爱情长跑的开始
加利福尼亚大学戴维斯分校心理学系主任谢弗和他的同事们认为,依恋的三种风格反映了人们大脑中依恋神经系统的差异。[14]这些差异在人们烦恼的时候(比如在吵架、回想吵架情形,或者更糟糕一点,决定要和对方分手的时候)表现最为明显。
功能性核磁共振成像显示,在人们陷入苦恼情绪的时候,三类不同依恋风格的女性大脑中激活的神经系统是不一样的。(这个实验仅仅以女性作为实验对象,今后的研究大概可以证实,这一结论同样适用于男性。)[15]
忧虑型的人在过度担心,比如担心自己会被情人抛弃的时候,被激活的小路神经系统包括前侧颞极、前扣带皮层和海马体。通常情况下,前侧颞极在人们悲伤的时候会被激活,前扣带皮层会引发激情,而海马体则是记忆的大本营。[16]这些神经系统的活动是由于人们对人际关系的忧虑而引起的,跟一般的恐惧无关。值得注意的是,忧虑型女性即使主观上想停止自己的担心,这些神经系统也无法停止活动。她们的强迫性忧虑已经压倒了大脑对神经系统的控制。但是她们的神经系统在控制其他类型的忧虑方面完全没有问题。
与之对比,安全型女性可以毫不费力地摆脱对于关系破裂的担心。只要她们转移思绪,产生悲伤情绪的前侧颞极就会平静下来。她们与忧虑型女性的主要区别就在于她们随时都可以激活眶额区的神经系统来平复前侧颞极引起的不安。
同样,忧虑型女性可能会比其他女性更容易回想起与恋人吵架时的情景。[17] 谢弗认为,这种状态很容易干扰她们,使她们无法做出最佳决定。
回避型人的神经机制与忧虑型有很大差异,他们大脑的主要活动区域集中在压抑不安情绪的扣带皮层。[18]而且这种对情感的压抑似乎一发不可收拾,就像忧虑型女性无法停止自己的忧虑一样,回避型女性无法停止自己对忧虑的压抑,即使别人提醒她们也无济于事。而安全型的女性就不会出现这种问题,她们的前扣带皮层对忧虑的控制可以做到收放自如。
这种对神经系统无法停止的压抑决定了那些回避型的人总是会与别人保持距离,而且对生活漠然,比如,即使与恋人分手或者有人去世,他们也不会太伤心,而且他们对社交活动也不太热心。[19]为了达到情感上的亲密,一定程度上的忧虑是不可或缺的,因为在人际交往中难免会遇到一些问题,而忧虑正是这些问题的体现。[20]谢弗所说的回避型的人避免与他人进行亲密的情感交流,似乎是为了保护自己免受苦恼情绪的困扰。值得注意的是,谢弗发现回避型的女志愿者是最难招募到的,因为对志愿者的要求之一就是要有较长的恋爱史,而许多回避型的人都不具备这一条件。
我们在前面提到过,这三种不同风格都是在童年时期形成的,而不是由基因决定的。在某种程度上它们会受到成年后经历的影响,比如接受精神科医师的治疗或者从与他人的交往中得到弥补。另一方面,一位善解人意的伴侣应该在某种程度上容忍对方的一些缺陷。
负责依恋、性和照料的神经系统就像艺术大师亚历山大·考尔德创作的由机器牵动的雕塑一样,牵一发而动全身。比如,依恋系统也会影响人们的性生活。回避型的人更换男女朋友的频率比忧虑型或者安全型的人要高,发生“一夜情”的情况也较多。因为他们喜欢与别人保持情感上的距离,所以他们会满足于无爱的性行为。即使步入婚姻的殿堂或者建立恋爱关系之后,他们往往也会与对方保持距离或采取高压政策,因此不难理解,他们离婚或者分手的概率也比较高。但令人费解的是,他们在离婚或者分手之后往往还会希望与原来的伴侣复合。[21]
依恋风格对恋爱的影响只是爱情长跑的开始,下一步我们要讨论的就是性了。
- The three distinct types of love are crystal clear at the biochemical level. Appropriately, sexhormones—androgens and estrogens—largely fuel lust. Attraction, that sine qua non of romanticattachment, seems driven by a mix of high levels of dopamine and norepinephrine (which increasepleasure and relaxation) and low levels of serotonin (which adds a pleasing mood). The chemistry thatmakes a relationship last fuels kindness and drives caregiving, which waxes and wanes with varyinglevels of oxytocin and vasopressin. See Helen Fisher, Why We Love (New York: Henry Holt, 2004).
- John Bowlby, Attachment and Loss, vol. 1, Attachment, 2nd ed. (New York: Basic Books, 1982).
