maternal bonding

Alan Challoner MA MChS From: For Want of a Better Good - Part Three: The Nature and Development of Attachment

Maternal Bonding

Several researchers have investigated the conditions in which a mother more or less readily

bonds with a new-born infant.1 Three studies published during the early to mid-1980s vary in

their views. Myers’ appreciation of the literature of her time suggests that it is accepted that

bonding (when present) occurs soon after birth and is characterised by an affectionate

attachment of a mother to her infant (not to be confused with the psychological

attachment that occurs in the other direction). She also maintains that there isn’t a critical

period during which this takes place. Myers advises that the original idea of a substantial

separation in the first post-partum hours, damaging the bonding development, is not

supported by later research. Indeed she goes as far as to say that early and extended

contact is not crucial to the mother-infant bond, despite the ethological studies that confirm

it in other species. Notwithstanding these comments she pays credit to researchers,

particularly Kennell and Klaus, for the important emphasis that has been placed on

humanistic birthing practices.2

Chess and Thomas3 express their certainty that from studies they have researched there is no

need for a special type of relationship in the immediate post-natal period in order to

accomplish bonding. Herbert et al.,4 find no corroboration of a sensitive period in the

formation of mother to infant bonding. They comment further that the concept is a negative

one, finding other nurturing concepts to be more practical.

Later work points to sensitive periods in relation to neuro-physiological development.5 There

are an extremely large number of synaptic connections forming between neurons during the

early development of the brain. Which of these survive depends upon the motor or sensory

experiences that are occurring at the time of development. During this phase of activity

there may be processes that are curtailed prematurely if certain innate requirements are

diminished or absent.

Kennell & Klaus6 offer evidence that immediate post-partum contact with the new-born

infant facilitates the rapid bond formation that in turn results in a confident and loving care,

so ensuring the optimum infant development. Thus they assumed that, in optimum

conditions, bonding (mother to infant) will occur rapidly, but attachment (infant to mother)

develops only gradually during the first six months or so of life. They also found that the baby

subjects outpaced controls in their physical and intellectual development. However they

seem satisfied that calculated bonding is not a pre-requisite for good attachment, and that

there are other worthy practices that will ease the way to a satisfactory development.

Kennell and Klaus7 have concluded that where there is some lack of sympathy for these

ideas of bonding, it may be owing to the very variable practices in hospitals and the many

complex factors involved.

Others have thrown doubt on the experimental results, suggesting that the actual

circumstances of the study could have influenced the outcome. These generally propose

that as many of the studies are hospital based there must be an awareness by the mothers

that they are being observed and therefore the dimensions of their care may not be typical.

In another report, Kennell & Klaus 8 had reported that mothers who had established physical

contact with their child from birth exhibited more physical affection and were more positive

towards them by the time they were a year old.

Studies in ethology have shown that there is a critical period for imprinting amongst

precocial� species.

�� In placental mammals it is not, as a rule, possible for the mother to carry the new-born young

about with her in continuous contact with their source of food and warmth, as the female

marsupial does. There are therefore two possibilities; either they must be born sufficiently

advanced to be capable of independent locomotion and of keeping warm, or they must at


Lorenz (1935) considered that imprinting takes place in a highly limited maturational period

early in the life of the organism. He believed that it may have lasting effects, resulting from

natural selection, and involves cues that are species typical. Only specific response patterns

of the young animal are involved in the imprinting to the social objects.9

Hess took the view that imprinting was a type of very rapid attachment during a specific

critical period and that its innateness brought about a bonding to a specific object and after

which the subjects remain attached by means of a set behaviour pattern. He understood it

as a particular type of learning process enacted for the purpose of making the maternal

bond in particular, and environmental attachment and food preferences in general.10

In the view of Petrovich and Gewirtz, the most plausible contemporary explanation of the

evolutionary origins of imprinting and attachment is that the behaviours involved in those

processes increase the inclusive fitness of the individuals of species whose mode of

reproduction is characterized by intricate patterns of parental investment.

