10.1192/bjp.130.3.201Access the most recent version at DOI: 1977, 130:201-210.BJP 

J BowlbyCollege of Psychiatrists, 19 November 1976.version of the Fiftieth Maudsley Lecture, delivered before the Royalpsychopathology in the light of attachment theory. An expanded The making and breaking of affectional bonds. I. Aetiology and

Referenceshttp://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/130/3/201#BIBLThis article cites 0 articles, 0 of which you can access for free at:

permissionsReprints/

permissions@rcpsych.ac.ukto To obtain reprints or permission to reproduce material from this paper, please write

to this article atYou can respond http://bjp.rcpsych.org/letters/submit/bjprcpsych;130/3/201

from Downloaded

The Royal College of PsychiatristsPublished by on March 14, 2014http://bjp.rcpsych.org/

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/site/subscriptions/ go to: The British Journal of PsychiatryTo subscribe to

Brit. 3. Psyc/ziat. (i@77), 130, 201—10

The Making and Breaking of Affectional Bonds

I. Aetiology and Psychopathology in the Light of Attachment Theory

An expanded version of the Fiftieth Maudsley Lecture, delivered beforethe Royal College of Psychiatrists, 19 November 1976

By JOHN BOWLBY

Summary. An account is given of attachment theory as a way of conceptualizingthe propensity of human beings to make strong affectional bonds to particularothers and of explaining the many forms of emotional distress and personalitydisturbance, including anxiety, anger, depression and emotional detachment, towhich unwilling separation and loss give rise. Though it incorporates muchpsychoanalytic thinking, many of its principles derive from ethology, cognitivepsychology and control theory. It conforms to the ordinary criteria of a scientfficdiscipline.

Certain common patterns of personality development, both healthy andpathological, are described in these terms, and also some of the commonpatterns of parenting that contribute to them.

From the time when I first studied psychiatryat the Maudsley Hospital my interests havecentred on the contribution that a person'senvironment makes to his psychological development. For many years this was a neglectedarea, and it is only now that it is receiving theattention it deserves. This is no fault of thatstaunch advocate of the scientific study ofmental disorder whose life and work weremember today. For, although from somepassages in his writings it might be thoughtthat Henry Maudsley gave little weight toenvironmental factors, this is far from beingtrue, as a reading of his influential book,Responsibil4y in Mental Diseases, first publishedalmost exactly a century ago, makes clear.Indeed, from the very start of his careerMaudsley's approach was that of the biologist—¿�aswe might expect in a farmer's son; and heknew that in psychiatry, as in all things biological, it is necessary to consider both ‘¿�thesubject and his environment, the man and hiscircumstances' and that this requires that we

should adopt a developmental approach.* Thus,in preparing this Lecture, which I feel muchhonoured to have been invited to give, I havefelt sustained by the belief that its theme, thatof social and emotional development withindifferent types of family environment, is inkeeping with all that Henry Maudsley stood for.

What for convenience I am terming attachment theory is a way of conceptualizing thepropensity of human beings to make strongaffectional bonds to particular others and ofexplaining the many forms of emotional distressand personality disturbance, including anxiety,anger, depression and emotional detachment, towhich unwilling separation and loss give rise.As a body of theory it deals with the samephenomena that hitherto have been dealt within terms of ‘¿�dependencyneed' or of ‘¿�object

* The quotation is from an essay by Maudsley published

in i86o. For this and other information regardingMaudsley's life and work I am indebted to the accountgiven by the late Sir Aubrey Lewis in his Twenty-FifthMaudsley Lecture (Lewis, i@@z).

201

THE MAKING AND BREAKING OF AFFECTIONAL BONDS. I.202

relations' or of ‘¿�symbiosisand individuation'.Though it incorporates much psychoanalyticthinking, the theory differs from traditionalpsychoanalysis in adopting a number of prin..ciples that derive from the relatively newdisciplines of ethology and control theory; byso doing it is enabled to dispense with conceptsof psychic energy and drive and also to forgeclose links with cognitive psychology. Meritsclaimed for it are that whilst its concepts arepsychological they are also compatible withthose of neurophysiology and developmentalbiology and that it conforms to the ordinarycriteria of a scientific discipline.

