- Teks
- Sejarah
This pluralistic conceptualisation
This pluralistic conceptualisation of loss and grief may partly account for the
trend in bereavement studies to target specific populations (e.g. parents who have lost
a child, adults who have lost a spouse/partner), to concentrate on the traumatic,
obsessional and/or socially destructive aspects of grief, and to have as their focal
thrust the surviving individual’s morbidity (i.e. severe anxiety, depression, substance
abuse) and mortality (i.e. suicidal thoughts/attempts) experiences (Morton, 2005).
Even though such studies have extended the body of theoretical knowledge, only a
comparatively minuscule amount of the present research literature addresses the
topic of sibling loss and grief (Woodrow, 2007). It is hypothesised that this paucity
has arisen because Western cultures typically attach scant importance to the sibling
bond and therefore fail to develop ritualised/legal markers for ending sibling
relationships (Laverty, 2001). A review of the present sparse body of sibling loss and
grief literature reveals that while the majority of studies relate to sibling loss during
childhood, adolescence, young adulthood or old age, there is a noticeable shortfall in
the body of literature relating to mature-aged sibling loss (Godfrey, 2002). Moreover,
this deficit is thought to underscore the long-held practice of de-emphasising sibling
loss and grief issues among mature-aged individuals (Bank & Kahn, 1982). For
example, the time allocation for mature-aged sibling grief is generally insignificant in
comparison to the time allotment for other forms of mature-aged loss and grief (e.g.
loss of a child, parent, or spouse/partner). Surviving siblings are generally expected
to shoulder their loss with a minimum show of emotion and to quickly resume their
normal place within society (Walker, 1993). Furthermore, this practice of negating
the time required for mature-age sibling grief can result in significant social,
emotional and mental health issues in the surviving sibling (Robinson & Pickett,
1996). To situate these issues a review of attachment theory and the sibling bonding
process follows.
Attachment theory
Freud (1957) introduced the term bond to psychology to expose the strength of the
pairing process. He viewed the formation of a within-family pairing (e.g. spouse-tospouse,
parent-to-child, sibling-to-sibling) as a process by which one member
cements a bond with another. He also determined that siblings frequently become
enmeshed in a state of rivalry for their parents’ attention. However, Freud did not
pursue the issue of sibling bonding in great depth. It was Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980)
and Ainsworth (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), who after examining the
bond between infants and their primary care-givers formulated the theory of
attachment. Attachment theory is based on the central premise that all infants in the
first year of life develop an internal cognitive working model of their immediate
world, their place in that world, and the place of their primary care-giver to whom
they have become attached. Integral to the theory is the contention that all infants
develop one of four attachment styles, of which three (i.e. anxiousavoidant,
anxiousambivalent, and controllingdisorganised) result in the formation of an
‘insecure’ bond. Meanwhile the fourth, the ‘secure’ attachment style, results in the
formation of a stable bond (Bradley & Cafferty, 2001, p. 202). These infant styleshave been subsequently applied to adults and have resulted in the categorisation of
four adult bonding styles (i.e. preoccupied [anxiousambivalent], dismissive
[anxiousavoidant], fearfulavoidant and secure) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;
Griffen & Bartholomew, 1994).
Bowlby, Ainsworth, and more recently Fonagy (2001) have suggested that the
style of attachment formed between an infant and its primary care-giver creates an
enduring pattern for dealing with future separation experiences. Indeed, Fonagy
hypothesises that infants who establish a securely-attached bond with their primary
care-giver develop greater resilience and emotional capacity than do their insecure
avoidant, anxious or controlling age counterparts, and consequently appear better
able to deal with distressful situations. It is conceivable that these formative secure
and insecure attachment styles become the infant’s hard-wired neuronic blueprint for
dealing with all interpersonal stressful events later in life, regardless at what stage in
their life stress occurs. In line with this hypothesis, it is posited that highly stressful
relational events (e.g. the death of a sibling, marriage breakdown) automatically
reactivate the infant hard-wired neuronal blueprint distress response (Elliot & Reis,
2003; Hannaford, 1995; Sanders, 1983; Shilkret, 2005).