Huckabay11 examined bonding behaviour in a group of mothers and controls who had pre-

term babies that were in a neonatal intensive care unit. The forty mothers were divided into

two equal groups, both having unrestricted visiting rights. In one group the mothers were

given a photograph of their baby, but the control group did not have one. The mothers who

had the photographs of their baby showed significantly more bonding behaviour than those

in the control group. Huckabay concluded that for a mother to have a photograph may

improve the nature and development of bonding behaviour.

In another research group of thirty mothers of pre-term babies, that had been at home for at

least four weeks before going to a neonatal unit, problems of bonding were found. The

mothers were interviewed about their feelings during the two separate periods, particularly

about the factors that had impinged upon maternal bonding. Nearly all of the mothers had

experienced difficulties with the emotions of bonding. These included shock, uncertainty

about the baby’s survival and earlier reproductive experiences. Niven et al., found that the

difficulties were completely resolved in 27 of the thirty cases when the babies finally returned

home.12

Egeland and Byron13 followed a group of 267 young mothers who were considered to be a

“high risk”. They had restricted contact with their infants following birth. It was considered that

later disorders of mothering could not be seen to be dependent upon the earlier situation.

The researchers did not find a greater degree of bonding failure in a sample of mothers who

abused their children than they did in a similar sample that provided adequate care. Again

these authors placed emphasis on the positive rôle of the maternity unit.

Rutter14 believed that it was unjustified to assume that separation was synonymous with bond

disruption, and insisted that children could maintain bonds through prolonged periods of

absence from a mother. However would this be so if the absence occurred before the

bonding had been made? He also points to the fact that it is often the case that some

children are bonded to parents who serve them ill. That said, it is unlikely for satisfactory

bonding to take place in cases of absolute rejection. From that it might also be reasonable

to conclude that between one extreme and the other the quality of the bonding will differ.

However he does eventually come to believe that:

first be protected in some type of nest or refuge. Broadly speaking, one may therefore consider

the young as being either precocial or altricial, although within each category there is a

considerable range of variation in the stage at which the young are born and no sharp

dividing line can be drawn between the two categories. In general, if the adult normally

occupies a protected lair or burrow, the young are altricial: if there is no such home and the

limbs are not adapted to constructing one to cope with the special needs of the young, then

they must needs be precocial. [Ewer, 1968]


… what has stood the test of time most of all has been the proposition that qualities of parent-

child relationships constitute a central aspect of parenting. The development of social

relationships occupies a crucial rôle in personality growth, and abnormalities in relationships are

important in many types of psycho-pathology.15

It does seem that the major requirements for bonding are:

• sustained physical contact;

• sensitivity to the infant’s signals, together with an appropriate response;

• the provision of comfort when distressed.

Parke confers a bonding status to the father-infant relationship in optimum circumstances.16

This is considered vital and needs encouragement according to de Courval et al. They state

that when the father is regularly present and attentive towards his new-born child in its early

days there will be strong bonding. They suggest that professionals should further this

prospect.17

In a study of 75, 20-month old children and their parents, Easterbrooks, et al., explored the

family context of their child’s development, and in particular studied the impact of

quantitative and qualitative aspects of fathering. 18

This included:

• the relationships with the father

• his involvement in child-rearing

• parenting characteristics such as attitudes and behaviour

• and child adaptation.

The child’s characteristics were assessed in terms of:

• security of child-father relationship

• child-mother attachment in strange-situation

• child affect and task orientation in problem solving.

Questionnaires were used to assess the parents and they included the Bother Scale and

recorded the amount of time that fathers spent with their children. Significant relationships

were shown by examining:

• associations of father involvement

• parenting characteristics

• child development.

The extent of the father’s involvement was related more to problem-solving behaviour than

to attachment. It was concluded that this indicated that the time that children spend with

their fathers is connected more to socio-cognitive task performance than to socio-emotional

development. The importance of the fathers’ interventions was regarded as being more in

the area of behavioural sensitivity than in parenting for child development.


