relationships, attachment, and culture: a tribute to john bowlby

Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, Fall 1991

Relationships, Attachment, and Culture: A Tribute to John Bowlby

ROBERT A. HINDE St. John’s College

Cam bridge

ABSTRACT: As a tribute to John Bowlby, some of the work that he stimulated and facilitated is reviewed. In rhesus monkeys, the behavior of individuals is much influenced by social companions. Dyadic relationships and group structure are crucial. A few days’ separation between mother and infant can produce long-term effects, but the outcome depends on a large number of factors. The need to maintain a proper balance between a research focus on the individual, the relationship, and the family or group is stressed. John Bowlby’s use of comparative data is discussed. This perspective shed light on many aspects of infant and child behavior and was crucial in the development of attachment theory. The dangers of equating what is “natural” with what is “best” are stressed: Cultural desiderata interact with the biological desiderata on which natural selection operated in our environment of evolutionary adaptedness.

RfiSUM6: Pour rendre hommage il John Bowlby, une partie du travail qu’il stimula et facilita est ici examinee. Chez les singes rhesus, le comportement des individus est trbs influence par les compagnons sociaux. Les relations dyadiques et la structure de groupe sont cruciaux. Quelques jours de separation entre la mbre et le nourrisson peuvent avoir des effets A long terme, mais le resultat depend d‘un grand nombre de facteurs. La ntcessitt de maintenir une balance adequate entre la concentration de la recherche sur l’individu, sur la relation, et sur la famille ou le groupe est mise en evidence. L’utilisation de donnees comparatives que faisait John Bowlby est discutk Cette perspective Cclaira bien des aspects du comportement du nourrisson et de l’enfant, et fut crucial dans le dkveloppement de la thCorie d‘attachement. Les dangers de mettre sur le meme pied ce qui est “naturel” avec ce qui est le “meilleur” sont soulignks: les desiderata culturels ont une interaction avec les desiderata biologiques sur lesquels a opert la selection naturelle dans notre milieu d‘adaptation evolutionniste.

RESUMEN: Como un tributo a John Bowlby, se revisa parte del trabajo que 61 estimuld y facilitb. En 10s monos “rhesus,” el comportamiento individual esth muy influenciado por ellla acompaiiante social. Las relaciones bivalentes y la estructura de grupo son cruciales. Una separaci6n de pocos dias entre la madre y el infante puede producir efectos de larga duracih, per0 el resultado depende de un gran numero de factores. Se enfatiza la necesidad de mantener un balance apropiado entre el enfoque de la investiga- ci6n en el individuo, la relaci6n y la familia o grupo. Se discute el us0 que John Bowlby le dio a la infor- maci6n comparativa. Esta perspectiva arroj6 luces sobre muchos aspectos de la conducta del infante y del nifio, y a1 mismo tiempo fue crucial en el desarrollo de la teoria sobre la unibn afectiva. Se enfatizan tambien 10s peligros de equiparar lo que es “natural” con lo que es “mejor:” la desiderata cultural obra reciprocamente con la desiderata bioldgica sobre la selecci6n natural que se opera en nuestro ambiente de adaptacidn evolucionaria.

154 @Michigan Association

for Infant Mental Health

R. A. Hinde 155

Y e : John Bowlbyl\n%$nEPt: LT. @8;bCHiS. WiL1?311E#WNb<9*6BB#-b. h%Wrbn,tsi%. (S1n

~ g ~ i W B t Q n ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ Q 3 n b t ~ ~ ~ j B 0 l t l W Q 1 : 71kTnmB8;bCRBmThb. t3-RRn.HILIi. f ttfiRI3 T G RMrnQbtPBIZ3-fi. tnlifsti8;bCr i QB*URJ < nsBBEMP3 T b)b * BfRDMit: LT . 188. RIM. sag. I& - I n M n l ( 3 2% 6amIz&39+nast%6Ba Lt: *

John Bow I by&: k 6 It;$!tbJffBT'- 9 W f l t : 9 L b T 3 1 Ct: ~ @nz nflhperspec t ive I i . #.!8!tj kIJil\Sf!nRlbfn &4 nlml:XiE.~lfhw. gtSanBlaI:X*QQb~&nTh 3 t: p R ? m a Grit: rdtgnr Grit 6H- I b - Q l R B % a L t < : a4krnWa Lb1Gn,ti. B%iwk-%%I?t . !kmYm4:ga Lb%nt:. 31Llkmalftbr iaSXt"s~:$5c~-C14C:*mTb