Bradley and Cafferty (2001) recognise distinct similarities between Bowlby’s
delineation of secure and insecure infantcare-giver styles of attachment and the
bifurcated (i.e. organised/disorganised) styles of grief. In this regard, they suggest
that the disorganised style of grieving results in the surviving individual sublimating
their grief through a compulsive caring for others, or a surviving individual’s denial
of the effect the severance of the attachment bond with their deceased love-object has
had on their drive for emotional self-sufficiency, as paralleling the infant insecure
avoidant, ambivalent/resistive and controlling/disorganised reactions to primary
care-giver separation. Additionally, they compare the surviving individual’s ‘normal’
or ‘uncomplicated’ grief reaction to the securely-attached infant’s confident
explorative separation reaction (p. 206).
Although attachment theory is commonly used to explain the bonding process, it
is important to note that it is only one possible approach in any future construction
of a framework for determining the loss and grief counselling needs of mature-aged
individuals. In this regard, critics of attachment theory have raised cautionary
concerns about the singularity of Ainsworth’s primary-care-given/infant classification
system, particularly the theoretical difficulties associated with extrapolating
infant bonding responses to adult reactions (see Field, 1996; Harris, 1998). It is
reasonable to contend, however, that most critics would recognise that the
attachment that forms between siblings is a significant ‘continuing’ life bond
(Packman et al., 2006, p. 817).
trend in bereavement studies to target specific populations (e.g. parents who have lost
a child, adults who have lost a spouse/partner), to concentrate on the traumatic,
obsessional and/or socially destructive aspects of grief, and to have as their focal
thrust the surviving individual’s morbidity (i.e. severe anxiety, depression, substance
abuse) and mortality (i.e. suicidal thoughts/attempts) experiences (Morton, 2005).
Even though such studies have extended the body of theoretical knowledge, only a
comparatively minuscule amount of the present research literature addresses the
topic of sibling loss and grief (Woodrow, 2007). It is hypothesised that this paucity
has arisen because Western cultures typically attach scant importance to the sibling
bond and therefore fail to develop ritualised/legal markers for ending sibling
relationships (Laverty, 2001). A review of the present sparse body of sibling loss and
grief literature reveals that while the majority of studies relate to sibling loss during
childhood, adolescence, young adulthood or old age, there is a noticeable shortfall in
the body of literature relating to mature-aged sibling loss (Godfrey, 2002). Moreover,
this deficit is thought to underscore the long-held practice of de-emphasising sibling
loss and grief issues among mature-aged individuals (Bank & Kahn, 1982). For
example, the time allocation for mature-aged sibling grief is generally insignificant in
comparison to the time allotment for other forms of mature-aged loss and grief (e.g.
loss of a child, parent, or spouse/partner). Surviving siblings are generally expected
to shoulder their loss with a minimum show of emotion and to quickly resume their
normal place within society (Walker, 1993). Furthermore, this practice of negating
the time required for mature-age sibling grief can result in significant social,
emotional and mental health issues in the surviving sibling (Robinson & Pickett,
1996). To situate these issues a review of attachment theory and the sibling bonding
process follows.
Attachment theory
Freud (1957) introduced the term bond to psychology to expose the strength of the
pairing process. He viewed the formation of a within-family pairing (e.g. spouse-tospouse,
parent-to-child, sibling-to-sibling) as a process by which one member
cements a bond with another. He also determined that siblings frequently become
enmeshed in a state of rivalry for their parents’ attention. However, Freud did not
pursue the issue of sibling bonding in great depth. It was Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980)
and Ainsworth (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), who after examining the
bond between infants and their primary care-givers formulated the theory of
attachment. Attachment theory is based on the central premise that all infants in the
first year of life develop an internal cognitive working model of their immediate
world, their place in that world, and the place of their primary care-giver to whom
they have become attached. Integral to the theory is the contention that all infants
develop one of four attachment styles, of which three (i.e. anxiousavoidant,
anxiousambivalent, and controllingdisorganised) result in the formation of an
‘insecure’ bond. Meanwhile the fourth, the ‘secure’ attachment style, results in the
formation of a stable bond (Bradley & Cafferty, 2001, p. 202). These infant styleshave been subsequently applied to adults and have resulted in the categorisation of
four adult bonding styles (i.e. preoccupied [anxiousambivalent], dismissive
[anxiousavoidant], fearfulavoidant and secure) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;
Griffen & Bartholomew, 1994).
