Comment:
In none of these vignettes are we suggesting that there are inevitably positive or negative outcomes; rather, we are encouraging you to consider the differences in expectations about self, other and relating that might arise in each. We would also stress that much depends on the quality of relatedness between parent and infant; warm, supportive relationships can be formed even in the most adverse circumstances. Comments on each vignette follow:
1. An infant who is one of a pair of identical twins, with a single parent who is not working and struggles on a low income
There are two elements in this vignette; the twins and the parent’s situation. With respect to the twin element, each twin is going to experience the division of parental attention between them and their twin, hence the IWM is likely to contain an expectation that sometimes attention will be available and sometimes not. Thus, compared with the situation for a single child, the infant will probably be able to tolerate waiting for attention. The fact of low income in itself might only be relevant if it means that the parent is self-absorbed in the problems that low income might cause. This might then lead to the infant’s IWM also including an expectation of the other not always being emotionally available. But the fact of having a single parent can also contribute to a more unified view of self, since the reactions of the other are more likely to be consistently predictable than for two or more carers. The presence of the twin might add some expectation of companionship and empathy from a peer to the IWM.
2. An infant who is an only child with two working parents who sharecaring roles but also have an au-pair who cares for the infant duringthe day
An only child will not have the twins’ experiences of peer companionship that could contribute to their IWMs and, in the vignette described, is likely to develop an IWM that has multiple facets, representing the relationships with each of the parents and the au pair. To the extent that these differ from each other, the infant may also develop a more diversified sense of self.
3. An infant with an illness that necessitates long periods in hospital with painful treatments that require periods of isolation
The infant in hospital might come to associate pain with relating to others, thus the IWM might incorporate fearful feelings around relating. There is a possibility that the isolation and lack of contact with parents could lead to a view of self as unworthy and that relating to others is rarely and unpredictably available. However, the risks to attachment formation during hospitalisation of children are better recognised nowadays as is the need to foster and maintain supportive relationships with parents and nursing staff.
4. An infant in a nomadic ethnic group where all adults take shared responsibility for the care of infants
In this situation, the infant’s IWM is likely to hold an expectation that care will be available no matter who is turned to. To the extent that the different members of the group relate in different ways to the infant, the image of self may become somewhat diffuse and varied. This sort of caring environment can still lead to an infant feeling security in relations with others, but in a contrasting way to the single parent-infant bond situation.
A second central premise of attachment theory is that IWMs arise out of the oft-repeated experiences of the specific nature of the early relationships between infants and carers and, crucially, that the IWMs persist onwards into childhood and beyond. The argument goes that these expectations about self, other and relationships are carried onwards and outwards to subsequent interactions with other people, providing a template to make initial sense of new encounters:
“No variables have more far-reaching effects on personality development than a child’s experiences within the family. Starting during his first months in his relation to both parents, he builds up working models of how attachment figures are likely to behave towards him in any of a variety of situations, and on all those models are based all his expectations, and therefore all his plans, for the rest of his life.” Bowlby (1973, p.369)
Thus, in typically bold fashion, Bowlby set out this central tenet of attachment theory.
|
