Homework answers / question archive / The Emerging Adulthood Theory has provided assurance to some practitioners, parents, and young adults who are discovering that launching into young adulthood is challenging, while it is receiving harsh criticism from others

The Emerging Adulthood Theory has provided assurance to some practitioners, parents, and young adults who are discovering that launching into young adulthood is challenging, while it is receiving harsh criticism from others

Sociology

Share With

The Emerging Adulthood Theory has provided assurance to some practitioners, parents, and young adults who are discovering that launching into young adulthood is challenging, while it is receiving harsh criticism from others. Read the article and watch the video that has been provided. Afterward, give your opinion(s) about the theory, considering both pros and cons.

Attachment Theory How childhood attachments influence adult relationships John Bowlby - YouTube

Ethological Theories BOWLBY AND AINSWORTH ON HUMAN ATTACHMENT Bowlby Biographical Introduction John Bowlby (1907–1990) was born in London, the son of an upper-class English family. In his interpersonal relations, Bowlby maintained an oldfashioned British reserve, but his career was hardly traditional. He taught in two progressive schools for children, received psychoanalytic training when it was still new, and in 1936 became one of the first British psychiatrists to work in the area of child guidance. Early on, Bowlby became concerned about the disturbances of children growing up in understaffed orphanages and nurseries, where the caretakers couldn’t provide the children with much emotional interaction. The children frequently showed an inability to form intimate and lasting relationships with others. It seemed to Bowlby that the children were unable to love because they missed an opportunity to form a solid attachment to a mother figure early in life. In 1948 the World Health Organization commissioned Bowlby to pull together the research evidence on such institutional deprivation, which he summarized in his 1951 report, Maternal Care and Mental Health. The report produced widespread interest in the effects of institutional upbringing. But Bowlby’s greater interest was in another group of children—toddlers who had formed firm attachments to their parents and then went into the hospital for a period of one to several weeks. Bowlby and his coworkers began gathering information on these toddlers’ experiences in the late 1940s and early 1950s. At the time, most hospitals kept parents off the children’s wards. Hospital staff believed that parents would disrupt routines and spread infections. But when parents dropped off their children at the hospitals, the children became extremely upset. For days, the toddlers cried loudly and searched for their parents. They kept asking, “Where’s my Mummy?” After a while they became more subdued, as if in a state of mourning, but they continued to yearn for their parents. With Bowlby’s support, a young coworker, James Robertson, worked feverishly to convince hospitals to allow parents to stay with their children. In 1952, Robertson produced a film, A Two-Year-Old Goes to Hospital, to show the suffering of a little girl named Laura. She was a very pretty girl who was exceptionally self-controlled, but her emotions broke through. She tried in vain to escape the hospital and get back home, and she became increasingly miserable, sobbing to herself when alone. She kept crying,“I want my Mummy. Where has my Mummy gone?” For a long time most medical professionals refused to take such observations seriously. They came up with alternative explanations for the children’s Ethological Theories behavior, such as the possibility that Laura wasn’t properly brought up. People tended to believe that children should act more maturely. But Bowlby, feeling that the toddlers’ distress was natural, searched for a theoretical perspective that could shed light on his impression. His answers came from ethology (Bowlby, 1980, chap. 1; 1982, pp. 25–28; Karen, 1994, chap. 6). Theory of Attachment: Overview Earlier, we saw how young birds imprint on their parents and then follow them about. If the babies should lose contact, they utter distress calls. Bowlby pointed out that such behavior is common in a wide variety of animals. Of course, not all species are physically capable of following their parents soon after birth. But they initially have other ways of maintaining contact with the parent. A young infant chimpanzee, for example, clings to the adult. Bowlby called actions such as following, crying out, and clinging—actions that maintain proximity to a parent—attachment behaviors. He said attachment behaviors became part of an animal’s instinctive nature because they proved highly adaptive. A young animal who lacked the urge to maintain proximity to the mother—a youngster who was content to remain apart from her—would have become relatively easy prey (Bowlby, 1982, pp. 180–190; 1973, pp. 57–59). Bowlby stated that similar attachment behaviors occur in human babies. Human babies, too, want to be close to their mothers. As soon as they can crawl, babies try to follow their mothers, and they become upset when separated. They cry out and redouble their efforts to regain contact. Bowlby said we should consider attachment behaviors in humans to be in the same category as those in other species. In our species, like others, attachment behaviors became part of our biological equipment because they helped the young survive, providing protection from predators (1982, p. 183). Today, the mention of predators might sound odd. Greater dangers are posed by automobiles and industrial chemicals, but Bowlby asked us to consider our environment of adaptedness, the basic environment in which we evolved. He believed that anthropological data provide a pretty good picture of human life beginning about 2 million years ago, when our ancestor Homo habilis began using crude stone tools. Throughout nearly all of the subsequent 2 million years, our ancestors probably moved about in small groups, searching for food and risking attacks by large predators. When threatened, humans cooperated to drive off the predators and to protect the sick and young. The largest humans fended off the predators while the young followed their mothers to a safer position behind them (1982, pp. 58–64). If a toddler lacked the urge to follow the mother, he or she became “a more or less easy meal for a lurking leopard or a pack of hunting dogs” (Bowlby, 1973, p. 