The Development of Social Atachments in Infancy

The Development of Social Attachments in Infancy
Author(s): H. Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy E. Emerson

Source: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 29, No. 3, The
Development of Social Attachments in Infancy (1964), pp. 1+3+5-9+11-19+21-41+43-61+63-
73+75-77
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1165727
Accessed: 20/10/2010 10:07
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Blackwell Publishing and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.
http://www.jstor.org
Monographsof the
SOCIETY FOR RESEARCH IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT
SERIAL
No. 94, 1964 VOL.29, No. 3
The Development of Social

Attachments in Infancy
H. RUDOLPH SCHAFFER*
Universityof Strathclyde
and
PEGGY E. EMERSON
RoyalHospitalfor Sick Children,Glasgow
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ............................. 3
Introduction ....................... 5
Procedure ..................................... 11
Findings: Group Data ....................... 2
Findings: Individual Differences ................. 43

Discussion ....... .................... 63
Summary .............................. . 73
References .................................. 75
* Departmentof
Psychology,University of Strathclyde,Glasgow, C. i, Scotland.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledgewith pleasurethe help given to us by

the Maternityand Child Welfare Departmentof the Cor-
porationof Glasgow in contactingthe infants and their
families, and the financial assistanceof the Henderson
ResearchTrust and of the Boardof Managementfor Glas-
gow and DistrictChildren'sHospitals.
INTRODUCTION
THE STUDY OF EARLY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR
Although infancy has been widely considered as a formative period of

great importance for development, far less is known about it than about later
age ranges. This applies to every aspect of individual functioning: physio-
logical, perceptual, intellectual, and also social aspects are all as yet rarely
investigated and barely understood. Those studies which have concerned
themselves with the beginnings of social behavior have mostly adopted
a normative approach, in that they set out to establish the age limits within
which certain behavior patterns can generally be expected to appear. Thus
we now know that at the age of 4 weeks the infant will react to social
overtures by a reduction of bodily activity (51); that at 6 weeks the first
smile appears (io); that from 2 months on the mother will be visually rec-
ognized (23); that at 3 months the infant may vocalize in reply to others'
speech (19); and that after 8 months he will no longer smile indiscrimi-
nately at all and sundry (53). These descriptive facts are valuable, but so
far they stand merely as isolated phenomena that are in no way linked
together within a truly developmental framework comparable to that which
Piaget has provided for early cognitive functioning (37, 38). How the
infant progresses from milestone to milestone, what environmental and
organismic variables account for his progress, the processes that need to be
postulated for the developmental trends observed: these are all problems
to which there is as yet no answer.
For long, learning theory has dominated psychological thinking about
the manner in which early social relationships are formed, yet curiously
few empirical studies have resulted from it which shed any light on the
period of infancy (the studies by Brackbill, 9, and by Rheingold, Gewirtz,
and Ross, 42, may be quoted as exceptions). The main thesis as advanced
by learning theorists (see, for instance, Miller and Dollard, 34, and Mussen
and Conger, 36) holds that the infant's emotional dependence on his mother
is to be understood in the light of secondary reinforcement arising from
the satisfaction of such basic physiological needs as hunger, thirst, and pain.
The infant's helplessness thrusts physical dependence upon him and neces-
sitates the performance of caretaking activities on the part of the mother,
who thus eventually becomes associated with drive reduction. In time her
mere presence acquires reward value, and through learning emotional de-
pendence may then be said to have become a self-supporting derived drive.
However, all the studies which have used this model, either in attempting
5
6 SOCIALATTACHMENTSIN INFANCY
to conceptualizeemotionaldependencemore precisely(20, 27) or in estab-
lishing its antecedentconditions (3, 48, 49), have examined this tendency
as it occurs in older (usually nursery school) children. A descriptionor
analysisof the origin and earlieststagesof emotionaldependencewith refer-
ence to the human infant has so far failed to receivemuch systematicatten-
tion in empiricalinvestigation,so that we are still largely ignorant about
the developmentalcoursewhich this fundamentalbehaviorpatterntakes or
the mannerin which it manifestsitself in the first year or two.
THE CONCEPTOF ATTACHMENT
One reason for the dearth of studies may well lie in the stranglehold
which an almost universallyaccepted theory can sometimes exercise on
research.Fortunately,controversyhas now been stimulatedby two develop-
ments: Harlow's (24, 25, 26) intriguing work on the infant-mother rela-
tionship in the monkey, which casts doubt on the all-importantrole previ-
ously attributedto the infant's feeding experiencesin the establishmentof
affectionalbonds, and the challenging theory which Bowlby (7) has ad-
vanced to account for the nature and formation of the child's tie to the
mother. In his paper Bowlby attacks the secondarydrive theory of social
development,suggestinginsteadthat social tendenciesare primaryand that
a numberof inbornbehaviorpatterns(such as following, clinging, sucking,
smiling, and crying) serve to bind the child to the mother from the begin-
ning. To emphasizethis change in theoreticalorientationhe has proposed
to drop the term emotional dependence and substitute the term attachment.
The new term will, it is hoped, provide a more fertile concept for re-
searchpurposes,and indeed, since the publicationof Bowlby'sstimulating
paper, a number of investigators (2, I2, 21) have adopted it. Some confusion
still exists, however, regarding its usage and the group of phenomenato
which it refers, and as the present report is devoted to a study of social
attachmentsin infancywe feel it essentialfirst to clarifythe sense in which
it will be used here.
Any attempt to conceptualizeattachment soon encounters the many
complexitiesassociatedin the minds of most with this term. Indeed, to the
adult the manifoldemotionsand sentimentsimplied therebyare so forceful
that they may well be taken to constitutethe whole phenomenon,and to
see it in its simplestand most basic form at the infant level is thus by no
meansan easy task. Our suggestionis that the core of the attachmentfunc-
tion is representedby one of the simplestyet most fundamentalelementsin
social behavior, namely the tendency of the young to seek the proximity of
certain other members of the species. Approaching attachment in this way,
we are dealing with a relativelyclear-cut,easily identifiablebehaviorten-
dency which may be observedto occur almost universallyamongst animals
as well as in man. Its biologicalusefulnessin a condition of infantile help-
INTRODUCTION 7
lessnessis obviousenough to need no furthercomment.It is likely that we
are confrontedhere with one of the most basic requirementsof the young
organism,to which powerfulemotionsare linked but to which, in the early
stagesof development,direct behavioralexpressionis generallygiven. Such
a fundamentaltendency must be isolated, named, and studied, and it ap-
pearsto us that the most economicalusage of the term attachmentis repre-
sentedby this tendency.
A furtheradvantageof this conceptionof attachmentlies in the linkage
which may be made between proximityseeking and proximityavoidance.
Attachmentsare generallyfocusedon certainspecificindividualsonly, while
to othersfear responsesmay be shown. That proximityavoidance(or, as it
has been more commonlylabeled,fear-of-strangers or eight-months-anxiety)
is in some way related to proximity seeking has been widely accepted,
though, apart from some preliminarysuggestionsby Spitz (54), Benjamin
(5), and Freedman(I8), we are still largely ignorantabout the details of
such interaction.
AN OPERATIONAL CRITERION FOR ATTACHMENT
Some furtherexaminationof the attachmentconcept is necessaryif we

are to make suggestionsas to how it may most suitablybe recognizedand
assessed.It is well establishedthat, from about the second or third month
on, an infant will behavedifferentlywith his mother as comparedto stran-
gers. He may smile and vocalizeat her more readily,he may visuallyfollow
her more than he would other people, and he is likely to quieten sooner
when picked up by her after crying. Perceptualdiscriminationhas thus
taken place: the infant is now able to recognizehis mother.This is clearly
a necessarypreconditionto the formation of an attachmentto a specific
individual,but the ability to recognizethe familiarpersoncannot, by itself,
be regardedas evidence of attachment.Thus, in a study by Schafferand
Callander(44, 46) of the reactionsof infants to hospitalization,evidenceof
separationprotestdid not emerge until approximately7 months of age, i.e.,
long after perceptualdiscriminationhad taken place. The infant who views
his mother'sabsencewith equanimity and readily accepts a strange care-
takercan hardlybe said to have formed an attachmentto the former,how-
ever readily he may be able to distinguish her from an unfamiliarnurse.
To characterizerecognitionand quicker reactivenessas attachmentis thus
a highly doubtful supposition.Moreover,all the evidence from studies of
smiling (I, 53) suggests that right up to 6 to 8 months of age the infant
is not respondingto the adult as another person, i.e., in a characteristic
social manner,but is merely reactingto the perceptionof certainprimitive
stimulusconfigurations.That a familiar configurationcan elicit a response
more speedilyand intenselythan an unfamiliarone can be readily under-
stood without evoking the concept of attachment.
8 SOCIAL ATTACHMENTS IN INFANCY
Another preconditionappearsnecessary.If by attachmenta particular
kind of relationshipto a particularkind of object is implied, then one can
hardlylook for such a relationshipuntil the individualis capableof having
the conceptof an object.In order to form a permanentbond with another
personit is necessaryto conceiveof this personas an entity apart from the
self, with an independentexistencein time and space. Attachmentinvolves
detachment,and here Piaget's (37, 38) demonstrationof the stages through
which the infant must progressbefore he can conservethe object becomes
highly relevant to the understandingof early social behavior.Up to the
third quarter of the first year, Piaget has shown, a state of "adualism"
exists,in which thereis no distinctionbetweenthe self and the environment.
Objectsdo not exist in their own right but are used as functionalelements
for the infant'sown activities.They may be recognized,but no continuity,
permanence,or substanceare as yet attributedto them. A fundamental
changein cognitivestructureis requiredbeforethe objectbecomesdetached
from the infant'songoing activity,and, though our knowledgeof this devel-
opment is still very limited, it does seem reasonableto postulatethat we
have here the other and more immediatepreconditionnecessaryfor social
attachmentsto emerge. It is thus no coincidencethat the age when separa-
tion protestswere first found to appearin the hospitalstudy quoted above
is also the periodwhen Piaget'schildrenbegan to considerobjectsas entities
in their own right and to show an orientationtowardsthem even in their
absence.
As his criterionfor objectconservationPiaget used the infant'sreaction
to the departureof an objectfrom the immediateperceptualfield. Similarly,
we proposeto use the separationresponseof an infant as our operational
criterionfor the existenceof social attachments.Differentialbehavioralone
not being sufficient,the most suitablemeasureof attachmentwill be pro-
vided by the infant's reactionswhen he is frustratedin his attempts to
remainattachedby the withdrawalof the object.As Bowlby has put it, the
separationresponseis "the inescapablecorollaryof attachmentbehavior-
the other side of the coin" (8, p. 14). The intensity of the infant's need
for proximitymay thus be gauged by the magnitudeof the child's reactions
and efforts (if any) to restorethe status quo.
How this criterionis to be translatedinto a usable measurein the con-
text of a longitudinalresearchprojectwill be discussedin the next chapter.
Here we must stress,however,that the use of such an index means that we
disregardin its applicationthe no doubt varied and complex constituent
partsof attachmentformationand insteadattemptdirectlyto tap the result-
ant. We are, in other words,not concernedwith the many responsepatterns
which ordinaryobservationsuggestsform the positiveexpressionof attach-
ment behavior,but will concentrateinstead on evaluating the attachment
functionas a whole. Separationprotestis to be understoodas an index that
an attachmentexists, not as attachmentbehavioritself. Proximity may be
INTRODUCTION 9
attained in many ways and through the use of a variety of motor patterns,
but while it is important to establish these as they occur at different age
periods this problem will not form the focus of the present enquiry.
STATEMENT OF AIMS
We are now in a position to define more precisely the aims of the investi-
gation to be reported here. As will have become apparent, we know very
little yet about the formation and manifestations of the attachment function
in the first year or two and have few previous studies to use as a base. The
primary need is thus to supply descriptive data about its parameters, and
this is the basic purpose of the study. It is essentially exploratory in nature:
hypothesis-seeking rather than hypothesis-testing. There is only one excep-
tion to this approach: our previous study (44, 46) had made the definite
suggestion that an infant does not become capable of forming attachments
to specific individuals until after the age of approximately 7 months. To
test for the existence of this extremely important milestone of development
by the use of another approach provided the initial motivation for under-
taking this project, but it was extended to cover other characteristics of the
attachment function as well as the age at onset.
Our aims may be summarized as follows:
i. To explore some of the major parameters of social attachments in
infancy, with special reference to:
a. the age at onset,
b. the intensity,
c. the objects of attachments;
2. To search for variables that are related to individual differences in
respect of the above parameters.
PROCEDURE
The form which this investigationtook was that of a short-term

follow-up.It extendedfrom the early months of the first year until the age
of i8 months. During this period identicaldata collectionprocedureswere
applied at regularintervalsto each infant, the intervalsbeing spaced four-
weekly up to the child's first birthday,after which he was seen once more
at I8 months.In this way the developmentaltrendsof the phenomenaunder
study could be tracedand described.
SUBJECTS
The subjectswere 60 normal infants, of whom 31 were males and 29
females.Twenty-sixof these infants were first-bornchildren,while 24 had
one sibling and a further io had two or more siblings.Developmentalquo-
tients, using the Cattell Infant Scale (14), were obtainedfrom all subjects
around the age of 6 months and gave a mean figure of IIo.I and a range
of 79 to 143.
The families from which the infants came were largely working class.
In the majoritythe father'soccupationwas that of a skilled artisan-electri-
cian, plumber,joiner, etc. There was, however, a fairly wide range, from
white-collarworkerson the one hand (journalists,salesrepresentatives, etc.)
to unskilled laborerson the other. Using the Registrar-General's classifica-
tion of employments(39), IO of the families came from Class II (white-
collar workers), 35 from Class III (skilled manual), I3 from Class IV
(semiskilledmanual), and 2 from Class V (unskilled manual).
The subjects,whose parentswere all Scottish-born,lived in a part of
Glasgow which is a largely working-classarea, lying close to docks, rail-
ways, and factories.Part of it is slum propertywhich is now being cleared,
but, while a few of the families studied came from very poor housing con-
ditions, others were drawn from the rather better residentialparts of the
districtinhabitedmainlyby middle-classfamilies.Only a few of the families
had housesand gardensof their own, the majorityliving in tenementblocks
where they inhabitedflatsconsistingmainly of two or three rooms.In some
instances these provided very cramped accommodation,several flights of
stairs up and involving the sharing of toilets with neighbors. Other flats
were rathermore spaciousand included their own bathrooms.
Most of the parentswere living in close proximity to the homes from
which they themselveshad come, so that contactwith relatives,particularly
11
with maternalgrandparents,and with childhoodfriendswas fairly frequent.
Many mothers, together with their children, spent every afternoonin the
maternalgrandmother'shouse and often receivedconsiderablehelp from her,
especiallywith child care activities.This did not apply to all, however, for
included in the sample were some families that had fairly recentlycome
from otherpartsof Scotland(mainly the Highlands), who led a rathermore
isolated social life. Yet even for these the tenement blocks in which they
lived made contactwith neighborsfairly easy, and mutual help with baby-
sitting, shopping, etc., was thus common. Nevertheless,the families did
emerge as distinct units: evenings were usually spent together by parents
and children; in only two of the families was another relative living per-
manentlyunder the same roof; and fatherswere mostly willing to partici-
pate to a fairly high degree in family life. The actual nature and extent of
this participationvaried, however, from family to family. In some, fathers
workedlong hoursand were rarelyseen by the childrenexceptat weekends,
while in others, especiallywhere the father worked on nightshift, he was
availablefar more. Mothers,in every family, had the chief responsibility
for child care, but in many cases fathers (as well as occasionallyolder sib-
lings, relatives,or even neighbors) sometimeshelped with such routinesas
feeding, changing, and bathing. In all instancesfathers were reportedas
often playing with the child and in many as being willing to take him out
for walks in his pram, even without mother'scompany.
One of the mothers in this sample took on a full-time job soon after
contact had been made with us and was still working at the end of the
periodcoveredby the investigation,while anothersix motherstook on part-
time jobs for more limited periodsand involvinggenerallyonly a few hours
absencefrom home each week. In all these cases the maternalgrandmother
took over the care of the infant during the mother'sabsence.
This brief over-all picture of the social backgroundto our sample is
drawnbecause,as will emergefrom our findings,the socialsetting in which
an infant is rearedmay have importantconsequencesfor the nature of the
attachmentsthat are formed by him. Despite the many similaritiesamongst
our families, there are differencesin structureand functioning that make
each family a unique set of determiningforces. Precisely which of these
forces are related to the infant's developingsocial behaviorremainsyet to
be ascertained,but in the meantimeit is essentialto include a descriptionof
the more obvious candidatesin the specificationof the sample in order to
facilitatecomparisonwith results obtained from other groups.
Contactwith the families was obtained with the help of the Maternity
and Child Welfare Departmentof the Corporationof Glasgow, the cases
being selectedfrom the files of an Infant Welfare Clinic which served the
part of the city where the study took place. The cases were selectedaccord-
ing to a set of pre-establishedcriteria:
PROCEDURE 13
I. the infant was to be living at home with his own parents,
2. he was to have been born full-term,
3. he was not to show evidenceof any congenitalabnormality,
4. he was to have had no illnessesor hospitalizationspriorto contact,and
5. he had to have a developmentalquotient of at least 75 (this last item
of informationcould not be obtaineduntil the infants were testedby us at 6
months of age, and involved the exclusionof one infant who had been in
the sample up to this point).
The motherswere first contactedby the Health Visitors attachedto the
Clinic and were asked whetherthey were willing to cooperatein an investi-
gation concerningthe developmentof normal children. Agreementhaving
been obtained,one of the present writers called on the mother, explained
furtherthe natureof the investigation,and from this point on was in sole
charge of data collectionfrom this particularfamily. All contactsoccurred
in the family'sown home.
TABLE I
Ages of Infants at First Contact
Age in Weeks 0-4 5-8 9-12 I3-16 I7-20 21-24 Total
N ............... o 1o i6 10 17 7 60
Table i gives the ages of the infants at the beginning of the period of
investigation.The oldest at that time was 23 weeks, the youngest 5 weeks.
As, in addition to this variationin age at intake, some contactscould not
be made becauseof illnessor absenceof the family on holiday,and as three
families moved elsewhere after the child's first birthday,the number of
cases on which our data are basedtends to vary somewhatfrom age to age.
After the age of 20 weeks, however,contactwas never made with less than
83 per cent of the total sampleat any one point during the follow-upperiod.
The subjectswere contactedand studied in two stages.First, a group of
23 infants was followed up until the age of I8 months, at which point it
was decided to extend the projectand add a further group of 37 infants.
There are two differencesbetween these groups: the initial contact was
made ratherearlierwith the 37-groupthan with the 23-group (within the
first2 to 3 monthsratherthan at 4 to 5 monthsof age), and some additional
data (concerned with the elucidation of individual differencesand to be
describedin due course) were gathered from the 37-groupat i8 months
which had not been obtainedfrom the earlier group. In all other respects
14 SOCIALATTACHMENTS
IN INFANCY
the two groups were similar, both in compositionand with regard to the
informationsought from them.
DATA COLLECTION
The AttachmentMeasure
In our previousstudy (44, 46) the hospitalizationsituationwas used to
yield variousindexes of separationupset as measuresof attachmentforma-
tion. While we wish to retain the separationcriterionas a measure,other
situationsare clearlyrequiredfor the purposesof a longitudinalstudy. Hos-
pitalization,however,involves only a very much more intensifiedand pro-
longed form of an experiencethat occursfrequentlyin the everydaylife of
all infants, for every child is repeatedlyexposed to separationfrom his
mother, even though such a separationmay last only a few minutes and
involve a distanceof not more than a few feet between mother and child.
It was decided,therefore,that for the presentinvestigationour index should
be basedon a varietyof such everydayseparations,and a searchwas accord-
ingly made for relevant situationsin which these could be studied. The
searchwas guided by the following considerations:
a. The situationswere all to involve loss of a previouslyexisting contact
betweenthe infant and the other person.
b. The situationswere to differ from each other in the circumstances
under which the separationtook place.
c. The situationswere to be so common as to occur almost universally
in the populationinvestigatedhere.
d. The situationswere to be found at all points of the age range studied
(i.e., the first i8 months).
e. The situationswere to refer to everydayoccurrencesand not to rare
or speciallyarrangedevents.
After some preliminaryenquiries the following seven situations were
chosen as fulfilling these criteria:
i. The infant is left alone in a room.
2. The infant is left with other people.
3. The infant is left in his pramoutsidethe house.
4. The infant is left in his pram outside shops.
5. The infant is left in his cot at night.
6. The infant is put down after being held in the adult'sarms or lap.
7. The infant is passedby while in his cot or chair.
These seven separationsituationsform the items in our attachmentscale.
For each, data about the infant's responseswere obtainedfrom interviews
held with the mothersduring our regularhome visits, the data referringto
PROCEDURE 15
the infant'sbehaviorin the periodsince the last visit. The following infor-
mationwas requiredfor each of the items:
a. Does the infant show any form of protestunder the defined circum-
stances?
b. If protest occurs, does it invariablyappear in this situation or only
under certainconditionsor at certaintimes?
c. If protestoccurs,how intense is it ( a "full-blooded"cry, for instance,
or only a whimper,a moan, etc.)?
d. If protestoccurs,at whom is it directed,i.e., whose departureelicitsit?
The informationasked for refers only to the infant's behaviorimmedi-
ately following the separation,for, though protest was frequentlyreported
after the child had been left for some time, it was decided not to include
this becauseof the difficultyinvolved in deciding whether the protest was
in fact due to the separationor to some other factor which had occurred
meantime.Also the objectsof the protestwould have been rathermore diffi-
cult to determineunder these circumstances.
From the end of the first year on, the developmentin the child's loco-
motor abilitiesfrequentlyenabled him to react to a separationsituationby
following his object of attachmentand thus avoiding loss of proximity
from taking place at all. For the purposeof this enquiry we concentrated
only on those instanceswhere the infant was preventedfrom taking such
action (either by his own lack of motor skills or by such physicalobstacles
as pram reins, playpens,or closed doors) and where separationtherefore
did actuallytake place.
The order and precise form of questions used to elicit the data were
left to the interviewer,as it was found that the unstructuredtype of inter-
view tended to be more productiveand (though this was conjectural)more
reliable.All informationwas recordedon the spot.
From the materialthus gatheredat each interview,a number of meas-
ures could be obtained:
a. The age at onset of attachments,i.e., the point when protestbehavior
directedat particularindividualswas first recorded.We arbitrarilydefined
this point as being midway between the interview which first yielded such
informationand the previousinterview.
b. The intensityof attachment. Each of the seven separationsituations
was rated after every follow-upvisit on the following four-pointscale:
o-No protestreported.
i-Protests occur, but there are qualificationsin respectof both the
intensitywith which they are expressedand their regularity-i.e.,
the protestis less than a "full-blooded"cry, consistingmerely of
whimpering,moaning, shouting,screwingup face, lip trembling,
etc., and the infant is also reportedas protestingon only some

