- Big Sean shared a big reveal. He's single again. Well, to be honest, I've never subscribed to People Magazine, so I'm not sure where he currently stands in his relationship status, but, back in 2019, he released a song titled Single Again. So, unless he's lying, this song is about him being single, again. Emphasis on again. Because he is suggesting a string of relationships that have left him, well, single. So the question we will answer in this video is, why is Big Sean single, again? ♪ Down with DCE ♪ ♪ Yeah you know me ♪ ♪ He down with DCE ♪ ♪ Yeah you know me ♪ ♪ You down with DCE ♪ ♪ Yeah you know me ♪ ♪ Who's down with DCE ♪ ♪ All the homies ♪ - [Instructor] I thought after Netflix discontinued Jessica Jones, that she would be available for my job request. But she has not returned my calls, so unfortunately I was unable to hire Jessica as a private investigator to spy on the personal life of Big Sean, to help me learn why his relationships are not working out. So instead, let's look into some of the lyrics of his song, Single Again, to help give us insight. Key lyrical insight appears relatively early in the song when he reflects on his childhood, and his parents' relationships with each other, and with him. Here are the lyrics. "Maybe 'cause my mama never worked it out with my dad. "Maybe 'cause she had insecurities and she had 'em bad. "Maybe 'cause single parent love was all I ever had." Wait. But Big Sean is a big kid now. He's an adult. How could what happened to him as a child be important for what is happening to him now? How could his parents' relationship with each other, and with him, play a role in his personal romantic relationship as an adult? Welcome to developmental psychology, my friends. Big Sean is correct, to be thinking about his childhood for potential understanding of his adult relationships. To explain, we need to travel back to the land of attachment theory. Way back in 1987, Hazan and Shaver described three types of romantic relationships. The first type of romantic relationship, they described with this statement, "I find it relatively easy to get close to others, "and comfortable depending on them "and having them depend on me. "I don't often worry about being abandoned, "or about someone else getting too close to me." The second type of romantic relationship they described with this statement. "I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. "I find it difficult to trust them completely , "difficult to allow myself to depend on them. "I am nervous when anyone gets too close, "and often, love partners want me to be more intimate "than I feel comfortable being." The third type of romantic relationship they described with this statement. "I find that others are reluctant "to get as close as I would like. "I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me, "or won't want to stay with me. "I want to merge completely with another person, "and this desire sometimes scares people away." Now, did you notice anything familiar about these three types of romantic relationships? Yes, they're very similar to the types of relationships between young children and their caretakers that attachment theory proposed many years before. John Bowlby developed the concept of attachment theory. He defined attachment as the affectional bond, or tie, that an infant forms with the mother. An infant must form this bond with a primary caregiver, in order to have typical social and emotional development. In addition, Bowlby proposed that this attachment bond is very powerful, and continues throughout life. He used the concept of secure base to define a healthy attachment between parent and child. A secure base is a parental presence that gives the child a sense of safety, as the child explores the surroundings. Bowlby said that two things are needed for a healthy attachment. The caregiver must be responsive to the child's physical, social, and emotional needs. And the caregiver and the child must engage in mutually enjoyable interactions. Additionally, Bowlby observed that infants would go to extraordinary lengths to prevent separation from their parents. Such as crying, refusing to be comforted, and waiting for their caregiver to return. Developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth, a student of John Bowlby, continued studying the development of attachment in infants. Ainsworth and her colleagues created a laboratory test, that measured an infant's attachment to his or her parent. The test is called The Strange Situation, because it is conducted in a context that is unfamiliar to the child, and therefore likely to heighten the child's need for his or her parent. On the basis of their behaviors, the children are categorized into one of four groups, where each group reflects a different kind of attachment relationship with the caregiver. One style is secure, and the other three styles are referred to as insecure. Now if we return to the three romantic relationships proposed by Hazan and Shaver, they actually name them following the three attachment categories originally proposed by Ainsworth. Furthermore, Hazan and Shaver found that the percent of participants who fell into each of the three romantic relationship types, was similar to the percent of young children that were categorized into the three attachment styles. Pretty cool, huh? Essentially what Hazan and Shaver found was what John Bowlby had hypothesized all along. The relationships we have early in our life form an internal working model within us, that we use toward and within the relationships we have later in our life, even as adults. So children who have a secure relationship early on are likely to have a secure relationship with others as an adult. And children who have an insecure relationship, ambivalent or avoidant attachment styles, are likely to have those same types of relationships as adults. There are many other research studies that support the longitudinal stability of attachment styles. One noteworthy example is a 20-year longitudinal study that assessed one year old infants' attachment style, and then follow these same children up to measure their adult attachment styles. 72% of the infants still had the same attachment style, 20 years later in adulthood. This is strong evidence of the stability of attachment styles. However, 72% is not 100%. Why did the attachment style change for some? Well, John Bowlby actually had acknowledged that attachment was not constructed in cement. His hypothesis of an internal working model that is formed by early relationships, is just that, a working model, that is open to the influence of experiences throughout our lives. Many of the adults in the study that witnessed a change in attachment style, reported major negative events that occurred in their life, such as loss of a loved one, and physical/sexual abuse. All of this helps us understand why Big Sean is single again. As we pointed out earlier, in his search for understanding his romantic relationships, some of his lyrics point to how his early relationships with his parents could have had a long-lasting impact on him, even now as an adult. He notes his parents' struggle to keep their relationship together with each other, his mother's insecurities, and being raised by a single mother. Now, I do wanna stress that these are not necessarily negative factors in and of themselves. For example, single parenthood doesn't necessarily mean worse or negative parenting. But it could suggest challenges, and a change in parent-child relationship. We don't know enough about Big Sean's relationship with his parents to hypothesize about his attachment style. The point is that he openly highlights early life experiences, specifically the relationship with his parents, as potentially important factors to understanding his adult relationships. What I want us to mainly extract from Big Sean's lyrics, is an interesting acknowledgement on his behalf, of recognizing what attachment theory proposes. That early relationships form an internal working model that influences future relationships, even romantic relationships, in adulthood. Developmental psychology is so cool. Maybe I should submit this piece to People Magazine.