Advocates of attachment theory argue thatmany forms of psychiatric disturbance can beattributed either to deviations in the development of attachment behaviour or, more rarely,to failure of its development; and also thatthe theory casts light on both the origin and thetreatment of these conditions. Put briefly, thethesis of this lecture is that if we are to helpsuch a patient therapeutically it is necessarythat we enable him to consider in detail how hispresent modes of perceiving and dealing withemotionally significant persons, including thetherapist, may be being influenced and perhapsseriously distorted by the experiences which hehad with his parents during the years of hischildhood and adolescence, and some of whichmay perhaps be continuing into the present.This entails his reviewing those experiences inas honest a way as possible, a review which thetherapist can either assist or impede. In a briefaccount it is possible only to state principlesand the rationale behind them. We start with abrief sketch of what is meant by attachmenttheory. (For a fuller description of the data onwhich it is based, the concepts employed andthe arguments in its favour, with full references,see the two volumes of Attachment and Loss nowpublished, Bowiby, 1969, 5973.)

Until the mid-195os only one explicitlyformulated view of the nature and origin ofaffectional bonds was prevalent, and in thismatter there was agreement between psychoanalysts and learning theorists. Bonds betweenindividuals develop, it was held, because anindividual discovers that, in order to reduce@certaindrives, e.g. for food in infancy and for

sex in adult life, another human being isnecessary. This type of theory postulates twokinds of drive, primary and secondary; itcategorizes food and sex as primary and‘¿�dependency'and other personal relationshipsas secondary. Although object relations theorists(Balint, Fairbairn, Guntrip, Klein, Winnicott)have tried to modify this formulation, the concepts of dependency, orality and regression havepersisted.

Studies of the ill-effects on personality development of deprivation of maternal care led meto question the adequacy of the traditionalmodel. Early in the 1950S Lorenz's work onimprinting, which had first appeared in@became more generally known and offered analternative approach. At least in some species ofbird, he had found, strong bonds to a motherfigure develop during the early days of lifewithout any reference to food and simplythrough the young being exposed to andbecoming familiar with the figure in question.Arguing that the empirical data on the development of a human child's tie to his mother canbe understood better in terms of a modelderived from ethology, I outlined a theory ofattachment in a paper published in 1958.Simultaneously and independently, Harlow(1958) published the results of his first studies of

infant rhesus monkeys reared on dummymothers. A young monkey, he found, willcling to a dummy that does not feed it providedthe dummy is soft and comfortable to cling to.

During the past fifteen years the results of anumber of empirical studies of human childrenhave been published (e.g. Robertson andRobertson, 1967—72; Heinicke and Westheimer, 1965; Ainsworth, 1967; Ainsworth,Bell and Stayton, 1971, 1974; Blurton Jones,5972), theory has been greatly amplified (e.g.

Ainsworth, 5969; Bowlby, 5969; Bischof, 1975),and the relationship of attachment theory todependency theory examined (Maccoby andMasters, 1970; Gewirtz, 1972). New formulations regarding pathological anxiety and phobiahave been advanced (Bowlby,@ and alsoregarding mourning and its psychiatric complications (e.g. Bowlby, 596!; Parkes, 1965, 1971a,5972). Parkes (1971b) has extended the theoryto cover the range of responses seen whenever a

JOHN BOWLBY 203

person encounters a major change in his lifesituation. Many studies have been made ofcomparable behaviour in primate species (seereview by Hinde, 1974).

Briefly put, attachment behaviour is conceived as any form of behaviour that results ina person attaining or retaining proximity tosome other differentiated and preferred individual, who is usually conceived as strongerand/or wiser. While especially evident duringearly childhood, attachment behaviour is heldto characterize human beings from the cradleto the grave. It includes crying and calling,which elicit care, following and clinging, andalso strong protest should a child be left aloneor with strangers. With age the frequency andthe intensity with which such behaviour isexhibited diminish steadily. Nevertheless, allthese forms of behaviour persist as an importantpart of man's behavioural equipment. In adultsthey are especially evident when a person isdistressed, ill or afraid. The particular patternsof attachment behaviour shown by an individualturn partly on his present age, sex and circumstances and partly on the experiences he hashad with attachment figures earlier in his life.

As a way of conceptualizing proximity keeping, attachment theory, in contrast to dependency theory, emphasizes the Ibilowingfeatures :*

(a) Speczf1ci@y.Attachment behaviour is directed towards one or a few specific individuals,usually in clear order of preference.

(b) Duration. An attachment endures, usuallyfor a large part of the life cycle. Althoughduring adolescence early attachments mayattenuate and become supplemented by newones, and in some cases are replaced by them,early attachments are not easily abandoned andthey commonly persist.

