John Bowlby was a British Psychoanalyst whose work in research helped form what would become attachment theory (McLeod, 2003). Although Bowlby’s research credits him as the “father of attachment,” (Counselling Tutor Podcast, 2011), attachment theory is the joint work of Bowlby and developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991). While Bowlby was responsible for the initial development of the theory, Ainsworth was able to test these ideas using empirical means (Bretherton, 1992). Despite working independently, both were influenced by Freud (Counselling Tutor Podcast, 2011). In Bowlby’s case, Freud’s theories about love. In his work, Bowlby argued that it is essential for humans to form an attachment bond with others throughout their lives (McLeod, 2003). This evolutionary style of attachment suggests that “children come into the world biologically pre-programmed to form attachments with others, because this will help them to survive,” (McLeod 2009). A child learns from an early age to emit distresses to alert their caregiver. A baby can’t speak therefore will cry to let the caregiver know that they require attention. Not all cries are equal: each one is communicated by the child to convey a different requirement.
Bowlby argued that it is in our early experience with our primary caregiver that forms our attachment style (McLeod,2003) and that this is hardwired therefore we can’t change it later in life. Whether our caregiver is attentive to our needs, or not, will have an impact on our growth. Bowlby (1969) proposes there are four characteristics of attachment behaviour:
Proximity Maintenance
The desire to be near to those we are attached to.
Safe Haven
When confronted with a threat, perceived or otherwise, the person will return to their attachment figure.
Secure Base
A developing child is free to explore its curiosity knowing there is safety to return.
Separation Distress
When the attachment figure is absent, the person is distressed.
Following on from Bowlby’s work, Ainsworth conducted the Strange Situation experiment and developed three attachment styles (Counselling Study Resource, 2019). A child with secure attachment had a primary caregiver who was responsive to their needs. In the presence of their caregiver, these children explored their environment with confidence and were promptly comforted when upset. A child with insecure-avoidant attachment had an unavailable caregiver who was not responsive to the child’s needs. This child is independent of their caregiver physically and emotionally. A child with insecure ambivalent attachment found their caregiver to be unreliable. Their needs weren’t always met and they showed signs of dependency. A fourth attachment style, disorganised attachment, was observed by researchers Mary Main and Judith Solomon (Main &, Solomon, 1990). Children with a disorganised attachment “seem confused, hazy or anxious in the presence of their attachment figures,” (Counselling Study Resource, 2019). This may also result due to inconsistent responses from the caregiver and produce issues for the child later in life.
Although Bowlby’s attachment theory is still well-known today, It is also considered controversial by some (Page, 2015). His critics have questioned the significance of the primary caregiver’s role and that his research at the children’s home centred around children who already had difficulties and were separated from their caregiver. Michael Rutter (1972) argues that Bowlby placed much importance on the child’s maternal bond. It’s suggested (Page, 2015) that Bowlby’s research impacted women’s decision to return to work after maternity leave. It’s said his findings made mothers feel guilty about leaving their child with another caregiver. Rutter (1972) suggests that a child can form multiple attachments with caregivers without causing any harm to the child’s development. As Bowlby is specific about the maternal impact, it discounts families that raise healthy children in the absence of a mother. Same-sex couples may have two or no mothers, in the case of the latter, it would not be appropriate to suggest two men, or even one man, would not be able to raise a child with a healthy attachment style. Some children are naturally closer to their fathers even in the presence of a mother, while other children could be raised by grandparents without any adverse effects manifesting later in life as a result of their upbringing. It’s worth noting that Bowlby’s early work is a product of its time and reflective of societal norms which may skew his emphasis on the maternal bond. A wider study undertaken now could yield vastly different outcomes.
There is also cultural significance to take into consideration with Bowlby’s research. His research was conducted in the West and doesn’t take into account other cultures and what is considered “the norm” in their society. Aviezer et al (1994) highlight that in Israel, it’s common for children raised in a kibbutz to be separated from their parents and as such, it causes them no distress to be so.
A widely criticised tenet of attachment theory is “Attachment occurs as a result of social interactions between caregiver and child, not of feeding or other physical care, and the quality of caregiving makes a difference to the development of secure attachment,” (Mercer, 2011). This is in opposition to Freud (1960) who felt that feeding was the primary attachment experience concerning the pleasure principle and as an inherent process. Scarr (1992) disputed that the parent’s behaviours are the most important factor and argued that environmental factors in social situations have more influence on a child. This is reminiscent of the nature v nurture argument and, indeed, both can play a part however at the end of the day the individual has a choice to make before committing a bad deed regardless of their attachment style or societal influences. Critics have also looked at genetics when challenging this particular tenet of attachment theory and how parent and child can resemble each other (Mercer, 2011).
References
- Ainsworth, Mary S., and John Bowlby. “An ethological approach to personality development.” American psychologist 46.4 (1991): 333.
- Inge Bretherton, THE ORIGINS OF ATTACHMENT THEORY: JOHN BOWLBY AND MARY AINSWORTH Developmental Psychology (1992),
- McLeod, S. A. (2009). Attachment Theory. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/attachment.html
- Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Attachment and Loss. New York: Basic Books.
- Counselling Study Resource. 2019. Attachment Styles [Handout].
- Main, M. and Solomon, J. (1990) in: Greenberg, M., Cicchetti, D. & Cummings, E. Attachment in the preschool years: theory, research, and intervention. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Page, Jools. “The legacy of John Bowlby’s attachment theory.” The Routledge International Handbook of Philosophies and Theories of Early Childhood Education and Care. Routledge, 2015. 104-114.
- Rutter, Michael. Maternal deprivation reassessed / Michael Rutter Penguin Harmondsworth 1972Freud, E. L. (Ed.). (1960). Letters of Sigmund Freud. Basic Books.
- Sagi, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Aviezer, O., Donnell, F., & Mayseless, O. (1994). Sleeping out of home in a kibbutz communal arrangement: It makes a difference for infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 65(4), 992–1004.
- Mercer, Jean. “Attachment theory and its vicissitudes: Toward an updated theory.” Theory & Psychology 21.1 (2011): 25-45
- Freud, E. L. (Ed.). (1960). Letters of Sigmund Freud. Basic Books.
