Regression according to Freud evolves via the conflict principle, which causes traumas, which can later result in the child/adult being neurosis. Freud’s theory of neurosis has been thought to be an explanation for many of the antisocial behavioural occurrences, which occur today (Bowlby, 1997, p.10.)
Bowlby (1950’s) was one researcher who was influenced by the psychoanalytical approach and later emphasized the importance of the ethological perspective. At first he implemented Freud’s idea of the child‘s attachment being built around the mother and their primary needs for survival. In fact Bowlby stressed that the child’s emotional attachment transpires from the security and safety aspects that are provided via the caregiver. He also proceeded to mention that ‘monotropy’ could form between the child and responsible carer. He carried out numerous studies on children whom had been institutionalized. It was here that he concluded that the majority of the children displaying unusual symptoms of behaviour had been separated from their mother either early on in the attachment development process or their mother had been absent for a considerable length of time. Bowlby therefore, began to recognize that Lorenz’s (1935) work on rearing goslings had significant importance. As the ethological explanation of the ‘critical period’ recognizes that a child or animal can be made vunerable at a certain stage of their development (Flanagan, 2002 pp. 40-41.)
Although evidence suggests that children and animals are predisposed to critical periods earlier on in their development other theorists would argue otherwise. Ainsworth (1967) an eminent anthropologist argued that many cultural societies rely on more that than one caregiver to bring up their children. She noted that the majority of infants in the Ganda tribe Uganda formed multiple attachments with several of the adults whom had cared for them during infancy (Flanagan, 2002 p. 43.)
Both Shaffer and Emerson (1964) supported Ainsworth’s explanation of multiple attachment processes as they discovered that an infant forms ‘multiple attachments’ by the (4) phase of their emotional development model. Moreover, they initiated that phase (1) asocial stage 0-6 weeks infants will respond to interesting social and non-social stimuli, phase (2) 6 weeks, -6/7 months infant prefers social to non-social stimulation, will fuss when adult puts them down, and easily soothed via caregiver yet enjoy attention given from a stranger. Phase (3) 7 – 9 months they have established a general attachment to the caregiver. According to Shaffer and Emerson (1964) the third phase is important, as this is where the infant specifically becomes attached to mum. This is the phase that infants often become fearful of strangers. Although Shaffer and Emerson (1964) emotional development model supports Ainsworth’s explanation in the final stage, the model does not necessarily begin on that note. Indeed in the beginning the infant’s development phases can be linked back towards what Bowlby suggests the critical period of attachment (Shaffer, 2002 p.389.)
On a different note the ‘Learning theory’ recognized the importance of not only who feeds the infant, but also how the feeder reinforces the infant. Sears (1963) noted two reasons why feeding was an important process for an infants attachment. Those two reasons involved ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ reinforces (1) feeding would primarily elicit a ‘positive response’ from a content infant e.g. infant smiling, gurgling; and (2) mother would respond via a secondary reinforcer providing ‘comfort’ to the infant e.g. warmth and cuddles. Harlow and Zimmerman’s (1959) study on rhesus monkeys supports the learning theories analogy, as the monkeys who had been fed via the wired mother always ran to the cloth mother seeking comfort if they were afraid or unsure of something (Shaffer, 2002 p.390.)
Yet, Schaffer and Emerson (1964) criticized the importance of the learning theories analogy of the infant’s attachment being primarily based on the feeding practices between mother and baby. They concluded that 39% of the infants tested in their study of mothers and babies, were not necessarily primarily attached to the mother. Indeed Erikson (1982) established that infants would be quick to respond to any individual who satisfies their needs when they are being rewarded and having pleasant experiences. (Shaffer, 2002 p.391.)
It is obvious that there are substantial links in defining the basic needs and emotional attachment bonds between an infant and their mother, as psychoanalytical and learning theorists in the past have established some of the main causes in their earlier research. Yet, the majority of the perspectives have failed to establish whether a lack of attachment in infancy can affect emotional development in later life.
On the other hand recent research carried out on the effects of parental support suggest otherwise. Wickrama, Lorenz, and Conger (1997) noted that children who receive more parental support throughout their childhood are less likely to suffer any psychological problems or physical symptoms compared to those individuals who have had less supportive parents. Antonucci & Akiyama (1987) supported Bowlby’s (1950) analogy on the importance of critical periods. They noted that Parent-child relationships are an important aspect of a child’s social development; due to the nature of their attachment it fuels the structure of the child’s social network over the course of their life. Moreover, Cohen et al (2000) have recognised that if problems occur during this process it can compromise the individuals overall well-being (Shaw, 2004. vol, 19, p.4.)
Shaw et al (2002