You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Anyone interested in the research designed to answer the many questions raised by John Bowlby's theory of attachment and interested in exploring the varied settings in which attachment theory can be applied will find this book worthwhile reading. Edited by Colin Murray Parkes and Joan Stevenson-Hinde, the book is a natural extension of Bowlby's renowned trilogy Attachment, Separation, and Loss. The editors have put together a collection of 14 papers written from such rather diverse perspectives on human development as anthropology, sociology, and ethology, as well as psychiatry and psychology. Most of the contributors to the book had participated at some point in the multidisciplinary research seminars conducted by Bowlby at Tavistock Centre in London. The papers in the book are divided into four sections and are primarily addressed to attachment as it appears in different stages of the human life cycle and to attachment's relation to forms of pathology evident at these respective stages.
One clear strength of the work is the direct handling of controversial issues within attachment theory. For instance, the paper by Mary Main and Donna Weston tackled the theoretically troubling, yet relatively common response of avoidance of an attachment figure upon reunion after a period of separation. On the surface it would appear that the strength of the attachment behavior in such circumstances breaks down quickly. Using both an ethological and psychological interpretation, Main and Weston concluded that avoidance behavior under such circumstances functions to maintain attachment not to diminish it. They cite the work of ethologists who have observed that animals show a limited avoidance of prospective social partners in situations in which it is actually desirable to maintain proximity. Main and Weston specifically note the work of Tinbergen and Chance, who suggest that avoidance may function paradoxically to permit the partners to maintain proximity. The authors also offer a