Jump to content

History of attachment theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Frakn (talk | contribs) at 08:49, 18 September 2008 (Added link to pdf-file.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Attachment theory, originating in the work of John Bowlby, is a psychological, evolutionary and ethological theory that provides a descriptive and explanatory framework for understanding interpersonal relationships between human beings.

In order to formulate a comprehensive theory of the nature of early attachments, Bowlby explored a range of fields including evolution by natural selection, object relations theory (psychoanalysis), control systems theory, evolutionary biology and the fields of ethology and cognitive psychology.[1] There were some preliminary papers from 1958 onwards but the full theory is published in the trilogy Attachment and Loss, 1969- 82. Although in the early days Bowlby was criticised by academic psychologists and ostracised by the psychoanalytic community,[2] attachment theory has become the dominant approach to understanding early social development and given rise to a great surge of empirical research into the formation of children's close relationships.[3]

Brief description of theory

In infants, behavior associated with attachment is primarily a process of proximity seeking to an identified attachment figure in situations of perceived distress or alarm, for the purpose of survival. Infants become attached to adults who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with the infant, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some months during the period from about six months to two years of age. During the later part of this period, children begin to use attachment figures (familiar people) as a secure base to explore from and return to. Parental responses lead to the development of patterns of attachment which in turn lead to 'internal working models' which will guide the individual's feelings, thoughts, and expectations in later relationships.[4] Separation anxiety or grief following serious loss are normal and natural responses in an attached infant.

The human infant is considered by attachment theorists to have a need for a secure relationship with adult caregivers, without which normal social and emotional development will not occur. However, different relationship experiences can lead to different developmental outcomes. Mary Ainsworth developed a theory of a number of attachment patterns or "styles" in infants in which distinct characteristics were identified; these were secure attachment, avoidant attachment, anxious attachment and, later, disorganized attachment. In addition to care-seeking by children, peer relationships of all ages, romantic and sexual attraction, and responses to the care needs of infants or sick or elderly adults may be construed as including some components of attachment behavior.

Earlier theories

A theory of attachment is a framework of ideas that attempt to explain attachment, the almost universal human tendency to prefer certain familiar companions over other people, especially when ill, injured, or distressed.[5] Historically, certain social preferences, like those of parents for their children, were explained by reference to instinct, or the moral worth of the individual.[6] The concept of infants' emotional attachment to caregivers has been known anecdotally for hundreds of years. Most early observers focused on the anxiety displayed by infants and toddlers when threatened with separation from a familiar caregiver.[7][6] Psychological theories about attachment were suggested from the late nineteenth century onward.[8] Freudian theory attempted a systematic consideration of infant attachment and attributed the infant's attempts to stay near the familiar person to motivation learned through feeding experiences and gratification of libidinal drives.

Parents and child

In the 1930s, the British developmentalist Ian Suttie put forward the suggestion that the child's need for affection was a primary one, not based on hunger or other physical gratifications.[9] A third theory prevalent at the time of Bowlby's development of attachment theory was "dependency". This approach posited that infants were dependent on adult caregivers but that dependency was, or should be outgrown as the individual matured. Such an approach perceived attachment behaviour in older children as regressive whereas within attachment theory older children and adults remain attached and indeed a secure attachment is associated with independent exploratory behaviour rather than dependence.[10] William Blatz, a Canadian psychologist and teacher of Bowlby's colleague Mary Ainsworth, was among the first to stress the need for security as a normal part of personality at all ages, as well as normality of the use of others as a secure base and the importance of social relationships for other aspects of development.[11]

Current attachment theory focuses on social experiences in early childhood as the source of attachment in childhood and in later life.[12] Attachment theory was developed by Bowlby as a consequence of his dissatisfaction with existing theories of early relationships.[13]