In this paper, I attempt to pay a personal tribute to John Bowlby by reviewing some work that he stimulated and facilitated in many ways. This started in the 1950s, when I was fortunate enough to be invited to join John's small weekly discussion group in the Tavistock Clinic. It was a wildly disparate group: a Freudian analyst, a Kleinian analyst, a Piagetian, two varieties of learning theorist, an ethologist, psychiatric social workers, sometimes an antipsychiatrist. We had nothing theoretically in common except an interest in parent-offspring relationships, but we were united by John's remarkable eclecticism, intellectual dynamism, and judicious enthusiasm. At that time John was incubating the ideas that found expression in his trilogy on attachment, three volumes that have had such a tremendous impact on our understanding of child development and on the nature of psychopathology (Bowlby, 196911982, 1973, 1980). For me, personally, those discussions provided the impetus for much of the research I have done since.

In the 1950s most of the evidence for the importance of the mother-child relationship for personality development was retrospective. Experiments with humans were, of course, impossible, but John felt that experiments with monkeys could help. Ac- cordingly he encouraged me to set up a colony of rhesus monkeys and helped me to obtain the necessary funds. In due course we had six groups, each consisting of a male, three or four females, and their offspring.

Much of our early work consisted in mapping the course of the mother-infant relationship, but it soon became apparent that how a rhesus monkey behaved depended crucially on the presence and nature of social companions. Thelma Rowell and I (1%3) compared the responses of individuals to mildly stressful situations in the presence and absence of their group companions. They were crude experiments - the stressful situations being provided by an experimenter offering the monkeys vitamin pills, stand- ing staring at them, and gesticulating at them while wearing a grotesque face mask and a white sheet - but the results were clear: In the absence of the group companions, maintenance activities were lower and fear responses much more frequent than in their presence.

Later Yvette Spencer-Booth and I (Hinde & Spencer-Booth, 1967) showed that the mother-infant relationship was also affected by the presence of social companions. In the absence of group companions, infants spent less time on their mothers and more of their time off their mothers. This is in harmony with the view that rhesus monkey mothers must normally protect their infants from the attentions of other females. This is especially true of the more subordinate females in a group: Childless, more dominant females may steal babies and cuddle them for hours at a time (Rowell, Hinde, & Spencer-Booth, 1964).

As we worked with our small groups of rhesus monkeys over the years, it became apparent that every relationship between two monkeys was affected by other relationships.

156 Infant Mental Health Journal

Thus the relationship of a female monkey with her infant was influenced by the mother’s relationships with other females in the pen, and these by her relationship with the male, and so on. Figure 1 shows the manner in which we came to picture these interrelationships in the early 1970s. Later, Michael Simpson and Sylvia Howe (1986) showed that, although our six monkey groups were generally similar in composition and were kept under similar conditions, each had a special structure that depended on the relationships between, and thus the individual characteristics of, the individuals involved. For example, many aspects of the mother-infant relationship differed significantly between the groups. The groups also differed in “enterprise,” assessed by their readiness to approach social companions other than the mother at 8 weeks and by other age-appropriate measures at 16 and 52 weeks.

This preliminary work with rhesus monkeys confirmed John Bowlby’s prediction that they would provide suitable material for studying the dynamics of the mother-infant relationship. The data on the effects of relationships on relationships and the differences in structure between groups of similar composition resemble aspects of human families and groups as emphasized by family systems theorists (e.g., Minuchin & Fishman, 1981).

FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the relationships within a small group of rhesus monkeys. Attention is focused on the infant. The continuous lines represent relationships between individuals, their thickness roughly corresponding to the amount of interaction occurring. The discontinuous lines represent the effects of relationships on each other (Hinde, 1972).

R. A. Hinde 157

Of course, these monkey groups were smaller and simpler than natural groups. In natural circumstances, each group consists of several matrilines, the females in each matriline being arranged in a dominance hierarchy in inverse order of age. Their daughters are likewise arranged in inverse order of age, each young female rising above her older sisters when they are a few years old, probably with the mother’s help. The matrilines are also arranged in order, each animal in one matriline being superordinated to all those in another (Datta, 1983). The males mostly leave the troop when 4 or 5 years old, each troop having a semipermanent hierarchy of males, most of whom have come from other troops. Males and females of this species and other old-world monkeys may also form relationships which become intense in the consort season (Smuts, 1985).

