1. Objectifs

Intentions :
Recenser les développements dans l’attribution de l’attachement de personnes adultes.

2. Méthode

Type de traitement des données :
Recension

3. Résumé

« Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1982) constitutes one of the most influential theories of socio-emotional development, and some of its most impressive developments have stemmed from the study of attachment in adulthood (e.g. Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Main, Kaplan & Cassidy, 1985). The interest in attachment as a valid and meaningful construct in adulthood is well justified by both Bowlby’s (1982, 1988) and Ainsworth’s (1989) insistence on the influence of the attachment system across the lifespan. However, neither Bowlby or [sic] Ainsworth gave much guidance as to the measurement of attachment beyond childhood. Perhaps as a result of this lack of theoretical framework, numerous researchers have developed attachment measures based on different assumptions regarding how attachment is best assessed in adulthood. Nearly all research on adult attachment emanates from one of two assessment traditions: measurement of attachment within the nuclear family (the developmental approach), or measurement of attachments to contemporary peers (the social/personality approach).
One of the most unfortunate (although by no means necessary) consequences of the emergence of these assessment traditions has been the somewhat rigid division between developmental and social/personality researchers. The professional tensions between developmental and social researchers not only are unnecessary but also have impeded the progress of the field of adult attachment. There is no doubt that our field would greatly benefit from moving toward integration and open-minded communication between the two traditions. In that sense, Shaver and Mikulincer’s article (hereafter cited as 2002) represents a very significant contribution that we salute not only for its importance and relevance, but also for its remarkable thoughtfulness and scientific integrity. In this commentary, we wish to further discuss such issues as the distinction between experimental sophistication and conceptual meaning, the experimental demonstration of causality, and the related yet clearly distinct concepts tapped by self-reports and interview methodologies. » (p. 171)