|
  |
|
|
Attachment Theory - Is It A Sound Basis For Raising Children
By James Keightley of giggleberries
How to bring up children is something most parents probably seek and definitive answer to and has prompted psychologists to explore the characteristics of relationships between child and carer and the extent to which these provide a sound base for the healthy psychological development. Bowlby (1958, p. 5) explored the significance that secure attachments have on the emotional, cognitive and behavioural development of children and demonstrated the impacts of deprivation of maternal care. However, others have examined his theory in light of wider influences, such as cultural variations and social constructivist perspectives. I therefore intend to examine Bowlby’s Attachment Theory and illustrates the what extent to which it is a sound basis for bringing up children by explaining his theory and considering it in light of other claims. Cowie (1995, p. 5) introduces Bowlby’s (1958 – 1980) theory of attachment. He was interested in the affectional ties between child and primary caregiver, that served to facilitate a secure attachment and the consequences separation has on psychological development. His theory reflected a nativist perspective, claiming attachment bonds are rooted in biological and evolutionary predispositions. He argued predispositions to form attachments are part of an innate behavioural system, allowing infants to maintain proximity through the activation of attachment systems. These cause the child to display proximity promoting behaviour, such as crying, which brings the child in to contiguity of its carer and who is able to provide needs that have a survival value. The child eventually becomes an active agent in maintaining the balance between proximity and separation through developing an internal working model of the relationship with their carer in order to learn their availability for protection. Bowlby explored the importance of proximity for establishing and maintaining secure attachments by examining the effects of separation. In a report for the World Health Organization, ‘Child Care and the Growth of Love’, he claimed secure attachments provided a warm, intimate and continuous relationship necessary for mental health. This was founded on research identifying deprivation as a reoccurring theme for delinquent adolescent boys. His belief in the importance of proximity was also influenced by Konrad Lorenz’s (1966, p. 6) ethological studies of young goslings, who identified their predisposition to form attachments to their mother, during a ‘critical period’ of imprinting them as objects of attachment from them being the first object they see move after birth. Bowlby claimed children also have a ‘critical period’ of imprinting the primary carer as an object of attachment and was between 6 months and 3 years of age. By 9 months the mother becomes a secure base from which separation protests prevented attachments being established with others and subsequent deleterious behaviour due to separation. Goldfarb (1947, p. 8) studied 30 children who had been separated from their mother at birth and illustrated the importance of close and continuous attachment. Half those cared for in institutions presented signs of being retarded in terms of speech, arithmetic, and intelligence. This is extended by Harlow and Harlow (1969, p. 9) who demonstrated the irreversible effects when infant Rhesus monkeys were separated from their mother, as they became disturbed, aggressive and withdrawn. This research illustrates the importance of secure attachments and adverse effects of deprivation that is related to behavioural problems. Bowlby (1969, p. 28) claimed that children develop internal working models of their relationships with others, and juxtaposed with previous schemas and experiences, guide the actions and attachments with their carer. This broader perspective is extended by Main & Goldwin (1984, p. 32) who used Adult Attachment Interviews to explore the internal working models of adults own childhood relationships and identified four types of attachment that have an enduring effect on the relationship with their own children; autonomous-secure, dismissing-attached, preoccupied-entangled and unresolved-disorganized. Enduring influences of our own childhood relationships can provide our subsequent representations of our own children and influence the transactional process of internal working models that are constructed between mother and child. This provides social constructivist perspective and highlights greater significance of the interconnectedness between mother and child. However, one criticism is its subjectiveness of children’s representations and not being able to measure what schemas and experiences are internalised in to their behaviour. Bowlby adopted a rigid and monotropic view and considered mothers are the sole attachment figure and deprivation alone as the root cause for insecure attachments and behavioural problems, ignoring the wider variables. This sense of rigidity is echoed by his ‘all or nothing’ perspective to the ‘critical period’. This is rebuked by Suomi & Harlow (1972, p. 9) who demonstrated the effects of social and sensory deprivation were reversible when Rhesus monkeys were socialized with normally reared monkeys. Consequently, ethologists argue that a child’s development is more qualitative, and see it as more of a ‘sensitive period’, which acknowledges a discontinuity to the maturation of children developing secure attachments. This suggests that there are qualitative differences between individuals and is supported by arguments that Bowlby over simplified children’s response to strangers and that the intensity of response varies between children. It seems that whilst Bowlby’s theory offers some sound basis for advice on bringing up children, there is not such an ‘all or nothing’ feature to it and there is greater discontinuity between the individual development of attachment. Furthermore, secure attachments per se may not be a sound basis for determining normal development and that consideration should be given to the type and quality of attachment. Tizard et al (1975 – 1978, p. 11) claimed deprivation alone was not responsible for insecure attachments and that the unstimulating environments endemic within institutions where children were reared and where there was a high turnover of carers, prohibited the formation of close relationships. Further more Tizard et al argued that there was no clear link between separation and behavioural problems. However, Rutter (1981, p. 11) offers an interesting concept, that whilst not entirely rebuking the effects of separation claimed by Tizard et al extends the wider environmental contexts at play. Rutter claimed it’s the type of deprivation experienced that is important and highlighted three types; privation (denial of opportunity to establish bonds due to environments such as institutions), disruption (loss of already established maternal bonds through experiences such as death of a parent) and distortion (bonds become out of context due to experiences such as divorce). Ainsworth et al (1969 – 1985, p. 11) illustrates the importance of the quality of the relationship between child and carer, highlighting the significance of the carer as a secure base from which attachments develop and their sensitivity in predicting secure attachments and later behaviour. Ainsworth measured the relationship using the Strange Situation technique where a child would be left alone with a stranger and then reunited with the mother. Ainsworth identified four types of attachment. Type A (anxious/avoidant – child avoids