(c) Engagement of emotion. Many of the mostintense emotions arise during the formation,the maintenance, the disruption and therenewal of attachment relationships. The formation of a bond is described as falling in love,

* In describing these features I am drawing on thetext of an article (Bowlby, 1975) written for Volume VIof the American Handbook of P4yChiafrJ, (@ 1975 by BasicBooks, mc, and am grateful to the editors and publishersfor permission to do so.

maintaining a bond as loving someone, andlosing a partner as grieving over someone.Similarly, threat of loss arouses anxiety andactual loss gives rise to sorrow; while each ofthese situations is likely to arouse anger. Theunchallenged maintenance of a bond is experienced as a source of security and the renewal ofa bond as a source ofjoy. Because such emotionsare usually a reflection of the state of a person'saffectional bonds, the psychology and psychopathology of emotion is found to be in largepart the psychology and psychopathology ofaffectional bonds.

(d) Ontogen,. In the great majority of humaninfants attachment behaviour to a preferredfigure develops during the first nine months oflife. The more experience of social interactionan infant has with a person the more likely ishe to become attached to that person. For thisreason, whoever is principally mothering achild becomes his principal attachment figure.Attachment behaviour remains readily activated until near the end of the third year; inhealthy development it becomes gradually lessreadily activated thereafter.

(e) Learning. Whereas learning to distinguishthe familiar from the strange is a key process inthe development of attachment, the conventional rewards and punishments used byexperimental psychologists play only a smallpart. Indeed, an attachment can developdespite repeated punishment from the attachment figure.

(f) Organization. Initially attachment behaviour is mediated by responses organized onfairly simple lines. From the end of the firstyear, it becomes mediated by increasinglysophisticated behavioural systems organizedcybernetically and incorporating representatonal models of the environment and self.These systems are activated by certain conditions and terminated by others. Among activating conditions are strangeness, hunger,fatigue and anything frightening. Terminatingconditions include sight or sound of motherfigure and, especially, happy interaction withher. When attachment behaviour is stronglyaroused, termination may require touching orclinging to her and/or being cuddled by her.Conversely, when mother-figure is present or

204 THE MAKING AND BREAKING OF AFFECTIONAL BONDS. I.

her whereabouts well-known, a child ceases toshow attachment behaviour and, instead, explores his environment.

(g) Biological function. Attachment behaviouroccurs in the young of almost all species ofmammal, and in a number of species it persiststhroughout adult life. Although there aremany differences of detail between species,maintenance of proximity by an immatureanimal to a preferred adult, almost alwaysmother, is the rule, which suggests that suchbehaviour has survival value. Elsewhere(Bowlby, 1969), I have argued that by farthe most likely function of attachment behaviouris protection, mainly from predators.

Thus attachment behaviour is conceived as aclass of behaviour distinct from feeding behaviour and sexual behaviour and of at least anequal significance in human life. There isnothing intrinsically childish or pathologicalabout it.

It will be noted that the concept of attachment differs greatly from that of dependence.For example, dependence is not specificallyrelated to maintenance of proximity, it is notdirected towards a specffic individual, it doesnot imply an enduring bond, nor is it necessarilyassociated with strong feeling. No biologicalfunction is attributed to it. Furthermore, in theconcept of dependence there are value implications the exact opposite of those that the conceptof attachment conveys. Whereas to refer to aperson as dependent tends to be disparaging,to describe him as attached to someone can wellbe an expression of approval. Conversely, for aperson to be detached in his personal relationsis usually regarded as less than admirable.The disparaging element in the concept ofdependence, which reflects a failure to recognizethe value that attachment behaviour has forsurvival, is held to be a fatal weakness to itsclinical use.

In what follows, the individual who showsattachment behaviour is usually referred to aschild and the attachment figure as mother.This is because the behaviour has so far onlybeen closely studied in children. What is said,however, is held to apply also to adults and towhoever is acting for them as their attachment

figure—often a spouse, sometimes a parentand more often than might be supposed a child.

It was remarked (under (f) above) that, whenmother is present or her whereabouts wellknown and she is willing to take part in friendlyinterchange, a child usually ceases to showattachment behaviour and, instead, explores hisenvironment. In such a situation mother canbe regarded as providing her child with asecure base from which to explore and to whichhe can return, especially should he become tiredor frightened. Throughout the rest of a person'slife he is likely to show the same pattern ofbehaviour, moving away from those he lovesfor ever-increasing distances and lengths of timeyet always maintaining contact and sooner orlater returning. The base from which heoperates is likely to be either his family oforigin or else a new base which he has createdfor himselL Anyone who has no such base isrootless.

In the account given so far two patterns ofbehaviour other than attachment have beenreferred to, namely exploration and care-giving.

