belonging: attachment & trust - flinders university · bowlby’s), reasoned that if the...

EDUC3522 Flinders University

Jessie Jovanovic

Belonging: Attachment

& trust

What the?

• In your small groups, share your idea or question(s) from your readings: – What do we need to focus on particularly in this session? – What are you keen to find out more about?

Attachment is ...

... a strong emotional bond between the baby or young child and a caring adult that builds slowly from the child’s first experiences ... As children grow older,

attachment becomes a mental representation of how the world is and the interpersonal relations in it are

viewed, and it spans throughout our lives.’ (Talay-Ongan & Ap 2005, p. 6)

Harry Harlow - Will It Be Food or

Security? • Based on ethological theory; i.e. that

our current behaviours are ‘functions’ of our evolutionary past

• Tested the idea that attachment relationships form with those who are responsible for feeding & caring for us

• He theorised that the behaviours the child & adult exhibit in a caregiving relationship exist because they have supported the survival of the species – i.e. natural adaptation

(Bowlby 1969/1982, p. 58 cited in Rolfe 2004, p. 20)

For example, children are born with: • physical traits (e.g. large eyes, round faces); •sets of in-built reflexes (e.g. Palmar Grasp – when baby’s fingers curl around and cling to your finger or an object when it presses into their palm) •sets of behaviours (e.g. cooing & gurgling); &, • sets of signals they use to convey their needs (esp. in times of danger or uncertainty); (Sims & Hutchins 1999, p. 12; Fogel 2003, p.

226) We need to respond appropriately to

promote the child’s best chances of survival

Bowlby: Attachment & Loss

• Bowlby drew on ethological theory, as well as: – Control systems theory, seeing the child-caregiver relationship as a control system best

understood through the other forces operating on the child – Drawing on concepts from cognitive sciences, noting, for instance, how attachment relations

can influence how children develop a sense of self (Rolfe 2004, p. 25)

• His work is built upon his observations of hospitalised and institutionalised children who were separated from their parents & narrative-based, psycho-analytic research with adults (Bretherton 1992, p. 763)

• Noted that attachment behaviour never completely ceases as our confident behaviour stems from what we have come to learn from 1+ trusted persons who assisted us when we needed them

• Presented a normative nature of attachment formation: – Pre-attachment (1st weeks of life) – Clear-cut attachment (6-8 months) – Goal-oriented partnership (2-3 years) – Less direct attachment (3+ years)

Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’

The ‘Strange Situation’ is the most widely used method to measure the quality of attachment in infants. Mary Ainsworth (a student of Bowlby’s), reasoned that if the attachment was secure, then the child would explore using the parent as a safe base, the child would show ‘separation anxiety’ when the parent left the room and a strange adult should be less comforting than the parent.

It led to the identification of 4 types of attachment relationships: Secure attachment: protests when separated, easily settled by parent, explores referring to parent for security Ambivalent attachment: not easily settled, may be angry, clingy, may push away after seeking to be held Resistant attachment: fails to seek out contact, may ignore parent Disorganised/disoriented attachment: may show contradictory behaviours, extreme reactions

Factors which may affect attachment

Reciprocated cues from the child’s signals & the caregivers responses can be affected by:

– Cultural practices (Rogoff et al. 1993 cited in Brooker & Woodhead 2010, p. 14): o Practices in USA & Turkey found that dyadic interactions between caregiver & infant occurred

in context of exploring novel objects, dressing & playing; o Rural communities in India & Guatemala showed caregiving activities were embedded in the

group as children were not segregated from adult activities

– Child’s capabilities (Cook, Tossier & Klein 2000; Hooper & Umansky 2009): o A child who is blind may challenge the dyadic relationship because of the avoidance of eye-

contact & delays in the infant’s smiling; o A child with cerebral palsy may not be able to give warm reinforcement like cuddles or seek

out the caregiver physically; o A child with hearing impairments cannot respond with eye contact & other attachment signals

when their caregiver uses their voice; or, o A child with Down Syndrome may be delayed in their ability to exhibit attachment-related

behaviours & the caregiver may have trouble reading what is being conveyed.

