On the evening of Dec. 30, 2003, Joan Didion, an award-winning novelist and author, was preparing dinner for herself and her husband, John Gregory Dunne. Shortly after he sat down at the table, he collapsed. The paramedics arrived and attempted to revive him. By 10:18 pm he was pronounced dead.
Joan Didion and John Gregory Dunne had been married for nearly 40 years and, in that time, they worked together, traveled together, and raised a daughter together. The fact that, at one moment John was there and in the next he was not, unraveled multiple threads in their entwined lives. Didion published a best-selling book in 2005 that chronicled her efforts to understand the loss. Throughout her book, Didion returns to the phrase âit was an ordinary dayâ to capture the idea that loss and tragedy can emerge from nowhere, without warning. But she also uses this refrain to highlight the ways in which the loss of a loved one can undo the ordinary. Mundane and perfunctory tasks, such as making dinner, can become sources of pain and disorganization following a loss. The essence of the loved one lingers in the ordinary; making efforts to carry on seem, at once, hopeful and hopeless.
In attempting to find meaning in the events surrounding the loss, Didion struggles to understand whether she was somehow responsible for Johnâs death and whether John himself knew what was going to happen. She tried to reconstruct from her memory omensâsigns that the death had been foretold, such as John suggesting that they dine at one of his favorite restaurants, as if it might be his last opportunity to do so. Her sense is that she missed the telltale signs and that, if she could turn back time, she could undo certain events and change Johnâs fate.
Didion characterizes the year following her husbandâs death as The Year of Magical Thinking. She describes a number of superstitious behaviors that appear to represent efforts to bring John back or to undo his death.
I could not give away the rest of his shoes. I stood there for a moment, then realized why: he would need shoes if he was to return. The recognition of this thought by no means eradicated the thought. I have still not tried to determine (say, by giving away the shoes) if the thought has lost its power. (p. 37)
âBringing him backâ had been through those months my hidden focus, a magic trick. By late summer I was beginning to see this clearly. âSeeing it clearlyâ did not yet allow me to give away the clothes he would need (p. 44).
Didionâs book is a masterful exploration of loss by one of Americaâs most celebrated writers. Part of what makes the book compelling is that she is able to articulate clearly a set of confusing experiences that are common among those who lose someone important to them. Many people who lose someone experience profound distress and despair. And their efforts to find their way without that loved one are some of the most challenging that people may face in their lives. Why should the loss of a loved one have such a profound impact on peopleâs lives? Why do the bereaved behave in ways that, to others, may seem hopelessly lost, inexplicable, and even superstitious? Why do people engage âmagical thinkingâ to bring their loved ones back?
Attachment theory
According to attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980), the reactions described previously are mature and naturalânot immature or magicalâresponses of a motivational system that originally emerged in the context of infancy. Specifically, attachment theory holds that the desire to be reunited with someone we loveâsomeone who seems distant or inaccessibleâis a manifestation of an instinct that evolved originally to keep infants in close proximity to potential caregivers.
Although attachment theory has been a popular theoretical framework for understanding infantâcaregiver relationships for many years (eg, Karen, 1994), the theory has also become a prominent framework for understanding personality processes and close relationships in adulthood. One of the unique features of attachment theoryâa feature that sets it apart from other theories in modern psychologyâis its assumption that the same kinds of dynamics that play out in infantâparent relationships also govern the way adults function in their close relationships. For example, adults, like children, are more confident exploring the world when they believe that there is someone who is there to support and encourage them. Moreover, like children, adults get restless and anxious when they are separated from their loved ones for a prolonged period of time. And, just as some children are more secure in their relationships with their parents, some adults are more secure than others in their adult relationships, including those they have with parents, friends, and romantic partners.
