The Origins of Attachment Theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth

Abstract

Attachment theory is based on the joint work of J. Bowlby (1907–1991) and M. S. Ainsworth (1913–    ). Its developmental history begins in the 1930s, with Bowlby's growing interest in the link between maternal loss or deprivation and later personality development and with Ainsworth's interest in security theory. Although Bowlby's and Ainsworth's collaboration began in 1950, it entered its most creative phase much later, after Bowlby had formulated an initial blueprint of attachment theory, drawing on ethology, control systems theory, and psychoanalytic thinking, and after Ainsworth had visited Uganda, where she conducted the 1st empirical study of infant–mother attachment patterns. This article summarizes Bowlby's and Ainsworth's separate and joint contributions to attachment theory but also touches on other theorists and researchers whose work influenced them or was influenced by them. The article then highlights some of the major new fronts along which attachment theory is currently advancing. The article ends with some speculations on the future potential of the theory. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Full text

Developmental Psychology
1992,
\fol. 28, No.
5,759-775
Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
The Origins of Attachment Theory:
John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth
Inge Bretherton
Department of Child and Family Studies
University of Wisconsin—Madison
Attachment theory
is
based on the joint work of John Bowlby (1907-1991) and Mary Salter Ains-
worth
(1913-
). Its developmental history begins in the
1930s,
with Bowlby's growing interest
in the link between maternal loss or deprivation and later personality development and with
Ainsworth's interest in security
theory.
Although Bowlby's and Ainsworth's collaboration began in
1950,
it entered
its
most creative phase much
later,
after Bowlby had formulated an initial blueprint
of attachment theory, drawing on ethology, control systems theory, and psychoanalytic thinking,
and after Ainsworth had visited Uganda, where she conducted the first empirical study of infant-
mother attachment
patterns.
This article summarizes Bowlby's and Ainsworth's separate and joint
contributions to attachment theory but also touches on other theorists and researchers
whose
work
influenced them or was influenced by them. The article then highlights some of the major new
fronts along which attachment theory
is
currently advancing. The article ends with some specula-
tions on the future potential of the theory.
Attachment theory is the joint work of John Bowlby and
Mary Ainsworth (Ainsworth
&
Bowlby,
1991).
Drawing on con-
cepts from
ethology,
cybernetics,
information
processing,
devel-
opmental psychology, and psychoanalysis, John Bowlby formu-
lated the basic tenets of
the
theory. He thereby revolutionized
our thinking about
a child's
tie to the mother and
its
disruption
through separation, deprivation, and bereavement. Mary Ains-
worth's innovative methodology not only made it possible to
test some of Bowlby's ideas empirically but
also
helped expand
the theory itself and is responsible for some of the new direc-
tions it
is now
taking.
Ainsworth contributed the concept of the
attachment figure as a secure base from which an infant can
explore the world. In addition, she formulated the concept of
maternal sensitivity to infant signals and
its
role in the develop-
ment of infant-mother attachment patterns.
The ideas now guiding attachment theory have a long devel-
opmental
history.
Although Bowlby and Ainsworth worked in-
dependently of each other during their early
careers,
both were
influenced by Freud and other psychoanalytic thinkers—di-
rectly in
Bowlby's
case,
indirectly in
Ainsworth's.
In this article,
I document the origins of ideas that later became central to
attachment theory. I then discuss the subsequent period of
theory building and
consolidation.
Finally,
I review some
of the
new directions in which the theory
is
currently developing and
speculate on its future potential. In taking this retrospective
developmental approach to the origins of attachment theory, I
am reminded of Freud's (1920/1955) remark:
I would like to thank Mary Ainsworth and Ursula Bowlby for helpful
input to a draft of this article. I am also grateful for insightful com-
ments by three very knowledgeable anonymous reviewers.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Inge
Bretherton, Department of Child and Family Studies, University of
Wisconsin—Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706.
So long
as we
trace the development from its
final
outcome back-
wards,
the chain of events appears
continuous,
and
we
feel
we
have
gained an insight which
is
completely satisfactory or even exhaus-
tive.
But if we proceed in the reverse way, if
we
start from the
premises inferred from the analysis and try to follow these up to
the
final
results, then we no longer get the impression of an inevita-
ble sequence of
events
which could not have otherwise been deter-
mined, (p. 167)
In elucidating how each idea and methodological advance
became
a
stepping stone for the next, my retrospective account
of the
origins
of attachment theory makes the
process
of theory
building seem planful and
orderly.
No
doubt this
was
the case to
some
extent,
but
it may
often not have seemed
so to
the protago-
nists at the time.
Origins
John Bowlby
After graduating from the University of Cambridge in 1928,
where he received rigorous scientific training and
some
instruc-
tion in what is now called developmental psychology, Bowlby
performed volunteer work at a school for maladjusted children
while reconsidering his career
goals.
His experiences with two
children at the school set his professional life on course. One
was a very isolated, remote, affectionless teenager who had
been expelled from
his
previous school for theft and had had no
stable mother
figure.
The second child was an anxious boy of 7
or 8 who trailed Bowlby around and who was known as his
shadow (Ainsworth,
1974).
Persuaded by this experience of the
effects of early family relationships on personality develop-
ment, Bowlby decided to embark on
a
career
as a
child psychia-
trist (Senn, 1977b).
Concurrently with his studies in medicine and psychiatry,
Bowlby undertook training at the British Psychoanalytic Insti-
759

760INGE BRETHERTON
tute.
During this period Melanie Klein was a major influence
there (the
institute had three
groups:
Group
A
sided with Freud,
Group B sided with Klein, and the Middle Group sided with
neither). Bowlby was exposed to Kleinian (Klein, 1932) ideas
through his training analyst, Joan Riviere, a close associate of
Klein, and eventually through supervision by Melanie Klein
herself.
Although he acknowledges Riviere and Klein for
grounding him
in
the object-relations approach
to
psychoanaly-
sis,
with
its
emphasis on early relationships and the pathogenic
potential of loss (Bowlby, 1969, p. xvii), he had grave reserva-
tions about aspects of the Kleinian approach to child psycho-
analysis. Klein held that children's emotional problems are al-
most entirely due to fantasies generated from internal conflict
between aggressive and libidinal drives rather than to events in
the external world. She hence forbade Bowlby to talk to the
mother of a
3-year-old
whom he analyzed under her supervi-
sion (Bowlby, 1987). This was anathema to Bowlby
who,
in the
course of his postgraduate training with two psychoanalytically
trained social workers at the London Child Guidance Clinic,
had
come
to believe that actual family experiences
were
a much
more important, if not the basic cause of emotional distur-
bance.
Bowlby's plan to counter Klein's ideas through research is
manifest in an early theoretical paper (1940) in which he pro-
posed that, like nurserymen, psychoanalysts should study the
nature of the organism, the properties of the soil, and their
interaction
(p.
23).
He
goes
on to suggest that, for mothers with
parenting difficulties,
a weekly interview
in
which their problems are approached analyt-
ically and traced back to childhood
has
sometimes been remark-
ably effective. Having once been helped to recognize and recap-
ture the feelings which she herself had as a child and to find that
they are accepted tolerantly and understandingly, a mother will
become increasingly sympathetic and tolerant toward the same
things in her child. (Bowlby, 1940, p. 23)
These quotations reveal Bowlby's early theoretical and clinical
interest in the intergenerational transmission of attachment re-
lations and in the possibility of helping children by helping
parents. Psychoanalytic object-relations theories later proposed
by Fairbairn (1952) and Winnicott (1965) were congenial to
Bowlby, but
his
thinking had developed independently of them.
Bowlby's first empirical study, based on case notes from the
London Child Guidance Clinic, dates from this period. Like
the boy at the school for maladjusted children, many of the
clinic patients were affectionless and prone to stealing.
Through detailed examination of 44 cases, Bowlby was able to
link their symptoms to histories of maternal deprivation and
separation.
Although World War II led to an interruption in Bowlby's
budding career
as
a practicing child psychiatrist, it laid further
groundwork for his career as a researcher. His assignment was
to collaborate on officer selection procedures with a group of
distinguished colleagues from the Tavistock Clinic in London,
an experience that gave Bowlby a level of methodological and
statistical expertise then unusual for a psychiatrist and psy-
choanalyst.
This
training
is
obvious in the revision of his
paper,
"Forty-Four Juvenile Thieves: Their Characters and Home
Lives"
(Bowlb^ 1944), which includes statistical tests
as
well as
detailed case histories.
At the end of World War II, Bowlby was invited to become
head of the Children's Department at the Tavistock Clinic. In
line with his earlier ideas on the importance of family relation-
ships in child therapy, he promptly renamed it the Department
for Children and Parents. Indeed, in what
is
credited
as
the first
published paper in family therapy, Bowlby (1949) describes
how he was often able to achieve clinical breakthroughs by
interviewing parents about their childhood experiences in the
presence of their troubled children.
To Bowlby's chagrin, however, much of
the
clinical work in
the department
was
done
by
people
with a
Kleinian orientation
who,
he
says,
regarded
his
emphasis
on
actual family interaction
patterns as not particularly relevant. He therefore decided to
found his own research unit whose efforts were focused on
mother-child separation. Because separation is a clearcut and
undeniable event, its effects on the child and the parent-child
relationship were easier to document than more subtle influ-
ences of parental and familial interaction.
Mary
Ainsworth
Mary Ainsworth (nee Salter), 6 years younger than Bowlby,
finished graduate study at the University of Toronto just before
World War
II.
Courses with William Blatz had introduced her
to security theory (Blatz, 1940), which both reformulated and
challenged Freudian
ideas,
though
Blatz chose
not to recognize
his debt to Freud because of the anti-Freudian climate that
pervaded the University of Toronto at that time (Ainsworth,
1983;
Blatz 1966).
One of the major tenets of security theory
is
that infants and
young
children need
to
develop
a secure
dependence on parents
before launching out into unfamiliar
situations.
In her disserta-
tion entitled "An Evaluation of Adjustment Based on the Con-
cept of Security," Mary Salter (1940) states it this way:
Familial security in the early stages is of a dependent type and
forms a basis from which the individual can work out gradually,
forming new skills and interests in other fields. Where familial
security is lacking, the individual is handicapped by the lack of
what might be called a
secure base
[italics added] from which to
work. (p. 45)
Interestingly, Mary Salter's dissertation research included an
analysis of
students'
autobiographical narratives in support of
the validity of her paper-and-pencil self-report scales of famil-
ial and extrafamilial security, foreshadowing her later penchant
for narrative methods of data collection. Indeed, few re-
searchers realize the enormous experience in instrument devel-
opment and diagnostics she brought to attachment research.
Like Bowlby's, Mary Salter's professional career was shaped
by her duties as a military officer during World War II (in the
Canadian Women's Army Corps). After the war, as a faculty
member at the University of Toronto, she set out to deepen her
clinical skills in response to the request to teach courses in
personality assessment. To prepare herself for this task, she
signed up for workshops by Bruno Klopfer, a noted expert in
the interpretation of the Rorschach test. This experience led to
a coauthored book on the Rorschach technique (Klopfer, Ains-
worth, Klopfer, & Holt, 1954), which is still in print.
In
1950
Mary Salter married Leonard Ainsworth and accom-

