COMMENTARIES Attachment, Caregiving, and Parental Investment

COMMENTARIES

Attachment, Caregiving, and Parental Investment

David C. Geary Department of Psychology University of Missouri at Columbia

Bell and Richard’s position is very similar to Mac- gent on current conditions; for instance, if food is too Donald’s (1992) argument that attachment involves at scarce to ensure the survival or normal development of least two independent systems. The first is a fear-based offspring, then parents will often abandon these off- system that is essentially the same as that originally de- spring (Clutton-Brock, 1991). Stated somewhat differ- scribed by Bowlby (1969), and the second is a ently, from an evolutionary perspective, parental warmth-based system that is very similar to the investment is expected to be expressed contingent on caregiving system described by Bell and Richard. Both social (e.g., population density) and ecological (e.g., systems of attachment, as related to the parent–child availability of food) factors and on parental condition relationship, can be understood in terms of parental in- (e.g., health, social status). When parents invest in off- vestment (Trivers, 1972, 1974), as is described in the spring, some aspects of this investment are obligate, first section. The second section addresses a few mis- that is, essential for offspring survival, and other as- conceptions about evolution and proximate and ulti- pects may be expressed more conditionally, or mate causes. facultatively. For the latter, the investment may not be essential for survival, but if provided, it results in other Parental Investment benefits to offspring, such as an improvement in later social, and thereby reproductive, competitiveness. Parent–child attachment, whether involving prox- The long developmental period of humans and the imity-related systems or caregiving-warmth, is readily necessarily heavy cost of human parental investment understandable in terms of the more general topic of strongly argue that this investment is an evolved fea- parental investment; that is, parent–child attachment is ture of human social behavior, as indicated by Bell and a manifestation of the evolution of parental invest- Richard and others (e.g., Bowlby, 1969; Lovejoy, ment. Trivers (1974) defined parental investment as re- 1981; MacDonald, 1992). As with other species, it is sources (e.g., time, food, etc.) that are provided to likely that the selection pressure for human parental in- offspring at a cost to the parent; costs can be reproduc- vestment was reduced child mortality risks and per- tive (e.g., a delay in conceiving the next offspring) or haps improvements in the later social, and thereby in terms of the health and survival of the parent reproductive, competitiveness of children (Geary, (Clutton-Brock, 1991). This is not to say that each and 2000). The proximity-seeking feature of attachment every parental behavior is directly related to the par- described by Bowlby (1969) may reflect a form of ob- ent’s survival or later reproduction. Rather, the sys- ligate parental investment, whereas the tems that orient parents to their offspring, as in caregiving-warmth system described by Bell and maintaining proximity and promoting parental invest- Richard and by MacDonald (1992) may reflect a more ment (e.g., in terms of time and material resources), are conditional form of parental investment. costly to parents and would not evolve unless they pro- Features of proximity seeking, such as offspring vided a reproductive benefit to parents. In nonhuman distress calls, are found in many species of primate and species, the primary reproductive benefit of parental mammal (Hofer, 1987) and reflect a way of soliciting investment is an increase in offspring survival rates parental investment that has a long evolutionary his- (Clutton-Brock, 1991). tory. For instance, many features of proximity seeking, An evolved bias to invest in offspring does not in such as stranger anxiety and separation anxiety, are any way mean that all parents at all times will invest in found in all human societies and are manifested in the their offspring (Daly & Wilson, 1981). For many non- same way and appear at about the same age in one of human species, parents will often abandon offspring or our closest relatives, the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes; otherwise reduce levels of parental investment, contin- Bard, 1995; Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1989). The apparently ho- COMMENTARIES mologous attachment patterns in humans and chim- some conditions (Daly & Wilson, 1981)—with a long panzees suggest that this form of human parental evolutionary history. The caregiving-warmth feature investment has at least a 6 million–year evolutionary of attachment is less common across species and, thus, history, the estimated age of the ancestor common to likely has a much shorter evolutionary history. More- humans and chimpanzees (e.g., Vrba, 1985). In fact, over, the human caregiving and warmth feature does the ubiquity of proximity-related features of attach- not appear to be an obligate form of parental investment across many species and the increased mortality ment in humans but rather appears to be expressed risks associated with separation from the primary care- facultatively, that is, only under certain social and eco- giver (e.g., Goodall, 1986) strongly suggest that this logical conditions (MacDonald, 1992). aspect of attachment predated hominid evolution. The caregiving-warmth feature of parental invest- Proximate and Ultimate Causes ment, in contrast, is not a feature of attachment in most other mammals or primates and, in fact, is absent in The ultimate selection pressures for any form of pa- many human societies (Geary, 1998; MacDonald, rental investment—obligate or conditional—are im- 1992). Although the proximate mechanisms are not provements in offspring survival rates and, in some fully understood, it appears that high levels of conflict species, including humans, an improvement in the so- within the wider society or within the family result in cial and later reproductive competitiveness of off- reductions in parental empathy and responsiveness to spring (Clutton-Brock, 1991; Geary, 2000). The children and in harsh child-rearing practices (e.g., associated proximate causes constitute all of those painful physical punishment). At the same time, most cognitive, social, and emotional systems that result in of these parents show the proximity-related behaviors the administration of parental investment, independ- (e.g., responding to distress signals) described by ently of whether this investment is subjectively com- Bowlby (1969; MacDonald, 1992). Although these fortable or cost free to the parent. Bell and Richard harsh child-rearing practices are sometimes described argue that “no rational self-interested person would as abusive and pathological, the possibility that these voluntarily pay the emotional and monetary costs of are adaptive and facultatively expressed responses to parenting” (this issue). This statement represents a harsh social conditions needs to be seriously consid- confusion of ultimate and proximate mecha- ered. In fact, MacDonald argued that harsh child rear- nisms—even subjectively taxing proximate costs, such ing “shuts down” the neurobiological and associated as anxiety, distress, and lost resources, will evolve, if emotional systems that support interpersonal warmth they result in a reproductive advantage and thus results in a more guarded, aggressive, and ex- (Clutton-Brock, 1991). In other words, genetic self-in- ploitative social style. Although maladaptive in some terest—of which parental investment is but one exam- contexts, this type of social style is functional in other ple—and here-and-now personal self-interest (e.g., social contexts—in theory, those contexts that promote personal comfort) are not the same. harsh parental child rearing. In fact, selection could support heavy emotional It appears that caregiving, as described by Bell and and other costs of parental investment if these costs re- Richard, and warmer parent–child relations are more sulted in behaviors that reduced the mortality risks of commonly found in high-resource, low-conflict social children. As an example, parental grief associated with ecologies and in settings with low mortality rates and a the loss of a child and the associated examination of relatively even distribution of resources among the lo- “how did this happen” could prompt behavioral cal population (Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, 1991; changes that reduced risks to later children. Moreover, MacDonald, 1992; Wilson & Daly, 1997). In these set- there are other mechanisms, such as fear when the tings, a cooperative social style—one characterized by child is threatened, empathy as described by Bell and warm and reciprocal social relationships among Richard, and child characteristics (e.g., cute) that pro- adults—may be more adaptive than the guarded and mote parental investment (Trivers, 1974). On a per- aggressive social style described above. In this view, sonal level, this investment often exacts emotional and cooperative social relationships among adults, com- monetary costs on the parent, to the benefit of the child. bined with living in a low-risk and high-resource envi- But if this investment increases the chances that these ronment, result in the facultative expression of the children will reach adulthood and have children of features of caregiving described by Bell and Richard. their own, then parental investment is, from a genetic This form of caregiving, in turn, results in a bias to- perspective, a self-interested behavior. ward more reciprocal and warmer social relationships (MacDonald, 1992). Note In short, the proximity-seeking features of attachment described by Bowlby (1969) appear to be an obli- David C. Geary, Department of Psychology, 210 gate feature of parental investment—although McAlester Hall, University of Missouri at Columbia, Co- abandonment of children would still be expected under lumbia, MO 65211–2500. E-mail: [email protected]

85 COMMENTARIES

References Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 55–77. Bard, K. A. (1995). Parenting in primates. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Goodall, J. (1986). The chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of behavior. Handbook of parenting: Vol. 2. Biology and ecology of Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. parenting (pp. 27–58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- Hofer, M. A. (1987). Early social relationships: A psychobiologist’s ciates, Inc. view. Child Development, 58, 633–647. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, Lovejoy, C. O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341–350. interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evo- MacDonald, K. (1992). Warmth as a developmental construct: lutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, An evolutionary analysis. Child Development, 63, 647–670. 753–773. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. London: Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Hogarth. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. Prince- 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine. ton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent–offspring conflict. American Zoologist, Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1981). Abuse and neglect of children in evo- 14, 249–264. lutionary perspective. In R. D. Alexander & D. W. Tinkle Vrba, E. S. (1985). Ecological and adaptive changes associated with (Eds.), Natural selection and social behavior (pp. 405–416). early hominid evolution. In E. Delson (Ed.), Ancestors: The New York: Chiron Press. hard evidence (pp. 63–71). New York: Alan R. Liss. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. New York: Aldine de Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1997). Life expectancy, economic in- Gruyter. equality, homicide, and reproductive timing in Chicago Geary, D. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differ- neighbourhoods. British Medical Journal, 314, ences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 1271–1274.

The Complexity of the Caregiving System: A Perspective From Attachment Theory

Jude Cassidy Department of Psychology University of Maryland

In one of his earliest writings, Bowlby (1956) this article, I present a contrasting perspective and pointed out that further understanding of attachment attempt to demonstrate contemporary attachment the- could be gained from examination of the mother’s tie ory’s focus on the multifaceted, rich complexities in- to her infant. Although Bowlby (1984) later wrote volved in the caregiving behavioral system. I review briefly about “parenting behavior” from a biological discussion by a number of attachment theorists who ar- perspective as “like attachment behavior … in some gue that the caregiving system should be examined not degree preprogrammed” (p. 271), he devoted his atten- only as a separate system, but also in connection with tion almost exclusively to examining the attachment other parental behavioral systems and in relation to the side of what he called the “attachment-caregiving so- child’s behavioral systems. These attachment theorists cial bond” (Bowlby, 1969/1982, p. 377). It is to his also consider cognition and emotion, a variety of con- credit that his initial focus on the sole behavioral sys- textual factors, both past and present influences on tem of attachment produced such a highly generative caregiving, a life-span perspective, and differential theory that subsequent theorists examining the maternal and paternal caregiving—all aspects of a the- caregiving system have had a solid theoretical and em- oretical perspective that is anything but simple. pirical base on which to build (see Bretherton, Biringin, Ridgeway, Maslin, & Sherman, 1989; The Caregiving Behavioral System Bretherton, Golby, & Cho, 1997; Cassidy, 1999, in press; Heard & Lake, 1997; Main, 1990; Pianta, From an attachment theory perspective, caregiving Marvin, Britner, & Borowitz, 1996; Slade, Belsky, is considered within the framework of the caregiving Aber, & Phelps, 1999; Zeanah, Benoit, Hirschberg, behavioral system. Bowlby (1969/1982) borrowed the Barton, & Regan, 1994; and most extensively, George concept of the behavioral system from the ethologists & Solomon, 1996, 1999, and Solomon & George, to describe a species-specific system of behaviors that 1996). leads to certain predictable outcomes, at least one of In their target article, Bell and Richard claim that which contributes to the individual’s reproductive fit- “attachment theory oversimplifies and further ness. The predictable outcome of activation of the par- trivializes the process of caregiving” (this issue). In ent’s caregiving system is child–parent proximity, and

86 COMMENTARIES the biological function is protection of the child and rental behavioral systems (e.g., exploration, enhanced parental reproductive fitness. The concept of food-getting, fear). External cues include state of the the behavioral system involves inherent motivation. environment (e.g., whether it is familiar, whether there There is no need to view attachment as the by-product is danger, whether others are present and who those others are), state of the infant (e.g., whether the infant of any more fundamental processes or “drives.” Thus, is sick or tired), and behavior of the infant (e.g., Bell and Richard’s claim that “attachment accounts of whether he or she is exhibiting attachment behavior). caregiving lack a plausible motivation for caregiving, a (Cassidy, 1999, p. 10) reason why the caregiver should choose to nurture the dependent” (this issue) dismisses Bowlby’s initial thinking about the caregiving system and more recent Interplay Among Behavioral Systems expansions of this thinking that are solidly within contemporary biological theorizing and empirical re- Further adding to the complex nature of the search. The caregiving system is thought to have caregiving behavioral system is the fact that it oper- evolved because, during the time when humans and ates in conjunction with a variety of a parent’s other other primates were initially evolving, parents who biologically based behavior systems. An appreciation provided protective care to their offspring were more of the interplay among behavioral systems has always likely to have offspring survive and pass on the genes been central to attachment theory, and two examples for this caregiving behavior. This notion of inherent of this interplay involving the caregiving system are motivation is also compatible with Piaget’s (1954) for- noted here. For instance, just as the child’s attachment mulation of the inherent motivation of the child’s inter- and fear systems are closely linked (such that an in- est in exploration. crease in fear contributes to increased attachment behavior; Bowlby, 1973), so are the parent’s caregiving Activation and Termination of the and fear systems. When a parent is frightened by Caregiving Behavioral System threat to the child, she increases caregiving behavior; conversely, when a parent is in a safe environment Bell and Richard claim that, according to attach- and perceives no threat, she is likely to decrease ment theory, “the caregiving behavioral system is inac- caregiving behavior. Similarly, the exploratory and tive most of the time. … [The] behavioral control caregiving systems are likely to be intertwined, such system [described] by most attachment theorists … is that activation of a parent’s exploratory system may either turned on or turned off” (this issue). Bell and reduce activation of the caregiving system: On Super Richard contrast the “on-off caregiving of attachment Bowl Sunday, a father may be more lax in his theories” with their own perspective, wherein “caring caregiving behavior during the game than following is conceptualized as enduring and variable” (this is- it. (See George & Solomon, 1999, for a full discus- sue). Yet, in parallel to Bowlby’s (1969/1982) revised sion of “competing behavioral systems.”) view of the attachment system as never fully turned off, the caregiving system is viewed by attachment the- Parent–Child Conflict orists as continually active (enduring) and variable (i.e., the interaction of a variety of factors contributes The caregiving system operates not only in concert to whether caregiving behavior occurs at all and the in- with other parental behavioral systems, but also in con- tensity of that behavior). Bell and Richard further cert with the child’s behavioral systems. Bowlby claim that, from an attachment theory perspective, the (1969/1982) considered the child’s attachment system caregiving system “only becomes active when the de- and the parent’s caregiving system as “complemen- pendent’s distress vocalizations or excessive distance tary” behavioral systems. In most cases, parents and from the caregiver stimulates it” (this issue). In fact, children work together to maintain a comfortable, safe within the framework of attachment theory, the mecha- degree of proximity. If the child moves away, the par- nism is not so simple. There are thought to be multiple ent will retrieve him; if the parent moves away, the and complex factors involved in the relative activation child will follow or signal for the parent to return. Fol- and deactivation of the caregiving system; activation lowing Bowlby’s thinking, it seems likely that when of caregiving is viewed as far more complexly deter- the caregiving system is relatively activated, the child’s attachment system can be relatively deacti- mined than simple responsiveness to child attachment vated; attachment behaviors are not needed because behavior: the parent has assumed responsibility for maintaining As is true for many behavioral systems, activation of proximity. If the caregiving system is not relatively ac- the caregiving system results from both internal and tivated, then the child’s attachment system becomes external cues. Internal cues include presence of hor- activated, should the context call for it. This “dynamic mones, cultural beliefs, parental state (e.g., whether equilibrium” (Bowlby, 1969/1982, p. 236) contributes the parent is tired or sick), and activation of other pa- to understanding the notion of the mother’s providing a

87 COMMENTARIES

“secure base from which to explore.” The mother’s The Role of Emotion monitoring of child–mother proximity frees the infant from such necessary monitoring and permits the The emotions linked to caregiving may be as pow- child’s greater attention to exploration (Main, 1973), erful as any experienced throughout life. As I noted in although there are certainly times when both partners’ a previous article (Cassidy, 1999), the birth of a first systems are concurrently activated and both take sig- child (which establishes the adult as a parent) is often nificant responsibility for maintaining proximity. accompanied by feelings of great joy; threats to the However, as Trivers (1974) noted, parents and chil- child are accompanied by anxiety; the death of a child dren are at times in conflict because circumstances en- brings profound grief. This intertwining of the hance the reproductive fitness of each member of the caregiving system with intense emotions may result dyad differently. For instance, when an infant’s attach- from selective pressures of evolution: Enhanced repro- ment system is activated in the presence of the mother, ductive fitness may result when, for instance, a par- the infant’s sole wish is for her to respond. Although ent’s anxiety about threats to a child prompts the parent such infant behavior is usually a powerful activating to seek effective interventions. stimulus for the mother’s caregiving system, the mother may choose among several competing needs and may or may not provide care. The child’s concern Explaining Parental Responsiveness is immediate and focused; the mother’s concerns may be more diffuse and long-range (Main, 1981, 1990). According to Bell and Richard, “attachment logic The mother may have to leave the infant to work to has suggested why sensitivity and responsiveness may support the family, or she may have several children to be important for the child, but it has not been able to whose needs she must attend. Parental caregiving to a explain why they are important to the parent” (this is- particular child is only one of many ways a parent can sue). Yet consideration of the biological function of the increase reproductive fitness. Others include having caregiving system—protection of the young and en- additional children; providing care to other children; hanced parental reproductive fitness—is central to an maintaining ties to a mate, kin, or peers who will help attachment theory perspective, and such consideration protect offspring; and gathering resources. Thus, par- leads to a biological understanding of why, for pri- ents juggle a variety of complex, competing factors mates, responsiveness and sensitivity are “important to when faced with caregiving decisions. Main (1990) the parent.” The case of parental soothing serves as one has proposed that from an evolutionary perspective, example. Why would a parent expend effort to soothe a maternal unresponsiveness may be useful to the child frightened of thunder when the parent correctly mother if it maximizes the total number of surviving perceives that the child is in no danger? There are a offspring (see also Belsky, 1999; Simpson, 1999). number of possible reasons, all of which increase parental reproductive fitness. I have proposed elsewhere that soothing behaviors serve, indirectly, to facilitate The Role of Cognition the parent’s monitoring of potential or real dangers to the child (Cassidy, 1999). Parental provision of contact A central notion of attachment theory is that early in usually comforts a distressed child. If the child contin- life, humans develop mental representations of them- ues to be distressed for a substantial time following selves, the people important in their lives, and the contact, there may be another threat of which the par- workings of the world (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973; ent in unaware. Through continuing attempts to soothe Bretherton & Munholland, 1999; Main, Kaplan, & the child, the parent gains information about threat to Cassidy, 1985). More recent attention to attachment the child. The parent may not realize, for instance, that across the life span has led to the proposition that par- the child has a painful splinter in her foot. Furthermore, ents also develop representations of themselves as par- there are many ways in which inconsolable crying (be- ents and of their children (Slade et al., 1999; Zeanah et yond infancy) can signal serious health problems; a al., 1994), as well as a “current state of mind with re- parent will not know whether crying is inconsolable gard to attachment” (Main & Goldwyn, 1998). The unless the parent attempts to console. Another possible thinking is that parental mental representations influ- reason for soothing is that it may contribute to reducing ence parenting behavior, and there is evidence that this the health risks associated with chronic, unrelieved is the case (e.g., Slade et al., 1999). Understanding the stress (e.g., Kobassa, 1979). In addition, it is likely that process through which this occurs (selective attention, the child learns, through modeling, about how to memory, interpretative bias, expectations) will be im- soothe the distress of others. Given evidence that portant in future research. What factors contribute to adults prefer romantic partners who are sensitively re- change in representational models and the relative in- sponsive (Pietromonaco & Carnelley, 1994; Zeifman fluence of early and later models will also be important & Hazan, 1997), having learned such behavior may in- to explore. crease the child’s later ability to attract desirable ro-

