Review of General Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association

2013, Vol. 17, No. 1, 28 –39 1089-2680/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0030030

Origins of Modern Ideas on Love and Loss:

Contrasting Forerunners of Attachment Theory

Margaret S. Stroebe John Archer

Utrecht University and University of Groningen University of Central Lancashire

In this article we examine some origins of John Bowlby’s attachment theory, a highly influential
scientific approach to love and loss in contemporary society. Although some potential influences have
been well-documented, others have either received no recognition or have failed to have an impact. We
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

focus specifically on three of Bowlby’s predecessors, exploring how these were differentially influential
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

on his work. The first of these, Charles Darwin, was amply endorsed by Bowlby, both in terms of the
adaptive background to his theory and more specifically in relation to Darwin’s study of the emotions
associated with grief. The second, Alexander Shand, was recognized as important but is cited little and
omitted from the central issue of the resolution of grief. The third, Bertrand Russell, formulated ideas on
attachment and separation before Bowlby, and possibly contributed to the intellectual forces that
influenced him too. To our knowledge, Russell’s work was not cited by Bowlby, despite the fact that it
contained the seeds of many of Bowlby’s ideas on attachment. It remains unclear whether this was
because he had not read Russell or through omission; there is no definitive evidence either way. Tracing
these historical origins illustrates how theory development involves a process of integration and selection,
how even radical theories are rooted in previous scholarship, and how it can take decades for inspiring
ideas to develop into full-blown, well-tested, theories.