Early developments

See also: Maternal deprivation

Bowlby was influenced by the beginnings of the object relations school of psychoanalysis and in particular, Melanie Klein, although he profoundly disagreed with the psychoanalytic belief then prevalent that saw infants responses as relating to their internal fantasy life rather than to real life events. As Bowlby began to formulate his concept of attachment, he was influenced by case studies by Levy, Powdermaker, Lowrey, Bender and Goldfarb.[14] An example is the one by David Levy that associated an adopted child's lack of social emotion to her early emotional deprivation.[15] Bowlby himself was interested in the role played in delinquency by poor early relationships, and explored this in a study of young thieves.[16] Bowlby's contemporary Rene Spitz proposed that "psychotoxic" results were brought about by inappropriate experiences of early care.[17] A strong influence was the work of James Robertson who filmed the effects of separation on children in hospital. He and Bowlby collaborated in making the 1952 documentary film A Two-Year Old Goes to the Hospital illustrating the impact of loss and suffering experienced by young children separated from their primary caretakers. This film was instrumental in a campaign to alter hospital restrictions on visiting by parents.[18]

In his 1951 monograph for the World Health Organization, Maternal Care and Mental Health, Bowlby put forward the hypothesis that "the infant and young child should experience a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with his mother (or permanent mother substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment" and that not to do so may have significant and irreversible mental health consequences. This proposition was both influential in terms of the effect on the institutional care of children, and highly controversial.[19] There was limited empirical data at the time and no comprehensive theory to account for such a conclusion.[20]

Attachment theory

Main article: Attachment theory

Following the publication of Maternal Care and Mental Health, Bowlby sought new understanding from such fields as evolutionary biology, ethology, developmental psychology, cognitive science and control systems theory and drew upon them to formulate the innovative proposition that the mechanisms underlying an infants tie emerged as a result of evolutionary pressure.[13] He realised that he had to develop a new theory of motivation and behaviour control, built on up-to-date science rather than the outdated psychic energy model espoused by Freud.[8] Bowlby expressed himself as having made good the "deficiencies of the data and the lack of theory to link alleged cause and effect" in "Maternal Care and Mental Health" in his later work "Attachment and Loss" published between 1969 and 1980.[21]

The formal origin of attachment theory can be traced to the publication of two 1958 papers, one being Bowlby's The Nature of the Child's Tie to his Mother, in which the precursory concepts of "attachment" were introduced, and Harry Harlow's The Nature of Love, based on the results of experiments which showed, approximately, that infant rhesus monkeys spent more time with soft mother-like dummies that offered no food than they did with dummies that provided a food source but were less pleasant to the touch.[22][23][24][25] Bowlby followed this up with two more papers, Separation Anxiety (1960a), and Grief and Mourning in Infancy and Early Childhood (1960b).[26][27] At about the same time, Bowlby's former colleague, Mary Ainsworth was completing extensive observational studies on the nature of infant attachments in Uganda with Bowlby's ethological theories in mind. Mary Ainsworth's innovative methodology and comprehensive observational studies informed much of the theory, expanded its concepts and enabled some of its tenets to be empirically tested.[8] Attachment theory was finally presented in 1969 in Attachment the first volume of the Attachment and Loss trilogy.[28] The second and third volumes, Separation: Anxiety and Anger and Loss: Sadness and Depression followed in 1972 and 1980 respectively.[29][30] Attachment was revised in 1982 to incorporate more recent research.[31]

Ethology

Bowlby's attention was first drawn to ethology when he read Lorenz's 1952 publication in draft form although Lorenz had published much earlier work.[32] Soon after this he encountered the work of Tinbergen,[33] and began to collaborate with Robert Hinde.[34][35] In 1953 he stated "the time is ripe for a unification of psychoanalytic concepts with those of ethology, and to pursue the rich vein of research which this union suggests".[36]