occasionsthat this particularsituationarises.
2-Protests occur, but there are qualificationsin respect of either
intensity or regularity-e.g., loud protestson some occasionsbut
not on others, or invariableprotestsbut taking the form of just
a brief whimper.
3-Protests occur, and there are no qualificationsas to intensity or
regularity,i.e., the infant cries loudly on each occasion.
The data obtainedfor the whole sample were rated for intensity inde-
pendentlyby the two writers,and an agreementpercentageof 93 was found.
Disagreementswere discussedand jointly decided.
By adding the ratingsfor the seven separationsituations,a score with a
maximum of 21 may be obtainedfor each interview, and this is taken to
representthe intensity of the infant's attachmentat that particulartime.
Proratingof scorestook place when, as occasionallyhappened,one of the
separationsituations had not occurred during the preceding four-week
period, e.g., in the winter months infants were sometimesnot put outside
the house in their prams.
c. The breadthof attachment. This dimensionrefersto the number of
objectsof the attachmentfunction, i.e., the number of individualswho at
any one time evoke separationprotest,irrespectiveof intensityor the number
of situationsin which this occurs.
By taking into account and identifying the various objects to whom
attachmentsare formed by an infant, one can not only describethe growth
of the attachmentfunction as a whole, irrespectiveof the object(s) to
which it is directed,but also isolate and trace the developmentof attach-
ments as formed to particularindividuals, e.g., attachment-to-mother or
attachment-to-father. In this reportwe shall be mainly concernedwith two
phenomena,namely the capacityto form attachmentsto specificindividuals
(taken as a whole, without consideringthe identity of these individuals),
and, more narrowly,the attachment-to-mother.
The decisionto use the mothersas our informantsratherthan carryout
direct observationsunder controlledconditions was taken in the light of
our limited knowledgeof the phenomenabeing investigated.We felt at the
presentstage of knowledge it was better to cast our nets widely and thus
tap a fairly extensiverange of behavior,some of it occurringin situations
that would have been difficultfor an observerto witness. A fuller, more
representativepictureof behaviortaking place under naturalconditionswas
thus obtained,and the richnessof the data more than compensates,we be-
lieve, for the loss in controlover the varioussituationsthat necessarilyresults
from this approach.This being an exploratoryinvestigation,we considered
it importantnot to narrow down prematurelyand artificiallybut first to
PROCEDURE 17
become acquaintedwith the various conditions and variablesthat appear
relevantin this area of research.Only on this basis can subsequent,more
experimentalprojectsbe meaningful.
The chargeusuallylevied againstthe interviewas a method of obtaining
data about child behavioris that distortionoccurs as a result of maternal
prejudices.That insensitive or defensive mothers are likely to produce
misleadingdata is a possibilitywhich one can certainlynot neglect; on the
other hand it is possibleboth to minimize and to assess the extent of dis-
tortion.It was minimized in this study by, in the first place,enquiringonly
about overt, easily describedbehaviorand, in the second place, by paying
particularattentionto the atmospherein which the interviewwas conducted.
Validity of interview data is, after all, to a considerableextent a function
of the relationshipbetweeninterviewerand interviewee,and it is one of the
advantagesof a longitudinalstudy that a greateropportunityis held out to
put this relationshipon its proper footing. By using unstructuredinter-
views, by having all contactsin the family'sown home, but particularlyby
adopting a completely noncriticalattitude towards whatever information
was impartedabout the child's behaviorand the mother'sway of dealing
with it we attemptedas far as possibleto obtain data from which the usual
sourcesof distortionhad to a large extent been removed.
As for assessingthe degreeof distortion,we were able to use two checks
for the attachmentdata. In the course of our visits a good many instances
occurredwhen the interviewerwas able to observedirectlyone or another
of the separationsituationswhich formedthe focus of our enquiry.Putting
the infant down, passing him by, and leaving him in the room (alone or
with the interviewer) were situations which often occurred quite spon-
taneously in our presence and afforded an opportunityto compare the
mother'sreportswith our own observations.Although we did not begin
systematicallyto note down all such instancesuntil the later stages of the
enquiry,a sufficientnumber(I87 in all) were collectedto permitcomparison
with interviewdata about the child's behaviorin the relevantsituation.An
agreementpercentageof 92 was obtainedin this way.
The second check was a rathermore systematicattempt built into the
i8-monthsinterview,when we arrangedto have one of the situations(being
left with other people) enacted before us. Towards the end of the inter-
view the motherwas askedto leave the room,shuttingthe door and leaving
the infant with the interviewer.Observationof the child's behaviorunder
these conditions could then be checked against the previously obtained
informationfrom mother about his customaryresponsein this situation.
This comparisonyielded an agreementpercentageof 89 for the sample. It
may be concludedthat maternalreportson this particularaspect of child
behaviorand given under the conditions describedare sufficientlyfree of
distortionto be used as researchdata.
The Fear-of-Strangers Measure

Just as we found is useful to employ withdrawalsituationsin order to
investigateproximityseeking,so an approachtechniquewas used to investi-
gate proximityavoidance,i.e., fear of strangers.For this rather more pre-
cisely defined and better known response,an experimentwas used which
involved the infant's reactionto the interviewerhimself. Right at the be-
ginning of everyvisit the interviewerrelatedto the infant in a seriesof steps
involving progressivelygreater proximity,in order to determine whether,
and if so at what point, the infant began to show fear. Fear reactionswere
specifiedas whimpering,crying, lip trembling,screwedup face, looking or
turning away, drawing back, running or crawling away, and hiding face.
Not includedare all instanceswhere the child merelyfailed to respondposi-
tively, as when he staredsolemnlywithout smiling or vocalizingback at the
adult, or when he ceasedall activityand remainedquietly watchful.
The consecutivestepsof the experiment,in orderof progressivelygreater
proximity,are as follows (the figuresin parenthesisrefersto the score allo-
catedto an infant if he first showed fear at this particularpoint):
a. The Observer(O) appearsin the infant's visual range and remains
standing still, looking at him but not in any other way stimulating
him. (6)
b. O smilesand talks to the infant without as yet moving any closer.(5)
c. O approachesthe infant, smiling and talking. (4)
d. O makesphysicalcontactwith the infant by taking his hand or strok-
ing his arm. (3)
e. O offersto pick up the infant by holding out his hands. (2)
f. O picks up the infant and sits him on his knee. (i)
(If even the last type of contact elicited no fear response,a score of o
was given.)
The score obtainedby an infant dependedon the step at which he first
showed fear, and at this particularpoint the experimentwas terminated.
This procedureassumes, of course, that the interviewer remained a
"stranger"to the infant even after repeatedvisits. This may well be a some-
what questionableassumptionto make, yet it is doubtfulwhethera contact
of half an hour'sdurationor so once every four weeks is sufficientwith this
age group to put the interviewerinto the categoryof "familiarpersons."
What little is known of infants' memory functioning (31) suggests that
this is still poorly developedin the first year, and any improvementat 18
months was more than offset by the six-monthsintervalbetween this and
the previouscontact.In any case, the experimentwas always conductedat
the very beginning of each visit and was therefore not affected by the
"warming-up"effect in the relationshipwhich took place with the majority
of infantsin the courseof the visit. While we cannotoverlookthe possibility
PROCEDURE 19
that the use of a differentinterviewerfor each visit might have elicited a

more pronouncedfear reaction,it is unlikely that the differencewould have
been appreciable.Neither the age at onset of fear nor its over-allintensity
was found to differ accordingto the previous length of contact between
interviewerand infant,suggestingthat increasingfamiliarityover the course
of the investigationwas not an importantfactor.
Comparingthe resultsof this experimentwith the informationobtained
from the mothers at each visit as to the child's responseto strangersmet
with in the usual courseof his life ("Does he or does he not show fear?"),
an agreementpercentageof 92 was obtained.
FINDINGS: GROUP DATA
The resultsof this investigationwill be dealt with under two headings.

In this chapterwe shall be concernedwith the sample as a whole and with
the interrelationsof the attachmentvariables;while in the next chapterwe
shall examine more closely the individual differencesto be found within
the group and search for independent variablesthat are associatedwith
these differences.
AGE AT ONSET OP ATTACHMENTS
The ages when the infants of the sample first showed attachmentsto
specificindividualsare given in Table 2. If we examine,first of all, specific
TABLE 2
Age at Onset of SpecificAttachments,of Attachment-to-Mother,

and
of Fear-of-Strangers
SpecificAttachments Attachment-to-Mother Fear-of-Strangers

Age in Weeks N N N
21-24 ............ 4 3 0
25-28 ............ 15 13 o0
29-32 ......... .. 17 i8 15
33-36 .......... 7 8 19
37-40 ............ 7 8 7
41-44 ............ 4 4 4
45-48 ............ 3 3 2
49-52 ............ I I 0
53-78 ............ 2 2 3
Total ...... 6 6 60
attachmentsirrespectiveof the identity of the individualswith whom they

are formed, we see that the age at onset for the majorityfalls within the
third quarterof the first year. The same applies if we take into account
only that behaviorwhich is specificallydirectedtowardthe mother,although
there is a very slight shift in distributionwhich suggests that the mother
was not the first attachmentobject in every case. We shall return to this
point below in the sectionon Objects.In any case, our previousfinding (44,
21
46) is confirmed,namely that around 7 months of age the crucial period

may be found when, in the majorityof infants,this particulardevelopmental
milestonemay be detected.
Attentionmust be drawn,however,to the existenceof considerableindi-
vidual differences.The youngest infant in the sample to reach this phase
of developmentwas only 22 weeks at the time, whereas two infants did
not show separationprotesttowardspecificindividualsuntil they had passed
their first birthday.Thus, despite the concentrationin the third quarterof
the first year,a very wide scatteris to be observed.
Table 2 also presentsdata about the age at onset of fear-of-strangers.
Comparisonwith the attachmentfindings shows that the two phenomena
do not coincide, but that the fear distributionfollows in time that of the
attachmentdistribution.In most of our cases there was an interval of ap-
proximatelya month between the two crucial ages, though in 14 infants
fear-of-strangerspreceded,for some unknown reason, the emergence of
specificattachments.It appearsthat the tendencyto seek the proximityof
certainfamiliarfigures cannot simply be explainedby the tendency to flee
from (and thereforeto seek protectionfrom) strangers.The disparityin age
at onset suggests that proximity seeking and proximityavoidanceare not
just the opposite sides of the same coin but that the one can be found
without the other. There is, however, a significanttendencyfor those who
develop specific attachmentsearly also to develop fear of strangersearly:
a rank ordercorrelation(rho) of .412 was found (p < .oi), indicatingthat
the two functionsmay be part of a more general developmentaltrend.
When we examine more closely the manner in which the attachment
milestoneis reached,we find that the relevantphenomenaare, in fact, new
in only one respect,namely in the type of stimuluswhich evokes separation
protest.Long before this age point, indeed from the very earliestmonths,
proximityseeking is apparent.Thus the infant of 3 or 4 months may pro-
test bitterly when social stimulationis withdrawn in the separationsitua-
tions investigatedby us and may not quieten until the other person returns.
However, the crucial differencecomparedwith the later behavior pattern
is to be found in the indiscriminatenature of the early attachments: the
infant in the firsthalf yearof life will cry for attentionfrom anyone,familiar
or stranger,and, though his responsivenessto the latter will become some-
what more delayed and less intense than to the former, both suffice to
quieten him and the departureof both are likely to re-evokehis protests.
It is only in the secondsix months that proximityseeking becomesfocused
on certainspecificindividualsonly. This means that the 7-monthsmilestone
is not markedby the dramaticappearanceof a new behaviorpatterncom-
parableto the first step or the first smile: it is distinguishedratherby the
child ceasing to cry after some people and confining his proteststo certain
selectedfigures in his environment.Thus the first sign of specific attach-
FINDINGS: GROUP DATA 23
ments usually emerged in the situation where the child is left with other
people,for, while all our separationsituationswere able to furnish evidence
of some form of protest,this particularsituationappearedmost sensitivein
yielding evidencefor the selectivenature of protest.
Attachments,we conclude,must be qualified accordingto the class of
objectswhich elicit them, and we shall thereforerefer henceforthto indis-
criminateand specific attachmentsrespectively.Indiscriminateattachment,
being a searchfor proximityin generalinsteadof a concernfor a particular
individual,must be regardedas stimulus-orientedratherthan object-oriented.
It is thus a preliminarystage in the establishmentof specific attachment
and may be consideredas a presocialphenomenon(analogous to the early
smiling response). All infants in this sample showed evidence of indis-
criminateattachmentsbeforereachingthe specificphase,but we were unable
to determineany point of onset for indiscriminateattachments,for no in-
fants were studiedin the firstlunarmonth, and of the io infantswith whom
contact was establishedin their second lunar month eight were reported
as alreadyshowing indiscriminateattachmentsat that time.
21
|"~~~~~I 1SPECIFIC
S ATTACHMENT
18 - - -
.
- MOTHER
.
--TTA CHME.NT-T(
------- INOISCRIMINATE ATTACHMENT
IS -
10
9 -
z
uJ
z 6-
2 13-16 7-20 21-24 29-32 33-36 370 4 45-4 49-52
5-8 9-12 13-16 1i-20 21-24 25-28 29-32 33-36 37-40 41-.-r+ <5-4a 49-52 78
AGE IN WE-EKS
FIGURE 1-Developmental course of attachments.