88 COMMENTARIES mantic (reproductive) partners. Both reducing risk to present influences on parenting: What are the relative the child’s health and enhancing the child’s attractive- influences of past and present? Under what circum- ness to desirable partners, in turn, enhance the parent’s stances is one more influential? How much of a protec- own reproductive fitness. Another reason, which is tive factor can early positive experience provide? Do perhaps the most basic reason for soothing, may be that relative influences vary across individuals? What is the the species has evolved such that a child’s distress is role of biological change during adolescence? The aversive to the parent (even at the level of auditory field is in the midst of an explosion of learning about pitch and frequency), and the parent desires and acts to the processes through which neural pathways become terminate the aversive stimulus. established and influence later behavior, and greater consideration is being given to why, from an evolutionary perspective, individuals would be particularly The Active Parent: Understanding influenced by early attachment experiences yet at the Individual Differences same time retain the ability to flexibly adapt to new circumstances (see Belsky, 1999; Cassidy, in press; Bell and Richard refer to “the essentially passive George & Solomon, 1999; Siegel, 1999). Emerging caregiving behavioral control system described in at- data from studies using the Adult Attachment Inter- tachment theory” wherein the parent “responds me- view suggest that when adult representations are not chanically to the child’s crying” (this issue). congruent with early attachment experiences (e.g., Behavioral systems, however, have never been viewed when an adult with negative childhood experiences has as “passive” systems by ethologists or attachment the- current attachment-related representations that are se- orists. Furthermore, there has been considerable recent cure), it is adult representation rather than childhood theorizing that individual differences in parental experience that is more closely linked to the attach- caregiving can be viewed in part as (nonconscious) ac- ment quality of offspring (and presumably to parenting tive strategic parental attempts to increase reproduc- behavior; Pearson, Cohn, Cowan, & Cowan, 1994). tive fitness. In other words, it has been proposed that parents (nonconsciously) consider a complex constel- lation of factors and arrive at a (nonconscious) belief A Contextual Perspective about the type of caregiving likely to enhance their reproductive fitness. This parental belief, in turn, is Rather than considering simply the parent’s (past likely to influence the parents’ active choices of and present) contribution to the caregiving system, re- caregiving behaviors. Thus, although the parameters cent theorizing has used a complex, contextual ap- of the caregiving system are thought to be biologically proach, in which the parent’s own characteristics are based and to have evolved through the process of natu- considered to play an important role yet are not viewed ral selection, the caregiving system is thought to have as solely causal. Parental characteristics are thought to evolved with the capacity to flexibly adapt to environ- operate within a larger context that includes character- mental variation in ways that enhance reproductive fit- istics of the child; the larger family system, including ness. For further discussion of the ways attachment the marriage, the family size and structure, sibling theorists view the caregiving system as characterized characteristics and relations, and the larger kinship net- by active parental judgment and learning rather than as work; and the environment, including the safety of the either “passive” or “strictly innate,” as Bell and Rich- neighborhood, availability of resources, and the social ard claim, see Belsky (1999), George and Solomon network. Experimental research with primates has sug- (1999), and Main (1990). gested that mothering does in fact differ as a function of these contextual factors (Suomi, 1999). (For further discussion of a contextual perspective on caregiving, The Influence of Past and Present see Belsky & Isabella, 1988; Berlin & Cassidy, 1999, in press; Cowan, Cohn, Cowan, & Pearson, 1996; and There has long been a theoretical view that past ex- George & Solomon, 1999.) periences guide present parenting. Fraiberg (1980), for instance, claimed, “we do unto others as we were done to.” Similarly, Sroufe and Fleeson (1986) pointed out Mothers and Fathers that babies learn both sides of important early dyadic relationships—at the same time they learn what it is Contributing additional complexity is the fact that like to be a baby in a relationship, they learn how it is some caregivers are mothers and some are fathers; that the caregiver is. Bowlby (1979) also proposed that within the contemporary evolutionary perspective, the secure childhood attachment would facilitate an indi- existence of separate maternal and paternal caregiving vidual’s later parenting. More recently, theorists have systems in readily understood. Both mothers and fa- begun to examine the complex intertwining of past and thers are concerned with their own reproductive fit-

89 COMMENTARIES ness. Yet, because mothers and fathers may differ ents face as they struggle to do the best possible job of substantially in the extent to which the survival of any raising their children. Finally, it is important to note one child enhances this fitness, their parenting behav- that attachment theory has guided research examining ior may differ. Compared to fathers, mothers have some of the questions that have been most central to more to gain in terms of reproductive fitness from each parents: How are children’s hospital stays best han- child for several reasons (e.g., mothers’ certainty about dled? How will maternal employment influence chil- parental status, shorter reproductive life span, longer dren? Will parents spoil children by responding to their interchild intervals, and greater energy expenditure per cries? Can children become attached to day care pro- child [during pregnancy and lactation]; see Trivers, viders, and what qualities in the care provider contrib- 1972). Despite these differences, there is almost surely ute to the formation of a secure attachment? considerable overlap between maternal and paternal caregiving systems as well. Notes A Life-Span Perspective This article was written with support from grants by the National Institute of Mental Health Understanding caregiving would be complex even (RO1MH50773 and RO1MH58907) and the National if all parents were 25 years old and all children were in- Institute for Child Health and Development fants. Yet both children and parents develop. The (RO1HD36635). I am grateful to Inge Bretherton, life-span perspective characteristic of attachment the- Mary Main, Robert Marvin, and Susan Woodhouse for ory leads to consideration of two key questions that their thoughtful comments on a previous draft of this add further layers of complexity to attempts to under- article. stand caregiving. First, when does an adult become a Jude Cassidy, Department of Psychology, Univer- parent? Becoming a parent at age 22 has advantages sity of Maryland, Room 2123L, Biology–Psychology and disadvantages compared with becoming a parent Building, College Park, MD 20742–4411. E-mail: at age 42; becoming a parent at age 14 brings still an- [email protected] other set of considerations. Second, what age is the child who is being parented? Opportunities and challenges—and a parent’s own strengths and weak- nesses—differ when the child is an infant, a toddler, an References adolescent. Belsky, J. (1999). Modern evolutionary theory and patterns of attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attach- Summary ment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 141–161). New York: Guilford. Belsky, J., & Isabella, R. (1988). Maternal, infant, and social contex- Despite increasing theoretical attention to the tual determinants of attachment security. In J. Belsky & T. caregiving system, there is as yet relatively little re- Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment (pp. search related to this theorizing. Much research re- 41–94). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. mains to be conducted, and the next decade should Berlin, L. J., & Cassidy, J. (1999). Relations among relationships: Contributions from attachment theory and research. In J. prove an exciting time on this front. Bridges across Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: The- multiple theoretical perspectives may serve to further ory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 688–712). New enrich our understanding of the caregiving system. The York: Guilford. perspective from which Bell and Richard approach Berlin, L. J., & Cassidy, J. (in press). Understanding parenting: Contribu- caregiving differs substantially from that of most con- tions of attachment theory and research. In J. Osofsky & H. Fitzger- ald (Eds.), Handbook of infant mental health. New York: Wiley. temporary attachment theorists, who instead are Bowlby, J. (1956). The growth of independence in the young child. grounded within a framework of contemporary evolu- Royal Society of Health Journal, 76, 587–591. tionary biology. It is important to note, before closing, Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment that Bell and Richard’s assessment of attachment the- (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. ory leads them to argue not only that there are scientific Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books. flaws in the theory’s proposals about caregiving, but Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. also that the theory is not particularly sensitive to the London: Tavistock. challenges of parenting: “Attachment theory has come Bowlby, J. (1984). Caring for the young: Influences on development. close to trivializing the difficult conflicts and choices In R. Cohen, S. H. Weissman, & B. J. Cohler (Eds.), Parenthood that caregivers experience” (this issue). In his clinical (pp. 269–284). New York: Guilford. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books. writings, however, Bowlby (1979, 1988) uniformly Bretherton, I., Biringin, Z., Ridgeway, D., Maslin, D., & Sherman, expressed considerable empathy and compassion for M. (1989). Attachment: The parental perspective. Infant Mental the difficulties and complex considerations that par- Health Journal, 10, 203–221.

90 COMMENTARIES

Bretherton, I., Golby, B., & Cho, E. (1997). Attachment and the tran- Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points in attachment the- sition of values. In J. Grusec & L. Kucszynski (Eds.), Handbook ory and research (pp. 66–104). Monographs of the Society for Re- series: Parenting and children’s internalization of values. New search in Child Development, 50(1-2, Serial No. 209). York: Wiley. Pearson, J., Cohn, D., Cowan, P., & Cowan, C. P. (1994). Earned and Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models continuous security in adult attachment: Relation to depressive in attachment relationships: A construct revisited. In J. Cassidy symptomology and parenting style. Development and & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, re- Psychopathology, 6, 359–373. search, and clinical applications (pp. 89–114). New York: Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Guilford. Basic Books. Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Pianta, R. C., Marvin, R. S., Britner, P., & Borowitz, K. (1996). Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and Mothers’ resolution of their children’s diagnosis: Organized clinical applications (pp. 3–20). New York: Guilford. patterns of caregiving representations. Infant Mental Health Cassidy, J. (in press). Adult romantic attachments: A developmen- Journal, 17, 239–256. tal perspective on individual differences. Journal of General Pietromonaco, P. R., & Carnelley, K. B. (1994). Gender and working Psychology. models of attachment: Consequences for perceptions of self and Cowan, P. A., Cohn, D. A., Cowan, C. P., & Pearson, J. L. (1996). social relationships. Personal Relationships, 1, 63–82. Parents’ attachment histories and children’s externalizing and Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: Toward a neurobiology of internalizing behavior: Exploring family systems models of interpersonal experience. New York: Guilford. linkage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, Simpson, J. A. (1999). Attachment theory in modern evolutionary 53–63. perspective. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Fraiberg, S. (1980). Clinical studies in infant mental health: The first attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. year of life. New York: Basic Books. 115–140). New York: Guilford. George, C., & Solomon, J. (1996). Representational models of rela- Slade, A., Belsky, J., Aber, L., & Phelps, J. (1999). Maternal repre- tionships: Links between caregiving and attachment. Infant sentations of their toddlers: Links to adult attachment and ob- Mental Health Journal, 17, 198–216. served mothering. Developmental Psychology, 35, 611–619. George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and caregiving: The Solomon, J., & George, C. (1996). Defining the caregiving system: caregiving behavioral system. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver Toward a theory of caregiving. Infant Mental Health Journal, (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical 17, 183–197. applications (pp. 649–670). New York: Guilford. Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction Heard, D., & Lake, B. (1997). The challenge of attachment for of relationships. In W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), The nature and caregiving. London: Routledge. development of relationships (pp. 51–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Law- Kobassa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Suomi, S. J. (1999). Attachment in rhesus monkeys. In J. Cassidy & Psychology, 37, 1–11. P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, re- Main, M. (1973). Exploration, play, and cognitive functioning as research, and clinical applications (pp. 181–197). New York: lated to child–mother attachment. Unpublished doctoral disser- Guilford. tation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Main, M. (1981). Avoidance in the service of attachment: A working Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, paper. In K. Immelmann, G. Barlow, L. Petrinovich, & M. Main 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. (Eds.), Behavioral development: The Bielefeld Interdisciplin- Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent–offspring conflict. American Zoologist, ary Project. New York: Cambridge University Press. 14, 249–264. Main, M. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of attachment organization: Zeanah, C., Benoit, D., Hirschberg, L., Barton, M. L., & Regan, C. Recent studies, changing methodologies, and the concept of (1994). Mothers’ representations of their infants are concordant conditional strategies. Human Development, 33, 48–61. with infant attachment classification. Developmental Issues in Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (1998). Adult attachment scoring and clas- Psychiatry and Psychology, 1, 1–14. sification system. Unpublished manuscript, University of Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (1997). Attachment: The bond in Califormia at Berkeley. pair-bonds. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kendrick (Eds.), Evolu- Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, child- tionary social psychology (pp. 237–263). Mahwah, NJ: Law- hood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Parent–Child Emotional Bonds: Loving or Caring?

Patricia Noller and Judith A. Feeney School of Psychology University of Queensland, Australia

The key proposition of Bell and Richard’s the perspective of these authors, attachment theory thought-provoking article is that attachment theorists explains infant attachment behavior in terms of the in- have tended to focus on the needs and motivations un- fant’s needs for protection and felt security, but it says derlying infants’ attachment behavior, rather than on little about why parents (particularly quality care- the motivation of the adults who nurture them. From givers) respond in ways that increase the security of the

91 COMMENTARIES child. We agree that this aspect of the development of on self-interest as a motivating force, but that parents’ the parent–child bond (i.e., the motivation of parents nurturing behavior is less easily explained. That is, if for caregiving) has tended to be downplayed by attach- self-interest were the only principle operating, very ment theorists. few people would be prepared to take on the demand- Bell and Richard expound a “connection theoretical ing role of parent. orientation” to the infant–caregiver relationship, with a Based on these considerations, the authors propose focus on the emotion of caring as the primary motiva- the “emotion” of caring as the primary motivation for tion for nurturing behavior toward infants (or depend- parental caregiving. They regard the dyadic emotion of ents, to use their term). Rather than arguing against the caring as an autonomous motivation that can success- basic principles of attachment theory, their approach fully compete with self-interest; this emotion is ori- seeks to expand the theory to incorporate this new per- ented toward the needs of the dependent, rather than spective. In other words, as the authors acknowledge, the pleasure of the caregiver. This approach to par- “the ideas presented here are not an alternative to the ent–child relationships grounds caregiving in emotion, attachment theoretical orientation. In fact, they are rather than cognition, as highlighted by the authors’ compatible with most of the logic that Bowlby and his vivid description of the parent’s first moments with the successors have articulated” (this issue). newborn child. Although we agree that emotion deserves a more central place in our understanding of parent–child re- Emotion and Caregiving lationships, we have several concerns with this perspective. First, we are not convinced that attachment In our response, we would first like to acknowl- theory explains parental responses in terms of cogni- edge several important strengths of Bell and Rich- tion, to the exclusion of emotion. Bell and Richard ard’s theoretical approach. We agree that attachment acknowledge that Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) re- theorists have not paid enough attention to the impor- garded attachment relationships as the source of our tance of emotion in parent–child relationships, espe- most intense emotions; however, they argue that at- cially from the perspective of the parent. Emotion is tachment theorists perceive these emotions as the out- clearly relevant as a motivation for caregiving, as come of the attachment bond, rather than its cause. well as being central to the maintenance of par- From our perspective, however, it is impossible to ent–child relationships. In particular, Bell and Rich- separate the attachment bond from the emotions asso- ard’s emphasis on positive emotion provides a bal- ciated with it. ance to attachment theorists’ primary focus on Second, we are not convinced that care is the rele- negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, and distress. vant emotion, or even that it is an emotion. We would In addition, we agree with the authors that because tend to argue that the primary emotion is love, and that parents have the monopoly on resources in the par- caring is the behavioral expression of that love. Bell ent–child relationship, it is particularly important to and Richard’s article gives us the impression that they focus on understanding what motivates them to care choose the term care because of their concerns about for their children and what factors may impede qual- the diverse connotations of the word love in Western ity caregiving. culture. We have some sympathy with this point of view, and we recognize that their choice of terms may have more to do with semantics than with a particular What Emotion Underlies Parental theoretical position. Caregiving? Shaver, Morgan, and Wu (1996), however, presented compelling arguments for conceptualizing Bell and Richard suggest that attachment theory love as an emotion. They suggest that it is important fails to provide a motivation for parental caregiving. to distinguish between two forms of love: momentary Specifically, they note that, from the perspective of surges of affection (similar to joy) and enduring rela- current evolutionary theory, the protection of children tional love. Momentary surges of affection, in partic- (and hence the survival of the child’s genetic inheri- ular, appear to meet the criteria for a basic emotion. tance) is an unintended consequence of the existence In the case of parent–child relationships, we would of the attachment and caregiving behavioral control argue that most parents experience enduring rela- systems, rather than the goal of these systems. In other tional love for their offspring, but that they also have words, evolutionary processes cannot explain why momentary surges of love and affection (e.g., when these control systems operate. According to the au- they look with adoration on their sleeping child). In thors, the dependent’s attachment behavior can be ex- other words, we would argue that parental love is the plained in terms of the desires for security and critical emotion and that it produces caring behaviors. protection. They go on to argue that these desires are This formulation is consistent with several theoretical consistent with social scientists’ prevailing emphasis models of love (e.g., Buss, 1988; Noller, 1996;

92 COMMENTARIES

Shaver & Hazan, 1988) that describe behavioral ten- rather simplistic to see women’s nurturing behavior to dencies associated with love (such as doing things for their own infants as “natural,” such behavior probably the other). does result, at least in part, from a whole range of natural processes, some of which involve hormonal changes. In short, parental love (or care) is likely to de- How Does the Emotion Underlying velop through a series of complex processes that begin Caregiving Develop? long before birth. Similarly, Buss (1988) suggested that both proximal causes (e.g., culture, physiology) We also have some doubts as to whether Bell and and ultimate causes (related to our evolutionary past) Richard’s account of parental caregiving explains how are needed to fully explain acts of love. the emotion underlying caregiving behavior develops. The authors place emotion as the central issue in caregiving and attachment relationships, arguing that Conceptualizing Quality Caregiving emotion is causal, rather than simply a signal of the state of the behavioral control system. Caring is seen as Bell and Richard criticize attachment theory for its deriving from the caregiver’s relational feelings to- failure to explain how responsiveness and sensitivity ward the particular dependent, rather than as a constant are produced and why they are important from the par- need within the caregiver. As we noted earlier, how- ent’s perspective. They also argue that attachment the- ever, it does not seem feasible to try to distinguish be- orists portray parental responsiveness as mechanical tween the attachment bond and the associated and reactive and as operating like an on-off switch in emotions. Hence, it is virtually impossible to establish response to the attachment behaviors of the dependent. the extent to which an emotion such as love (or care) Although it is true that schematic representations of at- causes caring behavior and the extent to which caring tachment as a behavioral control system tend to imply behavior produces the emotion. this mode of operation, it is difficult to reconcile this Bell and Richard claim that attachment theory fails view with Bowlby’s recognition (noted earlier), that to explain why attachment bonds are lasting and irre- attachment bonds are intensely emotional in nature. placeable. However, we are not convinced that the ex- Perhaps the problem is that any diagrammatic repre- planation offered by these authors adds anything to sentation of complex processes is likely to oversim- current thinking about this issue. It seems tautological plify those processes to some extent. Further, the idea to say that “the caregiving bond endures because it is that parents are purely reactive in terms of their the enduring emotion of caring” (this issue). To fully caregiving (providing care only in direct response to understand parental caregiving and its motivation, it attachment behaviors from the dependent) does not fit may be necessary to go further back in a causal chain with our understanding of attachment theory. Rather, and to propose parental investment as a cause of the the theory suggests that quality caregivers are “avail- emotion underlying caregiving. able” to the child; they monitor the child’s needs and Evolutionary psychologists such as Buss seem to are actively involved in meshing their own needs and argue, for example, that parental investment in the off- behaviors with those of the child (e.g., Isabella & spring plays a causal role in the evolutionary process, Belsky, 1991). with the potential to provide a motivation for caring. The authors propose that quality caregiving can be Specifically, Buss (1988) argued that adults’ needs for better understood in terms of empathy (emotional in- intimacy (including sexual relationships) and their ten- tention to know the other) and responsibility (emo- dency to develop caring and supportive attitudes to- tional intention to help meet the other’s needs), which ward sexual partners and their shared offspring can be they see as two direct results of the caregiver’s caring best understood from an evolutionary perspective. for the dependent. They acknowledge strong similari- On a more specific point, it is also interesting to ties between sensitivity and empathy and between re- note that Bell and Richard, in describing the develop- sponsiveness and responsibility. However, they see ment of the emotion of caring, seem to imply that the responsibility as much more proactive than respon- parent’s connection with the child commences with the siveness, and they argue that the former concept also parent’s viewing of the child at birth and the child’s has the advantage of explaining how the competence looking at the parent. There appear to be some short- and autonomy of the child are promoted. comings to this approach. For example, in the early Again, we see some limitations to these arguments. weeks of life, babies are not very responsive, with eye First, as noted above, we are not convinced that attach- movements being not yet under voluntary control (Pe- ment theorists see parental responsiveness as totally terson, 1989). On the other hand, for most parents (al- reactive. Second, we find it rather tautological to say though perhaps especially mothers), the feeling of that “within the caregiving process of the connection connection and attachment to the child begins during theoretical orientation, [empathy and responsibility] pregnancy (Condon, 1993). And although it may be are two direct results [italics added] of the caregiver’s

93 COMMENTARIES caring for the dependent” (this issue). How do these theoretical orientation are likely to add to our under- characteristics emerge from the caregiving process? standing of the bond between parent and child. How can quality caregiving occur if these characteristics are not present from the beginning? These questions remain unanswered. Further, although empathy Note and responsibility may be important aspects of parental caregiving, these concepts do not help to clarify the Patricia Noller and Judith A. Feeney, School of Psychol- origins of specific forms of problematic caregiving, ogy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, such as compulsive caregiving, parental overindul- 4072, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]. gence, and parental overprotection.