143). During this huge span of time, attachment behavior undoubtedly acquired some of the characteristics we see today. But Bowlby also believed Ethological Theories that human attachment behavior began evolving earlier, in ancestors we shared with other animals (Bowlby, 1982, pp. 59, 183). As we saw earlier, Lorenz and others advanced the concept of imprinting to describe a process by which attachment to a parent can develop. Bowlby suggested that a kind of imprinting also occurs in human children, although it develops more slowly than in other animals. It certainly develops more slowly than in birds, and even more slowly than in chimpanzees and gorillas. Briefly, human imprinting develops along the following lines. In the first months of life, babies cannot actively crawl after a departing parent, but they have other signals and gestures for keeping the parent close. One way is to cry. The cry is a distress call; when the infant is in pain or is frightened, she cries and the parent is impelled to rush over to see what is wrong. Another attachment behavior is the baby’s smile; when a baby smiles into a parent’s eyes, the parent feels love for the baby and enjoys being close. Initially, babies’ social gestures are largely indiscriminate. For example, they will smile at any face or cry for any person who leaves their sight. But between about 3 and 6 months of age, babies narrow their responsiveness to a few familiar people, develop a clear-cut preference for one person in particular, and then become wary of strangers. Soon after this, they become more mobile, crawling about, and they take a more active role in keeping their principal attachment figure nearby. They monitor this parent’s whereabouts, and any sign that the parent might suddenly depart releases following on their part. The whole process—focusing on a principal attachment figure whose departure then releases following—parallels imprinting in other species. This attachment figure, usually a parent, is incredibly important to the young child, and the child wants to stay in proximity to the parent. In his writings, Bowlby used the ethological terms instinct and imprinting in a purposely loose sense. He wanted to show that these concepts apply to human behavior in a general way, not as extremely precise, detailed definitions (1982, pp. 136, 220). Nevertheless, Bowlby felt that these ethological concepts provided the powerful explanations he had been looking for. He said that when he first learned about them, in the 1950s, it was a “eureka” experience (Karen, 1994, p. 90). In particular, he understood why toddlers like Laura (in James Robertson’s film) become so shaken when separated from their parents. As a product of evolution, the human child has an instinctual need to stay close to the parent on whom she has imprinted. This need is built into the very fiber of the child’s being. So when the toddler loses contact with the parent, the toddler tries to find the parent and cries out with distress calls. The child isn’t being “babyish”; she is simply engaging in natural behaviors that have brought safety to young humans for millions of years. Without these behaviors, it’s unlikely that human populations would have survived. If, despite the child’s efforts, she cannot regain contact with the parent, the child’s anxiety becomes intense. On some level, the child may feel she will die. Let us now look at the phases through which babies normally develop their attachment to caretakers. Ethological Theories Phases of Attachment Phase 1 (birth to 3 months): Social Gestures with Limited Selectivity. Within a few days after birth, infants have some capacity to discriminate among people. They prefer their mothers’ voices, odors, and faces to those of other people (Fogel, 2009, pp. 121, 240–241, 244). But during the first 3 months babies’ selectivity is often limited. Much of the time, they respond to everyone in the same ways, as we shall see as we review their social gestures. The most endearing early gesture is the social smile. Social smiles begin at 3 or 4 weeks of age and are usually directed at a high-pitched human voice. Beginning at 6 to 8 weeks of age, babies’ smiles become brighter and more energetic and are primarily directed at a visual stimulus—the face (Bowlby, 1982, pp. 283–286; Fogel, 2009, p. 286).2 One can tell when visual smiles are about to start. About a week beforehand, the baby starts to gaze intently at faces, as if studying them. Then the baby breaks into open smiles (Figure 2). This is often an electrifying moment in a parent’s life; the parent now has FIGURE 2 The sight of a baby smiling into one’s eyes stirs love and fosters attachment. 2 Actually, babies begin smiling right after birth. They emit eyes-closed smiles, usually as they fall off to sleep. But these smiles are not yet social; they are not yet directed at people (Freedman, 1974, p. 178). Ethological Theories “proof” of the baby’s love. The sight of one’s baby looking deeply into one’s eyes and smiling causes a feeling of love to well up from within. (Even if you are not a parent, you might have had a similar feeling when any baby smiled at you. You cannot help but smile back, and you think that you and the baby share a special bond.) Actually, until 3 months or so, these smiles aren’t selective. Babies will smile at any face, even a cardboard model of one. The main stipulation is that the face be presented in the full or frontal position. A profile is far less effective. Also, a voice or a caress is a relatively weak elicitor of smiling during this stage. It seems, then, that the baby’s social smile is released by a fairly specific visual stimulus (Bowlby, 1982, pp. 282–286; Freedman, 1974, pp. 179–181, 187; Fogel, 2009, p. 286). In Bowlby’s view, smiling promotes attachment because it maintains the proximity of the caretaker. When the baby smiles, the caretaker enjoys being with the baby; the caretaker “smiles back, ‘talks’ to him, strokes and pats him, and perhaps picks him up” (Bowlby, 1982, p. 246). The smile itself is a releaser that promotes loving and caring interaction—behavior that increases the baby’s chances for health and survival. At about the time that babies begin smiling at faces, they also begin babbling (and cooing and gurgling). They babble primarily at the sound of a human voice and, especially, at the sight of a human face. As with smiling, babbling is initially unselective; babies will babble when almost any person is around. The baby’s babbling delights the caretaker, prompting the caretaker to talk back. “Babbling, like