The social structure of rhesus monkey troops is thus quite complicated and also very different from that of humans. Nevertheless, experiments involving separation of infant from mother for 6 or 13 days produced results approximating closely what John Bowlby (1960) and his colleagues (Robertson, 1953) had seen in children. The separated infant monkeys showed at least the first two stages (“protest” and “despair”) of those that Bowlby had described. At around the same time, workers in other laboratories were obtaining similar results (Seay & Harlow, 1965), though there were some species differences (Dolhinow, 1980; Kaufman & Rosenblum, 1969). Our own data showed that, under certain circumstances, the effects of a 6-day separation lasted for months and even years. Although behavior in the home pen was little affected, there were dramatic differences between previously separated monkeys and controls in mildly stressful situations 5 months and even 2 years later (Hinde, Leighton-Shapiro, & McGinnis, 1978; Hinde & Spencer-Booth, 1971).

However, the effects of a separation experience differed very considerably between infants, and some showed few effects once reunited with their mothers for a few days. The crucial variable seemed to be the mother-infant relationship: Those infants whose mothers rejected their attempts to gain the nipple more often, and which had to work harder to stay near the mother when off her, tended to be more affected. However, as noted above, the mother-infant relationship is in turn affected by the mother’s social relationships and the infant’s social relationships. Other variables that appeared to affect the outcome were the duration of separation, the availability of alternative sources of mothering during the separation period, the sex of the infant, the age at separation, the infant’s previous experience of separation, the mother’s previous experience, the direct effects of the separation on the mother, and the precise circumstances of the separation (i.e., whether the mother was removed leaving the infant in the home pen or vice versa). Thus separation can, but need not, have adverse consequences for infant development, the sequelae depending on diverse factors that interact in a complex way (Hinde & Davies, 1972; Hinde & McGinnis, 1977; Suomi, 1974). This is also true in our own species (Robertson & Robertson, 1971; Rutter, 1972, 1991).

The effect of the precise way in which separation is carried out raises an interesting point that both indicates a difference in the effects of separation between monkeys and humans and highlights the effects of relationships on relationships. It is reasonable to suppose, and James and Joyce Robertson (1971) have provided data on the issue, that a human child is less affected by a separation experience if he or she stays at


home in a familiar environment while the mother goes away than if he or she goes away to a strange place. In rhesus monkeys exactly the opposite proved to be the case. The explanation appeared to be that in rhesus monkeys a mother whose infant comes back to her in the familiar group situation can devote herself to her infant, whereas a mother re-entering a social group after a 13-day absence must re-establish her relationships with her group companions as well as cope with her demanding infant. The mother-infant relationship is thus re-established less satisfactorily in the latter case. What is common to monkeys and humans is that the infants are more disturbed the more the mother-infant relationship is disturbed. Where they differ is in the nature of the treatment that is the more disturbing to that relationship (Hinde & McGinnis, 1971).

All that is now an old story, but it brought home to us the importance of seeing the individual as set within a network of relationships, and it seemed to me to throw doubt on the utility in man of psychotherapeutic techniques that have the effect of isolating the individual from his or her relationships. Data on captive and wild nonhuman primates brought home to us the importance of interindividual relationships (Hinde, 1990) and indicated the importance of distinguishing a series of levels of (social) complexity - physiological mechanisms, individuals, interactions, relationships (consisting of series of interactions over time), groups and societies (Figure 2). Each of these levels has properties that are not relevant to the level below. Thus a relationship may consist of one or many types of interaction, but “uniplex” versus “multiplex” is a property simply not applicable to individual interactions, and the properties at each level depend on dialectical relations with adjacent levels: Thus the course of an interaction depends both on the nature of the relationship of which it is part and on the characteristics of the individuals involved, whereas the nature of a relationship depends both on the component interactions and the group in which it is embedded. Furthermore, each level affects and is affected by the physical environment and, in humans, by the “sociocultural structure” of such things as values, beliefs, or institutions with their constituent roles more or less shared by the individuals in the group in question. It is thus necessary to think of the several levels of social complexity, and of the sociocultural structure, not as entities, but as processes in continuous creation through the agency of the dialectical relations between levels (Hinde, 1987). To understand social behavior, and indeed to understand any individual, it is necessary to cross and recross between these levels of social complexity (Hinde, 1990). Thus to understand the effects of separation on an individual infant, you must study the nature of the mother-infant relationship and how that affects and is affected by other individuals and relationships in the group.

