They say, “The best things in life aren’t things,” and while I would tend to agree, it is the things that remind us of our experiences that have the most meaning. I have many small trinkets that are of high value to me, but to a stranger would appear to have little to no value. From the stuffed animal my boyfriend gave to me to the snow globe I got for my fourth birthday just before I moved from Israel to the United States, I have attached meaning to items that remind me of certain people or certain times in my life and provide me with comfort.
Aside from the few important items I own, I am also the type of person that goes through “spring cleaning” not just one season a year, but numerous times during every season the year. It is not because I feel that I must be organized or that I am extremely messy, however, it is due to the massive amount of stuff I obtain throughout the day, week, month, and year. In our consumer-oriented culture, I consistently find myself bringing new things into my living space. Inevitably, I run out of space. It would be smarter to simply purchase less stuff; but instead, every few weeks I go through my closets and rooms and re-organize, removing items that I need less to make room for all of my new trinkets. How is that some items are so important to and have a permanent spot on the shelf while some get thrown away on a frequent basis?Attachment theory states that a strong emotional and physical attachment to at least one primary caregiver is critical to personal development. John Bowlby first coined the term as a result of his studies involving the developmental psychology of children from various backgrounds (https://www.psychologistworld.com/developmental/attachment-theory).
Based on children’s relationship with their parents, they can develop different types of attachment style that affect the rest of their lives. Secure attachment style is typically developed when a small child, feels that their caregiver is reliably present and dependably meets their needs. Children who may be pushed away by their parent in times of need tend to develop attachment avoidance. They learn to be independent and emotionally distant in the relationships they develop throughout their lives. If a child feels harmed in some way by their caregivers in early childhood, they begin to be afraid of getting close to others. This attachment style is known as fearful or avoidant attachment. Finally, anxious attachment style is acquired by children that perceive that their caregiver is inconsistent in meeting their needs. They cling to or are constantly monitoring people in their intimate circle to make sure they are there for them.
People with anxious attachment style might substitute relationships with objects for relationships with people when they feel lonely – that is, when they experience the discrepancy between the closeness they want with others versus the closeness they actually have according to an article published in 2012, “Can’t Buy Me Love”, written by social psychologist, and Berea College marketing professor, Ian Norris. He writes that “Other people are an extension of our self-concept. We don’t develop a stable sense of self without meaningful social relationships. The ‘self,’ to a large extent, is a social construct: my relationship with others contributes greatly to my understanding of who I am. When those relationships are unstable or unfulfilling, people may lack the connection they need and attach meaning to products that fill the void.” (Norris) According to a study in 1987 by researchers Cindy Hazan and Phillip Shaver, University of Denver, 56% have a secure attachment style, 24% have a fearful or avoidant attachment style, and 20% have an anxious attachment style, but no matter what style of attachment one has, people need human connection and must find a way to fill this need, even when there are no other humans around. So why do we reach for things when people we care about let us down?
That worn sweatshirt is not human. It does not show us compassion. Neither does a teddy bear or coffee mug. But scientists point out, these objects are utterly reliable, always present and under our control. We can count on them. (the article) To find out more, psychologists have been studying the deeply emotional and psychologically complex relationship between humans, their sense of security, and their material possessions. They have been building on the late 20th-century work of John Bowlby, Mary Ainsworth, and Donald Winnicott. They all suggested that an infant’s attachment to his or her mother and the quality of that attachment significantly influenced that child’s future relationships.
More specifically, Winnicott believed that as an infant begins to perceive that he or she has an independent self that is separate from the mother, that infant can learn to feel more secure with a “transitional object” that stand in for her, more commonly known as a Security Blanket. In a study conducted in 2015 by psychologist Gil Diesendruck of Bar-Ilan University in Israel, they asked the question “Whether injury to young children’s sense of self-resulted in stronger attachment to personally meaningful possessions?” After the study, they discovered that children were almost twice as likely to share their most treasured belonging after winning a game than after losing. Yet in a control situation involving possessions, they cared less about, the children’s success or failure in the game had no effect on their willingness to part with the items. Our possessions do not just make us feel secure by substituting for important people in our lives’ we actually see these objects as an extension of ourselves.