smiling, is a social releaser [that] has the function of maintaining a mother-figure in proximity to an infant by promoting social interaction between them” (p. 289). Crying also results in proximity between caretaker and child. It is like a distress call; it signals the baby needs help. Babies cry when they are in pain, hungry, cold, or experience discomfort. They even cry when a person at whom they had been looking leaves their field of vision, although during the first weeks the particular person in question matters little. Babies also will permit almost any person to quiet them through rocking or by attending to their needs (pp. 289–296). Proximity also is maintained by the baby’s holding on. The newborn is equipped with two holding responses. One is the grasp reflex; when any object touches the baby’s open palm, the hand automatically closes around it. The other is the Moro reflex, which occurs either when babies are startled by a loud noise or when they suddenly lose support (as when one holds their head from underneath and then suddenly lets it drop). Their response is to spread their arms and then to bring them back around the chest. The action looks as if the baby were embracing something (see Figure 3). In earlier times, Bowlby thought, these reflexes served the purpose of keeping hold of the parent who carried them about. If, for example, a mother saw a predator and suddenly ran, the chances were that the baby had a grasp of some part of her with the hand Ethological Theories FIGURE 3 The Moro reflex: A startled baby exhibits an embracing action. (see Figure 4). And if the baby lost hold, he or she would embrace the mother again (p. 278). Babies also are equipped with rooting and sucking reflexes. When their cheek is touched, they automatically turn their head to the side from which the stimulation came and then “root” or grope until their mouth touches something, which they then suck. The rooting and sucking reflexes obviously aid breast-feeding, but Bowlby also regarded them as attachment patterns because they bring the baby into interaction with the mother (p. 275). Phase 2 (3 to 6 months): Focusing on Familiar People. Beginning at about 3 months, the baby’s behavior changes. For one thing, many reflexes— including the Moro, grasp, and rooting reflexes—drop out. But more importantly for Bowlby, the baby’s social responses begin to become much more selective. Between 3 and 6 months, babies gradually restrict their smiles to familiar people; when they see a stranger, they simply stare (Bowlby, 1982, Ethological Theories FIGURE 4 With her grasp reflex, this month-old baby has a hold on her mother’s shirt. pp. 287, 325). Babies also become more selective in their cooing and babbling; by the age of 4 or 5 months, they make these sounds only in the presence of people they recognize (p. 289). Also, by this age (and perhaps long before), their crying is most readily quieted by a preferred figure. By age 5 months, finally, babies begin to reach for and grasp parts of our anatomy, particularly our hair, but they do so only if they know us (pp. 279, 300). During this phase, then, babies narrow their responsiveness to familiar people. They usually prefer two or three people—and one in particular. They most readily smile or babble, for example, when this person is near. This principal attachment figure is usually the mother, but it doesn’t have to be. It can be the father or some other caretaker. Babies seem to develop the strongest attachment to the one person who has most alertly responded to their signals and who has engaged in the most pleasurable interactions with them (pp. 306–316). Ethological Theories Phase 3 (6 months to 3 years): Intense Attachment and Active Proximity-Seeking. Beginning at about 6 months of age, the infant’s attachment to a particular person becomes increasingly intense and exclusive. Most notably, infants cry out when the mother figure leaves the room, demonstrating separation anxiety. Observers have also noted the intensity with which the baby greets the mother after she has been away for a brief time. When she returns, the baby typically smiles, reaches to be picked up, and when in the mother’s arms, hugs her and crows with delight. The mother, too, displays her happiness at the reunion (1982, pp. 295, 300). The new exclusiveness of the baby’s attachment to a parent is also evident at about 7 or 8 months when the baby exhibits a fear of strangers. This reaction ranges from a slight vigilance to outright cries at the sight of a stranger, with the stronger reactions usually occurring when the baby feels ill or is in an unfamiliar setting (pp. 321–326). But babies are not restricted to the expression of strong emotions. By 8 months, they can usually crawl and therefore can begin to actively follow a departing parent. Babies will make the most concerted efforts to regain contact when a parent departs suddenly rather than slowly, or when they are in unfamiliar surroundings (pp. 256–259). (See Figure 5.) Once infants can actively follow a parent, their behavior begins to consolidate into a goal-corrected system. That is, babies monitor the parent’s whereabouts, and if the parent starts to leave, they urgently follow, “correcting” or adjusting their movements until they regain proximity. When they get near the parent, they typically reach up with their arms, gesturing to be picked up. When held, they calm down again (p. 252). Babies, of course, often move away from attachment figures as well as toward them. This is particularly evident when they use the caretaker as a secure base from which to explore. If a mother and her 1- or 2-year-old child enter a park or playground, the child will typically remain close for a moment or two and then venture off to explore. However, the child will periodically look back, exchange glances or smiles with her, and even return to her from time to time before venturing forth once again. The child initiates brief contacts “as though to assure himself that she is still there” (p. 209). Using the mother as a secure base, babies and toddlers are happy explorers. Although they periodically monitor the mother’s presence, they are comfortable investigating things at some distance from her. But this situation can quickly change. If, when a child glances back at the mother, she seems inaccessible (or, more threatening yet, seems ready to depart) the child will hurry back to her. The child also will rush back if he or she is frightened by some event, such as a loud noise. In these circumstances the child will want close physical contact