Critic’s views on attachment & trust

• The main criticism of attachment theory is that in many non-Western societies children are not intimately attached to a particular caregiver: child rearing is a group effort and so other mechanisms must be in place to produce ‘well adjusted’ members of the society

• The attachment figure is primarily the mother and this view takes precedence over any other attachments, disregarding attachments in adolescence and adulthood

• Children’s behaviours are directed at the attachment figure during times of separation and reunion, not at other times when they are not under stress

• Nurture assumption: Harris (1998) cited in Lee (2003) believes that peers have more influence than parents on attachment in children and adolescents e.g. twins separated at birth show remarkable similarities – nature at work not nurture.

What happens when attachment doesn’t happen?

• Attachment research shows that school-age children’s sense of security can be greatly influenced by the consistency, responsiveness, and attunement they experience with their parents or primary-caregivers during infancy (Bretherton 1992)

• Our sense of self, our ability to regulate our feelings, and augment new social

relations is influenced by our early and continuing attachment relationships

• Our meeting of attachment needs occurs through friendships and romantic liaisons as we grow older ... with research suggesting that the sense of belonging and trust we formed as young children influences how we form relationships and interact with significant others as adolescents and adults

• Watch What Happens when Attachment Doesn't Happen? for further information

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDh1C-PubYQ&feature=fvwrel

Secure-base behaviour: Social referencing

‘Children observe the interactions between caregivers and their parents, and what they observe in these interactions is used to build their own relationship with these new adults in their lives.’ (Hutchins & Sims 1999 cited in Sims & Hutchins 1999, p. 14)

THEREFORE: • Friendly & relaxed interactions with families & caregivers helps

children to infer whether others are acceptable people to be with; while,

• Stilted, formal or limited interactions between families, caregivers & others leads children to infer wariness, caution & unease.

• We need to think carefully about how we can meet different cultural caregiving needs & the requirements of children with special needs

In practice: Looking at your scenario:

1. Evaluate the extent to which the child trusts others, &/or the quality of their attachment relationship

2. Reflect on what the child may need as a result 3. What do you think the child can manage (think self-

efficacy)? 4. What do you think the child needs to learn from

you?

REMEMBER to give due consideration to the follow approaches which have been known to support the formation of trust & attachment with young children:

– Primary-caregiving – Circle of Security – Transition programmes

For those playing at home, pick one of

the scenarios listed at the end of these

slides, then run through the

reflective questions on the right. You will need to do

further research on these approaches to best consider your response to the child’s needs.

Primary-caregiving • Approach that’s designed to promote stronger

attachment relationships than when left to chance • Aim is for the primary-caregiver to become a secure-

base for each child’s exploration of the wider world • Is a whole-team approach, which sees individual

educators care for a small group of children from the whole group

• For each child in their small group, the primary-caregiver: – Meets their routines & needs (e.g. feeding, sleeping,

toileting) – Makes links with their home & family, communicating

with & involving them in the centre – Documents & plans for their learning over time

• The child, parent & primary-caregiver relationship is about consistency, continuity & support

(Gonzalez-Mena & Widmeyer Eyer, 2012, pp. 51-52; Gowrie Adelaide South Australia, 2012; Theilheimer, 2006)

Circle of security

• Circle of Security helps us to see beyond a child’ behaviours to determine where the relationship needs support

• Children need help to regulate not just their behaviours but also their feelings and it is the quality of the relationship that will help the child do this

• Circle of Security helps us to facilitate empathy – to see the child not as attention seeking, but rather seeking connection

• A miscue is a contradictory cue used by the child to protect them from having a need unmet – Circle of Limited Security

• Circle of Disorganisation –child has a dsorganised attachment and is unable to use adults as a resource

(McIntosh 2011)

Circle of repair

• Disruptions in relationships are a given but it is our choice to repair them.

• Reassure the child – we are still connected with them

• When the child is calm, we can begin to explore what caused the disruption

• Help the child to plan for what they could do next time

• As adults we should be ‘bigger, wiser and kinder’ – this reassures children that they are not alone in their emotion and have the support that they need to reconnect

• What pushes your buttons?

(Circle of Security: Early intervention program for parents and children, 2011)

Final thoughts

Do you think attachment becomes less important with age? Or does it just look different over time?

What impact might attachment have on young

children’s relationships, learning & future success?