Keywords: attachment, theory, grief, bereavement, historical origins

Modern ideas on love (attachment) and loss (grief) are those that
have taken the study of these topics from the realm of clinical
speculation to that of empirically tested theory. They include the
substantiation of attachment theory principles (see, e.g., Mi-
kulincer & Shaver, 2008), derived from the earlier writings of
Bowlby (1961, 1969/1982); and the empirical study of grief (e.g.,
Bonanno, & Keltner, 1997; Stroebe, & Stroebe, 1991), based on
Bowlby’s (1973, 1980a) later work on permanent as well as
temporary losses of attachment.
The origins of most of the current ideas that formed the basis of
empirical studies in this area are to be found in Bowlby’s work
(Bowlby, 1961, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980b), together with that of
two of his colleagues, Mary Ainsworth and Colin Murray Parkes,
who developed the study of attachment security and styles (e.g.,
Ainsworth, & Bowlby, 1954; Bowlby, Ainsworth, Boston &
Rosenbluth, 1956), and grief (Bowlby & Parkes, 1970; Parkes,
2006). Although a clinician, whose training was rooted in psycho-
analysis (van der Horst & van der Veer, 2010), Bowlby saw the
need to develop a body of theory that could be subject to empirical
This article was published Online First February 4, 2013.
Margaret S. Stroebe, Department of Clinical & Health Psychology,
Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands and Department of Clinical
Psychology & Experimental Psychopathology, University of Groningen,
Groningen, The Netherlands; John Archer, School of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Margaret
S. Stroebe, Department of Clinical & Health Psychology, Utrecht Univer-
sity, Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: M.S.Stroebe@UU.NL
28
scrutiny. In particular, he advocated replacing psychoanalytically
based speculations with a body of knowledge derived largely from
empirical research evidence. As he put it: “as a body of theory
psychoanalysis has suffered from a number of crippling handi-
caps” (Bowlby, 1980b, p. 650). He went on to state that, as a result
of deriving its material from patients’ “inevitably biased ac-
counts,” “hypotheses, unchecked by independent data, have run
wild” (p. 650). By the close of the last century, attachment theory
had evolved into what Cassidy and Shaver (1999) described as
“one of the broadest, most profound, and most creative lines of
research in 20th-century psychology” (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999,
Preface; p. x).
In developing his ideas, Bowlby obviously had a number of
intellectual influences, and many of their contributions are dis-
cussed extensively in his three-volume work on attachment and
loss (Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980a). Other sources of influ-
ence include those from his personal life, ranging from his early
childhood separation experiences to the formative impact of his
work with troubled young people in early adulthood (Holmes,
1993). They also involve the historical and societal context in
which he developed his ideas (see van Dijken, van der Veer, van
Izendoorn, & Kuijpers, 1998; Newcombe & Lerner, 1982; van der
Horst, 2011). But it was in close collaboration with Ainsworth and
Parkes that Bowlby derived the basic tenets of attachment theory.
Subsequent ideas about grief came from diverse fields, including
cybernetics, information processing, developmental psychology,
and ethology (Bretherton, 1992; van der Horst, 2011). In formu-
lating the essentially biological nature of these processes, he in-
corporated, in particular, the contributions of Darwin and the
European ethologists, and also U.S. comparative psychologists. Of
 ORIGINS OF MODERN IDEAS ON LOVE AND LOSS
course, psychoanalytic writings— on loss in particular—were used
extensively to develop his theory.
Bowlby had personal contact with a broad range of scholars who
were also influential in forming his ideas, including those associ-
ated with the British Psychoanalytical Society (Holmes, 1993). He
worked closely with James Robertson, documenting and filming
patterns of reactions of hospitalized children to separation from
their parents (Bowlby & Robertson, 1952; see van der Horst & van
der Veer, 2009). In the early 1950s he developed a friendship with
Konrad Lorenz (van der Horst, 2011), and subsequently developed
close collaboration with the British ethologist Robert Hinde, who
provided “generous and stern guidance” (Bowlby, 1980b, p. 650),
and who joined Bowlby’s seminars at the Tavistock Clinic. Here
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
“Freudian and Kleinian analysts, Hullian and Skinnerian learning
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
theorists, a Piagetian, psychiatric social workers, and an antipsy-
chiatrist” joined together to search for a framework to understand
the mother-infant relationship (Stevenson-Hinde, 2007, p. 337).
Furthermore, even though he was convinced that he was develop-
ing novel scientific truth in forming attachment theory, Bowlby
acknowledged that others thought along similar lines. In particular,
he spoke of Donald Winnicott (1896 –1971), pediatrician, psychi-
atrist, sociologist, and psychoanalyst, who wrote about early emo-
tional development in the 1940s and was particularly recognized
for his concept of the “good enough mother,” which refers to
maternal sensitivity, a concept that was compatible with attach-
ment theory principles (Fonagy, 1999). Bowlby acknowledged
Winnicott in the following way: “the integrating function of the
unique mother-figure is one the importance of which I believe can
hardly be exaggerated; in this I am at one with Winnicott who has
constantly emphasized it” (Bowlby, 1958, p. 370).
In this article, while recognizing these many influences on
Bowlby’s work, we focus on the intellectual contributions of three
earlier authors to Bowlby’s ideas on attachment and loss, so as to
highlight the contrasting nature of their contributions. The first,
Charles Darwin, was both cited and fully used by Bowlby; the
second, Alexander Shand, was initially cited approvingly, yet not
used in formulating the central aspects of Bowlby’s theory of grief;
and the third, Bertrand Russell, had ideas very similar in outline to
the key concepts of attachment theory and yet was not cited at all.
We begin with Charles Darwin, whose contributions were to
provide an evolutionary background for attachment, and to explore
the emotional expression of grief in The Expression of the Emo-
tions in Man and Animals. Alexander Shand was a British psy-
chologist, well known during the earlier part of the last century,
who wrote about grief in his book The Foundations of Character.
The third source is Bertrand Russell’s The Conquest of Happiness.
We examine the latter in most detail, because, while Bowlby
claimed to recognize the contributions of Darwin and Shand, to the
best of our knowledge, Russell is not mentioned by Bowlby or his
associates, and yet his ideas bear a striking similarity to funda-
mental tenets of attachment theory. However, it is important to
note that it is not our purpose to argue that Bowlby should have
given credit to Russell. The difference between Russell’s propo-
sitions based on his experience and observations (in one book
chapter), and Bowlby’s systematic formulation and painstaking
development of his ideas into a broader, far more elaborate theory
(culminating in a three volume work), would not speak for this.
Rather, in tracing each of the above-mentioned historical origins,
our aim is to illustrate how innovative theorizing may be in-
29
spired—selectively— by scholarship that is around at a particular
period in history. Before embarking on our discussion of these
three influences, we provide a brief outline the main tenets of
Bowlby’s theory of attachment and loss.
Attachment Theory
The core ideas embedded in Bowlby’s work (Bowlby, 1953a,
1969/1982, 1973, 1980a) are many and complex. We risk over-
simplifying them in a short summary, but brief descriptions of
some concepts are necessary for developing our discussion of their
origins. Attachment can be defined simply as an emotional con-
nection to someone, evidenced by proximity seeking, feelings of
security in the persons’ presence, and protest on separation from
this attachment figure. Early theorists were interested in the in-
fant’s attachment to its mother, the need for such a connection
being a fundamental part of human experience (Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters, & Wall, 1978). Affect regulation was understood to be the
force impelling proximity seeking during periods of separation
(anxiety) from the attachment figure. The clinging of the infant to
the mother was regarded as serving the biological purpose of
keeping the infant close and thereby increasing its chance of
survival (originally in an environment beset by predators). Infants
maintain proximity to their caregiver, they stay nearby and safe,
and this provides a source of comfort and protection from threat-
ening experiences. As such, attachment provides a secure base (the
feeling of safety provided by an attachment figure, see Ainsworth,
1982; Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1988) for the infant to explore out-
wardly, and the possibility of returning to this safe haven (i.e., the
place to seek reassurance when distressed). Thus, the infant is
biologically disposed to use the caregiver as a haven of safety
while exploring the environment. Infants need to know that the
caregiver is dependable, in the sense of being there when needed,
providing a sense of secure attachment, a solid base from which to
explore the world.
Secure attachment is reflected in normal distress when the care-
giver leaves, and pleasure on her return. However, there are also
patterns of insecure attachment, which—importantly—are linked
to inconsistent treatment, neglect, and/or rejection by the care-
giver. As such, the style of attachment of the caregiver has a major
impact on that of the infant/child. There is a certain degree of
concordance, cross-generation transmission of patterns of attach-
ment (e.g., George & Solomon, 1999; Rosenstein & Horowitz,
1996). Three insecure forms of attachment have been identified
(e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978; Main & Solomon, 1986). Ambivalent
(preoccupied) attachment is characterized by clinging when the
caregiver leaves, and rejection and anger on return. Avoidant
(dismissing) infants stay calm when the mother leaves, but avoid
and reject her on return. Disorganized (disoriented) infants display
variable behavior on such occasions, showing contradictory and
sometimes apparently disoriented behavior.1 Although there are
long-term effects of early attachment insecurity experiences on
mental health (e.g., they are associated with psychopathology,
1
Later, rather than styles, dimensions of avoidance and anxiety in (adult)
relationships were described and these were either related to working
models of the self and of others (e.g., Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991), or
to attachment-related avoidance and attachment-related anxiety (Mi-
kulincer & Shaver, 2007).
 30 STROEBE AND ARCHER
such as personality disorders), it is also important to note that
insecure attachment styles are considered adaptive in the sense that
they enable children to cope in the face of less-than-optimal
parental circumstances (Shorey & Snyder, 2006).
Not surprisingly, given such long-term connections, the idea of
continuity or stability in patterns of attachment across the life span is
fundamental to attachment theory. Childhood attachment styles per-
sist with reasonable stability and influence adult behavior, although
they can also change, being influenced by relationship experiences
and/or (traumatic) life events (Feeney, 1999). Just as security of
attachment influences the development and maintenance of adult
relationships (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), so does it affect the ending of
such relationships, when a loved one dies. For example, securely
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
attached individuals are generally able to cope and come to terms with
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
their bereavement more easily than insecurely attached individuals
(Fraley & Bonanno, 2004; Parkes, 2006). According to attachment
theory, loss involves a set of sequential reactions, essentially protest,
searching and despair, forming a stage or phase view of loss (Bowlby,
1980a; Bowlby & Parkes, 1970). Underlying these grief reactions is
the process of grief work, an effortful struggle to confront thoughts
and feelings relating to the deceased, to come to terms with the fact
that the loved one is no longer present.
The body of empirical evidence supporting the attachment the-
ory principles described above has expanded enormously across
recent decades (see, e.g., Cassidy & Shaver, 2008; Mikulincer &
Shaver, 2007). For example, Waters, Hamilton and Weinfeld
(2000) presented three long-term longitudinal studies relevant to
the hypothesis that adolescent/adult representations of attachment
derive (in part) from attachment security in infancy. Like others
(e.g., Cassidy, 2000; Fraley & Shaver, 2000), Waters et al. (2000)
concluded that there was much evidence supporting this stability
of attachment hypothesis. Discontinuity in attachment representa-
tions was related to negative life events and circumstances, as
attachment theory also maintains.
Charles Darwin’s Influence on Bowlby
There were two aspects of Darwin’s work that influenced Bowl-
by’s thinking. The first is evolution by natural selection (Darwin,
1859/1911) as a basis for understanding the origin and scope of
attachment and loss; the second is Darwin’s specific writings on
grief (Darwin, 1872/1904), particularly his description of the dual
nature of the grief process, on which Bowlby based his stage or
phase view of loss.
Bowlby (1973, pp. 449 –53) used Darwin’s writings on evolu-
tion by natural selection (Darwin, 1859/1911) to underpin his
conception of attachment and separation, and to contrast this
approach with Freud’s ideas which were not evolutionarily based
(Bowlby, 1973, pp. 50, 105). Bowlby (1973, p. 106) stated that the
paradigm he was using to understand separation reactions was
derived from “current evolution theory” and he set out several
aspects that follow from this, mainly derived from ethological
theory, in which he had been interested for some time (Bowlby,
1953b; see van der Horst, 2011, pp. 75–102).
In developing his conception of attachment, Bowlby (1969/
1982) made a clear distinction (following Tinbergen, 1951/1969)
between causation (the motivational system) and evolutionary
function: this referred to the consequences of attachment that had
led to its perpetuation by natural selection in the human ancestral
environment. In particular, Bowlby argued that the primary func-
tion of the attachment bond between offspring and parent was
protection from predators, especially important when there is a
long period of infant dependence (Bowlby, 1969, pp. 275–278).
This is likely to be correct, from what is now known about the
danger that predators posed to early hominins, and indeed to
humans today (Hart & Sussman, 2005).
Bowlby did not address the more puzzling question of why, from
an evolutionary perspective, there should be insecure forms of attach-
ment, which he viewed as pathological consequences of certain forms
of parental behavior. Their frequency, and relative consistency in
different cultures, both raise the question of why such apparently
pathological forms should be so common. It was only later, when
evolutionary theorists applied the concept of alternative evolutionary
strategies—those that would be differentially adaptive in different
environments—to the study of attachment that this issue was ad-
dressed. At present, the two main theories are that insecure attach-
ments are adaptive either as reproductive strategies under certain
frequently occurring environmental conditions (Belsky, Steinberg, &
Draper, 1991), or as differential responses to danger that will collec-
tively advantage the group to which they belong (Ein-Dor, Mi-
kulincer, Doron, & Shaver, 2010).
How it is that the apparently maladaptive process of grief could
have arisen by natural selection has proved a puzzle for many re-
searchers (Archer, 1999, pp. 59– 64). Bowlby answered this question
in the following way: grief forms only a very small part of the much
more common separation reactions, whose adaptive value is apparent.
He stated: “In the course of our evolution, it appears, our instinctual
equipment has come to be so fashioned that all losses have been
assumed to be retrievable and are responded to accordingly.”
(Bowlby, 1961, p. 333). Thus the mechanism controlling these reac-
tions is of ancient origin and not sufficiently flexible to apply to one
case and not the other. This view was reiterated subsequently in the
last part of Bowlby’s trilogy (Bowlby (1980a, p. 91).
Darwin’s writings on grief are to be found in his book on the
expression of emotions (Darwin, 1872/1904). Three aspects are
noteworthy: first, detailed descriptions of the expressions associ-
ated with grief, and in particular weeping; second, descriptions of
similar expressions in several monkeys and apes, thus locating
grief in the biological heritage of the human species; and third the
dual reactions associated with grief, which formed a basis for
phase or stage descriptions of grief and separation reactions.
Bowlby (1961, p. 333) used Darwin’s description of crying in
both separated infants and bereaved adults to suggest that both are
activated by the same system, “an ancient instinctual response.” As
a psychoanalyst he was particularly interested in this link with the
childhood separation response, because it resonated with his two
previous articles on separation and loss in young infants (Bowlby,
1960a, 1960b). Bowlby (1961, p. 338) credited Parkes with alert-
ing him to Darwin’s work on grief, some 10 years before Parkes’
(1972) book on grief was published.2 It is not clear whether it was
awareness of Darwin’s writings that enabled Bowlby (1961), and
independently Pollock (1961), to view the mainly anecdotal ac-
counts of grief in animals as part of a wider picture informed by
evolutionary thinking. The common reactions shown by human
2
This is to be found in Bowlby’s foreword to the first edition of Parkes
(1972).
 ORIGINS OF MODERN IDEAS ON LOVE AND LOSS
and nonhuman mammals, and the similarities between grief and
separation reactions, led to their subsequently being viewed as
common biological reactions with the same underlying cause.
A more direct influence on Bowlby’s theorizing about attach-
ment and loss stems from two passages in which Darwin (1872/
1904, pp. 79 – 81, 181–183) described the general effects of grief
in terms of two reactions: one involves violent and frantic move-
ments, including weeping and anger, and the other—following on
from this—is a passive reaction, involving feelings of sadness and
despair. Bowlby (1973) makes the same distinction when he writes
of the separation reactions of a child, as follows:
The way he behaves follows a typical sequence. At first he protests
vigorously and tries by all the means available to him to recover his
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
mother. Later he seems to despair of recovering her but none the less
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
remains preoccupied with her and vigilant for her return (p. 46).
Bowlby added a further phase to this sequence: “Later he seems
to lose interest in his mother and to become emotionally detached
from her.” (p. 46). The three words in italics formed the basis of
his phase or stage view of separation, set out previously (Bowlby,
1960a, 1961): in this later excerpt, we can see their similarity with
the two passages in Darwin (1872/1904), when he contrasted the
initial distress reaction with a subsequent one characterized by
sadness and despair. In the first of these passages, Darwin (1872/
1904, pp. 79) wrote the following: “When a mother suddenly loses
her child, sometimes she is frantic with grief, and must be con-
sidered to be in an excited state.” After elaborating the character-
istics of the “excited state” he wrote: “As soon as the sufferer is
fully conscious that nothing can be done, despair and deep sorrow
takes the place of frantic grief” (p. 80).
Bowlby later added another phase, the initial shock and disbe-
lief, to form four phases of grief (Bowlby & Parkes, 1970; Bowlby,
1980a). Although this view of grief has been influential among
practitioners, empirical evidence indicates a more flexible process
involving the intermingling of aspects of the distress and despair
reactions (Archer, 1999, pp. 97–100). Nevertheless the existence
of an active stress reaction and a more passive longer-term one to
both separation and loss is well established, whether it is sequential
or intermingled.
In summary, the main influence of Darwin on Bowlby’s con-
ception of attachment and loss lies in the location of these pro-
cesses in the evolved repertoire of the species, having arisen by
natural selection, and showing similarities to reactions found in
nonhuman animals. A secondary influence is Darwin’s two-
process characterization of grief, which formed the basis of Bowl-
by’s description of both separation and grief.
Alexander Shand and the Laws of Sorrow
Despite the important influence of Darwin, Bowlby’s primary
source in formulating his ideas about grief was Freud’s Mourning
and Melancholia (Freud, 1917/1957), in which it is argued that
grief is an active process taking up time and energy and that it
serves the function of detaching the person from painful memories
of the deceased. This process was later termed “grief work,” and it
became accepted as being essential to the resolution of grief
(Archer, 1999, pp. 108–129). Empirical challenges to this view
began with the study by Stroebe and Stroebe (1991) and continued
with further studies (e.g., Bonanno, Keltner, Holen, & Horowitz,
31
1995; Stroebe, Stroebe, Schut, Zech, & van den Bout, 2002) and
theoretical formulations (e.g., Archer, 2008; Bonanno & Kaltman,
1999; Stroebe & Schut, 1999), so that its central premise is now
doubtful.
In this section we consider an alternative source known to
Bowlby, and whose ideas on the resolution of grief resonate more
with modern empirical evidence than those of Freud. Bowlby
warmly endorsed the contributions of the British psychologist
Alexander Shand to the subject of grief, stating that he “delineates
most of the features of grief as we now know them” (Bowlby,
1980a, pp. 24–25). Both here and earlier (Bowlby, 1961) he also
stated that Shand’s book “deserves to be better known.” He added
that “Shand’s. . .ideas are strongly endorsed and given a central
position” (Bowlby, 1980a, p. 27). Yet, apart from one quote
regarding the central importance of anger in grief (p. 29), and a
short quote a further two pages on (pp. 31–2), remarking on the
complexity of grief, Shand is not mentioned in any of the remain-
ing 408 pages of Bowlby’s book.3 Nor is he cited by Parkes (1972,
1986, 1996). Thus Shand’s writings on grief were known by
Bowlby, and apparently approved of, yet are only cited briefly in
developing his ideas.
Alexander Shand was an influential early British psychologist
best known for the three editions of his book The Foundations of
Character (Shand, 1914, 1920, 1927). In his obituary, C.S. Myers
(1936) wrote: “This standard work is so well known and appreci-
ated by all students of the subject that its admirable and enduring
qualities need not be stressed here.” Yet his work was little known
in Bowlby’s time and remains little known today. One part of the
book sets out “the laws of sorrow,” in modern terms a series of
empirically testable hypotheses about grief. Shand described the
main features of grief and its individual variations, and other
aspects that we know from modern research, and illustrated them
with reference to the writings of the great philosophers, poets,
playwrights, and novelists, there being no empirical research re-
lating to them at the time of writing.
Before we consider Shand’s “laws of sorrow,” it is worth noting
that he also commented on the function of grief in the following
way: “It is the great function of sorrow in love, through its
tendencies of attraction and restoration, to establish a durable bond
with the object. For the bond which joy alone forms with an object
would in its absence be quickly dissolved, were there no sorrow to
reinforce it” (Shand, 1914, p. 333). Shand’s comments are similar
to a view expressed by Darwin (1843), in a letter to his cousin,
whose wife had died in childbirth. Darwin wrote: “grief is the
necessary price for having been born with . . . such feelings” (i.e.,
love for his wife). This view was not developed by Bowlby or
Parkes, but was taken up in later writings on grief, by Badcock
(1990), and Archer (1999, 2001), who stated that grief is a by-
product of “mechanisms whose primary function is to maintain
social relationships that are crucial for fitness” (Archer, 2001, p.
269). Without the mental pain associated with separation or loss,
relationships would assume an “out of sight, out of mind” char-
acter.
3
Shand appears in the index for pages 131 and 132 but is not referred to
on either page: this is likely to have been a misprint for pages 31–32, where
he is mentioned but not indexed. Altogether there are five index entries for
Shand, whereas there are 22 for Freud.
 32 STROEBE AND ARCHER