and may require a good deal of comforting before he or she will venture away from the mother once again (Bowlby, 1988, p. 62; 1982, pp. 257–259, 373). Ethological Theories FIGURE 5 An 8-month-old baby struggles to follow her mother. By the end of the first year, an important variable is the child’s general working model of the attachment figure. That is, the child has begun to build up, on the basis of day-to-day interactions, a general idea of the caretaker’s accessibility and responsiveness. So, for example, a 1-year-old girl who has developed some general doubts about her mother’s availability will tend to be anxious about exploring new situations at any distance from her. If, in contrast, the girl has basically concluded that “my mother loves me and will always be there when I really need her,” she will explore the world with more courage and enthusiasm. Even so, she will occasionally monitor her mother’s presence, for her need for her mother is vital (Bowlby, 1973, pp. 203–206; 1982, pp. 354, 373). Phase 4 (3 years to the end of childhood):Partnership Behavior. Prior to the age of 2 or 3 years, children are concerned only with their own need to maintain a certain proximity to the caretaker; they do not yet consider the caretaker’s plans or goals. For the 2-year-old, the knowledge that mother or father is “going next door for a moment to borrow some milk” is meaningless; the Ethological Theories child simply wants to go, too. The 3-year-old, in contrast, has some understanding of such plans and can visualize the parent’s behavior while he or she is away. Consequently, the child is more willing to let the parent go. The child begins acting more like a partner in the relationship. Still, there are limits on the amount of physical separation 3-year-olds can tolerate, for they still have a great need for the parent’s care. Attachment as Imprinting Now that we have examined the child’s attachment in some detail, we are in a position to appreciate Bowlby’s thesis that attachment follows a course similar to imprinting in animals. Imprinting, you will recall, is the process by which animals learn the releasing stimuli for their social instincts. In particular, young animals learn which moving objects to follow. They begin with a willingness to follow a wide range of objects, but this range quickly narrows, and at the end of the imprinting period they usually will follow only the mother. At this point the fear response limits the ability to form new attachments. The sensitive period for imprinting has ended. In humans, we can observe a similar process, although it develops much more slowly. During the first weeks of life, babies cannot actively follow objects through locomotion, but they do direct social responses toward people. They smile, babble, hold on, cry, and so on—all of which keep people close. At first, babies direct these responses toward anyone. However, by 6 months of age they have narrowed their attachment to a few people and one in particular. They primarily want this person near. At this point they become afraid of strangers, and, as they learn to crawl, they follow their principal attachment figure whenever she departs. They have imprinted on a particular person; it is she who releases following. Institutional Deprivation Early in his career, Bowlby was struck by the inability of many institutionally reared children to form deep attachments later in life. He called these individuals “affectionless characters”; such individuals use people solely for their own ends and seem incapable of forming loving, lasting ties to others. In his 1951 World Health Organization report, Bowlby speculated that they lacked the opportunity to form an early relationship with a mother-figure (Bowlby, 1965). The conditions in many institutions do seem unfavorable for the formation of intimate human ties. In many institutions, babies receive care from several nurses who can meet their physical needs but who have little time to interact with them. Frequently, no one is around to heed the babies’ cries, to Ethological Theories return their smiles, to talk to them when they babble, or to pick them up when they desire. Consequently, it is difficult for the baby to establish a strong bond with any particular person. When writing his report, Bowlby had not yet read about imprinting, but he intuitively felt that there is a sensitive period for forming the first, vital attachment. Bowlby never seemed perfectly confident about the age when the sensitive period ends, but his writings suggest it ends with the appearance of fear responses, as in other species (1982, pp. 222–223). If so, the sensitive period might end at 8 or 9 months, the age by which babies ordinarily have shown a fear of separation (6 months) as well as a fear of strangers (8 or 9 months). If the baby hasn’t formed an attachment by this age, the baby may have missed the sensitive period for developing bonds in general. The most relevant recent research has looked at institutionalized children in Romania. In 1989, political turmoil forced many babies into extremely understaffed orphanages. Many caring families in the United Kingdom adopted children in the orphanages, and researchers have followed the children’s progress up to the age of 11 years. It appears that babies adopted prior to the age of 6 months escaped social deficits. In contrast, about a quarter of the children who were adopted between the ages of 6 and 42 months exhibited social deficits, such as shallow relationships with others. Thus the watershed appears to be 6 months, when the initial fear response (separation anxiety) ordinarily emerges (Dozier & Rutter, 2008). On the basis of this finding, Mary Dozier and Michael Rutter (2008, pp. 707–708) suggest there may be a genetically programmed period, ending at 6 months, for the normal attachment to a parental figure. If the baby does not form a bond with a parental figure by this age, subsequent relationship problems can occur. But Dozier and Rutter acknowledge that more research is needed on this topic. Separations Although Bowlby was interested in early institutional deprivation, he was much more interested in cases where the child forms a normal attachment and then suffers a separation. This was the kind of separation illustrated by James Robertson’s 1952 film, A Two-Year-Old Goes to Hospital. Bowlby and Robertson (Bowlby, 1980, chap. 1; 1982, chap. 2) proposed that when separations are forced on 1- to 3-year-olds, and last from one to several weeks, the child’s behavior typically goes through three stages. First, children