APA CENTENNIAL: ORIGINS OF ATTACHMENT THEORY761
panied him to London, where he completed his doctoral stud-
ies.
Someone there drew her attention to a job advertisement in
the London Times that happened to
involve
research, under the
direction of John
Bowlby,
into the effect
on
personality
develop-
ment of separation from the mother in early childhood. As
Mary Ainsworth acknowledges, joining Bowlby's research unit
reset the
whole
direction of her professional
career,
though nei-
ther Bowlby nor Ainsworth realized this at the time.
The Emergence of Attachment Theory
In 1948,2
years
before Ainsworth's arrival, Bowlby had hired
James Robertson to help him observe hospitalized and institu-
tionalized children who were separated from their
parents.
Rob-
ertson had had impeccable training in naturalistic observation,
obtained
as a
conscientious objector during
World War
II,
when
he was employed as a boilerman in Anna Freud's Hampstead
residential nursery for homeless
children.
Anna Freud required
that all members of the
staff,
no matter what their training or
background, write notes on cards about the children's behavior
(Senn,
1977a),
which were then used
as
a
basis
for weekly group
discussions. The thorough training in child observation that
Robertson thus obtained at the Hampstead residential nursery
are Anna Freud's lasting personal contribution to the develop-
ment of attachment theory.
After 2 years of collecting data on hospitalized children for
Bowlby's research projects, Robertson protested that he could
not continue as an uninvolved research worker, but felt com-
pelled to do something for the children he had been observing.
On a shoestring budget, with minimal training, a hand-held
cinecamera, and no artificial
lighting,
he made the deeply mov-
ing film, A
Two-Year-Old Goes
to
Hospital
(Robertson, 1953a,
1953b; Robertson & Bowlby, 1952). Foreseeing the potential
impact of this
film,
Bowlby insisted that it be carefully planned
to
ensure that
no one
would later
be able to accuse
Robertson of
biased recording. The target child was randomly selected, and
the hospital clock on the wall served as proof that time sam-
pling took place at regular periods of the day. Together with
Spitz's (1947) film,
Grief:
A
Peril
in
Infancy,
Robertson's first
film helped improve the fate of hospitalized children all over
the Western world, even though it was initially highly contro-
versial among the medical establishment.
When Mary Ainsworth arrived at
Bowlby's
research unit late
in 1950, others working there (besides James Robertson) were
Mary Boston and Dina Rosenbluth. Rudolph Schaffer, whose
subsequent attachment research is well known (SchafFer &
Emerson,
1964),
joined the group somewhat
later,
as
did
Chris-
toph Heinicke (1956; Heinicke & Westheimer, 1966), who un-
dertook additional separation and reunion studies, and Tony
Ambrose (1961), who was interested in early social behavior.
Mary Ainsworth, who was charged with analyzing James Rob-
ertson's data, was tremendously impressed with his records of
children's behavior and decided that she would emulate his
methods of naturalistic observation
were she
ever to undertake
a study of her own (Ainsworth, 1983).
At this
time,
Bowlby's earlier writings about the familial
expe-
riences of affectionless children had led Ronald Hargreaves of
the World Health Organization (WHO) to commission him to
write a report on the mental health of homeless children in
postwar Europe. Preparation of the WHO report gave Bowlby
an opportunity to pick the brains of many practitioners and
researchers across Europe and the United
States who
were con-
cerned with the effects of maternal separation and deprivation
on young children, including Spitz (1946) and Goldfarb
(1943,
1945).
The report was written in 6 months and translated into
14
languages, with
sales
of 400,000 copies in the English paper-
back edition; it was published in 1951 as
Maternal Care
and
Mental
Health
by the WHO. A second edition, entitled Child
Care
and the
Growth
of Love, with review chapters by Mary
Ainsworth, was published by Penguin Books in 1965.
It is interesting to examine the
1951
report from today's per-
spective. At that time Bowlby still used the terminology of tra-
ditional psychoanalysis (love object, libidinal ties, ego, and su-
perego), but his ideas were little short of heretical. Perhaps fol-
lowing
Spitz,
he used embryology
as
a metaphor to portray the
maternal role in child development:
If growth
is
to proceed
smoothly,
the tissues must
be
exposed to
the influence of
the
appropriate organizer at certain critical pe-
riods. In the same way, if mental development is to proceed
smoothly,
it would appear
to be necessary
for the undifferentiated
psyche to
be
exposed during certain critical periods to the influ-
ence of the
psychic
organizer—the mother.
(Bowlby,
1951,
p.
53)
Then, seemingly doing
away
with the idea that
the
superego has
its origin in the resolution of the Oedipus complex, Bowlby
claims that during the early years, while the child acquires the
capacity for self-regulation, the mother is a child's ego and su-
perego:
It
is
not surprising that during infancy and
early
childhood these
functions are either not operating at all
or are doing so
most im-
perfectly. During this phase of
life,
the child
is
therefore depen-
dent
on
his mother performing them for
him.
She orients
him in
space and time, provides his environment, permits the satisfac-
tion of some impulses, restricts others. She is his ego and his
super-ego.
Gradually
he learns these arts
himself,
and as he
does,
the skilled parent transfers
the roles
to
him.
This is a
slow,
subtle
and continuous process, beginning when he
first
learns to walk
and feed
himself,
and not ending completely until maturity is
reached.. . .
Ego
and super-ego development are thus inextric-
ably bound up with the child's primary human relationships.
(Bowlby,
1951,
p.
53)
This sounds more Vygotskian than Freudian. Moreover, de-
spite his disagreements with Kleinian therapy, I detect rem-
nants of Kleinian ideas in Bowlby's discussions of children's
violent fantasies on returning
to
parents after a prolonged sepa-
ration and "the intense depression that humans experience
as
a
result of hating the person they most dearly love and need"
(Bowlby,
1951,
p. 57).
Bowlby's
major conclusion, grounded in the available empiri-
cal evidence, was that to grow up mentally healthy "the infant
and young child should experience a warm, intimate, and con-
tinuous relationship with his mother (or permanent mother
substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment"
(Bowlby,
1951,
p.
13).
Later summaries often overlook the refer-
ence to the substitute mother and
to
the partners' mutual enjoy-
ment. They also neglect
Bowlby's
emphasis on the
role
of social
networks and on economic
as well as
health factors in the devel-
opment of well-functioning mother-child relationships. His

762INGE BRETHERTON
call to society to provide support for parents
is
still not heeded
today:
Just as children are absolutely dependent
on
their parents for suste-
nance,
so in
all but
the
most primitive
communities,
are
parents,
especially their
mothers,
dependent on a greater society for eco-
nomic
provision.
If
a
community
values its
children it must cher-
ish their
parents.
(Bowlby,
1951,
p.
84)
True to the era in which the WHO report was written, Bowlby
emphasized
the
female
parent.
In infancy,
he
comments,
fathers
have their uses, but normally play second fiddle to mother.
Their prime role
is
to provide emotional support to their
wives'
mothering.
The proposition that, to thrive emotionally, children need a
close and continuous caregiving relationship called for a theo-
retical explanation. Bowlby was not satisfied with the then
current psychoanalytic view that love of mother derives from
sensuous oral gratification, nor did he agree with social learn-
ing theory's claim that dependency
is
based on secondary rein-
forcement (a concept that was itself derived from psychoana-
lytic ideas). Like Spitz (1946) and Erikson (1950), Bowlby had
latched on to the concept of critical periods in embryological
development and was casting about for similar phenomena at
the behavioral level when, through a friend, he happened upon
an English translation of Konrad Lorenz's (1935) paper on im-
printing.
From then on Bowlby began to mine ethology for useful new
concepts. Lorenz's (1935) account of imprinting in geese and
other precocial birds especially intrigued him, because it sug-
gested that social bond formation need not be tied to feeding.
In addition, he favored ethological methods of observing ani-
mals in their natural environment, because this approach was
so compatible with the methods Robertson had already devel-
oped at the Tavistock research unit.
One notable talent that stood Bowlby in great stead through-
out his professional life was his ability to draw to himself out-
standing individuals who were willing and able to help him
acquire expertise in new fields of inquiry that he needed to
master in the service of theory building. To learn more about
ethology, Bowlby contacted Robert
Hinde,
under
whose
"gener-
ous
and stern guidance"
(see
Bowlby,
1980b,
p.
650) he
mastered
ethological principles to help him find new ways of thinking
about infant-mother attachment. Conversely, Hinde's fascinat-
ing studies of individual differences in separation and reunion
behaviors of group-living rhesus mother-infant
dyads
(Hinde
&
Spencer-Booth,
1967) were
inspired by the contact with Bowlby
and his co-workers (Hinde, 1991).
Bowlby's
first
ethological paper appeared in
1953.
Somewhat
surprisingly, however, various empirical papers on the effects
of
separation, published with his own research team at the very
same period, show little trace of Bowlby's new thinking, be-
cause his colleagues were unconvinced that ethology was rele-
vant to the mother-child relationship (Bowlby, personal com-
munication, October 1986). Even Mary Ainsworth, though
much enamored of
ethology,
was somewhat wary of the direc-
tion Bowlby's theorizing had begun to take. It was obvious to
her, she said, that a baby loves his mother because she satisfies
his needs
(Ainsworth,
personal communication, January
1992).
A collaborative paper dating from this period (Bowlby, Ains-
worth, Boston,
&
Rosenbluth, 1956) is nevertheless important,
because it prefigures later work on patterns of attachment by
Ainsworth. Her contribution to the paper was a system for
classifying three basic relationship patterns in school-age chil-
dren who had been reunited with parents after prolonged sana-
torium stays: those with strong positive feelings toward their
mothers; those with markedly ambivalent relationships; and a
third group with nonexpressive, indifferent, or hostile relation-
ships with mother.
The Formulation of Attachment Theory
and the First Attachment Study
Theoretical Formulations
Bowlby's first formal statement of attachment theory, build-
ing on concepts from ethology and developmental psychology,
was presented to the British Psychoanalytic Society in London
in three now classic papers: "The Nature of the Child's Tie to
His Mother" (1958), "Separation Anxiety" (1959), and "Grief
and Mourning in Infancy and Early Childhood" (1960). By
1962 Bowlby had completed two further papers (never pub-
lished; 1962a and b) on defensive processes related to mourn-
ing. These five papers represent the first basic blueprint of at-
tachment theory.
The
Nature
of the
Child's
Tie
to
His
Mother.
This paper re-
views and then rejects those contemporary psychoanalytic ex-
planations for the child's libidinal tie to the mother in which
need satisfaction is seen as primary and attachment as second-
ary or derived. Borrowing from Freud's (1905/1953) notion that
mature human sexuality is built up of component instincts,
Bowlby proposed that 12-month-olds' unmistakable attach-
ment behavior is made up of a number of component instinc-
tual responses that have the function of binding the infant to
the mother and the mother to the infant. These component
responses (among them sucking, clinging, and following, as
well as the signaling behaviors of smiling and crying) mature
relatively independently during the
first
year of life and become
increasingly integrated and focused on a mother figure during
the second 6 months. Bowlby saw clinging and following as
possibly more important for attachment than sucking and
crying.
To buttress
his
arguments,
Bowlby reviewed data from exist-
ing empirical studies of infants' cognitive and social develop-
ment, including those of Piaget (1951,1954), with whose ideas
he had become acquainted during a series of meetings by the
"Psychobiology of the Child" study group, organized by the
same Ronald Hargreaves at the World Health Organization who
had commissioned Bowlby's 1951 report. These informative
meetings,
also
attended
by
Erik Erikson, Julian
Huxley,
Baerbel
Inhelder, Konrad Lorenz, Margaret Mead, and Ludwig von
Bertalanfly, took place between 1953 and 1956 (proceedings
were published by Tavistock Publications). For additional evi-
dence, Bowlby drew on many years of experience as weekly
facilitator of a support group for young mothers in London.
After his careful discussion of infant development, Bowlby
introduced ethological concepts, such as sign stimuli or social
releasers that "cause" specific responses to be activated and
shut off or terminated (see Tinbergen, 1951). These stimuli