A summary of the so-called “Laws of sorrow” is presented in
Table 1. Shand’s “laws” described several of the central features of
grief later articulated by Bowlby and Parkes, although Shand is
only cited in relation to two issues, the urge to regain the lost
loved-one, and anger as a part of the grief process. In addition, he
noted the importance of the strength of the attachment for gener-
ating the grief reaction, and identification with the deceased. He
also described important sources of individual differences, and
contextual influences on grief, such as the additional distress when
death is sudden, and the importance of social support.
All of these topics have their parallels in Bowlby’s and Parkes’
writings. Bowlby (1980, p. 27) endorsed Shand’s contribution to
understanding “the complex motivation present in situations evok-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Shand (1914) noted that grief tended to evoke anger, writing that
“The tendency of sorrow to arouse anger under certain conditions
appears to be part of the fundamental constitution of the mind” (p.
347). Bowlby (1980a, p. 29) cited this statement, noting the central
place of anger in Shand’s writings on grief, although Shand is not
mentioned again in the many subsequent references to anger by
Bowlby, nor in the chapter on anger in Parkes’ book.
In most cases, there are similarities between Shand’s “laws of
sorrow” (see Table 1) and Bowlby’s later writings on grief, two of
which are acknowledged, and others unremarked. There is, in
addition, one crucial difference between their writings. Shand
distinguished between (1) disclosing thoughts and feelings asso-
ciated with grief to others, which he stated is beneficial, and (2) the

