Return to
module outline.
Last updated 19.11.11.
Introduction
Our main focus
today is Attachment Theory, which was devised by John Bowlby,
but we need also to appreciate the context of his work and its implications if
we are to do this area of enquiry justice.
Western
society assumes that carer-child relationships play a central role in a child’s
psychological development and Goldberg summarises our acknowledgement of its
significance in the following way:
‘Clearly the human infant is not equipped to survive
without adult caregivers who provide food, warmth, and protection from illness
and injury. Yet our intuitive concepts go beyond the confines of physical care
and include the notion that individual differences in later functioning –
indeed, the core of personality – are shaped by the experiences we have with a
small number of early caregivers.’ (Goldberg, 2000: p. 1)
Our
question for this session is why does this assumption continue to have such
resonance when we increasingly acknowledge the complex interrelationship
between nature and nurture in children’s development? Moreover, what
implications does this world-view have for our understandings of ‘good’ or
‘effective’ early childhood care?
Several
researchers have examined the issues surrounding a child’s early and formative
attachments over the last fifty years. The origin of this field was Bowlby’s (1951) ‘Maternal Deprivation’ study of 44 convicted juvenile boys in the London
Child Guidance Unit who suffered from ‘affectionless psychopathy’
(the inability to feel affection for, or care about, the well-being of others).
Over half of these children had been separated from their mothers for a period
of at least a week during the first 5 years of life and Bowlby
concluded that maternal deprivation was the cause of their
delinquency/emotional problems.
‘Attachment
theory’ has remained a staple ingredient of undergraduate psychology
courses for many years, although attachment theorists have seen fluctuations in
the form of their public reception. When he was in favour, Bowlby’s research findings were implicated in the Plowden Committee’s decision to emphasise that nursery
education should take place on a part-time basis only. Subsequently, supporters of
attachment theory was the target of much feminist-inspired social critique. Their
continuing influence on policy decisions (and indirectly, on Western cultural assumptions) made the relationship
between mothers and their young children a hot issue in the face of claims for greater gender equity in the work-place. Scientifically speaking, the central theme of these criticisms
was that assumptions about ‘ideal’ motherhood were based upon
unreliable sources of data which overemphasised the role of the mother and unjustifiably
circumscribed women’s (and children’s) lives.
‘By situating the mother (or other primary caretaker) at
the center of each developing infant’s universe, Bowlby’s theory of attachment stings most smartly where it
pricks the conscience of every mother who is aware of her infant’s needs but
who also aspires to a life beyond bondage to them.’ (Hrdy,
1999: p. 407)
However,
there has recently been a shift back to promoting the significance of parenting
(in contrast to mothering) and the importance of parents/carers ‘getting it
right’ in the early years. This can be identified in Government initiatives
such as Sure Start and the increasing
rhetoric of parent-professional partnership in education,
health and social care (see Every Child
Matters). It is most obvious culturally in the steady rise of parenting and
childcare advice given on television and in magazines.
In the
academic sphere, Hrdy has tried to ‘rehabilitate’ Bowlby, by inviting us to reconsider his work in the light
of her accumulated evidence of the significance of the mother’s care for the
survival of the infant primate. However, Hrdy’s
comments on Bowlby should be read with a ‘health
warning’: while she concurs with his assertion of the biological requirement of
intensive care for the young infant, she does not agree with his assumptions
that a human mother’s care is ‘inevitable’ or ‘selfless’ in all but the most
extreme of circumstances, nor does she (or the theorists we consider in the
other set of notes) believe that the normal relationship between mother and child is (or
should be) harmonious.
Instead,
Hrdy suggests that despite evidence of the importance
of attachment for a child’s subsequent relationships, mothers may, for a
variety of reasons, be ambivalent about their role of caregiver. Consequently,
infants need to engage in behaviours that elicit a mother’s care and become
‘connoisseurs of mothering’.
‘If human mothers were automatically nurturing, their
infants would not need to be so attuned and keenly discriminating.’ ’(Blaffer Hrdy,
1999:p. 387)
In Hrdy’s eyes, attachment is not an experience that is
‘given’ to a passive child by an altruistic adult, but instead is a ‘contract’
that is negotiated between adult and child.
Contextualising Bowlby
The
theoretical context of Bowlby’s work explains, in
part, his confidence in asserting the significant role of the mother. Ethology (the study of animal behaviour and how it relates
to human behaviour) played a significant role in Bowlby’s
work: he was greatly influenced by Lorenz’s (1935) notion of ‘imprinting’ in animals during a ‘critical’ or
sensitive period immediately after birth, which initiates an enduring
preference for a specific figure. This was strikingly demonstrated by Lorenz’s
success in getting young goslings to follow him around as if he was their mother.