Louv projects a much more fundamental and far reaching image of the importance of the

father in the life of his child. He complains that motherhood classes are more easily available

and accessible than those of fatherhood classes. The term husbandry suggests to him a

suitable term for the relationship between fatherhood and manhood, although husbandman

might be more appropriate. In particular he sees the father as the parent who should take

prime responsibility for bringing about the education of his child in his religion and in morality.

In addition he should also take a pre-eminent part in preparing his child, especially if it is a

son, for entering the world beyond the homestead.19

Grossman & Grossman have found in their non-clinical studies of families that early

attachment experiences with mothers show at this point a stronger influence on the child’s

social competence and emotional coherence than experiences with fathers. This does not

exclude fathers from the picture, by any means. It implies only that, for the area of

attachment and for the ages studied, mothers play a larger rôle under the prevailing life

circumstances than did the fathers.20

In a similar cohort Goldberg & Easterbrooks examined the associations of marital quality,

parenting attitudes and behaviour, and child development. 21 The child-parent attachments

were individually assessed in a strange-situation procedure. Child task behaviour was

assessed using problem-solving tests.

The parents completed the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and also questionnaires including

detail of parenting attitudes and perceptions. Independent observations were used to assess

parental behavioural sensitivity and marital harmony.

The findings support the hypothesis that good marital quality would be associated with

optimal child functioning and sensitive parenting.

One of the most recent studies of bonding that includes a summary of many aspects of past

research has been completed by Diane Eyer.22 That the title of her work does not end with a

question mark, indicates that we are to assume it to be a statement of fact. In her

introduction she writes:

The research on bonding was inspired by the popular belief that women, one and all, are

inherently suited for motherhood. This belief coincided with a number of institutional goals,

including the needs of the psychological and medical professions, especially obstetrics, to

secure women and infants as patients and to find pathology in this clientele, which they could

then treat.

I would like to take issue not only with her premise that one can deduce from her book’s title,

but also from this very early indication of her view of the research that she berates. One

senses a barely controlled anger in much that she writes. How dare we believe that the

creation of a new life that is reliant for its first few months, if not years, on the person who

gave it that life might require some cognisance by the mother of not only the basic needs of

the child, but of her responsibility to fulfil them in a loving and meaningful way? It makes me

want to ask the question, If there are women who are not inherently suited to motherhood,

shouldn’t they avoid entering into that state? New-born babies are especially vulnerable, not

least because they are all, comparatively speaking, premature even when full-term. It is the

case that human infants are not as capable as primate infants until they are about nine

months old. There is a limited opportunity to make the most effective use of the time,

immediately after birth, when a mother is especially sensitive and receptive to her baby, and

when the baby has a particular awareness and alertness.23

Perhaps the word ‘bonding’ itself causes problems. So let us see what exactly we mean by

the term. It seems to have been introduced from the work of Lorenz, around the 1950s.

Bowlby describes it as. “… A special relationship developed by individuals…” He goes on to

accept that it has been hijacked from ethology and used to describe human relationships.24

Special relationships between people usually involve feelings of love, and loving one’s baby


draws a parent closer to it. They want to cherish it, do their best for it, give it everything that it

needs to grow and mature into an independent person.

To do that it needs particular, if not special, attributes of giving and receiving. Mothers should

know how to respond to their babies’ needs, and usually will do so better than anyone else.

The reason for this is that they are closer, more often than others, and they are therefore

more in tune with its emotions and very soon get to know how to respond. That is of course if

they want to. If they do, then this attitude will lead to bonding quite quickly; if not, then it will

be delayed or may not be of the sort of quality that it could have been. Mothers who are

comfortable with their baby and respond to it adequately, will assist the child to develop a

secure attachment.