Bowlby, Ainsworth, and more recently Fonagy (2001) have suggested that the
style of attachment formed between an infant and its primary care-giver creates an
enduring pattern for dealing with future separation experiences. Indeed, Fonagy
hypothesises that infants who establish a securely-attached bond with their primary
care-giver develop greater resilience and emotional capacity than do their insecure
avoidant, anxious or controlling age counterparts, and consequently appear better
able to deal with distressful situations. It is conceivable that these formative secure
and insecure attachment styles become the infant’s hard-wired neuronic blueprint for
dealing with all interpersonal stressful events later in life, regardless at what stage in
their life stress occurs. In line with this hypothesis, it is posited that highly stressful
relational events (e.g. the death of a sibling, marriage breakdown) automatically
reactivate the infant hard-wired neuronal blueprint distress response (Elliot & Reis,
2003; Hannaford, 1995; Sanders, 1983; Shilkret, 2005).
Bradley and Cafferty (2001) recognise distinct similarities between Bowlby’s
delineation of secure and insecure infantcare-giver styles of attachment and the
bifurcated (i.e. organised/disorganised) styles of grief. In this regard, they suggest
that the disorganised style of grieving results in the surviving individual sublimating
their grief through a compulsive caring for others, or a surviving individual’s denial
of the effect the severance of the attachment bond with their deceased love-object has
had on their drive for emotional self-sufficiency, as paralleling the infant insecure
avoidant, ambivalent/resistive and controlling/disorganised reactions to primary
care-giver separation. Additionally, they compare the surviving individual’s ‘normal’
or ‘uncomplicated’ grief reaction to the securely-attached infant’s confident
explorative separation reaction (p. 206).
Although attachment theory is commonly used to explain the bonding process, it
is important to note that it is only one possible approach in any future construction
of a framework for determining the loss and grief counselling needs of mature-aged
individuals. In this regard, critics of attachment theory have raised cautionary
concerns about the singularity of Ainsworth’s primary-care-given/infant classification
system, particularly the theoretical difficulties associated with extrapolating
infant bonding responses to adult reactions (see Field, 1996; Harris, 1998). It is
reasonable to contend, however, that most critics would recognise that the
attachment that forms between siblings is a significant ‘continuing’ life bond
(Packman et al., 2006, p. 817).
0/5000
This pluralistic conceptualisation of loss and grief may partly account for thetrend in bereavement studies to target specific populations (e.g. parents who have losta child, adults who have lost a spouse/partner), to concentrate on the traumatic,obsessional and/or socially destructive aspects of grief, and to have as their focalthrust the surviving individual’s morbidity (i.e. severe anxiety, depression, substanceabuse) and mortality (i.e. suicidal thoughts/attempts) experiences (Morton, 2005).Even though such studies have extended the body of theoretical knowledge, only acomparatively minuscule amount of the present research literature addresses thetopic of sibling loss and grief (Woodrow, 2007). It is hypothesised that this paucityhas arisen because Western cultures typically attach scant importance to the siblingbond and therefore fail to develop ritualised/legal markers for ending siblingrelationships (Laverty, 2001). A review of the present sparse body of sibling loss andgrief literature reveals that while the majority of studies relate to sibling loss duringchildhood, adolescence, young adulthood or old age, there is a noticeable shortfall inthe body of literature relating to mature-aged sibling loss (Godfrey, 2002). Moreover,this deficit is thought to underscore the long-held practice of de-emphasising siblingloss and grief issues among mature-aged individuals (Bank & Kahn, 1982). Forexample, the time allocation for mature-aged sibling grief is generally insignificant incomparison to the time allotment for other forms of mature-aged loss and grief (e.g.loss of a child, parent, or spouse/partner). Surviving siblings are generally expectedto shoulder their loss with a minimum show of emotion and to quickly resume theirnormal place within society (Walker, 1993). Furthermore, this practice of negatingthe time