A later, related study indicated the significance of this initial relationship
for the mother when Hersher et al (1958) discovered that if baby sheep or goats are removed
from their mothers shortly after birth, the mothers will not accept them back into
their care. Both studies indicate that, for these species, early contact
between the mother and infant has an important biological function which
enhances either caregiving or development, and
possibly both.
Another
significant influence on Bowlby was
· A ‘cloth’ mother consisting of a
wooden cylinder covered with towelling
· A ‘wire’ mother, which was simply
a wire cylinder
Each
surrogate mother was of the same proportions, all were equipped with a feeding
mechanism, and each monkey had the opportunity to gain access to both types of
surrogate mother despite being initially assigned to a specific one.
Irrespective of which ‘mother’ they were assigned to, each infant spent most of
its time clinging to the cloth mother. This led the researchers to conclude
that primates need a source of ‘contact comfort’ in addition to a source of
food. Their ‘follow-up’ studies indicated that when they were introduced to
other monkeys that had been reared normally, the experimental monkeys were
either aggressive or indifferent: most males were unable to mate successfully
and those females who conceived were inadequate mothers. Consequently,
In a
subsequent study Harlow and Harlow (1969) developed their experimental design
further and raised infant monkeys in complete isolation from both humans and
other monkeys. These monkeys routinely clutched their own bodies and rocked
compulsively, and when they were finally exposed to other monkeys they were
either apathetic or aggressive towards the others and themselves.
(See also the work of Winthrop Kellogg)
The Ape and The Child, A Research Project Conducted at Orange Park Florida (1931 - 1932)
This
ethological evidence, combined with human research spurred Bowlby
on to emphasise his belief in the significance of a mother’s care for a human
infant’s development.
Attachment Theory
Bowlby
notes that during their first year an infant’s ‘proximity promoting’ behaviours
become focused on a specific caregiver, which will be someone who has been
consistently responsive to the infant’s behaviour. Bowlby
(1969) used the term ‘monotropy’ to describe this
qualitatively different relationship with a specific individual, which he
assumed/asserted would be the mother. His three volume work titled Attachment and Loss (1969, 1973, 1980) is an attempt to work through the implications of
combining psychoanalytic thinking, ethology and his
personal research, which led him to the conclusion that the attachment bond
which develops between an infant and its mother forms the basis of all
interpersonal relationships in later years. Subsequent researchers have
extended the definition of ‘significant’
formative relationships to include fathers and carers in the attachment ‘dyad’
but the emphasis upon the enduring significance of this early attachment
remains.
Bowlby
(1969) argues that as the child experiences an emotional tie to the caregiver
s/he forms an ‘internal working model’ of the relationship that enables him/her
to generate behaviours which will maintain that relationship as well as aiding
them in the development of other relationships. The internal working model
extends as the child matures and their experiences broaden: however, the
original model serves to determine how new experiences and understandings are
incorporated. Therefore Bowlby argues that despite
being amenable to some modification, the fundamental consistency of a working
model means that ‘getting it right’ with the first, significant relationship is
of great importance.
Numerous
subsequent psychological studies have asserted that the first strong
attachments in humans appear at 6-8 months and are accompanied by the
development of separation anxiety (e.g. Scaffer and
Emerson, 1964). Bowlby argues that when there is
adequate proximity to the primary caregiver, the mechanisms of attachment
between the adult and child are not very explicit because the child feels
secure: s/he does not need to focus on the relationship and is free to give
their attention to other things. However, when the attachment is insecure or
threatened, the infant’s behaviour is concentrated on asserting or reasserting
the relationship.
Bowlby
proposed that there are three signals of threatened or insecure attachment: protest, despair and detachment.
The Strange Situation
Mary
Ainsworth developed specific experimental conditions to observe these
‘attachment behaviours’ in more detail. She called this the Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al, 1978) and used it to assess how
the child-mother relationship is affected by a slightly stressful situation.
Her original study observed 26 babies in a laboratory context. The child’s time
in the laboratory was divided into 8 short episodes, each with slightly
different experiences. Initially, the child is with their mother for whole episode.
Then mother leaves for a short time while the child is alone. Then another
person enters the room while the child is alone … and so on. Ainsworth and her
team observed this process through a one-way mirror, and noted responses in the
child that indicated their attachment to the mother, and the degree of security
and comfort they felt in her presence.
Ainsworth
identified 3 main attachment types on the basis of the common, distinctive
behaviour they exhibited in the Strange Situation. She proposed that these
strange situation behaviours were also correlated to behaviours in the home and
were related to the children’s subsequent social development
Avoidant infants
These children appeared unconcerned with the mother’s
presence or absence. They explored the room with little reference to their
mother and showed little distress at their departure. Moreover, they visibly
ignored or snubbed their mothers when they returned. The mothers of these
children were described as ‘rejecting’: they were slow to respond to their
signals and appeared uncomfortable with close contact, although they were eager
to interfere unnecessarily with their child’s activities. The implication here
is that the child has come to realise that his/her mother’s care is either
inadequate inconsistent, and they no longer invest in having a strong
attachment with her. This leads to the speculation that these children will
experience difficulties in developing healthy relationships with other people.
