As well as psychoanalysis, his theory was also influenced by ethology; Bowlby believed that both infant and caregiver act on ‘instinctual’ behaviours, that are designed to aid survival. Infants commonly focus on their carers face, and have rounded facial features, big eyes (and a pleasant smell), to make them look ‘adorable’, to the caregiver, whom the child is dependent on. Babies also cry (or make other noises) when in need of food or comfort to elicit care giving, and the caregiver is innately programmed to respond to such behaviours; which in turn maintains a good degree of proximity between the two, and allows an attachment to form.
If the ethological view is correct, then innate attachment behaviours must be universal; and cross cultural research does generally tend to support this. Infants do appear to form a primary attachment in all cultures; however with some exceptions and cultural variations in the way that people of different cultures relate to their infants. So while there are some differences, certain ‘aspects’ of attachments can be considered innate, (Flanagan, 1999). For example, up until around the age of six or seven months, infants are relatively content with whoever cares for them; after this period they begin to express ‘separation anxiety’ (distress at being separated from their favoured carer). Konner (1981, cited in Flanagan, 1999), reported that the same applies to almost every culture at around the same age.
Expression of separation anxiety is usually the mark of a healthy attachment between child and caregiver. However, if separation persists for long periods of time this can cause ‘bond disruption’ which, according to Bowlby, can damage attachment and have a negative effect on development. The child may suffer emotionally and greet the caregiver indifferently or even aversely when they return; rather than with joy, as in a healthy attachment.
A highly influential study conducted Robertson and Robertson, supports Bowlby`s ideas about the negative impact of prolonged separation. One of the children involved in the study was a one and a half year old boy named John, who was placed in a residential nursery for nine days. While this may seem a fairly short period of separation, the observations showed that he went from being a happy, well-adjusted child, to being so distressed by the experience that he rejected his mother when she returned, (class notes).
The work of Bowlby and the Robertson’s brought about a significant change in hospital policies. At the time of the study many hospitals allowed parents no, or very limited, visits to their children; as the focus was on caring for their physical, rather than emotional, needs. It has now become generally accepted that parents and children should be allowed unrestricted visiting when either are in hospital to avoid the consequences of bond disruption, (Flanagan, 1999).
The research also contributed to the closure of many institutions, (children’s homes). Bowlby suggested that children should be fostered by families, rather than put in to institutions, as it would be difficult for the children to form close attachments; and they would not be properly ‘socialised’. Therefore they would find it difficult to adjust to life outside of the institution once they were old enough to leave. Bowlby went as far to state that ‘bad homes are better than good institutions’; this was because he believed that a bad home would still provide some sort of attachment for a child.
While attachment is now seen as very important for all children, as evident by the closure of institutions and changes in hospital policies, Bowlby also believed that there are different levels of attachment. He theorised that children can form multiple attachments, but that they are not of equal importance to each other. He believed they formed a hierarchy with the primary caregiver at the top, (Flanagan, 1999). He then coined the term ‘monotropy’ to describe how a child has just ‘one’ primary attachment figure.
Bowlby believed that there is a ‘sensitive period’ for the development of attachment, which occurs before the age of five years, with the first two and a half years being of particular importance. Bowlby believed that after this period it would be too late, (or very difficult) for a child to form an attachment. He also stated that if a child`s attachment was damaged, (or if no attachment developed at all) within the sensitive period that they were likely to have difficulties with emotional, social and intellectual development, (class notes).
Bowlby conducted a study which supports these claims; the case study consisted of two groups of forty four participants, all of whom were quite young. One group were juvenile thieves; fourteen of whom were diagnosed by Bowlby as affectionless psychopaths. The other group were not thieves but had experienced some emotional problems. He found that the majority of juvenile thieves had been separated from their mothers for longer than six months during their first five years, while only two in the other group had such a separation, (class notes). He also noted that eighty six per cent of the affectionless psychopaths experienced frequent separations compared with just seventeen per cent of the other thieves, (class notes). Therefore his research does indicate a connection between maternal deprivation early in life and affectionless psychopathy; as well as juvenile delinquency.
Feminists have objected to Bowlby`s doctrine because it appears to suggest that a mother`s ‘place’ is in the home with the children, (Flanagan, 1999); and should she not be, then the child may suffer the adverse effects Bowlby described; low intellect, juvenile delinquency, and affectionless psychopathy. This led many women to feel guilty about pursuing a career. Furthermore, Bowlby`s ideas were exacerbated by politicians, who at the time were eager to get women back in the home, to open up jobs for men after the war had ended.
A positive aspect of his theories is that they are quite testable, with some methods of research in child development being repeatable, such as the strange situation test. Bowlby`s case studies arguably provide an insight in to the negative effects of maternal deprivation; however they are somewhat unreliable. This is because he based his findings around school and medical records, (as well as interviews), which may have been inaccurate, and not represent the true reasons for the problems experienced by the individuals; therefore validity and reliability is an issue.
While much of Bowlby`s research has received support, (such as his theory of instinctual attachment behaviours); his theory does not account for individual differences, and why some children are better able to cope with poor early experiences than others. His work also attracted some criticism as he mostly used the somewhat limited case study research method; and his theory of monotropy led many women who were in work to feel guilty for not being home with their children. Nevertheless, his work has had a very positive effect on how children are now cared for; with emotional care being seen as equally important for development as physical care.
1,452 words
References
Class Notes (2008)
Hayes, N and Stratton, P. (2003). A Student`s Dictionary of Psychology. Oxford University Press, 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY10016
Flanagan, C. (1999). Early Socialisation. Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P4EE