APA CENTENNIAL: ORIGINS
OF
ATTACHMENT THEORY763
could
be
external
or
intrapsychic, an important point in
view of
the fact that some psychoanalysts accused Bowlby of behavior-
ism because
he
supposedly ignored mental phenomena.
Bowlby also took great pains
to
draw
a
clear distinction
be-
tween
the old
social learning theory concept
of
dependency
and
the
new concept
of
attachment, noting that attachment
is
not indicative
of
regression,
but
rather performs
a
natural,
healthy function even
in
adult life.
Bowlby's new instinct theory raised quite a storm
at
the Brit-
ish Psychoanalytic Society. Even Bowlby's
own
analyst, Joan
Riviere, protested. Anna Freud,
who
missed
the
meeting
but
read
the
paper, politely wrote:
"Dr.
Bowlby
is too
valuable
a
person
to get
lost
to
psychoanalysis" (Grosskurth, 1987).
Separation Anxiety.
The
second seminal paper (Bowlby,
1959) builds
on
observations
by
Robertson (1953b)
and
Hein-
icke
(1956;
later elaborated
as
Heinicke
&
Westheimer,
1966),
as
well as
on
Harlow
and
Zimmermann's (1958) groundbreaking
work on the effects of maternal deprivation
in
rhesus monkeys.
Traditional theory, Bowlby claims,
can
explain neither
the in-
tense attachment
of
infants
and
young children
to a
mother
figure nor their dramatic responses
to
separation.
Robertson (Robertson & Bowlby, 1952)
had
identified three
phases
of
separation response: protest (related
to
separation
anxiety), despair (related
to
grief and mourning), and denial
or
detachment (related
to
defence mechanisms, especially repres-
sion).
Again drawing on ethological concepts regarding the con-
trol
of
behavior, Bowlby maintained that infants
and
children
experience separation anxiety when
a
situation activates both
escape and attachment behavior but an attachment
figure
is
not
available.
The following quote explains,
in
part, why some psychoana-
lytic colleagues called Bowlby
a
behaviorist:
"for
to have a deep
attachment
for a
person
(or a
place
or
thing)
is to
have taken
them
as the
terminating object
of our
instinctual responses"
(Bowlby,
1959,
p.
13).
The oddity of
this
statement derives from
mixing,
in the
same sentence, experiential language (to have
a
deep attachment) with explanatory language representing
an
external observer's point
of
view (the attachment figure
as the
terminating object).
In this paper Bowlby also took issue with Freud's claim that
maternal overgratification
is a
danger
in
infancy. Freud failed
to
realize,
says
Bowlby,
that maternal pseudoaffection and over-
protection
may
derive from
a
mother's overcompensation
for
unconscious hostility.
In
Bowlby's view, excessive separation
anxiety
is
due
to
adverse family experiences—such as repeated
threats
of
abandonment
or
rejection
by
parents—or
to a par-
ent's
or
sibling's
illness or death for
which
the child feels respon-
sible.
Bowlby also pointed out that, in some
cases,
separation anxi-
ety
can be
excessively
low or be
altogether absent, giving
an
erroneous impression
of
maturity.
He
attributes pseudoinde-
pendence under these conditions
to
defensive processes.
A
well-loved child, he claims, is quite likely
to
protest separation
from parents
but
will later develop more self-reliance. These
ideas later reemerged
in
Ainsworth's classifications of ambiva-
lent, avoidant,
and
secure patterns
of
infant-mother attach-
ment (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).
Grief and
Mourning in Infancy
and
Early
Childhood.
In the
third, most controversial paper, Bowlby (1960) questioned
Anna Freud's contention that bereaved infants cannot mourn
because
of
insufficient
ego
development
and
therefore experi-
ence nothing more than brief bouts of separation anxiety if an
adequate substitute caregiver
is
available.
In
contrast, Bowlby
(citing
Marris,
1958)
claimed that grief and mourning processes
in children
and
adults appear whenever attachment behaviors
are activated
but
the attachment
figure
continues to be unavail-
able.
He also suggested that
an
inability
to
form deep relation-
ships with others may result when
the
succession of substitutes
is too frequent.
As
with the
first
paper, this paper
also
drew strong objections
from many members of the British Psychoanalytic
Society.
One
analyst
is
said
to
have exclaimed: "Bowlby? Give me Barrabas"
(Grosskurth, 1987). Controversy also accompanied
the pub-
lished version
of
this
paper
in the
Psychoanalytic
Study of the
Child.
Unbeknownst
to
Bowlby, rejoinders
had
been invited
from Anna Freud (1960),
Max
Schur (1960),
and
Rene Spitz
(1960),
all
of whom protested various aspects of Bowlby's revi-
sion
of
Freudian theory. Spitz (1960) ended
his
rejoinder
by
saying:
When submitting new theories we should not violate the
principle
of parsimony
in science by
offering
hypotheses which
in contrast
to existing theory
becloud
the
observational
facts,
are
oversimpli-
fied, and make
no
contribution
to the
better understanding
of
observed phenomena,
(p.
93)
Despite this concerted attack, Bowlby remained
a
member
of
the British Psychoanalytic Society
for the
rest
of his
life,
al-
though
he
never again used
it as a
forum
for
discussing
his
ideas.
At a
meeting
of
the society
in
memory
of
John Bowlby,
Eric Rayner (1991) expressed
his
regret
at
this turn of events:
What seems wrong is when a
theorist
extols his own view by
rub-
bishing others; Bowlby
received
this treatment..
.
.Ourtherapeu-
tic frame
of
mind is altered by theory. John Bowlby was
a
great
alterer of frames of mind.
Bowlby's controversial paper
on
mourning attracted
the at-
tention
of
Colin Parkes,
now
well known
for his
research
on
adult bereavement. Parkes
saw the
relevance
of
Bowlby's
and
Robertson's work
on
mourning
in
infancy
and
childhood
for
gaining insight into
the
process
of
adult
grief. On
joining
Bowlby's
research unit
at
the Tavistock Institute in
1962,
Parkes
set
out to
study
a
nonclinic group of widows
in
their homes
to
chart
the
course
of
normal adult
grief,
about which little
was
known
at the
time.
The
findings
led to a
joint paper with
Bowlby (Bowlby
&
Parkes,
1970)
in
which the phases of separa-
tion response delineated by Robertson
for
young
children were
elaborated into four phases of grief during adult life:
(a)
numb-
ness,
(b) yearning
and
protest, (c) disorganization
and
despair,
and (d) reorganization (see also Parkes, 1972).
Before
the
publication of the 1970 paper, Parkes
had
visited
Elizabeth Kubler-Ross
in
Chicago,
who was
then gathering
data
for her
influential book On Death
and
Dying
(1970).
The
phases of dying described
in her
book (denial, anger, bargain-
ing, depression,
and
acceptance)
owe
much
to
Bowlby's
and
Robertson's thinking. Bowlby also introduced Parkes
to the
founder
of the
modern hospice movement, Cicely Saunders.
Saunders
and
Parkes used attachment theory
and
research
in
developing programs
for the
emotional care
of
the
dying
and

764INGE BRETHERTON
bereaved. What they found particularly helpful in countering
negative attitudes to the dying and bereaved was the concept of
grief as a process toward attaining a new identity rather than as
a state (Parkes, personal communication, November 1989).
The First Empirical Study of Attachment:
Infancy in Uganda
Let us now return to Mary Ainsworth's work. In late 1953,
she had left the Tavistock Clinic, obviously quite familiar with
Bowlby's
thinking about ethology but not convinced of
its
value
for understanding infant-mother attachment. The Ainsworths
were headed for Uganda, where Leonard Ainsworth had ob-
tained a position at the East African Institute of Social Re-
search at Kampala. With help from the same institute, Mary
Ainsworth was able to scrape together funds for an observa-
tional
study,
but not before writing Bowlby a letter in which she
called for empirical validation of his ethological notions
(Ains-
worth, January
1992,
personal communication).
Inspired by her analyses of Robertson's data, Ainsworth had
initially planned an investigation of toddlers' separation re-
sponses during weaning, but it soon became obvious that the
old tradition of sending the child away "to forget the breast"
had broken down. She therefore decided to switch gears and
observe the development of infant-mother attachment.
As soon as she began her data collection, Ainsworth was
struck by the pertinence of Bowlby's ideas. Hence, the first
study of infant-mother attachment from an ethological per-
spective
was
undertaken several years before the publication of
the three seminal papers in which Bowlby (1958,1959,1960)
laid out attachment theory.
Ainsworth recruited 26 families with unweaned babies (ages
1
-24 months) whom she observed every
2
weeks for
2
hours per
visit over a period of up to
9
months.
Visits
(with an interpreter)
took place in the family living-room,
where
Ganda women
gen-
erally entertain in the afternoon. Ainsworth was particularly
interested in determining the onset of proximity-promoting
sig-
nals and behaviors, noting carefully when these signals and be-
haviors became preferentially directed toward the mother.
On leaving Uganda in
1955,
the Ainsworths moved to Balti-
more, where Mary Ainsworth began work as a diagnostician
and part-time clinician at
the
Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Hospi-
tal,
further consolidating her already considerable assessment
skills.
At the same time, she taught clinical and developmental
courses at the Johns Hopkins
University,
where
she was
initially
hired as a lecturer. Because of her involvement in diagnostic
work and teaching, the data from the Ganda project lay fallow
for several years.
Refining Attachment Theory and Research:
Bowlby and Ainsworth
Before the publication of "The Nature of the Child's Tie to
His Mother" in 1958, Mary Ainsworth received a preprint of
the paper from John Bowlby. This event led Bowlby and Ains-
worth to renew their close intellectual collaboration. Ains-
worth's subsequent analysis of data from her Ganda project
(Ainsworth 1963, 1967) influenced and was influenced by
Bowlby's reformulation of attachment theory (published in
1969).
In this sharing of
ideas,
Ainsworth's theoretical contribu-
tion to Bowlby's presentation of the ontogeny of human attach-
ment cannot be overestimated.
Findings From Ainsworth's Ganda Project
The Ganda data (Ainsworth, 1963,1967) were a rich source
for the study of individual differences in the quality of mother-
infant interaction, the topic that Bowlby had earlier left
aside as
too difficult to study. Of special note, in light of Ainsworth's
future work, was an evaluation of maternal sensitivity to infant
signals, derived from interview data. Mothers who were excel-
lent informants and who provided much spontaneous detail
were rated as highly
sensitive,
in contrast to other mothers who
seemed imperceptive of the nuances of infant behavior. Three
infant attachment patterns were observed: Securely attached
infants cried little and seemed content to explore in the pres-
ence of mother; insecurely attached infants cried frequently,
even when held by their mothers, and explored little; and not-
yet attached infants manifested no differential behavior to the
mother.
It turned out that secure attachment was significantly corre-
lated with maternal sensitivity. Babies of sensitive mothers
tended to be securely attached, whereas babies of less sensitive
mothers were more likely to be classified as insecure. Mothers'
enjoyment of breast-feeding
also
correlated with infant security.
These findings foreshadow some of Ainsworth's later work, al-
though the measures are not yet
as
sophisticated
as
those devel-
oped for subsequent studies.
Ainsworth presented her initial findings from the Ganda
project at meetings of the Tavistock Study Group organized by
Bowlby during the 1960s (Ainsworth, 1963). Participants in-
vited to these influential gatherings included many now-emi-
nent infant researchers of diverse theoretical backgrounds (in
addition to Mary Ainsworth, there were Genevieve Appell,
Miriam David, Jacob Gewirtz, Hanus Papousek, Heinz
Prechtl, Harriet Rheingold, Henry Ricciuti, Louis Sander, and
Peter Wolff), as well as renowned animal researchers such as
Harry Harlow, Robert Hinde, Charles Kaufmann, Jay Rosen-
blatt, and Thelma
Rowell.
Their lively discussions and ensuing
studies contributed much to the developing field of infant so-
cial development in general. Importantly for
Bowlby,
they also
enriched his ongoing elaboration of attachment
theory.
Bowlby
had always believed that he had much to gain from bringing
together researchers with different theoretical backgrounds
(e.g.,
learning
theory,
psychoanalysis, and
ethology),
whether or
not they agreed with his theoretical position. Proceedings of
these fruitful meetings were published in four volumes entitled
Determinants
of Infant
Behaviour
(1961,1963,1965, and 1969,
edited by Brian Foss).
The Baltimore Project
In
1963,
while
still pondering the data from the Ganda study,
Mary Ainsworth embarked on a second observational project
whose thoroughness no researcher has since equalled. Again,
she opted for naturalistic observations, but with interviews
playing a somewhat lesser
role.
The 26 participating Baltimore
families were recruited prenatally, with 18 home visits begin-

APA CENTENNIAL: ORIGINS OF ATTACHMENT THEORY765
ning in the
first
month and ending
at 54
weeks.
Each visit lasted
4 hours to make sure that mothers would feel comfortable
enough to follow their normal routine, resulting in approxi-
mately 72 hours of data collection per family.
Raw data took the form of narrative reports, jotted down in
personal shorthand, marked in 5-minute intervals, and later
dictated into
a
tape recorder for transcription. Typed narratives
from all visits for each quarter of the first year of life were
grouped together for purposes of analysis.
A unique (at the time) aspect of Ainsworttis methodology
was the emphasis on meaningful behavioral patterns in con-
text, rather than on frequency
counts
of specific
behaviors.
This
approach had roots in her dissertation work, in which she clas-
sified patterns of familial and extrafamilial dependent and
inde-
pendent security, in her expertise with the Rorschach test, and
in her work at the Tavistock Institute with Bowlby and Rob-
ertson.
Close examination of
the
narratives revealed the emergence
of characteristic mother-infant interaction patterns during the
first 3 months (see Ainsworth et al., 1978; see also Ainsworth,
1982,1983).
Separate analyses
were
conducted on feeding situa-
tions (Ainsworth & Bell, 1969), mother-infant face-to-face in-
teraction (Blehar, Liebermann, & Ainsworth, 1977), crying
(Bell & Ainsworth, 1972), infant greeting and following (Stay-
ton & Ainsworth, 1973), the attachment exploration balance
(Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton,
1971),
obedience
(Stayton,
Hogan,
& Ainsworth,
1973),
close bodily contact
(Ainsworth,
Bell, Ble-
har, & Main, 1971), approach behavior (Tracy, Lamb, & Ains-
worth, 1976), and affectionate contact (Tracy & Ainsworth,
1981).
Striking individual differences were observed in how sensi-
tively, appropriately, and promptly mothers responded to their
infants' signals. For some mother-infant pairs, feeding was an
occasion for smooth cooperation. Other mothers had difficul-
ties in adjusting their pacing and behavior
to
the
baby's
cues.
In
response their babies tended to struggle, choke, and spit up,
hardly the sensuous oral experience Freud had had in mind.
Similar distinctive patterns
were
observed in face-to-face inter-
actions between mother and infant during the period from
6
to
15 weeks (Blehar, Lieberman, & Ainsworth, 1977). When
mothers meshed their own playful behavior with that of their
babies, infants responded with joyful bouncing, smiling, and
vocalizing. However, when mothers initiated fact-to-face inter-
actions silently and with an unsmiling expression, ensuing in-
teractions were muted and
brief.
Findings on close bodily con-
tact resembled those on feeding and fact-to-face interaction, as
did those on crying. There were enormous variations in how
many crying episodes a mother ignored and how long she let
the baby cry. In countering those who argued that maternal
responsiveness might lead to "spoiling," Bell and Ainsworth
(1972) conclude that "an infant whose mother's responsiveness
helps him to achieve his ends develops confidence in his own
ability to control what happens to him"
(p.
1188).
Maternal sensitivity in the first quarter was associated with
more harmonious mother-infant relationships in the fourth
quarter. Babies whose mothers had been highly responsive to
crying during the early months now tended to cry less, relying
for communication on facial expressions, gestures, and vocali-
zations (Bell & Ainsworth, 1972). Similarly, infants whose
mother had provided much tender holding during the first
quarter sought contact less often during the fourth quarter, but
when contact occurred
it was
rated
as
more satisfying and affec-
tionate (Ainsworth, Bell, Blehar, & Main, 1971). Ainsworth
(Ainsworth et al., 1978) explains these findings by recourse to
infants'
expectations,
based on prior satisfying or rejecting
expe-
riences with mother.
All first-quarter interactive patterns were also related to in-
fant behavior in a laboratory procedure known as the Strange
Situation (Ainsworth
&
Wittig,
1969).
This
initially
very
contro-
versial laboratory procedure for
1-year-olds
was originally de-
signed to examine the balance of attachment and exploratory
behaviors under conditions of
low
and high stress, a topic in
which Harlow (1961) had aroused Ainsworth's interest during
meetings of the Tavistock
group,
but which also reminded her
of an earlier study by Arsenian (1943) on young children in an
insecure situation and of her dissertation work on security
theory.
The Strange Situation is a 20-minute miniature drama with
eight episodes. Mother and infant are introduced to a labora-
tory play room where they are later joined by an unfamiliar
woman. While the stranger plays with the baby, the mother
leaves briefly and then returns. A second separation ensues
during which the baby
is
completely
alone.
Finally, the stranger
and then the mother return.
As expected, Ainsworth found that infants explored the
playroom and toys more vigorously in the presence of their
mothers than after a stranger entered or while the mother was
absent (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970). Although these results were
theoretically interesting, Ainsworth became much more in-
trigued with unexpected patterns of infant reunion behaviors,
which reminded her of responses Robertson had documented
in children exposed to prolonged separations, and about which
Bowlby (1959) had theorized in his paper on separation.
A few of the
1-year-olds
from the Baltimore study were sur-
prisingly angry when the mother returned after a 3-minute (or
shorter) separation. They cried and wanted contact but would
not simply cuddle or "sink
in"
when picked up
by
the returning
mother. Instead, they showed their ambivalence by kicking or
swiping at her. Another group of children seemed to snub or
avoid the mother on reunion, even though they had often
searched for her while she was gone. Analyses of home data
revealed that those infants who had been ambivalent toward or
avoidant of the mother on reunion in the Strange Situation had
a less harmonious relationship with her at home than those (a
majority) who sought proximity, interaction, or contact on re-
union (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974). Thus originated the
well-known Strange Situation classification system (Ainsworth
et
al.,
1978) which, to Ainsworth's chagrin, has stolen the lime-
light from her observational
findings
of naturalistic mother-in-
fant interaction patterns at home.
The
First Volume in
the Attachment
Trilogy:
Attachment and
Ethology
While Ainsworth wrote up the findings from her Ganda
study for
Infancy in Uganda
(1967) and was engaged in collect-
ing data for the Baltimore project, Bowlby worked on the first
volume of the attachment trilogy,
Attachment
(1969).
When he

