ehaviorology oday Volume 14, Number 2, Fall 2011 (issn 1536–6669) Page 3 theory can be traced back to the s and s, but for- A New Look at mal presentations of their research and hypotheses started in and extended through the s. In the years Attachment Theory & Adult since Bowlby and Ainsworth’s initial work in attachment theory, its basic premises have become well recognized “Attachment” Behavior and largely accepted into mainstream psychology and into popular culture as well. More recent theoretical and research interests have been directed toward “the relation- Barry J. Berghaus ship between parent–child attachment and adult rela- tionships and psychopathology” (Berman & Sperling, Capella University , pp. –; for other examples, see Bretherton, ; Hazen & Shaver, ; Simonelli, Ray, & Pincus, ). he original work on attachment theory occurred dur- If anyone doubts the impact attachment theory has ing the period of time when behaviorology and psychol- had on psychology during the past fifty years, one has only ogy shared their history as two incommensurable to go to the World Wide Web to discover the volume of disciplines under the initial disciplinary label, psycholo- books, journal articles, and essays currently available. For gy (see Ledoux, /, for an overview of this situa- example, a Google search of “attachment theory” pro- tion; see Fraley & Ledoux, /, for details). Since duced ,, hits. The same search at Academic then, most of the efforts to apply attachment theory have Search Premier yielded , hits of articles currently in occurred well within the traditional psychology field the data base; , of those were published within the where scientific progress is constrained by unending last ten years. Also, the Barnes and Noble website commitments to mystical, untestable, redundant agential (www.barnesandnoble.com) lists book titles related to origins of people’s activities (Fraley, ). This paper attachment theory. Attachment theory is covered rou- considers that if scientific progress can or is to be made tinely in current textbooks in social, child, adult, and with attachment theory, that progress will more likely oc- life–span development psychologies. In fact, Simonelli, cur by reexamination through behaviorological analysis Ray, and Pincus () write, “Attachment theory has and research. become the dominant approach in understanding inter- personal relationships.” Several authors suggest that there is clinical utility in Introduction employing the framework of attachment theory to the diagnosis and treatment of psychological problems in Attachment theory has many proponents. Its simplicity teens and adults. (For some examples, see Adam, , makes it attractive to social, developmental, and clinical who discusses suicide and attachment; Parker, , who behaviorologists and psychologists. Over the past discusses depression and attachment; West & Keller, years, attempts have been made to extend the premises of , who discuss attachment and personality disorders; attachment theory into adult relationships of all kinds in- Sperling & Lyons, , who discuss attachment theory cluding, for example, workplace behaviors. Much has representations in psychotherapeutic change; and Rholes been written about early attachment and its role in psy- & Simpson, , who discuss such things as the influ- chopathology in children and adults. This paper exam- ences of attachment on cognitive functioning, implica- ines some of the strengths and weaknesses of attachment tions for the ways individuals experience intimacy and theory and suggests that it could be made better by aban- conflict in adult relationships, and how attachment doning internal working models. theory can inform the clinician’s understanding of such “Attachment theory is the joint work of John Bowlby significant clinical problems as depression and post trau- and Mary Ainsworth” (Bretherton, ). Bowlby began matic stress disorder.) his studies of attachment when he researched the earliest Since attachment theory and, more recently, its appli- developmental origins of childhood and psychopathology cability to adult relational behavior have been so gener- at London’s Tavistock Clinic (Berman & Sperling, , ally accepted, it seems important for students of behavior p. ). Mary Ainsworth’s contributions, including her Strange to look carefully at the objective scientific evidence that Situation research methodology and child development supports or questions the premises of attachment theory, orientation, propelled attachment theory into the main- and also to look at possible alternative explanations for stream of child development and social psychologies. The the findings reported in attachment literature. roots of their work on, and thinking about, attachment Page 4 (issn 1536–6669) ehaviorology