Attachment Theory: Child Development and Caregiver Bonds

Introduction to Attachment Theory

Attachment is defined as a deep and enduring emotional bond that links an individual to another across space and time. Attachment is at times not reciprocal — in other words, it may not be shared between the two parties involved. Attachment is characterized, especially in children, by specific behaviours whereby a child seeks proximity with the individual to whom they are attached when they are threatened or upset (McLeod, 2009). Attachment-linked behaviour in parents towards their children encompasses responding appropriately and sensitively to the needs of their children. Such behaviour is seemingly universal across different cultures. Attachment theory offers an explanation of the manner in which the relationship between the parent and the child emerges and how it impacts subsequent development (McLeod, 2009; Bretherton, 1992).

Attachment theory as a field of psychology emerged from the influential work of John Bowlby in 1958. In the 1930s, Dr. Bowlby worked as a psychiatrist at the London Child Guidance Clinic, where he treated a number of emotionally disturbed children. This experience led Bowlby to investigate the importance of the mother-child relationship, particularly in terms of the child's cognitive, emotional, and social development. Specifically, his experience at the clinic shaped his belief about the relationship between early childhood separations from the mother and eventual maladjustment, and led him to develop his attachment theory (McLeod, 2009).

Development of Attachment

In 1964, Peggy Emerson and Rudolph Schaffer carried out a longitudinal study in which they observed sixty babies at monthly intervals for the initial eighteen months of their lives. The studies were conducted in the children's homes, and the relationships and interactions between the babies and their carers were observed. The carers were also interviewed. The two researchers found a distinct pattern in the development of attachment. Evidence of the development of an attachment or bond was that the babies showed separation anxiety each time a carer left (Prior & Glaser, 2006; McLeod, 2009).

Emerson and Schaffer discovered that the development of attachment followed a particular sequence:

Up to three months of age — non-discriminate attachments. The baby is predisposed to attach to any person they interact with. Most babies respond in the same way to any caregiver.

After four months — preference for particular individuals. Babies learn to differentiate between their primary and secondary caregivers; however, they still accept care from anyone.

After seven months — special preference for a specific attachment figure. The infant looks to specific individuals for protection, security, and comfort. Babies display a fear of strangers and unhappiness when separated from the specific attachment figure — also known as separation anxiety. At this age, some babies show more separation anxiety than others; however, both cases are interpreted as evidence that the baby has already formed an attachment. Intense attachment often develops at twelve months of age (Prior & Glaser, 2006; Bretherton, 1992).

After nine months — multiple attachments. The baby becomes increasingly independent and forms many different attachments.

The study also revealed that attachments were much more likely to form between the baby and those who responded appropriately to the infant's signals, rather than the individual with whom the baby spent the most time. Emerson and Schaffer called this sensitive responsiveness (McLeod, 2009).

Many of the babies in the study had formed multiple attachments by the time they were ten months of age, including attachments to parents, grandparents, siblings, and neighbours. The mother, however, remained the main attachment figure for approximately 50% of the children at eighteen months old, and the father for the majority of the rest. A child will most likely form an attachment with the person who communicates and plays with them rather than the one who changes or feeds them (Prior & Glaser, 2006).

Formation of Attachment

There are two main theories associated with the formation of attachments.

The behaviourist or learning theory of attachment argues that attachment is a set of specific learned behaviours. According to this theory, the basis of learning attachments is through the provision of food. A baby will at first form an attachment to the person who feeds them. Infants learn to associate the feeder — often the mother — with the comfort of being fed, and thus learn attachment through classical conditioning. Infants also learn that certain behaviours (such as smiling or crying) bring about desirable responses from others (such as comfort or attention), and thus learn to repeat those behaviours through operant conditioning in order to get what they want (O'Gorman, 2012; Vandevivere, Braet, Bosmans, Mueller & De Raedt, 2014).

The evolutionary theory of attachment argues that babies come into the world already biologically pre-programmed to form attachments with others, since these attachments will help them survive. The baby produces innate behaviours such as smiling or crying that stimulate caregiving responses from the adults around them. These behaviours are known as social releasers. The determinant of attachment in this case is not the provision of food but rather care and responsiveness. According to Bowlby, the child at first forms one primary attachment — known as monotropy — and this particular attachment figure acts as a secure base from which the child explores the world. The attachment relationship acts as a model for all future social relationships, and thus interfering with or disrupting it can lead to difficulties for the child. This theory also argues that there exists a critical period for developing an attachment, between the ages of 0 and 5 years. If an attachment is not formed by the end of this period, the child will suffer irreversible developmental consequences, including increased aggression and reduced intelligence (Vandevivere et al., 2014; McLeod, 2009).