'Are Mothers Necessary?'

‘Are Mothers Necessary?’

Attachment as described by psychologists Kennell ‘is an emotional bond between two individuals that endures trough space and time, and serves to join them emotionally’. A bond that develops between child and caregiver provides the child with emotionally security. The question ‘are mothers necessary?’ has been a much-discussed debate. In order to answer either for or against the necessities of mother, many theories attempt to explain attachment. Familiar people who have responded to the child’s needs for physical care and stimulation are the child’s attachment figures. Infants form attachments with their primary care givers, usually the mother.

Biological views on how attachment bonds begin are, as a response to needs. The arousal relaxation cycle meet these needs. Firstly, the need for food causes’ discomfort, the response to that need by the primary care giver leads to satisfaction and subsequently quiescence and then eventual the need will be present again. After eighteen weeks the need of a baby is no longer just food, it is now tactile verbal comfort. Interlocution between mother and baby now occurs. The arousal relaxation cycle leads to trust, security and ultimately attachment. The verbal comfort will lead to self worth, self-esteem that is just one of the many benefits of attachment. Other benefits of attachment are; it helps the child to attain full intellectual potential; to have accurate perceptions; think logically with emotion; develop a conscience; become self reliant; cope with stress, frustrations; cope with fear or worry; and finally it reduces jealousy. It also helps to develop future relationships, which is necessary not only for the species to survive but also for a happy person capable of relationships with friends and work colleagues etc ‘life is about making and sustaining meaningful relationships’ (Rutter). If attachments do form in childhood, the type of attachment or strength of attachment can be assed.

Attachment theories often attempt to measure attachment and conclude that children are either insecurely attached or securely attached. Psychologist Ainsworth distinguished between two types of insecurely attached (avoidant and ambivalent /resistant). The strange situation was a way to measure the strength of attachment between child and caregiver. Ainsworth pioneered the way for distinguishing between the types of attachments with the strange situation experiment. Ainsworth concluded the care-giving hypothesis from these studies, which supported the broad claim that characteristics of care giving such as maternal sensitivity, continuity, and ‘the harmony of customary’ interactive style, all indicated which group the attachment type should be labelled. The secure type child seeks protection or comfort and receives care consistently from the mother. The mother is usually rated as loving and affectionate. The avoidant type is a child who generally ignores and pulls away from the mother. The mother is usually rated is rejecting of the child’s attachment behaviour. The resistant type is when the infant tends to stay close to their mother. The mother is usually rated as being consistent in their care (Fraley and Spieker). The strange situation experiment is standard practice for psychologists to distinguish the child’s and the caregivers’ attachment behaviours. In order to do this the child is separated from the caregiver, and observations are made of the reactions of the child when a stranger enters the room and when the child is finally reunited with the caregiver. The securely attached child was the predominant child in all studies but in it would seem there is a possibility that secure attachments may be more likely in certain cultures when compared to others.

Critiques argue that the strange situation ‘is not an appropriate measure of attachment security in all cultures’. In Japan, babies were likely to be classified as insecure/ ambivalent, because they found separation far more stressful, probably because Japanese babies are rarely separated from their mothers in the first year of life. Another critique of the strange situation experiment originally done by Ainsworth, upon which she based the categories, would be the problem of the observers used. The observers who rated the children’s behaviour were asked to make a subjective evaluation in the home and the same person (sometimes) assed the parent and child in the strange situation. Therefore, the data could be both inaccurate and biased, as the person observing knew the mother and child beforehand, and may have had certain expectations. Another problem with the strange situation experiment is that it simple measures several minutes of reunion behaviour in unnatural and unfamiliar laboratory surroundings. It attempts to reveal a year’s emotional history between the caregiver and child. How babies respond in the strange situation could be due to other factors, such as temperament. Psychologist Kegan did a study of babies from birth to eight years old. One personality trait that Kegan found is shyness and extremely shy children have abnormally low stress thresholds, therefore inborn temperament could be partly responsible for the way babies respond in the strange situation.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another more predominant factor is the nature and quality of the infant – caregiver relationship the amount of time spent with a child does not appear to effect the development of attachment, but the intensity of the interaction is important. Schaffer and Emerson found that a more strongly attached child was, the child whose mother gave more attention and time to play, compared to the child whose mother interacted with the child only when giving routine care. ‘The intensity rather, then duration of interaction is the crucial feature’. Attachments were strongest in cases were mothers responded regularly and quickly whenever there infants cried. Ainsworth noted that the mothers ‘sensitivity to her babies signals, is a key feature’. Schaffer suggested that, by learning to recognise these signals and adapting behaviour to the requirements of the individual infant gave that caregiver the abilities to develop a secure attachment bond