protest. They cry and scream for their mother. They search for her and are alert to any sight or sound indicating she is present after all. Sometimes they insist their mother is coming soon, ignoring what they’ve been told. During this phase, the children usually reject all forms of substitute care. Ethological Theories Second, they go through a period of despair. They become quieter and less active, and appear to be in a deep state of mourning. But although their hopelessness deepens, they continue to look for their mother. Finally, a stage of detachment sets in. During this period, the child is livelier and may accept the care of nurses and others. The hospital staff may think the child has recovered. However, all is not well. When the mother returns, the child seems not to know her; the child turns away from her and acts as if he has lost all interest in her. The reactions are probably a defense against further disappointment. Fortunately, most children do reestablish their tie to the mother after a while. But this is not always the case. If the separation has been prolonged or is repeated, the child may give up on people altogether. The result here, too, is an “affectionless character,” a person who no longer cares for others in any deep way. Attachment and Separation through the Life Cycle Although Bowlby wrote primarily about attachment in childhood, he believed that attachment is important throughout the life cycle. Adolescents break away from parental dominance, but their attachment to parents persists; adults consider themselves independent, but they seek proximity to loved ones in times of crisis; and older people find that they must increasingly depend on the younger generation. In general, Bowlby said, being alone is one of the great fears in human life. We might consider such a fear silly, neurotic, or immature, but there are good biological reasons behind it. Throughout human history, humans have best been able to withstand crises and face danger with the help of companions (Bowlby, 1982, p. 207; 1973, pp. 84, 143, 165). In his writings on adult attachment, Bowlby emphasized how people provide each other with a secure base of support. You will recall that such behavior begins early. When, for example, a 1- or 2-year-old goes to a new park with a caretaker, the child uses the caretaker as a base from which to explore. Knowing that the caretaker is available if needed, the child enthusiastically explores the surroundings. Bowlby suggested that similar behavior characterizes the healthiest adult partnerships (1979, pp. 204–205). Each partner knows he or she has an unwavering backup, someone who can be trusted to provide emotional support and assistance when needed. Knowing that support will be there, individuals have the courage to venture forth and meet life’s challenges. Secure bases of support also are provided by relatives and friends. Bowlby said, “All of us, from the cradle to the grave, are happiest when life is organized as a series of excursions, long or short, from a secure base provided by our attachment figure(s)” (1988, p. 62). Ethological Theories Because attachments are vital throughout life, separations and losses can cause personal upheaval. This is evident, for example, when a person loses a parent, goes through a divorce, or becomes a widow. Attachment researchers have most thoroughly studied cases of widowhood, and they have found that the reactions of the bereaved display many similarities to those of children who suffer separations. Most dramatically, the bereaved also search for the lost person. “I walk around searching,” said one widow. “I go to the grave . . . but he’s not there.” Others feel drawn to the old haunts they and their loved ones used to frequent, as if they might find their loved ones there. Sometimes they call out for the deceased. “Oh Fred, I do need you,” shouted one widow during a research interview, before bursting into tears (Bowlby, 1980, p. 90). A 1993 study found that a full year after a spouse’s death, 63% of the respondents sensed that their spouse was with them at times (Shaver & Fraley, 2008, p. 51). Sometimes the bereaved think they see their deceased partner on the street or hear the partner moving about the house at night (Bowlby, 1980, p. 89). This desperate searching reminds one of the adult geese described by Lorenz (1963, p. 208). Many friends and professionals see the behavior of bereaved adults as irrational. They tell them to pull themselves together, to face reality, and to focus on the future instead of dwelling on the past. Bowlby’s view was different. He suggested that in the course of evolution, an urge to find missing loved ones became a powerful part of our biological makeup. Underlying the urge is the assumption that “all losses are retrievable”; hoping for the impossible, we keep searching (Bowlby, 1979, p. 86). And because the drive to reunite with loved ones is natural, it should be respected, even when it might strike us as unrealistic. To be helpful, we should give bereaved individuals a chance to talk freely about their feelings and wishes. Research indicates that this opportunity facilitates a healthy readjustment (Bowlby, 1979, pp. 86, 97, 100–101). Bowlby gave attachment theory its start, but much of its progress—as well as its current popularity—owes to the work of his colleague Mary Ainsworth. Ainsworth Biographical Introduction Mary D. S. Ainsworth (1913–1999) grew up in Toronto and at the age of 16 entered the University of Toronto. There, she was impressed by the psychological theory of William Blatz, who emphasized how parents may or may not provide children with security. Ainsworth felt Blatz’s ideas helped her understand why she was a bit retiring in social settings. She stayed on at the university to earn a doctorate and taught psychology for a few years. In 1950 she married Len Ainsworth, and the couple went to England, where she Ethological Theories answered a newspaper ad for a research assistant to John Bowlby. Thus began a 40-year collaboration. In 1954 Len accepted a position teaching in Uganda, and Ainsworth used her two years there to go to the villages near Kampala to make careful, naturalistic observations of how babies become attached to their mothers (Karen, 1994). This research, later published in her 1967 book, Infancy in Uganda, sketched out the phases of attachment that Bowlby outlined in his writings. Ainsworth’s Uganda research also described how babies use the mother as a secure base from which to explore. Indeed, Bowlby (1988) credited Ainsworth with discovering