Whenever there is a discussion about children’s emotional wellbeing, the desire that all children should have a “secure attachment” with their parents and with their key people is usually stated. This desire is well-meant; it is also misguided.
It is wrong in principle for early years practitioners to start defining the types of relationships that parents should have with their children. Firstly, if we say that we want one style of attachment relationship, then we overstep the line between being professionally responsible, and intruding into people’s right to a private family life. Secondly, in trying to categorize children’s attachment, without a proper training in psychotherapy and attachment theory, we would get out of our professional depth.
The desire for every child to have a “secure attachment” does not make sense. Attachment theorists (for example, Ainsworth et al, 1980) have consistently found that infants can be grouped into a number of different categories of attachment. Some have secure attachment relationships, and others have avoidant attachment, and so on. Wanting all children to have a secure attachment, is rather like wanting all adults to be 6 feet tall – we can wish it all we like, but the nature of human growth and development means it is not going to happen. It is inevitable that some infants will not have a secure attachment; and those who are categorized as having avoidant and resistant types of attachment are no more likely to have emotional or behavioural problems later in their childhood (Fonaghy, 2001).
Anyone who has been a key person knows that some children come into nursery, avoid any type of hello or welcome, and want to get involved straight away in an activity. These children do not need to be stopped and made to behave differently; they need to be supported, and their key people need to find ways of building a relationship alongside them as they play. Parents with grouchy babies need to be encouraged to hang on in and carry on being warm and caring, not feel that everything is going wrong because their relationship does not look like a secure attachment.
But we should look out for those children whose response to parting from their parents or being reunited with them is very unpredictable, who show fear or who seem to “freeze”. Research (for example, Zeenah et al, 2003) suggests that they are often in great need of help; and if help is not forthcoming, they are likely to experience continuing difficulties in their emotional and behavioural development.
First published in Nursery World
It is wrong in principle for early years practitioners to start defining the types of relationships that parents should have with their children. Firstly, if we say that we want one style of attachment relationship, then we overstep the line between being professionally responsible, and intruding into people’s right to a private family life. Secondly, in trying to categorize children’s attachment, without a proper training in psychotherapy and attachment theory, we would get out of our professional depth.
The desire for every child to have a “secure attachment” does not make sense. Attachment theorists (for example, Ainsworth et al, 1980) have consistently found that infants can be grouped into a number of different categories of attachment. Some have secure attachment relationships, and others have avoidant attachment, and so on. Wanting all children to have a secure attachment, is rather like wanting all adults to be 6 feet tall – we can wish it all we like, but the nature of human growth and development means it is not going to happen. It is inevitable that some infants will not have a secure attachment; and those who are categorized as having avoidant and resistant types of attachment are no more likely to have emotional or behavioural problems later in their childhood (Fonaghy, 2001).
Anyone who has been a key person knows that some children come into nursery, avoid any type of hello or welcome, and want to get involved straight away in an activity. These children do not need to be stopped and made to behave differently; they need to be supported, and their key people need to find ways of building a relationship alongside them as they play. Parents with grouchy babies need to be encouraged to hang on in and carry on being warm and caring, not feel that everything is going wrong because their relationship does not look like a secure attachment.
But we should look out for those children whose response to parting from their parents or being reunited with them is very unpredictable, who show fear or who seem to “freeze”. Research (for example, Zeenah et al, 2003) suggests that they are often in great need of help; and if help is not forthcoming, they are likely to experience continuing difficulties in their emotional and behavioural development.
First published in Nursery World
Nursery World - Letters 2 December 2010
ReplyDelete01 December 2010, 12:00am
Letter of the Week
ATTACHMENT MATTERS
Julian Grenier (To the Point, 4 November) is right to counsel against making snap judgements about the security of a child's attachment to their family. However, I'm not so sure I agree with his comments about the importance of secure attachments in general and I don't accept his analogy of 'wanting all children to have a secure attachment is rather like wanting all adults to be six feet tall'. Speaking as a six-foot-tall woman, I know the disadvantages that height brings - and from an equalities perspective, I fail to see why 'tallness' is considered better than shortness and therefore something we would wish for all.
Good mental health, however, is something I would wish for myself and every future adult - and increasingly we are becoming more and more aware, through theoretical research confirmed by neuroscientific developments, that the security of our early attachments has a huge part to play in our future mental health.
To paraphrase Bruno Bettelheim, who suggested that parenting need not to be perfect but 'good enough', I believe that aiming for attachments that are 'secure enough' is what's important. Varying degrees of insecurity are inevitable, but 'good enough' attachments build the mental health and resilience that enable a child to cope with the stressful situations that life presents. They allow the brain to move from survival mode, to a rational mode when faced with a perceived threat - something that impacts dramatically on society, from 'road rage' to extreme anti-social behaviour, hate crime and terrorism. Research into prison populations and the general concerns over increased challenging behaviour among children and adolescents show that supporting secure attachments is important for society as a whole.
There are many factors that impact on the development of secure attachments in families, and rarely are these simply the fault of the parents, so assessment should never imply judgement. What we do know is that a strong network of secondary attachments are also important in making up for any shortfall in primary attachments. The relationships that family members, childminders, key persons, teachers and other professionals have with children are also vitally important.
Practitioners with a good understanding of attachment processes and their impact on the brain know that it's about so much more than just categorising degrees of attachment. In particular, it helps us to better understand and respond to children's behaviours, particularly where conventional behaviour strategies are failing. I don't think we have all the answers yet, but there is evidence enough, I believe, to show that we should not be dismissive about the significance of secure attachment. We need to keep fighting for increased awareness and understanding of this important process and how it impacts on all of us.
Anne O'Connor, Cushla Early Years Consultancy, Lancaster