- M. K. McClintock, “A Functional Approach to the Behavioral Endocrinology of Rodents,” in D.Crews, ed., Psychobiology of Reproductive Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1987), pp.176–203.
- On the woman’s gaze, see Sarah-Jayne Blakemore and Uta Firth, “How Does the Brain Deal withthe Social World?” NeuroReport 15 (2004), pp. 119–28. On the four faces, see Knut Kampe et al.,“Reward Value of Attractiveness and Gaze,” Nature 413 (2001), p. 589.
- The classic study of flirting was done by Iren鋟s Eibl-Eibesfeldt, who used a special camera tosurreptitiously capture images of romantic couples in Samoa, Brazil, Paris, and New York. See I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Human Ethology (New York: Aline de Gruyter, 1989).
- On the parallels between flirting in lovers and in babies, see Jaak Panksepp, AffectiveNeuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions (New York: Oxford University Press,1998).
- This consideration plays a larger role in how women weigh a potential partner than it does for men,which may be one reason men tend to fall in love more quickly than do women.
- On love as an addiction, see Panksepp, Affective Neuroscience.
- On drug addiction, see R. Z. Goldstein, “Drug Addiction and Its Underlying Neurobiological Basis:Neuroimaging Evidence for the Involvement of the Frontal Cortex,” American Journal of Psychiatry159 (2002), pp. 1642–52. This study shows that in addition to the subcortical circuitry long known tobe at play in addiction, prefrontal areas provide the overly positive appraisal of the drug and disable theneuronal arrays for inhibition of impulse.
- Brenda and Bob are used as an example in Eileen Kennedy-Moore and Jeanne C. Watson,Expressing Emotion: Myths, Realities and Therapeutic Strategies (New York: Guilford Press, 1999).
- On attachment styles, see Jude Cassidy and Phillip Shaver, eds., Handbook of Attachment Theory:Research and Clinical Applications (New York: Guilford Press, 1999).
- Judith Feeney, “Adult Romantic Attachment and Couple Relationships,” in ibid. Feeney notes thatthere are differing typologies for attachment styles, including some with four types rather than three,and that these styles are not necessarily “frozen”—that one can adopt different styles with changingrelationship experiences. There are no hard-and-fast boundaries among these types; people can blendthem, or manifest one with some people and another with others.
- On a secure partner, see Deborah Cohn et al., “Working Models of Childhood Attachments andCouple Relationships,” Journal of Family Issues 13, no. 4 (1992), pp. 432–49.
- On attachment style and brain mechanism, see Omri Gallath et al., “Attachmentstyle Differencesand Ability to Suppress Negative Thoughts: Exploring the Neural Correlates,” NeuroImage (in press).
- The key neural circuitry for attachment styles seems to run between major highand low-roadlandmarks of the social brain: the orbitofrontal area, the amygdala, the anterior temporal pole (ATP),the anterior cingulate, and the hippocampus. The amygdala activates the low road during feelings offear, the ATP and cingulate during sadness. The high road opens when the orbitofrontal area engages,as when we try to think through our relationships and overcome any upsetting related emotions.
- These structures are all activated on the brain’s right side, which seems more involved indistressing emotions.
- This retrieval of angst was signaled by heightened activity in their hippocampus, the site that goesto work retrieving memories in general.
- The dorsal area of the cingulate monitors for situations that require greater control by theprefrontal cortex, such as distressing emotions. See Matthew M. Botvinick et al., “Conflict Monitoringand Anterior Cingulate Cortex: An Update,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, no. 12 (2004), pp. 539–46.
- On the avoidant style, see Mario Mikulincer and Phillip Shaver, “The Attachment BehavioralSystem in Adulthood: Activation, Psychodynamics, and Interpersonal Processes,” in Mark P. Zanna,ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35 (San Diego: Academic Press, 2003), pp. 53–152.
- These brain activity patterns seem to explain discoveries made in earlier studies by Shaver’sgroup. For instance, when people in long-term romantic relationships vividly imagined that theirpartner was leaving them for someone else, those who were anxiously attached were unable to shut offtheir worried train of thought, while those who were secure or avoidant could readily stop theseupsetting ruminations. On shutting off worry, see R. C. Fraley and P. R. Shaver, “Adult Attachmentand the Suppression of Unwanted Thoughts,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (1997),pp. 1080–91. But while vanquishing such worries comes easily to those who are secure, suppressingdistressing feelings about relationships demands constant mental effort for avoidant types. See MarioMikulincer et al., “Attachment-Related Strategies During Thought-Suppression: Ironic Rebounds andVulnerable Selfrepresentations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (2004), pp. 940–56.
- On avoidant types, see Feeney, “Adult Romantic Attachment,” in Cassidy and Shaver, Handbook.
本书评论