required for mature-age sibling grief can result in significant social,emotional and mental health issues in the surviving sibling (Robinson & Pickett,1996). To situate these issues a review of attachment theory and the sibling bondingprocess follows.Attachment theoryFreud (1957) introduced the term bond to psychology to expose the strength of thepairing process. He viewed the formation of a within-family pairing (e.g. spouse-tospouse,parent-to-child, sibling-to-sibling) as a process by which one membercements a bond with another. He also determined that siblings frequently becomeenmeshed in a state of rivalry for their parents’ attention. However, Freud did notpursue the issue of sibling bonding in great depth. It was Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980)and Ainsworth (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), who after examining thebond between infants and their primary care-givers formulated the theory ofattachment. Attachment theory is based on the central premise that all infants in thefirst year of life develop an internal cognitive working model of their immediateworld, their place in that world, and the place of their primary care-giver to whomthey have become attached. Integral to the theory is the contention that all infantsdevelop one of four attachment styles, of which three (i.e. anxiousavoidant,anxiousambivalent, and controllingdisorganised) result in the formation of an‘insecure’ bond. Meanwhile the fourth, the ‘secure’ attachment style, results in theformation of a stable bond (Bradley & Cafferty, 2001, p. 202). These infant styleshave been subsequently applied to adults and have resulted in the categorisation offour adult bonding styles (i.e. preoccupied [anxiousambivalent], dismissive[anxiousavoidant], fearfulavoidant and secure) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;Griffen & Bartholomew, 1994).Bowlby, Ainsworth, and more recently Fonagy (2001) have suggested that thestyle of attachment formed between an infant and its primary care-giver creates anenduring pattern for dealing with future separation experiences. Indeed, Fonagyhypothesises that infants who establish a securely-attached bond with their primarycare-giver develop greater resilience and emotional capacity than do their insecureavoidant, anxious or controlling age counterparts, and consequently appear betterable to deal with distressful situations. It is conceivable that these formative secureand insecure attachment styles become the infant’s hard-wired neuronic blueprint fordealing with all interpersonal stressful events later in life, regardless at what stage intheir life stress occurs. In line with this hypothesis, it is posited that highly stressfulrelational events (e.g. the death of a sibling, marriage breakdown) automaticallyreactivate the infant hard-wired neuronal blueprint distress response (Elliot & Reis,2003; Hannaford, 1995; Sanders, 1983; Shilkret, 2005).Bradley and Cafferty (2001) recognise distinct similarities between Bowlby’sdelineation of secure and insecure infantcare-giver styles of attachment and thebifurcated (i.e. organised/disorganised) styles of grief. In this regard, they suggestthat the disorganised style of grieving results in the surviving individual sublimatingtheir grief through a compulsive caring for others, or a surviving individual’s denialof the effect the severance of the attachment bond with their deceased love-object hashad on their drive for emotional self-sufficiency, as paralleling the infant insecureavoidant, ambivalent/resistive and controlling/disorganised reactions to primarycare-giver separation. Additionally, they compare the surviving individual’s ‘normal’or ‘uncomplicated’ grief reaction to the securely-attached infant’s confidentexplorative separation reaction (p. 206).Although attachment theory is commonly used to explain the bonding process, itis important to note that it is only one possible approach in any future constructionof a framework for determining the loss and grief counselling needs of mature-agedindividuals. In this regard, critics of attachment theory have raised cautionaryconcerns about the singularity of Ainsworth’s primary-care-given/infant classificationsystem, particularly the theoretical difficulties associated with extrapolatinginfant bonding responses to adult reactions (see Field, 1996; Harris, 1998). It isreasonable to contend, however, that most critics would recognise that theattachment that forms between siblings is a significant ‘continuing’ life bond(Packman et al., 2006, p. 817).