The purpose of this book is to review contemporary theory and research on the way in which attachment dynamics play out in adulthood. Although we opened this chapter with a tale of loss, we should be clear from the outset that attachment theory is not merely a theory of grief; it is a theory of love, emotional connection, and psychological well-being. According to attachment theory, we all have a desire to be lovedâto have a warm and supportive relationship with someone who understands us and advocates for us. Having such a relationship provides people with a sense of security, and facilitates their positive social and emotional development. But grief and love have something in common. Namely, they are both extraordinarily powerful emotional experiences that are governed by attachment processes. John Bowlby, the creator of attachment theory, articulated this theme well in the following oft-quoted passage:
Many of the most intense emotions arise during the formation, the maintenance, the disruption, and the renewal of attachment relationships. The formation of a bond is described as falling in love, maintaining a bond as loving someone, and losing a partner as grieving over someone. Similarly, threat of loss arouses anxiety, and actual loss gives rise to sorrow; whilst each of these situations is likely to arouse anger. The unchallenged maintenance of a bond is experienced as a source of security, and the renewal of a bond as a source of joy. Because such emotions are usually a reflection of the state of a personâs affectional bonds, the psychology and psychopathology of emotion is found to be in large part the psychology and psychopathology of affectional bonds. (Bowlby, 1980, p. 40)
In the current book we explain what attachment relationships are, how they develop, and how they contribute to adaptiveâor maladaptiveâinterpersonal functioning. In addition to reviewing the core ideas underlying attachment theory, we also highlight some of the exciting new research developments that have taken place over the past decade, including the integration of attachment and social neuroscience, experimental interventions that can be used to probe attachment dynamics, and the implications of attachment theory for understanding psychological well-being and psychopathology in adulthood. Attachment theory has the potential to address many of the themes that are of interest to contemporary psychologists. Our goal is to highlight the current state of the art, illustrate the relevance of the theory for contemporary discourse, and, hopefully, inspire the next generation of scholarship.
The Origins of Attachment Theory
Bowlbyâs ideas regarding the profound effects of love and loss began to take shape in the early 1930s. While working in a home for delinquent boys, Bowlby was struck by the difficulties that many of the children experienced in forming close emotional bonds with others. After studying the family histories of the children, Bowlby learned that a disproportionate number of them had experienced severe disruptions in their early home lives. Many of the children had experienced the loss of their mother, had been separated from her repeatedly, or had been passed from one foster home to the next (Bowlby, 1944). Bowlby gradually came to believe that having a continuous, warm, and supportive relationship with a mother or mother-figure is essential for the development of mental health.
Bowlby proposed this hypothesis in a report commissioned by the World Health Organization (Bowlby, 1951). The report generated some controversy, but, overall, was well-received and helped catapult Bowlby into the international spotlight. Despite receiving recognition for his hypothesis regarding maternal deprivation, Bowlby was unsatisfied with his insights. Although it seemed clear to him that maternal deprivation could have deleterious consequences for social and emotional development, he felt that he did not have a full understanding of why that may be the case (Bowlby, 1969/1982).
Who was John Bowlby?
John Bowlby (1907â1990) was a British psychoanalyst who developed attachment theory. He is ranked as one of the 50 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century (Haggbloom et al., 2002).
Bowlby was born in London in 1907 as one of six children in an upper middle class family. Separation and loss were not merely academic topics for Bowlby. As a child, he did not have much contact with his mother, and most of the childcare in the Bowlby home was relegated to nursemaids in a separate wing of the house. Bowlby became particularly fond of one particular nanny. Unfortunately, she left the family when Bowlby was 4 years old. He was distraught by her departure and felt that he had lost a mother-figure. He did not establish an affectionate relationship with subsequent caretakers. Moreover, because his father was serving as a surgeon in World War I for several years, Bowlby had little contact with him. Bowlby was sent away to boarding school by age 10, further alienating him from his family relationships.
When Bowlby was of college age, he followed in his fatherâs footsteps and went to study medicine at the University of Cambridge. During his studies, however, Bowlby realized he was more interested in understanding human development than medicine. He pursued his newfound interest by working at a school for maladjusted children, Priory Gates. During his work at the school, Bowlby began to appreciate the profound impact of early experiences on the development of children. There were two children in particular who made an impression on him. One child was extremely clingy (referred to as his âshadow;â Bretherton, 1992). This child tended to follow Bowlby around, as if he was starved of affection. The other child, who had been expelled from his previous school, behaved in a much more distant and cold manner toward Bowlby. In some respects, these children became templates for some of his developing views on how attachment behavior can be organized in distinct ways for children.
During his medical training, Bowlby enrolled at the British Psychoanalytic Institute where he worked with Joan Riviere and, eventually, Melanie Klein, who was one of the influential object relations theorists of the era. One of Kleinâs beliefs was that childrenâs maladjustment was rooted in their fantasies regarding their mother. Bowlby, however, was coming to believe that childrenâs maladjustment was due to actual, rather than imagined, experiences with their caregivers. This particular viewpoint, however, was not accepted by Bowlbyâs colleagues, and Klein in particular attempted to dissuade him of his views.
During World War II Bowlby was assigned to help with the development of officer selection procedures at the Tavistock Clinic in London. This experience provided Bowlby with an opportunity to learn research methods and statistics to a degree that was unusual for psychoanalysts of his time. This expertise would prove to be crucial for helping Bowlby systematically interrogate research from diverse disciplines as ...