Lorenz and his imprinted geese

Konrad Lorenz had examined the phenomenon of "imprinting" and felt that it might have some parallels to human attachment. Imprinting, a behavior characteristic of some birds and a very few mammals, involves rapid learning of recognition by a young bird or animal exposed to a conspecific or an object or organism that behaves suitably. The learning is possible only within a limited age period, known as a critical period. This rapid learning and development of familiarity with an animate or inanimate object is accompanied by a tendency to stay close to the object and to follow when it moves; the young creature is said to have been imprinted on the object when this occurs. As the imprinted bird or animal reaches reproductive maturity, its courtship behavior is directed toward objects that resemble the imprinting object. Bowlby's attachment concepts later included the ideas that attachment involves learning from experience during a limited age period, and that the learning that occurs during that time influences adult behavior. However, he did not apply the imprinting concept in its entirety to human attachment, nor assume that human development was a simple as that of birds. He did, however, consider that attachment behavior was best explained as instinctive in nature, an approach that does not rule out the effect of experience, but that stresses the readiness the young child brings to social interactions.[37] Some of Lorenz's work had been done years before Bowlby formulated his ideas, and indeed some ideas characteristic of ethology were already discussed among psychoanalysts some time before the presentation of attachment theory.[38]

Psychoanalysis

Bowlby's view of attachment was also influenced by psychoanalytical concepts and the earlier work of psychoanalysts. In particular he was influenced by observations of young children separated from familiar caregivers, as provided during World War II by Anna Freud and her colleague Dorothy Burlingham.[39]

Evacuee children in 1937

Observations of separated children's grief by René Spitz were another important factor in the development of attachment theory.[40] However, Bowlby rejected psychoanalytical explanations for early infant bonds. He rejected both Freudian "drive-theory", which he called the "cupboard-love" theory of relationships, and early object-relations theory as both in his view failed to see the attachment as a psychological bond in its own right rather than an instinct derived from feeding or sexuality.[41] Thinking in terms of primary attachment and neo-darwinism, Bowlby identified as what he saw as fundamental flaws in psychoanalysis, namely the overemphasis of internal dangers at the expense of external threat, and the picture of the development of personaltiy via linear "phases" with "regression" to fixed points accounting for psychological illness. Instead he posited that several lines of development were possible, the outcome of which depended on the interaction between the organism and the environment. In attachment this would mean that although a developing child has a propensity to form attachments, the nature of those attachments depends on the environment to which the child is exposed.[42]

Internal working model

The important concept of the internal working model of social relationships was adopted by Bowlby from the work of the philosopher Kenneth Craik,[43] who had noted the adaptiveness of the ability of thought to predict events, and stressed the survival value of and natural selection for this ability. According to Craik, prediction occurs when a "small-scale model" consisting of brain events is used to represent not only the external environment, but the individual's own possible actions. This model allows a person to mentally try out alternatives and to use knowledge of the past in responding to the present and future. At about the same time that Bowlby was applying Craik's ideas to the study of attachment, other psychologists were using these concepts in discussion of adult perception and cognition.[44]

Cybernetics

The theory of control systems (cybernetics), developing during the 1930s and '40s, influenced Bowlby's thinking.[45] The young child's need for proximity to the attachment figure was seen as balancing homeostatically with the need for exploration. The actual distance maintained would be greater or less as the balance of needs changed; for example, the approach of a stranger, or an injury, would cause the child to seek proximity when a moment before he had been exploring at a distance.

Behavioural development and attachment

Behaviour analysts have constructed models of attachment. Such models are based on the importance of contingent relationships. Behaviour analytic models have received support from research.[46] and meta-analytic reviews.[47]

Developments

Although research on attachment behaviors continued after Bowlby's death in 1990, there was a period of time when attachment theory was considered to have run its course. Some authors argued that attachment should not be seen as a trait (lasting characteristic of the individual), but instead should be regarded as an organizing principle with varying behaviors resulting from contextual factors[48]. Related later research looked at cross-cultural differences in attachment, and concluded that there should be re-evaluation of the assumption that attachment is expressed identically in all humans.[49] In a recent study conducted in Sapporo, Behrens, et al., 2007 found attachment distributions consistent with global norms using the six-year Main & Cassidy scoring system for attachment classification.[50][51]