References

Summary Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books. In summary, Bell and Richard suggest that current Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books. formulations of attachment theory pay little attention Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. New York: Ba- to the emotions and motivations involved in parental sic Books. caregiving and are limited in their potential to explain Buss, D. M. (1988). Love acts: The evolutionary biology of love. In variability in caregiving. We agree that emotion is R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love clearly relevant as a motivation for caregiving and that (pp. 100–118). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Condon, J. T. (1993). The assessment of antenatal emotional attach- parents do face important choices and conflicts in their ment: Development of a questionnaire instrument. British Jour- caregiving role. We also see value in Bell and Rich- nal of Medical Psychology, 66, 167–183. ard’s emphasis on positive emotion rather than on neg- Isabella, R. A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony and the ative emotions such as anxiety and distress, which are origins of infant–mother attachment: A replication study. Child often the focus of attachment theorists. In addition, we Development, 62, 373–384. Noller, P. (1996). What is this thing called love? Defining the love acknowledge the importance of focusing on under- that supports marriage and family. Personal Relationships, 3, standing the behavior of the caregiver as well as that of 97–115. the child. At the same time, we believe that some of Peterson, C. (1989). Looking forward through the life span. Sydney, their criticisms of attachment theory are somewhat Australia: Prentice-Hall. Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of overstated and that some of their proposed explana- love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 473–501. tions verge on the tautological. Nevertheless, we be- Shaver, P. R., Morgan, H. J., & Wu, S. (1996). Is love a “basic” emo- lieve that further refinements of their connection tion? Personal Relationships, 3, 81–96.

Understanding What Motivates Sensitive Parenting

Theodore Dix Department of Human Ecology University of Texas at Austin

Fundamental to harmonious and beneficial interac- at such moments parents cannot work, relax, or attend tions between parents and children is the parents’ moti- to others. How do parents decide at each moment vation to promote children’s wants and needs. By which outcomes to seek and whether children’s inter- seeking to promote children’s interests, parents mini- ests should have priority over parents’ or others’ legiti- mize parent–child conflict; meet children’s legitimate mate interests? Although important aspects of needs; develop parent–child relationships; and pro- children’s development may depend on how parents’ mote children’s sense of trust, competence, and make these choices, the motivational processes re- well-being (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; sponsible for them have rarely been studied. Dix, 1992; Lamb & Easterbrooks, 1981; Tronick, Several recent analyses, however, give a central 1982). Yet, acting for children’s interests is seldom ac- role to the processes that regulate which concerns or complished without cost. To read to or comfort chil- motives parents seek to promote with children (Dix, dren, to help them resolve conflicts, or to help them 1991, 1992; Hastings & Grusec, 1998). These analyses find and play with toys requires effort and means that suggest that, to be effective, parents must be motivated

94 COMMENTARIES for particular kinds of outcomes, specifically, for out- ing and empathic may act insensitively if the sensitive comes (a) that handle children’s fundamental needs; behavior that may normally flow from their caring or (b) that children actively seek themselves; (c) that chil- child-oriented affect is disrupted by arousal, lack of dren are able and willing to promote; (d) that, if pro- confidence in their ability to control an interaction moted, would benefit children; and (e) that balance the (Bugental, 1992), or difficulty discerning actions that multiple wants and needs of individuals in the family may handle the child’s needs. Knowledge of the pro- (Dix, 1991, 1992; see also Kochanska, 1997; cesses that generate parents’ behavioral intentions and Rocissano, Slade, & Lynch, 1987; Tronick, 1982). action plans and of the factors that facilitate and under- How and why do effective parents choose to seek out- mine these processes is very much needed. comes that over time benefit children rather than those that may directly benefit parents themselves? An Alternate View of the Motivational Basis of Parenting Connection Theory and the Motivational Basis of Parenting Several aspects of connection theory, however, need clarification and development. First, although it gives Bell and Richard’s connection theory confronts this needed attention to positive, child-oriented emotions as motivational issue by positing an emotion, caring, that motivators of sensitive responses to children, its analy- is thought to motivate sensitive parenting, by designat- sisoftheseaffectiveprocessesisasyetundevelopedand ing the goal of meeting the child’s needs as the under- at times does not mesh well with recent advances in lying motivational principle directing sensitive knowledge of emotions. Caring, for example, is said to parenting, and by distinguishing several components be “an enduring dyadic emotion that continues over the of the processes that regulate sensitivity, notably car- long term” (this issue). By suggesting that caring emo- ing, empathy, and responsibility. This position contrib- tions are enduring over the long term, the connection utes to analysis of parental competence, first, because view implies that caring does not possess the properties it recognizes that parents’ emotions are principal, di- that define emotion for most emotion researchers. That recting, and motivating forces behind sensitivity to is, at any moment a parent who is high in caring need not children. Traditional models of parenting, with their (a) be aroused, (b) have phenomenological experiences emphasis on learning principles or stable childrearing of emotion, (c) have strong motivational inclinations, values and attitudes, have been slow to integrate ad- (d) have emotion-linked behavioral tendencies, or (e) vances in emotion research into analyses of parent be- display expressive behaviors (e.g., Campos, Barrett, havior. That parenting must arise “from an Lamb, Goldsmith, & Stenberg, 1983; Frijda, 1986; autonomous motivation that can successfully compete Izard, 1991; Lazarus, 1991; Mandler, 1984). Can caring with self- interest” (this issue) is an important insight emotion be present when my daughter is neither present that has only recently influenced analyses of par- norinmythoughts?Cancaringemotionbepresentatthe ent–child interaction (Dix, 1991, 1992; Hastings & same moment that I am angry at her? Such questions re- Grusec, 1998). veal the difficulty of thinking of caring both as enduring Second, the connection position makes useful dis- and relatively unchanging and yet as an emotion. tinctions among components of the regulatory pro- Guided by recent advances in emotion research, an cesses underlying parenting. Notable among these is alternate view depicts sensitivity as the result not of an responsibility, “the caregiver’s intention to help the enduring emotion caring, but of a complex set of moti- partner meet his or her needs” (this issue). Although vational predispositions that regulates how parents set presented as an individual difference variable, this priorities, interpret events, and react emotionally to the concept alludes to processes that have been ignored by child (Dix, 1991, 1992). In this view, caring or parenting researchers but that have been important in child-oriented emotion arises in part because parents action control theory and in social psychology gener- are predisposed to value children’s well-being highly, ally (e.g., Ajzen, 1985; Gollwitzer, 1999; Kuhl & relative to other outcomes, and therefore to process in- Beckmann, 1985). The concept implies that action formation that is relevant to children’s well-being, to does not follow directly from appraisals of or emo- experience emotions when children’s well-being is tional reactions to events but must be organized by im- significantly affected, and often to act to improve chil- mediate situation-specific processes. Sensitive dren’s well-being (Dix, 1991, 1992). These child-ori- parenting does not emerge automatically from caring ented predispositions compete with a multitude of or from empathic cognitions and emotions; rather, it other concerns, motives, or desires that parents bring to requires executive processes, that is, processes that interactions with children, most of which may have lit- translate appraisals and emotional tendencies into situ- tle to do with children’s interests. At each moment the ation-specific behavioral intentions and action plans parents’ problem is to determine which concerns rele- (Dix & Gershoff, in press). Even parents who are car- vant to immediate interaction are most important and

95 COMMENTARIES thus toward which concerns cognition and action deficits in motivation to promote children’s interests should be directed. To determine which outcomes can be understood as motivational-affective processes should have priority, parents must continually ap- that are influenced by stress; support; children’s be- praise, often automatically and without conscious de- haviors and temperaments; and parents’ skills, atti- liberation, the interests of children, of parents tudes, and dispositions. Second, the analysis can themselves, and of others in the interaction. At each account not only for variations in sensitivity across decision point, caring or sensitive parents give consid- parents, so often emphasized in parenting research, but erable weight to the child’s immediate interests, but also for variations in sensitivity across situations. By even caring parents often will determine that the positing an ongoing process by which parents discern child’s interests are secondary and often will not act to the immediate motives or concerns that should have promote those interests. In fact, even quite early in de- priority, this analysis can explain why even a caring velopment, it is critical to socialization that parents parent who can be acutely sensitive to a child’s inter- help children understand and act appropriately when ests on one occasion can be relatively unmotivated by others’ wants and needs are more important than chil- similar child interests on another. dren’s wants and needs. This approach yields a somewhat different view Within this analysis, the motivational tendencies than that of connection theory of the roles parents and that underlie parental competence are seen to be influ- children play in parent–child interaction and of the enced by a complex set of factors that include both sta- motivational processes underlying sensitive parent ble and unstable aspects of parents, children, and behavior. Although Bell and Richard recognize that circumstances. Parents probably differ reliably in their parents have needs and face multiple demands, their tendencies to value children’s well-being over other analysis nonetheless emphasizes that children are things, but at any moment their motivation to promote principally the ones with needs, while parents are children’s interests depends as well on the parents’ principally the ones with resources to meet those mood, immediately preceding events, parents’ apprais- needs. Often, when children’s needs are pressing and als of the costs of promoting children’s interests, their parents’ needs are not, this view captures a critical appraisal of the probability that particular concerns can aspect of early parent–child functioning. But particu- be promoted, and their assessment of children’s moods larly when children’s fundamental needs are rou- and abilities to integrate into particular plans of action. tinely met, it is often parents’ needs that are press- Although over time, sensitive parents ought to experi- ing—they need to complete important work, get to a ence greater affection, warmth, sympathy, and related doctor’s appointment, or attend to an angry neigh- transient emotions than will insensitive parents, these bor—and children’s needs that are not—they simply child-oriented emotions are determined by situational want candy, a particular toy rather than others like it, factors, characteristics of children, and motivational or yet another turn at a game that they have been predispositions that need not involve playing for some time. At these moments, it is the phenomenological affective experience, physiological parent whose needs are critical; children are simply arousal, motivational intensity, immediate behavioral participants in an interaction in which they must inte- inclinations, and expressive actions. Such emotional grate into a plan that involves their interests only sec- phenomena are the parents’ reactions when attempts to ondarily. Understanding parent–child interaction re- promote important concerns go awry or are fulfilled. quires knowledge of how parents assess from Thus, although parents possess dispositions that bias moment to moment the relative importance of multi- the likelihood that they will experience particular emo- ple wants and needs, how they balance the legitimate tions, child-oriented emotions themselves are not en- needs of children with the legitimate needs of parents during and long-term; rather, they occur at moments and others, and how they integrate children into on- when immediate events undermine or promote the par- going plans in which children’s interests are second- ent’s enduring concerns for and interest in the child. ary. Although children’s wishes usually should be This analysis has several advantages. First, it ac- recognized, accepted, and, when possible, addressed, counts for child-oriented motivation while retaining a often it is not in the best interests of the dyad, the conception of emotion that is consistent with modern family, or even, over the long haul, the child to orient emotion research, that is, the view that emotions are interaction around children’s immediate needs. Par- transient, organizing, and energizing states that regu- ents’ ongoing difficulty reconciling strong demands late immediate action plans (e.g., Campos et al., 1983; from stressful environments with strong needs from Dix, 1991; Frijda, 1986; Izard, 1991; Lazarus, 1991; their children is an important determinant of insensi- Mandler, 1984). Modern emotion research provides a tive parenting in many distressed families. The moti- rich foundation for understanding how parents’ emo- vational, affective, and cognitive processes that par- tions are activated, what changes emotions bring to ents employ to manage complex and changing parents once aroused, and what processes parents use concerns that parents, children, and others bring to to regulate them (Dix, 1991). From this vantage point, family interaction are as yet poorly understood.

96 COMMENTARIES

Conclusion McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds.), Parental beliefs systems: The psychological consequences for children (2nd ed., pp. 219–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As- The motivational basis of parenting—the processes sociates, Inc. that at each moment lead parents to direct action to- Campos, J. J., Barrett, K. C., Lamb, M. E., Goldsmith, H. H., & ward children’s interests or toward other ends—is Stenberg, R. (1983). Socioemotional development. In P. H. poorly understood. Often researchers assume that dur- Mussen (Series Ed.), M. Haith, & J. J. Campos (Vol. Eds.), ing parent–child interaction parents’ purposes or con- Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Infancy and developmental psychobiology (pp. 783–915). New York: Wiley. cerns are given or consensual: They seek to respond to Dix, T. (1991). The affective organization of parenting: Adaptive children’s signals, to meet children’s needs, to get chil- and maladaptive processes. Psychological Bulletin, 110, dren to comply, or to encourage particular childrearing 3–25. values. Yet what parents are motivated for with chil- Dix, T. (1992). Parenting on behalf of the child: Empathic goals in the dren, the purposes toward which their behavior is di- regulation of responsive parenting. In I. E. Sigel, A. V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & J. J. Goodnow (Eds.), Parental belief rected, vary widely across parents and situations and systems: The psychological consequences for children (pp. may determine how parents appraise and react to chil- 319–346). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. dren’s behavior (Dix, 1992; Hastings & Grusec, 1998). Dix, T., & Gershoff, E. T. (in press). Measuring parent–child rela- In this article I suggest an approach, in many ways tions. In J. Touliatos, B. F. Perlmutter, & G. Holden (Eds.), Sec- compatible with Bell and Richard’s connection theory, ond handbook of family measurement techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. to understanding the processes parents use to set ongo- Frijda, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge ing priorities. These poorly understood processes may University Press. be important determinants of how sensitive parents are Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects and thus how well children develop. of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493–503. Hastings, P. D., & Grusec, J. E. (1998). Parenting goals as organizers of responses to parent–child disagreement. Developmental Psy- chology, 34, 465–479. Note Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotion. New York: Plenum. Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. (1985). Action control: From cognition to Theodore Dix, Department of Human Ecology, behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712. Kochanska, G. (1997). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their young children: Implications for early social- E-mail: [email protected] ization. Child Development, 68, 94–112. Lamb, M. E., & Easterbrooks, A. (1981). Individual differences in parental sensitivity: Origins, components, and consequences. In References M. E. Lamb & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Infant social cognition (pp. 127–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Pat- Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford terns of attachments. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso- University Press. ciates, Inc. Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: The psychology of emotions and Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned be- stress. New York: Norton. havior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From Rocissano, L., Slade, A., & Lynch, V. (1987). Dyadic synchrony and cognition to behavior (pp. 11–39). New York: Springer-Verlag. toddler compliance. Developmental Psychology, 23, 698–704. Bugental, D. B. (1992). Affective and cognitive processes within Tronick, E. (1982). Social interchange in infancy: Affect, cognition, threat-oriented family systems. In I. E. Sigel, A. V. and communication. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Motivation for Caregiving From an Ethological Perspective

Mary Dozier Department of Psychology University of Delaware

Bell and Richard are accurate in saying that attach- the caregiving system as a complement to the infant’s ment theorists have given less attention to the care- attachment system has been developed, starting with giver’s motivation for providing care than to the Bowlby (1969/1982) and extending to contemporary infant’s motivation for seeking proximity when dis- theorists (e.g., Solomon & George, 1996); the essential tressed. This is not, however, to say that attachment components of a caregiver’s behavior that lead to dif- theorists have neglected caregiving itself, as implied ferent attachment organizations of the infant have been by the target article’s title. Caregiving is indeed devel- carefully researched (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & oped in attachment theory and research. The nature of Wall, 1978); and the characteristics and life histories of

97 COMMENTARIES caregivers that lead them to behave in different ways sponsiveness to infants can be facilitated among virgin and to have babies with different types of attachment female rats by the introduction of increased oxytocin in behavioral strategies have been carefully described the system and can be inhibited by the introduction of (Main & Goldwyn, in press). oxytocin antagonists (Pedersen, 1999; Van Leengoed, Kerker, & Swanson, 1987). Higher levels of oxytocin are associated with global changes that may facilitate Motivation for Caregiving caregiving, including a greater calmness and a higher tolerance for stress (Carter & Altemus, 1999), more The motivation for the baby’s attachment to the tolerance for monotony (which may accompany caregiver has seemed of more pressing interest and caregiving activities), and greater tolerance for un- concern than the motivation for the caregiver’s provid- usual sensory experiences (Levine, 1983). ing care. Attachment theory is basically an ethological At a more specific level relative to caregiving, theory, accounting for attachment behavior in terms of higher levels of oxytocin are associated with changes maximizing survival of the infant and the infant’s in sensitivity to infants’ cues and proclivity to engage genes (Bowlby, 1969/1982). The theory suggests that in caregiving activities. For example, lactating rat the infant was less likely to fall off cliffs, get eaten by mothers are more sensitive to infants’ cues of distress predators, or experience other such calamities if he or than nonlactating females are, although they are less she stayed close to the parent when danger presented sensitive to other non–infant-related stressors itself. Although such danger may be rarely present in (Smotherman, Brown, & Levine, 1977). Thus, their the same form for the contemporary infant, the system systems appear designed to respond to infant distress. continues to operate in basically the same way: The in- Further, mothers respond specifically to their own infant is biologically prepared to react to threats by seek- fants’ signals of distress. For example, squirrel mon- ing out the caregiver. Few have questioned the key mothers have been found to react very specifically evolutionary roots of this behavior or the motivation to audiotapes of vocalizations of their own infants but for the behavior. not to vocalizations of other infants (S. Levine, per- But what of the caregiver? Although Bowlby sonal communication, August 18, 1999). Most species (1969/1982) did not give much attention to the care- of primate mothers tend to be disturbed by separations giver’s motivation for providing care, others, particu- from their infants. For example, rhesus and squirrel larly comparative psychologists studying monkey mothers show striking elevations in plasma nonprimates as well as nonhuman primates (Hinde, cortisol when separated from their infants (Coe, 1982; Levine, Lyons, & Schatzberg, 1999), have de- Mendoza, Smotherman, & Levine, 1978; Levine, veloped the motivation for caregiving extensively. In- 1983; Mendoza, Smotherman, Miner, Kaplan, & Le- deed, the issue of motivation for caregiving is appli- vine, 1978). cable cross-species. We do not ask why the sea turtle Bell and Richard suggest that attachment theory bothers to dig a hole in the sand and buries her eggs views the caregiving system as entirely reactive, that there; we do not ask why the mother chimpanzee al- is, operating only in response to infants’ calls. Several lows her baby to attach ventrally for months after types of evidence suggest, however, that the mother is birth; but we ask here why the human mother moves not only reactive, but proactive as well. For example, to pick up the crying baby. These various caregiving when the mother squirrel monkey is separated from the behaviors have evolved to maximize the likelihood infant and cannot hear the infant’s vocalizations, she that these caregivers’ genes survive. Each of these nonetheless shows increases in cortisol (Coe et al., mothers behaves as she does because a number of 1978). Also, when reunited with her infant following a systems support her behaving in this way. Human brief separation, the squirrel monkey mother shows a caregiving is so closely tied to the biological needs of quick drop in cortisol although her infant remains dis- the infant and to the biological drives of the mother turbed. Levine (1983) suggested that this rapid recov- that conscious motivation in the form of cognitive ap- ery by the mother is adaptive in that it helps her to praisal or affect is hardly a necessary concept. provide adequate care for the infant, particularly during times of stress. Thus, caregiving behaviors are not only reactive to infants’ signals, but proactive in the Biological Basis of Caregiving sense of anticipating needs in the absence of signals. Further, the caregiver often seeks greater proximity From a biological perspective, hormones associated with her young when her infant strays beyond what is with pregnancy and lactation appear important in regu- comfortable for her. lating caregiving, with oxytocin in particular playing a Thus, there is strong evidence from the comparative central role (Pedersen, 1999). Oxytocin is produced in literature that the primate mother is evolutionarily pre- much higher than usual quantities during pregnancy pared to provide care for her young. The caregiving and lactation (Carter, 1998; Carter et al., 1999). Re- and attachment systems have evolved to promote close

98 COMMENTARIES contact between mother and infant, particularly when previously nonetheless experiences some affect, how- the infant is threatened. ever low in intensity (perhaps including mild distress There are examples of caregivers who provide ade- or even anticipatory guilt), that motivates her quate care despite not being biologically prepared to caregiving behavior (C. E. Izard, personal communica- provide care, however. Among humans, adoptive tion, August 16, 1999). mothers and foster mothers, for example, are usually In addition to affect’s serving as a stimulus for unrelated biologically to the children for whom they caregiving, it also serves to reward and perpetuate care. Although there is an increased incidence of abuse caregiving behaviors. When caregivers’ behaviors re- and neglect among unrelated dyads (Carter, 1998), sult in the reduction of their own or their infants’ dis- many biologically unrelated parents provide nurturing tress, that experience is often rewarding. More care that leads to the establishment of secure in- specifically, caregiving behaviors are negatively rein- fant–caregiver attachments (Dozier, Albus, Stovall, & forced by the reduction in parents’ own distress (if that Bates, 1999; Singer, Brodzinsky, Ramsay, & Waters, is what is experienced) and in their infants’ distress, 1985). Squirrel monkeys left without their mothers are and positively reinforced by the pleasant feeling of sometimes “aunted” (Levine, 1983) by nonlactating having had their children respond to their care. females in the group. Although biology has not specifi- Bell and Richard suggest that attachment theory has cally prepared these individuals to care for these in- neglected the role of affect in caregiving, and they pro- fants, other systems nonetheless function to support pose that the primary motivator for caregiving behav- caregiving. ior is the affect of caring. Bowlby’s position was not that affect was unimportant to the caregiving system, but only that it was not an explicit motivator of behav- The Role of Cognition and Affect in ior. Regardless of the primacy of affect versus ap- Caregiving praisal, affect, as well as appraisal, are components of the caregiving system that assure that most infants are Appraisal of Need afforded care. I consider Bell and Richard’s proposal that caring is the key to motivating caregiving prob- According to Bowlby (1969/1982), the caregiver’s lematic for several reasons. Introducing caring as af- appraisal of the infant’s need for protection is the pri- fect stretches the definition of affect beyond what most mary conscious motivator of the caregiver’s behavior. emotions scholars are comfortable with (e.g., Ekman, The caregiver is biologically prepared to reestablish 1994; Izard, 1992, 1994). Although caring is surely contact with the infant when the infant is threatened emotional, it is much too complex and interpersonal to and to maintain proximity even under conditions of be termed an emotion (Izard, 1994). Most important, I low threat. Thus, it is the assessment of the need for have argued that caregiving is multiply determined by protection (as codetermined by conditions of proxim- a host of factors, starting with a maternal biology that ity; conditions external to the infant, such as presence favors caregiving. To argue that there is any single mo- of predators or environmental strangeness; and by con- tivator of caregiving behavior is simplistic. ditions internal to the infant, such as vulnerable health) that motivate caregiving behavior. Bowlby asserted that appraisal, rather than affect, was primary here. For Notes example, he suggested that a distracted mother could provide an infant with protection when appraising the The writing of this article was supported by NIMH need for protection, even though she did not experi- grant R01 52135. I gratefully acknowledge the help of ence any particular affect relevant to caregiving. Seymour Levine, Carroll Izard, and Kathleen Albus. Mary Dozier, Department of Psychology, Univer- sity of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. E-mail: Emotions as Motivating Caregiving [email protected] Emotions researchers (e.g., Ekman, 1994; Izard, 1992, 1994) hold affect as primary, suggesting that the experience of affect is key to motivating caregiving, as References well as other behaviors. From the perspective of emotions researchers, the caregiver experiences various af- Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). fects, which motivate caregiving behaviors. For Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange sit- example, the caregiver may feel distress when the child uation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment becomes frightened, with this distress motivating the (2nd ed.). New York: Basic. caregiver to provide care for the child. According to Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attach- emotions theorists, the distracted caregiver described ment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 779–818.

