Do computers have the potential to change the way children think?

University Degree Education and Teaching

Essay Title: Does attachment theory provide a sound basis for advice on how to bring up children?

“Attachment is a ‘secure base’, a pattern of relationships through which the infant can learn, from which the infant can explore, and to which it can return for security and comfort” (Woodhead, 1995, p. 75). This quote encapsulates what all parents want for their children. Every parent wants to bring their child up in a loving environment where the child feels secure and loved, where they can explore their environment in a meaningful way and return to their secure base in times of threat. These ideals are incorporated into Bowlby’s attachment theory and consequently, one would have to advocate it as a sound basis for advice on how to bring up children. However, the theory is not without its limitations and while this essay will seek to endorse attachment theory in principle it will also argue against certain aspects of the theory.

Through his research John Bowlby postulated the notion that human young have a tendency to form strong emotional bonds with certain individuals, primarily the mother. This inclination provided a survival mechanism through nurturance, protection, and security. Bowlby termed this process ‘attachment theory’ (Cowie, 1995, p. 3). Attachment theory challenges the constructivist view in that it incorporates a life span dimension. Attachment theory is not something that happens in infants and ceases, as adults we are ‘continually renegotiating the balance between being connected to others and being independent and autonomous as they encounter each new developmental phase’ (Cicchetti, 1990, p. 3). Bowlby believed that the bonding relationship between parents and children had a biological and evolutionary basis and he drew on ethology to substantiate his position. Bowlby saw attachment in the early years as a behaviour system with the goal of maintaining appropriate proximity to the primary caregiver. Separation activates the attachment system i.e. proximity-promoting behaviours, for example, crying, vocalising, and clinging, in order to restore proximity. Bowlby put forward the hypothesis that infants have a predisposition to explore the world around them, which takes them away from the primary caregiver and deactivates the attachment behaviours, but in situations of threat these behaviours are activated again (Cowie, 1995, p. 5).

Bowlby carried out further study on the childhood experiences of delinquent adolescent boys who were either taken into care, grew up in institutions, or were moving from temporary foster mothers. This study led Bowlby to extend his attachment theory to include the maternal deprivation hypothesis. Maternal deprivation hypothesis was where children were deprived at an early age of a loving relationship with their mother. ‘What is believed to be essential for mental health is that the infant and young child should experience a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with his mother … in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment’ (Cowie, 1995, p. 6). This hypothesis was greatly strengthened by the research findings of the ethologist Konrad Lorenz, whereby young birds and mammals learn the characteristics of a moving object soon after birth or hatching and follow the object around. This process became known as imprinting and there is a critical period during which it takes place, for example, in ducklings it is nine hours to seventeen hours after birth. Lorenz concluded that imprinting was irreversible after the critical period (Cowie, 1995, p. 6). Bowlby proposed that the critical period for children was from six months to three years of age. Separation at this point would have a harmful effect on the emotional and social development of the child.

This is a preview of the whole essay

For Bowlby an absent mother cannot be sensitive because she is not available to meet the needs of the child (Cowie, 1995, p. 6). Consequently, Bowlby strongly advocated monotropism (attachment to just one caregiver). One would have to argue against this notion of monotropism. Children can form attachments with more than one adult and separation from the primary caregiver can be compensated by the presence of another attachment figure. If children were only to form relationships with the primary caregiver, usually the mother, what role would the father and grandparents have to play? Research has shown that grandparents can act as surrogate parents to young grandchildren, for example, as baby-sitters or child-minders when parents are at work. In circumstances of family stress, for example, separation or divorce, the child’s attachment to grandparents can serve to buffer their emotional distress (Cowie, 1995, p. 25). Wallerstein and Kelley (1980) found that children who coped well in school and kept good relationships with peers and teachers during a family break-up were more likely to have positive relationships with grandparents who lived near them and who were concerned about their needs. These findings certainly serve to negate Bowlby’s idea of monotropism.

Bowlby’s attachment theory was further corroborated by Goldfarb’s study of thirty children separated from their natural mother before they reached nine months. Goldfarb concluded that those who lived in an institution during their early years were retarded in terms of intelligence, speech, reading, and arithmetic. They were also found to be more restless, unable to concentrate, fearful, unpopular with other children and craving for adult affection (Cowie, 1995, p. 8). Bowlby’s interpretation of these findings was that if effective mothering was delayed until after two years and six months it would be rendered fruitless. He hypothesised that for most infants the age limit was before twelve months. Harry Harlow’s study on infant rhesus monkeys provided additional evidence to support the maternal deprivation hypothesis. Infant monkeys that were separated from their mothers and raised in isolation became extremely disturbed, terrified of other monkeys, and displayed aggressive or withdrawn behaviour. If separation extended beyond the age of three months it was irreversible (Cowie, 1995, p. 9).

Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis has met with strong criticism. Since the establishment of the critical period, ethologists have modified the term to the concept of a sensitive period where learning occurs more readily. It is no longer seen as such a vital time period thus, weakening Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis. Suomi and Harlow (1972) carried out further research with the rhesus monkeys that indicated under certain conditions deleterious effects could be reversed. In Goldfarb’s study the standard of institutional care was deficient in that it was unstimulating, had a high turnover of staff, and caregivers were discouraged from forming relationships with the children (Cowie, 1995, p. 10). This would affect the outcome of Goldfarb’s study and consequently diminishes Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis.

