Interviewer: Good evening ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to “Inside the modern mindset of a psychologist” we are thrilled to present today’s guest speaker, Dr. B. D. Smith, a specialist in the intriguing field of developmental psychology.
Psychologist (Dr. B. D. Smith): Thank-you for inviting me to play a part in today’s discussion.
Interviewer: Well then, lets get right to it. “Government policy is that children should be cared for in families. We also hear in the news about British adoptions of children from overseas orphanages. But do children who start off their lives in institutions, particularly poor institutions and are then adopted, develop normally? Is the policy of finding families for all children based on good evidence?”
Psychologist: The question that you have posed leads me back to the root of it all, the attachment theory. Attachment can be defined as a deep, and enduring emotional bond that connects one person to another across time and space as suggested by Ainsworth (1973) and Bowlby (1969). Since attachment is a concept that has intrigued many of us over the years, there have been multiple methods of research that have been carried out. With that being said, we are all aware that in every piece of research there are strengths and weaknesses, is this something that we can agree on?
Interviewer: Yes, Dr. Smith, we are in complete agreement with your last claim. Since we are on this topic, would you be able to shed some light on the strengths and weaknesses of research conducted into attachment theory, which can be tied back to the original question?
Psychologist: Definitely. John Bowlby is famous for his attachment theory, in attempt to illustrate that attachments, are in fact made, Fox (1977) carried out a study in Israel where the subjects who were infants were mostly under the care of a nurse or a foster mother, the observation led to the conclusion that 1 and 2 year old children were increasingly attached to mother and the metapelet. Seeing as these observations have taken place in the natural environment of the child, it can be argued that it is high in ecological validity, and therefore it is true to real life. When a study is true to real life, it is safe to conclude that it is easier to generalise and apply to the population, however, since it is a naturalistic observation, extraneous variables can be present which means that the control over the study is weak, concluding that the findings of the study can be affected by other variables which we are unaware of.
Bowlby goes on further to advocate for the idea of monotropism, this means that attachment is to be made with one person, usually this is the mother, however it is not limited to this.
Interviewer: Does the study by Tizard et al. (1989) provide evidence towards Bowlby’s claim on monotropism? Would you be able to provide us with a more understanding view of this study?
Psychologist: That is a very useful study that provides evidence. Tizard (1989) studied the development of his participants, who were children in a residential nursery, where they prevented attachments from being formed. The findings suggested that children who had spent their younger years in the institutions had difficulties maintaining social relationships, they also adopted attention seeking tendencies which led to signs of difficulties in their later attachments.
Interviewer: Whilst looking into this study with a more critical mindset, I have noticed that the data was collected through interviews and questionnaires, would this be considered a methodological weakness? Thus, would we disregard the findings of this study?
Psychologist: This is considered a weakness because confounding variables may contribute to the participants giving information that is influenced by social desirability, which would mean that the findings may not be completely accurate. Just because a study has used such a method to collect data does not mean that the whole study should be disregarded, although it may be a weakness to collect data this way, it can also be a strength because the data which is collected by means of interviews often leads to rich data with providing a wholistic overview of the circumstances. From the findings of this study we can reach agreement on the fact that it is important for the development of children for them to form a bond with an individual to rule out negative consequences in the future. If children are brought up in poor institutions where they are unable to form a bond with one person, when they are adopted in the future it may cause problems for the entire family.
Interviewer: It has been brought to my attention that Bowlby’s theory on monotropism led to investigation in the field of maternal deprivation and its effects on children. Moving forward let us discuss the effects of deprivation on children.
Psychologist: That seems to be correct. The PDD model which has been concocted by Robertson and Bowbly (1952) is derived from the belief that separation from an individual whom the child is attached to, for a short period of time, often causes distress. They categorised distress in 3 stages, protest, this is when the child cries and screams when the parent leaves as an attempt to stop them from doing so, followed by despair, which occurs when the protest has come to a halt but the child is still upset and refuses to be comforted by another, lastly comes detachment, this happens when the separation continues, the child is forced to engage with others and reject the individual with the initial attachment. It is obvious from these findings that short term detachment is not detrimental to the child’s health. This theory allows us to be cautious of the behaviourism of the child but this theory is very reductionist, this means that it is attempting to reduce down very complex behaviour into simplistic terms. Although this over looks other factors that may be important in trying to understand this topic, it allows greater focus in certain factors providing us with a more detailed view.
Interviewer: What about long term deprivation, would that have long term negative effects on the child’s health?
Psychologist: As far as long term deprivation is concerned, Bowlby trusted the first 5 years of the life of the child and its relationship with the mother is very important. Therefore he (Bowlby, 1946) conducted a study on forty four juvenile thieves, he was able to find that children who were deprived of a maternal figure before the age of five, showed signs of turning into affectionless psychopaths in the future in comparison with those children that hadn’t undergone maternal deprivation. Further research into the study shows that after the attachment bond had been broken the negative damage on the children was permanent, not only were they subjected to affectionless psychopathy, but they also showed signs of delinquency and increased aggression.