Where to next …? • During the mid-semester break you might like to:

tidy up loose ends from your WIL assignment re: temperament & dispositions &/or emergence of self

hone-in on your work on attachment as it is considered in your Centre’s QIP

check how your record-keeping of your work is going, especially as it relates to our 4 topic outcomes (see FLO)

• In Week 7 we’ll look at: what you’ve found out from working with your centre what questions/issues arose for the team &/or centre where you might go next in your work on attachment, based on your

centre’s QIP

References Berthelton, I. (1992). The origins of Attachment Theory: John Bowlby & Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28, 759-775. Brooker, L., & Woodhead, M. (Eds.). (2010). Cutlure and Learning. Milton Keynes, UK: The Open University. Circle of Security: Early intervention program for parents and children. (2011). Retrieved March 6th, 2011, from http://www.circleofsecurity.net/ . Cook, R., Tessier, A., & Klein, M. (2000). Adapting early childhood curricula for children in inclusive settings (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2010). Draft guide to the National Quality Standard. Canberra: Commonwealth

Government of Australia. http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/Documents/GuideNationalQualityStandard.pdf Dolby, R. (2007). The Circle of Security: Roadmap to building supportive relationships. Watson, ACT: Early Childhood Australia. Fogel, A. (2003). Lessons from our infancy: Relationships to self, other, and nature. In C. Raeff & J. Benson (Eds.), Social and cognitive development in

the context of individual, social, and cultural processes (pp. 219-233). London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Goldberg, S., Muir, R. & Kerr, J. (Eds.). (2000). Attachment theory: Social, developmental, and clinical perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press,

Inc. Gonzalez-Mena, J., & Widmeyer Eyer, D. (2012). Infants, toddlers and caregivers: A curriculum of respectful, responsive care and education (9th ed).

Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education. Gowrie Adelaide South Australia (2012). Children’s programs – Attachment and primary-caregiving. Retrieved 13th March, 2012, from

http://www.gowrie-adelaide.com.au/cms/?q=node/5. Hooper, S., & Umansky, W. (2008). Young children with special needs (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Jalongo,MJ.,(Ed.), (2008), Enduring Bonds, NY., Springer p.166 Lee,E.J., (2003), The Attachment System Throuoghout the Life Course: Review and Criticisms of Attachment Theory, Retrieved 7th March 2011, from,

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/lee.html Lezin, N., Rolleri, L., Bean, S., & Taylor, J.(2004). Parent-Child Connectedness: Implications for research, interventions and positive impacts on

adolescent health. Santa Cruz, CA: ETR Associates p6 Marvin, R., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Powell, B. (2002). The Circle of Security project: Attachment-based intervention with caregiver-preschool

dyads. Attachment and Human Development, 4(1), 1-17. McIntosh, J. (2011). Because it’s for the kids ... Building a secure parenting base after separation, Children in Focus Series. Retrieved March 6th, 2011,

from http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/BrochuresandPublications/Pages/CIF_brochure_2007.aspx . Rolfe, S. (2004). Attachment theory. Rethinking attachment for early childhood practice: Promoting security, autonomy and resilience in young

children. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin, 19-38. Sims, M., & Hutchins, T. (1999). Positive Transitions. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(3), 12 – 16. Stonehouse, A. (2003). Ourselves in their shoes: Taking a child’s view (2nd ed). Carlton, Victoria: Lady Gowrie Child Centre. Talay-Ongan, A., & Ap, E. (2005). Child development and teaching young children. South Melbourne: Cengage Learning Australia. Theilheimer, R. (2006). Molding to the children: Primary caregiving and continuity of care. Zero to Three, 26(3), 50-54.

http://www.circleofsecurity.net/

http://www.deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/Documents/GuideNationalQualityStandard.pdf

http://www.gowrie-adelaide.com.au/cms/?q=node/5

http://www.familyrelationships.gov.au/BrochuresandPublications/Pages/CIF_brochure_2007.aspx

John– 13 months

John recently began attending occasional care, attached to his local DECD preschool. The educators who spoke with David, John’s dad, explained that they usually like parents to spend a little time with their child in the site’s combined playroom over a few ”visits” during session times. This way John can get used to the room, with his dad acting as a secure-base during his explorations.