Mary Ainsworth, a student of Bowlby's, developed attachment theory further and stated ‘that the behaviour of the primary caregiver in the early years of the child’s life can predict the type of relationship that this mother-child dyad will have later on’ (Cowie, 1995, p. 13). She developed the Strange Situation technique, whereby a mother and child are placed in a room, a stranger enters and the mother will leave and return at various intervals. The reaction of the child is closely monitored during the exit and return of the mother. These reactions are then used to categorise the parent-child attachment, for example, secure attachment or insecure attachment. According to both Bowlby and Ainsworth attachment to the primary caregiver is vital to a secure attachment. Children who are securely attached have an internal working model of the parent as available and loving while also having a complimentary model of the self as worthy of that love. Conversely, the child who is insecurely attached will have learned from its mother that if you are distressed learn to deal with it on your own and be independent (Video-cassette ‘Attachment’).

Consequently, one has to question the repercussions for children who have to attend day care. The detrimental day care Bowlby referred to was institutional and of poor quality. Research has found that young children whose mothers work do still form attachments to them and, indeed prefer their mothers to their other caregivers (Clarke-Stewart and Fein, 1983). Research carried out by the Thomas Coram Research Unit on 255 two-parent families raised some interesting points about the effects of day care. Three quarters of the mothers who took part in the experiment returned to full-time work before the child was nine months. One third of children were cared for by a relative, half the children were looked after by a childminder, and the remaining children attended a nursery. The study found that attention and vocalisation (to and from the child in both instances) was greatest in the home, followed by the relative, then the childminder, and least in nurseries. Affection both to and from the child was lowest in nurseries and aggression was highest (Cowie, 1995, p. 22). The adult ratio was also very high in nurseries (4.6:1) as opposed to care by a relative (1.3:1) (Cowie, 1995, p. 22). One consequence of poor ratios is that the staff become more involved in controlling than interacting with the children. A further disadvantage of nurseries was the proportionately higher turnover of staff, with the effect that had on the stability and consistency of the care environment as experienced by the children (Cowie, 1995, p. 22). Barbara Tizard and colleagues found that experiencing a large number of caregivers in institutional care may disrupt the child’s ability to form close relationships in later life. The effects of insecure attachment were clearly visible from the aforementioned research. Therefore, it is in the area of day care that attachment theory becomes hugely significant for the upbringing of children primarily because it is in this realm that secure attachment seems to be deficient. When sending children to nurseries parents must assess the centre in terms of adult ratios, staff turnover, a stimulating environment, and the overall quality of care provided.

It is widely accepted by psychologists that children play an active part in their own development. They are not merely passive instruments in its unfolding as many nativists would believe. Equally, one could argue that the child can influence the type of attachment that they experience as a result of their personality, especially their temperament. If a child has a difficult temperament, its mother will find looking after him unfulfilling and will be less responsive to the child leading to the development of an insecure attachment. ‘Unresponsive mothering does indeed appear to be one mechanism through which a child’s trust is undermined and his attachment to his mother rendered anxious. But whether the mother behaves unresponsively appears to be influenced by the infants irritability and her attitudes as well as the social support available to her as a mother’ (Crockenburg, 1981, p. 864). While Bowlby would strongly criticise the mother for causing insecure attachment, one would have to recognise that this is binary process involving both the mother and child respectively.

After careful perusal of attachment theory one would have to substantiate its general principle i.e. the fundamental need for a child to experience a loving, secure relationship in the early years of life. The lack of such an experience will have a negative impact on the social and emotional development of the child, and research cited in this essay is testament to that fact i.e. children in institutional care and poor day care facilities. However, one would have to dismiss the maternal deprivation hypothesis since it has been proven that children are capable of forming secure attachments with more than one caregiver. In terms of the upbringing of children parents who have to continue working after the birth of their child should ideally seek to have their child cared for by a family member. In the event of having to send a child to day care parents should carefully vet the chosen establishment. In advocating attachment theory we know that there are certain attachment patterns we would like children to show, and we know that there are particular environmental circumstances that affect the attachment patterns of children, then we should alter the environment of the child to optimise their development and display the patterns of development we want to see (Video-cassette ‘Attachment’).

References

Clarke-Stewart, A. and Fein, G. G. (1983) ‘Early Childhood Programs’ in Haith, M. M. and Campos, J. J. (ed) Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 2, New York, Wiley.

Cowie, C. (1995) ‘Child Care And Attachment’, in Barnes, P. (ed) Personal, Social and Emotional Development of Children, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.

Crockenberg, S. B. (1981) ‘Infant irritability, mother responsiveness, and social support influences on the security of infant-mother attachment’, Child Development, 52, pp. 857-65.

Suomi, S. J. and Harlow, H. F. (1972) ‘Social rehabilitation of isolate-reared monkeys’, Developmental Psychology, 6, pp. 487-96.

Wallerstein, J. S. and Kelley, J. B. (1980) Surviving the Break-up: how children and parents cope with divorce, New York, Basic Books.

Woodhead, M. (1995) ‘Disturbing Behaviour in Young Children’, in Barnes, P. (ed) Personal, Social and Emotional Development of Children, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University.