infants’ secure-base behavior. And, taking a first stab at a groundbreaking formulation, she described three patterns of attachment—three different forms the attachment process may take among individual babies. After arriving in the United States from Africa, Ainsworth began a study of 23 middle-class babies and their mothers in Baltimore. The Baltimore study, which was more elaborate than the Uganda study, replicated and expanded the Uganda findings on the patterns of attachment and stimulated a tremendous amount of research on the topic. Patterns of Attachment In the Baltimore study, Ainsworth and her students observed the babies and their mothers in their homes for the first year of the babies’ lives, visiting them for about 4 hours every 3 weeks. When the infants were 12 months old, Ainsworth wanted to see how they would behave in a new setting, so she brought them and their mothers to a playroom at Johns Hopkins University. She was particularly interested in how the babies would use the mother as a base from which to explore and how they would react to two brief separations. In the first separation, the mother left the baby with a stranger (a friendly female graduate student); in the second, the baby was left alone. Each separation lasted 3 minutes, but was shortened if the baby showed too much distress. The entire procedure, which lasts 20 minutes, is called the Strange Situation. Ainsworth and coworkers (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stanton, 1971; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978) observed three patterns. 1. Securely Attached Infants. Soon after entering the playroom with the mother, these babies used her as a base from which to explore. When the mother left the room, however, their exploratory play diminished and they sometimes became visibly upset. When the mother returned, they actively greeted her and remained close to her for a moment or two. Once reassured, they eagerly ventured forth to explore the environment once again. When Ainsworth examined the earlier home observations of these children, she found the mothers had typically been rated as sensitive and Ethological Theories promptly responsive to their babies’ cries and other signals. The mothers had been lovingly available when the babies needed comforting. For their part, the babies cried very little at home and used the mother as a base from which to explore in the home as well. Ainsworth believed these infants demonstrated the healthy pattern of attachment behavior. The mother’s day-in and day-out responsiveness had given the baby faith in the mother as a protector; her simple presence in the Strange Situation gave the child the courage to actively explore the surroundings. At the same time, the child’s responses to the mother’s departure and return in this new environment revealed the baby’s strong need for proximity to her—a need that has had enormous survival value throughout human evolution. This pattern has been found to characterize about 65% of the 1-year-olds evaluated in the Strange Situation in U.S. samples (Goldberg, 1995; van IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008). 2. Insecure-Avoidant Infants. These infants appeared quite independent throughout the Strange Situation. As soon as they entered the room, they rushed off to inspect the toys. Although they explored, they didn’t use the mother as a secure base, in the sense of checking in with her from time to time. They simply ignored her. When the mother left the room, they didn’t become upset, and they didn’t seek proximity to her when she returned. If she tried to pick them up, they tried to avoid her, turning their bodies away or averting their gaze. This avoidant pattern has been found in about 20% of the infants in U.S. samples (Goldberg, 1995; van IJzendoorn & SagiSchwartz, 2008) Because these infants display such independence in the Strange Situation, they have struck many people as exceptionally healthy. But when Ainsworth saw their avoidant behavior, she guessed they were suffering from some degree of emotional difficulty. Their detachment reminded her of children who had experienced painful separations. The home observations supported Ainsworth’s guess that something was wrong. The mothers had been rated as relatively insensitive, interfering, and rejecting. And the babies often seemed insecure. Although some were very independent in the home, many were anxious about the mother’s whereabouts. Ainsworth’s overall interpretation, then, was that when these babies entered the Strange Situation, they suspected they couldn’t count on their mother for support and they therefore reacted in a defensive way. They adopted an indifferent, self-contained posture to protect themselves. Having suffered so many rejections in the past, they attempted to block out their need for their mother to avoid further disappointment. And when the mother returned from the separation episodes, they refused to look at her, as if denying any feelings for her. They behaved as if they were saying, “Who are you? Am I supposed to know you?—you who won’t help me Ethological Theories when I need it” (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stanton, 1971, p. 47; Ainsworth et al., 1978, pp. 241–242, 316). Bowlby (1988, pp. 124–125) speculated that this defensive behavior can become a fixed and pervasive part of the personality. The child becomes an adult who is overly self-reliant and detached, a person who can never let down his or her guard and trust others sufficiently to form close relationships. 3. Insecure-Ambivalent Infants. In the Strange Situation, these infants were so clingy and preoccupied with the mother’s whereabouts that they hardly explored at all. They became extremely upset when the mother left the room, and they were markedly ambivalent toward her when she returned. At one moment they reached out for her; at the next moment they angrily pushed her away. In their homes, these mothers had typically treated their babies in an inconsistent manner. The mothers had been warm and responsive on some occasions but not on others. This inconsistency had apparently left the babies uncertain whether the mothers would be there for them when called on. As a result, they usually wanted to keep the mother close at hand—a desire that intensified greatly in the Strange Situation. These babies became very distressed when the mother left the playroom, and they urgently tried to regain contact with her when she returned, although they also vented their anger toward her. The ambivalent pattern is