Searching for an essay?

Browse the database of more than 4500 essays donated by our community members!

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory

Findings from animal studies were a powerful influence on Bowlby’s thoughts. He suggested too that there was a critical period for the development of attachments between infant and caregiver. According to Bowlby, infants display an innate tendency to become attached to one particular individual. He called this monotropy. He suggested this tendency was qualitatively different from any subsequent attachment a child might form. However, he did not suggest monotropy was absolute but that the child has a hierarchy of attachments. Bowlby thought that if a child were deprived of their mother between 6 months and five years of age, this would lead to difficulties later in life. They would be unable to form attachments with others and would be likely to turn to crime. He termed this as his maternal deprivation hypothesis. Bowlby suggested that separation experiences in early childhood caused affectionless psychopathy.

This is the inability to have deep feelings for other people and, therefore, meaningful personal relationships. In his hypothesis, Bowlby believed that an infant’s failure to attach to a primary caregiver’s hypothesis. Firstly, the terms ‘attachment’ and ‘deprivation’ will be defined. Following that, a full definition of the hypothesis will be made. Then an attempt will be made to describe and understand the studies and period of history that lead to Bowlby’s ideas and the influence they generated. Next, a full evaluation of his deprivation hypothesis will be made, including detailed criticisms of his theory. Finally, conclusions will be drawn to show if Bowlby’s deprivation hypothesis can still retain any credibility.

The first task is to define the terms attachment and deprivation. In 1973 the leading attachment psychologist, Mary Ainsworth, pointed out that “Attachment is an affectional tie that one person forms to another person, binding them together in space, and enduring over time.” Deprivation can occur when there is insufficient opportunity for interaction with a mother figure (privation), when there is insufficient interaction with the mother (masked deprivation), or when there are repeated breaches of ties with mother figures. In 1949, the World Health Organisation became concerned about the number of homeless children or children growing up in institutions due to the war years. They commissioned Bowlby to look into this matter and report whether these children were likely to be suffering from their experiences and what the best kind of upbringing for such children was. Bowlby concluded that a warm, intimate, and continuing relationship with a mother figure is an essential precondition for mental health.

Maternal deprivation or a disturbed emotional attachment between mother and child was said to cause irreparable damage to the child and society as a whole. He stated (1951), “deprived children, whether in their own homes or not, are a source of social infection as real and serious as are carriers of diphtheria and typhoid.” Bowlby’s report to the WHO had great influence among health care officials, social workers, and parents. But the conclusions he came to were very controversial and caused arguments right from the very beginning. Contrary to behaviourists and Freudians, who thought that physical comfort was a caregiver’s primary concern, Bowlby (1951) suggested that emotional care was equally important. He states that “maternal attachment is as essential for healthy psychological development as vitamins and minerals are for physical health.” Bowlby (1951) also proposed monotropy, which is the need for one central caregiver, usually the mother, but alternatively the father or another person.

Finally, Bowlby (1951) felt that there was a critical period in the formation of attachments. He believed that children who experience maternal deprivation below the age of four would suffer permanent damage. Three landmark studies conducted in the 1950s supported his views. In 1946, Bowlby looked at the life histories of eighty-eight children who had been referred to his psychiatric clinic, half of whom had a criminal record for theft. Fourteen of the ‘thieves’ displayed an ‘affectionless’ character: a lack of normal affection, shame, or sense of responsibility. Almost all of these affectionless children (eighty-six percent of them) had suffered ‘early and prolonged separations from their mothers.’ In practice, this meant that, at least before the age of two, these children had continually or repeatedly been in foster homes or hospitals, often not visited by their families. Of the remaining seventy-four children who were not affectionless, only seven (one percent) had been separated. This appears to be strong evidence supporting Bowlby” hypothesis, but the data was retrospective and, more importantly, correlational.

Evaluate Bowlby’s Deprivation Hypothesis In his hypothesis, Bowlby believed that an infant’s failure to attach to a primary caregiver would have long-term effects. This essay will attempt to evaluate Bowlby’s deprivation hypothesis. Firstly, the terms ‘attachment’ and ‘deprivation’ will be defined. Following that, a full definition of the hypothesis will be made. Then an attempt will be made to describe and understand the studies and period of history that lead to Bowlby’s ideas and the influence they generated. Next, a full evaluation of his deprivation hypothesis will be made, including detailed criticisms of his theory. Finally, conclusions will be drawn to show if Bowlby’s deprivation hypothesis can still retain any credibility. The first task is to define the terms attachment and deprivation. In 1973 the leading attachment psychologist, Mary Ainsworth, pointed out that “Attachment is an affectional tie that one person forms to another person, binding them together in space, and enduring over time”.

Deprivation can occur when there is insufficient opportunity for interaction with a mother figure (privation), when there is insufficient interaction with the mother (masked deprivation), or when there are repeated breaches of ties with mother figures. In 1949, the World Health Organisation became concerned about the number of homeless children or children growing up in institutions due to the war years. They commissioned Bowlby to look into this matter and report whether these children were likely to be suffering from their experiences and what the best kind of upbringing for such children was. Bowlby concluded that a warm, intimate, and continuing relationship with a mother figure is an essential precondition for mental health. Maternal deprivation or a disturbed emotional attachment between mother and child was said to cause irreparable damage to the child and society as a whole. He stated (1951), “deprived children, whether in their own homes or not, are a source of social infection as real and serious as are carriers of diphtheria and typhoid”.