OFATrACHMENTS
INTENSITY
In Figure i the developmentalcourse of the attachment function is
graphicallyindicatedaccordingto the mean intensity scores of the group
obtainedfor the variousage levels. Indiscriminateand specificattachments
have been plotted separately,and the attachment-to-mother curve has also
been included. It is of interest to note that the indiscriminateattachment
curve, though it descends after 6 months, does not completely disappear
with the emergenceof specificattachmentsbut is still in evidence even at
i8 months.While this is to some extent due to those infants who developed
specificattachmentsratherlate, it does neverthelessillustratea fairly general
phenomenon,namely, that the onset of attachmentsto specificpeople does
not necessarilycompletely displace evidence of indiscriminateattachment
from the behaviorrepertoireof individualinfants. The two may continue,
at any rate within the age period coveredby the presentstudy, to exist side
by side, in that the infant will show the one in some situationsand the other
in other situations.Sometimes an infant was also reportedas crying for
attentionfrom anyone under normal circumstancesbut as insisting on the
companyof a particularpersonwhen tired or ill.1
The specific-attachment curve, as can be seen from Figure I, reachesits
highestpoint in the 41 to 44 weeks age period,after which it again descends
somewhat.This decrease,judging by the individual case notes, appearsto
coincide in many cases with the onset of crawling, sliding and walking
skills, and it seems likely that, for a time, the new motor skills divert the
attentionof the infant to some extent away from his need for the familiar
person'spresenceby opening up new areas of interest.Thus, towards the
end of the first year, nearly all infants were reportedas becomingincreas-
ingly eagerto climb down from their mothers'knee so that they could stand
or take a few tentative steps, and subsequentlythe newly gained freedom
of movement was often used for leaving the mother'simmediatepresence
altogetherin orderto explorethe environment.By i8 months,however,the
attachmentcurve has once again climbed to its previous height, and the
recentlydevelopedmotor skills, having by this time presumablylost their
novelty, are no longer so much excercisedfor their own sake but are now
more often brought into service of the proximityseeking tendency.
There are inevitablycertain aspectsof the developmentalcourse of the
attachmentfunction which a curve based on group averagestends to ob-
scure.An examinationof individualcurvesindicatestwo points worth com-
menting on. In the first place, most individualcurves do not rise as gradu-
1 For scoring purposes,we allocated a specificscore to an infant if, in the
particularsitu-
ation under consideration,he had given evidence during the period following the last visit
that he was capableof forming attachmentsto specificindividuals, even if he was reported
as occasionallyshowing indiscriminateattachmentsas well in this situation.
ally as the group curve, the shape of which is influencedby the differences
in age at onset of specific attachmentsfound in the sample as a whole.
Twenty of the 60 infants obtainedtheir highest score recordedwithin the
period of the enquiry in the first lunar month following onset, thus sug-
gesting that a stepwisedevelopmentis by no means uncommon.
This point is furtherillustratedby examiningthe incrementsin specific
attachmentintensitywhich occur for the group from one age period to the
next. These are given in Table 3, having been calculatedfrom the individual
incrementsand not from the group means (cf. Tanner's,55, recommenda-
tion). Moreover,the age periodsfor the firstyear accordingto which results
are plotted (both in this and many subsequenttables) refer, not to chrono-
TABLE 3
Mean Incrementsof Scores for Specific Attachment Intensity
Nt ScoreIncrement
LunarMonth Following Age

at Onsetin First Year
Ist lunar month ............. 58 + 5.29
2nd lunar month ............. 51 - .17
3rd lunar month ............. 45 + .78
4th lunar month ............. 42 + 1.02
5th lunar month ............. 33 - i.6o
6th lunar month ............. 20 - .8
18 monthst ..................... 55 + .63
t The number of subjectsavailable for statisticaltreatment at each age period varies be-
cause (a) the number of scores for specific attachment obtained by an infant during the
follow-up period depends on his age at onset and (b) not all infants could be contacted
every month.
t Chronologicalage.
logical age, but to lunar month following the age at onset of specific attach-
ments. By thus eliminating the differences in chronological age when the
infant first becomes capable of forming an attachment to a particular indi-
vidual and concentrating instead on functional age, a more consistent view
can be obtained of the beginnings of this behavior system. Such a scheme
has the disadvantage that the full sample cannot be used at all age periods,
for the number of specific attachment scores obtained in the first year varies
according to age at onset, and only infants early in reaching this develop-
mental milestone can therefore be included in all the age periods given in
the table for the first year. However, as no significant differences were
found between early and late developers with respect to any of the aspects
to be examined here, it appears unlikely that any element of distortion has
been introducedby this way of presentingthe data. For i8 months the data
are presented together under the chronologicalheading, as by this time
differencesin the previousage at onset have becomeof less significance.
As the figures indicate,by far the greatestincrementoccurs in the first
lunar month following onset: not only are subsequent incrementsvery
much smaller but decrementsoccur too (in the second lunar month, for
instance,decrementswere found in 60 per cent of individual scores). The
onset of specificattachmentsmust thereforebe seen, not as a gradual,tenta-
tive developmentslowly gaining in strengthfrom month to month, but as
a sudden emergenceof a new developmentalacquisitionwhich, in many
cases,manifestsitself at full intensityfrom the very beginning.
The second point suggested by an examination of individual curves
refers to the considerablevariationin attachmentintensity which may be
observedto occur in some infants. The manifestationof this function is
clearlynot a stable one, and its susceptibilityto both externaland internal
influencesmust be noted. Thus there are certainconditionswhich prevent,
suppress,or minimize the infant'sprotestsat the removalof his attachment
object,and amongst these the just mentionedinfluenceof newly developed
motorskills and the infant'soften intensecuriosityand exploratorytendency
may be enumerated.The part which maternalpracticesplay in relationto
proximityseeking will be left for later discussion: their influencetends to
be rathermore enduring,whereashere we are consideringconditionswhich
only temporarilyaffectattachmentintensity.In general,amongstthe factors
that minimize intensity the distractinginfluenceof environmentalstimula-
tion is perhapsthe most powerful,so that an infant's reactionto the with-
drawal of his attachmentobject may be frequentlyinfluencedby the pres-
ence or absence of other sources of stimulation (a fact of which most
mothers quite spontaneouslymake use when they attempt to divert the
child's attentionaway from their own departureby presentingtoys, food,
or other distractingobjects). Only in the rather more extreme ranges of
intensityis attachmentapparentlyuninfluencedby such externalconditions,
in that some infants will protest whatever the circumstancesand others
appearto be quite unaffectedeven when left in an almost bare room.
There are, on the other hand, certain other conditions which are fre-
quentlyfound to evoke or intensifyproximityseeking. Pain, illness,fatigue,
and fear are amongstthe most potentof these: the infant, for instance,who
shows no objectionto his mother'sdepartureduring most of the day may
require her continuous presencein the last hour or so before bedtime. A
period of absenceon the part of the attachmentobject was also commonly
reportedas producingan intensificationof proximityseeking: the mother
who had been out for an hour or two or the father just back from work
were frequentlygreetedwith intensedemandsfor attentionfrom a normally
placid infant. Furthermore,it was often found that, during the indiscrimi-
nate phase in particular,a sudden increasein intensity could be brought
about by a temporarychange in the amount of social stimulationto which
the infant was exposed.Thus the visit for a few days of a doting relative
who interacteda great deal with the child was usually found to produce
such a result: within a very brief time the infant becamefar more demand-
ing for generalattentionthan he had been hithertoand cried in separation
situationswhere no protest behavior had taken place under the previous
regime. This tended to continue for a day or two after the withdrawalof
the extra social stimulation (i.e., after the relative'sdeparture), but then
rapidly diminished and the infant's demands returned once more to the
formerlevel of intensity.
No systematicinvestigation of these suppressingor facilitating influ-
ences was undertakenin this study and their enumerationdependsentirely
on the impressionsgleaned from the individual case notes. In these, how-
ever, they appear repeatedlyand thus emerge as possibly importantante-
cedent conditionsdeserving investigationin their own right. In this pre-
liminarystudy our aim was merely to make suggestionsas to their identity,
though it should be added that fluctuationsin intensityalso frequentlytook
place which we were unable to link to any obvious influence but which
appearedspontaneousin nature. Thus in some cases, subsequentto age
at onset, no proximityseeking in any separationsituation was reportedto
have occurredduring the relevantlunar month, despite both previousand
subsequentevidencefor such behaviorand despitethe apparentlyunchanged
circumstanceswhich prevailedthroughoutthis period.
We must concludethat the intensitywith which attachmentsare overtly
manifestedtends to vary from one point of time to the next. The fluctua-
tions are sometimesmomentary: an infant entering a strangeenvironment
may initiallymake intenseeffortsto remainwithin the immediateproximity
TABLE 4
RankOrderCorrelations
of Scoresfor SpecificAttachmentIntensityas Obtained
for (A) SuccessiveLunar Months and (B) Longer Time Intervals
Age Periods N rho p

LunarAMonthsFollowing Onset
A. Ist and 2nd ................... 51 .488 < .ooI
2nd and 3rd ................... 45 .608 <.001
3rd and 4th ................... 42 .578 <.ooi
4th and 5th ................... 33 .317 <.Io
5th and 6th ................... 20 .403 < .05
B. Jst and 6th ................... 20 .309 ns
6th and i8-months (CA) ....... 19 .099 ns
of his mother and yet, a few minutes later, let his curiosity become the
betterof him and begin to explorehis surroundings.The fluctuationsmay
also take place over much wider time spans,so that, althoughit was usually
possiblefor us to establishan infant'scustomarypatternfor any one four-
weekly period, predictionover long intervalstended to be somewhat haz-
ardous.This may be seen in Table 4, in which rank order correlationsare
presentedfor attachmentintensityscoresas obtainedat differentage periods.
For successivelunar months following onset of specificattachments,corre-
lations are high and suggest relativelylittle intragroupvariation.This ap-
plies particularlyto the first four lunar months, as the coefficientsfor the
subsequenttwo months have significancelevels only just above and just
below 5 per cent. Longer intervals,however,produceless significantcorre-
lations: comparisonof scoresobtainedin the firstand the sixth lunarmonths
following onset resultedin a nonsignificantcoefficient,while that obtained
by comparingscoresin the sixth lunar month (i.e., towardsthe end of the
first year) and scoresfor i8 months is close to zero.
TABLE 5
RankOrderCorrelationsof Scoresfor Indiscriminate

AttachmentIntensityas
Obtainedfor (A) SuccessiveLunarMonthsand (B) LongerTime Intervals
Age Periods N rho p

LunarMonthsPrecedingOnset
A. 6th and 5th ................... 20 .773 < .00
5th and 4th ................... 27 .677 <.ooI
4th and 3rd ................... 40 .505 < .oo
3rd and 2nd ................... 49 .629 <.ooI
2nd and ist ................... 58 .280 < .02
B. 6th and Ist ................... 20 .489 <. 2
Intensityscores for indiscriminateattachment(see Table 5) also yield

rank ordercoefficientsthat are highly significantfor successivelunarmonths
(calculatedas precedingage at onset of specificattachments).In this par-
ticularinstancecomparisonover a wider interval,namely betweenthe sixth
and the first months precedingage at onset, suggests rathergreater intra-
group stabilitythan for specificattachment; on the other hand, as shown
in Table 6, predictionfrom early indiscriminateattachmentsto later spe-
cific attachments,particularlythose shown at i8 months, was not possible
at a statisticallysignificant level. However, this table also highlights the
interesting finding that around the time when specific attachmentsfirst
emerged a considerableshift occurredwith regard to the intensity dimen-
sion. Comparingscores for indiscriminateattachmentin the lunar month
FINDINGS:GROUPDATA 29
TABLE 6
RankOrderCorrelations
betweenScoresfor Indiscriminate
and
SpecificAttachmentIntensity
Age Periods N rho p

LunarMonth LunarMonth
Preceding Following
Age at Onset Age at Onset
(Indiscriminate) (Specific)
1st and ist ...... 58 .175 < .o
6th and Ist ...... 20 .389 < .o
6th and I8-months (CA) .. 20 .072 ns
immediatelyprecedingage at onset with scores for specific attachmentin

the following month, a correlationcoefficientwas obtainedthat is consider-
ably lower than those for other successivemonths. A period of upset and
instabilityappearsto be indicatedby this finding. In general,however,short-
term consistencyhas been demonstratedfor attachmentintensity, whereas
rather greater intragroupvariabilitytends to take place over the longer
time intervalof six months.
Turning now to the correlationbetween intensity and age at onset of
specific attachments,no relation was found to exist in this sample. Two
measuresof intensity were used: that obtained for the first lunar month
following onset and that obtainedat i8 months. Both failed to yield signifi-
cant results (the respectiverho values are -.oo8 and .168). The age at
onset of specificattachmentsis thereforenot related to the intensity with
which they are manifested,either at the time that they first emerge or sub-
sequently.
Both Spitz (54) and Freedman (i8) have suggested that the intensity
of a child's attachmentis relatedto the age when fear of strangersis first
evidenced,in that the stronglyattachedinfant is likely to developsuch fear
early. We investigatedthis relationby taking as our intensitymeasurethe
scorewhich the infant obtainedon the same four-weeklyvisit on which fear
was first detected.The correlationcoefficientthus found did not, however,
confirmthe existenceof such a relation(rho = .149, ns).
The intensity of specific attachmentsdid not, therefore, influence the
age when fear of strangersappeared.But is it relatedto the intensitywith
which fear is manifested? Examiningthe associationof these two phenom-
ena separatelyfor each age period (i.e., from the first lunar month follow-
ing the emergenceof both to i8 months), no statisticallysignificantrelation
was found at any point. On the other hand, the relation was in every in-
stance a positive one, and, when the mean of all the specific attachment
scoresthat had beenobtainedfrom each infantwas comparedwith the mean
30 IN INFANCY
SOCIALATTACHMENTS
of all fear scores,a significantcorrelation(rho = .248, p < .05) was found.
The relationappearsthus to be a complexone: there is a tendencyin gen-
eral for the more intenselyattachedinfant to show more fear to strangers,
yet the fluctuationsin the one phenomenonare not necessarilyparalleled
by fluctuationsin the other, with the result that considerablediscrepancies
may be observedat any one point of time.
OBJECTS OF ATTACHMENTS
Assessmentof the attachmentfunction at any given moment must in-
volve the ascertainmentnot only of its intensity dimension but also of its
"breadth."We shall use this term to coverthe numberof objectswith whom
attachmentsare formed. As has alreadybeen described,an indiscriminate
phasemay be distinguishedfrom the specificphaseof attachmentformation,
and in the formerbreadthmay be regarded,by definitionand for practical
purposes,as infinite. Here our attentionwill be given only to breadthas it
is found in the specificphase.
The customaryview of breadthis that the infant forms his first social
relationshipwith one person (usually his mother) and that only when this
has become firmly establishedis he able to make other subsidiaryattach-
ments. Table 7 confirms that the majority of infants in this sample did
TABLE7
Numberof Attachment
Objects:Percentage of SubjectsAccordingto Numberof
Age Periods
Objectsat Successive
LunarMonth Following Age at Onsetin First Year iS-Months

Number of Objects Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th (CA)
I .................... 71% 62% 41% 52% 47% 22% 13%
2 .......... ........ . 12 17 29 29 30 33 25
3 .................... 7 5 5 o 3 xI 24
4 .................... o 2 5 o 3 6 7
5 or more ............ 10 14 20 19 17 28 31
Total ........... TOO I o00 oo I100

I0o oo O00
N ............. 58 42 42 42 30 18 55
indeed form their initial attachmentto one person only and that subse-
quently the number of attachmentobjects increased.However, the figures
also show that the selectionof a single object is apparentlynot a necessary
first step, for 29 per cent of the sample first showed attachmentsdirected
at multiple objects,and Io per cent even selectedas many as five or more
objectsat the very beginning of the specificphase.
The other modificationof the customaryview refers to the speed with

which, for the sample as a whole, breadthincreaseswith age. This is not
a slow and gradualprocess: by the third lunar month following onset over
half the subjectswere showing attachmenttowardsmore than one person,
and by the sixth month this proportionhad risen to three quartersof the
group. By 18 months, finally, only I3 per cent were showing attachments
to just one person,while almost a third of all cases now had five or more
attachmentobjects.
Again, however, the group trend tends to obscurethe irregularitiesof
individual development.The increase in breadth observed in most cases
did not take place in a uniform manner: not only were occasionalsudden
and large increasesin the number of objectsreportedfrom one month to
the next, but decreasesalso took place,so that a personacting as attachment
object one month might no longer hold this position the next. More often
than not, these fluctuationscould be traced back to such environmental
changesas a relativestaying with the family for some weeks and then dis-
appearingfrom the child's ken, or a father having to work in anotherpart
of the country for a limited time, or an older sibling returningto school
after the holiday period and no longer having the leisure to play with the
infant. These fluctuationsapply,of course,only to certainsubsidiaryfigures
and consistencywas usually guaranteedby the presenceof one or more
entirelystablefigures.Thus, in 48 of the 60 infantsthe same individualwas
TABLE 8
Identity of AttachmentObjects: Percentageof SubjectsForming Specific

AttachmentsAccording to Identity of Object at SuccessiveAge Periods
LunarMonth Following Age at

Onsetin First YearMonths x8-Months
Identityof Object Ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th (CA)
Mother (sole object) ................ 65% 53% 32% 50% 47% I7% 5%
Mother (joint object) ................ 30 35 54 43 50 77 76
Father (sole object) ................. 3 9 7 2 o 5 4
Father (joint object) ................ 27 23 42 29 44 59 71
Grandparent(sole object) ............ 2 o o o o o o
Grandparent(joint object) ........... 9 12 14 12 10 29 45
Other relative (sole object) .......... o o o o o o 2
Other relative (joint object) .......... 5 5 5 14 io i8 I6
Friend or neighbor (sole object) ...... o o 2 o o o o
Friend or neighbor (joint object) ...... 3 7 7 9 3 12 26
Sibling (sole object) ................ o o o o o o 2
Sibling (joint object) ................ 2 5 7 7 7 2 22
Other child (sole object) ............. o o o o o o o
Other child (joint object) ............ 3 5
52 7 3 14
reportedas an attachmentobjectat everyvisit on which specificattachments

were mentioned (i.e., a ioo per cent consistencyfor the most frequently
selected object was shown in these cases). Consistencyfor the remaining
I2 infants varied between67 and 86 per cent.
A further question to be raised refers to the identity of the individuals
who are selectedas attachmentobjects.From Table 8 we find, not unex-
pectedly,that the mother is by far the most frequently chosen object. In
line with our resultson increasingbreadth,however, she soon ceases to be
the sole objectof attachmentfor the majorityof infantsand, from aboutthe
third lunar month following the onset of specificattachments,more often
than not shares this position with other people. What emerges strikingly
from this analysisis the importancewhich fathersplay in the child'sworld.
Of three infants who, in the first lunar month following onset, selected
people other than the mother, two chose the father as the sole attachment
object (the third, whose mother had a full-timejob, chose the grandmother
who looked after him most of the day). Twenty-sevenper cent of the
whole group, moreover,chose father as an attachmentobject jointly with
otherobjectsin this first month. This proportionincreasesrapidlywith age,
so that by i8 months75 per cent of the sampleshowed attachmentsdirected
at the father, including 4 per cent for whom father was the only attach-
ment object. Individualsother than the parents rarely formed an infant's
sole object at any stage, but grandparents(and especially the maternal
grandmother)were increasinglymentionedas joint objects.It is also inter-
esting to find, in quite a number of instances,siblings or other children
selected as attachmentobjects,and included here are not only very much
older children,who might occasionallytake over the mother'sroutine care
activities,but also preschoolchildren.
While an infant may show attachmenttowards a number of different
individualsat any given time, it is unlikely that these attachmentswill all
be of the same intensity.There will commonly be found, in other words,
a hierarchyof objects,and the individual at the top of this hierarchyto
whom the most intenseattachmentis shown may be regardedas the infant's
principalobject.In order to establishthe identity of these principalobjects
we calculatedfor every infant the intensityof attachmentshown in relation
to each of his specific objects at every age level, and in this way defined
the individuallocatedat the top of the hierarchyat each age period (in some
instances,where severalpeopleelicitedthe same degreeof attachmentinten-
sity, joint principalobjectswere thus established).
From Table 9 it can be seen that at all stages the mother was most
frequentlychosen, either solely or, occasionally,jointly with others, as the
principalobject. However, while in the first lunar month following onset
the mother figures as a principalobject in altogether93 per cent of cases,
at I8 months this percentagehad decreasedto 69. Thus, with increasing
age, there was a tendency for other people to emerge as principalobjects.
TABLE 9
Identity of Principal Attachment Objects: Percentageof SubjectsAccording to

