He also developed the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis, where he claimed that infants who were unable to develop attachments would grow up having problems with relationships and have a higher chance of behavioural disorders. This hypothesis was supported by other psychologists such as Spitz and Wolf (1946) and Robertson and Robertson (1971).
An alternative theory of attachment is the Psychosexual theory put forward by Freud. He said there are five stages of development a child goes through: Oral, Anal, Phallic, Latency and Genital. The stage that deals with attachment is the oral stage, which occurs from birth to about 18 months.
Freud thought that during this time the infant is driven by the “Pleasure Principle”. This is caused by the development of the “Id”, the first component of the personality to develop. The “Id” demands instant gratification and in the oral stage, gratification comes through the mouth. The drive for oral satisfaction is vital at this age as the attention is focused on food and thus, survival. There are three parts to this stage of development: the drive for oral gratification that results in an uncomfortable feeling, so the infant cries. He is then fed, and the drive is reduced and the uncomfortable feeling, hunger, is gone. This is experienced as pleasure. Therefore the attachment is made with the person who offers the gratification and pleasure.
Although at first glance, the two theories are very different, when analysed, similarities can be drawn. They both suggest stages the infant must go through in order to develop into a stable adult. Bowlby says that no infantile attachment leads to problems in adult relationships and Freud says that an unsuccessful transition through any of the five stages will result in regression in later life, for example a child with an oral fixation will suck his thumb, chew pen tops and in later life smoke. Both of these points are true to a certain degree, as there as been countless studies about children who have had maternal deprivation in early infancy and grown up into maladjusted adults. However it is difficult to be able to pinpoint exactly what is the cause of an adults’ maladjusted behaviour as there may be numerous reasons, which cannot be reduced to maternal deprivation alone. One major difference between these theories is that while Bowlby recognises that the primary bond doesn’t have to be with the mother, Freuds’ theory is dependant on the mother or wet nurse. This could lead to implications when trying to apply Freud’s theory today, as many infants are not breast-fed at all.
Bowlby’s theory was very well received in the UK when it was published, as it came just after the second world war, when women were being encouraged to go back to the home and their children, so the men could return to the jobs in the factories etc. His theory gave the government something by which to almost force the women home, as the threat of a maladjusted child, due to your absence, was more than most women wanted to deal with. It was also one of the most important and influential pieces of psychological work of that century.
Freud however was met with a great deal of controversy, as no one in Victorian England wanted to believe that infants and small children had sexual experiences. It was hard enough to admit that adults did, so the notion of children experiencing the same feelings was just absurd. None the less, his work has been of great significance, whether people agree with him or not, it makes them think twice before simply dismissing it as perverse nonsense.
Referring back to the quote from Bowlby in the essay question, I have found a number of studies that both support and reject this proposal.
Bowlby did a study in 1944, which actually gave him the grounding for his Monotrophy theory as discussed earlier. It is known as the “44 Thieves” study where he used 88 young people who had been referred to his guidance clinic. 44 of them had been referred because of stealing. The other 44 young people had no criminal record but were emotionally maladjusted and they were used as the control group. Bowlby found through interviews with the young people and their parents, 86% of the thieves who had been identified as “Affectionless Psychopaths” –with little sense of social responsibility, had experienced “early and prolonged separations from their mothers”. It was found that none of the non-affectionless psychopathic thieves and the control group had experienced such separations. So this shows that having prolonged separations in infancy can result in maladjusted young people and adults, and although some young people do have emotional problems not related to maternal deprivation, anti-social behaviour is linked to the deprivation. However this study does have one major implication, in that it has a gender bias, as all the young people in the study were male, therefore this does not take in to account females. Also the control group was not representative and unable to be applied to all young people, as it does not include young people who are not emotionally maladjusted, but who have experienced prolonged maternal deprivation, for example those who have been in foster care, but grow into respectable adults.
Another study that supports the idea that maternal love needs to be responsive and interactive is that by Harlow and Zimmerman (1959), where they used baby Rhesus monkeys to study the affects of non-responsive caregivers. The monkeys were in a cage with two wire-mesh cylinders, one from which the baby could acquire milk from a teat and the other was wrapped in terry towelling, giving contact comfort. It was thought that if food were the source of attachment, as Freud suggested, the monkeys would spend their time on the cylinder that provided food. However they spent most of their time on the one covered with cloth, and whenever they were frightened, would cling to this one rather than the bare one. This proved that the supply of food is simply not enough to from an attachment. However when the monkeys grew up, they suffered from unhealthy psychological development, as they had not received enough responsive “love” from the cylinder. They displayed abusive behaviour towards other monkeys and had difficulty with parenting and mating. This is another example of how maternal care is obligatory, not just to provide food, but to interact and protect the infant, whether they are human or monkey.
We can also look at other cultures to see whether this “Monotrophy” bond is unique to western cultures.
Fox (1977), looked at life in a Kibbutz. Infants send most of their time with metapelets (nurses) and only see their mothers for a few hours a day. In the Strange Situation, the children protested equally when either woman left, but were comforted more by the return of the mother. This shows that even though the infants have multiple attachments, they are still able to form one special bond.