766INGE BRETHERTON
began this enterprise in 1962, the plan had been for a single
book. However, as he explains in the preface: "As my study of
theory progressed it was gradually borne in upon me that the
field I had set out to plough so light-heartedly was no less than
the one Freud had started tilling sixty years earlier." In short,
Bowlby realized that he had to develop
a
new theory of motiva-
tion and behavior control, built on up-to-date science rather
than the outdated psychic energy model espoused by Freud.
In the first half of
Attachment,
Bowlby lays the groundwork
for such a theory, taking pains to document each important
statement with available research
findings.
He begins
by
noting
that organisms at different
levels
of the phylogenetic scale regu-
late instinctive behavior in distinct ways, ranging from primi-
tive reflexlike "fixed action patterns" to complex plan hierar-
chies
with subgoals. In the most complex organisms, instinctive
behaviors may be "goal-corrected" with continual on-course
adjustments (such as a bird of prey adjusting its flight to the
movements of the prey). The concept of cybernetically con-
trolled behavioral systems organized as plan hierarchies
(Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1960) thus came to replace
Freud's concept of drive and instinct. Behaviors regulated by
such systems need not be
rigidly
innate, but—depending on the
organism—can adapt in greater or lesser degrees to changes in
environmental circumstances, provided these do not deviate
too much from the organism's environment of evolutionary
adaptedness. Such
flexible
organisms pay a price, however, be-
cause adaptable behavioral systems can more easily be sub-
verted from their optimal path of development. For humans,
Bowlby speculates, the environment of evolutionary adapted-
ness probably resembles that of present-day hunter-gatherer
societies.
The ultimate functions of behavioral systems controlling at-
tachment, parenting, mating, feeding, and exploration are sur-
vival and procreation. In some cases, the predictable outcome
of system activation is a time-limited behavior (such as food
intake), in others it is the time-extended maintenance of an
organism in a particular relation to
its
environment
(e.g.,
within
its own territory or in proximity to particular companions).
Complex behavioral
systems
of the kind proposed
by
Bowlby
can work with foresight in organisms that have evolved an abil-
ity to construct internal working models of the environment
and of their own actions in it
(a
concept taken over from Craik,
1943,
through the writings of the biologist J. Z. Young, 1964).
The more adequate an organism's internal working model, the
more accurately the organism can predict the future. However,
adds
Bowlby,
if working models of the environment and self are
out-of-date or are only half revised after drastic environmental
change, pathological functioning
may
ensue.
He
speculates that
useful model revision, extension, and consistency checking
may require conscious processing of model content. In hu-
mans,
communicative processes—initially limited to emo-
tional or gestural signaling and later including language—also
permit the intersubjective sharing of
model
content. On an in-
trapsychic level, the same processes are useful for self-regula-
tion and behavioral priority setting.
In mammals and birds, behavioral systems tend to become
organized during specific sensitive developmental periods. As
initial reflexlike behavior chains come under more complex,
cybernetically controlled organization, the
range
of stimuli that
can activate them
also
becomes more restricted. This
is the
case
in imprinting, broadly defined as the restriction of specific in-
stinctive behaviors to particular individuals or groups of indi-
viduals during sensitive phases of development as in filial, pa-
rental, and sexual imprinting.
Having laid out this general theory of motivation and behav-
ior regulation in the
first
half of the
volume,
Bowlby
goes
on,
in
the second
half,
to apply these ideas to the specific domain of
infant-mother attachment. He defines attachment behavior as
behavior that
has
proximity
to
an attachment
figure
as a
predict-
able outcome and whose evolutionary function is protection of
the infant from danger, insisting that attachment has its own
motivation and is in no way derived from systems subserving
mating and feeding.
Although human infants initially direct proximity-promot-
ing signals
fairly indiscriminately to all
caregivers,
these behav-
iors become increasingly focused on those primary
figures
who
are responsive to the infant's crying and who engage the infant
in social interaction (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964). Once at-
tached, locomotor infants are able to use the attachment figure
as a
secure base for exploration of the environment and
as a
safe
haven to which to return for reassurance (Ainsworth, 1967;
Schaffer & Emerson, 1964). How effectively the attachment fig-
ure can serve in these roles depends on the quality of social
interaction, especially the attachment
figure's
sensitivity to the
infant's
signals,
although child factors also play a
role.
Building
on Ainsworth's Ganda study (1967) and preliminary findings
from her Baltimore project, Bowlby (1969) comments that
when interaction between a couple runs smoothly, each party
manifests intense pleasure in the other's company and especially
in the other's expression of affection. Conversely, whenever inter-
action results in persistent conflict each party is likely on occa-
sion to exhibit intense anxiety or unhappiness, especially when
the other is rejecting.. . . Proximity and affectionate interchange
are appraised and felt as pleasurable by both, whereas distance
and expressions of rejection are appraised
as
disagreeable or pain-
ful by both. (p. 242)
During the preschool years the attachment behavioral sys-
tem, always complementary to the parental caregiving system,
undergoes further reorganization as the child attains growing
insight into the attachment
figure's
motives and plans. Bowlby
refers to this stage as
goal-corrected
partnership.
However, in
emphasizing infant initiative and sensitive maternal respond-
ing, Bowlby's (1951) earlier theorizing on the mother as the
child's ego and superego was regrettably lost.
Consolidation
The publication of
the
first volume of the attachment trilogy
in 1969 coincided with the appearance in print of initial find-
ings from Ainsworth's Baltimore project (reviewed earlier).
However, many investigators strongly contested Ainsworth's
claims regarding the meaning of Strange Situation behavior,
often
because they
failed
to
note
that Strange
Situation classifi-
cations had been validated against extensive home observa-
tions.
Some interpreted avoidant infants' behavior
as
indepen-
dence. The controversy lesseaed somewhat after the publica-
tion of
Patterns
of Attachment (Ainsworth et al., 1978), which
drew together the results from the Baltimore project and pre-

APA CENTENNIAL: ORIGINS OF ATTACHMENT THEORY767
sented findings from other laboratories on the sequelae of at-
tachment classifications in toddlerhood and early childhood
(e.g., Main,
1973;
Matas, Arend,
&
Sroufe, 1978).
During this period, many of Ainsworth's graduate students
began to publish their own work. Silvia Bell (1970) examined
the relationship between object permanence and attachment.
Mary Main
(1973)
studied
secure
and insecure toddlers' capac-
ity to become invested in play activities and problem solving.
Mary Blehar (1974) undertook the first study of attachment
and nonmaternal care, and Alicia Lieberman (1977) investi-
gated attachment and peer relationships in preschoolers. Mary
Ainsworth's influence is also evident in the fact that many
Johns Hopkins undergraduate students who had helped with
the analysis of data from the Baltimore project later produced
innovative dissertations on attachment-related topics at their
respective graduate institutions, among them Robert Marvin
(1972,1977),
who wrote on
the goal-corrected
partnership;
Mil-
ton Kotelchuck (1972), who studied father attachment; Mark
Cummings (1980), who investigated attachment and day care;
Mark Greenberg (Greenberg & Marvin, 1979), who examined
attachment in deaf children; and Everett Waters (1978), who
documented the longitudinal stability of attachment patterns
from
12
to
18
months.
Everett
Waters's
entry into graduate study at the University
of
Minnesota in 1973 had a profound effect on Alan Sroufe, who
had read Mary Ainsworth's (1968) theoretical article about ob-
ject relations and dependency but had not heard of the Strange
Situation or the Baltimore project (Sroufe, personal communi-
cation, 1988). Sroufe's contact with Waters led to significant
empirical and theoretical collaborations. In 1977, Sroufe and
Waters wrote an influential paper that made attachment as an
organizational construct accessible to a much larger audience.
At the same time, Sroufe and Egeland, together with many of
their students, undertook a large-scale longitudinal study of
attachment with an at-risk population (disadvantaged mothers).
The Minnesota study, summarized in Sroufe (1983) but still
ongoing, stands as the second major longitudinal study of the
relationship between quality of caregiving
as
related to security
of attachment.
Elsewhere across the United States, much time was spent
testing the predictive validity of Strange Situation reunion
clas-
sifications. Many researchers sought to train with Mary Ains-
worth or her former students
to
learn the procedure and classifi-
cation system. Hundreds of studies using the Strange Situation
appeared in print. It often seemed as if attachment and the
Strange Situation had become synonymous.
Attachment Theory and Mental Representation
Separation
(Bowlby, 1973) and Loss
(Bowlby,
1980a),
the sec-
ond and third volumes in Bowlby's attachment trilogy, were
slower to
make
an impact on
the
field
of developmental psychol-
ogy than the first volume, in part because relevant empirical
studies lagged behind. Like Attachment, these two volumes
cover much more theoretical ground that their titles imply.
Separation
In this book, Bowlby (1973) revises Freud's (1926/1959)
theory of signal anxiety, lays out a new approach to Freud's
(1923/1961,1940/1964) motivational theories, and presents an
epigenetic model of personality development inspired by Wad-
dington's (1957) theory of developmental pathways.
Elaborating on his seminal 1959 paper, Bowlby notes that
two
distinct
sets
of stimuli elicit fear in
children:
the
presence of
unlearned and later of culturally acquired clues to danger and/
or the
absence
of an attachment figure. Although escape from
danger and escape to an attachment figure commonly occur
together, the two classes of behavior are governed by separate
control systems (observable when a ferocious dog comes be-
tween a mother and her young child).
Although Bowlby regarded the systems controlling escape
and attachment as conceptually distinct, he considers both as
members of a larger family of stress-reducing and safety-pro-
moting behavioral
systems,
whose more general function
is
that
of maintaining an organism within a defined relationship to his
or her environment. Rather than striving for stimulus absence
as Freud had suggested, Bowlby posits that humans are moti-
vated to maintain a dynamic balance between familiarity-pre-
serving, stress-reducing behaviors (attachment to protective in-
dividuals and to familiar home sites, retreat from the strange
and novel) and antithetical exploratory and information-seek-
ing behaviors.
After revising Freud's theories of fear and motivation,
Bowlby reexamined Freud's concept of the "inner world" in
light of modern cognitive theory. In
Separation,
he expands
ideas proposed in Attachment by suggesting that, within an
individual's internal working model of the
world,
working mod-
els of self and attachment figure are especially salient. These
working models, acquired through interpersonal interaction
patterns, are complementary. If the attachment figure has ac-
knowledged the infant's needs for comfort and protection while
simultaneously respecting the infant's need for independent
ex-
ploration of
the
environment, the child is likely to develop an
internal working model of self as valued and self-reliant. Con-
versely, if the parent has frequently rejected the infant's bids for
comfort or for exploration, the child is likely to construct an
internal working model of self as unworthy or incompetent.
With the aid of working models, children predict the attach-
ment figure's likely behavior and plan their own responses.
What type of model they construct is therefore of great conse-
quence.
In
Separation,
Bowlby also elucidates the role of internal
working models in the intergenerational transmission of at-
tachment patterns. Individuals who grow up to become rela-
tively stable and self-reliant, he postulates, normally have par-
ents who are supportive when called upon, but
who also
permit
and encourage autonomy. Such parents tend not only to engage
in fairly frank communication of their own working models of
self,
of their child, and of others, but also indicate to the child
that these working models are open to questioning and revi-
sion. For this reason, says Bowlby, the inheritance of mental
health and of ill health through family microculture is no less
important, and may well be far more important than is genetic
inheritance (Bowlby,
1973,
p. 323).
Loss
In the third volume of the attachment trilogy, Bowlby (1980a)
uses information processing theories to explain the increasing

