Bowlby, was one of the main characters that played a part in the development of the stage theory. He believed that a child went through certain developments and that during some of these, it is critical to have a secure attachment. Bowlby proposed that if infants were deprived of their mother (the major attachment figure), during the critical period of attachment of the first few years of life then a range of consequences for later development would follow. He followed up this proposal with a study on juvenile thieves. Other psychologists also under took research that supported the proposal, Goldfarb, studied children that had been raised in institutions for the first three years of their lives and Spitz and Wolf investigated infants in South American orphanages.
When Bowlby studied the juvenile thieves, his aim was to find the relationship between maternal deprivation and emotional development and delinquency. Bowlby interviewed 88 children, 44 of these had a history of stealing, and the other 44 had other emotional problems. He found that 32% of the thieves were emotionally maladjusted, there were affection-less psychopaths and had a lack of guilt. Of this 32%, 86% had suffered from maternal deprivation early in life.
Bowlby also teamed with am a man called Robertson to study into the effects of deprivation. They did a naturalistic observational study of children aged 1-4 years in residential nurseries. Films of specific length were taken of individual children, focusing on behavioural and emotional reactions due to short-term separation. They found that deprivation caused the short-term effects of protest, despair and detachment. Another team, Cockett and Tripp, did a study on the effects of long-term deprivation. in children from re-ordered families , where parents had divorced and the child now lived away from a parental attachment figure. They found that there were more long-term effects in those children than in children that lived in intact but discordant families. The found long-term effects of deprivation are increased aggression, an increase in clingy behaviour they also found that there is an increased risk of depression as an adult.
With the ever-increasing amount of mothers going to work and sending their children to day-care, a longitudinal investigation was taken into the effect of day-care. They found that children who spend long amounts of time in day-care and who start going to day-care at a very young age are more likely to be at risk from attachment problems. The research also showed that yes the attachment formed between a young child and its mother is unique. As too long in day-care form a young age made it hard for the child to form that attachment with the mother or another person. However, day-care gave the children an opportunity to form multiple attachments and to learn to socialise. something that being at home with only a mother could not do.
all of the research that can be done to try and support Bowlby’s theory has looked at a wide range of examples and has come up with a wide range of results as well as the one they were looking for. However, all the psychologists that put forward research, have missed some vital information that is needed to make a precise judgement. The PDD model does not take into account individual differences such as personality, Previous separations that have been experienced and other learning experiences as well. Not all short term separations cause the same reactions, the length of the separation has to be taken into account, the other familiar people that the child may have attachments to that are around and the environment also have to be taken into account. Short-term separation doesn’t always lead to distress.
the information found from the study of the juvenile thieves, did support Bowlby’s proposals, however we can look at it and see that there are many problems with the investigation:
- Most importantly, we are not told the results of the 44 children that are not thieves. This means that we cannot compare the results, which is the purpose of having a control group.
- There must have been a wide range of people interviewed if he interviewed 88 children, but we are not given information as to the range and the socio-economic factors.
- Also, the interview procedure may not have been valid as the parents were with the children and this would influence what the children say and do.
- Finally, how could the children remember exactly what happened in their childhood, if the interviews were repeated, then the answers may not be the same.
The results could be a lot better, but as always, you have to remember when looking at the results of an investigation that a researchers own bias from experiences and memories will always affect their judgement on the results.
Over the years, cross cultural studies have shown that children in other countries, are more likely two have multiple attachments than those in the USA and in Britain. They also showed that countries like Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands have a greater percentage of securely attached children than places like China or West Germany.
It is important to remember that a lot of research does not take into account the other factors involved, such as the child’s background and home environment. It also tends to overlook the original relationship between the mother and the child
Overall, research has supported Bowlby’s theory to a certain extent. It does support the statement that the attachment to the mother is unique. Although it also proves that it not the most important, the most important thing for the child is to have multiple attachments.