This study can be considered to be solid because the participants were not only interviewed along with their mothers by a psychiatrist, but they were also given tests which occurred for a lengthy period of time to asses emotional attitude and intelligence to check for eligibility to take part in the study, this rules out many confounding variables and allows us to capture a wholistic view. Nevertheless, we can also criticise the method, this data is correlational, it shows a relationship between two variables only, disregarding other factors that may come into play, pointed out by Rutter (1981). Since Bowbly conducted this study himself to prove his own theory, it could be victimised by his own bias, which questions the validity of the study, many a times bias is unavoidable, however it can be argued that bias can be reduced.
Interviewer: How would this relate to our initial question?
Psychologist: Relating this back to the question, we can come up with the prediction that children should be adopted at younger ages before attachments can develop, so that they may be able to form the attachments with those who adopt them. This eliminates the possibility of breaking attachment bonds that have already been formed, reducing negative damage upon the children, allowing them to develop normally. Furthermore, long term deprivation should be strongly discouraged as a whole to preserve the child’s mental state.
Interviewer: From all the evidence we have seen, although they, too, have weaknesses, I would agree with the conclusion you have set out. Addressing our last concern, do you believe that when a child goes through all these issues, it takes a toll on their attachment security later on in their life?
Psychologist: Let us cover the basics first. Rosmalen (2015) described the work of Mary Ainsworth in terms of concocting a procedure, which can be utilised for measuring attachment security. Namely the strange situation, it has 7 episodes involving a stranger, an infant and the mother/caregiver. From this, they identified 3 attachments styles which were a product of interactions early on with the mother. Type A, the insecure avoidant, Behrans et al. (2007) illustrated that these children were independent, emotionally and physically when it came to the attachment figure and they did not seek comfort during distress. This means that their caregiver is insensitive. Type B, the secure type, as suggested by Cassidy (1988) were sure that the attachment figure would meet their needs, and therefore they would seek comfort from them in times of distress and are easily soothed, and type C the insecure ambivalent type, these children will reject the attachment figure when they are present, but have difficulty leaving them behind. A result from inconsistent responses from caregivers. Later research by Solomon contributed to a type D, the disorganised type.
Interviewer: Let us look at this theory critically. It seems as though it is very low in ecological validity.
Psychologist: Yes, and therefore can not be applied to everyday life, nonetheless, with low ecological validity the study can be more controlled to make a better cause and effect statement, in addition to this it is easier to replicate which will contribute to greater reliability.
Interviewer: Is there anything you can add on to this?
Psychologist: As a result of this evidence came the caregiver sensitivity hypothesis, it is debated that the attitude that the mother shows will determine the child’s attachment type. If they respond with sensitivity the children will be securely attached, as a result of this they view themselves worthy of respect supported by Jacobsen (1997), whereas if they ignore the needs of the child, their attachment will be insecure meaning that they will view themselves as unacceptable, and will look for reasons to seek attention, this has been demonstrated by Larose (2001). Although this theory has been supported by a meta analysis carried out by Wolff and Van Ijzendoorn (1997) they were able to prove that sensitive parents had securely attached children. However, it can be argued that this may not be the only factor that led to the children being securely attached, this is reductionism. By attempting to explain a complexed outcome based on only maternal sensitivity. Reductionism undermines the value of the study, however, a reductionist approach allows us to focus on a factor with greater detail.
Interviewer: Seeing as our time is now coming to and end, let us wrap up todays discussion. We have acknowledged that the life of an infant is very crucial for its mental health. When they are brought up in poor institutions they tend to be neglected, they may not be provided with the attachment figure, which is obviously essential to their development. To minimise such damage, British families should be made aware of the requirements of a child, and how to provide it, such as monotropism since it is essential for the survival of the child. Long term deprivation of the child should be discouraged, as well as short term, so that the child’s attachment security later on in life is not affected. The government can take part in this by setting up seminars, which should be indispensable for the family to attend before adoption processes can be commenced. In addition to this, they can attempt to adopt children at an earlier age, before the attachment process has begun so that once they have joined their new family they can receive proper care which will preserve their mental health, parents will be aware of these methods from the seminars they attend. These conclusions have largely been based upon the pieces of evidence we have seen today, it is obvious that none of them are solid and, therefore, have weaknesses. However just because of their weaknesses they shouldn’t be written off, as we have seen, some weaknesses can ultimately become strengths. These pieces of research is what gives us knowledge today, with this knowledge we may be able to attempt to eliminate mental damage which is caused by faulty development bettering the community we live in. Dr. B. D. Smith, have I left anything out?
Psychologist: I believe you have said it all.
Interviewer: Thank-you once again for joining us today and educating us on this crucial matter.