Identity of Principal Object at SuccessiveAge Periods
LunarMonth Following Age at Onsetin First Year 8-Months

PrincipalObject ist 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th (CA)
Mother (sole principal
object) ............. 84% 76% 72% 76% 73% 67% 51%
Mother and others (joint
principal objects) ..... 9 I2 I4 12 23 II 18
Others (sole or joint
principal objects) ..... 7 I2 I4 I2 4 22 31
Total ........... io 00 I I 00 I 100 100
o 100
N ............. 58 42 42 42 30 r8 55
Once again the importantrole played by fathersis emphasized: of all the

instances in which individuals other than the mother were found to be
principal objects (either solely or jointly with the mother), 62 per cent
referredto fathers,23 per cent to grandparents,and 15 per cent to other
people. At i8 months father was chosen as sole principalobject by I6 per
cent of the subjectsthat showed specificattachmentsat that age and joint
principalobject by another 18 per cent.
A furtherline of inquiry may be pursuedby asking whetherbreadthof
attachmentis in any way relatedto the other two main parametersinvesti-
gated here, namely age at onset and intensity. Using two measures of
breadth,that obtainedfor the first lunar month following onset and that
obtainedat i8 months,the median test revealsno associationof either with
age at onset. With regardto intensity,one may enquire whether the inten-
sity of attachmentto the infant's principal object has any bearing on the
number of other figures to whom attachmentsare formed-whether, for
instance, one can expect an intense attachmentto the principal object to
"drain"all such behavioraway from other potential objects, or whether,
quite the contrary,intensity and breadth are positively related. Table io
summarizesthe results, which were again obtained from two age points,
namely from the first month following onset and from the i8-monthsvisit.
For the former,a statisticallysignificantrelationbetween the two variables
was found to exist: the infant with an intense attachmentto his principal
objectwas more likely to have selectedother objectsof attachmentas well,
whereasthe weakly attachedinfant tended mainly to focus on only the one
individual.At I8 months, however,this relationis no longer present.
Finally, the associationof attachmentbreadthwith intensity of fear-of-
strangersmay be examined.Taking our measuresfor these phenomenaat
IN INFANCY
TABLE 10
Associationof Breadthand Intensityof SpecificAttachment
Attachment Intensity
NUMBEROF
NUMBER OFOBJECTS
OBJECTS
to PrincipalObject 1 2 3 or 4 5 ror
mor 2
First LunarMonth
Following Onset
Below median ........ 25 2 o 2
Above median ........ 16 5 4 4 5.33t < .05
Eighteen Months
Below median ........ 5 7 8 8
Above median ........ 2 7 9 9 .2IT <.70
t Based on i df.
two points, namely at the first lunar month following the onset of both
specificattachmentand fear-of-strangers and at I8 months, we obtain the
resultspresentedin Table ii. Each calculationindicatesthe same finding,
namely, that infants with many attachmentobjectstend to be more afraid
when meeting a strangerthan infants with few attachmentobjects.This is,
at first sight, a surprisingresultand one that needs furtherexplanation,and
to this task we shall return in the Discussion.
TABLE I I
Associationof Breadthof Attachmentand Intensityof Fear-of-Strangers
NUMBER
OFOBJECTS
Intensityof Fear (scores) I-2 3 or more x2 p
FirstLunarMonth
0-2 ........................ 22 4
3-6 ........................ i6 13 4.7I < .0 5
Eighteen Months
0-2 ........................ 12 8
3-6 ........................ 9 26 4.96 < .05
SOME FURTHER OBSERVATIONS
Although age at onset, intensity, and breadth form the main focus of
this enquiry,certainother observations,some of a more qualitativecharac-
ter, should be added in order to provide a fuller picture of the function
under investigation.These refer to an analysis of the eliciting conditions
for protestat proximityloss, to the manner in which such protestwas ex-
pressed,and to the terminatingconditions.
Eliciting Conditions
Up till now the results obtained from the attachmentscale have been
treated globally, so that the attachmentfunction could be describedas a
whole. It is, however,instructiveto examine the contributionmade by the
single items comprisingthe scale (i.e., the seven separationsituations) and
the mannerin which this contributionchanges with age, in order to ascer-
PUT OOWV
9o - - PASS-O
.. COT
80-
W 60-
J
-E
1
U.
z /
20 -
.'I/
i I i I I i i i I - I i 1
5-8 9-12 3-16 17-20 21-24 2S-28 29-32 33-36 37-40 44-44 4+-4 49-S2 V 75
AGE \N WEEKS
FIGURE
2-Percentageof sampleobtainingattachment
scoresfor situations
"Putdown,""Passed," and "Cot."
tain whetherprotestis more likely to be elicited by some situationsthan by

others.This has been done in Figures 2 and 3, which are basedon the per-
centage of infants showing attachmentin the various situations (irrespec-
tive of intensity), and also in Table 12, in which these percentageshave been
arrangedin rank orderfor each age period.For the purposeof this analysis
the distinction between specific and indiscriminateattachment has been
disregarded,scoresfor the two typeshaving been addedand treatedtogether.
- ALONE IN R00oo
- ----'LEFT WITH OTHERS
..---.u--OUTSIDE HOULSt
-.-.-**- O~UTSIDE SHOP
bI.
zZ
o 5-8 9-12 g3-16 17-20 21-24 25-26 29-32 33-36 37-4-0 41-44 45-48 49-52 78
AGE IN WEEKS
3-Percentage of sample obtaining attachmentscores for situations

FIGURE
"Alone in Room," "Left with Others,""OutsideHouse," and "Outside
Shops."
TABLE 12
Rank Orders of the Seven SeparationSituationsfor Each Age Period According

to Percentageof Cases Obtaining AttachmentScores
AGE IN WEEKS
Situation 5-8 9-12 13-16 17-20 21-24 25-28 29-32 33-36 37-40 41-44 45-48 49-52 78
Put down I I I I I I 3 3 4 5 4.5 3 4

Cot .... 2 2.5 2 3.5 4 5 6 6 6 7 6.5 7 7
Passed .. 3 2.5 3 3.5 2.5 4 2 2 5 4 4.5 5
Alone in
room .. 5.5 4 4 2 2.5 2 I I I I I I 2
Shops .. 5.5 5 5-5 5 6 6 7 7 7 6 6.5 6 6
House .. 5.5 6.5 5.5 6 5 3 4 4 3 2 3 4 3
Left with
others . 5.5 6.5 7 7 7 7 5 5 2 3 2 2 I
Certainorderlysequencesemerge from such an analysis.In particular,

the imporanceof close, physical contact in the early months is suggested
by the largenumbersof infantswho customarilyreactto loss of this contact
in the situationput down from the adult'sarmsor lap. Initially,as Figure 2
and Table 12 show, it is in this situation above all others that proximity
seeking is most readilyindicated.Yet from 12 weeks on the percentageof
infants reportedas protestingwhen put down decreasesfairly steadilyuntil
32 weeks, at which age only 37 per cent of infants obtainedscoresfor this
situationas opposed to 77 per cent at 12 weeks. Beginning in the eighth
lunar month, moreover, other situations are increasinglymore likely to
furnish evidence of attachmentformation.On the other hand, the loss of
the type of contactinvolvedin being put down does not by any meanscom-
pletely dwindle in importancein the second half-year: around 40 per cent
of infants throughoutthis period still obtainedscores for this item, and at
i8 months 53 per cent were said to be still susceptibleto this kind of loss.
The oppositetrend, namely a gradual increasewith age in the number
of infantsshowing protestbehavior,is suggestedby the curvesof four other
situations: left alone in the room, left with other people, left outside shops,
and left outside the house. All involve the loss of a more distant, visually
maintainedcontact,and in all a rise from zero at the beginning of the first
year to points of varyingheight at subsequentage levels is found. Of these,
left alone in the room gives the clearest indicationof this developmental
trend. Initiallyof little significance(up to 8 weeks no infant reactedto this
situationand at 12 weeks only I7 per cent showed protestbehaviorhere),
this situationquickly gains in importanceand from 32 weeks until the end
of the first year it elicited protestsin more infants than any other situation.
From the eighth lunar month on the majorityof infants were reportedas
being upset by the withdrawalof the attachmentobjectunder these circum-
stances. From the mothers' descriptionsit also emerged that the infants
soon learnedto associatecertainstimuli with her impendingdeparturefrom
the room, e.g., the noise of the door opening or even the mother walking
towards the door would elicit protests.On the other hand, it was also re-
portedin some casesthat the infant only cried if he actuallysaw the mother
(or otherattachmentobject) in the act of disappearing:if he was engrossed
in some other activityand only subsequentlydiscoveredthat he was alone
no protestswere heard.This patternwas mostly found in the third quarter
of the first year and did not generallylast for very long.
As long as the infant is still in the indiscriminatephase,left with others
is a situationwhich is unlikely to call forth protest.As the attachmentto
certainspecificindividualsgrows, however,the discriminativeelement thus
introducedinto the infant's social behaviorwill make this situation an in-
creasinglydisturbingone. Up to 28 weeks of age it is the least likely of all
situationsto evoke protest,but from then on it quickly rises in rank order,
until at i8 months more infants are reportedto be upset under these cir-
cumstancesthan in any other situation.In this situationtoo the infants soon
learned that certain stimuli signify the adult's impending departure: the
appearanceof hat and coat in particularwere so often greeted with bitter
cries that many mothersconsideredit wise not to put them on in sight of
the infant. It was also noted that some infants showed no upset when the
mother (or other object of attachment) departed, yet began to cry and
make considerabledemands for her proximity when she returned.
The curvesfor left outside the house and for left outsideshops are simi-
lar, in that both rise fairlysteadilythroughoutthe i8-monthsperiodcovered
by the study. It is of interestto note, however, that the former situation,
after the earlymonths,is the more likely of the two to evoke protest.After
40 weeks (except for an unexplaineddip in the last lunar month of the
first year) the majorityof infants protestedon being left in their prams
outside the house, yet the highest percentageobtainedat any point for pro-
tests outside shops was only 34 (in the eleventh lunar month and again at
18 months). The most probablereason for this differenceappearsto lie in
the far greateramount of other stimulation("distraction")availableto an
infant in a busy shoppingcenterthan could be found in a quiet back garden
-a suggestion borne out by reports that infants, on the one hand, were
more likely to cry outside shops in quiet side streetswhere there was little
trafficand few passers-byand, on the otherhand,tendedto protestless when
left at the busierand more stimulatingfront of the house instead of at the
back. Relative to the other situations,being left outside shops was one of
the least likely to call forth protest,and this again illustratesthe importance
of other, interactingconditionsin eliciting proximityseeking.
The remainingtwo situations,put into cot and passed by, show rather
less clear-cuttrends.This appliesparticularlyto the latter,for, though some-
what fewer infants tended to protestin this situation in the early months
than subsequently,the rise of the curve is neither regular nor dramatic.
The curve for the cot situationis also ratherirregularin shape,and though
the percentageof infants protestingwhen left in their cots tends to dip in
the middle of the first year it rises again subsequently.In its standing rela-
tive to other situations, however, there is a definite change, for whereas
initiallythis situationwas high in rank orderit soon declinedand from 44
weeks on becamethe least importantof all situations.Bedtime disturbances
in this sample,it appears,were most common in the first few months but
were also still in evidence towards the end of the first year and again at
i8 months.
From the analysisof the seven items one must concludethat a change in
evoking conditionsgraduallybut systematicallytakes place in the courseof
,the first I8 months. Initially what appearsto matter most to an infant is
the close, physicalcontactinvolvedin being held in the adult'sarms or lap.
Although this situationremainsimportant,other situations,especiallyfrom

about the middle of the first year on, come to assumehigher rankings,and
these situationsall involve the loss of a more distant, visually maintained
contact. Any attempt to explain this change must take into account two
interlinkedvariables: the mode of the previouslyexisting contact and the
degree of proximityinvolvedin it. Thus one might easily jump to the con-
clusion that the data demonstratethe importanceof contact comfort for
the early months, that it is physical contact that initially matters most to
the infant and that only subsequentlythe need for proximity will also
become satisfiedby the visual presenceof the attachmentobject.
Such an explanation,however, neglects the role of the other variable,
the degree of proximity: a variablewhich clearly matters becauseof the
change which occurs in the infant's perceptualrange in the course of the
first year or so. Thus at first the only situationswhich impinge upon an
infant are those which take place in his immediate vicinity: most infants
of 3 or 4 months will simply not be aware that they have been left alone
in the room,and this situationwill only becomemeaningfulwhen their per-
ceptual range is wide enough to encompassit. Until this happens a very
much closer contact,such as is found when an infant is physicallyheld by
the otherperson,is requiredfor proteststo occur on disruptionof the bond,
whereaslateran infant may no longer be upset by loss of physicalproximity
as long as the attachmentobject still remainswithin visual proximity.
The growthof the infant'sperceptualrangemeans,therefore,that "prox-
imity"will be defineddifferentlyat differentstagesof developmentand that
the conditionsevoking protestat separationwill also vary accordingly.This
is not to assert that the mode of contact can altogetherbe ruled out as
playing a part in proximityseeking, and furtherresearchinto this variable
is clearly indicated. We maintain, however, that an explanationcouched
in termsof the infant'sperceptualrangeand the consequentdegree of prox-
imity necessaryto evoke a responsefrom him is a more economicalone,
in that it is based on establishedcharacteristicsand makes fewer assump-
tions than a hypothesisinvolving contactneed, the role of which in human
developmentis still problematic.
One further observationmay be briefly mentioned in this connection.
It refersto a numberof infants in this samplewho were reportedas actively
resistingsuch forms of physicalcontactas cuddling, hugging, caressing,etc.
A separatereporton these "noncuddlers"is being prepared,but it is already
apparentthat the refusalof these infantsto use this particularmode of seek-
ing proximity by no means completelydeprived them of the opportunity
to establishedattachments.Other means of relating were used instead, so
that, given a mother who was able to adapt to this particularidiosyncracy
of her baby,the eventualdevelopmentof this group in terms of attachment
intensitywas, despitesome early discrepancies,not very differentfrom that
of the "cuddlers."Again, cautionin attributinga sine qua non role to physi-

cal contactin early human social developmentseems indicated.
The Nature of Responsesto ProximityLoss
Developmentalchanges take place not only in the infant's perceptual
range but also in his motor equipment, and differencesaccordingto age
level in the form of the reactionto loss will accordinglybe found. Initially
crying is the sole reactionof which the infant is capable,though even within
this one behaviorpattern a great number of variationsmay be seen. But
while crying remains the most common form of reactionthroughout the
age period studied here, other responsesappearwith greatermotor ability
and thereby increasethe infant's repertoireof behaviorpatternsthat may
be usefullyemployedin the serviceof proximityseeking.Some (like crying)
may be understoodas signals,such as stretchingout hands to the retreating
attachmentobject, calling by name, or banging on the door. Others are
of a more constructiveform, as, for instance, catching hold of the other
person'sclothesas she is about to disappear,strugglingon being put down,
or attemptingto climb out of pram or cot. In his secondyear, furthermore,
the infant developsresponsepatternswhich enable him, on his own initia-
tive, to avoid proximityloss, the most common being following by means
of crawlingor walking. Insofaras such behaviorpatternsare, however,not
responsesto separationsthat have in fact taken place but are designed to
preventsuch occurrences,they have not been consideredin this report.
These impressionssuggest that both the nature and the numberof rele-
vant responsepatternschange with age, though the aim remainsthe same:
anyone amongstthe appropriatebehaviorpatternsthat happen to be avail-
able to the individual at that particularstage of developmentwill be used
by him in orderto regain the desiredproximity.
TerminatingConditions
The regainingof proximityto the attachmentobjectmay be regardedas
the infant's over-allaim, but one may go further and attempt to ascertain
the precisemanner in which proximityhas to be suppliedin order to pro-
duce quiescenceafter the separationupset. The data accumulatedin the
courseof this study give no simple answerto this question. Some mothers,
for instance,reportedthat mere reappearancein the child's visual field was
sufficient,that as long as they were seen to be presentthe infant was content.
Sometimes it was apparentlynot even necessaryfor the mother (or other
attachmentobject) to be in the same room: the sight of her through a
window while the infant was in his pram outside might, for instance, be
enough to calm him. Instances were also reported (particularlyat 18
months) when an infant was satisfied by mere auditory contact, i.e., by
hearing the mother in another room though being unable to see her. In
other cases, however, the infant did not cease to protest until the mother
had related rather more directly to him by talking, stroking, picking up,
etc.-a differencewhich again involves both another mode of contact and
a greater degree of proximity. Here too our data did not permit one to
ascertainwhich of these elementsis the essentialone, this being a decision
that requiresa more experimentalapproachinvolving a strictercontrol of
conditions. In any case, a number of variablesappearedto influence the
kind of terminatingstimuli requiredby the infant: the natureof the previ-
ously existing contact,the particularsituationin which the separationtook
place,the intensityof the infant'sreaction,the length of the adult'sabsence,
the presenceof other sourcesof stimulation,the infant's age and his per-
ceptualrange, and the intensityof attachmentto that particularobject.On
a more microscopiclevel than employedhere, this is clearlya highly com-
plex situationwhich requiresconsiderablefurther analysis.
FINDINGS: INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
One of the most marked features of the results reportedso far is the
existenceof considerableindividualdifferencesat all points of the enquiry.
Some infants were early in developingattachments,others late; some were
intenselyattached,others only minimally so; some focused on one attach-
ment object,while othersshowedattachmentsto a wide rangeof individuals.
In this chapterwe shall examine these differencesmore closely and make
some attemptto accountfor their existenceby searchingfor conditionsthat
are significantlyassociatedwith the range of behaviorfound in the sample.
Our searchwill mainly be guided by ad hoc considerationswhich arose
in the course of the investigationitself, as theory in this new field can as
yet make few suggestions.Indeed, we did not make the decisionto investi-
gate this particularproblemuntil we had completedour first batchof cases
(the "23-group,"cf. p. 7), and data about most of the associatedvariables
were thereforecollectedfrom the "37-group"only. It is thus just the latter
which will be examined here, though, as one of the infants belonging to
it was lost to the researchbeforethe i8-monthsvisit (which, as will be men-
tioned below, forms the focus of much of this part of the enquiry), the
group was furtherreducedto 36 subjects.
As suggestionsfor associatedvariablesaroseprimarilywhile considering
the intensity dimension (which, to the casual observer,shows perhapsthe
most striking range in behavior), we shall begin by examining this par-
ticularcharacteristic.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN INTENSITY
Although,as has been described,the intensityscoreobtainedby any one

infant may vary from age to age, the question still arisesas to why, at any
given point,certaininfantsshow a far greaterneed for the presenceof some
particularindividualthan others.To investigatethis problem,we arbitrarily
selectedthe end point of the follow-upperiod,namelythe age of i8 months,
in order to locate the conditionswhich significantlyvary with intensity at
that time. As we were particularlyinterestedin the effects of maternalbe-
havior on the child, we further specifiedintensity of attachment-to-mother
as the dependentvariableto be studied here.
The variablesto be examinedfor possibleassociationwith the intensity
of attachment-to-mother fall under three headings: demographicand con-
stitutionalvariables,socializing variables,and relationshipvariables.These
will be describedin turn.
43
Demographicand ConstitutionalVariables
Under this headingwe examinedthe associationwith intensityof attach-
ment-to-motherof sex, birth order,parentaloccupationallevel (as given by
the Registrar-General'soccupationalclassification,39), and developmental
quotient (DQ). Median tests were used for all but the last variable,for
which a rank ordercorrelationwas calculated.
TABLE 13
Association of Demographic Variables with Intensity of