Interest in attachment theory continued, and the theory was later extended to adult romantic relationships by Cindy Hazen and Phillip Shaver.[52][53][54] Peter Fonagy and Mary Target have attempted to bring attachment theory and psychoanalysis into a closer relationship by way of such aspects of cognitive science as mentalization, the ability to estimate what the beliefs or intentions of another person may be.[45] A "natural experiment" has permitted extensive study of attachment issues, as researchers have followed the thousands of Romanian orphans who were adopted into Western families after the end of the Ceasescu regime. The English and Romanian Adoptees Study Team, led by Michael Rutter, has followed some of the children into their teens, attempting to unravel the effects of poor attachment, adoption and new relationships, and the physical and medical problems associated with their early lives. Studies on the Romanian adoptees, whose initial conditions were shocking, have in fact yielded reason for optimism. Many of the children have developed quite well, and the researchers have noted that separation from familiar people is only one of many factors that help to determine the quality of development.[55]

Effects of changing times and approaches

Some authors have noted the connection of attachment theory with Western family and child care patterns characteristic of Bowlby's time. The implication of this connection is that attachment-related experiences (and perhaps attachment itself) may alter as young children's experience of care change historically. For example, changes in attitudes toward female sexuality have greatly increased the numbers of children living with their never-married mothers and being cared for outside the home while the mothers work.

Father and child

This social change, in addition to increasing abortion rates, has also made it more difficult for childless people to adopt infants in their own countries, and has increased the number of older-child adoptions and adoptions from third-world sources. Adoptions and births to same-sex couples have increased in number and even gained some legal protection, compared to their status in Bowlby's time.[56]

One focus of attachment research has been on the difficulties of children whose attachment history was poor, including those with extensive non-parental child care experiences. Concern with the effects of child care was intense during the so-called "day care wars" of the late 20th century, during which the deleterious effects of day care were stressed.[57] As a beneficial result of this controversy, training of child care professionals has come to stress attachment issues and the need for relationship-building through techniques such as assignment of a child to a specific care provider. Although only high-quality child care settings are likely to follow through on these considerations, nevertheless a larger number of infants in child care receive attachment-friendly care than was the case in the past, and emotional development of children in nonparental care may be different today than it was in the 1980s or in Bowlby's time.[58]

Finally, any critique of attachment theory needs to consider how the theory has connected with changes in other psychological theories. Research on attachment issues has begun to include concepts related to behaviour genetics and to the study of temperament (constitutional factors in personality), but it is unusual for popular presentations of attachment theory to include these. Importantly, some researchers and theorists have begun to connect attachment with the study of mentalization or Theory of Mind, the capacity that allows human beings to guess with some accuracy what thoughts, emotions, and intentions lie behind behaviours as subtle as facial expression or eye movement.[59] The connection of theory of mind with the internal working model of social relationships may open a new area of study and lead to alterations in attachment theory.[60]

