Abstract

Psychological Inquiry Copyright © 2000 by 2000, Vol. 11, No. 2, 124–128 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. AUTHORS’ RESPONSE David C. Bell and Alan J. Richard Affiliated Systems Corporation We are pleased that a broad range of scholars and within what we term the proximity and security attach- researchers have contributed thoughtful responses to ment theoretical orientations. Moreover, most of our our article on caregiving for publication in this issue. statements about the proximity and security attach- Together, these responses testify to the power of ment theoretical orientations are accurate and sup- Bowlby’s writing to inspire multiple research trajecto- ported by citations from the published record, even ries that extend far beyond the set of problems Bowlby when they seem to contradict oral traditions or unspo- was tackling in the early attachment literature. Many of ken agreements that have grown up around that record. the commentators agree with our view that the problem On the other hand, we did misrepresent the published of the motivation for caregiving in attachment litera- record on at least one point: the on-off nature of behav- ture deserves close investigation. For instance, Noller ioral control systems. and Feeney (this issue) approve of our focus on