Draft ideas 9060

Part 2 :
A) Contributions and main arguments:
For child welfare professionals, attachment theory provides a degree of comfort, succour
against the glare of lives in the living, a handy vocabulary, a diagnostic gaze, learned-
sounding re-descriptions of messy relationships and often a foil for moral judgement.
(https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/stable/pdf/j.ctvsrwbvt.6.pdf?
refreqid=excelsior%3A023426e7f364c7764f81ae30948c5cfe&ab_segments=&origin=)
Deleuze and Guattari accept attachment as a vital process. However, they demand attention to
the ways in which child–parent relationships plug into, affect and are affected by other
processes at different levels. In their perspective, biological, social and political assemblages
operate below and beyond the level of the human subject.
refreqid=excelsior%3A023426e7f364c7764f81ae30948c5cfe&ab_segments=&origin=)
Attachment theory, popularised during the 1940s and 1950s, is a synthesis of object relations
theory and ethological developmental psychology. It suggests a symbiotic dance of nature
and nurture, achieved through the ministering of the mother. It shares with object relations
theory an emphasis on the infant’s relationship with the ‘primary object’, but these ideas are
combined with those from cognitive psychology, cybernetics (control systems theory),
ethology and evolutionary biology. The theory is thus an elegant, but pragmatic mishmash,
arising from attempts to make sense of empirical, clinical observations of real children
experiencing distressing separations, together with aspirations to make the world a better
place for everybody by understanding the medium of love.
refreqid=excelsior%3A8a5254ae7ce85a8ddf0f5e2c72180141&ab_segments=&origin=)
During her husband’s period working at the East African Institute of Social Research at
Kampala in Uganda, Ainsworth set about looking at Bowlby’s theories empirically. She
recruited 26 families with babies aged between one and 24 months not yet weaned. These she
observed each fortnight for two hours over a period of nine months. Ainsworth was interested
in trying to determine when the behaviours that promoted proximity (and responses to them)
occurred, and when these became directed preferentially towards the mother. Ainsworth’s
subsequent analysis of data from this project was influenced by correspondence with Bowlby
and the intellectual transfer was mutual.
This is a radical and crucial shift, supportive of Bowlby’s cybernetic metaphors, but for
Ainsworth sensitive mothers respond sensitively to what the infant produces.
Following the Second World War, Bowlby employed and consulted social workers in his
research into parental separation (Stable, 2010) and he credited social workers for the
development of his ideas in his book Child care and the growth of love (Bowlby, 1953). The
development of social work had, therefore, provided fertile ground for the incubation of early
ideas about attachment theory, particularly in child and family social work. It was not,
however, accepted as a legitimate theory simply because Bowlby had introduced it to the
profession. Rather, while the foundations were there for attachment theory to be used in
practice, it was a more complex process that eventually resulted in the theory being taught on
social work courses and used routinely by practitioners. Crucial in that translation was the
shift in emphasis from ‘normal’, non-clinical populations to children suffering maltreatment.
This perspective draws on attachment theory to inform and structure the practice of any
professional in the human services in their efforts to help and support human development
and improve relationships. For social workers, in particular, attachment theory provides a
foundation for observing mother/carer–child interactions, assessing parental capacity and
guiding interventions (for example, McMillen, 1992 Howe, 1995; Howe et al, 1999; Mennen
and O’Keefe, 2005).
refreqid=excelsior%3Ab7624246eb18b8a2ae7f6eb13452b1c4&ab_segments=&origin=)
Page 7
Payne (2005) further argues that theories in social work practice can be broadly considered to
be either formal or informal. Formal theories are those that provide explicit arguments about
how to explain and predict phenomena, while informal theories are ideas derived from
experience and social interaction. While attachment theory is a formal theory, with clear
arguments about the nature of reality and an evidence base to support its claims, once these
ideas permeate cultural ideas about what is ‘common sense’ in relation to parenting and
personality development, it can start to influence the informal theories that people develop
about these topics. Attachment theory is thus used in, and influences, practice at different
levels. As a formal theory it can be applied deductively, applying the theoretical ideas to
specific situations. As a foundation for people’s informal theories, however, it can be
manifest in practice without explicit reference to the theory. In analysing how attachment
theory is used in contemporary practice we can, therefore, provide two broad categories: the
explicit use, or not, of attachment theory in practice and the implicit use of it in practice.
refreqid=excelsior%3A9db6457852edf69244ae25870e719071&ab_segments=&origin=)
Page-6
b) Critiques and debates:
Vicedo (2013, p 208) notes: ‘Ainsworth often moved from behaviour to feelings, from
children to mothers, and from relation to causation without sufficient evidence. In addition,
she never really clarified what attachment really is.’ Ainsworth herself later expressed regret
at the fact that the Strange Situation Procedure had ended up as a stand-alone instrument,
often being used as a shortcut method, instead of being used in combination with home
observations (Ainsworth and Marvin, 1995).
Indeed, some criticised how social workers used theory (for example, Brewer and Lait, 1980)
and others argued that social work needed to be more scientific and organised in a way that
facilitated the application of theory (for example, Carew, 1979). With social work claiming
occupational space for its core work in the areas of caregiver– child interactions and
personality development, the perception of the relevance of attachment theory to social work
practice increased.
refreqid=excelsior%3A9db6457852edf69244ae25870e719071&ab_segments=&origin=)
Page 5 and 6
Part 3: Shaping Practice
https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/stable/j.ctvsrwbvt.9?seq=10
some of the readings might be helpful

