THE ORIGINS OF ATTACHMENT THEORY: JOHN BOWLBY AND MARY AINSWORTH
作者: INGE BRETHERTON / 35913次阅读 时间: 2011年4月24日
来源: Developmental Psychology (1992), 28, 759-775.
www.psychspace.com心理学空间网

_X3`X7H o+hCBe-G0THE FORMULATION OF ATTACHMENT THEORY AND THE
,AeO-]&xU`5DrV0
I{N&[7F(H0FIRST ATTACHMENT STUDY 心理学空间8fi.P.bD b*Sa1r

)[%|Nq6a5y'Gw0Theoretical Formulations 心理学空间*b-y1a8SR M E
心理学空间+A+{f%K"l$E[
Bowlby’s first formal statement of attachment theory, building on concepts from ethology 心理学空间 W$[2FaRZ0k
and developmental psychology, was presented to the British Psychoanalytic Society in London in 心理学空间1y;XR p4M }/\D%]/}%F
three now classic papers: “The Nature of the Child’s Tie to His Mother” (1958), “Separation 心理学空间7OC {;f(S(J
Anxiety” (1959), and “Grief and Mourning in Infancy and Early Childhood” (1960). By 1962
:@/OpA7Df0Bowlby had completed two further papers (never published; 1962 a and b) on defensive processes
4Cu"T g3`\g~2n0related to mourning. These five papers represent the first basic blueprint of attachment theory. 心理学空间s#II4K }

!d muR%Rt2M9g0The Nature of the Child’s Tie to His Mother 心理学空间$T Ru*i|%f

u4DO{:d#w0This paper reviews and then rejects those contemporary psychoanalytic explanations for the 心理学空间Y | L4@7O'~5O }
child’s libidinal tie to the mother in which need satisfaction is seen as primary and attachment as
S$M4Fm(X?r0secondary or derived. Borrowing from Freud’s (1905/1953) notion that mature human sexuality
#@[pL WPeT)T/y0is built up of component instincts, Bowlby proposed that I 2-month-olds’ unmistakable attach心理学空间~ h@*~tK;VM k
ment behavior is made up of a number of component instinctual responses that have the function 心理学空间O7v3?&nL;c+u
of binding the infant to the mother and the mother to the infant. These component responses 心理学空间wb#ldzV
(among them sucking, clinging, and following, as well as the signaling behaviors of smiling and
M{BV.^@Fm4mqe0crying) mature relatively independently during the first year of life and become increasingly
3\`3[^:u7z0integrated and focused on a mother figure during the second 6 months. Bowlby saw clinging and 心理学空间tR| l&WR9] o5l
following as possibly more important for attachment than sucking and crying. 心理学空间3i![hA q h.]rtx&r

G$e*yOpJ'p,G0To buttress his arguments, Bowlby reviewed data from existing empirical studies of infants’ 心理学空间;Kik;|+n!R b8}z%ivT
cognitive and social development, including those of Piaget (1951, 1954), with whose ideas he 心理学空间 j%qr@,W A
had become acquainted during a series of meetings by the ‘Psychobiology of the Child” study
7A+r!hZ#K%F6BdX0group, organized by the same Ronald I Hargreaves at the World Health Organization who had 心理学空间p5V_U?G,C
commissioned Bowlby’s 1951 report. These informative meetings, also attended by Erik Erikson,
qzsh By'N(G0Julian Huxley, Baerbel Inhelder, Konrad Lorenz, Margaret Mead, and Ludwig von Bertalanffy,
\$lg,Xem$c}S*@0took place between 1953 and 1956. (Proceedings were published by Tavistock Publications.) For
"C#L"OR J5u0additional evidence, Bowlby drew on many years of experience as weekly facilitator of a support
,c$rv Qmr0group for young mothers in London. 心理学空间{+z7m-C`b!WM X

