1991), which is the affective precursor of the attachment motive; and all the
schemes are directly anchored and released by the here-and-now, immediate
situation. For these reasons theM-operationindicated in F#1 can be said to
beaffectively immediate, being boosted directly by affect, which here plays
the role of executive schemes not yet available. Because executive schemes are
not used or needed in thisM-operation, this is a purely sensorimotor opera-
tion that uses theMe scale of measurement stipulated in Table 8.1.
Four (or at most five) schemes have to be boosted byM-capacity in order
to internalize F#1 into a motive scheme of attachment. Therefore, children
between 12 and 18 months of age (Piaget’s fifth sensorimotor stage), but not
younger, will be likely to construct–internalize this explicit motive of attach-
ment—an internal working model (Oerter, 2000) that explains attachment
behavior. This predicted timetable is consistent with empirical findings re-
viewed by Oerter (2000). Notice, however, that schemeself1(#3) might in
some children already be structured–chunked with scheme BE-WITH (#5),
due to special family–milieu experiences. In such cases, the attachment
scheme could emerge earlier, when the child’s mental-attentional capacity
(M-capacity) can handle and coordinate three schemes (i.e., in 8–12-month-
olds according to Table 8.1).
Developmental timing of acquisition of the attachment motive is con-
strained by the attachment affect, by the mental demand (M-demand) of the
scheme to be acquired, and by the intersubjective–empathic learning oppor-
tunities available in the family environment. The particular emotional and
cognitive content of this scheme is distinct, however, from its mental demand;
and it depends solely on the child’s own innate affective dispositions vis-à-vis
others, and his or her particular bonding with mother–father–caretakers.
Thus, as Oerter (2000) pointed out, the particular emerging motive (or frame
motivation) will differ accordingly. The securely attached child (type B of
Ainsworth) will feel free to explore the new context, secure in the mother’s
potential availability; the insecurely attached child (type A) will explore ob-
jects and avoid persons; and the insecure ambivalently attached child (type C)
will require mother’s close presence in order to feel secure in the new context.
A more complex, although still affectively elicited, motive scheme is that
ofindependence. It demands greater mental processes, because its construc-
tion requires schemes that make reference to past–future cognitive experi-
ences that are not cued by the present context. As discussed by Oerter (2000,
p. 66): “In the second and third year of life a child shows the need to achieve
self-reliance.” This is the time when the child’sM-capacity can cope with as
many as six or seven sensorimotor schemes simultaneously (see Table 8.1).
From our theoretical perspective, the motive of independence (i.e., explicit–
conscious need to achieve self-reliance) demands no fewer than six schemes to
be coordinated with the help ofM-capacity boosting. Using the notational
conventions previously explained, the requisite schemes are as follows:
218 PASCUAL-LEONE AND JOHNSON