99 COMMENTARIES

Carter, C. S., & Altemus, M. (1999). Integrative functions of Levine, S., Lyons, D. M., & Schatzberg, A. F. (1999). lactational hormones in social behavior and stress management. Psychobiological consequences of social relationships. In C. S. In C. S. Carter, I. I. Lederhendler, & B. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The Carter, I. I. Lederhendler, & B. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The integra- integrative neurobiology of affiliation (pp. 361–371). Cam- tive neurobiology of affiliation (pp. 83–92). Cambridge, MA: bridge, MA: MIT Press. MIT Press. Carter, C. S., DeVries, A. C., Tayman, S. E., Roberts, R. L., Williams, Main, M., & Goldwyn, R. (in press). Adult attachment rating and J. R., & Getz, L. L. (1999). Peptides, steroids, and pair bonding. classification system. In M. Main (Ed.), A topology of human In C. S. Carter, I. I. Lederhendler, & B. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The attachment organization assessed in discourse, drawings, integrative neurobiology of affiliation (pp. 169–182). Cam- and interviews. New York: Cambridge University Press. bridge, MA: MIT Press. Mendoza, S. P., Smotherman, W. P., Miner, M. T., Kaplan, J., & Le- Coe, C. L., Mendoza, S. P., Smotherman, W. P., & Levine, S. (1978). vine, S. (1978). Pituitary–adrenal response to separation in Mother–infant attachment in the squirrel monkey: Adrenal re- mother and infant squirrel monkey. Developmental sponse to separation. Behavioral Biology, 22, 236–263. Psychobiology, 11, 169–175. Dozier, M., Albus, K. E., Stovall, K. C., & Bates, B. (1999). Maternal Pedersen, C. A. (1999). Oxytocin control of maternal behavior: Reg- state of mind predicts foster infant attachment. Manuscript in ulation by sex steroids and offspring stimuli. In C. S. Carter, I. I. preparation. Lederhendler, & B. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), The integrative Ekman, P. (1994). Strong evidence for universals in facial expres- neurobiology of affiliation (pp. 301–320). Cambridge, MA: sions: A reply to Russell’s mistaken critique. Psychological MIT Press. Bulletin, 115, 268–287. Singer, L. M., Brodzinsky, D. M., Ramsay, D., Steir, M., & Waters, Hinde, R. A. (1982). Attachment: Some conceptual and biological is- E. (1985). Mother–infant attachment in adoptive families. Child sues. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of Development, 56, 1543–1551. attachment in human behavior (pp. 60–76). New York: Basic. Smotherman, W. P., Brown, C. P., & Levine, S. (1977). Maternal re- Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and sponsiveness following differential pup treatment and emotion–cognition relations. Psychological Review, 99, 561–565. mother–pup interactions. Hormone Behavior, 8, 242–253. Izard, C. E. (1994). Innate and universal facial expressions: Evidence Solomon, J., & George, C. (1996). Defining the caregiving system: from developmental and cross-cultural research. Psychological Toward a theory of caregiving. Infant Mental Health Journal, Bulletin, 115, 288–299. 17, 183–197. Levine, S. (1983). A psychobiological approach to the ontogeny of Van Leengoed, E., Kerker, E., & Swanson, H. H. (1987). Inhibition coping. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping, and of postpartum maternal behavior in the rat by injecting an development in children (pp. 107–131). New York: oxytocin antagonist into the cerebral ventricles. Journal of En- McGraw-Hill. docrinology, 112, 275–282.

How (Pro-)Social Is the Caring Motive?

Catrin Finkenauer and Wim Meeus Department of Child and Adolescent Studies Utrecht University

Drawing on their criticisms of attachment theory, general), we discuss two issues Bell and Richard dis- Bell and Richard present their connection theory ori- card from their analysis of the caregiving process. entation, arguing that caregiving is motivated by the First, we address the issue of self-interest in attach- emotion of caring. Caring is defined as an enduring ment and caregiving. Second, we suggest that emotion that motivates caregivers to meet and gratify caregiving has to be considered as a dynamic interac- the needs of a specific dependent. It is oriented to- tion happening between people rather than within or ward the dependent’s needs, rather than those of the for one person. caregiver. The authors emphasize that their theory, in contrast with many theories in contemporary social Self-Interest in Caregiving science, “does not consider any self-interest explanation adequate to account for caregiving, neither reci- The most striking and important contribution of the procity nor social norms.… these explanations are target article is its demonstration that the caregiver logically unpersuasive … and violate the internal ex- must be studied in the context of her or his motivation perience of caregiving” (this issue). It may be useful to take care of a specific dependent. Bell and Richard to shift attention of attachment researchers and theo- suggest that this motivation is the entirely other-ori- rists from one partner in the dyad (i.e., the dependent) ented caring of the caregiver for the dependent (who to the other (i.e., the caregiver) and to emphasize has “a monopoly on need,” this issue). The caregiver, other-directed (i.e., prosocial) emotions. However, when holding the dependent for the first time, experi- Bell and Richard may be “pushing the needle a bit ences the feeling of caring for the specific dependent. too far.” To enhance our understanding of why par- The dependent’s (real or imagined) responsiveness to ents take care of their children (or people of people in the caregiver, that is her or him personally, then initi-

100 COMMENTARIES ates the caregiving bond (cf. Feeney & Noller, 1996; rather than strangers (Sedikides, Olsen, & Reis, 1993). Reis & Patrick, 1996). Bell and Richard point out that a People who have social bonds are better off in a broad dependent who does not respond or who is perceived variety of ways (for reviews, see Finkenauer & as not responding, as may occur, for example, when the Baumeister, 1997; Stroebe & Stroebe, 1996). Such peo- dependent is born blind, may significantly obstruct the ple show a lower mortality rate, less depression, and creation of a caring bond. Although the authors restrict fewer psychological and physical health problems than their analysis of the caring bond to the parent–child re- people with weak social networks and people who are lationship, they suggest that the caregiving logic of the alone. Thus, there is ample evidence to suggest that peo- connection theoretical orientation holds for other so- ple are motivated to feel belongingness to others and cial interactions as well (e.g., children caring for aging, thattheyhavegoodreasonstodoso.Conversely,people tired, or disabled parents). The question arises, how- are highly motivated to avoid loneliness, which predis- ever, if the caregiver’s caring is entirely prosocial, why poses them to mental and physical problems and unhap- is it necessary, perhaps even sufficient, that the de- piness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Reis & Patrick, pendent is responsive and “gives something back”? 1996). Enduring social bonds, including caregiving re- One possible answer is that the caring motive may not lationships, provide people with a feeling of be as other-oriented as Bell and Richard suggest. belongingness and relatedness, thereby helping them to Rather, it seems necessary to additionally consider maintain their mental and physical well-being. Consis- self-interest or self-oriented gains. tent with the suggestion that caregiving relationships The literature offers different self-oriented motives may help to satisfy the need to belong is the finding that that may be important in explaining attachment and one of the major reasons people report for having chil- caregiving processes. A first motive has its roots in evo- dren is the fear of being lonely when being old (Blake, lutionary theories. Although Bell and Richard dismiss 1979). Thus, again it appears that caregiving may, in theevolutionaryfunctionofcaregivingasinconsequen- part,servetomeetself-orientedneedsofthecaregiver. tial to the caring process, we contend that a theory on In contradiction to this suggestion is that fact that the caregiving that neglects evolutionary functions has to literature consistently shows that parenthood reduces remainincomplete.Bothsurvivalandreproductiveben- parents’ happiness and increases feelings of strain and efits derive from successful caregiver–dependent inter- stress (for a review, see Baumeister, 1991). Marriage actions (e.g., Bowlby, 1969/1982; Baumeister & Leary, seems to increase happiness and well-being, but having 1995; Zeifman & Hazan, 1997). Children who succeed children seems to considerably decrease these feelings. in motivating adults to care for them are more likely to Despite the price parents seem to pay, parenthood ap- survive and reach reproductive age. Parents who suc- pears to be worth it. Most parents describe that having ceed in providing adequate care for their children in- had children represents one of their greatest accom- creasethechancethattheiroffspringwillreachmaturity plishments and report not regretting the experience and reproduce in turn. In this sense, a strong and endur- (Veroff, Douvan, & Kulka, 1981). Also, they generally ing mutual bond between caregiver and dependent is feel that children bring parents closer together by giving clearly adaptive and consequential. The innate quality them a shared task and providing shared joys (Hofman of caregiving may have originally evolved to serve evo- & Manis, 1978). In this sense, parenthood appears to be lutionary functions, and caring is likely to be partly (but a powerful source of meaning and purpose in the care- not necessarily consciously) motivated by evolutionary giver’s life (Baumeister, 1991). self-interest. Taken together, there is abundant evidence to sug- Another important motive for caregiving may be gest that caregivers’ motivation of in caring may not be foundinthehumanneedforbelongingness(Baumeister as prosocial or other-oriented as Bell and Richard pro- & Leary, 1995) or relatedness (Reis & Patrick, 1996). pose.Theliteratureshowsthatcaregivingisquitecom- People appear to have to an innate drive to form and patible with the idea that caring, at least in part, in- maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, posi- volves self-interests, including evolutionary gains, tive, and significant relationships (Baumeister & Leary, feelings of belongingness, and the provision of mean- 1995).Theygotogreatlengthstofeeltheybelongandto ing and purpose. avoid feeling lonely. In their elegant review, Baumeister and Leary made a convincing argument and gathered a large amount of evidence to show that people Caregiving as a Dynamic Interaction form relationships easily and readily and that they generally resist losing or breaking off interpersonal rela- Although Bell and Richard have come to focus on tionships, even if these relationships are painful or dis- the extent to which the caregiver cares for the de- tressing. Emotional and cognitive patterns show many pendent, they neglect the fact that the caregiver–de- links to belongingness. For example, cognitive process- pendent relationship is interactive and mutually ing gives priority—in terms of quantity as well as qual- transformative. Caring occurs as part of an ongoing ity—to information that concerns attachment figures social interaction between caregiver and dependent,

101 COMMENTARIES and both interactants contribute to the success of the ing of attachment and caregiving processes. Second, attachment and caregiving process. Both caregiver the connection theoretical orientation seems to under- and dependent continuously interact to influence each rate the truly social nature of the caregiving relation- other (e.g., Bowlby, 1969/1982). Experimental stud- ship. Bell and Richard’s suggestions are limited to an ies have showed not only that parents’ responsiveness independent analysis of one partner in the caregiving influences children’s behavior (e.g., Ainsworth, relationship, namely the caregiver. More studies and Blehar, Waters, & Walls, 1978), but also that chil- theories are needed that consider attachment and dren’s responsiveness influences parents’ behavior as caregiving as reciprocal, dynamic, and mutually well (e.g., Bugental, Caporael, & Shennum, 1980; transformative, in that each partner’s behavior, Cantor & Gelfand, 1977; Schreibman & Koegel, thoughts, and emotions influences the other’s behav- 1996). Schreibman and Koegel, for example, report a ior, thoughts, and emotions. series of studies examining the effectiveness of a training program for parents of autistic children. These children are characterized by severe impair- ments in communicative and social skills, which Note places enormous strain and stress on the caregiver–dependent relationship. In this program, special Catrin Finkenauer and Wim Meeus, Department of attention is paid to increasing the child’s responsive- Child and Adolescent Studies, Utrecht University, ness to (social) cues in the environment. The studies 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: showed that increasing the autistic child’s respon- [email protected] or [email protected] siveness leads parents to spend more pleasant time with their child. More important, parents themselves reported being happier and less stressed than parents References who received a treatment that focused on improving their behavior toward their autistic child. The results Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Walls, S. (1978). suggest that caring is not entirely unconditional but Patterns of attachment: Assessed in the strange situation and at depends—in part—on the child’s responsiveness to home. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. the parent. In this sense, caring is an inherently social Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford. phenomenon, in that the caregiver influences the de- Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motiva- pendent, and the dependent, in turn, influences the tion. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. caregiver. Although Bell and Richard mention this Blake, J. (1979). Is zero preferred? American attitudes toward child- contingency (i.e., parents feel unloved and uncared lessness. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 254–257. for when children are unresponsive), this aspect of Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment the parent–child interaction is not included in their (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Bugental, D. B., Caporael, L., & Shennum, W. A. (1980). Experi- analysis of caregivers’ caring. Considering attach- mentally produced child uncontrollability: Effects on the po- ment and caregiving processes from the caregiver’s tency of adult communication patterns. Child Development, 51, perspective does not seem to do justice to the dy- 520–528. namic and mutual nature of the caring relationship. Cantor, N. L., & Gelfand, D. M. (1977). Effects of responsiveness Conversely, it does not seem adequate to consider at- and sex of children on adults’ behavior. Child Development, 48, 232–238. tachment processes only from the dependent’s per- Feeney, J., & Noller, P. (1996). Adult attachment. Thousand Oaks, spective. Rather, the ongoing process of interaction CA: Sage. between caregiver and dependent needs to be in- Finkenauer, C., & Baumeister, R. F. (1997). L’effet des variables cluded in theories on attachment and caregiving. subjectives sur le bonheur: Résultats de la recherche et implications pour la thérapie [The impact of subjective variables on happiness: Empirical findings and their implications for psychotherapy]. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 18, Conclusion 99–118. Hofman, L., & Manis, J. (1978). Influences of children on marital Although Bell and Richard’s connection theoreti- quality and family interaction. In R. Lerner & G. Spanier (Eds.), cal orientation draws attention to important issues Child influences on marital and family interaction: A life-span perspective (pp. 165–213). New York: Academic. surrounding the dependent–caregiver relationship, Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Com- their case rests on an inadequate consideration of the ponent processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), (pro-)social aspects of the caregiving relationship. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. First, the connection theoretical orientation seems to 523–563). New York: Guilford. overrate the prosocial nature of the caring motive. Schreibman, L., & Koegel, R. L. (1996). Fostering self-management: Parent-delivered pivotal response training for chil- The literature suggests that self-interest motives are dren with autistic disorder. In E. D. Hibbs & P. S. Jensen powerful mechanisms in interpersonal relationships (Eds.), Psychosocial treatments for child and adolescent that need to be considered to enhance our understand- disorders: Empirically based strategies for clinical prac-

102 COMMENTARIES

tice (pp. 525–552). Washington, DC: American Psychologi- Veroff, J., Douvan, E., & Kulka, R. A. (1981). The inner Ameri- cal Association. can: A self-portrait from 1957 to 1976. New York: Basic Sedikides, C., Olsen, N., & Reis, H. T. (1993). Relationships as natural cate- Books. gories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 71–82. Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (1997). Attachment: The bond in Stroebe, W., & Stroebe, M. (1996). The social psychology of social sup- pair-bonds. In J. A. Simpson & D. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolutionary port. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: social psychology (pp. 237–263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Handbook of basic principles (pp. 597–621). New York: Guilford. Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Do We Need to Invent Another Emotion? The Role of Caring in Attachment

Eric Youngstrom Department of Psychology Case Western Reserve University

The attachment model initially articulated by structs that could fill the role assigned to caring in the Bowlby (1973) has proven to be a powerful metaphor connection theoretical model? Finally, how best for human behavior. Attachment has captured the should we conceptualize caring behavior in a way that imagination of ethologists and psychologists, and it is consistent with established constructs in psychol- has informed research in developmental ogy? These questions form the basis for the rest of this psychopathology (e.g., Cicchetti, 1994; Cicchetti & commentary. Barnett, 1991; Egeland, Pianta, & Ogawa, 1996) as well as in normal development (e.g., Egeland & Hiester, 1995). More recent work has focused on the Is Caring an Emotion? internal working models and attachment styles of adults, exploring the way that these correlate with Bell and Richard acknowledge a large body of emo- other measures of psychosocial functioning. Bell and tion literature before dismissing it and asserting that Richard’s treatment of attachment is consistent with caring is an emotion. The number of discrete emotions this trend: Their conception of attachment pertains to and the canon of different human emotional experi- social connections generally and not solely to the care- ences has been widely debated. More evolutionarily giver–child relationship. In contrast to much previous oriented models of emotion (e.g., Izard, 1972; attachment literature, Bell and Richard concentrate on Plutchik, 1980; Tomkins, 1963) have identified vari- the behavior of the caregiver (and not the dependent), ous discrete emotions. These are posited to have developing an active role for the caregiver. They ac- evolved with different motivational functions and dis- complish this shift in focus and role by introducing the tinct neurophysiological pathways and expressive be- concept of caring as a sustained emotion that moti- haviors. Other emotion experiences are construed as vates caregiver empathy, sensitiveness, and responsi- either a blend of the more “basic” or primary emotions bility. These in turn motivate the caregiver’s (Plutchik, 1994) or as involving complex interactions attachment behaviors, according to the connection the- between emotions and cognition (Izard, 1993). In con- oretical orientation. trast, cognitive-constructivist models of emotion (Laz- Bell and Richard are careful to define their terms, arus, 1991; Mandler, 1990) concentrate on dimensions using explicit—if somewhat idiosyncratic—defini- of affective experience and the role of cognitive ap- tions of each of these constructs. Their treatment of praisal in eliciting emotion activation. Interestingly, “caring” as an emotion represents a departure from the caring has not been identified as a discrete emotion, main schools of thought about emotion. To their credit, nor has it played a prominent role in constructivist the authors acknowledge this (see Footnote 3, Bell & models of emotion. This omission is clearly at odds Richards, this issue). They base their decision to cate- with the pivotal role that Bell and Richard assign to gorize caring as an emotion on the view that “episodic caring, placing it at the center of affiliative processes. emotions do not seem capable of performing as moti- The fact that caring has not figured prominently in vations for ongoing and enduring action (such as the major past approaches to emotion does not neces- parenting)” (this issue). This position raises several re- sarily exclude caring from being classified as an emo- lated questions, beginning with, “Is caring an emotion tion. The number of emotions identified as separate in any accepted technical sense of the term?” If not, constructs depends on methodology and level of analy- then are there other generally accepted emotion consis, as well as theoretical allegiance. For example, it

