Many researchers believe that all children in all societies go through these stages and that this would be a useful model for the first part of a child’s development but there are a number of problems with this view as the idea of stages suggests that early development is ‘fixed’ and that children automatically go through these stages at certain ages, but different babies progress quicker than others and also some babies become more attached that others.
Attachment is important for various reasons, these include social development which forms the basis for infants to form relationships with others later in life, cognitive development for thinking, reasoning and problem solving. The most important part of cognitive development is the ability to form schemas so that the baby would remember certain things. The baby also develops the concept of object permanence at about the same time as separation anxiety and this is shown by the attachment figure going into a different room and the baby knowing they are no longer in the same room but the attachment figure still exists. Visual perception is important for attachment as babies need to recognise their attachment figures and respond to different facial expressions. Physical development is also important as when separation anxiety begins the child starts to crawl towards the attachment figure when attempting to leave the room to try and stay in close proximity. Bowlby believed that infants use their attachment figure as a secure base to explore the world around them.
Attachment relationships are not all the same and Mary Ainsworth designed an experiment to describe and assess the attachment relationship between the caregiver and the infant (Ainsworth et al. 1978). This experiment was called ‘The Strange Situation’ and consisted of a number of different stages in a strange room with a number of toys scattered around. The different stages were, the child if first with the mother, then along with the stranger, then left completely along for a few minutes. Next the child is reunited with the mother, then left along again, and finally reunited with the stranger then the mother. Ainsworth suggested the children’s reactions to this situation could be put into three groups: securely attached, insecurely attached – avoidant, and insecurely attached – resistant.
The securely attached infants mothers were able to soothe their infants much more easier after the infants became moderately distressed. Insecurely attached infants were rejecting and avoidant as their mothers showed less sensitivity, they also proved to be agitated and anxiously attached.
Researchers suggest that insecurely attached children are more likely to be hostile and socially inadequate (Bretherton 1985).
The Strange Situation experiment has been described as ‘the most powerful and useful procedure’ for the study of infant development (Lamb et al. 1985). It is widely used and has generated a lot of research. There are three main advantages to this experiment, they are that this experiment can be easily replicated and that all infants are responding to a similar situation so any differences can not be because they are in different situations. The experiment provides a variety of measures for assessing the attachment relationship. This is really important because a single measure can give false impressions. Research indicates that different types of attachment may have different effects on the child’s development.
Not all evaluations of this experiment have been as positive, there are three main criticisms, these are that firstly, it has been criticised for being unrealistic and that the setting is not true to life and that it does not reflect everyday situations and as a result of this it may not be possible to generalise the findings to real life settings. Secondly, the experiment was created in the USA and contained American infants, so would different societies react differently to this experiment.
Thirdly, the ethics have been questioned, is it acceptable to place infants and caregivers in these situations which can produce anxiety? Researchers believe that any stress has only short term effects.
When Mary Ainsworth did this experiment it suggested that there were links between the mother’s behaviour and the type of attachment the infant had. For example, the behaviour of an infant in an insecure-resistant attachment is inconsistent and this reflects their mother’s inconsistent behaviour. Different types of behaviour from the mother will therefore form different types of attachment. The sensitivity hypothesis states that the more responsive mothers are to infants during their early months, the more secure the attachment will be at 12 months (Ainsworth and Bell, 1969).
Researchers also believe that the temperament hypothesis (Kagan, 1984) can result in different attachments being made, as the responsiveness of the mother may be influenced by the temperament of the infant, mothers who saw their infant as ‘difficult’ became less responsive to them by 24 months (Spangler, 1997) but the evidence relating to this is inconclusive.
Changes in family circumstances can also affect the attachment relationship, for example the mother taking a job outside of the home can lead to an attachment change. A study of low income families indicated that a third of mothers and infants changed their type of attachment – usually from secure to insecure from 12 months to 18 months (Vaughn et al. 1979). Family stability and instability can also cause a change in attachment. For example, if there was an illness or divorce then the quality of parenting may change which may result in the infant becoming insecurely attached. This suggests that a multiple of different factors can change the attachment relationship.
Bowlby (1973) believed that a secure relationship was essential for later life as he believed that infants would develop similar relationships, he called this the internal working model, and for example, if the infant had received a warm and loving relationship with their attachment figure then this would form a template for the basis of their future relationships.
People who had secure attachments as infants tended to form similar relationships in adult life and people who had insecure attachments tended to feel uncomfortable about becoming close to their partner. Some researchers argue that the suggested link between attachment types and infancy and adult relationships tends to ignore experiences during the intervening years (Levitt, 1991). While early attachment may have some influence on adult life, it is far from being the only influence.
John Bowlby (1951) claimed that a strong attachment to a mother figure was essential for the child’s development and the term maternal deprivation was referred to if the child failed to form this attachment or if they lost the attachment. Bowlby believed that if this attachment never formed or if it was lost then the effects on a child could be serious, but he did believe that a return of an absent mother could reduce the effects. Michael Rutter (1981) questioned Bowlby’s view about separation producing harmful effects for the child. He believed that the events that preceded separation were more important that separation itself. For example if a mother was an alcoholic or drug addict then this was more likely to produce harmful effects, and in his words these effects are ‘not because of the separation involved but rather because of the discord and disharmony which led to the break’. Rutter believed that stress that preceded the separation was the underlying cause of antisocial behaviour.
Goldfarb (1943) looked at the effects on children being raised in institutions. He carried out studies and found that the children in institutions lagged behind in every measure of development. Goldfarb argued that the problems with the children was because they had never formed an attachment during the early months of their lives, but the condition of the nursery may also have had an effect on them.
Studies of children raised in institutions indicate that privation does not necessarily have harmful effects on the infants (Hodges and Tizard, 1989). The effects of privation can be reversed, modified and changed by a child’s experience after the early years.
In an early study Spitz and Wolf (1946) looked at babies whose mothers were in prison. The mothers looked after their babies for the first nine months of their lives and then the babies were put into a nursery for three months. The babies began to show distress by frequent crying and a loss of appetite and a failure to gain weight but when the babies were reunited with their mothers the babies began to put on weight and resumed their normal behaviour. Bowlby used this to support his maternal deprivation hypothesis.
James and Joyce Robertson also showed evidence of the maternal deprivation hypothesis, by a young boy going into residential care for nine days and while he was there he changed rapidly from cheerful and affectionate to withdrawn and despairing. On return home he was rejecting towards his mother and had severe behavioural problems.
Bowlby and the Robertsons were the first to outline the protest despair detachment model which is the sequence of stages the infant is likely to go through if they are separated from their attachment figure. Protest is when the child cries but can be comforted, despair is when the child becomes calmer and appears apathetic and detachment may occur after prolonged separation.
Different children respond to separation differently, some of the main factors for them reacting differently are: age, strange environment, multiple attachments, continuity, and experience of separation, individual differences and family circumstances.
Researchers say that early fears on the effect of working mothers on their children were greatly exaggerated and in fact some research suggests that these effects can be beneficial by giving the infant more independence and be more self sufficient than infants in full time mother care.