All this will be familiar enough to those who are interested in family systems. My excuse for referring to these monkey data is that they exemplify some of the principles in simple form. In man, as we have seen, another issue enters: Individuals are affected not only by other individuals, but by how they perceive that things ought to be, in other words, by the sociocultural structure. Studying 4-year-olds, Joan Stevenson-Hinde and I found that shy girls had better relationships at home and preschool than nonshy girls, whereas for boys the opposite was the case (Simpson & Stevenson-Hinde, 1985). There was no overall sex difference between boys and girls, and the difference seemed to derive from the value systems of the mother: It is good for

R. A. Hinde 159

SOCIETY

STRUCTURE

PHYSIOLOGICAL FACTORS

ENT

FIG. 2. The dialectical relations between successive levels of social complexity.

little girls to be shy, but not for little boys. Rather similar data have been obtained by Radke-Yarrow, Richters, and Wilson (1988) in the United States.

Cross-cultural studies provide countless other examples of how the sociocultural structure affects, and is affected by, the behavior of individuals. To cite but one example, Bornstein and colleagues compared mother-infant relationships in Japan and in the USA. In very general terms, American culture emphasizes independence and individual assertiveness, whereas Japanese culture emphasizes intergroup relationships. (See Stevenson, in press; Triandis, in press.) The American mothers tended to touch their babies less and use less nonverbal communication than the Japanese, to divert the baby’s attention to objects rather than themselves, and to emphasize objects rather than relationships in their speech (Bornstein, 1989).

The importance of the influence of relationships upon relationships within the family is now widely recognized (e.g., contributions to Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1988), but conceptualizing exactly how this occurs is not easy. Perhaps two points may be made here. In the context of discussions of the family as a system, the family is often said to be an “organized whole” (e.g., Minuchin, 1985). If this refers to the relative constancy of the properties of the family, we must remember that stability may arise in at least two ways. One involves an influence of the sociocultural structure: A family


member or an outsider perceives the family to deviate from a desired structure and attempts to correct it. In other cases, the stability may be maintained by ego-centered acts: If A becomes more assertive to the detriment of B, B might direct punishment or aggression to A so that A’s assertiveness returns to its former level. In such a case the stability of the whole depends on each individual pursuing his or her own goals. Homeostasis may be a property of the family as a whole or it may be a consequence of individuals or relationships within the family (Hinde, 1989).

The difficulty, always, is to maintain a proper balance between the individuals, their relationships, and the group. While a psychodynamic approach sometimes seems to focus too exclusively on individuals to the neglect of the individual‘s relationships, a family systems approach sometimes seems to focus on the group, putting too little emphasis on the individuals. It is essential, I believe, to cross and re-cross the levels of social complexity, and this is facilitated by focusing on the intermediate level of relationships. This is in fact just what John Bowlby was doing with his emphasis on the attachment relationship.

Family systems theorists tend to analyse the family into “subsystems” rather than relationships. Sometimes these seem to be equivalent terms. Sometimes, however, subsystem is used to refer to an entity that may exist in the mind of the therapist, but not in those of the participants, as with the “three generational subsystems” of grandparents, parents, and children. In general, both approaches have advantages. One advantage of the subsystems approach is that it more easily invites description of separate patterns for different subsystems composed of the same people- for instance, the parenting and spouse subsystems. At the same time a relationships approach reminds us that they are indeed the same people, so that what goes on in the parenting subsystem may affect the spouse subsystem, and vice versa.

The final point I shall try to make concerns John Bowlby’s use of comparative data. He (1969/1982) argued that the baby was not a tabula rasa, but came equipped with a repertoire of responses which had been evolved by natural selection in our “environment of evolutionary adaptedness.” Thus for an infant to show fear of fall- ing, of darkness, or of being left alone is not to be seen as irrational: Such fears would have made good sense in an environment in which survival depended on the maintenance of proximity to the mother. (It is easy for us now to overlook what a bold step that was in the atmosphere of both psychoanalytic and learning theory of the time.) In the same way he saw the baby as equipped to form, and needing to form, a relationship with a sensitive care-giver. This led to the view (e.g., Ainsworth, 1979) that a “secure” relationship with the mother was best for the child-“secure” here referring to the type B relationship as assessed in the Ainsworth Strange Situa- tion (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). The implication is that what is natural is best, and that it is natural for children to have sensitive, responsive mothers.