ing grief” (italics in original), in particular the need to seek ways expression of negative emotions, which he stated is not. These two
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

of being reunited with the deceased. Shand (1914, p. 323) had
described the way that a bereaved person is attracted to the lost
loved-one and seeks to maintain all that remains of their former
union. Bowlby gave prominence to the urge to search for in his
account of grief, naming the active phase of grief as “the phase of
yearning and searching for the lost figure” (Bowlby, 1980a, p. 86).
Parkes (1972) devoted a chapter to “searching” in his book on
bereavement, and he viewed the urge to be reunited with the
deceased as central to the grief process and the key to understand-
ing the motivation behind the feelings and actions of bereaved
people.
features have been viewed together as components of “grief work”
in the formulation derived from Freud. However, modern research
has clearly demonstrated that they are distinct in the way that
Shand indicated (see Table 1).
The theory of grief work holds that a resolution of grief (some-
thing that typically occurs in most bereaved people over time) can
only be achieved by confronting thoughts and feelings associated
with the loss, and actively working through these over time (Ar-
cher, 1999, pp. 119 –125; Stroebe, 1992–3; Stroebe & Stroebe,
1991). It follows from this that avoiding expression of the emo-
tions associated with grief should be detrimental to progress to-

Table 1
A Selection of Shand’s Laws of Sorrow

Lawa Comment Modern sources

58. When a primary desire is frustrated, sorrow
tends to occur, in proportion to the strength
of the desire
59. The grieving person is attracted to the
loved object and strives to maintain the
former union
60. The grieving person tends to seek to restore
the lost loved-one as they were
67/68. Grief is intensified when the loss is
sudden and unexpected, and lessened when it
is foreseen
69. Grief lessened by emotional support
72. Grief lessened by being disclosed
73. Grief is less painful and intense when
controlled
74. Grief is greater if the cause of the loss is
attributed to the self or the loved-one
75. Grief tends to arouse anger
78. Extreme grief tends to destroy the capacity
to enjoy other activities enjoyed before
a
The “laws” are paraphrased from longer statement, and the term grief is used instead of sorrow. The laws of sorrow are those described by Shand, 1920.
Grief is proportional to the strength of attachment to Archer (1999, pp. 165–167)
the lost person or object.
Grief is viewed as a form of frustration – of an Parkes (1972, pp. 74–76); Klinger (1975)
important biological system involving emotional
attachments
Grief involves an active searching component, Parkes (1972, pp. 57–76); Bowlby (1980a,
which compels people to seek out associations pp. 86–100); Archer (1999, pp. 76–86)
with the lost loved-one
Grief also involves identification with the lost Parkes (1972, pp. 77–84); Archer (1999, pp.
loved-one, and seeking to be reunited 84–89)
Unexpected and untimely deaths produce more Parkes (1981)
problems for bereaved
Study showing more intense grief where there is Parkes & Weiss (1983); Schultz, Boerner, &
little warning of the death. Further studies Herbert (2008, pp. 278–280)
complicated by methodological issues
Social support associated with better adjustment and McIntosh et al. (1993); Vanderwerker &
lower risk of prolonged grief Prigerson (2003)
Disclosure was viewed as part of “grief work.” Pennebaker & O’Heeron (1984); Pennebaker
Where it has been studied separately, it has been et al. (2001)
shown to be beneficial: it is likely to involve
cognitive restructuring
Expression of emotion viewed as beneficial as part Bonanno Keltner, Holen & Horowitz (1995);
of “grief work.” Where it has been studied Bonanno & Keltner (1997)
separately, control or avoidance of emotions has
been shown to be beneficial
Concerns attributions of blame: grief is often Archer (1999, pp. 72–74);
associated with self-blame
Reported frequently in studies of grief; An Archer (1999, pp. 70–72); Bowlby (1980a,
important part of the formulation of grief by p. 29); Parkes (1972, pp. 100–105)
Bowlby and Parkes
Grief associated with loss of interest in general and Shuchter & Zisook (1993)
specific activities, and difficulty concentrating
 ORIGINS OF MODERN IDEAS ON LOVE AND LOSS
ward resolution. Bonanno et al. (1995) operationalized avoidance
of emotion by measuring the mismatch between people’s reported
emotional state and their degree of autonomic arousal (via heart
rate). Bereaved people with high physiological arousal but low
reported emotion (i.e., avoiders), measured at 6 months postloss,
subsequently showed fewer signs of grief and fewer somatic
symptoms when measured 8 months later: this is the opposite to
what would be expected from grief work theory. It suggests that
Shand was correct when he stated that the expression of negative
emotions is associated with a poorer outcome. Bonanno and Kelt-
ner (1997) measured negative emotional expression directly, by
observing facial expressions of bereaved people, again 6 months
after their loss. They found—as Shand had stated—that expressing
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
negative emotions at this time was associated with more pro-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
nounced grief later on (at 14 and 25 months). This occurred even
when people’s initial distress was taken into account, so that they
were both absolutely and relatively worse off than people who
showed fewer negative emotional expressions.
These two studies clearly support Shand’s view that the expres-
sion of negative emotions leads to poorer—not better— outcomes.
He distinguished this from disclosing to others thoughts and feel-
ings associated with grief, which was viewed as beneficial, con-
sistent with grief work theory. Evidence from studies of the dis-
closure of previously undisclosed traumatic events indicates that
this leads to better physical health and well being (Pennebaker,
Zech, & Rimé, 2001). Studies of parents bereaved by sudden infant
death (Lepore, Ragan, & Jones, 2000; McIntosh, Silver, & Wort-
man, 1993) indicate some support for the view that disclosure to
others is beneficial, as Shand (1914) suggested.
It appears that Bowlby did not notice the distinction Shand made
between emotional expression and disclosure. Why this was the
case is not clear, because he was familiar with the source and—as
noted above— did state that it would be given a “central position”
in his work. As indicated above, most of Bowlby’s understanding
of grief did parallel Shand’s “laws of sorrow” (see Table 1)—with
this one important exception.
Love and Attachment From Russell to Bowlby
We now turn to a source that is not cited by Bowlby, and yet
contains descriptions of a number of the fundamental propositions
of attachment theory (Bowlby (1953a, 1969/1982). To someone
with a deep interest in Bowlby’s theory, it came as a great surprise
to find a chapter in Russell’s (1930) The Conquest of Happiness in
which these propositions are described. They are to be found in the
chapter on Affection. Clearly, the objectives of the two writers
were different; Russell’s was to examine the roots of (un)happi-
ness, Bowlby’s to examine the relationship between parental care
and mental health. Yet the features that are common to both
authors are quite extensive, including the core notions of security,
deprivation, and the fundamental influence of the nature of early
attachment bonds on later wellbeing. In both, the emphasis is on
maternal care (and the male child).4 Neither Russell in the 1930s
nor Bowlby in the 1950s focused on permanent loss through death:
as indicated in the previous sections, this came later in the third of
Bowlby’s trilogy on attachment and loss (Bowlby, 1980a). We
now describe how Russell formulated these similar ideas and relate
them to the attachment theory propositions.
33
Security in Attachment
As noted earlier, central to attachment theory was the notion of
“security,” in a relational or affectionate sense of the word. This
also formed a core feature of Russell’s theme of affection, when he
stated that “the absence of affection gives . . . a sense of insecu-
rity” (p. 176). He elaborated this elsewhere:
The better sort of affection corresponds to the feeling of the man
whose ship is secure, the less excellent sort corresponds to that of the
shipwrecked swimmer. The first of these kinds of affection is only
possible in so far as a man feels safe, . . . the latter kind, on the
contrary, is caused by the feeling of insecurity. (Russell, 1930, pp.
181–182).
Russell also described something very close to attachment the-
ory’s concept of a “secure base,” a basic notion in attachment
theory, that also underpins the typology of attachment set out by
Ainsworth (1979) and subsequently applied to adult relationships
(Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Russell
(1930) described it as follows:
[B]ehind . . . external interests there is the feeling that he will be
protected from disaster by parental affection. The child for whom for
any reason parental affection is withdrawn is likely to become timid
and unadventurous . . . and no longer able to meet the world in a mood
of gay exploration (p. 178).
Like Bowlby, Russell described both the giving and receiving of
feelings of security in attachment, between caregiver and child,
and within adult relationships. For example, he says: “I have been
speaking . . . of the affection of which the person is the object. I
wish now to speak of the affection that a person gives” (Russell,
1930, p. 181). These were “reciprocally life-giving” (p. 182).
In sum, the notions of security of attachment, the secure base,
the impact of the caregiver’s attachment pattern on the formation
of attachment in the young child, all core elements of attachment
theory, resonate with Russell’s earlier exposition.
Short- and Long-Term Consequences of (In)security
Consistent with Bowlby’s theory, attachment security (associ-
ated with fearlessness) is also said by Russell to serve a protective
function (both short- and long-term), because such a person “will
pass unscathed through many difficult situations in which a timid
man would come to grief” (Russell, 1930, p. 177). The protective
function of a secure attachment that developed early on, as Russell
maintains, parallels Bowlby’s claim about the immediate and
longer-term effects of insecurity, for example: “what occurs in the
earliest months and years can have deep and long-lasting effects”
(Bowlby, 1953a, p. 15).
Russell also linked security more specifically to well-being and
mental health, following the theme of his whole volume, which
concerned happiness: “Those who face life with a feeling of
security are much happier than those who face it with a feeling of
insecurity” (Russell, 1930, p. 176). The consequences of attach-
ment insecurity for mental ill health developed into a major line of
argument in Bowlby’s work, for example when he wrote of “the
4
Not only the topic, but the language of their times is evident in both
accounts.
 34 STROEBE AND ARCHER
terrible damage which may be done to a child’s personality by
deprivation” (Bowlby, 1953a, p. 15).
The general link between childhood experience and later adjust-
ment was explicit and fundamental in both Russell’s and Bowlby’s
writings. Russell (1930) started his chapter on affection by exam-
ining the causes of unhappiness, linking this with feelings of being
unloved in the following way:
A man may have the feeling of being unloved for a variety of reasons
. . . he may in childhood have had to accustom himself to receiving
less love than fell to the share of other children. [He] . . . may take
various attitudes as a result. He may make desperate efforts to win