Bowlby’s report to the WHO had great influence among health care officials, social workers, and parents. But the conclusions he came to were very controversial and caused arguments right from the very beginning. Contrary to behaviourists and Freudians, who thought that physical comfort was a caregiver’s primary concern, Bowlby (1951) suggested that emotional care was equally important. He states that “maternal attachment is as essential for healthy psychological development as vitamins and minerals are for physical health.” Bowlby (1951) also proposed monotropy, which is the need for one central caregiver, usually the mother, but alternatively the father or another person. Finally, Bowlby (1951) felt that there was a critical period in the formation of attachments. He believed that children who experience maternal deprivation below the age of four would suffer permanent damage. Three landmark studies conducted in the 1950s supported his views. In 1946, Bowlby looked at the life histories of eighty-eight children who had been referred to his psychiatric clinic, half of whom had a criminal record for theft. Fourteen of the ‘thieves’ displayed an ‘affectionless’ character, that is, a lack of normal affection, shame or sense of responsibility.

Almost all of these affectionless children (eighty-six percent of them) had suffered ‘early and prolonged separations from their mothers.’ In practice, this meant that, at least before the age of two, these children had continually or repeatedly been in foster homes or hospitals, often not visited by their families. Of the remaining seventy-four children who were not affectionless, only seven (one percent) had been separated. This appears to be strong evidence supporting Bowlby” hypothesis, but the data was retrospective and, more importantly, correlational. Thus, it can not be assumed whether the separations themselves caused the maladjustment or if there was a third factor responsible for both maladjustment and separations; for example, general family discord could be because of both. This was one of Rutter’s criticisms, which will be discussed later in further detail.

More support for Bowlby’s views came from classic research conducted by Lorenz (1935). In this study, Lorenz became ‘mother” to a brood of goslings. It was already known that many birds attach themselves to the first figure they see upon hatching and persist in this attachment, and Lorenz’s work confirmed this. The phenomenon is called imprinting; an etiological concept is taken from embryology. During prenatal development, there are short periods when an individual is especially vulnerable. These times are called “critical periods,” and the effect is an imprint. Imprinting is an example of an instinct, an inherited behaviour pattern that predisposes an individual to certain forms of learning at critical times in development. Bowlby suggested that attachment behaviour is a kind of imprinting and is irreversible. However, in more recent studies of adopted children, Tizard (1977) has found that older children can form satisfactory new relationships with adults despite the lack of earlier attachment.

The third line of evidence came from Harlow’s work with rhesus monkeys (1959), an experiment was devised where a monkey was provided with two ‘mothers’, one a wire cylinder with a monkey-like face and a feeding bottle attached, the other with no feeding bottle but wrapped in a cloth. The position taken by behaviourists and Freudians (Gleitman etc., 1988????) would be that the monkeys should become attached to the ‘mother’ that offered food rather than comfort. In fact, the monkeys spent most of their time with the cloth mother, visiting the other one only for food. When they were frightened, they always went to the cloth mother. In later life, the monkeys raised without a responsive mother became socially maladjusted and had difficulty mating and parenting. When considering Harlow’s research, it could be argued that making generalizations from animal to human behaviour is not always appropriate. (REF).

Behaviourists argue that the difference between human and non-human species is quantitative rather than qualitative. Still, other psychologists believe that certain unique features of the human species (such as consciousness and language) mean that non-human animal research has limited applicability. REF Harlow’s research has also been criticized regarding the ethics of allowing animals to be manipulated in this way. Such criticism could also be applied to Lorenz’s work with goslings. Schaffer and Emerson (1964) challenged some of Bowlby’s claims. They found attachment to a specific person started to occur at around 7 months, but multiple attachments were the norm. For many, the attachment to the mother was at the top of the hierarchy, but for others, the main attachment was to the father. They also found the strength of attachment was not related to the length of time spent with the child or to basic caretaking functions of feeding etc., being fulfilled. It was the quality and intensity of interaction that was important.

Studies of Kibbutzs support this as, despite multiple mothering, their primary attachment was still with their parents (Sagi et al., 1978). Therefore, these studies do not support the behaviourists of Freud as both theories state feeding is important for attachment to occur. These findings suggest that Bowlby correctly identified the importance of attachment but was incorrect in overemphasizing the single maternal role and the time factor for all children. Attachment, however, is only one part of his theory. Another part relates to the effects of deprivation. Rutter (1981) felt that the main problem with the concept of maternal deprivation was that it muddled together with a range of essentially different experiences. He felt that separation is not a crucial factor in emotional disturbance. Instead, it may be that general family discord underlies the emotional disturbances observed by Bowlby.

It may also be that affectionless psychopathy is due to the initial failure to form attachments (privation) rather than attachment disruption (deprivation). Finally, situations where children experience deprivation, such as short hospital stays, may create emotional disturbance because of the strange and frightening environment and separation and interference with attachments. Thus, Bowlby’s reliance on retrospective studies linking caregiver separation with delinquency cannot be seen as establishing a causal link between the two. It is equally possible that factors other than the mother’s absence (lack of parental supervision, for example) could have been responsible for the delinquency.

Rutter (1981) found that the circumstances surrounding the loss were most likely to determine the consequences rather than the loss per se. Nevertheless, Bowlby’s deprivation hypothesis was important in changing our view of early emotional behaviour from dependency, the behaviourist and Freudian view, to one where the infant is an active participant in eliciting care. The criticisms served to refine this theory in several important ways: to include multiple attachments, place less emphasis on mother-love, and distinguish between different kinds of deprivation. McFaydon (1994) suggests that many critics seem almost to have got stuck in a time warp, hanging on to [Bowlby’s] early ideas, which were of course extremely controversial but also important and influential at the time.’

Cite this page

Choose cite format:
Bowlby's Attachment Theory. (2021, Aug 25). Retrieved August 31, 2021, from https://essayscollector.com/essays/bowlbys-attachment-theory/