768INGE BRETHERTON
stability of internal working models as well as their defensive
distortion. The stability of internal working models derives
from
two
sources:
(a)
patterns of interacting
grow less
accessible
to awareness as they become habitual and automatic, and (b)
dyadic patterns of relating are more resistant to change than
individual patterns because of reciprocal expectancies.
Given that old patterns of action and thought guide selective
attention and information processing in new situations, some
distortion of incoming information
is
normal and unavoidable.
The adequacy of internal working models can be seriously un-
dermined, however, when defensive exclusion of information
from awareness interferes with their updating in response to
developmental and environmental change.
To explain the workings of defensive processes, Bowlby cites
evidence showing that incoming information normally under-
goes many stages of processing before reaching awareness (see
Dixon,
1971;
Erdelyi,
1974).
At every
stage,
some information is
retained for further processing, and the remainder discarded.
That this may happen even after information has already un-
dergone very advanced levels of encoding is shown by dichotic
listening studies. In these studies, individuals who are pre-
sented with different messages to each ear through headphones
are able to selectively attend to one of them. That the unat-
tended message is nevertheless receiving high-level processing
becomes obvious when the person alerts to a word of personal
significance
(e.g.,
the person's name) that has been inserted into
the unattended message.
Bowlby proposes that defensive exclusion of information
from awareness derives from the same processes as
selective
exclusion, although the motivation for the two types of
exclu-
sion differs. Three situations are believed to render children
particularly prone
to
engaging in defensive
exclusion:
situations
that parents do not wish their children to know about even
though the children have witnessed them, situations in which
the children find the parents' behavior too unbearable to think
about, and situations in which children have done or thought
about doing something of
which
they are deeply ashamed.
Although defensive exclusion protects the individual from
experiencing unbearable mental pain, confusion, or conflict, it
is
bound to interfere with the accommodation of internal work-
ing models
to
external
reality.
Indeed,
a
number of clinical stud-
ies reviewed in
Separation
(e.g.,
Cain
&
Fast, 1972) suggest that
defensive exclusion leads to a split in internal working models.
One set of working models—accessible to awareness and dis-
cussion and based on what a child has been told—represents
the parent
as
good and the parent's rejecting behavior
as
caused
by the "badness" of the child. The other model, based on what
the child has experienced but defensively excluded from aware-
ness,
represents the hated or disappointing side of the parent.
In Loss, Bowlby attempts to shed further light on these re-
pressive and dissociative phenomena with the aid of Tulving's
(1972)
distinction between episodic and semantic memory. Ac-
cording to Tulving, autobiographical experience is encoded in
episodic memory, whereas generic propositions are stored in
semantic memory, with each memory system possibly using
distinct storage mechanisms. Generic knowledge may derive
from information supplied by others and from actual experi-
ence.
Bowlby surmises that severe psychic conflict is likely to
arise when the two sources of stored information (generaliza-
tions built on actual experience and on communications from
others) are highly contradictory. In such cases, defensive exclu-
sion may be brought to bear on episodic memories of actual
experience. According to Bowlby, such processes are especially
likely in bereaved children under
3
years of
age.
Finally, in Loss, Bowlby also considers a more complex re-
lated problem, namely, the control of simultaneously active be-
havioral systems. In Attachment and
Separation,
the interplay
of behavioral systems was implicitly treated as one of competi-
tion, not higher level regulation (see also Bretherton & Ains-
worth,
1974).
In
Loss,
Bowlby posits an executive structure that
takes the place of Freud's (1923/1961) concept of
ego.
The cen-
tral nervous system, Bowlby suggests, is organized in a loosely
hierarchical way, with an enormous network of
two-way
com-
munications among
subsystems.
At the top of the hierarchy, he
posits one
or perhaps
several
principal evaluators or controllers,
closely
linked
to
long-term
memory.
Their task is to scan incom-
ing information for
relevance.
If evaluated
as
relevant, it may be
stored in short-term memory to select aspects thereof for fur-
ther processing.
Conscious processing is likely to facilitate high-level activi-
ties such
as
categorizing, retrieving, comparing, framing plans,
and inspection of overlearned, automated action systems. In a
unified personality, Bowlby
claims,
the principal system or
sys-
tems can access all memories in whatever type of storage they
are held. However, in some cases the principal system or sys-
tems may not be unified or capable of unimpeded intercom-
munication with all subsystems. In this
case,
particular behav-
ioral systems may not be activated when appropriate, or signals
from these behavioral systems may not become conscious al-
though fragments of defensively excluded information may at
times seep through.
Some of the dissociative or repressive phenomena involved in
the deactivation of the attachment system occur during patho-
logical mourning. For example, complete or partial disconnec-
tion of an emotional response from
its
cause is frequent. When
the disconnection is only partial, emotional responses may be
directed away from the person who caused them to third per-
sons or to the
self.
Hence, a bereaved person may become mor-
bidly preoccupied with personal reactions and sufferings rather
than attributing
his
or her feelings to the
loss
of
a close
relation-
ship.
Similarly, in disordered mourning, a bereaved person's
disposition toward compulsive caregiving may derive from the
redirection of attachment behavior. The individual may be tak-
ing the role of attachment figure instead of seeking care.
Attachment and
Therapy
This discussion of defensive processes leads into the topic
that preoccupied Bowlby during the last
10 years
of his
life:
the
uses of attachment theory in psychotherapy (Bowlby, 1988).
Under attachment theory, a major goal in psychotherapy is the
reappraisal of inadequate, outdated working models of self in
relation to attachment figures, a particularly difficult task if
important others, especially parents, have forbidden their re-
view. As psychoanalysts have repeatedly noted, a person with
inadequate, rigid working models of attachment relations is
likely to inappropriately impose these models on interactions
with the therapist (a phenomenon known as
transference).
The

APA CENTENNIAL: ORIGINS OF ATTACHMENT THEORY769
joint task of therapist and client is to understand the origins of
the client's dysfunctional internal working models of self and
attachment
figures.
Toward this end, the therapist can be most
helpful by serving
as
a reliable secure base from which an indi-
vidual can begin the arduous task of exploring and reworking
his or her internal working models.
New Directions
Currently, attachment theory and research are moving for-
ward along several major fronts, inspired by the second and
third volumes of Bowlby's attachment trilogy, by methodologi-
cal advances, and by the infusion into attachment theory of
complementary theoretical perspectives.
Attachment and
Representation
As a result of Mary Main's Berkeley study (Main, Kaplan, &
Cassidy, 1985) and, I think, the publication of the Society for
Research in Child Development Monograph,
Growing
Points of
Attachment
Theory
and
Research
(Bretherton
&
Waters,
1985),
we
are now beginning to empirically
explore
the psychological,
internal, or representational aspects of attachment, including
the intergenerational transmission of attachment patterns that
had been at the center of
Bowlby's
interests
since
his beginnings
in psychiatry but that are most clearly elaborated in volumes 2
and 3 of the attachment trilogy (see Bretherton,
1987,
1990,
1991).
Interestingly, an additional
source
of inspiration for
the
study
of internal working models came from attempts to translate
Ainsworth's infant-mother attachment patterns into corre-
sponding adult patterns. In the Adult Attachment Interview
(George, Kaplan, & Main, 1984; Main & Goldwyn, in press),
parents were asked open-ended questions about their attach-
ment relations in childhood and about the influence of these
early relations on their own development. Three distinct pat-
terns of responding were identified:
Autonomous-secure
par-
ents gave a clear and coherent account of early attachments
(whether these had been satisfying or
not);
preoccupied
parents
spoke of many conflicted childhood memories about attach-
ment but did not draw them together into an organized, consis-
tent picture; and,
finally,
dismissing
parents
were
characterized
by an inability to remember much about attachment relations
in childhood. In some of the dismissing interviews, parents'
parents
were
idealized on
a
general
level,
but influences of early
attachment experiences on later development
were
denied.
Spe-
cific memories when they did occur suggested episodes of
re-
jection.
Not only did the Adult Attachment Interview classifications
correspond to Ainsworth's
secure,
ambivalent, and avoidant in-
fant patterns at a conceptual level, but adult patterns were also
empirically correlated with infant patterns (e.g., a dismissing
parent tended to have an avoidant infant; Main
&
Goldwyn, in
press).
These findings have since been validated for prenatally
administered interviews by Fonagy, Steele, and Steele (1991)
and by Ward et al. (1990). Consonant findings were also ob-
tained in a study of young adults in which Adult Attachment
Interview classifications were correlated with peer reports
(Ko-
bak&Sceery,1988).
In addition, representational measures of attachment have
been devised for
use
with children.
A
pictorial separation anxi-
ety test for adolescents, developed by Hansburg (1972), was
adapted for younger children by Klagsbrun and
Bowlby
(1976),
and more recently revised and validated against observed at-
tachment patterns
by
Kaplan
(1984)
and Slough and Greenberg
(1991).
Likewise,
attachment-based doll-story completion tasks
for preschoolers
were
validated against behavioral measures by
Bretherton, Ridgeway, and Cassidy, (1990) and Cassidy (1988).
In these tests, emotionally open responding tended to be asso-
ciated with secure attachment classifications or related behav-
iors.
Finally, several authors have created interviews that examine
attachment from the parental as opposed to the filial perspec-
tive
(e.g,
Bretherton, Biringen, Ridgeway, Maslin,
&
Sherman,
1989;
George
&
Solomon,
1989).
In
addition,
Waters
and Deane
(1985) developed a Q sort that can be used to assess a mother's
internal working models of her child's attachment to her.
Attachment
Across
the Life Span
A related topic, attachment relationships between
adults,
be-
gan in the early 1970s, with studies of adult bereavement
(Bowlby & Parkes, 1970; Parkes, 1972) and marital separation
(Weiss,
1973,1977).
More
recently,
interest in adult attachments
has broadened to encompass marital relationships (Weiss,
1982,
1991) and has taken a further upsurge with work by
Shaver and Hazan (1988), who translated Ainsworth's infant
attachment patterns
into
adult
patterns,
pointing out that adults
who describe themselves as secure, avoidant, or ambivalent
with respect to romantic relationships report differing patterns
of parent-child relationships in their families of origin. Finally,
Cicirelli (1989, 1991) has applied attachment theory to the
study of middle-aged siblings and their elderly parents. Much
future work will be needed to delineate more fully the distinct
qualities of child-adult, child-child, and adult-adult attach-
ment relationships
(see
Ainsworth,
1989),
as well as their inter-
play
within the family system,
a
task begun
by
Byng-Hall (1985)
and Marvin and Stewart (1990).
Attachment and
Developmental Psychopathology
Attachment theory and research are also making a notable
impact on the emerging field of developmental psychopathol-
ogy (Sroufe, 1988), with longitudinal attachment-based studies
of families with depression (Radke-Yarrow, Cummings, Kuc-
zinsky,
&
Chapman, 1985), of families with maltreatment
(e.g.,
Cicchetti & Barnett,
1991;
Crittenden,
1983;
Schneider-Rosen,
Braunwald, Carlson, & Cicchetti, 1985), and of clinical inter-
ventions in families with low social support (Lieberman &
Pawl,
1988;
Spieker
&
Booth,
1988)
and with behavior-problem
children (Greenberg &
Speltz,
1988).
Much of this work
is
repre-
sented in a volume on clinical implications of attachment
(Belsky & Nezworski, 1988). These topics hark back to
Bowlby's seminal ideas from the 1930s, but they have been
greatly enriched by Mary Ainsworth's notions on the origins of
individual differences of attachment patterns.