affection, probably by means of exceptional acts of kindness (Russell,
1930, p. 175).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This resonates with attachment theory’s basic notion that the
capacity for love and sympathy in adult life has its roots in early
childhood, expressed by Bowlby (1953a) in a variety of ways, such
as “deprivation of mother-love in early childhood, can have a
far-reaching effect on the mental health and personality develop-
ment of human beings” (p. 18); and “the quality of the parental
care which a child receives in his earliest years is of vital impor-
tance for his future mental health” (p. 11); and “essential for
mental health is that the infant and young child should experience
a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with his mother”
(p. 11).
Russell (1930) also noted the long-term effects on character of
early childhood deprivation when he stated the following: “Very
frequently . . . previous misfortunes in childhood have produced
defects of character which are the cause of failure to obtain love in
later years” (p. 180). Compare this with “the prolonged deprivation
of a young child of maternal care may have grave and far-reaching
effects on his character and so on the whole of his future life”
(Bowlby, 1953a, p. 50).
Thus, there are notable similarities in the writings of Bowlby
and Russell regarding their views on the protective function of
secure attachment and risks of insecure attachment, both in infancy
and childhood and for later mental health and personality devel-
opment. The nature of attachment to the primary caregiver and
childhood experience in relation to this person (with respect to
separation and deprivation) were understood by both writers to be
critical.
Attachment Styles
A central tenet of attachment theory is that the style of the
caregiver (mother) impacts on that of the infant. This was devel-
oped by Bowlby (1953a) throughout his monograph, and taken up
again in the second of his trilogy on attachment and loss (Bowlby,
1973, chapter 15). Again, we find parallels in Russell’s work:
The affection given must be itself robust . . . the timid mother or
nurse, who is perpetually warning children against disasters that may
occur . . . may produce in them a timidity equal to her own, and may
cause them to feel that they are never safe in her immediate neigh-
borhood. To the unduly possessive mother this feeling on the part of
a child may be agreeable: she may desire his dependence upon herself
more than his capacity to cope with the world (Russell, 1930, p. 179).
This and other statements go some way toward identifying the
insecure preoccupied style of attachment, coming near to describ-
ing the overanxious interpersonally dependent, clinging attempts
to stay close that is characteristic of this style, with references to
“desperate efforts” and wanting to “win affection” (Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Ainsworth, 1979). There seems in
this example also to be an understanding of concordance in at-
tachment style between caregiver and child, as is assumed in
attachment theory (e.g., George & Solomon, 1999).
Russell went on to postulate continuity in the style of attachment
across the life span with respect to attachment style, as proposed
by Bowlby (1953a, 1969): “The habits of mind formed in early
years are likely to persist through life” (Russell, 1930, p. 179).
Even more striking, Russell made the connection with adult ro-
mantic attachment styles, an extension that was only developed
within the attachment theory perspective in the 1980s (e.g., Fraley
& Shaver, 2000; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994; Hazan & Shaver,
1987). Russell continued his description of the dependently at-
tached child as follows: “Many people when they fall in love look
for a little haven of refuge from the world. . . . [Men] seek from
their wives what they obtained formerly from an unwise mother”
(Russell, 1930, p. 179).
It cannot be said that the styles of attachment are worked out at
all precisely in Russell’s writing. However, there is notable cor-
respondence between his statements and attachment theory’s pos-
tulation of both the secure and insecure ambivalent (dependent)
styles. Furthermore, the notions of concordance between caregiver
and child in attachment style, continuity of style across the life
span, and even the claim that type of attachment influences the
nature of a romantic relationship all seem to be reflected by
Russell, just as they are fundamental to attachment theory.
From Russell to Bowlby:
The Possibility of Theoretical Origins
Possibly, Bowlby came to propose the ideas compared above
quite independently, or through a third theorist known to both
Bowlby and Russell. But how likely is it that Bowlby knew about
Russell’s work? As we probed the personal backgrounds of Rus-
sell and Bowlby to try to answer this question, it became evident
that there were some remarkable similarities in their backgrounds,
a common intellectual heritage and even geographical proximity,
features which could combine to make personal and academic
acquaintance a possibility. On the other hand, we discovered vast
differences between these two men, which may have contributed to
a lack of recognition on Bowlby’s part. In this section, we outline
biographical features in Russell’s and Bowlby’s lives, to indicate
the likelihood of Bowlby’s knowledge of Russell’s work.
Personal Backgrounds: Formative Childhood
Experiences
Both Russell and Bowlby were born into upper-class British
families of national renown (Russell in 1872; Bowlby in 1907):
they could in many ways both be considered privileged. This alone
would increase the likelihood of mutual awareness and perhaps
contact. Russell inherited the title of Lord (Earl) from his grand-
father (who outlived his father); Bowlby’s father was the baronet
Sir Anthony Bowlby, an eminent surgeon. However, the events of
Russell’s childhood and upbringing differed in many ways from
Bowlby’s. Russell’s parents died when he was very young, and he
 ORIGINS OF MODERN IDEAS ON LOVE AND LOSS
was brought up by his grandmother, his grandfather dying a few
years after Russell was placed in their care (Clark, 1975). Despite
having a very liberal political attitude his grandmother was de-
scribed by Clark (1975) as being religiously conservative, strict
and old fashioned in her upbringing of Russell. He did not attend
school, being educated instead by governesses and tutors.
By contrast, Bowlby was brought up in his parents’ home.
Features noted by one of his biographers, Holmes (1993), regard-
ing his upbringing include the presence of nurses and governesses,
limited access to his mother (a disciplinarian with a strict regime),
and a rather remote father. Like Russell, he experienced separa-
tion, being parted from his family for weeks at a time from a tender
age (his biographers give different ages, 7 or somewhat older),
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
attending boarding school, as was then typical for this class of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
English society. Both Russell’s and Bowlby’s biographers sur-
mised that having to endure these separation experiences had
lasting influences on their academic and personal lives (Clark,
1975; Holmes, 1993). They may have been oriented toward think-
ing how experiences in early life, and in particular separations and
lack of maternal affection, could influence the person’s character
and ability to form relationships throughout life.
By all accounts, they developed into very different personalities.
Clark (1975) described Russell as follows:
[T]he quintessential man, the bundle of contradictions passionately ded-
icated to intellect, at times carrying the rational argument to irrational
extremes, the natural-born emotional adventurer for ever hampered by
orphaned youth and too early marriage. . . . [A] man of epic proportions,
struggling through a lifetime beset with frustration and near-disaster; in
youth the constitutional sceptic, in old age the sometimes splendid figure
with courage never to submit or yield (pp. 9 –10).
We know that he was also prone to bouts of depression and
sometimes haunted by suicidal thoughts (Clark, 1975).
Bowlby, equally dedicated to intellect and independent-minded
like Russell, was, by contrast, blessed with an inner calm that
would stand him in good stead throughout his life (Holmes, 1993).
Holmes goes on to describe a man in some ways very different
from Russell:
A . . . capacity to reconcile divergent elements is to be found in his
personality which, although remarkably coherent and consistent, con-
tained many contradictory aspects: reserved, yet capable of inspiring
great affection; quintessentially “English” and yet thoroughly cosmopol-
itan in outlook; conventional in manner yet revolutionary in spirit; . . . an
explorer of the psyche who mistrusted the purely subjective; . . . an enfant
terrible who was always slightly formal. (Holmes, 1993, pp. 30–31)
Later Development: Academic Backgrounds
A most striking link between Russell and Bowlby is that they
were both at Trinity College, Cambridge, United Kingdom, al-
though Russell studied there a generation before Bowlby. Russell
entered Trinity College as an undergraduate in 1890, he was
appointed lecturer in philosophy there in 1899, was dismissed from
the College in 1916 (following antiwar protests), but offered
reinstatement in 1919. His links with Trinity remained for decades
(he was made a fellow for life in the late 1940s); he retained a love
for the College, even though this was more like a stormy affair at
times, across the decades of his life (Clark, 1975). Thus, he would
have been a very visible figure in the years that Bowlby was at
35
Trinity. Bowlby was an undergraduate there from 1925 to 1928,
beginning with the Natural Science Tripos, Part 1, covering a wide
variety of subjects. He excelled, winning prizes and gaining a first
class honors degree (Holmes, 1993). He was a medical student
who concentrated on both the natural and the moral sciences,
psychology and—linking him to Russell—philosophy (Berry,
2005; van Dijken et al., 1998). Both men were wide-ranging
thinkers who, in the style of education at Cambridge, came into
contact with scholars from different disciplines. Those with whom
Russell had contact were as diverse as Joseph Conrad, D.H.
Lawrence, Wittgenstein, Trotsky, and Einstein. Likewise, we men-
tioned a similar variety of contacts and influences on Bowlby
earlier. Russell was not only highly controversial and outspoken,
he was also blind to counterarguments at times (Clark, 1975), a
characteristic that may not have appealed to Bowlby, given his
rigorous approach to acquiring empirical knowledge— but perhaps
making Russell hard for him to ignore.
Furthermore, Russell was highly prolific; his writings (which
covered both scholarly and popular books and articles, mainly on
mathematics and philosophy) could hardly have been overlooked
by Bowlby. Russell had written books and articles on philosoph-
ical topics before Bowlby’s time: we noted above that Bowlby’s
academic interests and studies covered philosophy; it would seem
likely that, given that he was a Trinity College scholar, Russell’s
work would have been assigned or brought to his notice during his
studies. Would he, though, have read The Conquest of Happiness?
Perhaps: the content of the book would surely have interested him,
given that it delved into the causes of unhappiness and happiness.
For an avid reader and broad scholar such as Bowlby, it would not
have taken much time or effort: It provided a short and readable
guide as to how to live a happy life. This would have been in line
with Bowlby’s interests in social and clinical issues and it is a
source that could hardly be ignored. This book became one of the
most famous on popular philosophy ever written, selling three
