You have 30 minutes to complete this form before the security image will expire.
You are not logged in. If you log in, you will receive point credit for your submission.
It may have been his studies I was reading. The studies on orphans I read showed that the % that develop into healthy teens is pretty much the same % as typical western raised infants. From reading up on the criticisms and counter examples of the theory (done by qualified people lol) it's very apparent that the whole theory is not an exact science like April is trying to imply.
Kip saidI do not know if you are already aware that much of the research on Romanian orphans is by Professor Sir Michael Rutter, author of 'Maternal Deprivation Reassessed'.
Only have to read up on some of the more recent longitudinal studies done on orphans adopted out from places like Romania to question that statement. Although I do agree it important infants have a person to bond with, it is certainly not a given that those that don't end up dysfunctional. 3/4 of orphans in one study from Romania that had no primary carer as infants, turned out to be perfectly adjusted teenagers after they were adopted out as toddlers/young children.I studied 20 years years ago when Erikson was still alive. I had a female lecturer telling me it doesn't matter who the person is, as long as bub has a connection with someone then bub will be OK.
These are based on the discredited theory of 'maternal deprivation' ie that if children are separated from their mother they will suffer.1.If parental separation occurs before birth or in the first years of a childs life, special consideration is
needed to ensure the continuity of a healthy primary attachment, together, where possible, with the
safe building or maintenance of a warm, available relationship with the second parent.
2. As this may be a very difficult time for all concerned, separated parents may need extra help to
understand that frequent, fixed overnight shared-time parenting schedules during the first years, while
well intentioned, may severely disrupt important developmental gains for their young child.
3. Under the age of two years, overnight separations from the primary parent create unique stresses
for the infant. In the majority of circumstances, non-essential overnight separations during these
critical months of development are not advisable. Thus, in general, but always guided by the unique
needs of each infant, prior to the age of two years, overnight time away from the primary care-giver
should be avoided, unless necessary. Day times away from the primary parent should be kept to
manageable periods of time, which can gradually increase as the infant matures.
i. Investigations have demonstrated the importance of a child's relationship with people other than his mother.
ii. Most important of all there has been repeated findings that many children are not damaged by deprivation.
iii. The old issue of critical periods of development and the crucial importance of early years has been re-opened and re-examined. The evidence is unequivocal that experiences at all ages have an impact.
iv. It may be the first few years do have a special importance for bond formation and social development. ('Maternal Deprivation; Reassessed, Second Edition, 1981, pp.217)
The guidelines recommend non-custodial parents, nine out of 10 of whom are fathers, should instead see children under two during the day, up to three times a week, gradually phasing in overnight visits after the second birthday. Families fighting custody battles in the Family Court should not share custody until the child is three.
And yet the 'one or more nights per week' has been interpreted by the AAIMHI to mean no over nights unless absolutely necessary. There are NO studies based on modern society, mentioned in the back ground paper to the guidelines, that support the no over night unless necessary stance they have taken.The results showed, that infants who were in shared care (i.e. one or more nights per week away from primary carer) demonstrated significantly more irritability (this does not mean just a few extra minutes of crying each day) and they were more vigilant about monitoring the whereabouts of their primary carer (instead of exploring their environment and playing which is what they should be doing). These results showed that the shared care arrangement made a unique and significant contribution to negative outcomes for the infant
Attachment theory is actually a group of theories, that come under the banner of developmental theories which provide a frame work for thinking about human growth, development, and learning. Just because something is 'demonstrated by research' does NOT mean it is no longer considered a theory, at least not in the realm of psychology. In psychology theories, even when backed by research evidence come and go, some hold up for a long time, others not so long. Anyone who has studied 1st year psych would be aware of this.Again, this is not theory, it is demonstrated via empirical research and observations
Really?If this well read TAFEer must spruik her product here then she should disclose her self-interest - Ms Nichola Coombs, of Australian Association for Infant Mental Health - and pay for advertising.