770INGE BRETHERTON
The
Ecology
of Attachment
Although
we have
made
progress
in examining mother-child
attachment, much work needs to
be
done with respect to study-
ing attachment in the microsystem of the family relationships
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Despite studies by Belsky, Gilstrap,
and Rovine
(1984),
Lamb
(1978),
and Parke and Tinsley (1987)
that show fathers to be competent, if sometimes less than fully
participant attachment figures, we still have much to learn re-
garding father attachment. Another important topic, sibling
attachment, has been tackled by a few researchers
(e.g.,
Stewart
& Marvin, 1984; Teti & Ablard, 1989), but triadic studies of
attachment relationships (modeled on Dunn, 1988) are sorely
lacking. Especially crucial are attachment-theoretic studies of
loyalty conflicts, alliances by a dyad vis-a-vis a third family
member, and enmeshment of a child in the spousal dyad, as
exemplified in a report by Fish, Belsky, and \bungblade (1991)
in which insecure attachment in infancy was associated with
inappropriate involvement in spousal decision making at 4
years of
age.
Finally, the interrelations of child temperament
and developing attachment relationships with other family
members remain conceptually unclear despite intensive re-
search efforts (Belsky & Rovine,
1987;
Sroufe, 1985).
The documentation of family and social network factors as
they affect attachment relations (e.g., Belsky & Isabella, 1988;
Belsky,
Rovine,
&
Taylor,
1984) has
been more successful. In the
Pennsylvania project, attachment quality at the end of the first
year was predictable from relative changes in levels of marital
satisfaction after the child's birth,
as well as
from parental
satis-
faction with social support, not its frequency.
An ecological perspective also calls for an examination of
issues related to dual-worker families, especially in view of the
continued sex-gender differentiation of
parenting.
Some femi-
nist theorists have interpreted attachment theory
as
supporting
the traditional view of women as primary earegivers (Cho-
dorow, 1978; Johnson, 1988). This is not strictly justified, be-
cause attachment theory does not specify that caregiving must
be done by mothers or be restricted to females (Marris, 1982).
Most central to healthy development, according to attachment
theory, is infants' need for a committed caregiving relationship
with one or
a
few adult
figures.
Although the majority of attach-
ment studies
have
focused on mothers because mothers tend to
most often fill this
role,
we
do
have
evidence that infants can be
attached to a hierarchy of
figures,
including fathers, grandpar-
ents,
and siblings (Schaffer
&
Emerson, 1964) as well as to day-
care providers (Howes, Rodning, Galuzzo, & Myers, 1988).
However, our knowledge about the range of societal options for
successfully sharing the task of bringing up children is still
woefully inadequate. The recent spate of studies documenting
an increased risk of insecure attachment if daycare begins in
the first year and is extensive in duration (Belsky & Rovine,
1988;
Belsky &
Braungart,
1991) is
worrisome and needs resolu-
tion. Cross-cultural studies of attachment and nonparental care
in countries such as Sweden or Israel may ultimately provide
more reliable answers.
Cross-Cultural
Studies
Moving from family and other social networks to the larger
societal matrix, studies of Strange Situation classifications in
other cultures have sparked a lively debate on their universal
versus culture-specific meaning. In a North-German study,
avoidant classifications were overrepresented (Grossmann,
Grossmann, Spangler, Suess, & Unzner, 1985), whereas ambi-
valent classifications were more frequent than expected in
Israeli kibbutzim (Sagi et al., 1985) and in Japan (Miyake,
Chen, & Campos, 1985).
Initially, these findings were interpreted in purely cultural
terms.
Thus, Grossmann et al. (1985) proposed that the high
incidence of avoidant infants in Germany should not be attrib-
uted to parental rejection, but rather to a greater parental push
toward infants' independence. Similarly, the high frequency of
ambivalent classifications observed in Israeli kibbutzim and
Japan was attributed to underexposure to strangers (Miyake et
al.,
1985; Sagi et al., 1985). Though persuasive on the surface,
these explanations
were
not based on systematic assessments
of
parental beliefs and culturally guided practices.
More recently, van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) ex-
amined the frequency distributions of
Strange
Situation classifi-
cations from over a thousand U.S. and cross-national studies,
pointing out that valid conclusions about cross-national differ-
ences should not be drawn from single samples. In addition,
intercorrelational patterns of home and Strange Situation be-
havior in North Germany (Grossmann et al., 1985) closely re-
sembled those in the Ainsworth's Baltimore study, at least in
part undermining a purely cultural interpretation. Likewise,
Sagi,
Aviezer, Mayseless, Donnell, and
Joels (1991)
attribute the
abundance of ambivalent classifications to specific night-time
caregiving arrangements in the kibbutzim they studied, rather
than fewer experiences with strangers. Taken in combination,
these findings suggest that Strange Situation classifications,
and hence the concept of parental sensitivity, may have more
cross-cultural validity in industrialized nations than was ini-
tially believed, but the issue is by no means resolved.
Systematic work on the more fascinating topic of how differ-
ent cultures—especially non-Western cultures—fit attachment
behaviors and relationships into their overall social organiza-
tion has barely begun. There are, however, some tantalizing
hints in the ethnographic literature (see Bretherton, 1985, for a
review). For example, the Micronesian society of Tikopia
(Firth, 1936) deliberately fosters attachment between an infant
and its maternal uncle by prescribing face-to-face talk with the
infant on a regular
basis.
This maternal uncle
is
destined to play
an important quasi-parental role in the life of the child. Along
somewhat different lines, Balinese mothers control their in-
fants'
exploratory behavior by using fake fear expressions to
bring the infants back into close proximity to them (Bateson &
Mead,
1942).
In both cultures, a biological system
is
molded to
a particular society's purposes (by fostering specific relation-
ships or controlling exploration).
A recent study of parent-infant attachment among the Efe
begins to provide systematic information in this
area.
The Efe,
a seminomadic people, live in the African rain forest, subsist-
ing on foraging, horticulture, and hunting (Tronick, Winn, &
Morelli, 1985). "Vbung Efe infants receive more care (including
nursing) from other adult women than from their own mother,
except at night. Despite this multiple mothering system, by 6
months, infants begin to insist on a more focalized relationship
with their own mothers, although other female earegivers con-

APA CENTENNIAL: ORIGINS OF ATTACHMENT THEORY771
tinue to play a significant role. Tronick et al. attributed Efe
practices
to
their living
arrangements,
with closely spaced dwell-
ings that offer little privacy and that make cooperation and
sharing highly valued behaviors. In sum, attachment behavior
is heavily overlain with cultural prescriptions, even in a society
that much more closely resembles the conditions of human
evolution than our own. To better explore such cultural varia-
tions in attachment organization, attachment researchers need
to develop ecologically valid, theory-driven measures, tailored
to specific cultures and based on a deeper knowledge of par-
ents'
and children's culture-specific folk theories about family
relationships and attachment.
Attachment and
Public Policy
Cultural differences in the regulation of attachment behav-
iors raise important questions about the value diverse societies
place on attachment relations. In a thought-provoking chapter,
Marris (1991) points to the fundamental tension between the
desire to create a secure and predictable social order and the
desire to maximize one's own opportunities at the expense of
others. A good society, according to Marris, would be one
which, as far as is humanly possible, minimizes disruptive
events, protects each child's experience of attachment from
harm, and supports family coping. \fet, in order to control un-
certainty, individuals and families are tempted to achieve cer-
tainty at the expense of
others
(i.e.,
by imposing a greater bur-
den of uncertainty on them or by providing fewer material and
social resources). When powerful groups in society promote
their
own
control over life circumstances by subordinating and
marginalizing others, they make it less possible for these
groups to offer and experience security in their own families.
Valuing of attachment relations thus has public policy and
moral implications for society, not just psychological implica-
tions for attachment dyads. This brings me back to one of
Bowlby's
early statements: "If
a
community
values
its children it
must cherish their parents" (Bowlby,
1951,
p. 84).
Challenging Tasks for Attachment Theory
In the preceding section I have outlined the many new direc-
tions into which attachment research is branching out. It is
difficult to predict which of these efforts will be most fruitful.
No doubt, additions, revisions, and challenges to the theory
will continue to arise out of future empirical studies.
In this
final
section, however, I would like to focus briefly on
some of the theoretical tasks that lie ahead. The idea that hu-
man motivation derives from an interplay of familiarity- and
novelty-seeking systems needs further exploration, as does the
notion that the human personality can be conceptualized as a
hierarchy of interlinked
systems.
New theoretical treatments of
defensive processes in the construction of internal working
models of attachment need to be worked out in relation to
insights from representational theories and research, and clini-
cal attachment theory requires the development of an experien-
tial language akin to that used
by
other psychoanalytic theories
of interpersonal relatedness, such as Winnicott (1965) and Sul-
livan (1953). Most important, in my view, the development of
internal working models of self and other within-attachment
relations should be studied in conjunction with new ap-
proaches to the "dialogic" or "narrative"
self,
integrating the
mental health perspective of attachment theory with the per-
spective of theorists interested in the social construction of
reality (Hermans, Kempen, & van Loon, 1992).
These theoretical developments must go hand in hand or be
followed by new methodological developments. Without Mary
Ainsworth's work on patterns of attachment in
the Strange
Situ-
ation and Mary Main's Adult Attachment Interview that built
on them, Bowlby's theoretical contributions to developmental
and clinical psychology would not have had their current influ-
ence.
I predict that, in the future, attachment theory may pro-
vide
the underpinnings of a more general theory of personality
organization and relationship development. Such a theory
would build on, but also go beyond, Bowlby's reworking of
Freud's ideas on motivation, emotion, and development.
In formulating the basic tenets of attachment theory,
Bowlby's strategy was, wherever possible, to meticulously test
intuitive hunches against available empirical findings and con-
cepts from related domains, thus keeping the theory open to
change. In his last work—a biography of Charles Darwin—
Bowlby may have been talking about himself
when
he said of
Darwin:
Since causes are
never manifest,
the only way
of proceeding
is
to
propose a plausible theory and then test its explanatory powers
against further evidence, and in comparison with the power of
rival theories. . . . Since most theories prove to be untenable,
advancing them
is
a hazardous business and
requires
courage, a
courage Darwin never
lacked.
(Bowlby,
1991,
p.
412)
Bowlby and Ainsworth, too, did not lack that courage. To ex-
plore the full future potential of attachment theory, others will
need to exercise similar courage in refining, extending, and
challenging it.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1963). The development of infant-mother inter-
action among the Ganda. In
B.
M.
Foss
(Ed.),
Determinants
of infant
behavior
(pp.
67-104). New
York:
Wiley.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1967). Infancy in
Uganda:
Infant care and the
growth
of
love.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ainsworth, M.
D.
S. (1968). Object relations, dependency, and attach-
ment: A theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship.
Child
Development,
40, 969-1025.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1974).
Citation
for the
G.
Stanley Hall
Award
to
John
Bowlby.
Unpublished manuscript.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In
C.
M. Parkes
&
J.
Stevenson-Hinde
(Eds.),
The place of attachment in
human
behavior
(pp.
3-30). New York: Basic Books.
Ainsworth, M.
D.
S.
(1983).
A
sketch of a career. In
A.
N.
O'Connoll
&
N.
E Russo (Eds.), Models of
achievement:
Reflections
of eminent
women in
psychology
(pp.
200-219).
New
York:
Columbia University
Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American
Psychologist,
44, 709-716.
Ainsworth, M.
D.
S.,
&
Bell,
S.
M.
(1969).
Some contemporary patterns
in the feeding situation. In A. Ambrose (Ed.), Stimulation in
early
infancy
(pp.
133-170). London: Academic Press.
Ainsworth,
M.
D.
S.,
&
Bell,
S.
M.
(1970).
Attachment, exploration, and
separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange
situation.
Child
Development,
41,
49-67.