million copies in the first four years.5
Although it seems likely that Bowlby was aware of Russell’s
publications in general, and even The Conquest of Happiness in
particular, the question arises as to whether he would have been
sympathetic to Russell’s work in this domain. We do not know.
Curiously, though, a search of the Web turned up the following
comment in the Editor’s Notes for the Journal of the Bertrand
Russell Archives in 1978, “the following persons recently visited
or researched in the Russell Archives: . . . John Bowlby” (Black-
well, 1978, p. 4). Assuming this to be the same John Bowlby,
perhaps his interest was indeed aroused much later in life.
Beyond Academics: Their Later Life Experiences and
Interests
A rather remarkable incident is described by van der Horst and
van der Veer (2009), describing how Russell’s wife, Patricia,
shared Bowlby’s concern for hospitalized children separated from
their parents. She had been asked (but refused) to leave her
7-year-old son, who had developed a high temperature, alone in
hospital. This incident led her to publish letters in The Lancet in
1945, vehemently opposing the visiting rules of hospitals: “I feel
5
According to recent advertizing for a modern interpretation of the
volume (Phillips, 2010).
 36 STROEBE AND ARCHER
very strongly that when children are patients in hospitals some
members of their family should be allowed to remain with them
whenever this is possible” (P. Russell, 1945; in van der Horst &
van der Veer, 2009). The letters were subject to considerable
discussion and debate. One can probably assume that Bertrand
Russell, an adoring and deeply concerned father (see Clark, 1975),
shared these ideas on hospitalization common to both his wife and
Bowlby (e.g., 1953a).
Russell and Bowlby had other common interests besides their
academic ones. They were both actively involved in education,
particularly for disadvantaged young persons. Russell founded his
own school, Beacon Hill School, catering for children from broken
homes (Clark, 1975). He also lectured and wrote on education.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Bowlby took up a position in a school for maladjusted children
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(which led to his publication of Forty-Four Juvenile Thieves
[Bowlby, 1944] in 1944), before continuing his studies in medical
school. In his own words, this alerted him “to a possible connec-
tion between prolonged deprivation and the development of a
personality apparently incapable of making affectional bonds and,
because immune to praise and blame, prone to repeated delinquen-
cies” (Bowlby, 1981, p. 2).
Bowlby is likely to have been aware of Russell for other
reasons. Russell was extremely eminent, in many different re-
spects, not just for his writings and lectures, culminating in the
receipt of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950. He was a highly
visible, highly controversial public figure, deeply concerned about
social issues and world affairs and with close links to the govern-
ment, with whom he was sometimes far from popular, and whom
he openly criticized (and vice versa). He also outraged the more
Victorian segment of society for his moral statements, for exam-
ple, by endorsing sex before marriage.
Bowlby too was highly renowned within academic spheres and
way beyond, and it seems not unlikely that Russell’s attention, in
turn, would have been drawn to his work. Bowlby had enormous
societal influence, from his early report for the World Health
Organization on maternal care and children’s mental health
(Bowlby, 1951), which was rewritten as the best-selling Penguin
book Child Care and the Growth of Love (Bowlby, 1953a),
through to his monumental trilogy Attachment and Loss (1969,
1973, 1980) and beyond.
Perhaps one domain where Russell and Bowlby differed most
notably was in their attitudes and involvement in the activities of
war. Russell had been imprisoned for being a conscientious ob-
jector during the 1st World War. Later, he was prominent in the
nuclear disarmament movement and he also protested actively
against the Vietnam War. By contrast, Bowlby had attended Dart-
mouth Naval Academy. Although he decided early on that the
navy was not for him, he served in the army in the 2nd World War,
having volunteered in 1940. Again, we cannot tell whether these
apparent differences in attitudes to war caused antipathy on Bowl-
by’s part toward Russell.
In conclusion, given the visibility that both men had, combined
with their academic and societal proximity, it remains puzzling
that neither man cited the other, nor do we have any indications of
their paths crossing, despite their overlapping life spans (Russell
died in 1970; Bowlby in 1990). Most of all, one might have
expected reference to The Conquest of Happiness in Bowlby’s
work.
Conclusions
Bowlby’s work has had an enormous impact on the psychology
of human relationships, their development, long-term impact, and
the consequences of their loss. Initially they caused a sensation and
were considered to be revolutionary. For these reasons, it is inter-
esting to enquire about forerunners of Bowlby’s thinking on love
and loss. As we have shown, Darwin and Shand were cited as
important contributors to Bowlby’s work. Darwin was both ac-
knowledged and several aspects of his overall theory and specific
writings on grief were explicitly used by Bowlby to develop his
ideas on grief. Alexander Shand’s work was treated differently:
despite initially acknowledging him as a major influence on his
thinking, Bowlby (1980a) hardly cited him in relation to the
description of grief, and sources of individual differences, and he
ignored a key aspect of his work in relation to the resolution of
grief, in favor of Freud’s writings on grief. In retrospect, this led
to some misleading concepts about the resolution of grief persist-
ing until they were empirically tested and found wanting (e.g.,
Archer, 1999, 2008; Stroebe & Stroebe, 1991; Wortman & Silver,
1989).
Bertrand Russell had thought along similar lines to those elaborated
in Bowlby’s writings on infant–parent attachment and its conse-
quences for later emotional security. In contrast to the above forerun-
ners, we noted an absence of any reference to Russell in Bowlby’s and
his colleagues’ work, despite the fact that the excerpts from Russell’s
The Conquest of Happiness indicated a close conceptual parallel with
Bowlby’s thinking. The difference between the two sources lies in the
degree of elaboration of the ideas. There is disparity between noting
that something is likely to be the case and regarding it as sufficiently
important to spend years of one’s life working out the consequences
through scholarship and research.
From this perspective it should be clear that we do not see this
historical quest as signifying a lack of appreciation for the origi-
nality and impact of Bowlby’s work, nor do we want to detract
from his immense contribution, but rather, our quest is to put his
work in the context of thoughts that were around at the time. It
would indeed be surprising if similar ideas were not raised before
Bowlby formulating the ideas into a coherent and extended theory
and providing further (albeit— by today’s standards—preliminary)
empirical support for them. From this perspective, Russell made
more limited, less well-integrated, propositions on the basis of
common sense, inspired simply by his own experience and obser-
vation. He did not pursue them academically, or take them where
they could have led him.
It is interesting to speculate whether Bowlby was aware of
Bertrand Russell’s writing on this topic. We have only circum-
stantial evidence that he may have been: As noted above, Russell
was, like Bowlby, at Trinity College, Cambridge for a period of
time, although a generation before. He was of such fame that a
young academic attending later might have read his work (partic-
ularly given the intellectual curiosity and concern with societal
affairs that they had in common). On the other hand, not only was
there the generation difference, but Russell was in a different field
from Bowlby, being an eminent and controversial philosopher,
while Bowlby was studying medicine. Whatever the case may be,
van der Horst and van der Veer’s (2009) statements about the
eclectic nature of Bowlby’s theorizing help place such specula-
tions in perspective:
 ORIGINS OF MODERN IDEAS ON LOVE AND LOSS
Being a theorist by nature of training, Bowlby carefully weighed the
evidence and tried to integrate the findings into a coherent framework.
He was quite systematic about using evidence from different fields;
even when seemingly coincidental snippets of information came his
way. If they fit the larger picture, and he found additional validation,
he incorporated them. In areas that were not his specialty, Bowlby
consulted others about the value of new ideas he had come across.
Bowlby took evidence from other fields and investigators, but he
melded it into a coherent theory. Constantly rewriting and polishing
his manuscripts, he incorporated other people’s ideas into this frame-
work. Whereas he always gave them credit initially, after a while
these new ideas blended into his own. It was this eclectic approach
that would eventually become Bowlby’s trademark (pp. 158 –159).
It is also important to emphasize the limited scope of Russell’s
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
statements on this topic, the fact that a lot of basics about attach-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ment theory, such as its biological origins in evolutionary theory
and research on imprinting, the experimental work of Harlow, and
the detailed description of working models were not found in
Russell’s writing. As mentioned earlier, for these and other aspects
of his theorizing Bowlby drew inspiration from a variety of other
scholars and sources, contributing to the development of attach-
ment theory into one of the leading theoretical syntheses in the
history of psychology.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American Psychol-
ogist, 34, 932–937. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In C. M.
Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human
behaviour (pp. 3–30). London, UK: Tavistock.
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of
attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Ainsworth, M. D., & Bowlby, J. (1954). Research strategy in the study of
mother-child separation. Courrier Centre International de l’Énfance, 4,
105–131.
Archer, J. (1999). The nature of grief: The evolution and psychology of
reactions to loss. London, UK: Routledge.
Archer, J. (2001). Grief from an evolutionary perspective. In M. Stroebe,
R. O. Hansson, W. Stroebe, & H. Schut (Eds.), Handbook of bereave-
ment research: Consequences, coping and care (pp. 263–283). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10436-
011
Archer, J. (2008). Theories of grief: Past, present and future perspectives.
In M. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, H. Schut, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook
of bereavement research and practice: Advances in theory and inter-
vention (pp. 45– 65). Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso-
ciation.
Badcock, C. (1990). Oedipus in evolution: A new theory of sex. Oxford,
UK: Blackwell.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young
adults: A test of a 4-category system. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61, 226 –244. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Draper, P. (1991). Childhood experience,
interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: An evolutionary
theory of socialization. Child Development, 62, 647– 670. doi:10.2307/
1131166
Berry, D. (2005). John Bowlby: Understanding his shadow. Lecture pre-