Part 3:
a)
Maltreated children and attachment theory:
(https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/stable/pdf/
j.ctvsrwbvt.8.pdf?refreqid=excelsior
%3Ab7624246eb18b8a2ae7f6eb13452b1c4&ab_segments=&origi
n=)
Page-7-please see the bold section at the bottom of this section.
Other parts are only for reading which might become helpful
Attachment theory started out as an attempt to understand how individuals
responded to traumatic loss and early separations (Bowlby, 1958a). Ainsworth’s
experiments, however, involved middle-class infants (Ainsworth and Bell,
1970) and the theory developed into a theory of ‘normal’ development with
explanations of what was considered ‘atypical’ (Crittenden and Ainsworth,
1989). The Bowlby– Ainsworth hypothesis, as Egeland and Sroufe (1981)
termed it, was that the quality of parenting affected the child’s pattern of
attachment behaviours. As parenting related to mothers at the time, the focus of
attachment research and practice was on mothers and mothering. Atypical child
development was, therefore, a problem with the care the child had received
from their mother.
While attachment theory researchers made conclusions about the attachment
behaviours of maltreated children from non-maltreated samples (for example,
Ainsworth, 1980), research on abused and/ or neglected children began more
formally to link the origins of ‘atypical’ development to the quality of maternal
care (for example, George and Main, 1979; Crittenden, 1981). Main, however,
suggested that maltreated children would display more challenging and difficult
behaviours, classifying many of these as ‘disorganised’, while Crittenden
concluded that abused infants were more usually cooperative, rather than
difficult (see Landa and Duschinsky, 2013a). To Main, maltreatment left
children with a need for care and comfort from a person who could not provide
it safely or consistently, resulting in challenging behaviour; while to Crittenden,
children adapted to their mother’s abusive and/or neglectful parenting. As she
stated: ‘[M]any abused infants have learned to accommodate their mothers,
first, by inhibiting signs of their anger and, later, by learning to tolerate their
mothers’ interference without complaint and even to comply with her desires’
(Crittenden and Ainsworth, 1989, p 450). Indeed, prior to Main’s development
of Ainsworth’s ideas, children who did not fit the established categories were
classified as displaying
type B behaviours, that is, a secure pattern (see Landa and Duschinsky, 2013a).
Main and Crittenden agreed that many maltreated children were being classified
as such, but were actually displaying anxious behaviour that was not being
identified by the protocols established by Ainsworth. Where they disagreed,
however, was on the mechanism and functions of this anxiety. To Main and her
followers, this anxiety manifested itself in disorganised attachment behaviours,
while to Crittenden and her followers it was an adaptation to an adverse
environment. While the academic arguments between the two underpinnings of
the ‘organisation’ and ‘adaptation’ of attachment behaviours continued, these
disagreements rarely made it into the translation of advice for practice and
practitioners. Indeed, none of the disagreements challenged the core tenets of
the theory. The idea that children’s attachment behaviours could be categorised
as secure (type B), insecure-avoidant (type A) or insecure-ambivalent/resistant
(type C) remained, and general findings from different research positions could
be amalgamated to provide knowledge for child welfare practitioners. What
became generally accepted was that: • maltreatment and neglect resulted in
insecure/anxious attachment behaviours; • these children would struggle to
explore their environment as expected; • they would also display the same
patterns of behaviour in their social relationships as they did at home, affecting
their schooling experience; • in the long term they would experience social and
emotional difficulties. (Crittenden and Ainsworth, 1989; Bacon and Richardson,
2001) Given these arguments, insecure/anxious attachment took on a new
significance for those interested in child welfare. It had become a sign of
inadequate parenting and a marker for future problems. Furthermore, it
suggested that this marker for abuse could be detected by practitioners
observing the child interacting with their mother (Crittenden and Ainsworth,
1989). Of course, this reading requires us to forget that in the original Strange
Situation Procedure, most children assigned to an A or C category were able to
function perfectly well. Attachment theory provided a way of understanding
child abuse and neglect by focusing not on physical manifestations of harm but
on the social and emotional harm that children had suffered. By providing
inadequate and/or inconstant care, it was argued, parents were damaging
the child’s mental representations of themselves and others, placing them
at risk of future harm (Crittenden, 1992). The dynamic-maturational
