How has Bowlbys original formulation of attachment theory been taken up by subsequent research?

by cleotallblonde (student)

University Degree Biological Sciences

TMA 03

Option 2

How has Bowlby’s original formulation of attachment theory been taken up by subsequent research?

Attachment theory is a field that has received a considerable amount of attention since the 1950s. This essay will briefly describe the original theory as introduced by Bowlby, providing an overview of his key influences, and then consider in more detail how this theory has been developed and expanded by researchers such as Ainsworth and Main and Goldwyn using a variety of methods.

Bowlby is a key figure in the investigation of parent-child relationships and the development of attachment theory. His interest in this field was in part ignited by an awareness of ethological research concerning animal imprinting. In particular, the work of Lorenz, who discovered that by being the first moving object that infant greylag geese came into contact with during the early stages after their hatching – a period he termed the ‘critical period’ – he could fulfil the role of their ‘mother’ (Oates, Lewis & Lamb, 2005). The young geese would follow Lorenz and show an attachment to him as one would expect they would to their mother. For humans, an attachment can be defined as a strong emotional bond between an infant and their caregiver which provides the infant with emotional security (Oates et al., 2005). From an ethological perspective this bond would be viewed as beneficial to survival. However, Freud’s psychoanalytical approach would highlight the role of the caregiver, in providing for an infant’s basic needs, as more important to their survival than the emotional security provided by attachment. Ideas of this nature prompted Bowlby to investigate the significance of attachment to humans.

According to Oates et al. (2005), Bowlby recognised that the biology of certain species of animals (i.e. geese and primates) may be similar to humans. He believed that human infants are born predisposed to become attached to their mother because they provide comfort and emotional security. This idea is supported by Harlow who demonstrated that infant macaque monkeys would seek comfort, when frightened, from a ‘cloth mother’ instead of the other alternative: a ‘wire mother’ who contained their feeding bottle. These findings suggest that feeding is not the main focus of attachment.

Another key aspect of Bowlby’s original attachment theory is the concept of internal working models (IWM). An IWM is made up of a series of impressions: of the self, the other, and the relationship between the two. These impressions form a model for relationships (Oates et al., 2005). Bowlby argued that the IWM is established early in childhood and has consequences for later life, in that the relationship between the infant and their care-giver (established through repeated behaviour, perhaps from multiple care givers) will form the basis of their IWM and therefore a guide for how they relate to others. According to Wood, Littleton & Oates (2007) Bowlby believed a healthy IWM would provide adequate reassurance so that the infant would feel confident to explore the world around them knowing that their caregiver would still be there as they always had been. Bowlby held a deterministic perspective, and therefore believed this scenario would provide the best grounding for healthy adult relationships.

Ainsworth is another key attachment theorist. She developed Bowlby’s ideas further by investigating the ‘secure base’ element of attachment. Ainsworth coined the term ‘secure base’ to describe the reassurance an infant feels if they have a good attachment to their caregiver which allows them to explore unfamiliar environments comfortably (Bretherton, 1992). One of the main strengths of Ainsworth’s research was her extensive use of observation. During her research, Ainsworth used naturalistic observation and observations of behaviour in a staged laboratory setting, of which the Strange Situation is the most well-known and has become very popular in attachment research (Oates ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Ainsworth is another key attachment theorist. She developed Bowlby’s ideas further by investigating the ‘secure base’ element of attachment. Ainsworth coined the term ‘secure base’ to describe the reassurance an infant feels if they have a good attachment to their caregiver which allows them to explore unfamiliar environments comfortably (Bretherton, 1992). One of the main strengths of Ainsworth’s research was her extensive use of observation. During her research, Ainsworth used naturalistic observation and observations of behaviour in a staged laboratory setting, of which the Strange Situation is the most well-known and has become very popular in attachment research (Oates et al., 2005).

The Strange Situation involves the monitoring of an infant’s behaviour during a series of conditions over a twenty minute period. Initially the infants are engaged in normal play with their mother. After a short period, a stranger enters and talks with the mother, before moving on to play with the infant. The mother then leaves her infant and the stranger playing alone, returning after some minutes. The stranger then leaves the room and is shortly followed by the mother. The child is now alone in the room, but after a period the stranger returns to offer comfort or to continue playing. Finally the mother returns to the room and the stranger exits (Oates et al., 2005). According to Ainsworth, how a child behaves during this period can be used to classify their attachment type.

Ainsworth originally defined three classifications of attachment: insecure-avoidant (Type A), secure (Type B), and insecure-ambivalent (Type C). According to van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) approximately 65% of infants can be classified as Type B after their participation in the Strange Situation experiment. Securely attached infants have a strong emotional attachment with their mother which gives them the courage to explore new situations, safe in the knowledge that their mother will return. Infants classified as insecure-avoidant appear indifferent to their mother’s presence and not distressed by their absence, whereas, insecure-ambivalent children show distress at being separated from their mother, but show contradictory emotions on reunion (Oates et al., 2005). This original research has been enhanced by Main and Soloman (1990), who suggest there is a fourth classification: Type D, which represents those infants who present as confused and apprehensive to their parents. It is interesting to note that this fourth classification has been defined significantly later than Ainsworth’s original types, suggesting that infant behaviour has changed over the years, or that more recognition is given to the difficulties many children face in terms of abuse and neglect.