772INGE BRETHERTON
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., Blehar, M. C, & Main, M.
(1971,
April).
Physical
contact:
A study of
infant responsiveness
and
its
rela-
tion to
maternal
handling.
Paper presented at the biennial meetingof
the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M, & Stayton, D. J. (1971). Individual
differences in Strange Situation behavior of one-year-olds. In H. R.
Schaffer
(Ed.),
The
origins
of
human
social relations
(pp.
17-57). Lon-
don: Academic Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton,
D.
(1974). Infant-mother
attachment and social development. In M. P. Richards (Ed.), The
introduction
of the child
into
a social
world
(pp.
99-135). London:
Cambridge University Press.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C, Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).
Pat-
terns
of
attachment:
A
psychological
study of the
strange
situation.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to
personality development.
American
Psychologist,
46,
331-341.
Ainsworth,
M.
D.
S.,
&
Wittig,
B.
A.
(1969).
Attachment and the explor-
atory behaviour of one-year-olds in a strange situation. In
B.
M. Foss
(Ed.),
Determinants
of
infant behaviour
(Vol.
4, pp. 113-136). Lon-
don: Methuen.
Ambrose, J. A. (1961).
The development
of
the
smiling response
in early
human
infancy:
An experimental and theoretical study of their course
and
significance.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
London.
Arsenian,
J.
M.
(1943).
Young children in an insecure situation.
Journal
of
Abnormal
and
Social
Psychology,
38, 225-229.
Bateson, G., & Mead, M. (1942).
Balinese
character:
A
photographic
analysis.
New Ybrk: New Ybrk Academy of Sciences.
Bell, S. M. (1970). The development of the concept of the object as
related to infant-mother attachment.
Child
Development,
41, 291-
311.
Bell, S. M., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1972). Infant crying and maternal
responsiveness.
Child
Development,
43,1171
-1190.
Belsky, J., & Braungart, J. M. (1991). Are insecure-avoidant infants
with extensive day-care experience less stressed by and more inde-
pendent in the Strange Situation?
Child
Development,
62,
567-571.
Belsky, J., Gilstrap, B., & Rovine, M. (1984). The Pennsylvania Infant
and Family Development Project,
I:
Stability and change in mother-
infant and father-infant interaction in a family setting at one, three,
and nine months.
Child
Development,
55,
692-705.
Belsky,
J.,
&Isabella, R.
(1988).
Maternal, infant, and social-contextual
determinants of attachment security. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski
(Eds.),
Clinical
implications
of attachment
(pp.
41
-94).
Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Belsky, J., & Nezworski (1988).
Clinical implications
of
attachment.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Belsky, J.,
&
Rovine, M. J. (1987). Temperament and attachment secu-
rity in the Strange Situation: An empirical rapprochement. Child
Development,
58, 787-795.
Belsky, J.,
&
Rovine,
M. J.
(1988).
Nonmaternal care in the first year of
life and the security of infant-mother attachment. Child
Develop-
ment,
59, 157-167.
Belsky, J., Rovine, M., & Fish, M. (in press). The developing family
system. In M. Gunnar (Ed.), Systems and
development:
Minnesota
symposia on child development
(Vol.
22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Belsky, J., Rovine,
M.,
&
Taylor,
D.
(1984).
The
Pennsylvania Infant and
Family Development Project,
II:
Origins of individual differences in
infant-mother attachment: Maternal and infant contributions.
Child
Development,
55,
706-717.
Blatz, W
(1940).
Hostages to
peace:
Parents
and
the children
of democ-
racy.
New York: Morrow.
Blatz,
W
(1966).
Human
security.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University
of Toronto Press.
Blehar, M.
C.
(1974).
Anxious attachment and defensive reactions
asso-
ciated with day care.
Child
Development,
45, 683-692.
Blehar, M. C, Lieberman, A. F, & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1977). Early
face-to-face interaction and its relation to later infant-mother at-
tachment.
Child
Development,
48,182-194.
Bowlby, J. (1940). The influence of early environment in the develop-
ment of neurosis and neurotic character.
International
Journal of
Psycho-Analysis,
XXI, 1-25.
Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their characters and
home
lives.
International Journal
of
Psycho-Analysis,
XXV, 19-52.
Bowlby, J. (1949). The study and reduction of group tensions in the
family. Human
Relations,
2,123-128.
Bowlby,
J.
(1951).
Maternal care and mental health. World
Health
Orga-
nization Monograph
(Serial No. 2).
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's tie to his mother.
Interna-
tional Journal
of
Psycho-Analysis,
XXXIX,
1-23.
Bowlby, J. (1959). Separation anxiety.
International Journal
of Psycho-
Analysis,
XLI, 1-25.
Bowlby, J.
(1960).
Grief and mourning in infancy and early childhood.
The
Psychoanalytic
Study of the
Child,
VX,
3-39.
Bowlby, J. (1962a).
Defences
that follow
loss:
Causation
and function.
Unpublished manuscript, Tavistock Child Development Research
Unit, London.
Bowlby, J. (1962b).
Loss,
detachment
and
defence.
Unpublished manu-
script, Tavistock Child Development Research Unit, London.
Bowlby,
J.
(1965).
Childcareandthe growth
oj7ove(2nded.).
Harmonds-
worth, England: Pelican Books.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and
loss,
Vol.
I:
Attachment.
New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and
loss,
Vol.
2:
Separation.
New York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby,
J.
(1980a).
Attachment
and
loss,
Vol.
3:
Loss,
sadness and depres-
sion.
New
York:
Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980b).
By
ethology out of psycho-analysis: An experiment
in interbreeding. Animal
Behavior,
28, 649-656.
Bowlby,
J.
(1987).
[Colloquium presented at the University of
Virginia].
Bowlby, J. (1988). A
secure
base:
Parent-child attachment
and
healthy
human
development.
New York: Basic Books.
Bowlby,
J.
(1991).
Charles
Darwin:
A
new
biography.
London: Hutchin-
son.
Bowlby, J. Ainsworth, M., Boston, M., & Rosenbluth, D. (1956). The
effects of mother-child separation: A follow-up study.
British
Jour-
nal
of
Medical
Psychology,
29, 211-247.
Bowlby, J.
&
Parkes,
C.
M. (1970). Separation and loss within the fam-
ily. In E. J. Anthony
&
C.
Koupernik (Eds.), The
child in
his family:
International Yearbook of Child Psychiatry and Allied Professions
(pp.
197-216). New York: Wiley.
Bretherton, I.
(1985).
Attachment theory. Retrospect and prospect. In
I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment
theory and research,
Monographs
of the Society for
Research
in Ch ild
Development,
50(1-2,
Serial No. 209), 3-35.
Bretherton, I.
(1987).
New perspectives on attachment
relations:
Secu-
rity, communication, and internal working models. In J. Osofsky
(Ed.),
Handbook
of
infant development
(pp. 1061-1100). New York:
Wiley.
Bretherton, I.
(1990).
Open communication and internal working mod-
els:
Their role in attachment relationships. In R. Thompson (Ed.),
Socioemotional development (Nebraska
Symposium
1987).
Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Bretherton,
I.
(1991).
Pouring
new
wine into old
bottles:
The social self
as internal working model. In M. R. Gunnar &
L.
A. Sroufe (Eds.),
Self
processes
and
development:
The Minnesota
symposia on child
development
(Vol.
23, pp.
1-41).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bretherton, I., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1974). One-year-olds in the

APA CENTENNIAL: ORIGINS OF ATTACHMENT THEORY773
Strange
Situation.
In
M.
Lewis &
L.
Rosenblum
(Eds.),
The origins of
fear
(pp.
134-164). New York: Wiley.
Bretherton, I., Biringen, Z., Ridgeway,
D.,
Maslin, M,
&
Sherman, M.
(1989).
Attachment: The parental perspective.
Infant Mental Health
Journal
(Special Issue),
10,
203-220.
Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internal
working models in the attachment relationship: An attachment
story completion task for 3-year-olds. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cic-
chetti, & E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment
during
the
preschool
years
(pp.
272-308). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bretherton, I., & Waters, E. (1985). Growing points of attachment
theory and research. Monographs of the Society for
Research
in Child
Development,
50(1-2,
Serial
No.
209).
Bronfenbrenner (1979). The ecology of human
development.
Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Byng-Hall,
J.
(1985).
The family script:
A
useful bridge between theory
and practice.
Journal
of
Family
Therapy,
7, 301-305.
Cain, A. C, & Fast, I. (1972). Children's disturbed reactions to parent
suicide. In
A.
C.
Cain
(Ed.),
Survivors
ofsuicide(pp.
93-111).
Spring-
field,
IL:
Charles C Thomas.
Cassidy,
J.
(1988).
The self as
related
to child-mother attachment at six.
Child
Development,
59,121-134.
Chodorow, N. (1978). The
reproduction
of
mothering:
Psychoanalysis
and
the
sociology of
gender,
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1991). Attachment organization in mal-
treated preschoolers.
Development
and
Psychopathotogy,
3, 397-
411.
Cicirelli, V G.
(1989).
Feelings of attachment to siblings and well-being
in later life.
Psychology
and
Aging,
4, 211-216.
Cicirelli,
V
G.
(1991).
Attachment theory in old
age:
Protection of the
attached
figure.
In K. Pillemer
&
K.
McCartney
(Eds.),
Parent-child
relations across the life course
(pp.
25-42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Craik, K. (1943). The nature of
explanation.
Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Crittenden, P. M. (1983). The effect of mandatory protective daycare
on mutual attachment in maltreating mother-infant dyads. Child
Abuse
and
Neglect,
7, 297-300.
Cummings,
E.
M.
(1980).
Caregiver stability and day
care.
Developmen-
tal
Psychology,
16,
31-37.
Dixon, N.
F.
(1971).
Subliminal
perception:
The
nature
of a
controversy.
London: McGraw-Hill.
Dunn, J. (1988). The
beginnings
of social
understanding.
Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Erdelyi, H. M.
(1974).
A
new look at the new look: Perceptual defense
and vigilance.
Psychological
Review,
81,1-25.
Erikson, E. (1950).
Childhood
and
society.
New York: Norton.
Fairbairn, W R.
D.
(1952).
An
object-relations
theory of the personality.
New
"Vbrk:
Basic Books.
Firth, R. (1936).
We,
the
Tikopia.
London: Allen & Unwin.
Fish, M., Belsky, J., & Youngblade, L.
(1991).
Developmental anteced-
ents and measurement of intergenerational boundary violation in a
nonclinic
sample.
Family
Psychology,
4, 278-297.
Fonagy,
P.,
Steele, M.
&
Steele,
H.
(1991).
Intergenerational patterns of
attachment: Maternal representations during pregnancy and subse-
quent infant-mother attachments.
Child
Development,
62,
891-905.
Foss,
B. M. (1961).
Determinants
of
infant behaviour
(Vol.
1).
London:
Methuen.
Foss,
B. M. (1963).
Determinants
of
infant behavior
(Vol.
2). London:
Methuen.
Foss,
B. M. (1965).
Determinants
of
infant behaviour
(Vol.
3). London:
Methuen.
Foss,
B. M. (1969).
Determinants
of
infant behaviour
(Vol.
4). London:
Methuen.
Freud,
A.
(1960).
Discussion of Dr. John
Bowlby's
paper.
Psychoanaly-
tic
Study of the
Child,
15,
53-62.
Freud,
S.
(1953). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. In
J.
Strachey
(Ed. and
Trans.),
The
standard edition
of
the complete psychological
works ofSigmund
Freud
(Vol. 7, pp. 125-245). London: Hogarth
Press.
(Original work published 1905)
Freud, S. (1955). The psychogenesis of a case of homosexuality in a
woman. In J. Strachey (Ed. and
Trans.),
The
standard edition
of the
complete psychological works
ofSigmund
Freud
(Vol.
18, pp. 145-
172).
London: Hogarth
Press.
(Original work published 1920)
Freud,
S.
(1959).
Inhibitions, symptoms and
anxiety.
In
J.
Strachey (Ed.
and
Trans.),
The standard
edition
of the complete psychological works
ofSigmund
Freud
(Vol.
20, pp. 77-175). London: Hogarth Press.
(Original work published 1926)
Freud,
S.
(1961).
The ego and the
id.
In
J.
Strachey
(Ed.
and
Trans.),
The
standard edition of
the
complete
psychological
works ofSigmund
Freud
(Vol.
19, pp. 3-66). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work
published 1923)
Freud,
S.
(1964).
An outline of psycho-analysis. In
J.
Strachey
(Ed.
and
Trans.),
The
standard edition
of the
complete psychological works
of
SigmundFreud(\ol.
23,
pp.
141-207).
London:
Hogarth
Press.
(Orig-
inal work published 1940)
George,
C, Kaplan,
N.,
&
Main,
M.
(1984).
Adult attachment interview.
Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
George,
C, & Solomon,
J.
(1989).
Internal working models of parenting
and security of attachment at age
six.
Infant Mental Health
Journal,
10,
222-237.
Goldfarb, W (1943). The effects of early institutional care on adoles-
cent personality.
Journal
of
Experimental
Education,
14,
441-447.
Goldfarb, W
(1945).
Psychological privation in infancy and subsequent
adjustment.
American Journal
of
Orthopsychiatry,
15,
247-255.
Greenberg, M. T, & Marvin, R. S. (1979). Attachment patterns in
profoundly deaf preschool children.
Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly,
25,
265-279.
Greenberg, M. T., & Speltz, (1988). Attachment and the ontogeny of
conduct problems. In
J.
Belsky &
T.
Nezworski
(Eds.),
Clinical impli-
cations
of
attachment
(pp.
177-218). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grosskurth, P. (1987).
Melanie
Klein:
Her
world
and her
work.
Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Spangler, G.,
Suess,
G.,
&
Unzner,
L. (1985). Maternal sensitivity and newborns' orientation responses
as
related
to quality of attachment in Northern
Germany.
In
I.
Breth-
erton &
E.
Waters
(Eds.),
Growing points of attachment theory and
research,
Monographs
of the
Society
for
Research
in Child
Develop-
ment,
50(1-2, Serial
No.
209).
Grossmann, K. E., & Grossmann, K. (1990). The wider concept of
attachment in cross-cultural research. Human
Development,
iJ,
31—
47.
Hamburg, H. G. (1972).
Adolescent separation
anxiety:
A method for
the
study of
adolescent separation
problems.
Springfield,
IL:
Charles
C Thomas.
Harlow, H.
F.
(1961).
The development of affectional patterns in infant
monkeys. In
B.
M. Foss
(Ed.),
Determinants
of
infant behaviour
(pp.
75-97).
London: Methuen.
Harlow, H. F, & Zimmermann, R. R. (1958). The development of af-
fective responsiveness in infant monkeys.
Proceedings
of
the
Ameri-
can Philosophical
Society,
102,
501-509.
Heinicke, C. M. (1956). Some effects of separating two-year-olds from
their
parents:
A comparative
study.
Human
Relations,
9,105-176.
Heinicke,
C.
M.,
&
Westheimer, I.
(1966).
Brief
separations.
New York:
International Universities Press.
Hermans, H. J. M., Kempen, H. J. G,
&
van Loon, R.
J.
P.
(1992).
The
dialogic
self.
American
Psychologist,
47,
23-33.

