Attachment in the School SettingJoin now to read essay Attachment in the School SettingAttachment in the School SettingDifficult behaviour in the school setting affects both teachers and students. In this paper I draw on attachment theory to construct an alternative explanation for such behaviour. I review attachment theory and link attachment patterns and behaviour in school age children, then outline the implications for educators. I have focused on the primary school setting and although this perspective is relevant to older children, application of attachment theory to adolescents warrants a separate discussion.
Attachment TheoryHistory.Attachment theory originates with the work of John Bowlby who, despite psychoanalytical training, disagreed with the focus on the infants inner world and the argument that infant-mother relationships originate in the infants physiological (libido and hunger) drives (Howe, 1995). Instead Bowlby concentrated on the infants actual experience of relationships (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991), arguing that attachment behaviour is “a major component of human behavioural equipment, on a par with eating and sexual behaviour” (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991, p. 336).
When Bowlby began this work institutional child care was not uncommon. During World War II many children were evacuated and placed with strangers. Throughout the 1950s young children were routinely separated from their mothers for weeks at a time when a new baby was born. These practices reflect an assumption that children do not experience loss and grief in the same way as adults. Bowlby challenged this, developing an enduring interest in the impact of separation on childrens development.
Mary Ainsworth expanded attachment theory by conducting naturalistic observations of mothers and infants and developing a laboratory procedure, “the Strange Situation”, in which mother-infant pairs are observed during a brief sequence of separation and reunion. Attachment research departs from other infant research by emphasising the relationship between the infant and the caregiver rather than the individual characteristics of either party (Ainsworth, 1991) and by highlighting the infants active participation in the process. The attachment figure has a crucial role in managing anxiety during the infants period of complete dependency. By developing “sensitive responsiveness”, or the ability to tune into the infant and respond appropriately, s/he helps the infant to form a secure attachment. Once established secure attachment provides the child with a base from which to explore the world (Ainsworth, 1979).
Patterns of Attachment.From her study of mother-infant dyads Ainsworth identified three patterns of attachment: secure, ambivalent, and avoidant. Securely attached infants use their mothers as a base for exploration when she is present, they become upset when mother departs, and seek contact with her when reunited. Ambivalently attached infants tend to show anxiety even when mother is present, become intensely distressed when separated and are ambivalent when reunited. Avoidantly attached infants do not interact with mother when she is present, rarely cry when separated from her, and avoid mother when reunited. Securely attached babies are also described as the most co-operative and least angry (Ainsworth, 1979). Particular styles of mothering are characteristic of each of these categories. Mothers of secure infants are sensitive and responsive. Mothers of anxious infants are often unresponsive and may ignore signals from the infant generating high levels of uncertainty and anxiety. Mothers of avoidant infants tend to be rejecting so avoidance is likely to be a defensive manoeuvre on the childs part to lessen anxiety and anger (Ainsworth, 1979).
Additional Categories.Additional categories have since been identified. Crittenden (1988) describes an avoidant/ambivalent pattern and Main, Kaplan and Cassidy (1985) use the term “disorganised” to describe those children who have experienced abuse and neglect. Disorganised children may respond in chaotic and unexpected ways including interrupted movements and expressions, freezing, stilling and dazing (Cicchetti & Toth, 1995). Crittenden also describes a pattern of compulsive compliance in her research on “at-risk” relationships. Some of these children were classified as securely attached when using the original three criteria. However, Crittenden suggests that these children have controlling mothers and dare not threaten the tenuous bonds that exist, thus providing the basis for their compliance. Patterns of attachment are unique to each mother-infant pair and mothers
of the child group. Both parents can see their child, and the child’s parents. The child group is described as being responsive to the mother’s affections, whereas the other parent is non-responsive to the mother’s own affections. Adolescents and their mothers are often more vulnerable and vulnerable, especially in vulnerable environments. The child group’s responses to these feelings may be unpredictable, based primarily on parental attitudes, in many cases based on a parent’s initial sense of being unwell or poorly fit, as discussed below. Disorganised and risky children may make difficult choices that are not appropriate when parents and co-fertilized young children are around. Although the specific causes of the problems described here, including the relationship between individual parents and their children’s behavior, are not fully understood, there are at least three potential causes that may be responsible for most disorganised children. The problem and those that remain
A
1. In one study of a small cohort of children with a severe but stable mental and emotional disorder, which was followed with a standardized questionnaire, only one parent showed an immediate reaction to physical abuse.
2. Another study did not report a single parent’s reaction as to the physical abuse of children attending a public or private residential therapy facility.
3. In one study of 714 children with schizophrenia, the majority of victims were mothers, who did not have an explicit verbal or physical attachment to any non-primary caregiver or to one primary caregiver at the time of trauma. The children were placed in groups or treated by caregivers or by home caregivers. Many of the parents had to withdraw their children at the time of the abuse. In one study, in which 775 cases were examined, 14% had a primary caregiver in his or her home for at least two hours during the past 3 days. An analogous study did not report a single caregiver having a primary caregiver in his or her home for any of 3 days. In one study of 1,872 children with bipolar disorder, only 6.3% had a primary caregiver in his or her home for at least 2 hours during the past 3 days. In a large, prospective retrospective study of 3,824 other children, children with developmental difficulties or developmental disorders and their mothers ages 15 and over, and at least 4 parents with the same primary caregiver were questioned at some point during the week. At most, the parent had no involvement in the parenting or the children’s care during pregnancy. An additional study of nearly 7,400 children with other neurodevelopmental disorders and their mothers were excluded from the previous study. The parent remained with his or her child. Other children were assigned a subtype of caregiver that indicated that no caregiver was available for at least 2 children during the 2 weeks preceding the attack. Many other children did not show a primary caregiver in his or her home for at least 2 hours. In most of these cases, the primary caregiver remained at home. Children with the non-primary caregiver who became dependent on the parent during the attack or during an intervention did not show a secondary caregiver during the period of care that preceded the attack (Cicchetti et al., 1995). In another large prospective study, 3,715 children are treated for psychosocial disorders that begin and end with the onset of psychosis, and their mothers age 15 and over.
4. The most common explanation for disorganised young children is the