Attachment-to-Motherat Eighteen Months
ATTACHMENTINTENSITY
Below Above
DemographicVariable Median Median x2 p
Sex
Males ............................ 10 8
Females ........................... 8 Io .11 < .80
Birth Order
First-born ......................... 7 Io
Others ............................ 11 8 .45 < .70
OccupationalClasst
II ............................... 2 6
III ..................... .......... 12 9
IV and V .......................... 4 3 nst
NOTE.-All statistical tests in this chapter are two-tailed (unless otherwise stated), as
we have no firm basis for making specificdirectionalpredictions.
t Classificationof Registrar-General(I960).
X Fisher'sexact test.
Table 13 shows that, when the sample is.divided at the median, neither
sex nor birthordernor occupationallevel differentiatesbetweeninfantswho
are respectivelyhigh and low on intensity of attachment-to-mother at I8
months.DQ also fails to revealany significantassociation,rho being -.o12.
As, for this particularset of variables,informationwas availableon all the
casesthat were seen at i8 months,i.e., on 57 subjects,calculationswere also
carried out for this larger group in case the increase in numbers would
highlight any differencesnot revealedby the smaller N. Again, however,
none of the p values even approachedstatisticalsignificance.
Socializing Variables
Writerssuch as Miller and Dollard (34) and Searset al. (49) have sug-
gested that the degree of the child's emotional dependenceon the mother
is a function of the severityof the socializing practicesencounteredin in-
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 45
fancy.While the hypothesislinking the amount of frustrationin nurturance

situationswith the magnitude of dependencetendenciesexhibitedtowards
the socializingagent has had a somewhatcheckeredcareer,it does suggest
another set of variableswhose influence on attachmentintensity may be
investigated.At the i8-monthsinterview with the group of 36 infants data
were thereforesystematicallygatheredabout the following indexes:
a. Feeding rigidity during infancy-rated on the following four-point
scale:
I. schedulerigidlyadheredto,
2. fed mainly by routine,
3. considerablevariationfrom routine,
4. fed entirelyby self-demand.
b. Age at weaning.
c. Length of weanirngperiod.
d. Age when toilet trainingbegan.
e. Toileting severity-rated on the following four-pointscale:
I. severe pressures (coercion, physical punishment, rigid expecta-
tions),
2. moderately severe pressures (verbal punishment,
scolding, but
some adjustmentto child'sbehavior),
3. mild pressures(some expectationto conform,but not rigidly ap-
plied),
4. no pressures(toileting not started,or treatedas a joke or just a
game).
It had also been originallyintended to include method of feeding (breast
or bottle) as an index, but as there were only five infants in the sample
where the durationof breastfeeding exceededthree months, it was decided
to discardthis index.
The resultsare summarizedin Table 14. None of the socializing varia-
bles showed any relationto intensityof attachment-to-mother, and this ap-
plies not only to those socializingproceduresthat had taken place at some
stagepreviousto I8 months (such as age at weaning of feeding rigidity) but
also to those practicesthat were taking place concurrently(like severityof
toilet training). As we confirmedprevious findings (e.g., those by Sewell,
Mussen,and Harris, 50) regardingthe general lack of relationbetween a
mother'spermissivenessin one aspectof socializationand her permissiveness
in otheraspects,it was not consideredappropriateor meaningfulto use one
over-allmeasureof socializing severityfor comparisonwith attachmentin-
tensity. We must concludethat the extent to which a child at I8 months
seeks the proximityof his mother does not appearto be influencedby the
manner in which socializing practiceshave been applied to his physical
needs,as severityof trainingwith regardto feeding and eliminationhas not
TABLE 14
Association of Socializing Severity Indexes with Intensity of

INTENSITY
ATTACHMENT
Below Above
SocializingSeverityIndex Median Median x2 p
Feeding Rigidity Rating

(I)-(2) ............. .. ........ . 9 8
(3)-(4) ... ...................... 9 10 .0003 < .98
Age at Weaning
Under 12 months ................... 8 10
Over 12 months .................... 10 8 .1 < .80
Length of Weaning
i-Io months ..................... 8 o0
ii months and over ................. o1 8 .1 < .80
Toileting Age
o-6 months .................. ..... o1 8
7 months and over ................. 9 9 .0003 <.98
Toileting SeverityRating
(I)-(2) ................. ......... 5 9
(3)-(4) .......................... 13 9 I.05 < .40
been shown to have a bearing on the intensitycharacteristicof attachment

formation.
RelationshipVariables
We turn now to a group of variableswhich, on a priori grounds at
least, may be regardedas having a more direct and immediatebearing on
the extent to which an infant seeks the proximity of his mother. Under
this headingwe shall considersuch possibleinfluencesas the mother'savail-
ability,the exclusivenessof maternalcontact,the degreeof maternalrespon-
siveness to the infant, the amount of interactioninitiated by the mother,
and the customarymode of such interaction.
Maternalavailabilityrefersto the amountof time which a motherspends
togetherwith her child. Two measureswere used to describethis variable.
At the i8-monthsvisit the 36 mothers were asked to make a note both of
the numberof times on which they left their infants for more than half an
hour during the subsequentseven days and of the total time in hourswhich
these absencesinvolved.An extra visit was paid one week later in order to
collect this information. Although these measures involved sampling at
only one time period, all mothers agreed that the informationgiven was
fairly typical of their usual way of life in this respect,and the validity of
these indexesis thereforeunlikely to be poor. For the sampleas a whole the
extent to which mothersleft their children is not great: a quarterof the
mothersdid not leave them at all during the seven-dayperiod, and in all
but six casesthe motherwas not away for longer than a total of eight hours
during the week. Nevertheless,a fairly wide range was obtained: from
o to 8 for numberof absencesand o to 49 for the total length in hoursduring
which the motherwas away (the latter figure in each case refersto the one
mother in the sample who had a full-timejob).
TABLE 15
Measureswith Intensityof
of MaternalAvailability
Association
at EighteenMonths
Attachment-to-Mother
ATTACHMENT INTENSITY
Below Above
MaternalAvailabilityMeasure Median Median x2
Number of Absences
o ................................ 4 5
I ............................ .. . 3 5
2 ....... ....................... . 6 2
3 and over ......................... 5 6 .44t <.6o
Hot1usof Absence
o ................................ 4 5
1-2 .............................. 2 4
3-4 .............................. 6 3
5 and over ......................... 6 6 .46t < .50
t Basedon I df.
The resultsare given in Table 15. Although for both measuresthere is

a tendency for infants above the median in attachmentintensity to have
motherswho are somewhatmore availablethan infants below the median,
this associationis far from statisticallysignificant.Mere "togetherness,"it
appears,is not sufficientto explainthe differencein intensity.
Despite these resultsfor this particularsample,one cannotmaintainthat
the availabilityvariableis of no significancewhatever.A certainamount of
"time spent together"is clearly necessaryfor the other person to be suffi-
ciently familiar not to elicit fear and to qualify as an attachmentobject.
What this minimum is, and whether it differs from child to child, we do not
know, but it is interestingto note that the infant whose mother was away
for 49 hours had an intensity-to-mother score which placed him just above
the median for the group of 36 infants. It thus seems likely that the avail-
ability variable was unable to differentiatebetween cases in the present
sample becauseall satisfy whateverthe requiredminimum may be in this

respect.
Turning now to the exclusiveness of maternal contact, we shall examine
the extent to which an infant's exposureto people other than his mother
influencesthe intensity of his attachmentto her. Caldwell et al. (II) have
investigatedthis problemin relationto "monomatric"and polymatric"fami-
lies, i.e., families in which maternalcare is provided respectivelyby the
mother alone or by a number of individuals, and found more affiliative
(attachment) behavior in infants belonging to the former group. Using
somewhatdifferentcriteria,we set out to ascertainthe numberof caretakers
that customarilylooked after each infant. A difficulty,however, is encoun-
tered when attemptingto define the term "caretaker,"for a decision has
to be made both with regardto the kind of activitiesand functionswhich
one includesunderthis headingand the minimum frequencyof contactthat
is considereda necessaryqualification.As for the former point, kind of
activitymay refer only to the routine duties involved in caring for physical
needs (feeding, changing, bathing, etc.): on the other hand it may be
argued that taking an infant for walks, playing with him, and generally
amusing him also involves the performing of caretaking services. Both
definitionsare used here, the "narrow"definitionreferringonly to the per-
forming of physical routines, while the "wide" definition refers to those
who carryout the other activitiesmentionedabove as well as or instead of
participatingin ministeringto the infant'sphysicalneeds. As for frequency
of contact,we asked the mothersto name all "regular"caretakers,without
ourselvesattemptingto define this any further.
The necessaryinformation was sought from the mothers at the i8-
months visit, and at the same time data were asked for regardinganother
measureof the exclusivenessof the infant's relationshipwith his mother.
This refers to "numberof people contacted,"i.e., the total number of indi-
viduals with whom the infant interacted,whether in a caretakingcapacity
or otherwise.The motherswere asked to note the numberof people whom
the child saw, either as visitors to his own home or when visiting other
homes,duringa periodof seven days.The data were collectedon the return
visit a week later.
Table i6 presentsthe resultsobtainedfrom the comparisonof these three
measureswith intensityof attachment-to-mother. Both the caretakermeas-
ures indicatethat rathermore infants with high intensityscorescome from
families in which they are exposed to fewer caretakersthan infants with
low intensity scores. This applies particularlywhen the "wide" definition
is used, though even this fails to show a relationclose enough to reach sta-
tistical significance.For "numberof people contacted"the directionof the
relationis reversed,in that those with high attachmentscoresshow a slight
tendency to have met rather more people in the relevant period of time.
The first two measurestend to bearout Caldwell'sfindings,while the trend
TABLE 16
Association of Maternal ExclusivenessMeasureswith Intensity of

Below Above
MaternalExclusivenessMeasure Median Median x2 p
Number of Caretakers
("narrow"definition)
1-2 .............................. 8 12
3 and over ......................... 6 74 < 40
("wide" definition)
1-4 . .. .... .... ... ... ... . . .. .... .. 8 14
5 and over ......................... o1 4 2.93 < .Io
Number of People Contacted

I- 5 . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8
6 and over ......................... 6 io 1.01 < .40
indicated by the last measuremay possibly be due to the fear set up by

meeting unfamiliarpeople and the resulting greatertendency to seek the
mother'sproximity.
The remaining three variables(responsiveness,amount of interaction,
and mode of interaction)all refer to the nature of the interactionprocess
that takes place betweenmother and infant. Only a very few studies (such
as those by David and Appell, 17, and by Rheingold,40, 4I) have as yet
attemptedto identify the variablesthat may be used to describethis process
for the particularage range studied here, and our presentattemptis there-
fore very much influencedby the impressionsand observationsobtained
in the courseof this project.
A particularlypertinent variable in this connection may be identified
as the degree of maternalresponsivenessin relationto the infant's crying.
It needs but little acquaintancewith mothersto establishthat considerable
variationexists in the willingnessto respondto an infant's cries, especially
when theseare known to stem from a desirefor companyand attentionand
not from pain or hunger.Thus one mothermay maintainthat babiesshould
not be picked up at all except for feeds and other routinesand will let him
cry however long he continues,whereasanothermother may find it quite
intolerableto leave a baby to cry for even a few minutes and will rush to
him at the slightest whimper. It should therefore be possible to range
mothersalong a continuumwith respectto this dimension,and a six-point
rating scalewas accordinglydevised:
IN INFANCY
I. Mother generally leaves infant to cry indefinitely,mostly refuses to
respondat all.
2. The infant is left as a rule for ratherlong periodsbefore mother at-
tends to him.
3. Mother may leave for long periods but in most instances attends
after some minutes.
4. Motherleavesfor a few minutes,never longer.
5. Motherusually respondswithin a minute or two, though with some
exceptionswhen the infant is left for longer periods.
6. Motheralways respondsquickly, goes almost at once.
The informationnecessaryfor categorizing the mothers was gathered
throughoutthe seriesof visitsand was derivedpartlyfrom our own observa-
tions, partly from what the mothers spontaneouslyreported, and partly
from their answersto questionsabouttheir behaviorin relationto the attach-
ment episodesreportedto us. The relevantdata were examined independ-
ently by two judges and rated on the above scale. Their agreementper-
centage was 84, i.e., identical ratings were allocated to 30 out of the 36
mothers. The disagreementin the remaining six cases never involved a
disparityof more than one category.
TABLE 17
Association with Intensityof

of MaternalResponsiveness
Attachment-to-Motherat EighteenMonths
ATTACHMENTINTENSITY
Below Above
ResponsivenessRating Median Median x2 p
( ) .............................. 4 2
(2) ................. ............ 5 I
(3 ) .............................. 5 3
(4) .............................. o 7
(5) .............................. 3 3
(6) ........ ..................... 2 5.50t < .02
t Based on i df.
As Table 17 indicates, this variable clearly differentiatesbetween the

high and the low attachmentgroups.Intenselyattachedinfants are usually
found in associationwith mothers who respondquickly to their demands
for company,whereas weakly attachedinfants tend to have mothers who
generallyfail to reinforcesuch behavior.What is not so clear, however, is
the direction of the cause-effectsequence between these two variables.It
may be argued,on the one hand, that the mother'sresponsivenesswill di-

rectly influencethe intensityof proximityseeking, that high responsiveness
will reinforceand low responsivenesswill extinguish the infant's cries for
attention.On the other hand, it may also be argued that maternalbehavior
is a function of the intensity of the infant's demands, that a mother may
often have to "give in" to her infant'spersistentcrying or that, alternately,
she does not pay him a great deal of attentionbecausehe simply does not
demand much. Our case notes contain supportivedata for both points of
view: the influenceof maternalpracticeon infant behavioris illustrated,for
instance,by the motherwhose 35-week-oldinfant began to screamone night
when put into his cot and continuedto screamuntil picked up again. The
mother finally took him to bed with her, but, determinednot to make a
habit of this, left him to cry in his cot the following night without picking
him up at all, although he continued for some considerabletime. On the
third night the infant cried for only a few minutes when put down, the
mother again refusing to attend to him, and thereafterno more crying oc-
curred in this situation. That infants are not always so accommodating,
however, is shown by the many examples quoted to us where a mother
found crying so intense and persistentthat she had to give way and adopt
a patternof responsivenesswhich she did not reallyfavor. Severalmothers,
for instance,comparedtheir infant unfavorablywith older siblings, as the
latter had always been much less insistent on receiving attention and had
rarelycried in any of the separationsituationsin which the younger child
gave so much trouble.Such data can, of course,only be suggestivein char-
acter,but they do indicatethe danger of making oversimplifiedstatements
regardingetiology.
Maternalresponsivenessis thus only theoreticallyan "antecedent"vari-
able. Its statisticalassociationwith attachmentintensity does not demon-
stratethat it "comesfirst"and that it "causes"the infant'sbehavior.An inter-
pretationin termsof mutualadaptationof motherand infant is likely to do
mostjusticeto the observedfacts,so that attachmentintensitymay be viewed
as the resultantof the strengthof the infant'sdemandson the one hand and
the degree to which the mother is preparedto respondon the other hand.
Considerablework still needs to be done to elucidate the details of this
interchange.
In amount of maternalinteractionwe have anothervariablewhich de-
scribesthe interchangebetweenmotherand infant, but, whereasresponsive-
ness referred to infant-initiatedepisodes, this variable refers to those in-
stancesof interactionwhich are initiatedby the mother.Again observations
and reportssuggesta wide rangeof behaviorpatternsto exist in this respect.
At one extremeof the continuumis the mother who submits her infant to
an almostcontinuousbarrageof stimuli and relatesto him unceasinglyand
intensely; at the other extremewe find the motherwho follows a policy of
"leavewell alone,"ignoring her babyas much as possibleand spontaneously
interactingwith him on only rare occasions(it may be noted here that the
factor of "maternalwarmth" which Sears et al., 48, isolated was partly
derivedfrom rating scalesreferringto the amountof affectionateinteraction
with the baby,the extent to which mothershows affectionatedemonstrative-
ness towardsthe child, and the amount of time that she spends in playing
with the child).
The following rating scale was used by us to order the motherson this
dimension:
I. Interactionminimal-mother follows a policy of "leave well alone,"
does her best to avoid interactionoutside routine care situations,tends to
ignore infant to a considerableextent.
2. Infrequent interaction-infant left a great deal to own devices, atten-
tion mainly confined to routine care, but occasional bursts of interaction do
occur.
3. Interaction limited-mother occasionally initiates interaction, but
these episodes are usually short and do not occur very frequently.
4. Interaction by timetable-mother tends to avoid interaction during
some parts of the day (e.g., when doing housework), but will devote her-
self to giving the infant attention at other times.
5. Frequent interaction-mother is usually prepared to give the infant
some attention, would devote a lot of time, but interaction limited by such
extraneous factors as housework, jealous siblings, etc.
6. Considerable amount of interaction-fairly continuous stimulation of
the infant, often of a rather intense form, mother highly demonstrative in
her relationship.
As in the case of responsiveness, the relevant information was obtained

throughout the course of the follow-up from observations, reports, and ques-
tions. The reliability percentage between two judges in rating the data was
86, the five instances of disagreement out of the 36 cases involving displace-
ments of only one category. The degree of association with responsiveness
(X2 - 4.I6, df 2, p < .20) suggests that, while a certain amount of
overlap occurs, the two characteristics are not necessarily found to the same
extent in any one particular individual. Some of the mothers in the sample,
for instance, who responded quickly to the infant's crying rarely interacted
with him spontaneously, and, conversely, some of those who discouraged
crying nevertheless interacted a great deal with the child.
The results (see Table i8) indicate that here too a significant relation
exists with the intensity of attachment-to-mother. The highly stimulated
infant does not like losing the proximity of his attachment object, whereas
the infant who receives comparatively little stimulation rarely protests.
Again, however, caution must be exercised in making cause-and-effect state-
ments. Does a great deal of attention giving on the part of the mother pro-
INDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES 53
TABLE I8
Associationof Amountof MaternalInteractionwith Intensityof