Attachment classification was a significant enhancement of Bowlby’s original theory, as it allowed for a more experimental approach. Another aspect of Bowlby’s theory that has been developed to allow for more measurement and scientific analysis is the continuity of internal working models and the influence of attachment in childhood. Main and Goldwyn (1994) developed the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) which was used to assess the attachment styles of adults. In contrast to Ainsworth’s emphasis on observation, this method focused on the participants answers to a series of questions in a structured interview. Encouraging participants to reflect on their own history can produce very rich data. Due to the subjective nature of the data collection, accuracy in terms of actual facts may be amiss. In the case of the AAI, the purpose was to capture the participant’s memory of early relationships with their parents. Their responses were categorised as either: dismissing, if they presented as indifferent to their childhood; autonomous, if they acknowledged the importance of relationships past and present and understood the effect of positive and negative experiences; or preoccupied, if there were emotional issues still unresolved.

Thus far this essay has outlined Bowlby’s idea that the security of attachments formed during a child’s infancy contributes to the development of their IWM, which can be linked to their adult attachment style. Hamilton (1994) discovered that when an individual’s family life remains stable, their IWM is consistent too. However, Zimmerman et al. (2000) conducted research that suggested attachment styles do change throughout a person’s life. Factors such as bereavement and divorce can adversely affect the security of attachment. Research has also suggested that children, who did not form a secure attachment during their infancy, can earn security through healthy adult relationships (Wood et al., 2007).

In addition to research regarding the classification of attachment styles and the degree of their stability, consideration has also been given to the effect of different styles on behaviour. Poor attachment can be linked to disturbed behaviour. Bowlby himself conducted a study on delinquent children, focussing on their relationship with their mothers. Based on his findings that a higher percentage of delinquent children had experienced maternal separation during infancy, compared with the control group, he concluded that there was a link between the two factors. In particular, Bowlby coined the term ‘affectionless thieves’ to describe the group of thieves that also presented as emotionally withdrawn, of which 88% had experienced maternal separation. It is important to note that no cause and effect can be inferred as there may be a third factor contributing to the both factors. Woodhead, Rhodes and Oates (2005) highlight a number of other risk factors for disturbed behaviour, including marital relationship, maternal mental state, and parental attitudes to the child.

Another area of research that has developed to investigate the relationship between parents and their children recognises the active role of children. For instance, Bell (1968) believes that a child’s temperament will influence how their parents behave towards them, suggesting that the mother of an irritable child may respond with anger, which could in turn encourage the baby to become anxious and more disruptive, perhaps not sleeping. This idea of transactional models challenges other research by Sears et al. (1957) who attribute the cause of aggression in children to parental style.

In conclusion, this essay has highlighted how Bowlby’s original attachment theory has been developed by other researchers using a variety of methodologies. Ainsworth created a classification system that offered a means of defining attachment styles and allowed measurement over time. Main and Goldwyn developed the classification further by designing a method of assessment that allowed adult attachment styles to be defined. Other research has assessed the stability of one’s attachment style and the influence of life events. There has also been attention given to the influence of attachment styles on temperament and the transactional relationship between parents and children. Attachment theory is a field that is always being developed, as with Main and Solomon’s addition to Ainsworth’s attachment classifications. Further research is needed to assess the extent to which attachment styles are culturally specific.

Word Count = 1614

References

Bell, R. Q. (1968), cited in Woodhead, M., Rhodes, S. and Oates, J. (2005) p.78.

Bretherton, I. (1992) ‘The Origins of Attachment Theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth’, Developmental Psychology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 759-775.

Hamilton, C. E. (1994) cited in Oates, J., Lewis, C. and Lamb, M. E. (2005) p.40.

Main, M. and Goldwyn, R. (1994), cited in Oates, J., Lewis, C. and Lamb, M. E. (2005) p.38.

Main M. and Soloman, J. (1990), cited in Oates, J., Lewis, C. and Lamb, M. E. (2005) p.28.

Oates, J., Lewis, C. and Lamb, M. E. (2005) ‘Parenting and Attachment’, in Ding, S. and

Littleton, K. (eds) Children’s Personal and Social Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.

Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E. and Levin, H. (1957), cited in Woodhead, M., Rhodes, S. and Oates, J. (2005) p.78.

van IJzendoorn, M. H. and Kroonenberg, P. M. (1988), cited in Oates, J., Lewis, C. and Lamb, M. E. (2005) p28.

Wood, C., Littleton, K. and Oates, J. (2007) ‘Lifespan Development’, in Cooper, T. and Roth, I. (eds) Challenging Psychological Issues, Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Woodhead, M., Rhodes, S. and Oates, J. (2005) ‘Disturbed and Disturbing Behaviour’, in Ding, S. and Littleton, K. (eds) Children’s Personal and Social Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.

Zimmerman, P., Becker-Stoll, F., Grossman, K., Grossman, K. E., Scheurer-Englisch, H. and Wartner, U. (2000) cited in Oates, J., Lewis, C. and Lamb, M. E. (2005) p40.