JOE F. PITTMAN,MARGARET K. KEILEY,JENNIFER L. KERPELMAN, AND BRIAN E. VAUGHN Auburn University Attachment, Identity, and Intimacy: Parallels Between Bowlby’s and Erikson’s Paradigms The theories of John Bowlby and Erik Erikson reveal parallels that, together, offer opportu- nities to examine attachment-linked working models (secure base representations) as con- texts of identity formation. Although the theories are grounded in fundamentally different assump- tions, each offers concepts that can enrich the application of the other. One’s attachment history serves as a foundation for identity for- mation. We argue that identity formation is less an individual accomplishment than a co- construction of an individual with significant others. Hence, attachment histories affect not only one’s approach to identity formation but also one’s contributions to the identity formation of others. Our review promotes theory building that bridges Bowlby and Erikson and offers new hypotheses. The neopsychoanalytic theories of John Bowlby and Erik Erikson have strongly influenced mod- ern conceptual and empirical approaches to social/emotional and self/personality develop- ment. Attachment theory (e.g., Ainsworth, Ble- har, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1969/1982, 1973, 1980) has its roots in British object relations theory and emphasizes relationship formation, maintenance, growth, and influences Department of Human Development and Family Studies, 203 Spidle Hall, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849 (pittmjf@auburn.edu). Key Words: adult attachment, identity and intimacy, social and personality development. over many facets of social and emotional life. Psychosocial developmental theory (Erikson, 1963, 1968, 1969, 1975, 1980) is grounded in ego psychology and tends to emphasize growth and change at the intraindividual level and the reciprocal influences between individual- level growth and relational aspects of function- ing. Early on, empirical research motivated by these two theoretical frameworks focused on opposite ends of childhood, with attachment researchers studying infancy and early childhood and researchers influenced by the psychosocial developmental model addressing the crises of identity and intimacy at the end of adolescence (e.g., Bowlby, 1969/1982; Erikson, 1968). As a result of these differences in conceptual foun- dations and empirical interests, the two research programs progressed independently, with very few points of contact. However, both theo- ries make life-span claims, and as attachment research interests have expanded beyond infancy and early childhood to adolescence and adult- hood (e.g., Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy, 1985; for a review, see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005), opportunities for integration of the two tradi- tions are becoming more apparent (see, e.g., Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005). It is our goal to explore several of these prospects in this article and to suggest ways that com- bining insights from both theories can produce important new data and insights into personality growth and social adaptation. We believe that researchers, theorists, and clinicians steeped in either tradition will find it fruitful to consider the parallels between the theories. We suggest 32 Journal of Family Theory & Review 3 (March 2011): 32–46 DOI:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00079.x