Attachment is about safety and protection, intersubjectivity is about sharing and social understanding: The relationships between attachment and intersubjectivity.

Abstract

The relationships between intersubjectivity and attachment are beginning to be explored within the psychoanalytic and developmental literature. We contribute to this comparative effort by exploring the different evolutionary origins of attachment and intersubjectivity. Five interlocking themes are central to this article. First, from an evolutionary perspective, attachment and intersubjectivity serve different functions. The main function of attachment is to seek protection, whereas the main function of intersubjectivity is to communicate, at intuitive and automatic levels, with members of the same species and to facilitate social understanding. Second, to survive in changing and highly competitive environments, an evolutionary strategy emerged among our human ancestors based on developing high levels of cooperation within small bands of hunters and gatherers. In turn, high levels of cooperation and social complexity put selective pressures toward developing effective modes of communication and more complex forms of social understanding (mindreading/ mentalizing/intersubjective abilities). These abilities far surpass mindreading abilities among our closest Great Ape relatives. Third, we provide further evidence for this hypothesis showing that in comparison with other Great Apes, young children show qualitatively different levels of collaboration and altruism. Fourth, we provide an overview of the development of attachment and intersubjective abilities during the first 2 years of life that support the hypothesis of a cooperative origin of intersubjectivity. Fifth,

An Analysis of Self: The Development and Assessment of a Measure of Selfobject Needs

“…In other words, the parent cannot connect with or recognize the child's unique and special nature in order to mirror it, if the parent cannot first connect with the child's internal world. This recognition has thus led some theorist to describe the mirroring selfobject function as a uniquely human intersubjective ability (Cortina & Liotti, 2010).…”

The Use of Attachment Theory in the Clinical Dialogue with Patients

“…The other theme in this article is the importance of paying attention to a cooperative and social engagement motivational system (sometimes referred sometimes to as a social or affiliative motive) in building a therapeutic alliance. This prosocial motive is not about safety (attachment) but about sharing and developing positive social relations with others (Cortina & Liotti, 2010). The article explores the significance of building on this cooperative and social engagement system when there is not a foundation of trust based on a secure attachment history.…”

The Adaptive Functions of Sexual Plasticity: The Suppression and Surreptitious Expression of Human Sociosexuality

“…Hunter-gatherer and many other small horticulturalist tribal cultures appear to be relatively egalitarian, socially cooperative cultures with considerable food sharing, and cooperative childcare (Boehm, 1999;Cortina & Liotti, 2010;Hrdy, 2009;Marlowe, 2005). This doesn't mean that there is no heritable resource inequality among hunter-gatherers or horticulturalists but rather that such inequality significantly increases among pastoralists and agriculturalists who may possess considerably more material resources that can be passed on to progeny (Smith et al, 2010).…”