All of this preliminary caring and affective responding is to do with a developing relationship

between mother and child a relationship that is based on their interaction, and that

focuses on the child’s well-being and growth towards maturity and independence. The

parents’ protection, control and assistance in the early part of its life will predispose the child

towards a successful growth, not just a physical one but an ability to choose goals, make

decisions and to learn skills.

Carroll Davis called this parental permission, parental respect for the child. The mark of

success will be measured by its behaviour, and this will reflect through the child’s eyes what

his parents have done for him. He will know if he has been cared for and respected, and this

positive reciprocal trust are the foundation of the child’s maturity. A child grows when his

needs are met, and he moves from the outer controls of his parents to the inner controls of

himself.25

Therefore Eyer’s view of bonding is rather warped and smacks of a ready response to any

guilt that there may be if a mother should feel that she has not got as close to her child as

she might have wished, or enough to influence its future. One of the reasons for this is that,

ironically, in rejecting it she has placed more substance in it than needs to be there. She sees

the concept of bonding as being construed as a basis for the architecture of children’s

lives, and that if bonding ’fails’, then “whatever problems befall them, not only in childhood

but throughout their lives” the mothers will be blamed. In this misunderstanding she seems to

equate bonding, attachment and care-giving as one entity. Even worse she also conspires

to equate bonding with:

…a simplistic social process in which human relations are reduced to something mechanical,

instinctual, and automatic. (Idem, 1992)

In her conclusions she states:

Maternal-infant bonding is not just a passing fad. It is a reflection of deeply embedded

problems within our society regarding the uses of science. … Unfortunately, women are in

special danger of being victims of science.

Eyer fails to accept that what is referred to as bonding is not an end in itself but a means to

an end. Bonding when successful leads both mother and infant on towards more profitable

enterprises that they can accomplish as time goes by and as the child grows and matures.

Without that initial bonding, the work will be that much harder, less rewarding and ultimately

the end result may not be so satisfying.

It must be accepted that bonding is not like a mathematical formula of constants that gives

the same answer every time it is used. It is not a concrete phenomena; discarding the term,

as she suggests that we should, will not alter the needs of the infant or the nature of the

mother’s potential input to his security and development. Individuals, families, and the

environment vary; culture and values vary. What doesn’t change is the will to survive, and

the amazing capacity of the human infant to accommodate himself to the circumstances of

his environment. He does not have to like it, and may be unhappy, but given the basic


elements for survival he will do so. We should not equate this elementary survival with success

in child-rearing. Equally we should not equate less than one hundred percent effort on the

part of the parents as failure.

The ethological parallels that have been drawn between imprinting in other species and

bonding in humans are only relevant in general and not in particular. Maternal deprivation

and separation need not be disastrous for the child if sound alternatives are provided

quickly. However the implications of Eyer’s words when she writes: “Maternal deprivation, as

will become increasingly clear, is indeed a conservative fiction”, do not seem to be justified.

A mother-figure can provide most of that normally provided by a biological mother. Human

infants have to rely on adequate others for their nurturance and survival. They also have to

rely on them for early education and model-structuring. These are best accomplished in an

atmosphere of social and cultural continuity, mutual love and adaptive responsiveness, by

those who are understanding of the child’s particular traits.

It has been recognised in Part One, just how much of a dilemma is the event of early date

births and caesarean sections for the mothers, and may be for the infants, apart from any

abnormalities that might be present in either. However there have been many advances

made in the policy of hospitals in recent years, and most parents are now able to have

contact with their infant on a daily basis, and as far as the mother is concerned, from as soon

as she is able to cope. Indeed in these circumstances there is justification for the father being

granted maternity leave, which usefully could extend until his partner is fully recovered.