There is now a mass of evidence to supportthe view that exploratory activity is of greatimportance in its own right, enabling a personor an animal to build up a coherent picture ofenvironmental features which may at any timebecome of importance for survival. Childrenand other young creatures are notoriouslycurious and inquiring, which commonly leadsthem to move away from their attachmentfigure. In this sense exploratory behaviour isantithetical to attachment behaviour. In healthyindividuals the two kinds of behaviour normallyalternate.

The behaviour of parents, and of anyoneelse in a care-giving role, is complementary toattachment behaviour. The roles of the caregiver are first to be available and responsive asand when wanted and, secondly, to intervenejudiciously should the child or older person whois being cared for be heading for trouble. Notonly is it a key role but there is substantialevidence that how it is discharged by a person'sparents determines in great degree whether ornot he grows up to be mentally healthy. For thatreason and also because it is the role we fill whenwe act as psychotherapists, our understanding of

JOHN BOWLBY 205

it is held to be of central importance to thepractice of psychotherapy.

One further point needs to be made beforewe consider the implications of this schema fora theory of aetiology and psychopathology andthence for the practice of psychotherapy. Itconcerns our understanding of anxiety and ofseparation anxiety in particular.

A common assumption that runs throughmost psychiatric and psycho-pathological theoryis that fear should be manifested only in situations that are truly dangerous, and that fearshown in any other situation is neurotic. Thisleads to the conclusion that, because separationfrom an attachment figure cannot be regardedas a truly dangerous situation, anxiety overseparation from that figure is neurotic. Examination of the evidence shows that both the assumption and the conclusion to which it leads arefalse.

When approached empirically separationfrom an attachment figure is found to be one ofa class of situations each of which is likely toelicit fear but none of which can be regardedas intrinsically dangerous. These situationscomprise, among others, darkness, sudden largechanges of stimulus level including loud noises,sudden movement, strange people and strangethings. Evidence shows that animals of manyspecies are alarmed by such situations (Hinde,1970), and that this is true of human children

(Jersild, 1947) and also of adults. Furthermore,fear is especially likely to be elicited when twoor more of these conditions are present simultaneously, for example, hearing a loud noisewhen alone in the dark.

The explanation of why individuals should soregularly respond to these situations with fearis held to be that, while none of the situations isintrinsically dangerous, each carries with it anincreased risk of danger. Noise, strangeness,isolation, and for many species darkness, allthese are conditions statistically associated withan increased risk of danger. Noise may presage anatural disaster—fire, flood or landslide. To ayoung animal a predator is strange, it moves,and it often strikes at night, and it is far morelikely to do so when the potential victim isalone. Because to behave so promotes bothsurvival and breeding success, the theory runs,

the young of species that have survived, including man, are found to be genetically biasedso to develop that they respond to the properties of noise, strangeness, sudden approach,and darkness by taking avoiding action orrunning away—they behave in fact as thoughdanger were actually present. In a comparableway they respond to isolation by seeking company. Fear responses elicited by such naturallyoccurring clues to danger are a part of man'sbasic behavioural equipment (Bowlby, 1973).

Seen in this light anxiety over unwillingseparation from an attachment figure resemblesthe anxiety that the general of an expeditionaryforce feels when communications with his baseare cut or threatened.

This leads to the conclusion that anxiety overan unwilling separation can be a perfectlynormal and healthy reaction. What may bepuzzling is why such anxiety is aroused in somepeople at such very high intensity or, conversely,in others at such low intensities. This brings usto questions of aetiology and psychopathology.

Throughout this century debate has ragedabout the role of childhood experiences in thecausation of psychiatric disturbance. Not onlyhave traditionally minded psychiatrists beensceptical of their relevance but psychoanalystshave been at sixes and sevens about them. Forlong most analysts who have thought real lifeexperience to be of importance concentratedattention on the first two or three years of lifeand on certain techniques of baby care—theways an infant is fed or toilet trained—andwhether he witnesses parental intercourse.Attention to family interaction and the particular way a parent treats a particular child wasnot encouraged. Some extremists, indeed, haveheld that the systematic study of a person'sexperiences within his family lie outside theproper interest of a psychoanalyst.

No one engaged in child psychiatry, bettertermed family psychiatry, can possibly sharesuch a view. In a great majority of cases notonly is there evidence of disturbed familyrelationships but the emotional problems of theparents, derived from their own unhappychildhoods, commonly loom large. Thus theproblem has always seemed to me not whetherto study a patient's family environment but to

206 THE MAKING AND BREAKING OF AFFECTIONAL BONDS. I.

decide what features are likely to be relevant,what methods of inquiry are practicable, andwhat type of theory best fits the data. Becausemany others have adopted the same view agreat deal of reasonably reliable research hasnow been done by workers of many disciplines.It is from the results of this research, interpreted in terms of attachment theory, that Ioffer the generalizations and views that follow.

