1. The maternal deprivation thesis of Bowlby(1965) suggested that it is essential for the mental health of an infant and young child to experience a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with the mother (or permanent mother substitute).
Subsequent work supports the idea that it is lack of one or more close bonds, rather than maternal deprivation as such, which is a crucial factor in disturbance.
Perfectly healthy individuals may form their attachments to their fathers, or non-family individuals. Also healthy development is possible in arrangements, such as the kibbutz, where social arrangements do not sanction the mother centered family as the norm.
Bowlby, John.

2. Bowlby(1944) Forty four juvenile thieves.
Aim: To test maternal deprivation by looking at habitual delinquency
Procedure: Children & parents attend guidance groups re: early childhood experiences. 44 thieves vs. 44 emotionally disturbed.
Findings: ‘Affectionless’ apathy.
Many before the age of 2 had been in foster homes/hospitals.
Conclusions: Affectionless psychopathy- caused by attachment bonds being disturbed in early life.

3. Hodges & Tizard (1989) Long term effects of Privation.
Aim: To investigate long term effects of institutionalisation.
Procedure: Longitudinal,followed 65 children placed in care before the age of 4 mths. Some stayed in institution, some went home and some were adopted.
Findings: Early follow up between 4-8 found adopted children doing the best in virtually every way when compared to those returned home.
At 16, 23 adopted and 11 restored were tested. The adopted children closely bonded, the restored children were not so much.
Conclusions: Adopted children did well at home vs. the restored children.
Criticisms: Only some children took part in final statistics. Cannot summarise that one variable causes another because this is a natural experiment and the IV was manipulated as such, and the participants were not randomly selected.

4. Early Attachment in Humans
Some researchers wanted to know why the quality of attachment between human children and their parents seemed to vary so much in quality.
Mary Ainsworth devised a test called the Strange Situation to examine what factors might contribute to this variation.
The following sequence of events was observed through a one-way mirror:
A mother and infant (12 to 18 months of age) enter a room with toys in it.
A stranger enters the room.
Mother leaves the room.
Mother returns to the room.
Mother and the stranger leave the room.
The stranger returns to the room.
Mother returns to the room again.

5. How attachment develops
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) undertook a study of Scottish families with young babies.
They first visited the families when the babies were in their first year, then again eighteen months later.
During the visits the mother was interviewed about baby’s behaviour with people they had contact with. Also observations were made about the baby’s pattern of attachment, through the measure of separation anxiety and fear of strangers.
They found that during the first six months they were sociable to everyone who interacted with them.
At seven months 10% had five or more attachments, although the
majority now preferred their main caregiver.
At ten months 60% have multiple attachments rising to 87% at 18
months. Half were mostly attached to their mother, a 1/3rd
their father and the rest were attached to siblings or grandparents.

6. Stage Theory Of Attachment.
Age Approx.
Characteristics
Indiscriminate Attachment
Up to 6 Mths.
Doesn’t matter who is holding the baby, the
baby smiles at
everyone and protests
when put down
Specific Attachment
7Mths-1 year.
One specific attachment usually to the mother fear of strangers and separation anxiety are intense for 3 to 4 months
Multiple Attachments.
1 year +
shows attachment to number of people
important to their life.

7. Attachment
Before the mid-twentieth century, developmental psychologists believed that feeding was the primary cause of attachment between mother and child.
Harlow’s studies with newborn rhesus monkeys suggest that warmth and touch was even more important that feeding.
He called this essential close physical interaction contact comfort