This course taster is taken from the Open University’s ‘Child Development’ course (ED209). It is an extract from one of the four course text books (Oates, J., Lewis, C. and Lamb, M. E. (2005) ‘Parenting and attachment’, in Ding, S. and Littleton, K. S. (eds) Children’s Personal and Social Development, Oxford, Blackwell.) © Open University 2005
Something special can happen early in an individual’s development whereby certain specific objects come to have an exceptional significance. Close contact with these objects is used as an important source of comfort and support at times of stress and the absence of these attachment objects at such times can lead to distress and anxiety.
Objects of attachment
The word ‘object’ is being used here in a broad sense to include human beings as well as other sorts of comfort objects. While not all children do so, many make use of objects like favourite feeding bottles or a comfort blanket to which they develop a strong attachment. Winnicott (1953) described such attachments as involving ‘transitional objects’. He argued that such attachments represent a developmental stage whereby the infant makes use of an object over which they have control to deal with and move on from their early attachment to the mother, who is less under the infant’s control. In both cases, attachment to mother and attachment to transitional object, the significant point is that they are attachments to specific, single objects.
Internal working models
A central premise of attachment theory is that infants learn about ways of relating from these early relationships with their attachment objects and build up a set of expectations about themselves in relation to others. On the basis of these first experiences they build what has been termed an ‘Internal Working Model’ (IWM), which means they can approach new situations with some prior ideas about how they can cope in the face of threat. This IWM has three elements: a model of the self, a model of ‘the other’ and a model of the relationships between these (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1988; Bretherton, 1990, 1991, 1993).
For example, one infant might have a father as the primary carer who is quite devoted and, as well as being with the infant most of the time that she is awake, is also very responsive to the infant’s distress. This infant will thus be likely to construct an IWM in which self is seen as capable of calling for comfort when needed and as worthy of receiving comfort. The model of other will represent an expectation that comfort will be given when needed and that the other will show concern for the infant’s state. The relationship part of this IWM will include an expectation of satisfactory resolution of crises, with mutual communication.
By contrast, another infant may have a carer who is quite depressed, spending a lot of time in a self-absorbed state and with a generally low mood. This infant may spend long periods of time alone, or with an emotionally unavailable carer, where distress goes unacknowledged. When infant distress is responded to, it may sometimes be that the carer feels the distress as being invasive and the infant is handled roughly as a result. On other occasions, the infant’s distress may trigger a need in the carer for them to be cared for and the carer will seek to reverse roles. In this situation, the infant’s IWM will have an ambivalent model of self, as sometimes worthy of attention, but not always; as sometimes receiving comfort, but at times also expected to give comfort when distressed. The model of other will be similarly confused, between availability, ignoring and rejecting aspects. The relationship model will also have multiple expectations. So an infant in this latter situation will have an IWM that is less able to generate accurate predictions of what will happen in the case of distress.
next > Page 1 of 3