The key point of my thesis is that there is astrong causal relationship between an individual's experiences with his parents and hislater capacity to make affectional bonds, andthat certain common variations in that capacity,manifesting themselves in marital problemsand trouble with children as well as in neuroticsymptoms and personality disorders, can beattributed to certain common variations in theways that parents perform their roles. Much ofthe evidence on which the thesis rests is reviewedin the second volume of Attachment and Loss(Chapter i@ onwards). The main variable towhich I draw attention is the extent to whicha child's parents (a) provide him with a securebase, and (b) encourage him to explore fromit. In these roles the performance of parentsvaries along several parameters of which perhaps the most important, because it pervades allrelations, is the extent to which parents recognize and respect a child's desire for a securebase and his need of it, and shape their behaviour accordingly. This entails, first, an intuitiveand sympathetic understanding of a child'sattachment behaviour and a willingness tomeet it and thereby terminate it, and, secondly,recognition that one of the commonest sourcesof anger is the frustration of a child's desire forlove and care, and that anxiety commonlyreflects uncertainty whether parents will continue to be available. Complementary inimportance to a parent's respect for a child'sattachment desires is respect for his desire toexplore and gradually to extend his relationships both with peers and with other adults.

Research suggests that in many areas ofBritain and the United States rather more thanhalf the child population is growing up withparents who are providing their children withsuch conditions. Typically these children growup to be secure and self-reliant, and to be

trusting, co-operative and helpful towardsothers. In the psychoanalytic literature such aperson is said to have a strong ego; and he maybe described as showing ‘¿�basictrust' (Erikson,1950), ‘¿�mature dependence' (Fairbairn, 1952)

or as having ‘¿�introjecteda good object' (Klein,i@8). In terms of attachment theory he isdescribed as having built up a representationalmodel of himself as being both able to helphimself and as worthy of being helped shoulddifficulties arise.

By contrast, many children (in some populations one-third or more) grow up with parentswho do not provide these conditions. Note herethat the focus of attention is on the particularrelationship a parent has with a particularchild, since parents do not treat every childalike and may provide excellent conditions forone and very adverse ones for another.

Let us consider some of the commonerdeviant patterns of attachment behaviour, asshown by adolescents and adults, with examplesof typical childhood experiences which thosewho show them are likely to have had and maystill be having.

Many of those referred to psychiatrists areanxious, insecure individuals, usually describedas over-dependent or immature. Under stressthey are apt to develop neurotic symptoms,depression or phobia. Research shows them tohave been exposed to at least one, and usuallymore than one, of certain typical patterns ofpathogenic parenting, which include

one or both parents being persistentlyunresponsive to the child's care-elicitingbehaviour and/or actively disparaging andrejecting;discontinuities of parenting, occurring moreor less frequently, including periods inhospital or institution;persistent threats by parents not to love achild, used as a means of controlling him;threats by parents to abandon the family,used either as a method of disciplining thechild or as a way of coercing a spouse;threats by one parent either to desert oreven to kill the other or else to commitsuicide (each of them commoner than mightbe supposed);

207JOHN BOWLBY

inducing a child to feel guilty by claimingthat his behaviour is or will be responsiblefor the parent's illness or death.

Any of these experiences can lead a child, anadolescent or an adult to live in constantanxiety lest he lose his attachment figure and,as a result, to have a low threshold for manifesting attachment behaviour. The condition isbest described as one of anxious attachment.*

An additional set of conditions to which somesuch individuals have been, and may still be,exposed is that of a parent, usually mother,exerting pressure on them to act as an attachment figure for her, thus inverting the normalrelationship. Means of exerting such pressurevary from the unconscious encouragement of apremature sense of responsibility for others tothe deliberate use of threats or induction ofguilt. Individuals treated in these ways arelikely to become over-conscientious and guiltridden as well as anxiously attached. A majorityof cases of school phobia and agoraphobia ariseprobably in this way.

All the variants of parental behaviour so fardescribed are likely not only to arouse a child'sanger against his parents but to inhibit itsexpression. The result is much partially unconscious resentment, which persists into adultlife and is expressed usually in a direction awayfrom the parents and towards someone weaker,e.g. a spouse or a child. Such a person is likelyto be subject also to strong unconscious yearnings for love and support which may expressthemselves in some aberrant form of careeliciting behaviour, for example, half-heartedsuicide attempts, conversion symptoms, anorexianervosa, hypochondria (Henderson, 1974).

