Attachment Theory and Its Impact on Relationships

Page Summary

An in-depth explainer of attachment theory and its impact on relationships, opening with Harlow's terrycloth-monkey experiments that overturned the food-based view of infant bonding. It traces the theory's intellectual lineage from Bowlby and Ainsworth, explains internal working models, and reviews the empirical record including the Minnesota Longitudinal Study, Hazan and Shaver's adult-romantic-attachment work, Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg's cross-cultural evidence, and Fraley on stability, alongside four in-depth case studies and critiques such as Rutter's challenge to maternal-deprivation specificity and behavioral-genetics confounds.

Contributions

Every accepted correction to this page is recorded with the exact change, so readers can see how the page improved over time.

1. 11 July 2026 · corrected by Emir Baycan

   2 corrections applied: Fraley (2002) appeared in Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123-151, as the article's own reference list correctly states. | Rothbaum et al. (2000) 'Attachment and culture' appeared in American Psychologist, 55(10), 1093-1104, as the reference list correctly states.

   Before

   A meta-analysis by R. Chris Fraley, published in Developmental Psychology; Gilda Morelli published a critique in Psychological Bulletin in 2000

   After

   A meta-analysis by R. Chris Fraley, published in Personality and Social Psychology Review; Gilda Morelli published a critique in American Psychologist in 2000

   Why: Fraley (2002) appeared in Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 123-151, and Rothbaum et al. (2000) Attachment and culture appeared in American Psychologist, 55(10), 1093-1104, matching the article's own reference list.

   View the full record →

Contributors In This Page