sometimes called “resistance” because the children not only desperately seek contact but resist it. This pattern usually characterizes 10 to 15% of the 1-year-olds in U.S. samples (Goldberg, 1995; van IJzendoorn & Sagi-Schwartz, 2008). Disorganized/Disoriented Infants. For some time, researchers found that some children’s Strange Situation behavior didn’t fit perfectly into the three types. In the late 1980s, Mary Main and Judith Solomon examined 200 anomalous cases and saw that many of the children exhibited peculiar behavior, especially when the mother returned to the room. For example, they walked toward the mother, but with their faces averted, or they froze in a trance-like state. It seemed that the children were at a loss as to how to act because they wanted to approach their mother but were afraid to do so. To classify such behavior, Main and Solomon proposed a fourth category, Disorganized/Disoriented, and subsequent research sometimes includes it. The category generally captures about 14 to 24% of children in the samples. Research on the causes of such fearful behavior points to the possibility of physical abuse (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008). Follow-Up Studies. If the Strange Situation taps fundamental differences among children, it should predict differences in their later behavior. A number of studies have found that the infants classified as securely attached in the Strange Situation have continued to behave differently from the others Ethological Theories in childhood and adolescence. On cognitive tasks, the securely attached children have scored higher on measures of persistence and self-reliance. In social settings, such as summer camps, they have received higher ratings on friendliness and leadership. Infant attachment alone doesn’t determine all later behavior, of course. Other factors, such as ongoing family support, have an effect. But a secure attachment in infancy gets the child off to a good start (Weinfield et al., 2008). Ainsworth reported that secure attachment was the product of maternal sensitivity to children’s signals and needs. This finding is theoretically important because ethologists believe children have built-in gestures that must be heeded for development to unfold properly. Ainsworth’s finding has been replicated by other investigators with great consistency. In addition, intervention programs that increase mothers’ sensitivity to their children’s cues do promote more secure attachments. At the same time, the estimated relationship between maternal sensitivity and secure attachment is often more modest than attachment theorists would like to see. So there is a need for more exploration of the variables that foster secure attachment (Belsky & Fearon, 2008). There also is a need to clarify the role of fathers in the attachment process. Marinus van IJzendoorn and Abraham Sagi-Schwartz (2008) have led efforts to test the cultural universality of Ainsworth’s first three patterns. They report that the Strange Situation produces the same three patterns in various parts of the world, including Israel, Africa, Japan, China, Western Europe, and the United States. In all the samples, secure attachment is the dominant type, but there also are differences. The U.S and Western European samples contain the highest percentages of avoidant children. Perhaps the West’s cultural emphasis on independence leads parents to rebuff babies’ needs, and the babies defend themselves with avoidant behavior. Working Models in Children and Adults. Attachment research has been moving forward at a rapid pace, and one of the most popular topics is that of internal working models. Bowlby, you will recall, conceived of the working model as the child’s expectations and feelings about the attachment figure’s responsiveness. Because the working model involves internal mental events, it is difficult to investigate in infancy; we cannot interview babies about their thoughts and feelings. But after the age of 3 years or so, research becomes feasible. Bretherton, Ridgeway, and Cassidy (1990) found that 3-year-olds could complete stories about an attachment situation. They could provide endings, for instance, to a story about a child who fell and hurt her knee while taking a walk with her family. As predicted, the securely attached children, compared to the others, most frequently depicted the parents in their story endings as responsive and helpful (saying, for example, that a parent will put a bandage on the child’s knee). Adults, too, have developed thoughts and feelings about attachment, and their attitudes undoubtedly influence the way they treat their children. Ethological Theories Mary Main and her colleagues (Main et al., 1985; Main & Goldwyn, 1987) interviewed mothers and fathers about their own early memories in an Adult Attachment Interview. Focusing on the openness and flexibility of the parents’ responses, Main developed a typology that has proven to correlate quite well with children’s classifications in the Strange Situation (Hesse, 2008). Main’s types include: Secure/autonomous speakers, who talk openly and freely about their own early experiences. These parents tend to have securely attached children. Apparently the parents’ acceptance of their own feelings goes hand-in-hand with an acceptance of their infants’ signals and needs. Dismissing of attachment speakers, who talk as if their own attachment experiences are unimportant. These parents tend to have insecureavoidant children; the parents reject their own experiences in much the same way that they reject their infants’ proximity-seeking. Preoccupied speakers, whose interviews suggest that they are still struggling, inwardly or outwardly, to win their own parents’ love and approval. It may be their own neediness that makes it difficult for them to respond consistently to their infants’ needs. (Main & Goldwyn, 1987) Following the introduction of the Disorganized/Disoriented category of infant attachment, researchers have looked for a corresponding pattern in the Adult Attachment Interview. Investigators have found that parents of Disorganized/Disoriented children sometimes exhibit lapses in consciousness and logical thinking (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 2008). These lapses might be associated with outbursts that generate fear in their babies, but this is merely conjecture at this time. Several studies have found that when parents are interviewed prior to the birth of their babies, their interview classifications correlate with their babies’ attachment behavior in