774INGE BRETHERTON
Hinde, R.
A.
(1991).
Relationships, attachment, and
culture:
A tribute
to John Bowlby.
Infant Mental Health
Journal,
12,154-163.
Hinde, R.
A.,
&
Spencer-Booth, Y
(1967).
The effect of social compan-
ions on mother-infant relations in rhesus monkeys. In D. Morris
(Ed.),
Primate ethology
(pp.
267-286). London: Weidenfeld and Nic-
olson.
Howes,
C, Rodning, C, Galuzzo,
D.
C,
&
Myers,
I.
(1988).
Attachment
and child care: Relationships with mother and caregiver. Early
Childhood Research
Quarterly,
3, 403-416.
Johnson, M. M.
(1988).
Strong
mothers,
weak
wives.
Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press.
Kaplan,
N.
(1984).
Internal representations
of
separation experiences
in
six-year-olds:
Related to actual
experiences
of
separation.
Unpub-
lished master's thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
Klagsbrun,
M.,
&
Bowlby,
J.
(1976).
Responses
to
separation from par-
ents:
A clinical test for young children.
British Journal ofProjective
Psychology,
21, 7-21.
Klein, M. (1932). The
psycho-analysis
of
children.
London: Hogarth
Press.
Klopfer, B., Ainsworth, M. D., Klopfer, W E, & Holt, R. R. (1954).
Developments
in the
Rorschach technique
(Vol.
1). Yonkers-on-Hud-
son, NY: World Book.
Kobak, R. R., & Sceery, A. (1988). Attachment in late adolescence:
Working models, affect regulation, and perceptions of self and
others.
Child
Development,
59,135-146.
Kotelchuck, M.
(1972).
The nature of thechild's lieto his
father.
Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Kubler-Ross, E. (1970). On
death
and
dying.
London: Tavistock.
Lamb,
M. E. (1978). Qualitative aspects of mother-infant and father-
infant attachments in the second year of life. Infant
Behavior and
Development,
1, 265-275.
Lieberman, A. (1977). Preschoolers' competence with a peer: Rela-
tions with attachment and peer experience.
Child
Development,
48,
1277-1287.
Lieberman, A. E,
&
Pawl, J. H.
(1988).
Clinical applications of attach-
ment
theory.
In
J.
Belsky
&
T.
Nezworski
(Eds.),
Clinical applications
of
attachment
(pp.
327-351). Hilldale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lorenz, K. Z. (1935). Der Kumpan in der Umwelt des Vogels [The
companion in the bird's
world].
Journal
fuer
Omithologie,
83,137-
213.
(Abbreviated English translation published 1937 in Auk, 54,
245-273.)
Main,
M.
(1973).
Exploration,
play,
and cognitive functioning
as related
to child-mother attachment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Main, M.
&
Goldwyn, R. (in
press).
Interview-based adult attachment
classifications: Related to infant-mother and infant-father attach-
ment.
Developmental
Psychology.
Main, M., Kaplan, K.,
&
Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, child-
hood and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I.
Bretherton
&
E.
Waters
(Eds.),
Growing points of attachment theory
and research, Monographs of
the
Society for
Research in
Child
Devel-
opment,
50(1-2, Serial No. 209), 66-104.
Marris,
P.
(1958).
Widows
and
their
families.
London: Routledge.
Marris,
P.
(1982). Attachment and
society.
In
C.
M. Parkes
&
J.
Steven-
son-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human
behavior
(pp.
185-201). New York: Basic Books.
Marris, P. (1991). The social construction of uncertainty. In C. M.
Parkes,
J.
Stevenson-Hinde,
&
P.
Marris
(Eds.),
Attachment across the
life cycle
(pp.
77-90). London: Routledge.
Marvin, R.
S.
(1972).
Attachment and cooperative behavior
in
2-,
3-,
and
4-year-olds.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chi-
cago.
Marvin, R.
S.
(1977). An ethological-cognitive model for the attenua-
tion of mother-child attachment behavior. In T. M. Alloway, L.
Krames, &
P.
Pliner
(Eds.),
Advances in the
study of communication
and
affect,
Vol.
3:
The development
of
social attachments
(pp.
25-60).
New York: Plenum Press.
Marvin, R. S.,
&
Stewart, R.
B.
(1990).
A family system framework for
the study of attachment. In M. Greenberg,
D.
Cicchetti,
&
M.
Cum-
mings (Eds.), Attachment beyond the
preschool years
(pp. 51-86).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Matas, L., Arend, R. A.,
&
Sroufe,
L.
A.
(1978).
Continuity and adapta-
tion in the second year: The relationship between quality of attach-
ment and later competence.
Child
Development,
49, 547-556.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the
structure
of
behavior.
New
York:
Holt, Rinehart
&
Winston.
Miyake, K., Chen, S., & Campos, J. (1985). Infants' temperament,
mothers' mode of interaction and attachment in Japan: An interim
report. In
I.
Bretherton
&
E.
Waters
(Eds.),
Growing points of attach-
ment theory and research,
Monographs
of the Society for
Research in
Child
Development,
50(1-2, Serial No. 109), 276-297.
Parke, R. D, & Tinsley,
B.
J. (1987). Family interaction in infancy. In
J. D. Osofsky (Ed.),
Handbook
of
infant development
(pp.
579-641).
New York: Wiley.
Parkes, C. M. (1972).
Bereavement:
Studies of grief in adult
life.
New
York: International Universities Press.
Piaget,
J.
(1951).
The origin of intelligence in
children.
New
York:
Interna-
tional Universities Press.
Piaget,
J.
(1954).
The
construction
of reality
in
the
child.
New
York:
Basic
Books.
Radke-Yarrow, M., Cummings, E. M., Kuczinsky, L.,
&
Chapman, M.
(1985).
Patterns of attachment in
two-
and three-year-olds in normal
families and families with parental depression.
Child
Development,
56, 884-893.
Rayner, E.
(1991,
November).
John
Bowlby s
contribution,
a brief
sum-
mary.
Paper presented at the meeting of the British Psychoanalytic
Society held in honor of John Bowlby, London, England.
Robertson, J.
(1953a).
A two-year-old
goes to
hospital'[Film].
Tavistock
Child Development Research Unit, London (available through the
Penn State Audiovisual Services, University Park, PA).
Robertson, J. (1953b). Some responses of young children to loss of
maternal care.
Nursing
Care,
49, 382-386.
Robertson, J., & Bowlby, J. (1952). Responses of young children to
separation from their mothers.
Courrier
of the
International
Chil-
dren's
Centre,
Paris,
II, 131-140.
Sagi,
A.,
Aviezer,
O.,
Mayseless,
O.,
Donnell,
E,
&
Joels,
T.
(1991,
April).
Infant-mother
attachment
in
traditional
and
nontraditional
kibbut-
zim.
Paper presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Sagi,
A.,
Lamb,
M.
E.,
Lewkowicz, K.
S.,
Shoham, R., Dvir, R.,
&
Estes,
D.
(1985).
Security of infant-mother, -father, and -metapelet among
kibbutz reared Israeli children. In I. Bretherton
&
E. Waters (Eds.),
Growing points of attachment theory and research,
Monographs of
the Society for
Research
in Child
Development,
50(1-2, Serial No.
209),
257-275.
Salter,
M.
D.
(1940).
An
evaluation of adjustment basedupon the concept
of security: Child Development
Series.
Toronto, Ontario,
Canada:
Uni-
versity of Toronto Press.
Schaffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. (1964). The development of social
attachments in infancy.
Monographs
of the Society for
Research
in
Child
Development,
29 (Serial No. 94).
Schneider-Rosen, K., Braunwald, K. G. Carlson, Y, & Cicchetti, D.
(1985).
Current perspectives in attachment theory: Illustration from
the study of maltreated infants. In I. Bretherton &
E.
Waters
(Eds.),
Growing points of attachment theory and research,
Monographs of
the Society for
Research
in Child
Development,
50(1-2, Serial No.
209),
194-210.

APA CENTENNIAL: ORIGINS OF ATTACHMENT THEORY775
Schur,
M.
(1960).
Discussion of Dr. John
Bowlby's
paper.
Psychoanaly-
tic
Study of
the
Child,
15,
63-84.
Senn, M. J. E. (1977a).
Interview with
James
Robertson.
Unpublished
manuscript, National Library of Medicine, Washington DC.
Senn, M.
J.
E.
(1977b).
Interview
with John
Bowlby.
Unpublished manu-
script, National Library of Medicine, Washington, DC.
Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of
love.
Journal
of Social and
Personality
Relationships,
5,
473-501.
Slough, N, & Greenberg, M.
(1991).
5-year-olds
representations of
sep-
aration from
parents:
Responses for self and a hypothetical
child.
In
W Damon (Series Ed.) & I. Bretherton & M. Watson (Vol. Eds.),
Children's perspectives on the
family
(pp.
67-84). San
Francisco:
Jos-
sey-Bass.
Spieker, S., & Booth, C. (1988). Maternal antecedents of attachment
quality. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.),
Clinical implications
of
attachment
(pp.
95-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spitz, R. A. (1946). Anaclitic depression.
Psychoanalytic
Study of the
Child,
2, 313-342.
Spitz, R.
A.
(1947).
Grief:
A peril
in
infancy
[Film].
University of Akron
Psychology Archives, Akron, OH (available through the Penn State
Audiovisual Services, University Park, PA).
Spitz, R.
A.
(1960).
Discussion of Dr. John Bowlby's paper.
Psychoana-
lytic
Study of the
Child,
15,
85-208.
Sroufe,
L.
A.
(1983).
Infant-caregiver attachment and patterns of
adap-
tation in preschool: The roots of maladaptation and
competence.
In
M. Perlmutter
(Ed.),
Minnesota symposium in
child psychology (Vol.
16,
pp. 41-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sroufe, L.
A.
(1985).
Attachment classification from the perspective of
infant-caregiver relationships and infant temperament. Child
Devel-
opment,
56,1-14.
Sroufe, L. A. (1988). The role of infant-caregiver attachment in adult
development. In J. Belsky &
T.
Nezworski (1988),
Clinical
implica-
tions
of
attachment
(pp.
18-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational
construct.
Child
Development,
49,1184-1199.
Stayton, D, & Ainsworth, M.
D.
S.
(1973).
Development of separation
behavior in the first year of
life.
Developmental
Psychology,
9, 226-
235.
Stayton, D, Hogan, R.,
&
Ainsworth, M.
D.
S.
(1973).
Infant obedience
and maternal behavior: The origins of socialization reconsidered.
Child
Development,
42,1057-1070.
Stewart, R. B., & Marvin, R. S. (1984). Sibling relations: The role of
conceptual perspective-taking in the ontogeny of sibling caregiving.
Child
Development,
55,1322-1332.
Sullivan, H.
S.
(195
3).
The interpersonal theory of
psychiatry.
New
York:
Norton.
Teti,
D.
M.,
&
Ablard, K.
E.
(1989).
Security of attachment and infant-
sibling relationships: A laboratory study. Child
Development,
60,
1519-1528.
Tinbergen, N.
(1951).
The study of
instinct.
London: Clarendon Press.
Tracy,
R. L., & Ainsworth,
M.
D.
S.
(1981).
Maternal affectionate behav-
ior and infant-mother attachment
patterns.
Child
Development,
52,
1341-1343.
Tracy, R. L., Lamb, M. E., & Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1976). Infant ap-
proach behavior as related to attachment. Child
Development,
47,
571-578.
Tronick,
E.
Z,
Winn,
S.,
&
Morelli,
G.
A.
(1985).
Multiple caretaking in
the context of human evolution: Why don't the Efe know the West-
ern prescription to child care? In M. Reite & T. Field (Eds.), The
psychobiology of
attachment
and
separation
(pp. 293-321). San
Diego,
CA:
Academic Press.
Tulving,
E.
(1972).
Episodic and semantic memory. In
E.
Tulving
&
W.
Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 382-403). San
Diego,
CA:
Academic Press.
Van Uzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonenberg,
P.
M. (1988). Cross-cultural
patterns of attachment: A meta-analysis of the Strange Situation.
Child
Development,
59,147-156.
Ward,
M.
J.,
Carlson,
E.
A.,
Altman,
S.,
Levine,
L.,
Greenberg, R.
H.,
&
Kessler, D. B. (1990, April).
Predicting
infant-mother attachment
from adolescents' prenatal working models of
relationships.
Paper
pre-
sented at the 7th International Conference on Infant Studies, Mon-
treal, Quebec, Canada.
Waddington, C. H.
(1957).
The
strategy
of
the
genes.
London: Allen &
Unwin.
Waters,
E.
(1978).
The reliability and stability of individual differences
in infant-mother attachment. Child
Development,
49, 520-616.
Waters, E., & Deane, K. E. (1985). Defining and assessing individual
differences in attachment
relationships:
Q-methodology
and the or-
ganization of behavior in infancy and early childhood. In
I.
Brether-
ton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and
research,
Monographs
of the
Society
for
Research
in
Child
Develop-
ment,
50(1-2, Serial No. 209), 41-65.
Weiss, R.
S.
(1973).
Loneliness:
The
experience
of
emotional
and social
isolation.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1977).
Marital
separation.
New York: Basic Books.
Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. M. Parkes & J.
Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The
place
of
attachment in
human
behavior
(pp.
171-184). New York: Wiley.
Weiss,
R.
(1991).
The attachment bond in childhood and adulthood. In
C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, &
P.
Marris (Eds.), Attachment
across
the
life cycle
(pp.
66-76). London: Routledge.
Winnicott, D. W (1965). The
maturational process
and the facilitating
environment.
New
'York:
International Universities Press.
Young, J. Z.
(1964).
A model for the
brain.
London: Oxford University
Press.
Received January
2,1992
Revision received April 10,1992
Accepted April 13,1992 •