mother on reunion), Type B (secure – child prefers mother to stranger and during reunion with mother maintains close proximity and is easily soothed), Type C (anxious/ambivalent – upset during separation and displays anger and ambivalence to mother on reunion) and Type D (disorganized – confused or apprehensive at separation). Whilst Ainsworth emphasized the importance of the quality of a relationship she still considers them as biologically rooted and universal across cultures. Ainsworth supported this with her cross cultural studies, identifying relationships between the ratio of attachment types in America and Uganda. However, Kroonenburg (1988, p 16) is critical of this and argues that there are cultural variations. Ainsworth compared only a small number of countries and yet it is evident that there are differences, for example between Israel and Japan. This suggests variations are due to different cultural norms and that illustrate attachment relationships are context embedded. This reflects the possibility that Ainsworth’s studies did not account for wider social influences. It’s also questionable as to the extent to which her study was ecologically valid as it does not mention any consideration of behavioural response to strangers outside of the home, towards strangers of different genders or others to whom the child has met before. Nor does it reflect variances in attachment between girls and boys, an important aspect as Davie et al (1972, p. 49) found high levels of maladjustment in boys. Thus, gender appears to be a relevant consideration when taking advice on how to bring up children and a feature that cannot be generalized. Like Bowlby, Ainsworth does not go far enough to consider the wider influences to attachment beyond the primary carer or cultural variations and thus generalizes her findings. It is clear that wider relationships and contexts do play a role as it has already been claimed that children can bond with others, that the effects of separation can be compensated for by variables outside of the primary carer or monotropic context, and there is probably no relationship between separation and behavioural problems. Others might argue that the basis for advice in bringing up children should be considered in the wider context and that there is a greater transactional process between child, primary carer and significant others. This is highlighted by Clarke-Stewart (1988, p. 20) who is speculative of research by Belsky (1988, p. 19) that suggested that the deleterious effects of children who were separated for 20 or more hours a week in day care. Clarke-Stewart argued insecure attachment is not necessarily due to separation, but a combination of other factors, such as experience and ratio of staff to children. This is supported by Melhuish et al (1990, p. 21) who identified less attention was provided in day care and there was lower affection between child and staff. However, he also identified favourable behaviour such as more positive social characteristics and demonstrates that the issue of separation and behavioural problems can not be simplified. It seems wider social context are an important consideration in bringing up children and that surpass Bowlby’s monotropic and dyadic theory of attachment. There are disparities in the types of attachment in different cultures, namely Israel and Japan and it might be argued this is reflective of varying social networks and images of children. The Six Cultures Project by Whiting & Whiting (1975, p. 10) highlights the variety of social support children receive, how developmental expectation differ and upbringing can involve a large network of relations that contribute to child care. Achenbach et al (1987) suggested development and associated problems are context embedded and ‘goodness of fit’ to a particular culture may not transcend and be culturally relative to another. Whilst Whiting & Whiting (1975) identified that there were common key developmental goals across cultures, there were also differences. What may be described as disobedient in one culture might be valued by another as independence, where self reliance has a quality of ‘ecological adaptiveness’ (Bronfenbrenner 1979, p. 51). Consequently, whilst warm, continuous and sensitive care may be good advice for bringing up children, it seems that it need not be provided by a sole carer and that other relations play a significant part. This is supported by Weisner & Gallimore (1977, p. 33) who found only five non-industrial societies where the child was rear primarily by their mother. Stewart (1983, p. 25) highlighted the significant contributions siblings have as they hug and reassure infants during the Stranger Situation observations. Spieker and Booth (1988) postulated that secure attachments were fewer for those living in conditions of poverty and chronic stress. This supports earlier claims that separation alone does not account for insecure attachments and that environmental conditions are important. This also concurs with the three influences on the quality of attachment identified by Belsky (1984, p. 27); personal psychological resources, contextual sources and characteristics of the child. This body of information not only extends the importance of social variables, but also extends the influence of wider relationships and is strengthened by the significance reported of grandparent’s. Children can see grandparents up to twice a week and consequently can act as surrogate mothers, reduce the impact of poverty, stress and serve to maintain the attachment to the child’s biological parent(s). On reflection Bowlby’s Attachment Theory adopts a nativist perspective in illustrating the importance of secure attachments and is somewhat restrictive in this sense alone. However, his view on the construction of internal working models adopts a more constructivist approach, as it suggests the accommodation and internalisation of environmental information at a qualitative level. Consequently, the ‘sensitive period’ might be appreciated against Piaget’s ‘sensori motor period’ and offers a more realistic basis for advice. However, Attachment Theory still adopts a rigid, monotropic perspective that over generalize the significance of attachment and dyadic relationships, which ultimately limits it as a sound basis for advice in general. Rather it appears development of secure attachments comprises complex, qualitative and continuous transactions between the self and the social. This might be best understood in a social constructivist slant, which involves a network of context, sources and resources of influence that has differing degrees of ecological adaptiveness across cultures.
|
|
 |
|
No reactions yet.
Please login or sign up to rate this intel.
Please login or sign up to add a comment.
The copyright for this content entitled "Attachment Theory - Is It A Sound Basis For Raising Children" has been specified by the contributor as:
All Rights Reserved
This content may not be copied, distributed or adapted by anyone under any circumstances.
|
|
|
This intel was contributed by Jimbob
|
May, 2012
2008
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2009
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2010
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2011
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2012
January, February, March, April, May
|
|
Not a member yet?
Qondio is a powerful network for making it online. If you have a website to
promote, we can help.
Sign up and get in on the action.
|
|
Welcome to Qondio! Discover the awesome power this network can deliver by going to our About page. Or you could skip straight to the Sign Up form.
|
|