A pattern of attachment behaviour that isovertly the opposite of anxious attachment isone described by Parkes (i@7@) as that ofcompulsive self-reliance. So far from seeking thelove and care of others a person who exhibitsthis pattern insists on keeping a stiff upper lipand doing everything for himself whatever theconditions. These people too are apt to crackunder stress and to present with psychosomaticsymptoms or depression.

•¿�There is no evidence whatever for the traditionalidea, still widespread, that such a person has been over'@indulged as a child and so has grown up ‘¿�spoilt'.

Many such persons have had experiences notunlike those of individuals who develop anxiousattachment; but they have reacted to themdifferently by inhibiting attachment feelingand behaviour and disclaiming, perhaps evenmocking, any desire for close relations withanyone who might provide love and care. Itrequires no great insight to realize, however,that they are deeply distrustful of close relationships and terrified of allowing themselves to relyon anyone else, in some cases in order to avoidthe pain of being rejected and in others toavoid being subjected to pressure to becomesomeone else's caretaker. As in the case ofanxious attachment, there is likely to be muchunderlying resentment which, when elicited, isdirected against weaker persons, and also unexpressed yearning for love and support.

A pattern of attachment behaviour related tocompulsive self-reliance is that of compulsivecare-giving. A person showing it may engage inmany close relationships but always in the roleof giving care, never that of receiving it. Oftenthe one selected is a lame duck who may for atime welcome the care bestowed. But thecompulsive care-giver will also strive to carefor those who neither seek nor welcome it.The typical childhood experience of suchpeople is to have a mother who, due to depression or some other disability, was unable tocare for the child but, instead, welcomed beingcared for and perhaps also demanded help incaring for younger siblings. Thus, from earlychildhood, the person who develops in this wayhas found that the only affectional bond available is one in which he must always be the caregiver and that the only care he can ever receiveis the care he gives himself. (Children growingup in institutions sometimes develop in thisway, too.) Here again, as in the case of thecompulsively self-reliant, there is much latentyearning for love and care and much latentanger with the parents for not having providedit; and, once again, much anxiety and guiltabout expressing such desires. Winnicott (1965)has described individuals of this sort as havingdeveloped a ‘¿�falseself' and agrees that its originis to be found in the person not having received‘¿�goodenough' mothering as a child. To assistsuch a person to discover his ‘¿�trueself' entails

208 THE MAKING AND BREAKING OF AFFECTIONAL BONDS. I.

helping him recognize and become possessedof his yearning for love and care and his angerat those who earlier failed to give it him.

Events that are especially liable to act asstressors for individuals whose attachment andcare-giving behaviour has developed along oneor other of the lines so far described are theserious illness or death either of an attachmentfigure or of someone cared for, or some otherform of separation from them. A serious illnessintensifies anxiety and perhaps guilt. Death orseparation confirm the person's worst expectations and lead to despair as well as anxiety. Inthese people mourning a death or a separationis likely to take an atypical course. In the caseof the anxiously attached, mourning is likely tobe characterized by unusually intense angerand/or self-reproach, with depression, and topersist for much longer than normal. In thecase of the compulsively self-reliant, mourningmay be delayed for months or years. Nonetheless strain and irritability are usually presentand episodic depressions may occur, but oftenso long a time later that the causal connectionwith the death or separation is lost to sight.These pathological forms of mourning arediscussed by Parkes (1972).

Not only are people of the kind so fardescribed likely to break down after a loss orseparation, but they are likely to encountercertain typical difficulties when they getmarried and have children. In relation to amarriage partner, a person may exhibit anxiousattachment and make constant demands forlove and care; or else he or she may exhibitcompulsive caregiving to the other with latentresentment that it seems neither appreciated norreciprocated. In relation to a child, also, eitherof these patterns may be exhibited. In the firstcase the parent requires the child to be his orher caregiver and in the second insists onproviding him with care even when it is nolonger appropriate (‘smotherlove').* Distur

•¿�The term ‘¿�symbiotic'is sometimes used to describethese suffocatingly close relationships. The term is nothappily chosen, however, since in biology it refers to amutually advantageous partnership between two organismswhereas the family relationships so termed are seriouslymaladaptive. To describe the child as ‘¿�overprotected' isequally misleading since it fails to recognize the insistentdemands for care that the parent is putting on the child.

bances of parenting behaviour result also froma parent perceiving and treating his child asthough the child were one of his siblings whichcan result, for example, in a father beingjealous of the attentions his wife gives theirchild.