model brings a rich and systematic interpretive framework to the study of
diverse phenomena. It is powered by Crittenden’s commitment to the idea
that theory that integrates developmental psychology with cognitive science
has the potential to make sense of and offer guidance on how to alleviate
suffering. The theory at times exceeds the available data and becomes
speculative; yet, despite this, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social
workers are already finding it useful in clinical practice. The link between
maltreatment and an insecure attachment pattern has remained a
consistent finding in the research (see Baer and Martinez, 2006). However,
recent developments in research and practice have begun to consider the
link between ‘disorganised’ attachment and child abuse and neglect as a
more predictive marker for inadequate parenting (see Wilkins, 2012). The
link between poor parenting and harming their child can be seen to have
come full circle with the application of attachment theory to neurobiology,
as maltreatment and neglect can be seen physically to affect the brain
(Perry and Polland, 1998; Glaser, 2000; Schore, 2000, 2001a, 2001b). We
will attend to the controversies surrounding the ‘disorganised’ category in
Chapter 5 and explore the neuromolecular turn in
Part 3 :
a)
The two most significant social work practices using attachment theory are: • • work with
children and their carers to help them secure stable and long-lasting relationships with
adults throughout their lives;
loss situations, to help people overcome their reactions to the loss of one or more
important attachments in their lives.
Payne, Malcolm. How to Use Social Work Theory in Practice : An Essential Guide, Policy Press,
2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/flinders/detail.action?docID=6007142.
Then talk a little bit about key concepts and four styles in attachment theory found in text book.
The approach needed to be taken for elder child disorganized style and for the younger child it
ambivalent.
https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/lib/flinders/reader.action?
docID=6007142&query=&ppg=123
docID=290649
docID=6383403
Use this 3 resources for explaining and relating disorganized style and ambivalent style.
Also include maltreated children part above for elder child
Key Concepts:
The Attachment Behavioral System (ABS) is a central concept in
attachment theory. The ABS is concerned with the proximity of the
primary attachment figure to the child or adult of interest. It is activated
whenever there is a threat of separation from the attachment figure. If
that person is nearby and responsive to the child’s or adult’s needs, the
child or the adult will feel secure and function normatively. If the
attachment figure is not nearby or is not responsive, the child or adult will
display anxious behaviors that continue until the attachment figure
returns and pays attention to the child or adult (Fraley, 2014). The
reaction of the ABS is consonant with attachment styles and working
models (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
Attachment style is the second central concept. This is an adaptation to
signals received by the ABS from primary attachment figures. Mary
Ainsworth developed the Strange Situation experiment to study the
individual secure and insecure attachment styles among children in their
reactions to separation from the primary attachment figure (Ainsworth,
Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Styles are patterns of expectations, needs,
emotions, and social behaviors that result from attachment experiences.
The Strange Situation is a 20-minuite miniature drama with eight
episodes. Mother and infant are introduced to a laboratory
playroom, where they are later joined by an unfamiliar woman.
While the stranger plays with the baby, the mother leaves briefly
and then returns. A second separation ensues during which the
baby is completely alone. Finally, the stranger and the mother
return. (Bretherton, 1992, p. 777)
Observations of the interaction with the actors in the experiment enabled
Ainsworth to determine the features of a secure and two insecure
attachment styles, anxious–ambivalent and anxious–avoidant. A third
insecure style, disorganized, was added by Main & Solomon (1990).
A secure attachment style is established by a secure base provided by the
primary attachment figure who actively cares for a child or another person
in an adult relationship. It generates confidence and the person’s ability to
be comfortable in maintaining attachment relationships, even when those
figures are not readily available. It also engenders a feeling of being cared
for by others. Insecure attachment styles are characterized by negative
working models in which a person has decreased self-esteem and self-
confidence and a lack of trust in relationships with others, complicated by
the view that others are not caring and responsive (Mikulincer & Shaver,
2007).
The insecure anxious–ambivalent style is characterized by a negative view