sented at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, November, 18,
2005.
Blackwell, K. (1978). Editor’s notes. The Journal of the Bertrand Russell
Archives, 29 –32, 2– 4.
37
Bonanno, G. A., & Kaltman, S. (1999). Toward an integrative perspective
on bereavement. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 760 –776. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.125.6.760
Bonanno, G. A., & Keltner, D. (1997). Facial expressions of emotion and
the course of bereavement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106,
126 –137. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.106.1.126
Bonanno, G. A., Keltner, D., Holen, A., & Horowitz, M. J. (1995). When
avoiding unpleasant emotions might not be such a bad thing: Verbal-
autonomic response dissociation and midlife conjugal bereavement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 975–989. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.975
Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their characters and home
life. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25, 19 –52; 107–127.
Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Geneva, Switzerland:
World Health Organization.
Bowlby, J. (1953a). Child care and the growth of love. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin.
Bowlby, J. (1953b). Critical phases in the development of social responses
in man and other animals. New Biology, 14, 25–32.
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. The
International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, 350 –373.
Bowlby, J. (1960a). Separation anxiety. The International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 41, 89 –113.
Bowlby, J. (1960b). Grief and mourning in infancy and early childhood.
The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 15, 9 –52.
Bowlby, J. (1961). Processes of mourning. International Journal of Psy-
choanalysis, 42, 317–340.
Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and
anger. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980a). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Sadness and depression.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1980b). By ethology out of psychoanalysis: An experiment in
interbreeding. Animal Behaviour, 28, 649 – 656. doi:10.1016/S0003-
3472(80)80125-4
Bowlby, J. (1981). Perspective: A contribution by John Bowlby. Bulletin of
the Royal College of Psychiatrists, 5, 2– 4. doi:10.1192/pb.5.1.2
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy
human development. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J., Ainsworth, M., Boston, M., & Rosenbluth, D. (1956). The
effects of mother-child separation: A follow-up study. British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 29, 211–247. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8341.1956
.tb00915.x
Bowlby, J., & Parkes, C. M. (1970). Separation and loss within the family.
In E. J. Anthony & C. Koupernik (Eds.), The child and his family (pp.
197–216). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bowlby, J., & Robertson, J. (1952). A two-year-old goes to hospital.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 46, 425– 427.
Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and
Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28, 759 –775. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759
Cassidy, J. (2000). Adult romantic attachments: A developmental perspec-
tive on individual differences. Review of General Psychology, 4, 111–
131. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.4.2.111
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. (1999/2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory,
practice and clinical applications. 1st/2nd revised edition. New York,
NY: Guilford.
Clark, R. (1975). The life of Bertrand Russell. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin Books.
Darwin, C. (1843). Letter to W. D. Fox [25 March]. In F. Burkhardt & S.
Smith (Eds.), The correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 2 (pp. 352–
353). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Darwin, C. (1859/1911)). On the origin of species. London, UK: Murray.
 38 STROEBE AND ARCHER
Darwin, C. (1872/1904). The expression of the emotions in man and
animals. London, UK: Murray. doi:10.1037/10001-000
Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., Doron, G., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). The
attachment paradox: How can so many of us (the insecure ones) have no
adaptive advantages? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 123–
141. doi:10.1177/1745691610362349
Feeney, J. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. In
J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, re-
search, and clinical applications (pp. 355–377). New York, NY: Guil-
ford.
Fonagy, P. (1999). Psychoanalytic theory from the viewpoint of attachment
theory and research. In J. Cassidy, & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, practice and clinical applications (pp. 595– 624).
New York, NY: Guilford.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Fraley, R. C., & Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Attachment and loss: A test of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
three competing models on the association between attachment-related
avoidance and adaptation to bereavement. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 30, 878 – 890. doi:10.1177/0146167204264289
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theo-
retical developments, emerging controversies, and unanswered ques-
tions. Review of General Psychology, 4, 132–154. doi:10.1037/1089-
2680.4.2.132
Freud, S. (1957). Mourning and melancholia. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.),
The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund
Freud (Vol. 14, pp. 239 –260). London: Hogarth Press & Institute of
Psychoanalysis. (Original work published 1917)
George, C., & Solomon, J. (1999). Attachment and caring: The caregiving
behavioural system. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of
attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 649 – 670).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and other:
Fundamental dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430 – 445. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.430
Hart, D., & Sussman, R. W. (2005). Man the hunted: Primates, predators,
and human evolution. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an
attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,
511–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Holmes, J. (1993). John Bowlby and attachment theory. London, UK:
Routledge.
Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement
from incentives. Psychological Review, 82, 1–25. doi:10.1037/h0076171
Lepore, S. J., Ragan, J. D., & Jones, S. (2000). Talking facilitates
cognitive-emotional processes of adaptation to an acute stressor. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 499 –508. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.78.3.499
Main, M., & Solomon, J. (1986). Discovery of an insecure-disoriented/
disorganized attachment pattern. In T. Brazelton & M. Yogman (Eds.),
Affective development in infancy (pp. 95–124). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
McIntosh, D. N., Silver, R. C., & Wortman, C. B. (1993). Religion’s role
in adjustment to a negative life event: Coping with the loss of a child.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 812– 821. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.812
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Struc-
ture, dynamics, and change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Myers, C. S. (1936). Dr. A. F. Shand, 1858 –1936 [Obituary]. British
Journal of Psychology, 26, 323–324.
Newcombe, N., & Lerner, J. (1982). Britain between the wars: The his-
torical context of Bowlby’s theory of attachment. Psychiatry: Journal
for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 45, 1–12.
Parkes, C. M. (1981). Anticipatory grief. British Journal of Psychiatry,
138, 183a. doi:10.1192/bjp.138.2.183a
Parkes, C. M., & Weiss, R. S. (1983). Recovery from bereavement. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Parkes, C. M. (1972). Bereavement: Studies of grief in adult life. London,
UK: Tavistock.
Parkes, C. M. (1986). Bereavement: Studies of grief in adult life (2nd ed.).
London, UK: Tavistock.
Parkes, C. M. (1996). Bereavement: Studies of grief in adult life (3rd ed.).
London, UK: Tavistock.
Parkes, C. M. (2006). Love and loss: The roots of grief and its complica-
tions. London, UK: Routledge.
Pennebaker, J. W., & O’Heeron, R. C. (1984). Confiding in others and
illness rate among spouses of suicide and accidental-death victims.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 473– 476. doi:10.1037/0021-843X
.93.4.473
Pennebaker, J. W., Zech, E., & Rimé, B. (2001). Disclosing and sharing
emotion: Psychological, social, and health consequences. In M. Stroebe,
R. O. Hansson, W. Stroebe, & H. Schut (Eds.), Handbook of bereave-
ment research: Consequences, coping and care (pp. 517–543). Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10436-
022
Phillips, T. (2010). The conquest of happiness: A modern-day interpreta-
tion of a self-help classic. Oxford, UK: Infinite Ideas Limited.
Pollock, G. H. (1961). Mourning and adaptation. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 42, 341–361.
Rosenstein, D. S., & Horowitz, H. (1996). Adolescent attachment and
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64,
244 –253. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.64.2.244
Russell, B. (1930). The conquest of happiness. London, UK: George Allen
& Unwin.
Schultz, R., Boerner, K., & Herbert, R. S. (2008). Caregiving and bereave-
ment. In M. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, H. Schut, & W. Stroebe (Eds.),
Handbook of bereavement research and practice: Advances in theory
and intervention (pp. 265–285). Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
ical Association.
Shand, A. F. (1914). The foundations of character. London, UK: Mac-
millan.
Shand, A. F. (1920). The foundations of character (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Macmillan.
Shand, A. F. (1927). The foundations of character (3rd ed.). London, UK:
Macmillan.
Shorey, H., & Snyder, C. (2006). The role of adult attachment styles in
psychopathology and psychotherapy outcomes. Review of General Psy-
chology, 10, 1–20. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.10.1.1
Shuchter, S. R., & Zisook, S. (1993). The course of normal grief. In M. S.
Stroebe, W. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement:
Theory, research and intervention (pp. 23– 43). New York, NY: Cam-
bridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511664076.003
Stevenson-Hinde, J. (2007). Attachment theory and John Bowlby: Some
reflections. Attachment & Human Development, 9, 337–342. doi:
10.1080/14616730701711540
Stroebe, M. S. (1992–3). Coping with bereavement: A review of the grief
work hypothesis. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 26, 19 – 42.
doi:10.2190/TB6U-4QQC-HR3M-V9FT
Stroebe, M., & Schut, H. A. W. (1999). The dual process model of coping
with bereavement: Rationale and description. Death Studies, 23, 197–
224. doi:10.1080/074811899201046
Stroebe, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Does “grief work” work? Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 479 – 482. doi:10.1037/0022-
006X.59.3.479
Stroebe, M., Stroebe, W., Schut, H., Zech, E., & van den Bout, J. (2002).
Does disclosure of emotions facilitate recovery from bereavement?
Evidence from two prospective studies. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 70, 169 –178. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.70.1.169
 ORIGINS OF MODERN IDEAS ON LOVE AND LOSS 39