KmRZM O3`'k0After his careful discussion of infant development, Bowlby introduced ethological concepts, 心理学空间}J2} n1Vb
such as sign stimuli or social releasers that “cause” specific responses to he activated and shut off 心理学空间|7V6bvkXq \kr2B
or terminated (see Tinbergen, 1951). These stimuli could he external or intrapsychic, an important
x$avz6d.`a0point in view of the fact that some psychoanalysts accused Bowlby of behaviorism because he
K8xuep.}A{!F0supposedly ignored mental phenomena. Bowlby also took great pains to draw a clear distinction 心理学空间X#EM7g h
between the old social learning theory concept of dependency and the new concept of attachment,
3B6U1hG8te0noting that attachment is not indicative of regression, hut rather performs a natural, healthy 心理学空间Gs1m2T/eI)u,_
function even in adult life. 心理学空间1i `ofTHBD0GsT8W{

|/z&O#Z O0[0Bowlby’s new instinct theory raised quite a storm at the British Psychoanalytic Society. 心理学空间ZdMux.Lbz3sK
Even Bowlby’s own analyst, Joan Riviere, protested. Anna Freud, who missed the meeting but
y$@.gA5sJ d.h|J0read the paper, politely wrote: 心理学空间@*p5ll)fo4I
心理学空间f/E^9Kv1i
“Dr. Bowlby is too valuable a person to get lost to psychoanalysis” (Grosskurth, 1987). 心理学空间G\Ia[J

l r r;Q4w'r&AM0Separation Anxiety 心理学空间i'v/J*Bki bTE

#{]?2u@"~0心理学空间Y,]Ko%]4{y7o^
The second seminal paper (Bowlby, 1959) builds on observations by Robertson (1953b) and
&C9q ] M4C"f0Heinicke (1956; later elaborated as Heinicke & Westheimer, 1966), as well as on Harlow and
{ \.^o f0Rt0Zimmermann’s (1958) groundbreaking work on the effects of maternal deprivation in rhesus
FM|5rtI o}0monkeys. Traditional theory, Bowlby claims, can explain neither the intense attachment of infants 心理学空间nRA#q!Z!Q _
and young children to a mother figure nor their dramatic responses to separation. 心理学空间,f2M X4px@2[
心理学空间 ay Z pVy{
Robertson (Robertson & Bowlby, 1952) had identified three phases of separation response:
GaV)L&U!M0protest (related to separation anxiety), despair (related to grief and mourning), and denial or
Om"C/Z6f`yQ0detachment (related to defence mechanisms, especially repression). Again drawing on ethological
&OW2vnR^0concepts regarding the control of behavior, Bowlby maintained that infants and children experience 心理学空间'fv$Y6a+[F%\
separation anxiety when a situation activates both escape and attachment behavior hut an 心理学空间(q]-U!tT7G
attachment figure is not available.
/gbT)hTM.~.y0心理学空间4zT;SN d8nJ
The following quote explains, in part, why some psychoanalytic colleagues called Bowlby a
Y-C%k;t"r!P+c5U/f0behaviorist: “for to have a deep attachment for a person (or a place or thing) is to have taken 心理学空间z;e@[e Z$Mz_
them as the terminating object of our instinctual responses” (Bowlby, 1959, p. 13). The oddity of
EFzA9e3@:Y9^ c+v0this statement derives from mixing, in the same sentence, experiential language (to have a deep
'`MlbEL7W0attachment) with explanatory language representing an external observer’s point of view (the 心理学空间1w D*qjBo0k9p%R5I
attachment figure as the terminating object). 心理学空间C_)b8e.ApF t
心理学空间(qY-PE'W O t
In this paper, Bowlby also took issue with Freud’s claim that maternal overgratification is a
~ B%go.~!}0danger in infancy. Freud failed to realize, says Bowlby, that maternal pseudo-affection and
%q-\8y,b-u\\0overprotection may derive from a mother’s overcompensation for unconscious hostility. In
!}1zq){SU\Q1Z0Bowlby’s view, excessive separation anxiety is due to adverse family experiences-such as
LA$d9L~#In E0repeated threats of abandonment or rejection by parents-or to a parent’s or sibling’s illness or 心理学空间N.NJtelPP'B%S
death for which the child feels responsible.
/}&\^jmp+ub0
7|_8y5}^Vt0Bowlby also pointed out that, in some cases, separation anxiety can be excessively low or be
"l:IFw&g!L0altogether absent, giving an erroneous impression of maturity. He attributes pseudo-
N"S7L5NQ vm0independence under these conditions to defensive processes. A well-loved child, he claims, is 心理学空间/G.n j0gnE r
quite likely to protest separation from parents but will later develop more self-reliance, These
`&n5TqK*?)is1^t0ideas reemerged later in Ainsworth’s classifications of ambivalent, avoidant, and secure patterns 心理学空间uM7wW XR1wM6D_
of infant-mother attachment (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). 心理学空间}:]!j EWtJ0o/\
心理学空间ry^uZ3WF
心理学空间 U)z*eJ$M N
Grief and Mourning in Infancy and Early Childhood
)W%w2` lwf6F0
F6et*Y)a^5P0fGR0In the third, most controversial paper, Bowlby (1960) questioned Anna Freud’s contention 心理学空间e/r1thN"mK b
that bereaved infants cannot mourn because of insufficient ego development and therefore 心理学空间qt#`.E'\5S"_8K.k G*W*l\c
experience nothing more than brief bouts of separation anxiety if an adequate substitute caregiver 心理学空间 ^5|/@#SJ c
is available. In contrast, Bowlby (citing Marris, 1958) claimed that grief and mourning processes 心理学空间f8P5uE B`
in children and adults appear whenever attachment behaviors are activated but the attachment
O{v X9`0figure continues to he unavailable. He also suggested that an inability to form deep relationships
XG(Jd9I&X0with others may result when the succession of substitutes is too frequent. 心理学空间*~.E9U"~ q+Y.ro'A$uz
心理学空间&Sv xR_#b.~
As with the first paper, this paper also drew strong objections from many members of the 心理学空间\l.Gl(f(cf
British Psychoanalytic Society. One analyst is said to have exclaimed: “Bowlby? Give me
:p#Rr#_3\ d0Barrabas” (Grosskurth, 1987). Controversy also accompanied the published version of this paper 心理学空间Ii7L9}2g+E
in The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Unbeknownst to Bowlby, rejoinders had been invited
%SC#d C6kZ O;}0from Anna Freud (1960), Max Schur (1960), and René Spitz (1960), all of whom protested
.V2X4^v |hRg4{!|0various aspects of Bowlby’s revision of Freudian theory. Spitz ended his rejoinder by saying: 心理学空间1\ M$T-_So/`