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Ini konseptualisasi pluralistik kehilangan dan kesedihan sebagian dapat menjelaskan
tren dalam studi berkabung untuk menargetkan populasi tertentu (misalnya orang tua yang kehilangan
anak, orang dewasa yang telah kehilangan pasangan / partner), untuk berkonsentrasi pada traumatis,
obsesif dan / atau sosial aspek destruktif duka, dan untuk memiliki fokus mereka
dorong morbiditas individu yang masih hidup (yaitu berat kecemasan, depresi, zat
penyalahgunaan) dan mortalitas (yaitu bunuh diri pikiran / usaha) pengalaman (Morton, 2005).
Meskipun studi tersebut telah diperpanjang tubuh pengetahuan teoritis, hanya
jumlah yang relatif kecil dari literatur penelitian ini membahas
topik kehilangan saudara dan kesedihan (Woodrow, 2007). Hal ini membuat hipotesis bahwa kekurangan ini
telah muncul karena budaya Barat biasanya melampirkan kurang pentingnya saudara
obligasi dan karena itu gagal untuk mengembangkan ritual / spidol hukum untuk mengakhiri saudara
hubungan (Laverty, 2001). Sebuah tinjauan dari tubuh jarang hadir kehilangan saudara dan
literatur kesedihan mengungkapkan bahwa sementara sebagian besar penelitian berhubungan dengan saudara kehilangan selama
masa kanak-kanak, remaja, dewasa muda atau usia tua, ada kekurangan yang nyata dalam
tubuh literatur yang berkaitan dengan matang usia kehilangan saudara (Godfrey, 2002). Selain itu,
defisit ini diperkirakan menggarisbawahi praktek lama dipegang de-menekankan saudara
kehilangan dan kesedihan masalah antara individu dewasa usia (Bank & Kahn, 1982). Untuk
contoh, alokasi waktu untuk dewasa usia saudara kesedihan umumnya tidak signifikan
dibandingkan dengan penjatahan waktu untuk bentuk lain dari kerugian dewasa usia dan kesedihan (misalnya
kehilangan seorang anak, orang tua, atau pasangan / partner). Bertahan saudara umumnya diharapkan
untuk bahu kerugian mereka dengan acara minimum emosi dan dengan cepat melanjutkan mereka
tempat yang normal dalam masyarakat (Walker, 1993). Selanjutnya, praktek ini meniadakan
waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk dewasa usia saudara kesedihan dapat mengakibatkan sosial, signifikan
masalah kesehatan emosional dan mental dalam saudara yang masih hidup (Robinson & Pickett,
1996). Untuk menempatkan masalah ini review teori attachment dan ikatan saudara
proses berikut.
Teori Lampiran
Freud (1957) memperkenalkan obligasi jangka psikologi untuk mengekspos kekuatan
proses pairing. Dia melihat pembentukan pasangan dalam keluarga (misalnya pasangan-tospouse,
orang tua ke anak, saudara-to-saudara) sebagai proses dimana satu anggota
semen ikatan dengan yang lain. Ia juga ditentukan bahwa saudara sering menjadi
terjerat dalam keadaan persaingan untuk perhatian orang tua mereka. Namun, Freud tidak
mengejar masalah ikatan saudara dengan sangat mendalam. Itu Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980)
dan Ainsworth (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), yang setelah memeriksa
ikatan antara bayi dan utama perawatan-pemberi mereka merumuskan teori
attachment. Teori lampiran didasarkan pada premis sentral bahwa semua bayi di
tahun pertama kehidupan mengembangkan internal model kognitif kerja langsung mereka
di dunia, tempat mereka di dunia itu, dan tempat utama pemberi perawatan mereka kepada siapa
mereka telah menjadi melekat. Integral teori adalah anggapan bahwa semua bayi
mengembangkan salah satu dari empat gaya lampiran, yang tiga (yaitu cemas? Avoidant,
cemas? Ambivalen, dan pengendali? Teratur) menghasilkan pembentukan
ikatan 'tidak aman'. Sementara itu keempat, 'aman' gaya keterikatan, hasil dalam
pembentukan ikatan stabil (Bradley & Cafferty, 2001, hal. 202). Ini styleshave bayi telah kemudian diterapkan pada orang dewasa dan telah mengakibatkan kategorisasi
empat gaya ikatan dewasa (yaitu sibuk, meremehkan [cemas ambivalen?]