Crying is a social signal that infants use, as they have not yet learned how to talk. How well or quickly a response is made to that cry determines how the need is satisfied. Unfortunately in our capitalist society, due to the demands of work (or our culture teaches us) we allow a child ‘to cry it out’. The expectation is a form of control passed on from one generation to the next. Class also affects this, traditionally more, than any other culture or class, the European working class parents hit their own children. Smacking is a learned behaviour if you smack your child then your child learns to smack. Again traditionally passed on from one generation to the next perhaps from the Victorian era of ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’, the autocratic parental style has been passed down. Each generation teaches the next that if you do not allow the child to cry it out, then you will be making it harder for yourself. A satisfied baby will not cry and he/she learns trust. A baby does not cry because the mother has just sat down, an infant does not cry mulishly. As a society who slots children into our schedule, we need to stop. Insecure mothers are likely to have an insecure attachment bonds with their infants. The emotional psychological conditions of the mother determines her ability to pick up the key signals and provide a responsive and sensitive continuity of care, which eventually develops into a secure attachment. Parental style, whether lassie-fair, autocratic or democratic effects attachment. A democratic parental style often results in a child who is less aggressive has strong attachments and high self-esteem.

The studies of attachment processes have not only used empirical human evidence, but also studies on animals, such as Harlow’s rhesus monkey experiment, that disproves the ‘cupboard love’ theory. (Infants only want the mother for what they can get out of her.) A psychoanalytic account is that attachments are formed when the infants need for food is met (especially being breast- fed). In addition, Harlow’s study disproves the behaviourists view. Hulls drive reduction model sees infants becoming attached to those who satisfy the physiological needs. Therefore, food is associated with the caregiver (hunger, is the child’s primary drive). The infant learns to have the need for food met and this generalises into a feeling of security whenever the caregiver (who is the secondary drive), is near to the infant. Harlow found that, when infant rhesus monkeys were placed in a cage with two surrogate mothers, ‘the infants spent most of their time clinging to the cloth mother, even though ‘she’ provided no nourishment’. Therefore, monkeys have an unlearned need for ‘contact comfort’. Harlow’s study cast doubt on cupboard love theories and provided evidence that for (rhesus monkeys) attachment does not depend on food exclusively.

The infant rhesus monkeys failed to develop normally, as adult monkeys they were aggressive, rarely interacted with other monkeys and were almost impossible to breed. This is possibly because the rhesus monkeys are highly sociable animals; it could be because of the privation of social interaction with the group from birth. Based on Harlow’s study nothing definite could be said about the attachment in humans, as it would not be ethical to do this experiment using human babies. However, observations by Schaffer and Emerson found that human infants could become attached to family members not providing food, and more so, in western societies it is noted that some infants become attached to a blanket or dummy.

The ethological theory is a widely accepted view. By studying the behaviours of certain baby birds in their natural habitat, ethologists Lorenz observed the following behaviour of the young. The baby birds from the precocial spices had the ability to fend for themselves when hatched, half saw their mother first and half saw Lorenz. The first moving object that is seen. The young animal learns to follow (this is usually the mother and therefore would provide care to its young.). Lorenz called this imprinting. This ensures survival because the mother feeds and protects its offspring. It was found that imprinting was genetically determined (the infants imprinted to a moving matchbox and a balloon). This could suggest how attachments are formed in humans, as children’s behaviour observed, in their own environment resembles that of our primate ancestors. However, as human babies do not have the ability to follow their caregiver when born they have other methods in order to promote the chances for individual genes to survive. Babies are born with or are biologically prepared with the means to establish a bond with a caregiver for the purpose of proximity. Innate signals call the caregiver to babies’ side, (for example, smiling and crying) it ensures a consistent continuity of sensitive care given, under such conditions, and then a secure attachment can develop. The homology view is to assume that all living things devised from the same living organism, not all accept it, and furthermore, imprinting does not apply to all parent offspring bonds. The homology requirement is not met as birds and mammals evolved from lizards. Lizards today show no parent offspring bond.

Lorenz also discovered that there is a ‘critical period’ (an amount of time), in which the infant ducks, goslings, etc. had to imprint on the moving object. For Lorenz’s geese, this critical period was a few hours (studies by Hess show a maximum of 24 hours), Bowlby was inspired by Lorenz’s work, and this evolutionary approach became the basis of Bowlby's attachment theory. He applied the idea of a critical period to human babies. For babies it is not a few hours but up to the age of three, (after which time, no attachment can be made.) However, even after six months it is difficult, according to Bowlby. As it is unethical to deny babies the opportunity to form attachments, many questions remain unanswered. What environmental conditions are needed for the willingness to develop attachment and how long that keenness can persist? Is an attachment developed late as strong, stable, and secure as one that developed early?