There are, however, several points to be made here, stemming from the fact that biological desiderata, cultural desiderata, and the individual desideratum of psychological well-being may not be identical. First, natural selection operates through survival and reproduction: What is “best” biologically implies that which is conducive to survival and reproduction. But what is biologically best in one situation may not be so in another. Natural selection tends to produce not rigid types of behavior, but alternative strategies, such that the individual shows behavior suited to the current

R. A . Hinde I61

or future circumstances. So while a secure mother-child relationship may be best in some instances, other types of relationship may be better in others. For instance, if parents (perhaps constrained by earlier or current circumstances) are not sensitively responsive, it may be better for the infant to adopt an “avoidant” style, enabling him or her to maintain proximity with an unresponsive mother (Main & Weston, 1982), and if conditions are harsh, it may be biologically better for the infant to grow up with a competitive, assertive behavioral style (Belsky, Steinberg, & Draper, in press; Hinde, 1982, in press).

Second, the environment we live in now is not the same as our environment of evolutionary adaptedness. Behavior or a behavioral style that was biologically adaptive then may not be so now, and the relations between a given type of mother-child relationship and adult personality may be different now from what they were then: Indeed, in the same way that the principles operating in present- day families suffering severe deprivation differ from those in more normal families (Rutter, 1988), the principles operating in development now may differ from those that operated then.

Third, what is biologically “best” for one individual may not be biologically best for another. Thus it may be desirable for the child to extract more maternal care from the mother than it is in her biological interests to give: For instance, if she breast- feeds one baby too long she may reduce her lifetime reproductive success (Trivers, 1 974).

Fourth, what is culturally desirable for parent or child may not be what is biologically desirable. “Sensitive responsiveness” by a mother may come in the way of her own self-fulfillment according to the cultural norms. One can argue that those cultural norms are “wrong,” but that will not mitigate the maternal unhappiness, which may in turn rebound on the child.

Fifth, what is culturally best in one culture may not be so in another. Cultures differ in the personality style they see as desirable. Cultures differ in their prescrip- tions for the parent-child relationship. The sequelae of different types of relationship may differ between cultures. Thus what is “best” in one culture may differ from what is best in another.

Sixth, and finally, the desideratum of “psychological health” may depart from those of either biology or culture or both: Whether or not this is the case is an issue to which more thought needs to be given (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1990).

This is, perhaps, an issue on which John Bowlby and I would not have seen exactly eye-to-eye: In view of the points mentioned, I would be hesistant about describing a particular type of child-mother relationship as optimal. But I hope I have made apparent the very great debt that I owe him, as well as hinting at the way in which he has transformed our understanding of the development of personality. And, as well as his contributions to psychology and psychiatry, I want to suggest that John Bowlby’s life work provides an important paradigm for philosophers and historians of science. Most scientists work within the confines of one theory or approach. Rarely are there initiators who develop new theories, a process often facilitated by crossing theoretical or disciplinary boundaries. John Bowlby was such an initiator.


REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Attachment as related to mother-infant interaction. Advances in the Study

Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale,

Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (in press). Childhood experience, interpersonal development,

Bornstein, M. (1989). Cross-cultural development comparisons. The case of Japanese-American infant

Bowlby, J. (1960). Separation anxiety. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41, 89-1 13. Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss, Vol. I : Attachment. London: Hogarth. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2: Separation. London: Hogarth. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss, Vol. 3: Loss. London: Hogarth. Datta, S. (1983). Contributions to R. A. Hinde (Ed.), Primate social relationships (pp. 93-1 11, 289-297). Dolhinow, P. J. (1980). An experimental study in mother loss in the Indian Langur monkey. Folio

Primatologia, 33, 77-128. Hinde, R. A. (1972). Social behaviour and its development in subhuman primates. London lecture. Eugene,

OR: Oregon State System of Higher Education. Hinde, R. A. (1982). Attachment: Some conceptual and biological issues. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-

Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 60-78). New York: Basic Books. Hinde, R. A. (1987). Individuals, relationships and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinde, R. A. (1989). Reconciling the family systems and the relationships approach to child develop-

ment. In K. Kreppner & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Familysystemsand lifespan development (pp. 159-164). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hinde, R. A. (1990). The interdependence of the behavioral sciences. Croonian lecture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 329. 217-227.