at EighteenMonths
Below Above
InteractionRating Median Median X2 p
(I) .............................. 4 o
(2) .............................. 5 2
(3) .............................. 4 3
(4) .............................. 3 2
(5) .. ............................ 6
(6) ............................ 5 5.44t < .02
t Based on I df.
duce very demandingbehaviorin the infant, or does the mother behave in

this manner because she is aware of the intensity of the infant's needs?
Both sets of forces are likely to play their part, though they generally be-
come so entertwinedthat statementsabout their respectivecontributionsare
difficultto make.
Degree of responsivenessand amountof interactionrefer to quantitative
variableswhich do not tell us anything about the mode of interactionthat
may be observed.We shall thereforeask whether the kind of stimulation
which a mother usually providesfor an infant is in anyway linked to the
intensityof the attachmentshown toward her.
Observationof motherssuggeststhat two principalmodes of interaction
may be distinguished: the personal and the impersonal.In the personal
approachstimulationis providedby the mother which stems in the main
directly from herself. She respondsto the infant's need for attention by
offering herself, as it were: by picking up, handling, cuddling, talking,
kissing, cooing, and providing other forms of stimulation which involve
a directand immediatecontactbetweenherselfand the child. She thus puts
herself at the center of the infant'sattention,for, though she may also use
toys and other objectsin interactingwith him, these are only used as sub-
sidiaryaids.
The personalapproachcan, however, be further subdivided,for it is
possibleto distinguishmotherswhose primarymode of interactioninvolves
a great deal of handling and other forms of physicalcontact and mothers
where interaction,though still personalin nature,is expressedin other,non-
contactways. Thus a mother belongingto the latter categorywill generally
providevisual and auditorystimulationratherthan tactualand kinesthetic:
when her babycriesshe will not pick him up and cuddle him but will prefer
to talk, coo, sing, smile, pull faces, etc. When playing with him, she will
rarelyhave him on her knee but rely on more distantthough still personal
means of interaction.
In the impersonalapproachthe mother tends to use means of stimula-
tion which draw the child's attention away from herself. She prefers to
"divert"him and thus uses toys, food, and other objectsin responseto his
demandsfor attention,supplyingthese in such a mannerthat the tendency
to respondto her directlyis minimized. Her mannerof relatingto the child
is thus through variousintermediatemeans and tends as far as possibleto
eliminatea more personalcontact.
No mother ever employs just one of these three types to the exclusion
of the other two, but most mothersdo have a preferredmode of interaction
which they customarilyuse. Observationsand reportsobtainedin the course
of the visits supplied sufficientmaterial for two judges to classify the 36
mothers investigatedhere according to the categories defined above. An
agreementof percentageof 78 was recordedfor their classification.
TABLE 19
Associationof Typeof MaternalInteraction
with Intensityof
at EighteenMonths
ATTACHMENTINTENSITY
Below Above
Type of Interaction Median Median x2 p
Personal (handling) ................. 6 7

Personal (nonhandling) .............. 6 6
Impersonal ....................... 6 5 .8 < .95
t Based on 2 df.
When comparedwith attachmentintensity,no associationis found with

this maternalattribute(Table 19). The impersonalgroup show no less at-
tachmentthan the others; furthermore,those infants whose mothers were
classifiedas predominantly"handlers"did not differ from the rest in at-
tachmentintensity. It must, of course, be admittedthat the present test is
not a very exactingone, for it rests entirely (though, in the context of this
investigation,of necessity)on uncontrolledobservationand not on the kind
of experimentalmanipulationof relevantvariablesfound in the work done
on this problemin animals. Nevertheless,it does seem that, at any rate at
the age of 18 months, the type of stimulationreceivedby an infant appears
to influenceattachmentintensity less than the quantity. Handling, it ap-
pears, may have effects that appearearlier than the age point investigated
here or that are differentin kind from those we have examined,but in the
presentanalysisit fails to emerge as a distinguishingvariable.
INDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES 55
We concludethat of the relationshipvariablesonly degree of maternal

responsivenessand amountof maternalinteractionhave been shown to bear
a significantrelationto intensityof attachment-to-mother. There was also a
suggestion that the exclusivenessof mothering, as defined by number of
caretakers(in the wider sense used here), is a variablethat shows some
relationto attachmentintensity.Maternalavailability,however,did not dif-
ferentiatebetween the high and the low intensitygroups: a mother'scon-
stant presenceis apparentlyno sufficientguaranteethat the infant will de-
velop a very close attachmentto her. What is required is a more active
impinging of mother on child, so that somewhat limited availabilitymay
make a close tie feasiblewhen combinedwith a high degree of responsive-
ness and a considerableamount of interaction.
This is a point which receivessome furthersupportwhen we turn from
the examinationof intermotherdifferencesto intrafamilydifferencesand ask
why a particularinfant should show an attachmentof greaterintensity to
one individual in his environmentthan to another. This is part of the
important problem of object choice, namely, the identificationof those
characteristicsof an individualwhich determinehis selectionas the infant's
attachmentobject. Any theory which looks at attachmentbehavior from
the viewpoint of the child-motherrelationshipalone is likely to miss this
intriguingproblem,but, as we have seen, multiplicityof attachmentobjects
quickly becomesthe rule ratherthan the exception,and particularlyat I8
months it cannot ever automaticallybe taken for granted that the mother
is invariablyan infant's principalattachmentobject. Although the present
materialbearing on this point does not allow firm conclusions,it is men-
tioned here in order to reinforceour previousanalysis.
Thus the examinationof intrafamilydifferencesfurther illuminatesthe
part which availabilityplays. At the i8-months visit the 36 mothers were
askedto rank the child'sfamiliarsin their orderof availabilityto the infant.
It soon emerged that the resulting ranking does not by any means neces-
sarilycorrespondto the rankingof these individualsin termsof the infant's
attachmentintensity.Thus in 14 of the cases (39 per cent) the principal
object at 18 months was someone other than the most availableobject-
generallythe father,despitehis absencefor all but a limited part of the day.
In one or two cases, where a relativeacted as principalobject, the contact
with the infant was even less frequent than daily. In only 6I per cent of
cases did the choice of principalobject coincide with the greatestamount
of availability.
When the motherswere asked to rank the same individualsin terms of
their responsivenessto the infant's crying, the correspondencewith the
varying intensities of attachmentsshown towards them was appreciably
closer: in 26 cases (72 per cent) the principalobject was also the person
ranked as the most responsiveto that particularinfant. Ranking by the
mothersfor amount of interactionproduceda similarpicture, for 27 cases
(75 per cent) showed most attachmenttowards the individual ranked as

providingthe greatestamount of stimulation.
Although these figures are no more than suggestive, they do help to
direct attention to the most crucial variableswhich influence an infant's
attachmentintensity. Strong attachmentscan clearly be formed to indi-
vidualswho are availablefor comparativelylimited periods,as long as these
individualsare preparedto interactfairly intenselywith the infant on such
occasions.When, furthermore,the most available person (generally the
mother) does not show a great deal of responsivenessand is not prepared
to interact much with the infant, the latter is more likely to search for
another object towards whom he can direct his most intense attachment
behavior.This suggestion receives support from the comparisonmade in
Table 20, where we investigatedwhether mothers, who were not selected
TABLE 20
Mean Ratings for Responsivenessand Amount of Interactionof Mothers Who

Were Prinicipal Objects and Mothers Who Were Not Principal
Objects at Eighteen Months
Principal Nonprincipal
MaternalMeasure Object Object t pt
Responsiveness ................. 3.73 2.50 2.26 < .02

Interaction .................... 3.82 3.16 1.50 < .Io
t One-tailed test.
as principalobjectsat I8 months,were given lower ratingsfor responsiveness

and interactionthan motherswho did serveas principalobjects.The expec-
tation, as the figures indicate, is borne out for both characteristics,though
in the case of interactionthe differencedoes not quite reachthe .05 level of
significance.Thus, when a relativelyunstimulatingmother is found in con-
junction with, say, an extremelyattentive father, the latter is more likely
to head the infant's hierarchyof attachmentobjects, despite the mother's
greateravailability.Severalof the mothersin the sampleindeed complained
that their policy of not "spoiling"was being ruined by their husbandsand
that the infant who was quite undemandingas long as only the mother was
about would make intense demandsfor his father'spresenceand attention
during holiday periods,weekends, and evenings.
One furtherpoint is underlinedby the intrafamilycomparison,namely,
that choice of attachmentobject does not depend on the alleviationof the
child's physical needs. At the i8-months visit the mothers were asked to
indicatewho had chief responsibilityfor feeding and for changing,bathing,
dressing,and putting to bed. They were also askedto list all those who par-
ticipated to a minor degree in these activities.From their answers it can

be seen that in 39 per cent of cases the individualsmainly responsiblefor
feeding and the other routines were not chosen as principal objects, and
that in 22 per cent the principal objects did not participate even to a minor
degree in any aspect of the child's physical care. It appears that attachments
may develop even when the individuals to whom they are formed have
in no way been associated with physical satisfactions.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN BREADTH
We now turn, rather more briefly, to consider the breadth dimension

and its variation in the sample of 36 infants. The number of objects of at-
tachment at the age of i8 months will be taken as the measure of breadth,
the sample being divided into those with one or two objects (N - 15, 42
per cent) and those with three or more objects (N = 21, 58 per cent). The
independent variables to be reviewed are those described in the previous
section.
Demographic and Constitutional Variables

Chi square tests failed to reveal any statistically significant differences
between the two breadth groups when compared on sex, parental occupa-
tional level, birth order, and DQ.
Socializing Variables
None of the measures for socializing severity (feeding rigidity, age at
weaning, length of weaning period, age at toilet training, and toileting
severity) showed even a tendency to be associated with attachment breadth.
There is thus no evidence to suggest that considerable satisfaction of physical
needs rivets the infant's attachment to the one caretaker and prevents other
attachments from taking place, nor can one conclude that frustration of
these needs results in dispersion of attachments to a variety of other objects.
Once more the independence of the attachment system from the vicissitudes
of physical needs is indicated by the data.
Relationship Variables
Taking availability first, we find from Table 21 that there is a tendency
(though not statistically significant) for the extent of mother's absence to be
positively associated with the number of attachments formed by the child.
This, one may assume, is due to the greater likelihood that children who
are left a great deal by their mothers tend to be exposed more to other people
(babysitters, substitute caretakers, etc.) than children who are constantly in
the presence of their mothers. A more direct evaluation of this possibility
can, however, be undertaken by examining the effects of the exclusiveness of
the mother's relationship with the child.
TABLE 21
Associationof MaternalAvailabilityMeasureswith Breadthof Attachment

at Eighteen Months
NUMBER OF
ATTACHMENTOBJECTS
MaternalAvailabilityMeasure 1-2 3 and over X2 p
Number of Absences
o-I .......................... 9 8
2 and over ..................... 6 13 .92 <.40
Hours of Absence
0-2 .......................... 9 6
3 and over ..................... 6 15 2.38 <.20
While all three measures of exclusiveness (Table 22) suggest an inverse

relation with breadth (i.e., the less exclusive the mother's relationship with
the child the more attachments tend to be formed), it is the "wide" defini-
tion of number of caretakers that shows the closest association. It will be
recalled that this particular measure included individuals who may perform
no other service for the child than to play with him, take him out for walks,
or amuse him generally, without necessarily participation in feeding or in
the performance of other routine care activities. Such functions, however,
TABLE 22
Associationof MaternalExclusivenessMeasureswith Breadth of Attachment

at Eighteen Months
NUMBER OF
ATTACHMENTOBJECTS
MaternalExclusivenessMeasure 1-2 3 and over X2 P
("narrow"definition)
1-2 .......................... 10 I0
3 and over ..................... 5 11 .63 < .50
("wide" definition)
1-4 .......................... 13 9
5 and over ..................... 2 I2 5.35 < .05
Number of People Contacted
I-5 .......................... II 9
6 and over ..................... 4 12 2.18 < .20
appear to be sufficientto elicit attachments,with the result that the child

who is surroundedby a large number of individualscarryingthem out is
more likely to form attachmentsto a greaterrange of people than the child
whose care,in the wider sense, is in the hands of only a few people. Insofar
as "numberof people contacted"will include these caretakers,the tendency
of this measureto show some associationwith breadth is not surprising:
it is unlikely,however,that mere exposureto otherpeoplewill affectbreadth
in the absenceof definiteinteraction.
As to the three remainingvariables(degree of maternalresponsiveness,
amountof interaction,and mode of interaction),no relationis demonstrated
with breadthof attachment.
Breadth,we may conclude,is essentiallya function of the opportunities
which a child has of meeting other people who will offer relevantstimuli.
The nature of relevantstimulationis indicatedhere by the variablewhich
showed the closest associationwith breadth, namely the number of care-
takers ("wide" definition). Thus a finding consistentlysupportedthrough-
out this reportis once again borne out, namely, that it is stimulationand
attentionin generalwhich elicit attachmentbehaviorand not just the satis-
faction of physicalwants. As in nearlyevery case in this samplethe mother
had by far the largestshare of responsibilityfor feeding and other routines
and receivedhelp from others in this respectto only a minor degree, it is
unlikely that the other attachmentsformed by an infant could be explained
as secondaryto obtaining physical satisfactions.On the other hand, there
were considerabledifferencesin the extent to which the infants were stimu-
lated by other people. In some families the mother-childcouple seemed
almost isolated from other social contacts, so that the relationshipof the
infant with his motherwas an exclusiveand pervasiveone. In otherfamilies,
however,there was a constantcoming and going of neighbors,friends,and
relatives,many of whom would activelyrelateto the child by playing with
him, nursing him, carryinghim around,etc., and thus exposing him to a
wide range of social contacts.The "socialsetting"may thereforehave con-
siderable implications for a child's attachment development-a point to
which we shall returnin the Discussion.
The exclusivenessof maternalcare does not, of course,have any bearing
on its intensity: a mothermay, for instance,have sole chargeof her infant
and yet interactwith him to only a limited extent. The lack of any correla-
tion of breadthwith the variablesdescribingthe interactioncharacteristics
of maternalbehaviorsuggests that the latter do not, by themselves,deter-
mine the extent to which other attachmentsare formed. A relativelyun-
stimulatingmother may make it more likely that the infant will show a
more intense attachmentto another person, but such a person must be
availableand willing to interact appropriately.There is also no evidence
to suggest that a mother's very intense contact with her infant inhibits
the formationof other attachments: this again is likely to affect breadth
only through the exclusivenessvariable,e.g., if the mother'sattitudeto the

child is not only intense but also highly possessiveand thus results in the
exclusion of other potential caretakers.Attachmentcannot be thought of
as a fixed quantity,to be drainedby one intense contactor to be dispersed
widely if the chief caretakerpaysbut scantattentionto the infant.The range
of contactsmade by an infant is thus a function of the total social setting
in which the child finds himself and cannot be understoodin terms of the
relationshipto the mother alone.
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN AGE AT ONSET
The majorityof infants in this samplefirst showed specificattachments

at some point during the third quarterof the first year. The total range,
however,is very much wider and extendsfrom 22 weeks to I5 months. In
this section we shall examine demographicand constitutionalvariablesand
relationshipvariablesin order to search for conditionsthat may be associ-
ated with this variability.
Demographicand ConstitutionalVariables
Dividing the age distributionat the median, no differenceswere found
between the sexes, between first-borninfants and the rest, or between the
parentaloccupationallevels in this respect.
On the other hand, a rank order correlationof .370 (significant at the
.05 level) was found between age at onset and developmentalquotient. As
the developmentaltests were administeredaroundthe age of 6 months, the
age of onset for the majorityof infants is sufficientlyclose to this point to
regardthis relationas unaffectedby fluctuationsin DQ with time. It should,
moreover,be emphasizedthat the Cattelltest which was used here does not,
unlike some other infant tests, include any items referringto interpersonal
behaviorat this age range. The relationis thus not a spuriousone but indi-
cates that the speed with which the attachmentmilestoneis reachedin this
sample correlateswith the infant's developmentalstatus on the mainly
sensory-motoritems from which the DQ was derived. The ability to form
attachmentsto specific individuals is directly influencedby sensory-motor
skillsonly to the extentthat it requires,as a precondition,the abilityto recog-
nize and differentiatebetweenother people.The relationis thus more likely
to be an indirectone, in that both types of ability are a reflectionof a more
general maturationalrate affectingall aspectsof development.
RelationshipVariables
Although a maturationalfactor is suggestedas influencingage at onset
of specificattachments,the possibleeffect of environmentalvariablesmust
also be taken into account. In particular,one may ask whether maternal
behavioris in any way relatedto the timing of this development.
Examining the same variablesthat were previously used to describe

maternal behavior (availability, exclusiveness, degree of responsiveness,
amount of interaction,and mode of interaction)and employing the same
indexes to representthese variables,entirely negative resultswere obtained
for all when comparedby the median test with age at onset. In no case did
the obtained significancelevel even approachstatisticalsignificance.Rela-
tionshipvariables,it appears,did not influenceage at onset in this sample.
Two notes of cautionmust, however,be introducedin interpretingthese
negative results.In the first place, it must be rememberedthat some of the
measuresemployed were not collecteduntil the i8-months visit, i.e., some
distancein time away from age at onset. This applies particularlyto avail-
ability and exclusiveness,which depend for their assessmenton a sampling
of conditionsprevailingat the endpointof the enquiry.However, all moth-
ers maintainedthat the informationgiven about these characteristicsrepre-
sented fairly typical conditions, and, while some changes between age at
onset and i8 months may have occurred,it is unlikely that these repre-
sented any drastic alterationsin style of life. The measuresfor the other
three variablesneed be less in doubt, as they are derived from information
gatheredthroughoutthe whole period of the enquiryand refer to generally
fairly constantbehaviortendencies.
The other considerationrefersto the danger of unwarrantedgeneraliza-
tion of these results.The fact that in the presentsample relationshipvari-
ables failed to differentiatebetween early and late developersdoes not, of
course, mean that this milestone is entirely immune from environmental
influences.Conditionsin even the least stimulatingfamilies were probably
sufficientto ensurethat this developmentwas able to take place at the usual,
maturationallydeterminedage. Under rathermore extremeconditions,how-
ever, where the necessaryminimal requirementsare not met, it may well be
that the ability to form specificattachmentsbecomesseriouslyimpairedor
delayed.This is, of course, most likely to occur in an institutionalsetting,
where impersonalmethods of childrearingafford little opportunityfor the
developmentof attachmentbehavior.Some preliminaryresultsfrom a study
of this problemhave been reportedelsewhere (Schaffer,45).
DISCUSSION
A number of themes arise from the results of this investigationwhich