Another quite remarkable anomaly by Eyer arises when she writes:

…the authority of the church had been eclipsed by a more secular authority. Social reformers

at the turn of the century … became the new authorities …. They continued to advise mothers

to model virtue so that their children might learn through imitation the ways of courtesy,

honesty, industry, and charity. Instilling moral character in children was still considered to be the

proper goal of child-rearing at a time when the increasingly commercial and immoral

character of the adult world continued to be a source of concern to so many. (Idem, 1992)

Can she really be advocating that these concepts of morality and good purpose should not

be instilled into our children because some (or even many) adults were lacking the necessary

control? Could it be that their childhood had been unfulfilled, repressive, unloving?

Eyer uses some ideas of misdirected scientific history to support her claims against bonding

theory; presumably on the basis that any outside intervention into the realms of birth and

neonatology is both unnecessary, and an insult to the mother. She also trawls-up pieces of

bad advice given to mothers from various sources over the past hundred years or so, and

then proceeds to suggest that bonding and attachment theory fall into the same category

just because they have formed part of the educational input into parenting. One cannot fail

to be aware of the constant ring of feminist chants. They jump off the pages so continuously

that one wonders at times if some of the book’s gatherings have been inadvertently sewn in

from another source.

Even modern technology does not escape from her unrestrained attack on professional

maternal care.

If technology expanded the scope of medicine to manage birth, so too did bonding theory. It

simply made falling in love with the infant another phase of pregnancy and childbirth. The

theory suggested simple interventions that could correct a deviant process. Child abuse, for

example, might be reduced just by encouraging parents to interact with their babies within the

first twelve hours of life. (Idem, 1992)

I have not come across any suggestions during my research that bonding and attachment

arise from so simple and so short an experience. Eyer’s protestations against any possible

good coming from bonding or attachment theories seem remarkably naïve and


undisciplined. Indeed, in the middle chapters of her book, neither have much mention

amidst the explosion of her ire against professional intervention of any sort. She cannot even

spare a good word for the benefits that accrued to the mothers of infants in the neonatal

intensive care units.

Other than analysing earlier literature, much of her practical knowledge and understanding

of bonding seems to have come from her studies in one hospital in the mid-1980s. Here at this

anonymised American hospital, bonding seems to have been a rather mechanical and

dogmatic performance ritual. So in her defence it may be that her experience was not of

the best. It is a pity though that it allowed her to accept that this experience was universal.

Contradictory views have been expressed about the security of attachment of children of

mothers who are employed on a full-time or even part-time basis. Weinraub et al., having

examined the differences in outcome for 30 children, aged 18 months, of mothers in

employment, concluded that:

For employed mothers

• securely attached children showed less dependency behaviour;

• satisfaction with child-care and frequent social contacts predicted secure child

attachment;

• and satisfaction with child-care, rôle satisfaction and ability to cope were strongly

interrelated.

For non-employed mothers

• maternal coping predicted attachment security;

• whilst frequent social contacts predicted greater child dependency;

• and satisfaction with emotional supports played a pivotal role.26

As yet there has not been any suggestion that practices which some conceive as being

essential to good bonding and attachment are likely to do anything but good for the infant.

It is important that the goodwill of mother (and father) towards child is of adequate standing

or the child will develop in a way that accommodates such an inadequate state of affairs.

1 Leiderman, P. H., & Seashore, M. J. Mother-infant neonatal separation: Some delayed consequences.

In Parent-infant interaction. Ciba Foundation Symposium 33 (new series). Amsterdam, Elsevier. 1975 2 Myers, B.J. Mother-Infant Bonding: The status of this crucial period hypothesis. Development Review;

4(3); [pp., 240-274 & 283-288]; 1984. 3 Chess, S.; & Thomas, A. Infant Bonding: Mystique and reality. Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry

& Child Development. [pp., 48-62]; 1983. 4 Herbert, M.; Sluckin, W.; & Sluckin, A. Mother-to-Infant Bonding. Annual Progress in Child

Psychiatry & Child Development. [pp., 63-84]; 1983. 5 Bertenthal, B.I.; & Campos, J.J. New Directions in the Study of Early Experience. Child

Development; 58(3); [pp., 560-567]; 1987. 6 Kennell, J.H.; & Klaus, M.H. Maternal-Infant Bonding. St Louis, USA. Mosby. 1976. 7 Kennell, J.H.; & Klaus, M.H. Mother-Infant Bonding: Weighing the evidence. Developmental

Review, 4(3); [pp., 275-282]; 1984. 8 Kennell, J.H.; & Klaus, M.H. Parent to Infant Attachment. In Stevens, J.H.; & Mathews, M. [Eds.]