103 COMMENTARIES has been difficult to identify clear peripheral auto- nal consistency yet low correlations with other emo- nomic processes that differentiate between emotions tion criteria, or other measurable behavioral correlates. (cf. Ekman, Levenson, & Friesen, 1983; Lang, Green- Given the complexity of human behavior, it is unlikely wald, Bradley, & Hamm, 1993; Schachter & Singer, that caring would satisfy all of these criteria (nor does 1962). Factor analytic approaches to self-reports of any other emotion across all published studies). Still, it trait emotionality generally identify two (or sometimes would be important to demonstrate at least some of three; Russell & Mehrabian, 1977) dimensions of emo- these characteristics. This is not an impossible stan- tionality (Feldman, 1995; Tellegen, Watson, & Clark, dard: jealousy represents a human emotion without 1999). Approaches that concentrate on facial expres- identified modal physical or behavioral signals, but it sions identify a larger number of apparently distinct is clearly a powerful potential motivator of behavior emotions (Ekman & Friesen, 1971; Izard, 1971), but from an evolutionary psychology perspective (Buss, this number still pales in comparison with the number 1994; Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996). Re- of terms identified in emotional lexicons cataloging cent work has tackled the issues of measuring jealousy, the various terms available within a language (Ortony, and progress has been made in determining distinct Clore, & Foss, 1987). Caring appears only in this last, elicitors and behavioral correlates (e.g., Salovey & Ro- most molecular level of analysis. This places caring at din, 1986). Proponents of the connection theoretical greatest remove from evolutionary models of emotion orientation to attachment would need to conduct simi- development, from basic dimensions of affective expe- lar basic research on the measurement of caring. With- rience, and from readily identifiable expressive behav- out this sort of multimethod, multitrait approach to iors that characteristically signal the presence of an defining caring as a construct, we cannot be sure that underlying emotion state. other emotions may not more parsimoniously explain In positing that caring is actually an emotion, al- attachment behaviors for which Bell and Richard in- beit unrecognized by past investigators, it is incum- voke caring. bent on Bell and Richard to (a) present a definition of emotion and show that caring meets the requisite criteria, and (b) demonstrate that caring diverges from Are There Other Emotions That Could other accepted emotions. There is enough plurality in Fill the Role of Caring? the existing definitions of emotion that caring could garner at least some support. Bell and Richard would In the absence of a compelling case for caring as an need to pick a clear allegiance with one of the extant emotion that is distinct from other generally accepted theories and develop support for the ways in which emotion states, it is logical to ask whether there are caring is congruent with their chosen definition. Even other emotions that could play an important role in at- at a general level, the description of caring developed tachment processes. Attachment necessarily involves in the target article poses some problems. Although patterns of behavior that are sustained over periods of currently there is no consensually accepted definition days, months, or even years. Bell and Richard argue of emotion, most researchers agree that emotions are that the durational brevity of the widely recognized typically brief, episodic responses (Ekman & emotion states therefore makes them unsuitable for Davidson, 1994). The most enduring affective states motivating attachment behaviors. are usually construed as moods (e.g., Thayer, 1996). It is here, when describing the subjective experi- If caring typically had a long duration, it more readily ence of caring, that Bell and Richard succumb to rhap- could be classified as a mood than an emotion in this sodizing about caregiving. The presentation slips into a regard. On the other hand, it could be argued that car- highly mythologized view of caregiving, conflating ing does meet several other criteria for consideration ethnotheories about romantic love, idealized as an emotion, including involving a “core relational parenting, and even the moral philosophy of Levinas theme” (Lazarus, 1991), possessing intentionality in into a warm, fuzzy tangle. Unfortunately, the true busi- the philosophical sense that it “takes an object” (Sol- ness of caregiving is far more prosaic. Not every diaper omon, 1993), and influencing action more than cog- or feeding is a spiritual encounter, nor do these events nition (Davidson, 1993). Currently these are infer- automatically cumulate with past experiences to ences based on Bell and Richard’s presentation, not deepen one’s level of caring. An objective observer explicit points incorporated into the connection theo- would conclude that even the most attentive parent retical orientation. spends large parts of the day engaged in activities unre- Additionally, Bell and Richard would need to pro- lated to caregiving. Similarly, much of caregiving be- vide evidence that caring diverges from the other iden- havior is produced by habit without any pronounced tified emotions. Caring should be distinguishable from affective content. Functional behavioral assessment other emotion states by virtue of physiological indices, would indicate that many caregiving actions are neuroimaging techniques, distinct facial expression, operantly conditioned through negative reinforcement: reports of subjective experience that show good inter- The caregiver will cycle through a series of behaviors

104 COMMENTARIES

(e.g., try feeding, changing, rocking) until the depend- species, evidently because of the sensitivity of ent stops emitting an aversive stimulus. Still other parenting behavior to natural selection processes (Wil- caregiving behaviors, such as protectiveness, involve son, 1980). Humans, although they do not show closed other distinct emotions, such as anger (Izard, 1991). instincts that produce rigidly determined behaviors, In this regard, Bell and Richard’s depiction of caring are not blank slates whose responses to others will be as a state persisting fairly constantly throughout the determined entirely by learning history (Stevens, course of the relational connection appears unrealistic. 1982). At the same time, although maternal care in hu- On the other hand, the brief, episodic emotions dis- mans and primates possesses some basic, innate com- missedbyBellandRichardactuallydoappearsufficient ponents, the behaviors are complicated enough to to develop and maintain complex patterns of social in- require practice (in the form of play, as well as direct teraction. For example, the complex dominance hierar- experience; Wilson, 1980). chies of humans and many other social mammals are Ethologists came relatively late to the study of marked by long periods of homeostasis punctuated by parenting behavior, focusing first on aggression and occasional displays of aggression (Lorenz, 1966). reproduction. However, Eibl-Eibesfeldt pioneered the These displays of anger and hostility are the exception, study of parenting behavior, producing insights re- not the norm, and they typically occur in moments of markably consonant with Bell and Richard’s descrip- threatorwhenindividualsareattemptingtochangetheir tion of caring. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1974) made the point place in the hierarchy (Wilson, 1980). In like manner, that caregiving and dependent behaviors are flexible in brief emotion displays by the dependent, such as crying, humans and therefore can be used symbolically. Ac- are sufficient to elicit caregiving behaviors. Episodic cording to Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1989), the behaviors of the emotion events also can organize memories and caregiver and dependent form the basis for affiliative cognitions, carving channels along which future per- behaviors in social animals, playing a prominent role ceptions and behavior will run. in love and friendship in humans. Eibl-Eibesfeldt char- Thus, we do not need to rule out brief emotion reac- acterized the parent–child behavior system as one of tions as potentially contributing significantly to attach- the fundamental components of social behavior, giving ment transactions. In fact, a variety of different it at least equal weight with aggression (Midgley, emotions are likely to be called into the service of 1978). caregiving as events dictate. At times, caregivers will This is fertile ground for Bell and Richard. Drawing feel anger, fear, happiness, interest, and other emotions on ethological work would be consistent with the ori- in the context of the attachment relationship. No single gins and growth of attachment theory. Both Bell and emotion appears adequate to perform all the functions Richard and Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1974) argued that the lan- that Bell and Richard attribute to caring. Perhaps this is guage of caring is the medium of social connection, not because caring, as described by Bell and Richard, is just a narrow attachment bond. Eibl-Eibesfeldt’s work not best considered an emotion. also provides an evolutionary context and a catalog of ethological observations that could inform Bell and Richard’s connection theoretical model. Like Bell and If Not an Emotion, Then What Is Richard, Eibl-Eibesfeldt found that the roots of love Caring? are in the caregiver–dependent relationship, not in sex- uality. According to this view, Freud had things back- Given the plurality of theories of emotion and the ward: The mother is using caresses from the caregiving lack of research into caring per se, we cannot conclude behavioral repertoire to woo her mate, not using sexual that caring fails to satisfy some criteria for consider- gestures to soothe her child (Midgley, 1978). ation as an emotion. We also cannot be sure that it will fail to show divergent validity from other emotions. However, there clearly are problems with Bell and Conclusion Richard’s current formulation of caring as an emotion. On the other hand, there are no obvious other candidate The goals of the target article are ambitious. Bell emotions that perform the functions that Bell and Rich- and Richard seek to elaborate the motivating forces for ard ascribe to caring. Bell and Richard also make a caregiving behavior, turning the caregiver into a more compelling case for the importance of caring (or some- active participant in the dyadic exchange. They also thing like it) in a model of caregiving behavioral sys- want to restore emotion to a central position in attach- tems. If caring, as described by Bell and Richard, does ment models, rehumanizing a theory whose discussion not satisfy formal criteria for being an emotion state, of cybernetic systems and feedback loops often sounds then what is caring? like it could be describing guided missiles as well as On one level, it is useful to consider parental care as people (Stevens, 1982). Finally, Bell and Richard seek a biological trait with a substantial amount of genetic to describe caregiver–dependent behavioral systems as programming. Parenting behaviors vary widely across a general component of social connections, not as

105 COMMENTARIES something limited to a privileged set of attachment re- Dozier, M., Cue, K. L., & Barnett, L. (1994). Clinicians as caregivers: lationships. These are worthy intentions, and they Role of attachment organization in treatment. Journal of Con- match trends in current attachment research that seek sulting & Clinical Psychology, 62, 793–800. to explore adult attachment styles (George, 1984) and Dozier, M., Stevenson, A. L., Lee, S. W., & Velligan, D. I. (1991). Attachment organization and familial overinvolvement for their correlates with psychological functioning (e.g., adults with serious psychopathological disorders. Development Dozier, Cue, & Barnett, 1994; Dozier, Stevenson, Lee, and Psychopathology, 3, 475–489. & Velligan, 1991). Egeland, B., & Hiester, M. (1995). The long-term consequences of Bell and Richard attempt to accomplish these ambi- infant day-care and mother–infant attachment. Child Develop- tions by invoking caring as the motivator of ment, 66, 474–485. Egeland, B., Pianta, R., & Ogawa, J. (1996). Early behavior prob- caregiving-related behaviors and feelings—sensitiv- lems: Pathways to mental disorders in adolescence. Develop- ity, empathy, and responsibility—and then labeling ment and Psychopathology, 8, 735–749. caring as an emotion to reclaim emotion’s place in the Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1974). Love and hate: The natural history of connection model. As staged here, this argument is a behavior patterns. (G. Strachan, Trans.). New York: Schocken. deus ex machina. The solution is too tidy, and there are Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1989). Human ethology. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine unsatisfying loose ends when the audience reflects on De Gruyter. the evidence offered that caring is an emotion. The Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The nature of emo- connection theoretical orientation need not founder on tion: Fundamental questions. New York: Oxford University this rock. It is possible that a careful argument could be Press. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the made that caring is an emotion. More fruitfully, Bell face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- and Richard could return to ethology and integrate the ogy, 17, 124–129. work of Eibl-Eibesfeldt (1989) and colleagues (Keller, Ekman, P., Levenson, R. W., & Friesen, W. V. (1983). Autonomic Schoelmerich, & Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1988), who give pri- nervous system activity distinguishes among emotions. Sci- macy to caregiving as a motivational-behavioral sys- ence, 221, 1208–1210. Feldman, L. A. (1995). Variations in the circumplex structure of tem. Attention then could be directed to articulating mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, how different emotions, cognitions, and behaviors are 806–817. recruited in service of the parental care system, as well George, C. C. Y. (1984). Individual differences in affective sensitiv- as to exploring how the behaviors in this repertoire are ity: A study of five-year-olds and their parents (empathy, attachment). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Califor- used in other social connections. nia, Berkeley. Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Cen- tury-Crofts. Izard, C. E. (1972). Patterns of emotions. San Diego, CA: Academic. Notes Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum. Izard, C. E. (1993). Four systems for emotion activation: Cognitive Thanks to Jennifer Kogos and Carla Kmett and noncognitive processes. Psychological Review, 100, 68–90. Danielson for their comments and discussion. Keller, H., Schoelmerich, A., & Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1988). Commu- Eric Youngstrom, Department of Psychology, Case nication patterns in adult–infant interactions in Western and Western Reserve University, 11220 Bellflower Road, non-Western cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Cleveland, OH 44106–7123. E-mail: [email protected] 19, 427–445. Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradley, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology, 30, 261–273. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford References University Press. Lorenz, K. (1966). On aggression. London: Methuen. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety Mandler, G. (1990). A constructivist theory of emotion. In N. L. and anger. New York: Basic Books. Stein, B. Leventhal, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Psychological and Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mat- biological approaches to emotion (pp. 21–44). Hillsdale, NJ: ing. New York: Basic Books. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Buunk, B. P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Sex Midgley, M. (1978). Beast & man: The roots of human nature. Lon- differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural perspective: don: Methuen. Tests from the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States. Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Foss, M. A. (1987). The referential struc- Psychological Science, 7, 359–363. ture of the affective lexicon. Cognitive Science, 11, 341–364. Cicchetti, D. (1994). Developmental processes in peer relations and Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 7, York: Harper & Row. 587–589. Plutchik, R. (1994). The psychology and biology of emotion. New Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1991). Attachment organization in mal- York: HarperCollins. treated preschoolers. Development and Psychopathology, 3, Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor the- 397–411. ory of emotions. Journal of Research in Personality, 11, 273–294. Davidson, R. J. (1993). The neuropsychology of emotion and affec- Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1986). The differentiation of social-com- tive style. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of parison jealousy and romantic jealousy. Journal of Personality emotions (pp. 143–154). New York: Guilford Press. and Social Psychology, 50, 1100–1112.

106 COMMENTARIES

Schachter, S., & Singer, S. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiologi- Tellegen, A., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). On the dimensional and cal determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, hierarchical structure of affect. Psychological Science, 10, 297–303. 379–399. Thayer, R. E. (1996). The origin of everyday moods: Managing en- Solomon, R. C. (1993). The philosophy of emotions. In M. Lewis & J. ergy, tension, ansd stress. New York: Oxford. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 3–15). New York: Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Affect, imagery, consciousness: Vol. 2. New Guilford. York: Springer. Stevens, A. (1982). Archetypes: A natural history of the self. New Wilson, E. O. (1980). Sociobiology: The Abridged Edition. Cam- York: Quill. bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Who Cares? For Whom and When, How, and Why?

Ellen Berscheid Department of Psychology University of Minnesota W. Andrew Collins Institute of Child Development University of Minnesota

One wishes Bell and Richard every success in their behavior” (e.g., Clark, 1991). In addition, many re- theoretical attempt to rescue caregiving from the land searchers in both developmental and social psychology of constructs attachment researchers forgot. Lack of at- have learned a great deal about empathic accuracy, a tention to the caregiving side of the attachment theoret- competency associated with accurately detecting an- ical equation has been evident for some time. Of the 36 other’s needs and wishes (see Ickes, 1997) and thus with chapters in the recently published Handbook of Attach- effective caregiving. Bell and Richard neither incorpo- ment (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999), for example, only one rate, nor even mention, these vast literatures despite appears to be directly devoted to caregiving. The ne- theirstatementthatthey“haveintroducedtheconceptof glect of caregiving in the very domain in which one connectiontodescribevariableemotionalprocessesoc- would expect it to receive a full-court press, both theo- curring in the full range of relationships” (this issue). retically and empirically, has been puzzling. It has One takes the phrase “full range of relationships” to been puzzling not only for scientific reasons but for mean relationships between two adults as well as rela- practical reasons as well. Popular recognition of the tionships between an adult and a child. Social psycholo- perilous position of many infants and young children gists have focused almost exclusively on caregiving be- as a result of inadequate caregiving has increased in re- tween adults and, with only a sprinkling of exceptions cent years. Teenage pregnancy, single motherhood, (e.g., Carnelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1996; Feeney, dual-career families, marital dissolution, fragmenta- 1996; Kunce & Shaver, 1994; Rholes, Simpson, & tion of the extended kinship network, and drug and al- Orina, 1999; Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992), have cohol abuse are among the many factors that have been not made contact with attachment theory and research frequently implicated by politicians, social commenta- when investigating caregiving. The adult–child and tors, and others for the failure of many children in the adult–adult caregiving literatures thus have developed United States to receive the care they need. Thus it is independently of each other and remain isolated; devel- especially curious that widespread societal concern has opmental psychologists have focused on the child (and not moved the swelling army of attachment research- attachment) side of the adult–child relationship, ers to examine the caregiving construct. whereas social psychologists have concentrated almost The reason for the neglect of attachment theory’s exclusively on caregiving in adult–adult relationships. complementary behavioral system may be more mun- A theory of caregiving that aspires to account for dane than that offered by Bell and Richard: Bowlby’s caregiving behavior in all relationships must integrate (1969/1982, 1988) cursory theoretical elaboration of these two bodies of knowledge. the caregiving system may be less responsible than the Bell and Richard charge that attachment theory fails balkanization of psychology is. Some psychologists, al- to give an adequate account of caregiving in a number of though not attachment researchers, have devoted a great ways. They observe, for example, that “attachment the- deal of attention to caregiving under the rubrics of “so- ory usually describes the caregiving behavioral control cial support” (e.g., Pierce, Lakey, Sarason, & Sarason, systemaspurelyreactive”(thisissue),activatedbysuch 1997), “altruism” (e.g., Batson, 1998), and “prosocial child attachment behaviors as crying or other distress

107 COMMENTARIES signals. To remedy this deficiency, they intend their widely adopted view is no arbitrary convention; it is Connection Model to account for “proactive” as well as supported by strong theoretical logic and empirical ev- reactive caregiving behaviors. This is an especially idence (see Mandler, 1997, for a discussion). In short, laudable aim, for we frequently see people engaging in baptizing the fledgling construct of caring in the murky anticipatory and unsolicited caregiving behaviors in re- and troubled waters of contemporary emotion theory sponse to others’ needs, as the authors discuss. We also and research is likely to be unhealthy for the construct see people actively seeking out others to care for (not and unpromising for our understanding of caregiving only other humans, but animals, pet rocks, and, more re- behavior. We note in passing, however, that the au- cently, “Furbies”), and this behavior, too, requires ex- thors’ definition of the “emotion” of caring—as “an planation in any model of caregiving. Whether searches enduring dyadic emotion that continues over the long for caregiving opportunities have as their aim the wel- term, and that serves as an autonomous motivation to fare of potential recipients of care or the welfare of the see that the needs of a specific partner are met” (this is- caregiverislikelytoproveasthornyaproblemtoattach- sue)—sounds less like an emotion than it does an “atti- ment and other caregiving researchers as it has to re- tude.” In any case, the venerable construct of attitude searchers of altruism. Some researchers, however, have may provide safer ground for the authors’ further de- made progress in identifying those persons who are velopment of the central construct of their model. likelytoengageincaregivingforself-enhancementpur- As all of the previously stated suggests, the Connec- poses (e.g., Helgeson, 1994). tion Model is in need of further development. To say The raison d’être for Bell and Richard’s Connection that the source of caregiving behavior is the emotion of Model is said to be the failure of attachment theory to caring does not address the core questions any theory specify a proximal motivation for caregiving in the of caregiving must answer and the predictions it must parent–child relationship (the “ultimate” motivation make: “Who will care for whom, and when and how being supplied by evolutionary theory, as the authors and why?” To answer the motivational “why” question note). The motivation for caregiving posited by the with “because they feel the emotion of caring” auto- Connection Model is “the emotion of caring.” The au- matically prompts regress to the kind of question emo- thors contend that this emotion not only supplies a mo- tion researchers long have been struggling to answer: tivation for caregiving but also helps solve another “Why do they feel the emotion [of caring; of fear; of problem: that “the role of emotion in attachment and joy]?” The antecedents of this emotion (the conse- caregiving is still seriously underexplained” (this is- quences having been specified by the authors to be sue). The authors neglect to say, however, that one caregiving behavior) must be specified. Is the predis- very important reason for this state of affairs is that position to experience the emotion of caring innately emotion itself is still “underexplained” in psychology. given? One foresees that arguments could be made that After a century of effort, heated controversy still per- a caregiving behavioral syndrome may be an innate so- vades answers to even the most fundamental questions cial response system activated under certain about emotion (see Ekman & Davidson, 1994). specifiable conditions. Or is caregiving learned? If so, It is easy to agree with Bell and Richard that the is- what are the conditions conducive to such learning? If sue of a motivation for caregiving needs attention, not the Connection Model can do no more than posit that simply to redress the alleged lacuna in attachment the- the emotion of caring can be inferred from the fact of ory but for the very practical reasons mentioned ear- caregiving behavior, the model is dead on arrival. It lier. But those familiar with contemporary theory and may be noted that Baumeister and Leary (1995), who research on emotion will not be optimistic that the posit a human “need to belong,” provided a useful tem- newly minted emotion of “caring,” added to the daunt- plate for the kind of evidence assembly and logical ingly long list of emotions people have posited over the analysis that the introduction of a new motivational years, will prove useful either to our understanding of construct requires. caregiving or to our understanding of emotional expe- In sum, the antecedents of the “emotion of caring” rience in relationships in which caregiving and care-re- require specification and elaboration. Moreover, if ceiving behaviors are distinct features of the partners’ Bell and Richard truly intend their Connection Model interaction pattern. At minimum, elaboration of this to encompass caregiving behavior in all relationships, centerpiece of the Connection Model will require not simply the parent–infant relationship, there is a closer contact with contemporary emotion theory and great deal of relevant caregiving theory and research research. For example, in a footnote, the authors state beyond the confines of the attachment literature to be that they recognize that “many emotion researchers considered and integrated. A Herculean task, to be study only those emotions that can be conceptualized sure, but Bell and Richard’s goal is worth the effort. In as episodic, short-term responses to external stimuli” a nation in which concern is growing that many chil- (this issue). It may have been more accurate had the au- dren are not receiving adequate care, a nation, further- thors said that “most” emotion theorists and research- more, in which the number of old and infirm is ers view the experience of emotion as short-lived. This burgeoning, society’s expectation that psychology

108 COMMENTARIES ought to be able to provide answers to a multitude of Clark, M. S. (Ed.). (1991). Prosocial behavior: Review of person- caregiving questions is likely to be voiced ever more ality and social psychology: Vol. 12. Newbury Park, CA: frequently and insistently in the years ahead. Sage. Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The nature of emotion. New York: Oxford University Press. Note Feeney, J. A. (1996). Attachment, caregiving and marital satisfac- tion. Personal Relationships, 4, 401–416. Ellen Berscheid, Department of Psychology, Elliott Helgeson, V. S. (1994). Relation of agency and communion to Hall, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. well-being: Evidence and potential explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 412–428. Ickes, W. (Ed.). (1997). Empathic accuracy. New York: Guilford. References Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships. In K. Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal rela- Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of so- tionships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. cial psychology: Vol. 2. (4th ed., pp. 282–316). New York: 205–237). London: Jessica Kingsley. McGraw-Hill. Mandler, G. (1997). Human nature explored. New York: Oxford Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire University Press. for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motiva- Pierce, G. R., Lakey, B., Sarason, I., & Sarason, B. (1997). Sourcebook tion. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. of social support and personality. New York: Plenum. Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., & Orina, M. M. (1999). Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. and anger in an anxiety-provoking situation. Journal of Person- Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books. ality and Social Psychology, 76, 940–957. Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Jaffe, K. (1996). Attach- Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support ment, caregiving, and relationship functioning in couples: Ef- seeking and support giving within couples in an anxi- fects of self and partner. Personal Relationships, 3, 257–277. ety-provoking situation: The role of attachment styles. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of attachment: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford. 434–466.