Hinde, R. A. (in press). When is an evolutionary approach useful? Child Development. Hinde, R. A., & Davies, L. M. (1972). Changes in mother-infant relationship after separation in rhesus

monkeys. Nature, 239, 41-42. Hinde, R. A., Leighton-Shapiro, M. E., & McGinnis, L. (1978). Effects of various types of separation

experience on rhesus monkeys 5 months later. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 19, 199-21 1. Hinde, R. A., & McGinnis, L. M. (1977). Some factors influencing the effects of temporary mother-

infant separation. Psychological Medicine, 7, 197-222. Hinde, R. A., & Spencer-Booth, Y. (1967). The effect of social companions on mother-infant relations

in rhesus monkeys. In D. Morris (Ed.), Primate ethology (pp. 267-286). London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Hinde, R. A., & Spencer-Booth, Y. (1971). Effects of brief separation from mother on rhesus monkeys. Science, 173, 111-118.

Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1988). Relationships within families. Oxford: Clarendon. Hinde, R. A., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1990). Attachment: Biological, cultural and individual desiderata.

Human Development, 33, 62-72. Kaufman, I. C., & Rosenbaum, L. A. (1967). The reaction to separation in infant monkeys: Anaclitic

depression and conservation-withdrawal. Psychosomatic Medicine, 29. 648-675. Main, M., & Weston, D. R. (1982). Avoidance of the attachment figure in infancy. In M. Parkes &

J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Theplace of attachment in human behavior (pp. 31-59). New York: Basic Books.

Minuchin, P. (1985). Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child Development, 56. 289-301.

Minuchin, S., & Fishman, H. C. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Radke-Yarrow, M., Richters, J., &Wilson, W. E. (1988). Child development in a network of relation-

ships. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families (pp. 48-67). Oxford: Clarendon.

of Behavior, 9, 2-52.

NJ: Erlbaum.

and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development.

and mother activities and interactions. Developmental Review, 9. 171-204.

R. A . Hinde I63

Robertson, J. (1953). Robertson, J., & Robertson, J. (1971). Young children in brief separation: A fresh look. Psychoanalytic

Study of the Child, 26, 264-315. Rowell, T. E., & Hinde, R. A. (1963). Responses of rhesus monkeys to mildly stressful situations. Animal

Behaviour, 11, 235-243. Rowell, T. E., Hinde, R. A., & Spencer-Booth, Y. (1964). “Aunt”-infant interaction in captive rhesus

monkeys. Animal Behavior, 12, 219-226. Rutter, M. (1972). Maternal deprivation reassessed. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Rutter, M. (1988). Functions and consequences of relationships: Some psychopathological considera-

tions. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families @p. 332-353). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Rutter, M. (1991). A fresh look at “maternal deprivation.” In P. Bateson (Ed.), The development and integration of behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seay, B., & Harlow, H. F. (1965). Maternal separation in the rhesus monkey. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 140, 434.

Simpson, A. E., & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1985). Temperamental characteristics of 3-4 year old boys and girls and child-family interactions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26, 43-53.

Simpson, R. J . A., & Howe, S. (1986). Group and matriline differences in the behavior of rhesus monkey infants. Animal Behaviour, 34, 444-459.

Smuts, B. (1985). Sex and friendship in baboons. Chicago: Aldine. Stevenson, H. W. (in press).

“A two-year-old goes to hospital.” A guide to the film. London: Tavistock.

The development of prosocial behavior in large-scale collective societies. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation and prosocial behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Suomi, S. J. (1974). Factors affecting responses to social separation in rhesus monkeys. In G. Serban & A. Kling (Eds.), Animal models in human psychobiology (pp. 9-26). Plenum: New York.

Triandis, H. C. (in press). Cross-cultural differences in assertiveness/competition vs. group loyalty/cooperation. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.), Cooperation andprosocial behaviour. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249-264.

relationships, attachment, and culture: a tribute to john bowlby

Documents