merit further discussion.Amongst these may be mentioned the nature of
the attachmentfunction,its developmentalorigins, its developmentaltrends,
and the influenceof the social setting. To these we shall now turn serially.
NATURE OF THE ATTACHMENTFUNCTION
The picturewhich the presentenquiry has firmly planted in our minds

is not the conventionalone of a sociallypassiveinfant who, when fed and
free from pain, lies quietly in his cot readyto be molded by whateversocial
forceshappento impinge on him. On the contrary,from the early weeks on
the infant appearsto take an active part in seeking interactionwith his
socialenvironment,and it is he ratherthan the adultsaroundhim who is so
often found to take the initiative in establishingand maintainingcontact.
Not only is there striving for the satisfactionof physicalwants, but a con-
siderableportionof an infant'smotivationaleffort is also devoted to atten-
tion seeking-apparently for its own sake. The fact that, for the greater
part of the first year, the infant's comparativelack of locomotorabilities
precludesthe use of many of the later-appearingdevices employedfor this
end should not blind one to the power of those means with which he can
signal his requirementseven in the early months (crying being the most
obviousand effectivein this respect). In the absenceof socialstimulationhe
shows, often most forcefully,his unrest and dissatisfaction,and quiescence
will only be restoredwhen his wishes have been interpretedand met by
the environment.
A directionalforce within the organism,of an enduring characterand
evoked by certainspecificconditions,is thus indicated,and it appearsthere-
fore justifiedto postulatean attachmentneed as the motivationalforce be-
hind proximityseeking. On an overt level proximityseeking is expressed
by a varietyof behaviorpatternswhich may differ from individual to in-
dividual and from one developmentallevel to the next. It was not the aim
of the presentenquiryto list these, but Ainsworth(2) has identifieda large
numberwhich may be observedto "clockin" at variousages in the course
of the firstyear.Moreover,as the child'sperceptualand conceptualhorizons
widen, the distance within which he regards himself as still near to the
object graduallyincreases.A change in the manner in which proximityis
defined will thus be observed:In the early months the other person may
only be a few feet away and yet be regardedas lost, whereaslater on even
63
an interveningwall and the absenceof visual and auditorystimulationwill

not preventthe child from consideringhimself within the requiredradius.
Proximity,it appears,can be attained in many differentways and by the
use of a wide range of differentmotor patterns,linked only by the common
aim for which they may be used. It is this aim which providesa key con-
cept for the study of early social behaviorand permits the ordering of a
highly diversifiedrange of activities. The attachmentneed motivates the
infant to employa varietyof responseswhich happento be availableto him
at that particularstage of developmentand which have been found effective
in keeping the person,towardswhom they are directed,in his vicinity and
thereby(incidentallyfrom the individual'spoint of view though essentially
from that of the species) ensuring the adequatesupply of protection,love,
and care.
As the existenceof a need can be inferredonly from the responseswhich
are designed to satisfy it, attentionmust be given to the conditionsunder
which the need becomesactivated.That proximityseeking is to a consider-
able extent a function of the total situationin which it takes place has been
repeatedlystressedin this report.A numberof here-and-nowevents, organ-
ismic and environmental,may facilitateor suppressits expression,so that in
certain conditionsthe existenceof the underlyingneed becomesmore evi-
dent than in others.The more stressfulsuch conditionsare to the infant the
more intense will be his effortsof proximityseeking-hence the usefulness
of the hospitalsituationas a meansof demonstraitngthe existenceof specific
attachments.One of the infantsin this sample,for instance,was hospitalized
for a short period at the end of her first year and showed a considerable
amount of separationupset under these circumstances;yet in the previous
four-weeklyperiod no evidence of attachmenthad been found at home. It
appearsthat the longitudinalapproachadoptedhere, though more produc-
tive in many respectsthan the cross-sectionalstudy, does have to pay a price
in the possibilitythat the tools used for evaluationmay be somewhat less
sensitivewhen they are basedon assessmentof behaviortaking place under
comparativelynontraumaticcircumstances.
Individualdifferencesin the over-all intensity with which infants cus-
tomarilydisplay their attachmentneed are, we may assume,partly a func-
tion of environmentalforces and partlya function of certaininherentchar-
acteristicsof the individual.That the environmentplays a role in producing
individual differencesin both the manner and the extent to which the
attachmentneed is expressedcan hardly be doubted: studies of deprived
infants testify most forcefullyto this point, and both our "intermother"and
our "intrafamily"comparisonsalso lend some support to this viewpoint.
The role of an inherentfactoris rathermore problematic,and one can but
speculateregardingits likely nature. However, a useful clue in this respect
exists in the intercorrelationsestablishedfor three of the variablesinvesti-
gated here, namely, attachmentintensity, breadth of attachment,and in-
DISCUSSION 65
tensity of fear-of-strangers.Their associationhas not been found to be a
consistentlyclose one, and this no doubt reflectsthe multideterminednature
of these phenomena.Nevertheless,the possibilitymust be consideredthat
all three have in common one basicfactor,and that it is this which explains
the otherwisesomewhat puzzling relationswhich do exist between them.
The elementcommonto all three may be describedas the degree of general
responsivenessin social situations:thus some infants appearto be consist-
ently placid in all such situations,being relativelyunaffectedeither by the
withdrawalof familiar figures or by the approachof unfamiliar figures;
whereasother infants not only react violently to the loss of their principal
object of attachment,but also show a similar reactionto a wide range of
other familiar individualsand, furthermore,are highly responsiveto any
elementof unfamiliarityin those with whom they come into contact,being
thus more likely to manifestintense fear of strangers.A varying threshold
of responsivenessin social situations generally appears indicated, in that
some infants are more prone than others to react, positivelyor negatively,
wheneverthe relevantstimulationis offered.The possibilitymust therefore
be consideredthat, underlyingthe syndrome,a social sensitivityfactor may
be found. The existence of such a factor can, of course, be demonstrated
only by further systematicresearch;in the meantime it is postulatedhere
in order to emphasizethe view that the intensityof attachmentscannot be
regardedin the light of environmentalforcesalone but that the individual's
inherent characteristicsmust also be taken into account. Isolation of both
kinds of variablesis necessarybeforetheir resultantcan be fully understood.
Proximity seeking is one of the two main elements in early social be-
havior,the otherbeing proximityavoidance.Biphasictheoriesof motivation
have long been popular,and Schneirla(48) in particularhas emphasized
the approach-withdrawaltheme and its role in behavioraldevelopment.
That a biological link exists between proximity seeking and proximity
avoidance,in that the latter tendency effectivelypreventsthe infant from
making positiveresponsesto inappropriateindividuals,has been stressedby
such writersas Hess (28), Collias (I6), and Moltz (35), who have demon-
stratedthe existenceof the same pair of tendenciesin animals. Yet all our
empiricaldata suggest that these responsesystemscannot be viewed merely
as the oppositesides of the same coin, but that they representseparatefunc-
tions each of which may be investigatedin its own right. Some short-term
interactionmay occur, in that an infant, frightened by the approachof a
stranger,may temporarilyseek the reassuringpresenceof a familiarperson.
Moreover,infants early in developing the one are also more likely to be
early in developing the other, and, furthermore,a relation in the over-all
intensitiesof the two phenomenamay be observed.On the other hand, their
ages at onset do not coincide,and it is thereforepossible(though admittedly
only for a short period) to find the one in the absenceof the other. Also,
variationin their respectiveintensitiesis by no means regular, suggesting
IN INFANCY
that the conditionsaffectingtheir developmentare not necessarilyidentical.
Generalizationsabout their interrelationsmust therefore be viewed with
caution.
DEVELOPMENTAL ORIGINS
The ability to form an attachmentto a specificindividualarises, in the

majorityof cases, in the third quarterof the first year. This statementcan
now be made with a fair degreeof confidence,for it has been confirmedby
two differentapproaches(in our previouscross-sectionalstudy and in the
present longitudinal investigation). A milestone of developmentwith ex-
tremely importantconsequencesfor personalitygrowth has thus been lo-
cated, and it now becomes essential for future researchto establish the
processesresponsiblefor this developmentand the conditionswhich affect
its delay or impairment.Little is known yet in this connection, though
what evidencethere is indicatesthat the onset of specificattachmentsis but
one expressionof a more general development.Of particularsignificance
here is the previouslydiscussedsuggestionof Piaget that the beginningsof
object conservationfirst manifest themselves in the third quarter of the
first year. Similarly,studies of smiling (I, 53) have shown that within the
same age periodthis aspectof social behaviorceasesto be evoked by primi-
tive configurationalpropertiesinherent in all human faces and becomes
linked to specific individuals.All these developmentsmay be regardedas
based on a fundamentalchange in the infant's cognitive structure,i.e., in
the manner in which perceptionsare organized and related to each other
and to their externalsources.However, only furtherresearchcan illuminate
the details of the processesinvolved.
One point our data have definitely indicated, namely, that proximity
seekingcan be found long beforethe emergenceof specificattachments.The
need appearsto be presenteven in the first six months and to give rise to
behaviorpatternsthat are identical to those found later on. In the second
half-year,however,these responsesbecomechanneledinto certaindirections
and are no longer indiscriminatein object choice. A striking parallelwith
the smiling response is thus indicated: in both cases two developmental
stages(an indiscriminateone and a specificone) are found, and the evidence
from both suggeststhat truly socialbehavior(in the senseof being object-
ratherthan stimulus-oriented) only begins with the second stage.
If proximityseeking is presentfrom the early weeks on, must we regard
the attachmentneed as primary,i.e., as an inborn motivationaltendencyto
seek the presenceof other peoplefor its own sake and not, in the first place,
for the satisfactionof other needs? In this study we have not only failed to
find any relationbetweenattachmentintensityand socializing severity,but
we have also observedattachmentsto be formed to individuals who have
never participatedin routine care activities. Taken in conjunction with
Bowlby's(7) theory, Harlow's (24) findings, and Ainsworth's(2) similar
DISCUSSION 67
observations,the view that social behavior arises primarilyin the context
of the feeding situation must now be seriouslyquestioned.Satisfactionof
physicalneeds does not appearto be a necessarypreconditionto the develop-
ment of attachments,the latter taking place independentlyand without
any obvious regardto the experiencesthat the child encountersin physical
care situations.
Another possibilitymust, however, be considered.We were impressed
by the extent to which in the early months the occurrenceof protestin the
variousseparationsituationsdependedon the supplynot only of specifically
social stimulationbut of stimulationof almost any kind. All the mothersin
our sample,to varyingdegree,quite naturallyused a wide range of "stimu-
lators"in the hope of preventingor minimizing the infant's crying when
they had to leave him to his own devices:toys, radio and television,vividly
patternedcurtainsand wallpaper,the branchesof trees moving in the wind,
passingtraffic,pram rocking,water pouring out of a tap, a dog playing on
the flooror a bird hopping aroundits cage, the sight of leaping flames,the
feel of a sheet of paper-these and very many other similar means were
describedto us in the course of our interviews.They were generallycon-
sidered as forms of "distraction,"it being assumed that the infant's need
was, from the beginning, for the kind of stimulationprovided solely by
humansbut that, when this requirementcould not be met, a diversioninto
other channelscould take place. There is, however, another interpretation
which suggests itself, namely that the infant's need for the proximity of
other people is not primarybut arises, in the course of development,from
his need for stimulationin general.
The notion that environmentalstimulationis necessaryfor full develop-
ment to take place is now widely accepted.In early infancy in particular,
as studies of deprivation(52, 13) have shown, this requirementmust be
met. Accordingto Rheingold(41), one of the most prominentcharacteristics
of the young infant is his constantsearchingof the environmentfor stimula-
tion-not only is his responsivenesswell developedby 3 months of age, but
by this time he is also alreadyactively seeking for the arousing properties
of his surroundings.But, as Rheingoldfurthersuggests,the most interesting
objectin his environmentis the human object,with its high arousalpoten-
tial and most variedstimulationpropensity.In time, one may add, the infant
learns that other human beings are particularlysatisfyingobjectsand that,
moreover,the provisioneven of nonsocialstimulationis usually associated
with their appearance.A need for their presencemay thus be said to de-
velop: the other person'sproximityis initially sought as only one sourceof
stimulationamongstmany but will eventuallybe requiredin its own right
once the infant has had the opportunityof learning about its special func-
tional characteristics.
A three-stagedevelopmentof early social behavioris thus envisaged.In
the first stage, an asocialone, the individual seeks optimal arousedequally
from all aspectsof his environment.In time he learns to single out human
beings as particularlysatisfying objects and makes special efforts to seek
their proximity.Thus we have the second stage, a presocialone, which is
characterizedby indiscriminateattachment behavior. Finally, a further
narrowingdown occurs,and in the last and only truly social stage attach-
ments are formedto specificindividuals.
Whetherthe attachmentneed is to be regardedas innate or not becomes,
according to this formulation, a meaningless question. Biologically, the
infant'scharacteristicsat birth are such that, given an "averageexpectable
environment,"he is bound to go through the sequenceof events indicated
and developan attachmentneed. From the point of view of the individual,
however,this is not a necessarysequence,for under certainconditions(such
as social deprivation)an infant may not have the opportunityof exposure
to the requiredenvironmentalstimulationand will thus fail to develop the
attachmentneed. The same argumentapplies,of course,to other aspectsof
social behavior:the following response in young birds, for instance, can
initiallybe elicitedby all moving objectsand not only by the mother; suck-
ing occurs in response to any nipple-shapedobject and not only to the
maternalbreast;the infant monkey will at first cling to any furry object
that providescontactcomfort;and a mask containingbut two eyes will, in
the early months, evoke a smile from the human infant as readily as the
mother'sface. In all instancesthe particularkey stimulus,though a property
of the parent figure, covers a very much wider range, and, while under
normal circumstancesa narrowing down to the "right" object will even-
tually take place, the individual organism must first be guided into that
particulardirectionby a learningprocess.Thus the innate behaviorpropen-
sity is in the beginning not a truly social activity, but becomes so only
throughits contactwith a particularkind of environment.
From this formulationwe would expect that the previouslymentioned
socialsensitivityfactoris relateddevelopmentallyto individualdifferencesin
the stimulus need. That differences in responsivenessto environmental
stimulationcan alreadybe isolatedin neonateshas been demonstratedon a
behaviorallevel by Graham (22) and on an autonomiclevel by Richmond
and Lustman (43). Bell (4) too has describedan "arousalfactor"in new-
born infants,and it may well be that in this fundamentalcharacteristicthe
forerunnerof the social sensitivityfactoris to be found, providingthe con-
stitutionalelementthat drivessome infantsto seek stimulationmore eagerly
and to reactmore intenselyin social as well as nonsocialsituations.
DEVELOPMENTAL
TRENDS
Despite short-termconsistencyin attachmentintensity,fluctuationsover

wider spans are marked in this parameter,making predictiondifficult.In
this respectour data parallelfindings on other behaviorsystemsin infancy:
DISCUSSION 69
Hindley (29), for instance,reviewingstudies on early intellectualfunction-
ing, concludesthat predictionbased on existing infant tests are very uncer-
tain within the first I8 months, and similarlyWinitz and Irwin (56), in a
study of early verbaldevelopment,found that rank order correlationsfor a
numberof measuresof speech were so low between the various age levels
that predictionwas all but impossible.
A number of reasons for the instabilityof proximity seeking may be
advanced.One of these may be ruled out with a fair degree of confidence,
namely, the possibilitythat purely temporary,situationalconditions pro-
duce diverseeffects on an infant's scores as obtainedat differenttimes. By
assessingbehavioracrossa varietyof situationalcontextsand by basing this
assessmenton wide time spans rather than on one particulartest session,
this factorhas been minimized to a considerableextent.
However,the multideterminednatureof the intensityscoredoes produce
difficulties.As has been shown, the various separationsituationsdo not all
make an equal contributionat every age period, being affectedby the rate
of growth of perceptualrange and possibly (though much more contro-
versially) by the change from predominantlytactual-kinestheticto visual-
auditorymeans of interpersonalrelating.Insofaras such functions are not
necessarilyequally representedon the attachmentscale, the total score of
differentindividualsis likely to be affectedto varying degree accordingto
the developmentalprogressmade in these abilities.Intragroupfluctuations
in attachmentintensitymay thus be a functionof the method of assessment
ratherthan of the individualchild.
Considerationmust also, however,be given to the possibilitythat genuine
irregularityin developmentalrate occurs. Though it would be difficultto
produceconclusiveevidence on this point, it is at least conceivablethat a
lack of stabilityis an inherentfeatureof the attachmentfunction in its early
stagesand that constancyin the intensitywith which the need is manifested
cannot thereforebe expected.Such an interpretationwould appearto con-
tradictthe findingsof Chess,Thomas,and Birch (6, 15), accordingto which
the persistenceof stable and consistent reaction patterns from the early
months on is a definite feature of personalitydevelopment.The focus of
thesestudies,however,in terms of both the natureand the frequencyof the
measuresemployed,is considerablycruder than used here and can hardly
servefor purposesof comparison.Although the notion of an intrinsicfactor
underlying a particularresponse tendency, as advanced by these authors,
is, as we have seen, echoed in this report, it does not follow that stability
and consistencyin expressionis guaranteedthereby.Quite apart from the
vicissitudeswhich result from interactionwith the environmentand the
varying extent to which an infant may receive reinforcementin the mani-
festationsof the attachmentneed, the fluctuationsthat have been found to
occur in the absenceof any obvious change in externalconditionsindicate
that consistencyis by no means an essentialfeatureof this particularfunc-
tion. Further work may succeed in isolating the variablesresponsiblefor

such fluctuations,but until this has been done the possibilityof an inherent
instabilitymust be borne in mind.
INFLUENCE OF THE SOCIAL SETTING
One of the more controversialfindings of this investigationarises from