Attachment Theory and Caregiving

Phillip R. Shaver and R. Chris Fraley Department of Psychology University of California, Davis

Normally when one is asked to comment on a scien- “self-interest.” To our knowledge, caregiving has tific article, the authors of the article have made a co- never been described by attachment theorists as moti- herent case of some kind, have rooted it in existing vated by self-interest, except in the sense that the theoretical and empirical literatures, and have sug- caregiving system, like all biobehavioral adaptations, gested new directions for research. In the case of evolved because it increased parents’ inclusive fitness. Bell and Richard’s “Forgotten Element” article, it is Attachment theory’s concepts of sensitive and respon- impossible to adopt the usual approach, because the sive parenting clearly point to a parent’s focus on his or article contains so many mistakes, misunderstand- her child’s needs and signals, not on the parent’s more ings, and false leads that there is no coherent thesis directly selfish concerns. Every extended discussion of to be discussed. Moreover, there are no concrete attachment theory includes a list of some of the stimuli suggestions for research based on the authors’ theo- that initially elicit parental caregiving, such as the in- retical proposals. Our approach, therefore, will be to fant’s rounded features, large head and eyes, obvious highlight and correct some of the misconceptions in vulnerability, crying when distressed, and other ex- the target article and evaluate the authors’ proposed pressions of emotion. In addition to exhibiting these solutions to the problems they think they have iden- simple qualities, infants evoke in parents more com- tified. Our comments will be organized according to plex thoughts and feelings about such issues as the Bell and Richard’s four major criticisms of attach- child’s need for nourishment, for protection from dan- ment theory’s conceptualization of caregiving. ger, for stimulating entertainment, for educational support and guidance, and so on, which are often acted on Motivation for Caregiving without the infant having to produce any particular emergency signals. To the extent that Bell and Richard Bell and Richard erroneously assert that the motiva- attempt to explain what causes “caring,” they seem to tion for caregiving, according to attachment theory, is have some of these same kinds of things in mind. Cer-

109 COMMENTARIES tainly George and Solomon, the attachment theorists vulnerability to various dangers? The theory’s empha- who have written most extensively about the sis on the caregiver’s interest in meeting the needs of caregiving system (e.g., George & Solomon, 1989, what Bell and Richard call “the dependent” is the rea- 1996, 1999; Solomon & George, 1996, 1999), have son for directing so much research at the concepts of talked about parents’ pervasive concern, foresight, sensitivity and responsiveness. What would such terms care, and responsibility and about the inevitable con- refer to if they did not imply being attuned to the needs flicts between caregiving and other activities that ulti- of the infant and trying to meet those needs appropri- mately relate to inclusive fitness. It is therefore a ately? serious mistake for Bell and Richards to act as if attachment theorists who study parent–child relationships need a lecture on such matters. The Place of Emotion in Caregiving With respect to using attachment theory in the study and Attachment of adult romantic, or pair-bond, relationships, Kunce and Shaver (1994) provided empirical evidence con- Bell and Richard believe that emotions are tightly cerning differences between self-protection and woven into the fabric of caregiving, and they criticize caregiving, clearly indicating that caregiving is not Bowlby for failing to incorporate emotions into his “selfish” in the everyday sense. (See also studies by theoretical explanation of attachment and caregiving. Carnelley, Pietromonaco, & Jaffe, 1996, and Feeney, It is important to note, however, that emotions occupy 1996.) It is, instead, oriented toward a relationship a key role in all of Bowlby’s writings (notice the words partner’s needs and wishes, including some that the anger, sadness, and depression in the titles of his sec- partner may not perceive as accurately as the caregiver ond and third volumes, and the word security in the ti- does. Thus, there is no basis in either the literature on tle of one of his later books; Bowlby, 1988). Bell and child–parent attachment or the literature on romantic Richard are correct in saying that Bowlby did not give attachment for claiming that attachment theorists view these emotions “autonomy” or causal primacy in his caregiving as “selfish.” theory. One reason is that emotions such as care, sepa- In contrast to their false characterization of attach- ration anxiety, and grief are important parts of what he ment theorists as attributing caregiving to self-inter- was trying to explain. As such, they could not them- est, Bell and Richard propose that the emotion of car- selves be conceptualized as autonomous causes. ing plays a central role in motivating caregiving Bowlby (1969/1982) adopted ethologists’ concept behavior: “We assume that caregiving behavior arises of behavioral systems partly to clarify the nature of at- from an autonomous motivation that can successfully tachment-related emotional experiences. He believed compete with self-interest. We find that competing that emotions were signals or outputs from complex motivation in the emotion of caring” (this issue). This appraisal mechanisms and behavioral control mecha- explanation strikes us as circular: Caregivers provide nisms that evolved to serve survival- and reproduc- care because they care. Although Bell and Richard tion-related functions. According to this analysis, the beef up their description of caring (e.g., by highlight- attachment system is partly responsible for monitoring ing the fact that genuine caring involves a focus on the environment for cues concerning the availability the other’s needs rather than one’s own), nothing in and responsiveness of the caregiver. When the child’s these additional comments allows them to escape the goals for proximity maintenance are violated, a suite of fundamental circularity of their conceptual frame- behaviors—and the physiological changes necessary work. There is no explicit cause of care in their anal- to execute those behaviors—is activated to restore ysis (except the infant’s responsiveness, to which proximity. Some aspects of this “appraisal leading to they devote a small amount of attention); it is, as they behavioral activation” process are felt (to use say, “autonomous.” In contrast, attachment theory Bowlby’s term), and they are sometimes interpreted portrays care and other emotional experiences of and labeled as emotions. But the feelings themselves caregiving as part and parcel of the caregiving sys- are part of a more complex process, not the initiators of tem, a system involving biologically evolved goals, that process. appraisals, actions, and affects. The behavioral systems approach helps to explain Bell and Richard also say that, in contrast to meet- emotional experiences by specifying the functions of ing the parent’s own needs, the “set goal of the care- the systems that generate them, the proximate and dis- giver is to meet the needs of the dependent” (this tal goals of these systems, and the nature of the ap- issue). This is not different from attachment theorists’ praisal processes, action patterns, terminating proposals. Bowlby (1969/1982) believed that the func- conditions, and behavioral feedback pathways that tional outcome of caregiving was protection (a posi- govern them. According to Bowlby (1969/1982, chap. tion elaborated by George & Solomon, 1999); how 7), the feelings that accompany the operation of behav- would this be accomplished without the caregiver’s at- ioral systems are important in self-understanding and tending to and being sensitive to the infant’s needs and in communication with other people (including clini-

110 COMMENTARIES cians). They are sometimes used as a kind of shorthand Instead, they seem to rely on their own strong sense for explaining how a person (including oneself) re- that because care feels so moving and important, it acted in a particular situation. But for the most part, the must in fact be a causal prime mover, an autonomous subjective (felt) aspects of these reactions are not in force. themselves viewed as causal. Interestingly, Bowlby’s (1969/1982) analysis of emotions foreshadowed contemporary emotion theo- Attachment and Caregiving “Bonds” ries (e.g., Ekman, 1992; Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991; Oatley & Jenkins, 1996; Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & Bell and Richard’s section on affectional bonds is O’Connor, 1987), all of which view emotions as elic- one of the most confusing sections in their article. The ited by appraisals, which may or may not be conscious, authors appear to argue that there are too many ambi- and as comprising action tendencies supported by req- guities in the concepts of affectional bond and attach- uisite physiological and attentional changes (Frijda, ment bond, including the purported implication that 1986). The Consensus Model of emotions (Fischer, bonds develop exceedingly quickly, the connection be- Shaver, & Carnochan, 1990) does not characterize the tween affection and attachment, and the degree to felt aspects of emotions always as necessary or, in which people “choose” to become bonded. In our opin- themselves, causal. (In other words, our everyday pro- ion, Bell and Richard have read too much into the pensity to characterize emotions as “feelings” is some- “bond” construct. Like attachment, the term what misleading. All scientific analyses are forced to affectional bonds is metaphorical (there being no lit- deal with appraisals, physiological changes, and eral, physical “bond”). It refers to the fact that two indi- changes in action tendencies and patterns of expres- viduals are “tied” or “bound” to each other in a sion and behavior that go well beyond “feelings,” and relationship. When two people are bound into an at- in fact are among the processes that are subjectively tachment relationship, they recognize each other as “felt.”) When emotions are viewed as changes in ac- uniquely important; monitor each other’s where- tion tendencies (sometimes accompanied by feelings, abouts; have some understanding of each other’s goals, sometimes not) resulting from appraisals of events in intentions, and desires (with sufficient age or cognitive relation to goals and concerns (Frijda, 1986; Oatley & development); have experienced strong emotions in Jenkins, 1996), one can see why proximity seeking, relation to each other; and would be extremely upset cuddling, providing care, and so on are accompanied and, at least for a time, lost without each other. This by strong feelings. One can also see why the feelings complex situation is summarized, for convenience, by themselves are not given an autonomous or causally the term bond. prior role in attachment theory. These subjectively felt How do such bonds form? Contrary to what Bell emotions are aspects of the operation of behavioral and Richard believe, attachment theorists do not argue systems, not the autonomous triggers of those systems. that affectional or attachment bonds form quickly, in a In other words, to return specifically to caregiving, car- way similar to imprinting. Indeed, Bowlby ing does not explain the caregiving behavioral system; (1969/1982) was cautious about using the term im- the caregiving system explains the feelings Bell and printing, a term originally designed to describe the at- Richard label caring. tachment behavior of birds, when describing How do Bell and Richard go about putting the, to attachment processes in humans. Because attachment them, forgotten emotion of care back into caregiving? behavior appears to have evolved independently in Somewhat carelessly. In their words, “cognitions [by birds and mammals, Bowlby acknowledged the possi- which we assume they mean what Lazarus and other bility that the neural machinery underlying attachment contemporary emotion theorists call ‘appraisals,’ a behavior in the two taxa may be quite different. Al- term deliberately connoting evaluation, not simply though the process of attachment begins early in devel- cool perception] are not what motivate the parent’s ac- opment (Bowlby, 1969/1982), many researchers (e.g., tions—emotions are, and more basically the emotion Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Marvin & Britner, 1999; of caring” (this issue). This proposed solution to what Scheper-Hughes, 1992) described the gradual process we believe is a nonexistent problem—once one under- by which an infant becomes attached to a particular stands both attachment theory and contemporary theo- parent and how the caregiver becomes increasingly in- ries of emotion—raises problems. First, part of what vested in a particular offspring. Similarly, research on we wish to explain, namely the feelings and behaviors attachment development in romantic relationships sug- of caring, becomes a proposed cause of itself: People gests that the process of attachment formation often care because they care. Second, this phenomenological takes as long as 2 years (Fraley & Davis, 1997; Hazan ghost is inserted into the caregiving machine without & Zeifman, 1994). any reference to an explicit theory of emotion. Bell and In both kinds of relational contexts, the process of Richard do not mention modern appraisal theories of bond formation involves conscious and unconscious emotion, nor do they rely on some alternative theory. familiarity; numerous experiences of synchronous, in-

111 COMMENTARIES terdependent interactions; intertwined goals and pro- emotion of caring” (this issue). Not only does this ex- jects; and perhaps (on the part of adults) cognitive planation trivialize the metaphor of affectional bonds, dissonance reduction. In some ways, the process is it is circular: The bond is enduring because the bond is similar from both sides of a child–parent relationship, caring and caring is enduring. but because the concerns, goals, representations, and so on are far from identical on the two sides, some experiences, such as loss, probably differ for “depend- Explaining Sensitivity and ents” and “caregivers.” The dependents are likely to Responsiveness feel anxious and unprotected; the caregivers are likely to experience guilt and a continuing wish to be protec- Bell and Richard criticize attachment theory for tive and helpful (Bowlby, 1980). Each position re- failing to provide an explanation of why responsive quires a massive reorganization of personal goals, but and sensitive caregivers behave as they do. Attachment the nature of the goals is not the same. researchers, however, have expended considerable en- How do Bell and Richard revise current views of ergy exploring the transmission of caregiving behav- caregiving and attachment bonds? First, they suggest iors from parents to children (see, e.g., De Wolff & van that caregiving needs to be conceptualized as more IJzendoorn, 1997; George & Solomon, 1999; van proactive than reactive: “In contrast [to attachment IJzendoorn, 1995). Many researchers believe that the theory], connection theory [i.e., the authors’ own the- responsiveness of the caregiver to the child’s needs ory] views caregiving as more proactive than reactive” helps the child learn to regulate his or her emotions, (this issue). There is nothing, however, about contem- and that the patterns of interaction (i.e., the contingen- porary perspectives on caregiving to imply that cies, responses, and “rules” of interaction) between the caregiving is simply a reactive process. As George and parent and child become assimilated into a child’s de- Solomon (1999) explained, using both human and non- veloping representations of the world. These “working human primate examples, the caregiving system is ac- models” are carried forward into young adulthood and, tive much of the time, even when the dependent shows in conjunction with other factors correlated with work- no signs of realizing that he or she is in danger or in ing models, such as marital support (Belsky, need. Parental interventions are not viewed as always, Rosenberger, & Crnic, 1995; Crowell, Fraley, & or even usually, being responses to explicit signals on a Shaver, 1999), come to shape the way a person feels dependent’s part. Moreover, attachment researchers about his or her own child before it is born (Fonagy, (e.g., Slade et al., 1995) agreed with Bell and Richard Steele, & Steele, 1991; Slade et al., 1995). Further, that caregiving working models often develop before a these working models manifest themselves in the ways child is born (e.g., during pregnancy). In fact, Slade in which new parents organize their caregiving behav- and her colleagues already showed that a woman’s ior toward their own children. As George and Solomon own attachment working models influence the nature (1999) noted, parents may sometimes be preoccupied of her imagined relationship with the child-to-be. with their own fears or insecurities about parenting, Bell and Richard also argue that we need a better and this interferes with their ability to sensitively or explanation of the enduring nature of affectional flexibly meet the needs of their children. Bell and bonds: “Most attachment researchers describe the at- Richard believe that this explanation constitutes a tachment and caregiving bonds as long-lasting and ir- “moral exhortation” (this issue) and “oversimplifies replaceable, but this is a characteristic of affective and further trivializes the process of caregiving” (this bonds that is described (and assumed) rather than ex- issue), but we view it as a rather sophisticated, if in- plained” (this issue). Attachment theory views the complete, explanation of variation in caregiving be- bonds as serving the survival and reproductive goals havior. (i.e., the goals of inclusive fitness) of both parents and The authors’ alternative is to explain the caregiver’s children. The bonds are long-lasting on the part of par- motivation for caregiving via empathy and responsi- ents because parental investment and parental effort bility: “Because caring represents a concern for the de- can last a lifetime. They are long-lasting on the part of pendent’s needs, empathy follows from caring and is a children because parents continue to serve as safe ha- mechanism through which the caring is implemented” vens and secure bases for many years, sometimes for as (this issue). This explanation strikes us as vacuous. It long as the parents live. Of course, saying this is not the does not tell us why some caregivers are less invested same as explaining what it is about the underlying neu- in their offspring than others are (although it does rec- ral networks that keep an “affectional bond” in place, ognize that caregiving can be exhibited in variable de- sometimes long after a partner has died, and this is an grees), how exactly this variation may be interpreted or interesting question for research. experienced by the child, and how regularities in What is Bell and Richard’s proposed explanatory caregiving patterns may affect the subsequent person- mechanism? They say, “The caregiving is the bond.… ality development of both relationship partners. Fur- The caregiving bond endures because it is the enduring ther, it seems peculiar to us that the concepts of

112 COMMENTARIES empathy and responsibility bear such striking resem- Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and blance to the concepts of sensitivity and responsive- depression. New York: Basic Books. ness offered by the traditional attachment perspective. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books. Carnelley, K. B., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Jaffe, K. (1996). Attach- In this respect, it is difficult to separate Bell and Rich- ment, caregiving, and relationship functioning in couples: ard’s supposed contribution from existing theory. Effects of self and partner. Personal Relationships, 3, 257–277. Crowell, J., Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Measures of individual differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In J. Concluding Comments Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: The- ory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 434–465). New Bell and Richard’s critique of attachment theorists’ York: Guilford. De Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity and at- conception of caregiving seems uninformed and mis- tachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant at- guided. Their alternative view offers little of value. tachment. Child Development, 68, 571–591. Theirapproachseemstobemotivatedprimarilybyade- Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and sire to incorporate the potency of feelings into prevail- Emotion, 6, 169–200. ing views of caregiving. But there is nothing in contem- Feeney, J. A. (1996). Attachment, caregiving, and marital satisfac- tion. Personal Relationships, 3, 401–416. porary theories to dissuade readers from noticing, Fischer, K. W., Shaver, P. R., & Carnochan, P. (1990). How emotions celebrating, or appreciating the subjective side of develop and how they organize development. Cognition and caregiving. Bell and Richard seem to believe that it Emotion, 4, 81–127. makes more sense to derive empathy and responsibility Fonagy, P., Steele, H., & Steele, M. (1991). Maternal representations from “care” than it does to incorporate sensitivity-em- of attachment during pregnancy predict organization of infant–mother attachment at one year of age. Child Development, pathy and responsiveness-responsibility into the nor- 62, 891–905. mal workings of the caregiving behavioral system. For Fraley, R. C., & Davis, K. E. (1997). Attachment formation and trans- them, the absence in attachment theory of an emphasis fer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic relation- on the phenomenology of care, which they attempt to ships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131–144. capture in their “I feel wonderful” paragraph (this is- Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. sue), means that attachment theory is leaving out some- George, C., & Solomon, J. (1989). Internal working models of thing important. But readers of George and Solomon’s caregiving and security of attachment at age six. Infant Mental (1999) or Kunce and Shaver’s (1994) attachment theo- Health Journal, 10, 222–237. retical perspectives on caregiving will notice that the ro- George, C., & Solomon, J. (1996). Representational models of rela- mance, the feeling, is all there, and in a much more com- tionships: Links between caregiving and attachment. Infant Mental Health Journal, 17, 198–216. plete and sophisticated theoretical context than the one George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and caregiving: provided by Bell and Richard. George and Solomon’s The caregiving behavioral system. In J. Cassidy & P. R. parent–child and Kunce and Shaver’s romantic-rela- Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, tionship conceptions of caregiving have already led to and clinical applications (pp. 649–670). New York: the creation of useful measures and to both theoretically Guilford. Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In and clinically significant empirical discoveries. In con- K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal re- trast, Bell and Richard offer no proposals for research lationships: Vol. 5. Attachment process in adulthood (pp. based on their ideas. In this way, their Connection The- 151–178). London: Jessica Kingsley. ory definitely differs from attachment theory. Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. Note 205–237). London: Jessica Kingsley. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Phillip R. Shaver and R. Chris Fraley, Department Marvin, R. S., & Britner, P. A. (1999). Normative development: The of Psychology, University of California, Davis, ontogeny of attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), CA 95616–8686. E-mail: [email protected] Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 44–67). New York: Guilford. Oatley, K., & Jenkins, J. M. (1996). Understanding emotions. Cam- bridge, MA: Blackwell. References Scheper-Hughes, N. (1992). Death without weeping: The violence of everyday life in Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press. Belsky, J., Rosenberger, K., & Crnic, K. (1995). The origins of at- Shaver, P. R., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor, C. (1987). tachment security: “Classical” and contextual determinants. In Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype ap- S. Goldberg, R. Muir, & J. Kerr (Eds.), Attachment theory: So- proach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, cial, developmental, and clinical perspectives (pp. 153–183). 1061–1086. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. Slade, A., Dermer, M., Gerber, J., Gibson, L., Gaf, F., Siegel, N., & Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment Tobias, K. (1995, March). Prenatal representation, dyadic in- (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. teraction, and quality of attachment. Paper presented at the bi-

113 COMMENTARIES

ennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop- ried mothers. Attachment and Human Development, 1, ment, Indianapolis, IN. 171–190. Solomon, J., & George, C. (1996). Defining the caregiving system: van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representa- Toward a theory of caregiving. Infant Mental Health Journal, tions, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A 17, 183–197. meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult At- Solomon, J., & George, C. (1999). The caregiving behavioral sys- tachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117, tem in mothers of infants: A comparison of divorcing and mar- 387–403.