Another common form of disturbance is whena parent perceives his child as a replica ofhimseli especially of those aspects of himselfwhich he has endeavoured to stamp out, andstrives then to stamp them out in his child also.In these efforts he is likely to use a version ofthe same methods of discipline—perhaps crudeand violent, perhaps censorious or sarcastic,perhaps guilt-inducing--to which he himselfwas subjected as a child and which resulted inhis developing the very problems he is nowstriving so inappropriately to prevent or curein his child. A husband can also perceive andtreat his wife in the same way. Similarly, awife and mother can adopt this pattern in herperception and treatment of her husband orchild. When confronted by disagreeable andself-defeating behaviour of this sort it is usefulto remember that each of us is apt to do untoothers as we have been done by. The bullyingadult is the bullied child grown bigger.

When one adopts either towards oneself ortowards others the same attitudes and forms ofbehaviour that one's own parent adopted andmay still be adopting towards oneself one canbe said to be identifying with that parent. Theprocesses by which such attitudes and forms ofbehaviour are acquired are presumably thoseof observational learning and thus no differentto those by which other complex forms ofbehaviour, including useful skills, are acquired.

Of the many other patterns of disturbedfamily functioning and personality developmentthat can be understood in terms of the pathological development of attachment behaviour, awell-known one is the emotionally detachedindividual who is incapable of maintaining astable affectional bond with anyone. Peoplewith this disability may be labelled as psychopathic and/or hysterical. They are often delinquent and suicidal. The typical history is oneof prolonged deprivation of maternal careduring the earliest years of life, usually comm

JOHN BOWLBY 209

bined with later rejection and/or threats ofrejection by parents or foster parents.*

To explain why individuals of different sortsshould continue to exhibit the characteristicsdescribed long after they have grown up, itseems necessary to postulate that, whateverrepresentational models of attachment figuresand of self an individual builds during hischildhood and adolescence, these tend to persistrelatively unchanged into and throughout adultlife. As a result he tends to assimilate any newperson with whom he may form a bond, such asspouse or child, or employer or therapist, to anexisting model (either of one or other parent orof self), and often to continue to do so despiterepeated evidence that the model is inappropriate. Similarly, he expects to be perceivedand treated by them in ways that would beappropriate to his self-model, and to continuewith such expectations despite contrary evidence. Such biassed perceptions and expectations lead to various misconceived belief@aboutthe other people, to false expectations about theway they will behave and to inappropriateactions, intended to forestall their expectedbehaviour. Thus, to take a simple example, aman who during childhood was frequentlythreatened with abandonment can easily attribute such intentions to his wife. He will thusmisinterpret things she says or does in terms ofsuch intent, and then take whatever action hethinks would best meet the situation he believesto exist. Misunderstanding and conflict mustfollow. In all this he is as unaware that he isbeing biased by his past experience as he is thathis present beliefs and expectations are mistaken.

In traditional theory the processes describedare often referred to in terms of ‘¿�internalizingaproblem' and the misattributions and misperceptions ascribed to projection, introjection orphantasy. Not only are the resulting statementsapt to be ambiguous but the fact that suchmisattributions and misperceptions are directly

•¿�Since all the psychiatric conditions referred torepresent varying degrees and patterns of the same underlying psychopathology there is no more prospect ofdistinguishing one sharpiy from another than there is ofdistinguishing sharply between different forms of tuberculous infection. In accounting for the differences, geneticfactors as well as variations in the experiences of differentindividuals are likely to be relevant.

derived from previous real-life experience iseither only vaguely alluded to or else totallyobscured. By framing the processes in terms ofcognitive psychology, I believe, much greaterprecision becomes possible and hypotheses regarding the causative role of different sorts ofchildhood experience, through the persistenceof representational models of attachment figuresand self at an unconscious level, can be formulated in testable form.

It should be noted that inappropriate butpersistent representational models often co-existwith more appropriate ones. For example, ahusband may oscillate between believing hiswife to be loyal to him and suspecting her ofplans to desert. Clinical experience suggeststhat the deeper the relationship and the strongerthe emotions aroused the more likely are theearlier and less conscious models to becomedominant. To account for such mental functioning, which is traditionally discussed in terms ofdefensive processes, presents a challenge tocognitive psychologists but is one to whichthey are already addressing themselves (e.g.Erdelyi, 1974).

REFERENcES

Part I

AINswoRm, M. D. S. (1967) Infanc, in Uganda: InfantCare and the Growth of Attachment. Baltimore: TheJohns Hopkins Press.

—¿� (‘969) Object relations, dependency and attach

ment: a theoretical review of the infant-motherrelationship. Child Development,40, 969-1027.