the examinationof the breadthdimension.This suggests that the choice of
attachmentobject,even at the very beginning of the specific phase, is not
necessarilyconfined to one person only, but that straightawayattachments
may be formedto a numberof different(though discriminated)individuals.
While many infants did select just one object in the first month following
the emergenceof specific attachments,the substantialminority in whom
attachmentswere focused on more than one person at this time indicates
that this is neither a necessarynor an inherentfeature in the development
of this function. Moreover,although the mother was generally at the top
of the hierarchyof the infant'sobjects,this choice was again not an inevit-
able one, for the importanceof other people in the child's environment,
particularlythat of the father, was strongly emphasized throughout. To
focus one'senquiryon the child's relationshipwith the mother alone would
thereforegive a misleadingimpressionof the attachmentfunction.
That attachmentsare, for intrinsic reasons, initially confined to one
object, that subsequentattachmentsare formed only gradually after the
first relationshiphas becomefirmly established,and that these other attach-
mentsare alwayssubsidiaryin intensitycomparedwith that to the mother-
these are all assumptionsthat are widely and firmly held, despite the fact
that no empirical studies have concerned themselves with this point.
Gewirtz, for instance,expressesthe usual point of view with his statement
that "It is unlikely that the child of the typical family, during his earliest
years,would developmore than a very few all-encompassingattachmentsin
addition to the one to his constantcaretaker-interactor, i.e., mother-figure"
(21, p. 237). Investigatorshave thus generallyisolatedthe child'srelationship
with the motherfrom his total social behaviorand studied it without refer-
ence to any other relationshipalso formed by him. A wider focus is needed,
however,in orderto appreciatethat the usual view is too simple.
There appearto be three reasonsfor the failure to considerthe infant's
other social relationships.In the first place, the widely held belief that a
child's social behavioris initially associatedwith the alleviationof physical
wants has excludedfrom considerationall those individualswho have little
or no part in routine care activities and has directed attention almost
exclusivelyto the child's caretaker.Consequentlythe notion, for instance,
that a young sibling, whose interactionwith the infant is confined to play
or generalstimulation,can becomean objectof attachmentmay at firstsight
seem somewhat strange despite its by no means infrequentoccurrence.In
DISCUSSION 71
the secondplace,thereis the assumptionthat availabilityis a crucialvariable
in determiningchoice of attachmentobjectand that the mother is therefore
bound to take priorityover all other individuals.This, as we have seen, is
not so: a person'sconstantpresencein the infant'simmediateenvironment
is no guaranteethat interactionwill occur and the necessarystimulationbe
offered. The most availableperson has, of course, the best opportunityof
providing such stimulationand for this reason the mother is, more often
than not, the infant'sprincipalobject.Yet not every mother will avail her-
self of this opportunity:personalityfactorsand practicalconsiderationsmay
prevent her from doing so and thus allow other people, more responsive
if less available,to becomethe child'sprincipalattachmentobjects.
A final reason for the exclusive preoccupationwith the child-mother
relationshipis historical. The emphasis on this relationship stems very
largelyfrom the writingsof the earlypsychoanalysts,who viewed the child's
developmentagainst the backgroundof the typical Europeanfamily of 50
years ago. In such family a rather strict division of labor existed which
confined childrearing almost totally to the mother, giving her a near-
monopolyof interactionwith the child in his early yearsand thus minimiz-
ing the latter'sopportunitiesof forming anything but shallow and fleeting
relationshipswith others.Now, however,and especiallyin the Anglo-Saxon
countries,family roles have changed and a far greater sharing of family
tasks may generallybe observed.On the one hand mothersare more likely
to have interests(including part-timejobs) that take them away from the
child'sside, and on the other hand fathersare no longer the sternand rather
distant figures of Freudiandays but tend to take a far greaterpart in the
bringing up of their children.The latter are thus exposedto a wider range
of interpersonal contacts and to more opportunities of forming multiple
attachments.
Social practiceshave changed but psychologicaltheorieshave not, with
the result that the current view of the beginnings of social behavior in
childhood tends to assume a type of family which is no longer prevalent.
Whom an infant choosesas his attachmentobjectand how many objectshe
selects depend, we believe,primarilyon the nature of the social setting in
which he is rearedand not on some intrinsiccharacteristicof the attachment
functionitself. This view receivesstrongsupportfrom anthropologicaldata:
MargaretMead (32, 33), on the basis of her observationsof differenttypes
of family structure,has seriouslyquestionedthe view that exclusivenessof
attachmentto one mother-figureis biologicalin origin and that attachments
cannot be safely distributed amongst several figures. In certain societies
multipleobjectrelationshipsare the norm from the firstyearon: the relevant
stimuli which evoke attachmentbehaviorare offered by a number of in-
dividuals and not exclusivelyby one person,and a much more diversified
system of attachmentsis thus fosteredin the infant. While anthropological
material has the advantageof great diversityin the types of social setting
that one may study, in our society,too, variation,though less extreme,may

be found and investigated.Whethera child has one caretakeror many, the
identity of these caretakersand the distributionof tasks among them, the
extent to which the family is an "open"or a "closed"systemin its relation-
ship with the restof the community:these are all aspectsof the socialdimen-
sion about whose influenceon the growing child little informationis as yet
forthcoming.Hoffman and Lippitt (30), in a review of this topic, find a
paucity of empiricalresearchconnecting family variableswith child vari-
ables, and in similar vein Young and Willmott (57) point out that we can
at presenthardlyeven guess which kind of family produceswhich kind of
person.The assumptionin most psychologicalwritings of a type of family
which is not only stereotypedbut also largely outmoded has led to the
neglect of a wide range of variableswith potentiallyimportantinfluenceon
personalitydevelopment.Yet the data of the presentreportsuggest strongly
that such individualsas fathers,grandmothers,and even siblings need not
play quite the minor subsidiaryrole generally allotted to them, but that
from the beginning they may assume important positions in the infant's
world. Once the view has been acceptedthat the child-motherrelationship
does not necessarilyexhaust the infant'sattachmentbehavior,a linkage be-
comes possible between the family setting and one aspect of personality
growth. The detailsof this linkage still requireto be investigated;our con-
cern here is to emphasize the possibilityof making it by questioning the
assumptionthat attachmentin infancyis of necessityunidirectionalin form.
The purposeof these remarksis not to challengethe importanceof the
mother vis-a-visher children,but to stressthe fact that other people in the
infant's environmentmay also play importantroles. The mother is usually
in a particularlygood positionto make a powerfulimpacton the child, and
understandablymost infants selectedher as the principalobject.Yet greater
availabilityand prime responsibilityfor physicalcare are not by themselves
a sufficientguaranteeof monopoly over the infant's attachmentbehavior.
This may assume a very much more complex form, the details of which
will depend to a considerableextent on the nature of the social setting in
which the infant is reared.
SUMMARY
This reportis devotedto the formationand developmentof socialattach-

ments in infancy.It is suggestedthat the core of the attachmentfunction is
representedby the tendencyof the young to seek the proximityof certain
other membersof the speciesand that the most suitableoperationaldefini-
tion may be found in the behaviorof the individualwhen deprivedof such
proximity.
The studytakesthe form of a longitudinalfollow-up,in which 60 infants
were investigatedat four-weeklyintervalsfrom the early weeks on up to
the end of the first year and again at i8 months of age. With the use of an
attachmentscale, based on seven everydayseparationsituations,the follow-
ing three main parameterswere explored:the age at onset of specificattach-
ments,the intensityof such attachments,and the numberof objectsto whom
attachmentsare formed.A measureof fear-of-strangers was also included.
Resultsindicatethat the age at onset of specificattachmentsis generally
to be found in the third quarterof the firstyear,but that this is precededby
a phase of indiscriminateattachmentbehavior;that the intensityof specific
attachmentincreasesmost in the first month following onset and that there-
after fluctuationsoccurin individualcases which make long-termprediction
difficult;and that multiplicityof objectscan be found in some instancesat
the very beginning of the specificattachmentphase, becoming the rule in
most of the remainingcases very soon thereafter.Correlationsbetween the
attachmentvariables,as well as with the fear-of-strangersmeasure, are
presented,and an examinationis also made of the conditionseliciting protest
at proximityloss, of the manner in which protestis expressed,and of the
conditionsnecessaryto terminateprotest.
Individual differenceswith regard to the three main parameterswere
exploredin a subgroupof 36 infants.A numberof variableswere examined
in relationto these individualdifferences,and suggestionsmade regarding
the conditionswhich affectthe manifestationof the attachmentfunction.
The data are discussedin relationto four themes which emerged from
the findings: the nature of the attachmentfunction, its developmentalori-
gins, its developmentaltrends, and the influenceof the social setting.
73
REFERENCES
I. AHRENS,R. Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Physiognomie und Mimikerkennens. Zeit.

f. Experimentelleund Angewandte Psychol., 1954, 2, 412-454.
2. AINSWORTH, M. D. The development of mother-infant interactionamong the Ganda.
In B. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behaviour, II. London: Methuen, 1963.
3. BALDWIN, A. L. The effect of home environment on nursery school behavior. Child
Develpm., 1949, 20, 49-62.
4. BELL, R. Q. Relations between behavior manifestations in the human neonate.
'Child Develpm., I960, 31, 463-477.
5. BENJAMIN, J. D. Prediction and psychopathological theory. In L. Jessner & E.
Pavenstadt (Eds.), Dynamic psychopathology in childhood. Grune & Stratton,
I959.
6. BIRCH,H. G., THOMAS, A. CHESS, S., & HERTZIG,M. E. Individualityin the develop-
ment of children. Developm. Med. Child Neurol., I962, 4, 370-379.
7. BOWLBY, J. The nature of the child's tie to his mother. Int. I. Psycho-Anal., 1958,
39, 350-373.
8. BOWLBY, J. Separationanxiety. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., I960, 41, 1-25.
9. BRACKBILL, Y. Extinction of the smiling response in infants as a function of rein-
forcement schedule. Child Develpm., 1958, 29, 115-124.
Io. BiiHLER, C. The first year of life. Day, 1930.
11. CALDWELL, B. Mother-infant interaction in monomatric and polymatric families.
Amer. J. Orthopsychiat.,1962, 32, 340-341. (Abstract)
12. CALDWELL, B. The usefulness of the critical period hypothesis in the study of filiative
behavior. Merrill-PalmerQuart., I962, 8, 229-242.
13. CASLER, L. Maternal deprivation: a critical review of the literature. Monogr. Soc.
Res. Child Develpm., I961, 26, No. 2.
14. CATTELL, P. The measurementof intelligence of infants and young children. Psychol.
Corp., 1940.
15. CHESS,S., THOMAS, A., & BIRCH,H. Characteristicsof the individual child's be-
havioral responsesto the environment. Amer. I. Orthopsychiat.,1959, 29, 791-809.
x6. COLLIAS, N. E. The development of social behaviour in birds. Auk, 1952, 69,
127-I59.
17. DAVID,M., & APPELL,G. A study of nursing care and nurse-infant interaction. In
B. Foss (Ed.), Determinantsof infant behaviour. London: Methuen, 1961.
18. FREEDMAN, D. G. The infant's fear of strangers and the flight response. [. Child
Psychol. Psychiat., I961, 2, 242-248.
I9. GESELL, A., & AMATRUDA, C. S. Developmental diagnosis. Hoeber, 1947.
20. GEWIRTZ,J. L. A program of researchon the dimensions and antecedents of emo-
tional dependence. Child Develpm., 1956, 27, 205-221.
21. GEWIRTZ,J. L. A learning analysis of the effects of normal stimulation, privation
and deprivationon the acquisition of social motivation and attachment. In B. Foss
(Ed.), Determinantsof infant behaviour. London: Methuen, I96I.
22. GRAHAM, F. K. Behavioral differences between normal and traumatized newborns:
the test procedures. Psychol. Monogr., 1956, 70, I-i6.
23. GRIFFITHS,R. The abilities of babies. Univer. of London Press, 1954.
24. HARLOW, H. F. The nature of love. Amer. Psychologist, 1958, 13, 673-685.
25. HARLOW, H. F. The development of affectional patterns in infant monkeys. In B.
Foss (Ed.), Determinantsof infant behaviour. London: Methuen, 196I.
75
26. HARLOW, H. F., & ZIMMERMANN, R. R. Affectional responses in the infant monkey.
Science, 1959, I30, 421-432.
27. HEATHERS, G. Acquiring dependence and independence: a theoretical orientation.
1. genet. Psychol., 1955, 87, 277-291.
28. HEss, E. H. The relationship between imprinting and motivation. In M. R. Jones
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1959.
29. HINDLEY, C. H. The Griffiths Scale of infant development: scores and prediction
from 3 to I8 months. 1. Child Psychol. Psychiat., I960, I, 99-112.
30. HOFFMAN,L. W., & LPPITT,R. The measurementof family life variables. In P. H.
Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of researchmethods in child development. Wiley, 1960.
3I. LEVY, D. M. The infant's earliest memory of inoculation: a contribution to public
health procedures. 1. genet. Psychol., 1960, 96, 3-46.
32. MEAD, M. Comments in J. M. Tanner & B. INHELDER(Eds.), Discussions on child
development. London: Tavistock, I956.
33. MEAD,M. A cultural anthropologist's approach to maternal deprivation. W.H.O.
Public Health Papers, 1962, No. 14, 45-62.
34. MILLER, N. E., & DOLLARD,J. Social learning and imitation. Yale Univer. Press,
1941.
35. MOLTZ,H. Imprinting: empirical basis and theoretical significance. Psychol. Bull.,
I960, 57, 291-314.
36. MUSsEN,P. H., & CONGER, J. J. Child development and personality. Harper, 1956.
37. PIAGET,J. The origin of intelligence in the child. London, Routledge, x953.
38. PIAGET, J. The child's constructionof reality. London: Routledge, I955.
39. REGISTRAR-GENERAL. Classificationof Occupations. London: HMSO, I960.
40. RHEINGOLD,H. The measurement of maternal care. Child Develpm., 1960, 31,
565-575.
41. RHEINGOLD, H. The effect of environmental stimulation upon social and exploratory
behaviour in the human infant. In B. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant be-
haviour. London: Methuen, I961.
42. RHEINGOLD, H., GEWIRTZ, J. L., & Ross, H. W. Social conditioning of vocalizations
in the infant. i. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1959, 52, 68-73.
43. RICHMOND, J. B., & LUSTMAN, S. L. Autonomic function in the neonate. Psychosom.
Med., 1955, 17, 269-275.
44. SCHAFFER, H. R. Objective observationsof personality development in early infancy.
Brit. J. med. Psychol., 1958, 31, 174-I84.
45. SCHAFFER,H. R. Some issues for research in the study of attachment behaviour. In
B. Foss (Ed.), Determinantsof infant behaviour,II. London: Methuen, I963.
46. SCHAFFER, H. R., & CALLENDER, W. M. Psychologic effects of hospitalization in in-
fancy. Pediatrics,1959, 24, 528-539.
47. SCHNEIRLA,T. C. An evolutionary and developmental theory of biphasic processes
underlying approachand withdrawal. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium
on Motivation. Univer. of Nebraska Press, 1959.
48. SEARS,R. R., MACCOBY, E. E., & LEVIN, H. Patternsof child rearing. Row, Peterson,
I957.
49. SEARS,R. R., WHITING, J. W. M., NowLIs, V., & SEARS,P. S. Some child-rearing
antecedents of aggression and dependency in young children. Genet. Psychol.
Monogr., 1953, 47, I35-236.
50. SEWELL, W. H., MUSSEN, P. H., & HARRIS, C. W. Relationshipamong child training
practices. Amer. sociol. Rev., 1955, 20, 137-148.
51. SHIRLEY, M. M. The first two years: a study of twenty-five babies. Vol. II: In-
tellectual development. Univer. of Minnesota Press, I933.
52. SPITZ,R. A. Hospitalism: an inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in
early childhood. Psychoanal. Stud. Child, 1945, I, 53-74.
53. SPITZ, R. A. The smiling response: a contributionto the ontogenesis social relations.
Genet. Psychol Monogr., 1946, 34, 57-125.
REFERENCES 77
54. SPITZ, R. A. Anxiety in infancy: a study of its manifestations in the first year of
life. Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 1950, 31, 138-143.
55. TANNER,J. Some notes on the reporting of growth data. Hum. Biol., 1951, 23,
93-159.
56. WINITZ,H., & IRWIN,0. C. Infant speech: consistency with age. i. Speech Hearing
Disorders, 1958, i, 245-249.
57. YOUNG, M., & WILLMOTT, P. Family and kinship in East London. London: Rout-
ledge, 1957.

The Development of Social Atachments in Infancy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development of Social Atachments in Infancy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development of Social Attachments in Infancy

Author(s): H. Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy E. Emerson

The Development of Social

Findings: Group Data ....................... 2

Findings: Individual Differences ................. 43

We acknowledgewith pleasurethe help given to us by

THE STUDY OF EARLY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Although infancy has been widely considered as a formative period of

THE CONCEPTOF ATTACHMENT

AN OPERATIONAL CRITERION FOR ATTACHMENT

Some furtherexaminationof the attachmentconcept is necessaryif we

The form which this investigationtook was that of a short-term

Ages of Infants at First Contact

Age in Weeks 0-4 5-8 9-12 I3-16 I7-20 21-24 Total

etc., and the infant is also reportedas protestingon only some

The Fear-of-Strangers Measure

that the use of a differentinterviewerfor each visit might have elicited a

The resultsof this investigationwill be dealt with under two headings.

AGE AT ONSET OP ATTACHMENTS

Age at Onset of SpecificAttachments,of Attachment-to-Mother,

SpecificAttachments Attachment-to-Mother Fear-of-Strangers

attachmentsirrespectiveof the identity of the individualswith whom they

46) is confirmed,namely that around 7 months of age the crucial period

------- INOISCRIMINATE ATTACHMENT

2 13-16 7-20 21-24 29-32 33-36 370 4 45-4 49-52

FIGURE 1-Developmental course of attachments.

LunarMonth Following Age

18 monthst ..................... 55 + .63

Age Periods N rho p

RankOrderCorrelationsof Scoresfor Indiscriminate

Age Periods N rho p

B. 6th and Ist ................... 20 .489 <. 2

Intensityscores for indiscriminateattachment(see Table 5) also yield

Age Periods N rho p

immediatelyprecedingage at onset with scores for specific attachmentin

LunarMonth Following Age at Onsetin First Year iS-Months

Total ........... TOO I o00 oo I100

The other modificationof the customaryview refers to the speed with

Identity of AttachmentObjects: Percentageof SubjectsForming Specific

LunarMonth Following Age at

reportedas an attachmentobjectat everyvisit on which specificattachments

Identity of Principal Attachment Objects: Percentageof SubjectsAccording to

LunarMonth Following Age at Onsetin First Year 8-Months

Once again the importantrole played by fathersis emphasized: of all the

Associationof Breadthand Intensityof SpecificAttachment

Associationof Breadthof Attachmentand Intensityof Fear-of-Strangers

SOME FURTHER OBSERVATIONS

tain whetherprotestis more likely to be elicited by some situationsthan by

- ----'LEFT WITH OTHERS

-.-.-**- O~UTSIDE SHOP

3-Percentage of sample obtaining attachmentscores for situations

Rank Orders of the Seven SeparationSituationsfor Each Age Period According

Put down I I I I I I 3 3 4 5 4.5 3 4

Certainorderlysequencesemerge from such an analysis.In particular,

Although this situationremainsimportant,other situations,especiallyfrom

of the "cuddlers."Again, cautionin attributinga sine qua non role to physi-

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN INTENSITY

Although,as has been described,the intensityscoreobtainedby any one

Association of Demographic Variables with Intensity of

fancy.While the hypothesislinking the amount of frustrationin nurturance

Association of Socializing Severity Indexes with Intensity of

Feeding Rigidity Rating

been shown to have a bearing on the intensitycharacteristicof attachment

The resultsare given in Table 15. Although for both measuresthere is