7.2 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attachment theory | 12/12 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T15:31:31.580137+00:00 | kb-cron |
=== Faulty descriptive base === Bowlby's aim to replace psychoanalysts' phantasy-focused interpretive accounts of young children's hidden mental lives with the findings of direct observation as a grounding for his theory has had to be forsaken. Attachment theory has retreated from any serious grounding in a natural history of very young children and now champions the expert interpretation of a limited number of pre-defined behaviours in the Strange Situation Procedure (SSP) as shedding light on invisible internal working models which have no generally-agreed definition. Particular observational claims made by Bowlby which are now refuted include studies showing that the attachment behaviours which he attributed to young infants are neither fixed in form nor insensitive to their context-of-use (as he claimed); nor do these behaviours exhaust babies' relationship-relevant social repertoire. Contrary to Bowlby's empirical claims, fear of strangers and separation anxiety are not normally observed when 'securely attached' infants or toddlers are left by their mothers with strangers. Attachment behaviours are not integrated over the first years of life into what ethologists call behavioural systems of which all the components should regularly appear in the same intercorrelated order. Likewise, the observational research by Mary Ainsworth and her colleagues upon which the SSP was first based proves to have been far from "meticulous", contrary to the beliefs of attachment theorists. Marga Vicedo, one of the few scholars to have inspected at first hand Ainsworth and her team's original observational records in the definitive study grounding the SSP, reports as follows:
Although confidentiality prevents quoting directly from these data, the narrative reports from these observations that I have seen cannot be considered trustworthy scientific reports. Several of them are permeated with subjective evaluations of the mothers' personalities from day one, including moral judgements. Other reports reveal tensions between the observer and the observed mothers. In addition, the reports from the different observers vary substantially in nature and quality, and most do not include notes taken every five minutes. In fact, one observer did not write up the observations until months later.
=== The Strange Situation is not a reliable procedure === When the reliability of the SSP is tested, results do not remain stable, especially when the backcloth of social circumstances of infant-adult couples change between tests. Studies show that the greatest reliability is found in attachment ratings from the SSP when the social background of the infant's family remains stable between two assessments: socio-economically, maritally, in terms of social support, housing, and childcare provision. But the crucial test is when background variables change between tests. Then it is found that, as a baby's social background changes between two SSP ratings, the ratings are likely to change as well. SSP classifications are especially volatile when researchers make the effort to recruit infants who do not come from intact middle-class families and whose parents have not volunteered to participate. An important corollary of this finding is that attachment studies which do not control for a family's social background--and many do not--may produce results which, for example, seem to prove levels of security in attachment classification that have a strong positive correlation with a factor like maternal sensitivity, when, in fact, levels of security and sensitivity are both caused by other unstudied factors from their social background. This means that the results of correlational studies which seem to prove the long-term effects of an infant's attachment classification cannot be taken at face value if those studies were uncontrolled: the strength of correlations is likely to have been inflated by one or more of the unstudied background variables. In short, classifications of attachment in/security derived from the SSP cannot be taken as primarily reflecting the existence of an internal system or working model in the young child. They are far more likely to be reflecting what has recently been happening in the social world external to the infant and her or his mother-figure(s) at the time of their assessment.
=== Attachment classifications of children seldom predict adult functioning === The best-known longitudinal studies to have researched the long-term effects/correlates of infant-caregiver bonds on grown-up functions have all failed to produce the kinds of results attachment theory predicts. This is especially true in studies that have controlled for the continuity and discontinuity of background variables experienced by the child while she or he was developing. One longitudinal study in Minnesota showed that, if background variables were properly taken into account, attachment security in infancy only accounted for 5% of the variability in social competence when the study-children had reached the age of nineteen. Two well-known German studies also failed to find any significant correlation between security of attachment (as measured in the SSP) in toddlers and a variety of measures of social relating after age ten. Long-term Israeli research also found that continuity in attachment representation correlated strongly with the stability of the caregiver's environment, and discontinuity with instability. Taken altogether, such findings demonstrate that, when studies using SSP measures include measures of an infant's social circumstances, there can be a strong link to grown-up outcomes—accounting for half the variance in the 'Minnesota' longitudinal study when, by themselves, attachment measures account for as little as one twentieth of the variance .
=== A flawed evolutionary rationale === From the beginning, attachment theory sidelined the essential role of caregivers' behaviours in promoting child well-being, both in our Stone Age ancestors and in families today. It took the primary factor in promoting an infant's survival to be a biological provision in babies themselves. This provision has been variously called an instinct, an attachment behavioural system and an internal working model. Yet the theory also acknowledges that the baby's biological provision does not become operational until the baby is mobile, not being fully formed until after a child has reached its third birthday, according to Bowlby. Which, if the theory were true, would make babies vulnerable to all sorts of peril for up to three years after birth. Tacitly, Bowlby and Ainsworth's strictures on maternal care make it plain that it is caregivers who guarantee very young children's safety and security, not a hypothesized attachment behavioural system or working model. Furthermore, the evidential claims made by Bowlby to support his attribution of attachment behaviour to primates and to hunter-gatherers are not supported by empirical studies.
== See also ==
== Citations ==
== General and cited references ==
== Further reading ==