Secure infants
These children gave evidence of confidence in their
mother’s ability to provide comfort: they explored the room freely and sought
contact with their mother when necessary. Their mothers were sensitive in
response to their children’s signals, and were emotionally expressive and flexible
in dealing with them. Although the children’s explorations decreased when their
mother left the room they were not inconsolable, and they were happy to see
their mother return. The implication is that these children’s attachment is
appropriate, and they will be able to develop healthy relationships with other
people.
Resistant infants
These children appeared preoccupied with getting maternal
attention and contact, but also hesitant to trust her. They were reluctant to
explore even in their mother’s presence and were extremely distressed by her
departures. The mothers of these children were inconsistently responsive and
often inept in physical contact, showing little spontaneous affection. The
argument is that, like the avoidant children, these children have experienced
inadequate and inconsistent care from their mothers: however, this experience
has not resulted in the children’s ambivalence towards their carers. Instead,
they merely exaggerated their attempts to obtain their mother’s attention.
In the
original study, 65% of the children were classified as secure, 21% as avoidant
and 10-14% as resistant. In later studies, members of Ainsworth’s original team
developed an additional classification of ‘disorganised infants’ that described
the behaviours of infants whose social and emotional development had been
damaged in some way.
Disorganised
infants (Main and Solomon, 1986/1990)
These children demonstrated a breakdown in organised
attachment behaviour and acted erratically and unpredictably in their mother’s
absence.
These unusual behaviours only made sense if they were
interpreted as signs that the infant had confused expectations or was fearful
of the caregiver
Hrdy
comments on the body of work generated by Ainsworth’s research team in the
following way:
‘Ainsworth’s “strange situation” procedure made it
possible to classify and measure security of attachment.[…] Generally speaking,
securely attached infants tend to be more socially secure at the time they
enter preschool, and to respond better to instructions from teachers, than
children who have been classified as insecure and disorganised in their
attachment to a key caretaker.’ (Hrdy, 1999: p. 404)
Now we
can see that if these arguments are to have such influence upon our
professional opinions of children’s security and attachment levels, it becomes
increasingly important that we are confident about whether the researchers are
‘getting it right’!
Complicating the Evidence Base
Rutter
(1972) made comparisons between a large group of boys living on the
Tizard
and Hodges undertook a longitudinal study of children in institutional care as
infants, who were adopted after the age of 4 compared with children who were
reared at home by their parents (Tizard and Hodges,
1978; Hodges and Tizard, 1989). Their follow up
observations of the children are ages 8 and 16 indicated that although most of
the adopted children had formed strong attachments with their adoptive parents
they had also experienced some difficulties outside the family group. Tizard et al
concluded that there was little to support Bowlby’s
claim that there was an early critical period for the formation of attachments.
However, they did acknowledge that the first 2 years of life did appear to be
critical in shaping some aspects of later development because the early
institutional experiences of the children appeared to have caused some
obstacles to social and emotional adjustment.
Where
does all the information get us? Hrdy introduces us
to Fraiberg’s notion of ‘ghosts in the nursery’ as a
means of highlighting what many psychoanalysts believe to be the significance
of early childhood experiences.
‘In every nursery there are ghosts. The intruders from [a
family’s] past have taken up residence in their nursery claiming rights of
ownership. They have been present at the christening for two or more
generations. While none has issued an invitation, the ghosts have taken up
residence and conduct the rehearsal of the family tragedy from a tattered
script.’ (Fraiberg, 1975 cited in Hrdy,
1999: p. 405)
If we
agree with this perspective, then maybe the growth in ‘parenting’ advice is not
only useful, but essential for the future well-being of our children. However,
if you are unpersuaded by this viewpoint you may want
to consider some of the critiques of attachment theory that can be found by
simple internet searches. A helpful starting point may be Cleary’s (1999)
response to Bowlby, where she refers to psychology as
a twentieth century mythology, or Shaver and Fraley’s (2000) article, which
highlights the role of emotion in caregiving. The
first article warns against an overly sentimental reading of attachment theory,
while the second wishes to reassert the role of emotion. Plenty of others will
also provide easily readable ‘ways in’ to the type of critique you wish to
make. The controversial question I want to leave you with today, is … if
attachment is a negotiated relationship between carer and child, and there is
evidence of an insecure attachment – is there any circumstance where it might
be appropriate to identify the child as the source of this ‘problem’?
References
Cleary,
R. (1999) Bowlby’s Theory of Attachment and Loss: a
feminist reconsideration Feminism and
Psychology 9 (32) pp. 1-12
Shaver,
P. and Fraley, R. (2000) Attachment Theory and Caregiving
Psychological Inquiry 11 (2) pp.
109-114