Mother-Child, Father-Child Relationships. Washington, DC. USA. National Assoc. Educ. Young Child. 1978.


9 Petrovich, S.B.; & Gewirtz, J.L. Imprinting and Attachment: Proximate and Ultimate Considerations.

In Gewirtz, J.L.; & Kurtines, W.M. [Eds.] Intersections with Attachment. L. Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA; 1991.

10 Hess, E. H. Imprinting: Early experience and the developmental psychobiology of attachment. New York, USA, Van Nostrand. 1973.

11 Huckabay, L.M. The effect on bonding behaviour of giving a mother her premature baby’s picture. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing Practice; 1(2); [pp., 115-129]; 1987.

12 Niven, C.; Wiszniewkski, C.; & Al Roomi, L. Attachment (Bonding) in mothers of pre-term babies. Special Issue: Pre-natal and Peri-natal Behaviour. Journal of Reproductive & Infant Psychology. 11(3); [pp., 175-185] 1993.

13 Egeland, B. & Vaughn, B. Failure of bond formation as a cause of abuse, neglect and maltreatment. Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry & Child Development. [pp., 188-198]; 1982.

14 Rutter, M. Maternal Deprivation Reassessed. Harmondsworth, Penguin. 1977. 15 Rutter, M. A fresh look at ‘maternal deprivation’. In Bateson, P. [Ed.] The Development and

Integration of Behaviour: Essays in honour of Robert Hinde. Cambridge, CUP; [pp., 331-374]; 1991. 16 Parke. R. D. Perspectives on father-infant interaction. In Handbook of infant development, ed. J. D.

Osofsky. New York: Wiley. 1979. 17 De Courval, J.; & Goulet, C. Encouraging Bonding between Fathers and Newborns. Canada’s

Mental Health. 33(4); [pp., 9-11]; 1985. 18 Easterbrooks, M.A.; & Goldberg, W.A. Toddler development in the family: Impact of father

involvement and parenting characteristics. Child Development 55(3); [pp., 740-752]; 1984. 19 Louv, R. Father Love. USA; Pocket Books/Simon & Shuster, 1993. 20 Grossmann, K.E.; & Grossmann, K. Attachment quality as an organizer of emotional and behavioral

responses in a longitudinal perspective. In Parkes, C.M.; Stevenson-Hinde, J. & Marris, P. [Eds.]. Attachments Across the Life Cycle. Tavistock/Routledge,London; 1991.

21 Goldberg, W.A.; & Easterbrooks, M.A. Rôle of marital quality in toddler development. Develp. Psychol. 20(3); [pp., 504-514]; 1984.

22 Eyer, D.E. Mother-Infant Bonding: A scientific fiction. New Haven, USA, Yale Univ. Press, 1992. 23 Hilton, T. & Messenger, M. The Great Ormond Street Book of Baby and Child Care. London; Bodley

Head. 1991. 24 Bowlby, J. In Gregory, R.L. [Ed.] The Oxford Companion to The Mind. Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press,

1987. 25 Davis, Carroll. Room to Grow: A study of parent-child relationships. London, Univ. London Press,

1967. 26 Weinraub, M.; Jaeger, E.; & Hoffman, L. Predicting infant outcome in families of employed and

non-employed mothers. Special Issue: Infant day care: II. Empirical studies. Early Childhood Res. Quart. 3(4); [pp., 361-378]; 1988.

maternal bonding

Documents