Tinbergen, N. (1951/1969). The study of instinct. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
van der Horst, F. C. P., & van der Veer, R. (2009). Changing attitudes
towards the care of children in hospital: A new assessment of the
influence of the work of Bowlby and Robertson in Britain, 1940 –1970.
Attachment & Human Development, 11, 119 –142. doi:10.1080/
14616730802503655
van der Horst, F., & van der Veer, R. (2010). The ontology of an idea: John
Bowlby and his contemporaries on mother-child separation. History of
Psychology, 13, 25– 45. doi:10.1037/a0017660
van der Horst, F. (2011). John Bowlby – from psychoanalysis to ethology:
Unravelling the roots of attachment theory. Chichester, UK: Wiley-
Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781119993100
Vanderwerker, L. C., & Prigerson, H. G. (2004). Social support and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
van Dijken, S., van der Veer, R., van Izendoorn, M., & Kuijpers, H. (1998).
Bowlby before Bowlby: The sources of an intellectual departure in
psychoanalysis and psychology. Journal of the History of the Behavioral
Sciences, 34, 247–269. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6696(199822)34:
3⬍247::AID-JHBS2⬎3.0.CO;2-N
Waters, E., Hamilton, C., & Weinfeld, N. (2000). The stability of attach-
ment security from infancy to adolescence and early adulthood: General
introduction. Child Development, 71, 678 – 683. doi:10.1111/1467-8624
.00175
Wortman, C. B., & Silver, R. C. (1989). The myths of coping with loss.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 349 –357. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.57.3.349
Received June 27, 2012

technological connectedness as protective factors in bereavement. Jour- Revision received August 13, 2012
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

nal of Loss and Trauma, 9, 45–57. doi:10.1080/15325020490255304 Accepted August 16, 2012 䡲

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!