Bowlby agrees with biological theories that infants are ‘genetically programmed’ to behave in ways that promote survival (for example sucking, cuddling looking, smiling and crying.) but he also argues that like the baby the mother also is ‘programmed’, to respond. According to Bowlby, the infant has a ‘strong tendency to become attached to one particular adult female (not necessarily the natural mother). The mother figure and infant have an attachment that is ‘different in kind’ from any later attachments this is known as ‘monotropy’. Rutter criticised Bowlby's view on monotropy; disagreeing with the view that mother and baby have an attachment, which is ‘different in kind’. How the infant shows its attachment to the mother is not special. All infants and children have different attachment behaviours towards different attachment figures Rutter does not agree that the bond may be stronger and different in kind. Although many adults express that, the death of one particular person (usually the mother figure) would cause irreconcilable grief. Perhaps many people become much more ‘monotropic’ from childhood to adulthood. Some research indicates another possibility that this could be due to the amount of multiple attachment bonds the individual forms in childhood.

Bowlby agrees that children form multiple attachments but he saw the attachment to the mother as being unique; it is the first to develop and the strongest. Schaffer and Emerson studied multiple attachments and found that most infants form multiple attachments with varying intensity. This challenges Bowlby’s claim about monotropy as only half of the infants had formed their strongest attachment to their mothers, nearly a third of the infants were attached to their fathers who were at the top of their hierarchy of attachment figures. Weather or not the strongest (and first) attachment figure is the mother. What happens if that caregiver and infant are forced to separate? For example, mother is taken to hospital (short-term deprivation) or dies? (Long-term deprivation).

Probably the most controversial aspect of Bowlby’s original claim was the ‘maternal deprivation’ hypothesis. Often misinterpreted, it is likely that Bowlby’s original claim which states that any other care (even part time care) by someone other than the child’s permanent attachment figure, causes extreme distress. Bowlby’s theory had psychological evidence that supported his claim, three types of evidence; his own study, on '44 juveniles’; studies carried out by other psychologists like Robertson’s; and animal studies like Lorenz’s critical period. Perhaps considering the fact he was a man of his time with government backing and he had the psychological welfare of the nation at heart it may appear controversial but many psychologist support Bowlby's theories (Ainsworth) and many do not (Rutter). However, It is likely that Bowlby’s claim was referring to evidence found in institutions where there were inconsistently high levels of caregivers, like orphanages in which case bonds were extremely unlikely to form (between caregiver and infant). That is privation—not deprivation. Either way critiques argue that deprivation is unlikely to occur because of short – term deprivation, with any long lasting effects.

Short – term deprivation does cause distress (for example when the mother goes into hospital). From the studies, it was found that children go through three stages, protest, then despair, and finial de-attachment. Although de-attachment appears to take place, the fact that the child re-establishes overtime may indicate that de attachment is not real. Also there are other factors, it has been found that age is an important factor; infants under the age of 6 months up to 4 years emotional distress is shown in some but not all infants. Other variables are also to be considered like sex, ordinal position (for example- the first born appears to show more distress in the strange situation), temperament, prior experiences; as Robertsons suggests if certain steps are taken it can minimise distress like ensuring the child has visited the home (or nursery / institution,) before the actual separation takes place. Another factor to be considered is the attachment style already present between mother or mother figure and child. Bowlby perhaps inevitability condemned a whole variety of maternal deprivation under one blanket’ therefore causing huge amounts of unnecessary guilt from mothers who want or need to work as Rutter stated ‘we know that good quality day care does not disrupt a child’s emotional bond with his parents; moreover, children continue to prefer their parents over alternative caregivers.’ In a good day nursery or crèche, the bond is not broken between mother and child. The child simple is now able to form more multiple (but small in number) of new attachment figures hopefully with no adverse effects.

If the maternal bond is broken in infancy, it will result in serious, permanent, and irreversible effects with severe consequences in all aspects of the child social emotional and intellectual development. Long term deprivation, it is claimed causes; mental sub normality; delinquency; depression; dwarfism; acute distress and affectionless psychopathy (feelings of no remorse or guilt after committing a crime) Bowlby’s methods to draw this conclusion were extremely flawed as his sample size was far to small (just ‘44 juvenile delinquents’.) Rutter criticised the study and conducted a similar study with a larger sample, he found that the majority did not become delinquent. For those who did it was evident that there was a poor relationship within the family group, a lot of family discord that lead to the maladjusted child.

However, controversial Bowlby’s theory seems it has had a positive impact. It has been applied to children’s wards in hospitals leading to better care and improvements in other institutions. The theory has also led to better understanding of the importance of maintaining attachments. The continuing research and studies are building up an accumulation of evidence. It has led the way for critical periods and the importance of the early years to be examined and how this has influences on children’s psychological development. There is also continuing research into the importance of deprivation and disadvantages. There are repeated findings that many children are not damaged by deprivation. According to Rutter, ‘the evidence is unequivocal that experiences at all ages have an impact.’ However, it is likely that the first few years do have a special importance for bond formation and social development, not exclusively restricted to a mother but to another consistent and sensitive caregiver.

Melissa Pilsworth