} n c&M8Qf2b0When submitting new theories we should not violate the principle of parsimony in science by
v[el`;?;g0offering hypotheses which in contrast to existing theory becloud the observational facts, are
5wZ4k(wr4AZ0oversimplified, and make no contribution to the better understanding of observed phenomena. 心理学空间,{!w+N0NhQ]|X
(p. 93) 心理学空间HQaPrE3E5C E/KP

u`r)}{2c2_0Despite this concerted attack, Bowlby remained a member of the British Psychoanalytic Society 心理学空间E |+^e+vD~
for the rest of his life, although he never again used it as a forum for discussing his ideas. At a
[&E'`)z2D@Ta0meeting of the society in memory of John Bowlby, Eric Rayner (1991) expressed his regret at this
6]+ks,Q ai0turn of events: 心理学空间*@-s R9o5O9e

8M1`z(bK#{w0What seems wrong is when a theorist extols his own view by rubbishing others; Bowlby
+tRa2^+z/R VOR&}0received this treatment. . . . Our therapeutic frame of mind is altered by theory. John Bowlby
l Bbuxv0was a great alterer of frames of mind.
?dA0心理学空间!mm;V2r8Y`
Bowlby’s controversial paper on mourning attracted the attention of Colin Parkes, now well 心理学空间 O}jR{e*R1a
known for his research on adult bereavement. Parkes saw the relevance of Bowlby’s and Robertson’s 心理学空间r+f+J#U'H0[S f
work on mourning in infancy and childhood for gaining insight into the process of adult
XAS C X%b+[+F0grief. On joining Bowlby’s research unit at the Tavistock Institute in 1962, Parkes set out to
VK4C"P4hmZ0study a nonclinical group of widows in their homes to chart the course of nominal adult grief, 心理学空间#|/_+|r%N
about which little was known at the time, The findings led to a joint paper with Bowlby (Bowlby 心理学空间%Pb\4s1q
& Parkes, 1970) in which the phases of separation response delineated by Robertson for young 心理学空间1^"j oGt Yi2t4n,g.|
children were elaborated into four phases of grief during adult life: (a) numbness, (h) yearning 心理学空间+jq.p%dt@ ChY
and protest, (c) disorganization and despair, and (d) reorganization (see also Parkes, 1972).
Hxv;R {q0心理学空间rz+y;F0ao
Before the publication of the 1970 paper, Parkes had visited Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in 心理学空间5Ii4I2q fj'e B
Chicago, who was then gathering data for her influential book On Death and Dying (1978). The
'Q!id3V,jh,[W-Q M0phases of dying described in her book (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance) owe 心理学空间p ACO!V7H cRj*u
much to Bowlby’s and Robertson’s thinking. Bowlby also introduced Parkes to the founder of the 心理学空间~q;Q.q9qs`
modern hospice movement, Cicely Saunders. Saunders and Parkes used attachment theory and
Q(n'aQ9M!aw&C0research in developing programs for the emotional care of the dying and bereaved, What they 心理学空间e`d:}s+s|
found particularly helpful in countering negative attitudes to the dying and bereaved was the 心理学空间 kp#b2I%sEz+K
concept of grief as a process toward attaining a new identity, rather than as a state (Parkes, 心理学空间0T.Uv1T6E A0s'f
personal communication, November 1989).
$yF\*iHJ8be0D3u0
