Review of General Psychology 2000, Vol. 4. No. 2, 132-154 Copyright 2000 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 1089-268OAKVS5.0O DOI: 10.1O37//1089-2680.4.2.132 Adult Romantic Attachment: Theoretical Developments, Emerging Controversies, and Unanswered Questions R. Chris Fraley and Phillip R. Shaver University of California, Davis The authors review the theory of romantic, or pair-bond, attachment as it was originally formulated by C. Hazan and P. R. Shaver in 1987 and describe how it has evolved over more than a decade. In addition, they discuss 5 issues related to the theory that need further clarification: (a) the nature of attachment relationships, (b) the evolution and function of attachment in adulthood, (c) models of individual differences in attachment, (d) continuity and change in attachment security, and (e) the integration of attachment, sex, and caregiving. In discussing these issues, they provide leads for future research and outline a more complete theory of romantic attachment. During the past 12 years, attachment theory has become one of the major frameworks for the study of romantic relationships. It has generated hundreds of articles and several books, not to mention countless PhD and MA theses. An in- creasing number of conference papers and re- quests for reprints and information suggest that the study of romantic attachment will continue to attract interest for years to come. One reason for the popularity of the theory, we believe, is its provision of a unified framework for explain- ing the development, maintenance, and dissolu- tion of close relationships while simultaneously offering a perspective on personality develop- ment, emotion regulation, and psychopathol- ogy. Moreover, the theory is intellectually rich, merging data and insights from disciplines as diverse as ethology, physiological psychology, control systems theory, developmental psychol- ogy* cognitive science, and psychoanalysis. R. Chris Fraley and Phillip R. Shaver, Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis. We thank Jim Cassandro, Lisa Feldman Barrett. Jennifer Frei, Paula Pietromonaco, Rick Robins, and Caroline Tan- credy for their valuable comments on drafts of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to R. Chris Fraley, who is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1007 West Harrison Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607-7137, or to Phillip R. Shaver, Department of Psychology, University of Cali- fornia, One Shields Avenue, Davis, California 95616-8686. Electronic mail may be sent to fraley@uic.edu or prshaver@ucdavis.edu. The purpose of the present article is to revisit the theory of adult romantic attachment as it was originally formulated by Hazan and Shaver in the 1980s (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver & Hazan, 1988; Shaver, Hazan, & Bradshaw, 1988) and summarize ways in which the theory has evolved over the last decade. As one might expect, some of the central tenets of the theory have received considerable empirical support, whereas others have been called into question or revised in light of new evidence or alternative theoretical proposals. Our goal is to highlight new developments, unanswered questions, and emerging controversies. In so doing, we hope to detail the ways in which the theory has changed over the last decade and provide an impetus for the empirical investigation of unresolved issues. We begin with a brief discussion of the major tenets of romantic attachment theory as origi- nally propounded by Hazan and Shaver (1987). We then describe some of the strengths of the theory, including ways in which it differs from previous theories, and highlight some of the novel research it has generated. Finally, we articulate what we consider to be important inadequacies of the original theory. To this end, we discuss tensions in the field, including con- troversies, debates, and unanswered questions. Our objective is not to review what has been learned about romantic attachment over the last 10 years (such reviews are available else- where; see Feeney, 1999; Feeney & Noller, 1996; Shaver & Clark, 1994) but to provide a 132