the Strange Situation at 1 year of age. Generally, the overlap is about 70%. However, it has been more difficult to find an adult interview classification that predicts the Disorganized/Disorganized infant category (Main, 1995, p. 446). Practical Applications of the Bowlby/Ainsworth Endeavor Institutional Care. Bowlby and his colleagues have had a tremendous impact on child care issues. Bowlby’s 1951 World Health Organization report significantly raised awareness with respect to emotional deprivation in orphanages. This does not mean that countries have consistently taken steps to provide more loving care, but Bowlby did a lot to bring attention to the problem. Ethological Theories Bowlby, together with James Robertson, also battled against the hospital practice of separating toddlers and young children from their parents. On this front, Bowlby and Robertson had great success. True, health care professionals initially resisted his recommendations to allow parents to room-in with their children. But in the 1970s rooming-in did become a common hospital practice. Most hospitals now allow parents to stay with their children (Karen, 1994, chap. 6). Day Care. As increasing numbers of U.S. mothers work outside the home, families are turning to day care for assistance, and they are placing their children in day care settings at younger and younger ages. Indeed, day care for infants (children under 12 months of age) is already quite common. To some extent, day care has become a political issue. Some people argue that day care supports a woman’s right to pursue a career. Others lobby for day care because it enables economically disadvantaged parents to work and make more money. Nevertheless, Bowlby (Karen, 1994, chap. 22) and Ainsworth (1973, p. 70) have raised questions about it. Does early day care prevent a baby from forming a bond with her parents? What are the emotional effects of daily separations from the parents in the first few years of life? The research on such questions is still ongoing but it is clear that even young infants who attend day care for several hours a day become primarily attached to their parents, not to their day care providers (ClarkeStewart, 1989). But research does raise the possibility that children who spend a great deal of time in day care can suffer some ill effects. A major study by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) found that the more time young children spend in day care up to the age of 4 1/2 years, the more likely the children are to display aggressive and disobedient behavior (2003). The NICHD generally found these effects to occur regardless of the quality of the day care (whether or not the settings provided lots of nurturance and individual attention). However, a more recent study found the relationship between time in day care and aggressive behavior to be modest, and high-quality day care diminished the adverse effects (McCartney et al., 2010). Still, taken as a whole, the research evidence is sufficient to raise concerns. In a sense, the search for quality day care really reflects wider problems in contemporary societies, as Bowlby (1988, pp. 1–3) and Ainsworth (Karen, 1994, p. 415) tried to indicate. In earlier village societies, parents could take their children to work with them in the fields or in the shops, and parents received a good deal of child care assistance from grandparents, aunts and uncles, teenagers, and friends. There was also time for games and socializing with the children. In today’s hectic world, the situation is different. Parents usually live apart from their relatives and must raise their children Ethological Theories alone, and parents often come home from work too exhausted to be very responsive to their children. Although quality day care may seem desirable, what parents really need are new occupational and social arrangements that permit them to spend considerably more relaxed and enjoyable time with their children. A Child-Centered Approach to Child Rearing. Bowlby (1982, p. 356) said that parents as well as professionals repeatedly asked one basic question: Should a mother always meet her baby’s demands for her presence and attention? The fear is that too much attention will lead to spoiling. The Bowlby/Ainsworth position is the same as Gesell’s. Evolution has provided infants with signals and gestures that promote healthy development, and it is wisest to respond to them. As parents, we should follow our impulse to go to our babies when they cry, to return their smiles, to talk back when they babble, and so on. Infants are biologically prepared to guide us with respect to the experiences they need, and our relationships with them will develop most happily when we follow their cues. As indicated, this position is buttressed by the research of Ainsworth and others. Parents who respond sensitively and promptly to their infants’ signals tend to produce babies who, at 1 year of age, are securely attached. In home settings, these babies cry less than other babies and are relatively independent. They seem to have developed the feeling that they can always get the parents’ attention when necessary, so they can relax and explore the world. Such infants do, to be sure, monitor the parents’ whereabouts; the attachment system is too strong to ever completely shut down. But even in new settings, they do not worry excessively about the mother’s presence. Instead, they use her as a secure base from which to explore. They venture away from her to investigate the surroundings, and even though they glance back at her and perhaps return to her from time to time, it is not long before they venture forth once again. “The picture,” Bowlby said, is “that of a happy balance between exploration and attachment” (1982, p. 338). Parents, Bowlby said, can in fact produce a spoiled or overmothered child. But they do not accomplish this by being too sensitive and responsive to the baby’s signals. If we look closely, we see that the parent is taking all the initiative. A parent might insist on being close to a child, or showering the child with love, whether the child wants it or not. The parent is not taking his or her cues from the child (p. 375). In recent years, many parents have found a new way to be intrusive. They provide their infants and toddlers with all kinds of early stimulation, from flash cards to computers, in an effort to accelerate their children’s intellectual development. Ainsworth believed that such parental behavior is unhealthy because it takes too much control away from the child (Karen, 1994, p. 416).