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991 [cemas menghindar?], Takut avoidant dan aman?);
Griffen & Bartholomew, 1994).
Bowlby, Ainsworth, dan baru-baru Fonagy (2001) telah menyarankan bahwa
gaya lampiran terbentuk antara bayi dan perawatan-pemberi utamanya menciptakan
pola abadi untuk berurusan dengan pengalaman pemisahan masa depan. Memang, Fonagy
hypothesises bahwa bayi yang membangun ikatan aman terpasang dengan utama mereka
perawatan pemberi mengembangkan ketahanan yang lebih besar dan kapasitas emosional daripada mereka yang tidak aman
avoidant, cemas atau mengendalikan rekan-rekan usia, dan akibatnya tampak lebih baik
mampu menghadapi situasi yang amat sulit. Bisa dibayangkan bahwa ini formatif aman
gaya keterikatan dan tidak aman menjadi terprogram cetak biru neuronic bayi untuk
berurusan dengan semua peristiwa stres interpersonal yang di kemudian hari, terlepas pada tahap apa dalam
stres hidup mereka terjadi. Sejalan dengan hipotesis ini, itu mengemukakan bahwa sangat stres
peristiwa relasional (misalnya kematian seorang saudara, pernikahan breakdown) secara otomatis
mengaktifkan bayi terprogram respon saraf cetak biru distress (Elliot & Reis,
2003; Hannaford, 1995; Sanders, 1983 ;. Shilkret, 2005)
Bradley dan Cafferty (2001) mengakui kesamaan yang berbeda antara Bowlby untuk
deliniasi bayi aman dan tidak aman gaya perawatan pemberi lampiran dan?
mendua (yaitu terorganisir / teratur) gaya kesedihan. Dalam hal ini, mereka menyarankan
bahwa gaya teratur hasil berduka dalam individu yang masih hidup sublimating
kesedihan mereka melalui peduli kompulsif untuk orang lain, atau penolakan individu yang masih hidup itu
dari efek pemutusan ikatan lampiran dengan almarhum cinta-benda mereka telah
memiliki pada drive mereka untuk emosional swasembada, sebagai paralel bayi tidak aman
avoidant, ambivalen / resistif dan mengendalikan / reaksi teratur untuk utama
pemisahan perawatan pemberi. Selain itu, mereka membandingkan 'normal' individu yang masih hidup ini
atau 'rumit' kesedihan reaksi percaya diri bayi aman-terlampir
eksploratif reaksi pemisahan (p. 206).
Meskipun teori attachment umumnya digunakan untuk menjelaskan proses ikatan, itu
penting untuk dicatat bahwa itu hanya salah satu kemungkinan pendekatan dalam pembangunan masa depan
dari kerangka kerja untuk menentukan kebutuhan kerugian dan konseling kesedihan dewasa usia
individu. Dalam hal ini, kritik teori attachment telah mengangkat peringatan
kekhawatiran tentang singularitas perawatan primer yang diberikan / klasifikasi bayi Ainsworth ini
sistem, terutama kesulitan teoritis terkait dengan ekstrapolasi
tanggapan ikatan bayi reaksi dewasa (lihat Field, 1996; Harris, 1998) . Hal ini
wajar untuk bersaing, bagaimanapun, bahwa sebagian besar kritikus akan mengakui bahwa
keterikatan yang membentuk antara saudara kandung adalah 'terus' ikatan kehidupan signifikan
(Packman et al., 2006, hal. 817).
tren dalam studi berkabung untuk menargetkan populasi tertentu (misalnya orang tua yang kehilangan
anak, orang dewasa yang telah kehilangan pasangan / partner), untuk berkonsentrasi pada traumatis,
obsesif dan / atau sosial aspek destruktif duka, dan untuk memiliki fokus mereka
dorong morbiditas individu yang masih hidup (yaitu berat kecemasan, depresi, zat
penyalahgunaan) dan mortalitas (yaitu bunuh diri pikiran / usaha) pengalaman (Morton, 2005).