CC+H:v&v,hL0The First Empirical Study of Attachment: Infancy in Uganda
J7Rryw d0
5ybHXF/w M%U0Let us now return to Mary Ainsworth’s work. In late 1953, she had left the Tavistock
;x/n'TQ.P*z0Clinic, obviously quite familiar with Bowlby’s thinking about ethology hut not convinced of its 心理学空间7zbeh7k^
value for understanding infant- mother attachment. The Ainsworths were headed for Uganda, 心理学空间BRSO,oh*M#T_3uQ
where Leonard Ainsworth had obtained a position at the East African Institute of Social Research 心理学空间L;X8FEF\
at Kampala. With help from the same institute, Mary Ainsworth was able to scrape together funds
:W5r!F'e} j'S0for an observational study, but not before writing Bowlby a letter in which she called for empirical 心理学空间_a \y6c%O@
validation of his ethological notions (Ainsworth, January 1992, personal communication),
2hv?P#Zj o#g0
7R#k#faVm0Inspired by her analyses of Robertson’s data, Ainsworth had initially planned an investigation 心理学空间2ByIgt'D
of toddlers’ separation responses during weaning, but it soon became obvious that the old
LT g0~#c2D |0tradition of sending the child away “to forget the breast” had broken down. She therefore decided
:h8F!\*b#sG+rD0to switch gears and observe the development of infant-mother attachment. 心理学空间:w ?9if3c,p
心理学空间F)h uF&Y
As soon as she began her data collection, Ainsworth was struck by the pertinence of 心理学空间[ D2Wt0S_#]$g8O!C8`
Bowlby’s ideas, Hence, the first study of infant-mother attachment from an ethological perspective 心理学空间(hABE s'YkN
was undertaken several years before the publication of the three seminal papers in which 心理学空间J&g$r0Dl
Bowlby (1958, 1959, 1960) laid out attachment theory. 心理学空间9w]S| ` E0H?

%q7}o gf9v"C$U{A'[0心理学空间(b*[e5]^*y ?.z~
Ainsworth recruited 26 families with unweaned babies (ages 1 - 24 months) whom she
kY|7l/Llg+D0observed every 2 weeks for 2 hours per visit over a period of up to 9 months. Visits (with an 心理学空间 PFy L{q NO
interpreter) took place in the family living room, where Ganda women generally entertain in the
(P)r6I EMc t/l0afternoon. Ainsworth was particularly interested in determining the onset of proximity-promoting 心理学空间o0tp0Y$N [;H J;^
signals and behaviors, noting carefully when these signals and behaviors became preferentially
LQ-]L5?Y8Vf9B0@!Y0directed toward the mother. 心理学空间.~X3x2qXfRSW
心理学空间$qWU\Q
On leaving Uganda in 1955, the Ainsworths moved to Baltimore, where Mary Ainsworth
M1f/~I1Ag1H Pgy0began work as a diagnostician and part-time clinician at the Sheppard and Enoch Pratt Hospital,
%j*P/A_^yh5H0further consolidating her already considerable assessment skills. At the same time, she taught 心理学空间2t?l,{)ZK,w@"B6b V
clinical and developmental courses at the Johns Hopkins University, where she was initially hired
}-L%gx:X HP&F{0as a lecturer. Because of her involvement in diagnostic work and teaching, the data from the
G:E4pUh XZt@0Ganda project lay fallow for several years.
I IE:ah#m{+m0

9KT dU(p0www.psychspace.com心理学空间网

1234567
«玛丽·爱因斯沃斯的陌生情境测验 安思沃斯 Ainsworth
《安思沃斯 Ainsworth》
没有了»
查看全部回复