How Sparing the Rod Does Not Spoil the Infant

It seems likely that throughout civilization there has always been speculation and belief in certain proper, correct, or even merely helpful techniques that ought to be employed in child-rearing to give one's own child the best potential for success in society. In the past century alone, there have been many different divergent theories on how best to get a child through infancy, from the Freudian suggestions of doing all that is possible to avoid 'stage' fixation, to the learning theorists advocating strict use of positive and negative reinforcement and punishment, to perhaps the most promising, attachment theory. Attachment theory is fundamentally based on the concept that infants, in the second half of their first year of life, attach themselves to one or more caretakers, typically beginning with the mother, to whom they develop primarily emotional requirements of. Attachment theorists have found that much - from personality development to adolescent and adulthood mature independence - is dependent on the quality of this attachment, which is based on the manners in which the infants are cared for. The primary key to successful attachment lies in the sensitivity and responsiveness of the mother to infant needs. It is the "unthinking confidence
The parent-child relationship, then, was and is of great interest to Bowlby, Ainsworth, and a great many other researchers who came after them. Bowlby's thoughts on attachment theory led him to view the mother as a 'secure base' from which an attached child draws support while he explores the world around him. When either the child or mother becomes distressed, a securely attached infant returns to the mother for comfort. Bowlby was also very fond of looking at attachment from an evolutionary perspective, noting that a stressful situation in earlier times would quite possibly require that the infant return to the mother for protection foremost, and comfort secondarily. An infant who is not securely attached, however, as Bowlby theorized and Ainsworth later discovered empirically, will either avoid or become ambivalent to their mothers when stressed, which would prove detrimental to survival if the source of the stress was physically threatening. Ainsworth developed her famous 'Strange Situation' in 1969 which was the beginning of a reliable classification system of secure and insecure attachments in mother-infant dyads. After making observances of an infant in the Strange Situation, Ainsworth classified him as either secure, insecure-avoidant, or insecure-ambivalent. In later studies, Ainsworth et al. found that "those infants who had been ambivalent toward or avoidant of the mother on reunion in the Strange Situation had a less harmonious relationship with her at home than those (a majority) who sought proximity, interaction, or contact on return" (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974).

A secure attachment seems desirable, then, but fortunately, beginning directly with Ainsworth, attachment researchers have not restricted their research to the easiest to reach Western cultures in Europe and America. Attachment theory has been justly presented as a universal theory, not merely pertaining to one or a few societal groups. Much confirmation research has been done in Africa, Japan, Israel, and other countries. In one African study, among the Efe, a semi-nomadic people, "infants were found to receive more care from other adult women than from their own mother, except at night. Despite this multiple mothering system, by 6 months, infants began to insist on a more focalized relationship with their own mothers..." (Bretherton, 1992). Notwithstanding the cultural and living differences, infants still desired attachment at the same time, roughly at half a year old, as in Western studies. The lack of cultural variation may be due to the fact that in infanthood, the language of the people does not factor into attachment. Infant language - facial expressions, crying, mewling, etc - are understood in the same manner universally. It seems likely, though, that while attachment theory is valid in all cultures, some cultures may be better suited to forming more secure attachments than others.

The key factor in a secure attachment is the attachment figure, almost always the mother. It makes sense, then, that if the mother is unavailable for whatever reason, a secure attachment becomes less likely. In cultures that, in Bowlby's famous words, "cherish the mother," secure attachments become more probable. It is the duty of the society and family to allow the mother to be available for her children; however, society's obligation does not end there. Ideally, it must ensure that the mother also has the means necessary to form a secure attachment in addition to the opportunity. For those mothers who themselves had insecure attachments and poor childhoods, it is much more likely that they will have poor attachments with their own children. Furthermore, and of great significance, Mary Main found that the dyads that did have secure attachments almost invariably consisted of mothers who could give a clear and coherent accounting of their own childhood, good or bad (Bowlby, 1988). This research, based on theory, opened the practical door of therapy. Clinicians were now able to help mothers become more sensitive to their own children by aiding them in coming to terms with their past. Of even further use to therapists, it was recently found that the Adult Attachment Inventory, when given to mothers during pregnancy, is able to predict the attachment category of their infant at one year of age to 70% accuracy. This research makes it possible for the society to enact pre-emptive therapy for mothers who are likely to have an ambivalent or avoidant attachment with their infant later on. Since it is much easier in nearly every situation to prevent a problem rather than fix it once it has started, this would be very efficient and effective.

One must wonder, though, if Western society has made it more and more difficult for secure attachments to be formed between mother and child with the recent trend towards feminism and of the rejection of the role-differences between men and women. Bowlby and Ainsworth certainly both believed and found that an infant can attach to any one figure, or multiple figures, but the question, 'who is best for the job?' remains unanswered. It seems much more probable, and indeed, history agrees, that the mother will be able to provide the greatest care for the infant, and be the one most sensitive to his needs. Unfortunately, many women have come to view this as a subservient role, but psychologists must argue emphatically that nothing can be more important than the raising of children. With more and more mothers working outside of the home, daycare is often being resorted to, but unfortunately, "the recent spate of studies documents an increased risk of insecure attachment if daycare begins in the first year and is extensive in duration (Belsky & Rovine, 1988; Belsky & Braungart, 1991) which is worrisome and needs resolution" (Bretherton, 1992). In the light of attachment theory, it is imperative that Western society, beginning with fathers, take note of these facts and begin to make it possible again for mothers to have the opportunity and time to care, personally, for their infants as well as the means necessary - knowledge, aid from family members, and therapy if needed - to develop a secure attachment with her infant. If Western society continues going in the direction that it presently is, it seems likely that mothers will continue to be burdened by ill-behaving young children and adolescents, while society will be burdened by the continuing increase of juvenile delinquents and mentally unhealthy adults.

Bibliography

Ainsworth, M.D.S., Bell, S.M., Stayton, D.J. (1974) Infant-mother attachment and social development: 'socialisation' as a product of reciprocal responsiveness to signals. In Richards, M.P.M. (ed) The Integration of a Child into a Social World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 99-135.

Bowlby, J. (1973) Attachment and Loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books. pp 322.

Bowlby, J. (1988) A Secure Base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Tavistock/Routledge. pp 20-38 & 119-138.

Bretherton, I. (1992) The origins of attachment theory. Developmental Psychology, 28, 759-775.

Cassidy, J., Shaver, P. R. (eds) (1999) Handbook of Attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications. New York: Guilford Press. pp x-xiv, 89-114, 249-265, & 713-734.

Harris, M., Butterworth, G. (2002) Developmental Psychology: A Student's Handbook. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press. pp 30-33 & 131-137.

Holmes, J. (1993) John Bowlby and Attachment Theory. London: Routledge. pp 103-126 & 217-219