Caregiving, Attachment Theory, and the Connection Theoretical Orientation

Jeffry A. Simpson and W. Steven Rholes Department of Psychology Texas A&M University

Bell and Richard raise some important questions need for felt security (in older children and adults). about how caregiving is—and theoretically should These goal states have different implications for how be—related to basic attachment principles and pro- one views the nature, purpose, and functions of at- cesses. Until recently (see Belsky, Steinberg, & tachment styles in infants versus adults. To com- Draper, 1991; Chisholm, 1996; George & Solomon, pound matters, theorists have not clarified how the 1996, 1999), attachment theorists have not sufficiently functions and objectives of caregiving directed to addressed how the caregiving behavioral system inter- young, vulnerable infants are similar to (or different faces with the attachment system. In this commentary, from) more reciprocal forms of caregiving that occur we first discuss some reasons why caregiving appears between equal-status adults in mating relationships. to be the “forgotten element” in attachment theory. We As we discuss below, the nature, goals, and functions then discuss several misconceptions the authors have of caregiving may be very different in different types about attachment theory and indicate how recent of relationships (e.g., parent–child, romantic, casual ontogenetic theories have attempted to link early pat- friendships), which leads one to question whether the terns of attachment to subsequent mating strategies authors’ new theory of caregiving operates in a simi- and parenting styles over the life span. We conclude by lar manner across different types of relationships. discussing why the authors’ new theory is problematic, Attachment scholars have also done a relatively and we suggest that a different set of questions about poor job of specifying how different working models the theoretical connections between attachment and are interconnected and should be associated with caregiving needs to be asked. caregiving (e.g., models of the parent–child relationship, models of romantic partners, models of close friends; see Collins & Read, 1994). This lack of speci- Why Is Caregiving the “Forgotten ficity has confused and perhaps camouflaged some of Element?” the unique goals and functions that caregiving may serve in different types of relationships. For example, One of the reasons why attachment theory has not the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI), which was de- been well integrated with caregiving is that infant veloped to assess patterns of attachment to one’s par- survival and successful childrearing are two distinct ents as assessed in adulthood (Hesse, 1999; Main, life tasks that occur at different points in develop- Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985), was actually designed to ment and, according to evolutionary principles, can predict the attachment styles of respondents’ infants in have independent effects on reproductive fitness the Strange Situation. As a result, the AAI contains (Simpson, 1999). This is why most theorists concep- variance reflecting both memories and interpretations tualize attachment and caregiving as separate, of how individuals were cared for by their own parents evolved systems. Nonetheless, meager theoretical ad- and how they care for their own children. The Strange vances also have hindered integration of the two sys- Situation, on the other hand, was developed to classify tems, especially since attachment theory and research attachment patterns in vulnerable, highly dependent has moved into the realm of adult romantic relation- infants based on how they use their caregivers to regu- ships. Bell and Richard are correct in noting that at- late their negative emotions when they are distressed. tachment theory focuses on two major goal And most self-report measures of attachment to ro- states—the need for proximity (in infants) and the mantic partners inquire about the seeking and giving of

114 COMMENTARIES care (Shaver, Belsky, & Brennan, 2000), but in the encing affect regulation processes (see Simpson & context of reciprocal, equal-status sexual relationships Rholes, 1994). Moreover, the factors acting as causes where partners jointly give and receive support. If the and effects within the attachment system become diffi- nature and functions of caregiving are somewhat cult to differentiate once the system is activated. unique across different types of relationships, one must Bell and Richard also suggest that no attach- study how multiple working models affect caregiving ment-based theoretical work has tried to explain why in different types of relationships to fully understand “quality” caregivers behave as they do. Although how attachment relates to caregiving. With few excep- Bowlby did not provide a direct explanation, several tions, attachment researchers have not done this. recent life history models that are grounded in attachment theory have done so (see the life-span models of social development proposed by Belsky et al., 1991; Misconceptions About Attachment Chisholm, 1996). These models integrate attachment Theory theory, sexual selection theory, and life history theory. Finally, the authors either misinterpret or oversim- Bell and Richard also paint an overly simplistic and plify several additional points. For instance, attach- sometimes misleading portrait of attachment theory. ment theory does not suggest that no caring precedes They claim, for example, that attachment theory views caregiving; attachment bonds do not necessarily de- the caregiving system as “purely reactive” to environ- velop toward the “best” available caregiver; the attach- mental triggers rather than being proactive in nature. ment system is not simply switched on and off in an Internal working models can and often do produce all-or-none fashion; the theory does not propose that spontaneous, proactive caregiving in the absence of caregivers respond “mechanically” to their children’s environmental activators, some of which are adaptive crying; and it does not assume that poor-quality par- (e.g., when caregivers with secure working models an- ents are incompetent but not unmotivated. Most if not ticipate and prevent their children from being harmed) all of these assumptions are wrong, and they are not en- and some of which are maladaptive (e.g., when care- dorsed by most contemporary attachment theorists. givers with preoccupied models are chronically over- protective; see George & Solomon, 1999). The authors also claim that attachment theory does The Utility of the Connection not offer a “plausible motivation” for caregiving. The Theoretical Orientation Model motivation for caregiving, however, is explained by other middle-level evolutionary theories that focus Not all relationships are attachment relationships, more directly on parental investment and caregiving, and, even among those that are, there are many impor- such as parent–offspring conflict theory (Trivers, tant facets of close relationships that attachment theory 1974), life history theory (Williams, 1966), and sexual simply does not address. It is important to remain fo- selection and parental investment theory (Trivers, cused on the theoretical core of attachment theory that 1972). Each of these theories is based on general as- Bowlby, Ainsworth, Main, and others have estab- sumptions from inclusive fitness theory (Hamilton, lished, if for no other reason than to ensure that attach- 1964), which clearly explains why most parents should ment theory avoids becoming imprecise, have strong “self-interest” in investing heavily in their overextended, and no longer capable of providing use- children. It is important to recognize that attachment ful guidance to hypothesis generation and explanatory theory was originally developed to address infant sur- thinking (see Main, 1999). vival, and most of Bowlby’s major ideas were con- Attachment relationships differ from other types of ceived well before other middle-level evolutionary relationships in that attachment figures are persons to theories were developed (see Simpson, 1999). Recent whom one turns in times of distress, mainly because theoretical extensions involving felt security and at- such persons are willing and able to promote one’s tachment processes across the life span have begun to safety or “felt security” (Main, 1999). However, there deal with issues that may be relevant to different life often is an inherent asymmetry in attachment relation- tasks (i.e., mating and parenting). Considerable debate ships whereby one person has strong needs and views currently exists about what evolutionary functions his or her partner as offering a possible “solution” to a adult attachment styles may serve (see Kirkpatrick, current problem. In adult–child relationships, this 1998; Zeifman & Hazan, 1997, for contrasting views). asymmetry is witnessed in the fact that the adult often Theauthorsalsocontendthatattachmenttheorydoes serves as the child’s solution, but not vice versa. In not allow for affect to be a “causal force” in the affect adult–adult relationships, temporary periods of asym- regulation system. However, responses to either exter- metry occur when one partner views the other as nal threats or chronic worries induced by working mod- “stronger and wiser” (Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, els can generate emotional states within individuals that 1988) and as the likely solution to his or her immediate are capable of activating attachment systems and influ- concerns or distress.

115 COMMENTARIES

In light of these considerations, how should difficult childhood experiences but who developed caregiving be defined from the vantage point of attach- healthy, secure relationships with their parents) do not ment theory? Caregiving entails the willingness to ac- differ from persons with healthy, largely positive cept (rather than turn away) the dependency of others childhood experiences in terms of how they care for and to respond in ways that either reduce their distress their own infant children. What is needed is a theoreti- or enhance their safety. Given this definition, there are cal framework that can explain the processes through many forms and modes of caregiving that simply are which internal working models affect parents’ not relevant to attachment theory. Because it is essen- caregiving and their infants’ responses to them. tial to concentrate on the most central, distinguishing In summary, we agree that attachment theory’s ac- features of an attachment perspective on caregiving, count of caregiving is not well developed. However, the connection theoretical orientation proposed by Bell we question whether the connection theoretical orien- and Richard is problematic primarily because it is too tation will appreciably advance our understanding of inclusive. either attachment theory or caregiving.

Are the Right Questions Being Asked? Note

Bell and Richard state that the key questions about Jeffry A. Simpson, Department of Psychology, caregiving for attachment theory should center on: (a) Texas A&M University, College Station, TX identifying the motivation for caregiving, (b) finding a 77843–4235. E-mail: [email protected] place for emotion within caregiving, (c) describing the nature of attachment and caregiving bonds, and (d) References providing an explanation for caregivers’ responsiveness and sensitivity. We do not dispute the utility or Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience, importance of these questions, but we believe that the interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647–670. most critical issues are not addressed in Bell and Rich- Chisholm, J. S. (1996). The evolutionary ecology of attachment orga- ard’s article. nization. Human Nature, 7, 1–38. At present, there is ample evidence that adults’ rep- Cohn, D., Cowan, P., Cowan, P., & Pearson, J. (1992). Mothers’ and resentations of their childhood experiences with their fathers’ working models of childhood attachment relationships, parents affect the patterns of attachment that their chil- parenting style, and child behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 417–431. dren develop with them. A portion of this effect is me- Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1994). Cognitive representations of at- diated through maternal sensitivity and responsiveness tachment: The structure and function of working models. In K. (van IJzendoorn, 1995). However, the routes by which Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Attachment processes in childhood experiences become translated into different adulthood (pp. 53–90). London: Jessica Kingsley. patterns of adult caregiving (and, in turn, different in- George, C., & Solomon, J. (1996). Representational models of relationships: Links between caregiving and attachment. Infant fant attachment patterns) remain largely unknown. A Mental Health Journal, 17, 198–216. full explanation of this process will require the identifi- George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and caregiving. In J. cation of behaviors that distinguish persons with dif- Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: The- ferent types of early attachment experiences. ory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 649–670). New Following this, one must establish links between these York: Guilford. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. behaviors and infant attachment patterns, after which Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52. one must explain how mental representations of early Hesse, E. (1999). The Adult Attachment Interview: Historical and experiences influence adult caregiving practices. Co- current perspectives. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Hand- gent answers to these enigmas are, in our view, the book of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications most interesting and the most pressing. Unlike most (pp. 395–433). New York: Guilford. Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1998). Evolution, pair-bonding, and reproduc- theories of early experience, attachment theory does tive strategies: A reconceptualization of adult attachment. In not argue that one’s experiences in early relationships J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and necessarily cause subsequent behavior; instead, one’s close relationships (pp. 353–393). New York: Guilford. representation of experiences (apparent in memories Main, M. (1999). Attachment theory: Eighteen points with sugges- and attributions) is the causal element (see Main, tions for future research. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical appli- 1999). According to this perspective, one may have ad- cations (pp. 845–887). New York: Guilford. verse attachment experiences in childhood yet reveal Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, child- no impact of such experiences in one’s caregiving or hood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. parenting if one’s representations of these experiences Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment the- are “healthy” (e.g., problems are acknowledged, but ory and research (pp. 66–104). Monographs of the Society for Re- search in Child Development, 50(1-2, Serial No. 209). parents were forgiven). Consistent with this viewpoint, Shaver, P. R., Belsky, J., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). The Adult Attachment Cohn, Cowan, Cowan, and Pearson (1992) found that Interview and self-reports of romantic attachment: Associations parents who display “earned” security (i.e., those with across domains and methods. Personal Relationships, 7, 25–43.

116 COMMENTARIES

Shaver, P. R., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attach- scent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Al- ment: The integration of three behavioral systems. In R. J. Stern- dine-Atherton. berg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 68–99). Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent–offspring conflict. American Zoologist, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 14, 249–264. Simpson, J. A. (1999). Attachment theory in modern evolutionary van IJzendoorn, M. (1995). Adult attachment representations, paren- perspective. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of tal responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psy- 115–140). New York: Guilford. chological Bulletin, 117, 387–403. Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (1994). Stress and secure base rela- Williams, G. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, tionships in adulthood. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), NJ: Princeton University Press. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 181–204). London: Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (1997). Attachment: The bond in Jessica Kingsley. pair-bonds. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution- Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selec- ary social psychology (pp. 237–263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence tion. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the de- Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Attachment, Intimacy, and Generativity

Dan P. McAdams Program in Human Development and Social Policy Northwestern University

As Bell and Richard point out in the last para- insightful exegesis of the attachment bond reveals the graph of their very fine article on caregiving and at- singularity of this primal relationship. Armed with a tachment, Bowlby was quite fond of military fashionable theory and with quick-and-easy pa- metaphors. In its cybernetic intricacy, the attach- per-and-pencil measures to assess individual differ- ment system was akin, Bowlby (1969) suggested, to ences in attachment security, social psychologists an “antiaircraft gun.” Constantly monitoring feed- have rushed ahead to implicate attachment as the back in relation to a set goal or target, the attachment guiding process for a number of different kinds of in- system aimed at shooting down the many predators terpersonal relationships, including adult friendships and dangers that threatened the helpless infant in the and romantic love. It became virtually accepted wis- Pleistocene environment of evolutionary dom among many social psychologists and clinicians adaptedness. A metaphor that Bowlby liked even that attachment processes are central in the develop- better was the secure base. In his last book, A Secure ment of intimate relationships between adults (Reis & Base, Bowlby (1988) wrote that the attachment bond Patrick, 1996). Bell and Richard, however, urge cau- ideally provides a base tion. Before we extend the attachment metaphor to the four corners of the interpersonal universe, we from which a child or an adolescent can make sorties need to take a closer look at the complex dynamics of into the outside world and to which he can return know- this unique bond. To elaborate on two important dis- ing for sure that he will be welcomed when he gets there, tinctions that come out of Bell and Richard’s analy- nourished physically and emotionally, comforted if distressed, reassured if frightened. In essence this role is sis, let me borrow terminology from Erik Erikson’s one of being available, ready to respond when called on (1963) well-known stage model of psychosocial de- to encourage and perhaps assist, but to intervene ac- velopment. Bell and Richard’s account suggests that tively only when clearly necessary. In these respects it is the attachment bond is not the same thing as adult in- a role similar to that of the officer commanding a mili- timacy (Erikson’s Stage 6) and that the caregiving tary base from which an expeditionary force sets out component of attachment is not the same thing as and to which it can retreat should it meet a setback. generativity (Erikson’s Stage 7). In our quest to con- Much of the time the role of the base is a waiting one but nect concepts with different pedigrees and connota- it is nonetheless vital for that. For it is only when the of- tions, we need to slow down, Bell and Richard tell us, ficer commanding the expeditionary force is confident lest we blur important theoretical distinctions. his base is secure that he dares press forward and take risks. (p. 11, [italics added throughout]) Attachment Versus Intimacy

Bell and Richard should be commended for soft- Bowlby’s (1988) military metaphors are revealing. ening attachment’s war rhetoric with the discourse of In the prototypical scenario of caregiver–infant attach- caring. More important, their carefully reasoned and ment, a weaker partner (the infant, or what Bell and

117 COMMENTARIES

Richard term the dependent) faces a threatening world fierce insistence on an intensive egalitarian exchange (predators, strangers—the enemy). The weaker partner between two autonomous selves. In emotional terms, receives sustenance and protection from the stronger furthermore, whereas attachment assuages fear and of- partner (the attachment object, or what Bell and Richard fers protection, intimacy assuages loneliness and of- term the caregiver), who provides a haven of safety and fers the opportunity to further extend one’s a secure base from which exploratory “sorties” can be understanding of self and other (Sullivan, 1953). In conducted. The stronger partner functions as a “com- what Stern (1985) characterizes as nonverbal state manding officer” of sorts, holding considerably more sharing, infants and their caregivers may engage in a power in this relationship. Nonetheless, she or he is as- rudimentary form of intimacy. But attachment pro- tute enough to wait it out most of the time and to simply cesses would appear to dominate the psychosocial “be available” should the weaker partner meet a “set- scene in the first few years of life, whereas intimacy back.” In an impressive theoretical advance, Bell and awaits a more fully developed sense of self and the Richard argue for a more activist caregiver—a com- achievements in cognitive development and role tak- manding officer who, motivated by the enduring dyadic ing that attend later childhood and adolescence (Hart, emotion of caring, adopts a rather more proactive stance 1988; Selman, 1980; Sullivan, 1953). vis-à-vis the infant, seeking first and foremost to meet Intimacy is an important aspect of the phenomenol- thedependent’sneedsandtocontinuetomeetthemwell ogyofromanticloveinadulthood.SternbergandGrajek into the future. Nonetheless, Bell and Richard agree (1984) identify intimacy, passion, and commitment as with Bowlby in characterizing the attachment relation- central components of romantic love. Attachment pro- ship as one of relative unequals. There is a “hierarchy cesses surely play a part, too (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). between parent and child,” they write. “The parent con- But in many mature relationships between partners who trols virtually all of the resources in the parent–child re- perceive themselves as equals, the model of care- lationship” (this issue). The parent is bigger, stronger, giver–dependent is not an easy fit. In the adult attach- older, wiser, richer, and more self-aware. According to ment literature, Bell and Richard suggest, it has been Bell and Richard, furthermore, the parent is gifted with “tacitly assumed that caregiving would occur as some empathy and responsibility, which serve as psychologi- kind of implicit exchange—each partner giving cal mechanisms through which caring is implemented. nurturance because each wanted to receive the other’s The caregiver feels the desire to know the dependent nurturance” (this issue). Bell and Richard are probably (empathy) and to meet the dependent’s needs (responsi- right, but I share their ambivalence about the adequacy bility). The caregiver (by definition) cares for the infant. of this kind of conceptualization in understanding what When it comes to caring, the infant, by contrast, is clue- goes on between lovers. Although caregiving is at the less. center of attachment, it would appear to be only one of Unless we wish to argue that one member of the ma- many different aspects of mature romantic love, and in ture adult friendship or romantic relationship is peren- some couples a minor aspect at that. nially the clueless dependent, we would do well to hold back our enthusiasm about attachment as a model for Attachment Versus Generativity romantic love and intimate relations. Bell and Richard maintain that attachment is different from romantic Caregiving begins with caring, Bell and Richard love. It is also different from intimacy. Intimacy is a point out. Although this contention may seem trivial, it quality of interpersonal relating through which part- proves to be theoretically very important. Caring is “an ners share personal thoughts, feelings, and other im- enduring dyadic emotion that continues over the long portant aspects of themselves with each other. In an term and that serves as an autonomous motivation to see exhaustive review of the construct, Prager (1995) that the needs of a specific partner are met” (this issue). wrote, “all conceptions of intimate interactions seem to Once the caregiver imagines or perceives that the infant center on the notion that intimate behavior consists of is (or will be) responsive to him or her, the caregiver be- sharing that which is personal” (pp. 20–21). McAdams ginstofeeltheemotionofcaring.Fromthestandpointof (1989) sees “the sharing of one’s innermost self” as the the caregiver, then, caring is the emotional core of at- cardinal feature of intimacy (p. 49). McAdams con- tachment. From this core, the processes of empathy and tends that an idealized model for intimate exchange is responsibility serve to help translate the emotion into what Martin Buber (1970) called the “I–Thou encoun- caregiving behavior. Whereas empathy concerns the ter.” The I–Thou is a special quality of interpersonal desire to know and understand the dependent, responsi- experience in which the I (self) and Thou (other) share bility refers to the “emotional intention to help the other with each other personal thoughts, feelings, observa- meet the other’s needs” (this issue). Bell and Richard tions, and so forth in such an intensive manner that observe that their usage of the term responsibility bears each becomes visible to the other in his or her whole- some similarity to Erikson’s concept of generativity. ness and unique individuality. What mainly distin- But generativity is broader and more diffuse, they point guishes intimacy from attachment, then, is intimacy’s out. According to Bell and Richard, Erikson viewed