One afternoon, educators Tina and Jo encouraged David to head off to the staff room for a coffee to see whether John was ready to cope with his dad’s departure. This is what happened:

John sat watching as two older children took turns patting our pet Rabbit. He smiled a little. Dad was nearby, and told John he’d be back in a minute. John looked up briefly before returning his attentions to the Rabbit. As one of the two older children returned the Rabbit to its hutch, the other took John’s hand and said “Let’s go outside. The bikes are out.” John quietly followed.

Believing that John seemed settled within the site, even during his dad’s absence, Tina, Jo and David decided to book John in for his first official “occasional care” session for the end of the week.

Click on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6QtuU1L_A8&feature=related to see what happened on John’s first morning of occasional care.

Looking at this scenario:

1. Evaluate the extent to which the child trusts others, &/or the quality of their attachment relationship(s)

2. Reflect on what the child may need as a result

3. What do you think the child can manage (think self-efficacy)?

4. What do you think the child needs to learn from you (as an educator)?


– Primary-caregiving

– Circle of Security

– Transition programmes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6QtuU1L_A8&feature=related

Lucy – 20 months

Lucy appears to be very independent. Her educator, Julie, notices that Lucy looks after herself much of the day. She seeks out Julie for practical help, but is rarely upset and does not seek comfort when she is distressed.

When Lucy arrives at child care, she usually runs ahead of her mother into the room and begins to occupy herself with a learning experience on offer in the room.

For example, one morning Lucy was observed:

… going to the craft table and picking up another child’s playdough without looking at her mother. Lucy calls to Julie that she wants to cut out pictures of horses. Julie comes over and together they look through magazines. Julie suggests that Lucy sit at the table beside her to cut out the pictures. Lucy focuses on cutting without looking at Julie or her mother. She is too ‘busy’ to kiss her mum goodbye.

However, as her mother leaves Lucy glances at the door. She sings a little song to herself, rocks her body and tips her head from side to side. She stops cutting out pictures and, instead, uses the scissors to cut the side of the basket on the table. When another child comes in to claim Julie’s attention, Lucy moves closer and quickly puts her arm around Julie, taking a sudden interest in the magazine page they are looking at together. She directs Julie’s attention to what she sees.

Example from: Dolby, R. (2007). The circle of security: Roadmap to building supportive relationships (p. 13). Waston, ACT: Early Childhood Australia.










Nevenka – 42 months

Nevenka is a long-term attendee at Treetops Early Learning Centre, an integrated childcare and preschool service. She has been at the Centre since she was 6-months-old. Recently, Nevenka has begun to “disrupt” the play of others in the preschool room.

For instance, one afternoon Nevenka was observed:

… pulling like a tug-of-war on a small doll from the home corner with another child. The child was crying out “It’s mine. I was using it first.” Nevenka was pulling back, loudly saying “But I NEED IT!” Nevenka looked towards one of the educators on the other side of the room, as she continued to pull.

Later, at group-time, Nevenka took the crayons the children next to her were using to draw what you would wear if it was “hot”, as a part of our focus on weather. The children around her said little, and with a look back at the educator, she struck a nearby boy over the head with the paper she was drawing on, saying “You’re doing it wrong!” When the educator responded to the incident, Nevenka stared off into the distance.

The team wondered if this is because Nevenka recently lost her favourite educator; Neil, whom she used to seek out when she arrived each morning. Neil left the centre for a higher level position at a nearby centre, and Nevenka’s behaviour had been erratic ever since.










Elliot – 72 months

Elliot’s mother, Sandra, works for a highly successful advertising agency in the City. Until recently, Elliot has been attending the preschool which is close to his mother’s place of work. At preschool Elliot is a happy, easy-going child, according to his educators, who has a number of friends that he regularly plays with as he leads imaginative play episodes.

Next term however, Elliot will begin school at the age of 6, attending the Junior Primary School close to his Dad’s house (as Todd runs a small-business from home). Sandra and Todd have been trying to make the prospect of moving to a new School exciting by telling him what a grown-up boy he now is. Elliot, who is usually quite a talkative child, tends to go quiet and becomes distant when

the move to School is mentioned.

Concerned, Todd has spoken with the School Principal about Elliot’s reaction to starting school, and his usual confident, easy-going approach to life. The Principal empathises, and asks whether any of Elliot’s friends from preschool will be attending School with him next term. But overall, the Principal does not seem overly concerned about Elliot’s reaction to starting School.