Meskipun studi tersebut telah diperpanjang tubuh pengetahuan teoritis, hanya
jumlah yang relatif kecil dari literatur penelitian ini membahas
topik kehilangan saudara dan kesedihan (Woodrow, 2007). Hal ini membuat hipotesis bahwa kekurangan ini
telah muncul karena budaya Barat biasanya melampirkan kurang pentingnya saudara
obligasi dan karena itu gagal untuk mengembangkan ritual / spidol hukum untuk mengakhiri saudara
hubungan (Laverty, 2001). Sebuah tinjauan dari tubuh jarang hadir kehilangan saudara dan
literatur kesedihan mengungkapkan bahwa sementara sebagian besar penelitian berhubungan dengan saudara kehilangan selama
masa kanak-kanak, remaja, dewasa muda atau usia tua, ada kekurangan yang nyata dalam
tubuh literatur yang berkaitan dengan matang usia kehilangan saudara (Godfrey, 2002). Selain itu,
defisit ini diperkirakan menggarisbawahi praktek lama dipegang de-menekankan saudara
kehilangan dan kesedihan masalah antara individu dewasa usia (Bank & Kahn, 1982). Untuk
contoh, alokasi waktu untuk dewasa usia saudara kesedihan umumnya tidak signifikan
dibandingkan dengan penjatahan waktu untuk bentuk lain dari kerugian dewasa usia dan kesedihan (misalnya
kehilangan seorang anak, orang tua, atau pasangan / partner). Bertahan saudara umumnya diharapkan
untuk bahu kerugian mereka dengan acara minimum emosi dan dengan cepat melanjutkan mereka
tempat yang normal dalam masyarakat (Walker, 1993). Selanjutnya, praktek ini meniadakan
waktu yang dibutuhkan untuk dewasa usia saudara kesedihan dapat mengakibatkan sosial, signifikan
masalah kesehatan emosional dan mental dalam saudara yang masih hidup (Robinson & Pickett,
1996). Untuk menempatkan masalah ini review teori attachment dan ikatan saudara
proses berikut.
Teori Lampiran
Freud (1957) memperkenalkan obligasi jangka psikologi untuk mengekspos kekuatan
proses pairing. Dia melihat pembentukan pasangan dalam keluarga (misalnya pasangan-tospouse,
orang tua ke anak, saudara-to-saudara) sebagai proses dimana satu anggota
semen ikatan dengan yang lain. Ia juga ditentukan bahwa saudara sering menjadi
terjerat dalam keadaan persaingan untuk perhatian orang tua mereka. Namun, Freud tidak
mengejar masalah ikatan saudara dengan sangat mendalam. Itu Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980)
dan Ainsworth (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), yang setelah memeriksa
ikatan antara bayi dan utama perawatan-pemberi mereka merumuskan teori
attachment. Teori lampiran didasarkan pada premis sentral bahwa semua bayi di
tahun pertama kehidupan mengembangkan internal model kognitif kerja langsung mereka
di dunia, tempat mereka di dunia itu, dan tempat utama pemberi perawatan mereka kepada siapa
mereka telah menjadi melekat. Integral teori adalah anggapan bahwa semua bayi
mengembangkan salah satu dari empat gaya lampiran, yang tiga (yaitu cemas? Avoidant,
cemas? Ambivalen, dan pengendali? Teratur) menghasilkan pembentukan
ikatan 'tidak aman'. Sementara itu keempat, 'aman' gaya keterikatan, hasil dalam
pembentukan ikatan stabil (Bradley & Cafferty, 2001, hal. 202). Ini styleshave bayi telah kemudian diterapkan pada orang dewasa dan telah mengakibatkan kategorisasi
empat gaya ikatan dewasa (yaitu sibuk, meremehkan [cemas ambivalen?]
(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991 [cemas menghindar?], Takut avoidant dan aman?);
Griffen & Bartholomew, 1994).
