizzurro
and Trzop both suggest the inclusion of interactions that take place
during adulthood and their affects on personality development. I retort that
these suggestions would certainly support the paper's credulity but contradict
my purpose in writing it. I propose that this paper serves the purpose of
describing the fundamental elements of early life interactions and how they
develop individual personality. To fully elaborate on each of these elements
would take away from my basic description of a new idea of personality.
In response to Pendry's argument
concerning the lack of background information on the attachment theory, I agree
that the inclusion of such factual information might have been helpful for the
general comprehensiveness of the paper. Perhaps I should have included a
discussion of Bowlby and Ainsworth's attachment theory explaining the
development of security from infancy to adulthood and how it affects
personality. I should have explained how immature dependent security is
developed during infancy so that the infant can explore the external world
while having the safety of retreating to his or her parents. The reader could
then understand how the attachment theory lends itself to theories of security
and the manner in which a person forms bonds throughout his or her lifetime
(Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991).
Trzop comments about the omission of a reference to the avoidant or
ambivalent infant. I must retort that the securely attached infant is
emphasized as an "example of the development of personality" as a
result of the bond formed between the mother and the child during infancy. I
use this example to represent one of the three attachment styles and to
illustrate how this specific type of infant may develop personality traits that
are a reflection of the intimate relationships formed throughout his or her
lifetime. I chose the "secure" infant to serve as an example of an
individual who relates to others with confidence and ease as a result of a sensitive
and responsive caregiver. For comparative purposes, I could have included a
description of an "avoidant" infant to serve as an example of an
individual who rejects the closeness of others in intimate relationships as a
result of an unresponsive caregiver. An "ambivalent" infant could
represent an individual who has difficulty relating to others as a result of
inconsistent responsiveness or availability on the part of the caregiver
(Rothbard & Shaver, 1994). To elaborate on such aspects of attachment
theory would indeed be helpful, but the purpose of this paper is to simply lay
the foundation of a new theory by combining only certain aspects of old ones.
Pendry also argues that development of a unique
interpersonal style is not a function of temperament alone. She says that the
influence of learning plays a significant role in individual development. I
agree that this form of interaction plays a significant role in the development
of personal style, but only as a direct result of an individual's temperament.
As I have stated in my paper, the social environment reacts to the different
dimensions of temperament, modifying and shaping them in different ways
(McAdams, 1989). This "social environment" includes learning
situations. Although learning plays a role in individual development, it is
still a function of temperament. Taking into consideration the many factors,
such as learning, that come between temperament and the development of
personality, perhaps I should restate my argument: The foundation for the development
of unique interpersonal style is a function of temperament.
Pizzurro and Trzop bring up the significance of
interactions during adulthood and their affects on personality development. I
agree that romantic, familial, and friendly relationships with other adults
affect the way one views oneself, although, this is not the foundation of my
paper. My goal is to elaborate on early life interactions and how they form the
basis for an individual's personality as an adult rather than on adult
interactions themselves. I argue that the way one interacts in early life will
reflect the way one interacts with a romantic lover, a family member, or a
friend later in life. This is the essence of the theory proposed in,
"Intimate Relationships: Personality Development through Interaction
during Early Life."
Baldwin, M. W. (1992).
Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 461-484.
Carlson, N., & Buskist, W. (1997). Psychology:
The science of behavior (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Carson, R. C., Butcher, J. N., &
Mineka, S. (1996). Abnormal psychology and modern life (10th ed.). New
York: Harper Collins.
Freud, S. (1949). An outline of
psychoanalysis. New York: Norton.
Graham, G., & Lafollette, H. (1989). Person
to person. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Harlow, H. F., & Zimmerman, R. (1959).
Affectional responses in the infant monkey. Science, 130, 421-432.
Hinde, R. A. (1989). Ethological and
relationship approaches. In R. Vatsa (Ed.), Annals of Child Development,
Vol. 6 (pp. 251-285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
McAdams, D. P. (1989). Intimacy: The
need to be close. New York: Doubleday.
Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of
intimacy. New York: Guilford.
Rothbard, J. C., & Shaver, P. R.
(1994). Continuity of attachment across the life span. In M. B. Sperling &
N. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental
perspectives (pp. 32-40). New York: Guilford.
Salvin-Williams, R. C., & Berndt, T.
J. (1990). Friendship and peer relations. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliot
(Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Weston, D. (1996). Psychology: Mind,
brain and culture. New York: Wiley.
Youniss, J. (1980). Parents and peers
in social development: A Sullivan-Piaget perspective. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