oday Volume 14, Number 2, Fall 2011 vations on cards to be used in subsequent discussion of the children’s development” (Bretherton, ). Discussion Bowlby’s first presentation of formal attachment theory occurred before the British Psychoanalytic Society Attachment Theory: in . He presented a theory heavily influenced by John Bowlby’s Contributions ethology, especially Konrad Lorenz’s studies of imprint- John Bowlby’s (–) work on the earliest de- ing (Bretherton, ) and Harry Harlow’s studies of velopmental origins of childhood and adult psychopa- monkeys with surrogate “wire and cloth” mothers thology provided the foundation for the study and (Garelli, n.d.), and heavily critical of the psychoanalytic conceptualization of attachment theory (Bretherton, doctrine regarding the nature of a child’s libidinal ties to ). The titles of his early works reveal his developing the mother. The psychoanalytic explanations for the sup- interest in attachment and separation and their effects on posed libidinal ties to the mother, including theories of child development and psychopathology (for example, a secondary drive, primary object sucking, primary object article entitled “Some pathological processes set in clinging, and a primary craving to return to the womb, train by early mother–child separation” [Bowlby, ]). made little sense in light of Bowlby’s observations and By , Bowlby was already expressing the ideas that ethological viewpoint. Needless to say, Bowlby’s theory were to become attachment theory (Bowlby, , as was not well received in psychoanalytic circles, being, cited in Bowlby’s Biography, n.d.). Bowlby believed that as they were, still heavily influenced by Freud (Bowlby’s psychoanalysis was putting too little emphasis on actual Biography, n.d.). events in the lives of children and too much emphasis on By , Bowlby and his colleague James Robertson their fantasy lives. He is quoted as saying, “psychoanalysts had identified three phases of the separation response: like the nurserymen should study intensively, rigorously, () Protest (related to separation anxiety), () Despair and at first hand, the nature of the organism, the proper- (related to grief and mourning for the lost mother), and ties of the soil and the interaction of the two” (Bowlby’s () Detachment or denial (related to defense). These Biography, n.d.). In this regard, Bowlby seems to have proved the crucial point in Bowlby’s attachment theory: been influenced by the behaviorists and natural scientists “separation anxiety is experienced when attachment be- of his day who believed that human behavior could be havior is activated and cannot be terminated unless re- better understood by naturalistic analyses rather than by union is restored” (Bowlby’s Biography, n.d.). Bowlby symbolic explorations of introspectively derived psycho- came to believe that separation anxiety was caused by ad- dynamic operations (see Ledoux, /). verse family experiences. During his early years at the Tavistock Clinic (Bowlby At the time, psychoanalysts believed children did not became head of the children’s department there in ), experience grief because of childhood narcissism. Anna Bowlby was disappointed that much of the clinical work Freud’s view was that children were unable to mourn due being done with disturbed children was based on to insufficient ego development and so experienced noth- Kleinian psychoanalysis which regarded actual family inter- ing more than brief periods of separation anxiety which actions as completely irrelevant to children’s behavior. He abated whenever a satisfactory substitute caregiver be- was deeply interested in discovering the actual family inter- came available. Melanie Klien believed that the loss of the action patterns involved in both normal and pathological breast was the most meaningful loss suffered during in- childhood development (Bowlby’s Biography, n.d.). fancy. In direct opposition to the psychoanalysts of the Bowlby focused his research efforts on mother–child day, Bowlby believed that childhood grief and mourning separation because the separation event is well–defined and occurred whenever attachment behaviors were activated clear–cut, and either happens or does not (Bowlby’s Biog- and the mother continued to be unavailable (Bowlby’s raphy, n.d.). As such, Bowlby introduced scientifically Biography, n.d.). objective environmental observations into a previously Bowlby’s rejection of mainstream psychoanalytic subjective world where “research” was largely done by theory and insistence on objective environmental obser- case studies based of symbolic introspections and psycho- vations of family interactions are significant positive at- analytically based interpretations of interactions between tributes of early attachment theory. analyst