Bowlby, Ainsworth, dan baru-baru Fonagy (2001) telah menyarankan bahwa
gaya lampiran terbentuk antara bayi dan perawatan-pemberi utamanya menciptakan
pola abadi untuk berurusan dengan pengalaman pemisahan masa depan. Memang, Fonagy
hypothesises bahwa bayi yang membangun ikatan aman terpasang dengan utama mereka
perawatan pemberi mengembangkan ketahanan yang lebih besar dan kapasitas emosional daripada mereka yang tidak aman
avoidant, cemas atau mengendalikan rekan-rekan usia, dan akibatnya tampak lebih baik
mampu menghadapi situasi yang amat sulit. Bisa dibayangkan bahwa ini formatif aman
gaya keterikatan dan tidak aman menjadi terprogram cetak biru neuronic bayi untuk
berurusan dengan semua peristiwa stres interpersonal yang di kemudian hari, terlepas pada tahap apa dalam
stres hidup mereka terjadi. Sejalan dengan hipotesis ini, itu mengemukakan bahwa sangat stres
peristiwa relasional (misalnya kematian seorang saudara, pernikahan breakdown) secara otomatis
mengaktifkan bayi terprogram respon saraf cetak biru distress (Elliot & Reis,
2003; Hannaford, 1995; Sanders, 1983 ;. Shilkret, 2005)
Bradley dan Cafferty (2001) mengakui kesamaan yang berbeda antara Bowlby untuk
deliniasi bayi aman dan tidak aman gaya perawatan pemberi lampiran dan?
mendua (yaitu terorganisir / teratur) gaya kesedihan. Dalam hal ini, mereka menyarankan
bahwa gaya teratur hasil berduka dalam individu yang masih hidup sublimating
kesedihan mereka melalui peduli kompulsif untuk orang lain, atau penolakan individu yang masih hidup itu
dari efek pemutusan ikatan lampiran dengan almarhum cinta-benda mereka telah
memiliki pada drive mereka untuk emosional swasembada, sebagai paralel bayi tidak aman
avoidant, ambivalen / resistif dan mengendalikan / reaksi teratur untuk utama
pemisahan perawatan pemberi. Selain itu, mereka membandingkan 'normal' individu yang masih hidup ini
atau 'rumit' kesedihan reaksi percaya diri bayi aman-terlampir
eksploratif reaksi pemisahan (p. 206).
Meskipun teori attachment umumnya digunakan untuk menjelaskan proses ikatan, itu
penting untuk dicatat bahwa itu hanya salah satu kemungkinan pendekatan dalam pembangunan masa depan
dari kerangka kerja untuk menentukan kebutuhan kerugian dan konseling kesedihan dewasa usia
individu. Dalam hal ini, kritik teori attachment telah mengangkat peringatan
kekhawatiran tentang singularitas perawatan primer yang diberikan / klasifikasi bayi Ainsworth ini
sistem, terutama kesulitan teoritis terkait dengan ekstrapolasi
tanggapan ikatan bayi reaksi dewasa (lihat Field, 1996; Harris, 1998) . Hal ini
wajar untuk bersaing, bagaimanapun, bahwa sebagian besar kritikus akan mengakui bahwa
keterikatan yang membentuk antara saudara kandung adalah 'terus' ikatan kehidupan signifikan
(Packman et al., 2006, hal. 817).
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.
- prempuan yang baik disana banyak
- items, with a conservative cutoff point
- They said i am imatureHonestly i'm matur
- items, with a conservative cutoff point
- They said i am imatureHonestly i'm matur
- items, with a conservative cutoff point
- They said i am imatureHonestly i'm matur
- Big lierlier
- kamu bisa mengambil buku itu
- BÍBLIA SAGRADAAgora, pois, eis aqui tua
- Big lierlier
- Mereka bilang saya tidak dewasaSebenarny
- They said i am imatureHonestly i'm matur
- Nothing just information
- Not insterested
- Mereka bilang saya tidak dewasaSebenarny
- They said i am imatureHonestly i'm matur
- I accompany you
- Aku pengen dari hati kamu sendiriMengiri
- We shall support Lawson franchise stores
- Aku pengen dari hati kamu sendiriMengiri
- Straatgezicht in een vernielde stad, tij
- Sudah cukup dan saya tidak akan memilih
- Straight face