Notes

  1. ^ Simpson JA (1999). "Attachment Theory in Modern Evolutionary Perspective". In Cassidy J, Shaver PR (ed.). Handbook of Attachment:Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 115–140. ISBN 1-57230-087-6.
  2. ^ Rutter M (1995). "Clinical Implications of attachment Concepts: Retrospect and Prospect". Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. 36: 549–571. PMID 7650083.
  3. ^ Schaffer R (2007). Introducing Child Psychology. Blackwell. ISBN 0631216286.
  4. ^ Bretherton I, Munholland KA (1999). "Internal Working Models in Attachment Relationships: A Construct Revisited". In Cassidy J, Shaver PR (ed.). Handbook of Attachment:Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. Guilford press. pp. 89–114. ISBN 1-57230-087-6.
  5. ^ Mercer p. 37
  6. ^ a b Fildes V (1988). Wet nursing. New York: Blackwell.
  7. ^ de Saussure RA (1940). "JB Felix Descuret". Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 2: 417–424.
  8. ^ a b c Bretherton I (1992). "The Origins of Attachment Theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth". Developmental Psychology. 28: 759. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759. Cite error: The named reference "Bretherton" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  9. ^ Suttie I (1935). The origins of love and hate. London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0415210423.
  10. ^ Prior and Glaser p. 20
  11. ^ Wright M (1996). "William Emet Blatz". Portraits of pioneers in psychology. Vol. II. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. pp. 199–212. ISBN 978-0805821987. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Mercer p. 23
  13. ^ a b Cassidy J (1999). "The Nature of a Childs Ties". In Cassidy J, Shaver PR (ed.). Handbook of Attachment:Theory, Research and Clinical Applications. New York: Guilford Press. pp. 3–20. ISBN 1-57230-087-6.
  14. ^ Bowlby J (1951). Maternal Care and Mental Health. Geneva: World Health Organisation. With monotonous regularity each put his finger on the child's inability to make relationships as being the central feature from which all other disturbances sprang, and on the history of institutionalisation or, as in the case quoted, of the child's being shifted about from one foster-mother to another as being its cause
  15. ^ Levy, D (1935). American Journal of Psychiatry. 94: 643-x. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  16. ^ Bowlby J (1944). "Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their characters and home life". International Journal of Psychoanalysis. 25 (19–52): 107–127. sometimes referred to by Bowlby's colleagues as "Ali Bowlby and the Forty Thieves"
  17. ^ Spitz RA (1951). "The psychogenic diseases in infancy". Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 6: 255–275.
  18. ^ Schwartz J (1999). Cassandra's Daughter: A History of Psychoanalysis. Viking/Allen Lane. p. 225. ISBN 0670886238.
  19. ^ "Preface". Deprivation of Maternal Care: A Reassessment of its Effects. Public Health Papers. Geneva: World Health Organization.
  20. ^ Bowlby (1988) p. 24
  21. ^ Bowlby J (1986). "Citation Classic, Maternal Care and Mental Health" (PDF). Citation Classics. Retrieved 2008-07-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |publication= ignored (help)
  22. ^ Bowlby J (1958). "The nature of the child's tie to his mother". Int J Psychoanal. 39 (5): 350–73. PMID 13610508.
  23. ^ Bowlby J (2005). The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds. Routledge Classics. ISBN 0-415-35481-1.
  24. ^ Harlow H (1958). "The Nature of Love". American Psychologist. 13: 573–685.
  25. ^ Van der Horst FCP, LeRoy HA, Van der Veer R (2008). ""When strangers meet": John Bowlby and Harry Harlow on attachment behavior" (PDF). Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science. doi:10.1007/s12124-008-9079-2. ISSN 1936-3567. Retrieved 2008-09-11.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  26. ^ Bowlby J (1960). "Separation anxiety". Int J Psychoanal. 41: 89–113. PMID 13803480.
  27. ^ Bowlby J (1960), "Grief and mourning in infancy and early childhood", The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 15: 9–52
  28. ^ Bowlby J (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss. Vol. I. London: Hogarth.
  29. ^ Bowlby J (1973). Separation: Anxiety & Anger. Attachment and Loss (vol. 2); (International psycho-analytical library no.95). London: Hogarth Press. ISBN 0-70120-301-3. OCLC 8353942. ISBN 0712666214 (pbk).
  30. ^ Bowlby J (1980). Loss: Sadness & Depression. Attachment and Loss (vol. 3); (International psycho-analytical library no.109). London: Hogarth Press. ISBN 0-70120-350-1. OCLC 59246032. ISBN 0-465-04238-4 (pbk).
  31. ^ Bowlby J (1999). Attachment. Attachment and Loss Vol. I (2nd edition ed.). New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00543-8 (pbk). OCLC 11442968. LCCN 00266879; NLM 8412414. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
  32. ^ Lorenz KZ (1937). "The companion in the bird's world". The Auk. 54: 245–273.
  33. ^ Tinbergen N (1951). The study of instinct. Oxford University Press. ASIN B0000EGS5X. ISBN 978-0198577225.
  34. ^ Van der Horst FCP, Van der Veer R, Van IJzendoorn MH (2007). "John Bowlby and ethology: An annotated interview with Robert Hinde". Attachment & Human Development. 9 (4): 321–335. doi:10.1080/14616730601149809. ISSN 1469-2988. Retrieved 2007-11-30.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  35. ^ Holmes p. 62