of self and a positive view of others. This style is generated by an
inconsistent caretaker—one who praises one day and condemns the next
or one who says one thing today and a different thing tomorrow—leaving
a child, or the other in a relationship, ambivalent about how to respond.
The anxious–avoidant style is characterized by a positive view of self and
a negative view of others. A critical or dismissive caretaker generates this
style. This caretaker is critical of the child and dismissive of the child’s
feelings. Rather than internalizing the critical views of the caretaker, a
person with this style avoids interaction with others or dismisses them.
The disorganized style may be the most insecure. In this style, the view of
both self and others is negative. The caretaker is perceived as an object of
fear, leaving the child with no organized plan about how to cope. These
children feel helpless, cannot regulate their emotions, and cannot focus.
Social functioning is limited (Graham, 2008).
Working models is the third central concept. They are the internal
processes of attachment style (Bretherton, 1992). Bowlby developed the
concept of internal working models, or mental representations, that are a
set of expectations and beliefs about the self and others. Working models
are established in the first few years of life, and as children get older, they
become increasingly resistant to change. If a child is feeling bad and
receives a prompt response from a loving adult who makes her feel
better, she will learn that her behaviors are linked with the positive
behaviors of a caregiver. Then, a feeling of deserving of being loved and
nurtured will occur, and a more generalized view that others are likely to
be there to help and protect also develops. These are characteristics of a
secure attachment style. On the other hand, a negative or uncaring
response from a caretaker will lead to an internal working model of the
attachment figure as rejecting. This can lead to a feeling of being
unworthy of care and that others cannot be expected to provide help and
support (Bowlby, 1969). This type of working model is associated with the
insecure attachment styles.
Bowlby (1969) observed that these models are established in the first few
years of life, and, as children get older, they become increasingly resistant
to change. Children’s behaviors become organized around expectations of
themselves and others, and in time, that will influence how others relate
to them. Positive and negative cycles of reinforcement follow. People who
feel good about themselves and expect others to respond positively will
present themselves to others in a way that suggests trust; those who
expect rejection and have low self-esteem send messages distancing
themselves from others that generally result in their withdrawal and a
negative feedback loop of perceived rejection (Bowlby, 1969).
(https://academic-oup-com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/hsw/article/
40/4/283/2356295)
Social work practice using attachment concepts involves working with people to identify and
repair harmful impacts of disrupted or lost attachments to important people in their lives. An
important source of the ideas is the work of the psychoanalyst, John Bowlby. His accessible
late contribution, republished in 2005 with an update, is a good starting point to his work.
Current research adds standardized techniques to the initial ideas. A comprehensive recent
general guide is Cassidy and Shaver (2016); a collection using modern attachment ideas in
social work practice is edited by Shemmings and Shemmings (2014). You use current
attachment theory techniques mainly as part of multi-professional agency teams, with the
advanced training and support that your agency provides.
(https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.flinders.edu.au/lib/flinders/reader.action?
docID=6007142&query=&ppg=123)
The two most significant social work practices using attachment theory are: • • work with
children and their carers to help them secure stable and long-lasting relationships with
adults throughout their lives; loss situations, to help people overcome their reactions to
the loss of one or more important attachments in their lives.
2020. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/flinders/detail.action?docID=6007142.
Created from flinders on 2022-05-06 16:53:08.
• • • insecure-avoidant styles: children who feel unloved but are selfreliant, and see other people
as rejecting and intrusive; secure styles: children feel loved and are competent, and see others
as dependable; insecure-ambivalent styles: children feel unvalued and are dependent, and see
others as unpredictable; disorganized styles: children feel unloved and isolated, and see others
as frightening and unavailable.
2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/flinders/detail.action?
docID=6007142.
Created from flinders on 2022-05-06 16:54:42.
Some more key definitions and principles:
docID=290649
social work in theories and action- page 212-214

Draft ideas 9060

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft ideas 9060

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft ideas 9060

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Part 2 :

A) Contributions and main arguments:

b) Critiques and debates:

Part 3: Shaping Practice

some of the readings might be helpful

The insecure anxious–ambivalent style is characterized by a negative view

You might also like