The issue basically states that the type of attachment (independent variable) that a child experiences when they were younger is correlational to their well being (dependent variable) in the future. This "well-being" is based on their relationship with other people. Studies have shown that children who were socially attached in their childhood were more likely to become leaders in their societies, be able to understand other peoples' feelings better, show less aggression, and be willing to help out their peer more than those were were insecurely attached. However, we must keep in mind that the type of attached does not cause the outcome of their well-being. There are cases where children who were insecurely attached in their childhood turn out to possess the same kinds of characteristics as those were securely attached. Some lurking variables that may attribute to this can be the degree of care and affection that the mother expresses towards a child or the child's responsiveness to this affection.
I agree there are exceptions, but Im confused as well. You are saying the lurking variable is the degree of care and affection that the mother expresses toward a child or the childs responsiveness to this affection. But isnt this basically what leads to secure attachment? The book says a childs attachment status is direct reflection of the childs beliefs and expectations about the social world. Those beliefs in turn, are derived from the childs experience including the quality of her interaction with others, and the sensitivity other show toward her. I understood this as if the child is securely attached, then mother is affectionate and the child interacts with the mother the same way, which would have developed positive experience and view of the social world. May be Im missing your point but this is what I think.