  36. ^ Bowlby J (1953). Critical phases in the development of social responses in man and other animals. New Biology. London: Penguin.
  37. ^ Bowlby (1969) 2nd ed. pp. 220–223
  38. ^ Hartmann H (1950). "Psychoanalysis and developmental psychology". Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. 5: 7–17.
  39. ^ Freud A, Burlingham DT (1943). War and children. Medical War Books. ISBN 978-0837169422.
  40. ^ Spitz R (1945). Hospitalism: An Inquiry into the Genesis of Psychiatric Conditions in Early Childhood.
  41. ^ Holmes pp. 62–3
  42. ^ Holmes pp. 64–5
  43. ^ Craik K (1943). The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ASIN B0007J4QKE. ISBN 978-0521094450.
  44. ^ Johnson-Laird PN (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674568818.
  45. ^ a b Robbins P, Zacks JM (2007). "Attachment theory and cognitive science: commentary on Fonagy and Target". J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 55 (2): 457–67, discussion 493–501. PMID 17601100.
  46. ^ Kassow DZ, Dunst CJ (2004). "Relationship between parental contingent-responsiveness and attachment outcomes". Bridges. 2 (4): 1–17.
  47. ^ Dunst CJ, Kassow DZ (2008). BAO "Caregiver Sensitivity, Contingent Social Responsiveness, and Secure Infant Attachment". Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Intervention. 5 (1): 40–56. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)
  48. ^ Sroufe LA, Waters E (1977). "Attachment as an organizational construct". Child Development. 48: 1184–1199. doi:10.2307/1128475.
  49. ^ Tronick EZ, Morelli GA, Ivey PK (1992). "The Efe forager infant and toddler's pattern of social relationships: Multiple and simultaneous". Developmental Psychology. 28: 568–577. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.4.568.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  50. ^ Behrens KY, Hesse E, Main M (2007). "Mothers' attachment status as determined by the Adult Attachment Interview predicts their 6-year-olds' reunion responses: a study conducted in Japan". Dev Psychol. 43 (6): 1553–67. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1553. PMID 18020832. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  51. ^ Main M, Cassidy J (1988). "Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age 6: Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period". Developmental Psychology. 24: 415–426. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.3.415.
  52. ^ Hazan C, Shaver PR (1987). "Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process". J Pers Soc Psychol. 52 (3): 511–24. PMID 3572722. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  53. ^ Hazan C, Shaver PR (1990). "Love and work: An attachment theoretical perspective". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 59: 270–280. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.270.
  54. ^ Hazan C, Shaver PR (1994). "Attachment as an organizational framework for research on close relationships". Psychological Inquiry. 5: 1–22. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1.
  55. ^ Rutter M (2002). "Nature, nurture, and development: From evangelism through science toward policy and practice". Child Development. 73 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00388. ISSN 0009-3920. PMID 14717240. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  56. ^ Mercer pp. 152–56
  57. ^ Belsky J, Rovine MJ (1988). "Nonmaternal care in the first year of life and the security of infant-parent attachment". Child Dev. 59 (1): 157–67. PMID 3342709. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  58. ^ Mercer pp. 160–63
  59. ^ Fonagy P, Gergely G, Jurist EL, Target M (2002). Affect regulation, mentalization, and the development of the self. New York: Other Press. ISBN 1590511611.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  60. ^ Mercer pp. 165–68

References

  • Bowlby J (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss. Vol. I. London: Hogarth. (page numbers refer to Pelican edition 1971)
  • Bowlby J (1999). Attachment. Attachment and Loss Vol.I (2nd edition ed.). New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00543-8 (pbk). OCLC 11442968. LCCN 00266879; NLM 8412414. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)
  • Bowlby J (1988). A Secure Base: Clinical Applications of Attachment Theory. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415006406 (pbk). {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • Holmes J (1993). John Bowlby & Attachment Theory. Makers of modern psychotherapy. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-07729-X.
  • Mercer, J (2006). Understanding attachment: Parenting, child care, and emotional development. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-98217-3. OCLC 61115448. LCCN 2005019272.
  • Prior V and Glaser D (2006). Understanding Attachment and Attachment Disorders: Theory, Evidence and Practice. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, RCPRTU. ISBN 978-1-84310-245-8 (pbk). {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |publishers= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=History_of_attachment_theory&oldid=239226356"