118 COMMENTARIES generativity as a “nondyadic need or concern that is in- typically construct narrative identities in which empa- ternal to the caregiver and by which the caregiver gives thy for others, especially those who are weaker or who to future society” (this issue). Indeed, Erikson empha- suffer in some way, emerges clearly in early life-story sizedthatgenerativitycouldbeexpressedthroughmany scenes (McAdams, Diamond, de St. Aubin, & different channels outside of parenting—from teaching Mansfield, 1997; see also Colby & Damon, 1992). and mentoring youth to making important artistic, sci- Highly generative adults show an expanded radius of entific, or political contributions to society (McAdams, care, and they envision their futures in terms of Hart, & Maruna, 1998). By contrast, Bell and Richard long-term commitments to the welfare of others (Peter- see responsibility as a “dyadic intention directed toward son & Klohnen, 1995). Adults who score high on pa- a specific dependent growing out of feeling toward that per-and-pencilmeasuresofgenerativitymayormaynot dependent” (this issue). Their conceptualization in this be parents, but in their societal engagements they con- regard is consistent with theoretical trends in develop- sistently adopt the attitude of the hopeful caregiver, mental and evolutionary psychology and in cognitive looking to the future with anticipation that those things science today that underscore the domain specificity of they care for will grow and flourish. Undergirding their many psychological functions (e.g., Pinker, 1997). Car- hopefulness is what Erikson (1963) identified as a “being is specific to and comes directly out of a caregiving lief in the species” (p. 267), a faith in the ultimate relationship with a particular, concrete dependent: worthwhileness of the human enterprise. Although we “Whattheparentdoesistofeel,andwhattheparentfeels do not know where such a belief comes from, the belief is that this child has looked at this parent, that she has itself seems to suggest an expectation that those others looked at me” (this issue). whoarethepossibleobjectsofone’scarecanbeandwill Bell and Richard may be right in urging us to distin- be responsive to one’s generative efforts. In the same guish between the intense caring-empathy-responsibil- manner that I, the caregiver, begin to experience the ity complex a mother or father feels toward her or his emotion of caring once I see or imagine my offspring’s ownoffspringontheonehandandprovidingcareforthe responsiveness to me, so may some highly generative next generation in a broader sense on the other. My own adults be motivated to care for the next generation, and experiences as a father convince me, on an intuitive to commit themselves to a wide range of prosocial en- level, that I will never and can never feel as strongly car- gagements, once they trust and believe deeply that the ing toward any object or person as I have felt toward my potential beneficiaries of their care will indeed be re- own children. It may make good evolutionary sense, sponsive to them. furthermore, that a psychological mechanism dedicated In its fullest manifestations, then, especially high to protecting and assuring the well-being of one’s own levels of generativity may be experienced by some ma- offspring,thecarriersofone’sownselfishgenes,should ture adults as an extension of the caregiving complex be specifically designed to fulfill this crucial task, rather to future generations and the appropriation of a wide than derivative of a more general set of all-purpose range of activities into this caregiving program. It is no mechanisms (Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). Having said doubt true that the many different commitments and allthis,IamstillstruckbythefactthatEriksonexplicitly endeavors that we may roughly group under the cate- identified care as the signal virtue of adult generativity. gory of generativity may have very different origins As parents, yes, but also in their roles as instructors and and functions. Thus, one’s parenting may draw on dif- supervisors, community leaders, Sunday school teach- ferent psychological mechanisms than one’s volunteer ers, den mothers, Little League coaches, and the like, activities or civic obligations. But for many highly generative adults exhibit strong caring aimed toward generative adults, these different involvements eventu- youth,caringthatisenhancedbyempathyforothersand ally get organized into a generativity script responsibility to be of some good use to one’s neighbor- (McAdams, 1993) for life, which imports the same hood, community, people, or society, extending into the kinds of feelings and attitudes that Bell and Richard as- future. Generativity may not spring directly out of cribe to caregiving in the attachment relationship. I caregiving, and caregiving may involve different psy- think more needs to be made, therefore, of the (deep) chological mechanisms than, say, serving on the local conceptual linkages between caregiver–infant attach- school board. But the two concepts would appear to ment and generativity in mature adulthood. And less share more than a phenotypic similarity. should be made of the (superficial) similarities that I would like to propose that what Bell and Richard so have been observed between caregiver–infant attach- perceptively describe as the caregiving aspect of the at- ment and intimate relationships among young adults. tachment bond may serve as an emotional–cognitive–behavioral prototype of what full adult generativitycanbeandmaybe.Ourresearchintothelife Note storiesofhighlygenerativeadultssuggeststhatmenand women who have distinguished themselves for their Dan P. McAdams, Program in Human Develop- strong and caring commitments to the next generation ment and Social Policy, Northwestern University,

119 COMMENTARIES

2115 N. Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208. E-mail: McAdams, D. P., Hart, H. M., & Maruna, S. (1998). The anatomy of [email protected] generativity. In D. P. McAdams & E. de St. Aubin (Eds.), Generativity and adult development: How and why we care for the next generation (pp. 7–43). Washington, DC: American References Psychological Association Press. Peterson, B. E., & Klohnen, E. C. (1995). The realization of Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New generativity in two samples of women at midlife. Psychology York: Basic Books. and Aging, 10, 20–30. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books. Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: Norton. Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. New York: Scribner’s. Prager, K. J. (1995). The psychology of intimacy. New York: Colby, A., & Damon, W. (1992). Some do care: Contemporary lives Guilford Press. of moral commitment. New York: Free Press. Reis, H. T., & Patrick, B. C. (1996). Attachment and intimacy: Com- Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. ponent processes. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Hart, D. (1988). The adolescent self-concept in social context. In Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. D. K. Lapsley & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: 523–563). New York: Guilford. Integrative approaches (pp. 71–90). New York: Selman, R. L. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. Springer–Verlag. New York: Academic. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an Stern, D. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant: A view from attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- psychoanalysis and developmental psychology. New York: Ba- ogy, 59, 270–280. sic Books. McAdams, D. P. (1989). Intimacy: The need to be close. New York: Sternberg, R. J., & Grajek, S. (1984). The nature of love. Journal of Doubleday. Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 312–329. McAdams, D. P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New the making of the self. New York: Guilford. York: Norton. McAdams, D. P., Diamond, A., de St. Aubin, E., & Mansfield, E. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundation of (1997). Stories of commitment: The psychosocial construction culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The of generative lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of ogy, 72, 678–694. culture (pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press.

Caregiving, Attachment, and Relationships

Harry T. Reis Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology University of Rochester

Bell and Richard do the ever-expanding attach- Bell and Richard repeatedly fault attachment the- ment area a great service by proposing that ory for relegating emotion to a nonessential function caregiving should occupy a more central role in the as the by-product of attachment’s core mechanisms; field’s attention. Caregiving is an intrinsically impor- for example, “this view of emotion treats the child’s tant process that warrants careful thought and empiri- emotions of security or distress as signals from the at- cal scrutiny, especially as attachment researchers ex- tachment behavioral control system but not as causal pand their purview beyond parents and children to parts of that system” (this issue). Although not an un- consider the role of attachment in more symmetrical reasonable literal interpretation of some of Bowlby’s adult relationships, such as may occur between early writing (as discussed later), this is an inappro- spouses and adult siblings. At the same time, how- priate characterization of contemporary attachment ever, Bell and Richard do attachment theory a notable theory, and even, for that matter, of Bowlby’s deeper disservice by misrepresenting the field’s (and in some theoretical meaning. Bowlby described the relation- instances, Bowlby’s) theorizing on several key con- ships most likely to involve attachment as “shot ceptual issues. I begin this commentary by pointing through with strong emotion” (1988, p. 80) and as in- out some of these misconstruals not merely to set the volving “many of the most intense of all human emo- record straight, but also to highlight ways in which tions” (1979, p. 69). Indeed, a lecture he delivered in Bell and Richard’s position is actually much more 1986 included a section headed “Emotionally medi- congruous with prevailing views of the attachment ated bonds and mental health” (1988, pp. 160–162), process than may be apparent. I hope these clarifica- in which the attachment-ethological approach to tions and comments facilitate the endeavors of re- “emotionally significant” relationships and mental searchers who wish to study caregiving with attach- health is introduced. (Note his express use of the term ment-compatible models. mediated, which implies a causal role.) Moreover,

120 COMMENTARIES most students of Bowlby’s writing recognize that short, appraisals of the implications of an environ- emotions like fear, anxiety, sadness, despair, love, mental event for personal (or a dependent’s) contentment, relief, and joy are central to the behav- well-being are at the heart of what is today under- iors and phenomena he sought to explain: As he com- stood as emotion, and that same appraisal process, in mented, emotions are “the prizes and penalties se- terms of the implications of environmental events lected during evolution to guide us during our for the safety of one’s dependents, is at the heart of activities” (Bowlby, 1988, p. 81). Bowlby’s description of how the attachment system Admittedly, in his early writing, Bowlby operates. (1969/1982) did restrict the role of emotion somewhat Historical accuracy aside, there may be little point to by proposing that “feeling appraisals” provide evi- debating what Bowlby wrote or meant—after all, the dence of, rather than directly cause, the activation of third and final volume of his trilogy was written more the attachment system when threatening situations oc- than 20 years ago. Bowlby was far too dedicated and cur (and hence these appraisals allow both child and generative a scholar to have remained unaffected by the caregiver to monitor the attachment system’s activa- tremendous accumulation of knowledge about attach- tion). Among several reasons, Bowlby based this limi- ment, not to mention the striking and highly relevant ad- tation on the fact that feeling appraisals may be vances in relationship science, evolutionary science and necessary but not sufficient to produce attachment be- ethology, neuroscience, and cognitive psychology. In- havior. (Readers wishing to understand this subtle dis- stead, it may be more useful to examine the “state of the tinction may refer to pp. 116–123 of the first volume of art” in contemporary attachment theory, for example, as Bowlby’s, 1969/1982, trilogy). Instead, he hypothe- portrayed in the newly published Handbook of Attach- sized a seemingly more cognitive control system de- ment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications signed to return the child to a “set goal” of proximity (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999). Plain throughout that excep- with the caregiver. (The oft-noted set goal of “felt se- tionally comprehensive and deeply insightful volume is curity” was added later by Sroufe and Waters, 1977). the fact that emotion, emotion regulation, and emotional However, it is important to recognize that communication are neither secondary or incidental, nor Bowlby’s view of what is and is not an emotion was are they by-products of attachment; as attachment is limited to a large extent by the prevailing concep- currently conceptualized, investigated, and applied, tions of emotion common in his era. In the 1950s and emotion processes are a central core component. 1960s, psychology generally conceived of emotion But Bell and Richard are correct in noting that the as the subjective feeling experienced and interpreted caregiving side of the attachment bond has received by the individual. Thus, assigning emotion to a re- comparatively scant attention (as Bowlby himself flective rather than causal role, as Bowlby did, noted in a 1983 lecture; Bowlby, 1988, p. 82). Their seems reasonable, inasmuch as subjective feelings clarion call makes accuracy about the role of emotion represented in conscious awareness play a limited in attachment theory all the more important. If their causal role in emotional processing and emotional model of the caregiving process is to serve as a guiding phenomena (see Ekman and Davidson, 1994, for ex- framework for new research, and if subsequent re- tensive discussion of this issue). But few scholars to- search is to be integrated with the existing attachment day subscribe to this definition of emotion. literature, then it must accurately reflect what is known Contemporary definitions tend to describe emotion about attachment processes. Unfortunately, on this as an automatic response to personally significant score Bell and Richard fall short in several other in- environmental events, involving, among other key stances. For example, their characterization of attach- elements, redirection of mental attention toward ment activation as an on-off dichotomy rather than a those events and increments in behavioral action continuous “degree of activation” function reflects an readiness (e.g., Ekman & Davidson, 1994; Frijda, outmoded idea that even Bowlby rejected for both 1986). Subjective interpretations are one output of logical1 and theoretical reasons (see Cassidy, 1999; this process, not the driving force. Although I cannot Main, 1999, p. 858). And it seems odd to assert that re- describe this model of emotion within the space lim- search on caregiving has “ignored the conflicts, its of this comment, it is important to realize that the choices, and defenses of caregivers” (this issue), as homeostatic control system postulated by well as dynamic motivational concepts more broadly, Bowlby—and especially the role it assigns to ap- in light of research programs such as that of Main and praisals of potentially dangerous environmental her colleagues (Main, 1991), which many researchers events—is very much consistent with this more con- view as paradigmatic. temporary view of emotion (see, for example, Cassidy’s, 1999, synopsis of attachment theory). In

1 fact, one may even view Bowlby’s seminal con- That is, if the system were truly switched off, how would care- trol-system theorizing as having contributed to the givers notice the existence of circumstances with potential danger to development of modern emotion theories. Thus, in their dependents?

121 COMMENTARIES

These reservations aside, Bell and Richard’s con- groups. Propensities favoring cooperative social par- nection model offers a reasonable and much-needed ticipation thereby became an intrinsic component of step in a vital direction, and it is to be hoped that the re- human nature2 (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Brewer & search community takes up their charge. In the remain- Caporael, 1990). Providing care for significant oth- der of my commentary, I will focus on aspects of their ers—and not just offspring—is certainly one of these model that raise questions of general importance not propensities, as relationship theorists have demon- only to attachment researchers, but more broadly to the strated. For example, Mills and Clark (1982) distin- field of relationships. guished two important types of relationships, com- Where does the “caregiving behavioral control munal and exchange, defining the former in terms of system,” as Bell and Richard propose it, reside among partners’ responsiveness to each other’s needs. One the family of processes describing the provision of of Fiske’s (1992) four elementary forms of social re- help, support, and nurturance to others? As they men- lations, which are presumed to be innate and univer- tion,thefieldhasstruggledwiththequestionof“what sal, is communal sharing, in which caring for signifi- makes a close relationship an attachment relation- cant others is a central element. And in spontaneous ship?” (this issue), and many researchers view attach- descriptions of social goals and desired relationships, ment as a highly specialized bond, focused on the pro- people almost invariably highlight care and support cess of security-seeking and safety maintenance. Yet (Reis, 1990). the connection model is intended to apply to “the full Although the present rendering does not directly ad- range of relationships” (this issue), suggesting an ap- dress this issue, and although their position is con- parent asymmetry in breadth of application. This dis- cealed somewhat by the understandable emphasis on tinction is not theoretical hair splitting. Parental parental caregiving in attachment relationships, from a caregiving—overwhelmingly the domain in which functional perspective Bell and Richard’s model the specialized view of attachment has been investi- seems compatible with this broader conceptualization. gated—may express evolutionary processes that fos- Many key characteristics of the caregiving behavioral ter the survival of one’s genes, which may not be rele- control system described by Bell and Richard are evi- vant in other relationships (e.g., with a spouse or with dent in other forms of interpersonal caregiving (e.g., an aging parent.) Nevertheless, caregiving is clearly empathy, feeling responsible for another’s welfare, af- important across diverse relationships, many of fection for the other, attention to the other’s needs and which seem unlikely to qualify as attachment rela- responsiveness to those needs, expressed intentions to tionships. To what extent are common mechanisms support the other even when the system is dormant, implicated? A further complication is that although possessing attitudes and beliefs that underlie parental caregiving tends to be relatively one-sided, caregiving behaviors). If so, it may be useful to con- mutualityisthenorminadultrelationships,withpart- strue caregiving in attachment relationships as the ap- nersalternatingintherolesofcaregiverandrecipient, plication in a relatively intense and contextually depending on current needs. This includes adult at- focused way of processes operating in all relationships tachment relationships, such as may occur between that involve helping and support. spouses, siblings, and best friends. Because the con- This issue is fundamental to understanding what a nection model is meant to encompass both classes of relationship is and whether relationships are better caregiving, its mechanisms will need to be relatively conceptualized in terms of general interpersonal pro- general, allowing for eventual integration with re- cesses or whether the unique properties of each type of lated processes such as intimacy, commitment, and relationship merit independent investigation and a dis- social support (Reis & Collins, in press). Also, the tinct set of explanatory principles. (The latter orienta- model must be able to account for feedback between tion may be seen in the development of separate and theseroles,aswhenone’sexperiencesastherecipient highly specialized literatures describing particular re- of care by a particular partner influence subsequent lationships such as attachment, marriage, and health care of that same partner. Presently, it is not clear how care, and those between siblings or between workers the model would do this. On the other hand, and their supervisors.) The recent emergence of “do- caregiving limited to genetic dependents can proba- main-specific” approaches, which argue for the exis- bly be explained by a relatively more compact set of tence of discrete, systematically organized modules of principles. knowledge and regulatory processes corresponding to For reasons too extensive to detail presently, I be- the major social tasks faced in our evolutionary his- lieve that the broader conceptualization of caregiving tory, suggests a middle ground. Bugental (in press) (and, for that matter, attachment) may have greater heuristic value. Suffice it to say that because humans 2 That is, individuals who were included in social groups tended to evolved in small, interdependent living groups, evo- be advantaged in survival and reproductive opportunities. Of course, lutionary advantage was conferred by processes that many animal species, especially primates, display similar social in- facilitated inclusion in close relationships and small clusion propensities, as deWaal’s (1996) fascinating analysis shows.

122 COMMENTARIES nominates five such domains: attachment, dominance Rochester, NY 14627. Email: [email protected] hierarchies, coalition formation, reciprocity, and matter.edu ing. Domains are distinguished by their defining processes. For example, the attachment domain References incorporates mechanisms that maintain safety in the face of possible threat, whereas the reciprocity domain Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire comprises mechanisms that maximize joint outcomes for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. among functional equals (including support seeking Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment and provision). Where would the caregiving system fit (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. within such a framework? At times, it seemed to me Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. that Bell and Richard sought to move the field toward a London: Tavistock. relatively general process that may conceivably oper- Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books. Brewer, M. B., & Caporael, L. R. (1990). Selfish genes vs. selfish ate in most domains (perhaps excepting dominance people: Sociobiology as origin myth. Motivation and Emotion, regulation); at other times, their purview seemed rather 14, 237–243. more limited, to the sort of processes that pertain to Bugental, D. B. (in press). Acquisition of the algorithms of social life: affectively close relationships. Settling this issue is not A domain-based approach. Psychological Bulletin. only a question of deciding to which relationships this Cassidy, J. (1999). The nature of the child’s ties. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and model of caregiving applies; it also requires specifying clinical applications (pp. 3–20). New York: Guilford. which forms of helpful behavior toward others are and Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of attachment: are not subsumed by the model. Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: Just how important is caregiving to relationships and Guilford. how useful is it to theorize about caregiving with the deWaal, F. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. constructs that Bell and Richard propose? That remains Ekman, P., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1994). The nature of emotion. to be shown, of course. Bell and Richard facilitate future New York: Oxford University Press. work in several important respects. First, by suggesting Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Frame- that motives and emotions are just as central to under- work for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Re- standing caregiving as information processing and so- view, 99, 689–723. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge cial competencies are—concepts that have dominated University Press. the literature for years—they make possible an under- Main, M. (1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitor- standing that captures the caregivers’ purposive goal-di- ing, and singular (coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) model of rected activity and that dovetails with today’s rapid attachment. In C. M. Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris expansion in emotion theory and research. Second, by (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 127–159). London: Tavistock/Routledge. proposing their model in behavioral control system Main, M. (1999). Attachment theory: Eighteen points with sugges- terms, they offer a thoughtful, dynamic perspective with tions for future studies. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), considerable potential for linkages with related pro- Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical appli- cesses. And third, by highlighting the relative paucity of cations (pp. 845–887). New York: Guilford. research on caregiving, they remind us that attachment Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1982). Communal and exchange relationships. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psy- is, after all—and notwithstanding the individualistic fo- chology: Vol. 3 (pp. 121–144). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. cus of so much research in this area—a relationship be- Reis, H. T. (1990). The role of intimacy in interpersonal relations. tween interacting, interdependent individuals. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 15–30. Reis, H. T., & Collins, N. (in press). Assessing relationship properties and interactions bearing on social support. In S. Cohen, B. Gottlieb, & L. Underwood (Eds.), Social support: A guidebook Note for research, measurement, and intervention. New York: Ox- ford University Press. Harry T. Reis, Department of Clinical and Social Sroufe, L. A., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, construct. Child Development, 48, 1184–1199.

123