—¿� BEU., S. M. & STAYTON, D. J. (i97i) Individual

differences in strange-situationbehaviour of oneyear-olds. In The Origins of Human Social Relations(ed. H. R. Schaffer), pp 17-32. New York: AcademicPress.

—¿� —¿� (i@7i,) Infant-mother attachment and

social development: ‘¿�socialization'as a product ofreciprocal responsiveness to signals. In The Integrationof a Child into a Social World (ed. M. P. M. Richards),pp 99-135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Biscisop, N. (i@7@) A systems approach toward the functional connections of attachment and fear. ChildDevelopment, 46, 801—17.

BLURTON-JONES, N. (ed.) (:972) Ethological Studies of ChildBehaviour.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bowi.iw, J. (1958) The nature of the child's tie to hismother. International Journal of Psychoan4ysie, 39,

350—73.(ig6i) Childhood mourning and its implications for

psychiatry. American Journal of P@ychiat@y,ii8, 481-98.

THE MAKING AND BREAKING OP AFFECTIONAL BONDS. I.210

Bowi@av,J. (1969) Attachment and Loss. Volwiw I, AttaclnnenLLondon: Hogarth Press; New York: Basic Books (alsoin Penguin edition, 1971).

—¿� (ig7@) Attachment and Loss. Volume II. Separation:

Anxiety and Anger. London: Hogarth Press; NewYork: Basic Books (also in Penguin edition, 1975).

—¿� (1975) Attachment theory, separation anxiety and

mourning.In AmericanHandbookof P@ychiatr,(secondedition) (ed. S. Arieti), Vol 6, pp 290-308. NewYork:BasicBooks.

ERDEIXI, M. H. (1974) A new look at the new look:perceptual defense and vigilance. P@ycho1ogica1Review,8i, 1—25.

ERIK5ON, E. H. (i95o) Childhood and Society. New York:

Norton (revised edition 1963); London: Hogarth,i@6@; Harmondsworth: Penguin Books,@

PAntz@uan, W. R. D. (1952) P@ychoanaljtic Studies of thePersonality.London: Tavistock.

Gzwmrz, J. L. (ed.) (1972) Attachment and Dependenc,.Washington: V. H. Winston.

Hanww, H. F. (1958) The nature of love. American Journalof Psychology, 13, 673-85.

Hznncxz, C. & WESTHEIMER,I. (i96@) Brief Separations.New York: International Universities Press.

HENDERsON, A. S. (1974) Care-eliciting behaviour in man.

Journal of Xervous and Mental Diseases, 559, 172-81.HINDE, R. A. (1970) Animal Behavior: a Synthesis qf

Etholog, and Comparative Psychologs (second edition).New York: McGraw-Hill.

Huwa, B.. A, (i97@) Biological Basis of Human SovietBehavior. New York and London: McGraw-Hill.

Jzasiw, A. T. (,@7) Child Psycholog,(third edition).Staples Press.

Kwsi, M. (1948) Contributiosu to Psychoanalysis, 1921-1945.London: Hogarth Press; New York: Hillary.

Lawis, A. (,9@,) The Twenty-Fifth Maudaley Lecture.Henry Maudsley: his work and influence. Journal jMenial Science,97, 259-77.

MACOOBY, E. E. & MASTERS, J. C. (1970) Attachmentand dependency. In Carmichael's Manual of ChiliPsychology (third edition) (ed. P. H. Mussen). NewYorkand London:Wiley.

PARKES, C. M. (i965) Bereavement and mental illness.British Journal of Medical Psychology,38, I—26.

—¿� (1971a) Psycho-social transitions: a field of study.

Social Scienc. and Medicine, 5, 101—15.—¿� (1971b) The first year of bereavement: a longitudinal

study of the reactions of London widows to the deathof their husbands. Psychiafry,33, 444-67.

—¿� (1972) Bereavement: Studies of Griqf in Adult Life.

London:TavistockPublications.—¿� (i97@) Factors determining the persistence of

phantom pain in the amputee. Journal of PsychosomatirResearch, 17, 97—108.

ROBERTSON,J. & ROBERTSON,J. (1967-72) YoungChildrenin Brief Separation. Film series. London: TavistockInstitute of Human Relations.

Wnnncoi-r, D. W. (1965) TheMaturationalFlroeassandMiFacilitating Environment. London: Hogarth.

John Bowiby, M.D., P.LC.P., P.R.C.Psycb.,Honorar, Cotuisitani P@ychiatrist, Tavictock Clinic, Belsigs Lane,London XW3 5BA

(Received 5 August 1976)