I don't think anyone is advocating for anything like that. Personally I believe it is not necessary to actually restrict ALL overnight care from a father (once an infant stops being breastfeed). I am not suggesting 50/50 equal care (even with older children that is often unsuitable) but I don't see any harm in non breast feed infants /toddlers spending 1 or 2 nights every month/fortnight with the father. If non breast feed infants/toddlers can spend one or two night with grandparents ect with out affecting the primary care relationship then why not fathers?Why would any one want to do that to their own child? We are only talking about a small part of the infants life, where it organises itself to face the world as a young child. Why are there so many people prepared to mess this up?
kalimnadancer saidApril infants can attach to many people. There is not just one person for each baby. If this was the case grandparents, babysitters, relatives, parents, siblings, creche workers, adoptive and foster parents would never be able to have a child in their care as the child would not cope. Babies who do not cope would scream the house down as this is their communication means. This would make care impossible. Babies need to be with all family so they can bond with the baby. It is harder to bond with a child for the adult as well as the child. Maybe you could do a study to find out how well the child and adult manage when no bond is formed from infancy and at age of 3 or more they start from scratch with limited time to use due to restrictions from the "primary carer"
I am sorry to say that Bowlby did not 'correct himself' as you put it, others had to do it for him. Indeed if he had not made a mistake there would be no need for any correction. Even so, I do not know whether you have followed the discussion with APRIL but I think we have established that in his original work Bowlby said fathers play 'second fiddle' and even towards the end of his career in 1986 when asked for his 'citation classic' (see below) he selected 'Maternal Care and Mental Health' because it 'focused attention on the mother's relationship with the young child as an important determinant sic of mental health'. He never accepted that fathers could be equally as important as mothers. (Unless you can cite such a quote).
Pandering Feminist saidKip, Bowlby himself corrected himself in 1988 (Secure Base) with regards to the theory of "Maternal Deprivation". Michael Rutter did not discredit Bowlby's work. In a video interview he said that he agreed more than disagreed. Both of them, Bowlby and Rutter, acknowledged that infants form attachment to any consistant caregiver who is sensitive and responsive in social interaction with the infant. The mother is usually (not always) the principal attachment figure but that role can be taken up by any person who acts "motherly" over a period of time when interacting with the infant. Nothing in the theory has ever suggested that fathers cannot be the principal caregiver.
It is rather people with hidden agendas that uses the theory, out of context, for personal gain, be it mothers or fathers or lawyers or courts orgovernments...
In this exchange Dr Siegel dismisses the neurobiological claims made by Dr Schore (PhD) as 'laughable' and whilst Dr Sroufe (PhD) says men can't nurse, he says 'My understanding of attachment categories is that they are totally gender neutral' and does not qualify the quote.McIntosh: Questions that arise often in the family law arena include these: Can you have two primary caregivers? Is there any evidence about the brains of mothers and fathers working any differently over the care-giving tasks?
Siegel: Others may say no, you do not have two primary attachment figures, but I think you can over
time, within the same home. But those parents do different things. In divorce, having two primary
attachment figures is probably different. I am not the person to ask about the gender question, because
I have a peculiar aversion to gender-specific generalizations. I know there is neurobiological research
that demonstrates differences. I just cannot get myself to take those findings seriously because of my
own experience as a father, because of my own experience of my parents, because of my experience
as a therapist. Both men and women have deep potentials for caring for infants.
McIntosh: The gender issue is something I would like to dismiss too, but it is endemic to family law
and it perpetually rears its head in court decisions and influences policy directions.
Siegel: My understanding of attachment categories is that they are totally gender neutral. I know
people say women are more integrated because their corpus callosum is thicker. So what? That does
not mean you cannot have a loving relationship as a male with an infant. Now, we do have these things
called gender roles, where the male feels like he has to go out and earn money, and the female thinks
that she has to be at home. But I think that is a sociologically reinforced, perhaps genetically induced
tendency, but it does not have to be fixed at all. Ive seen plenty of fathers be unbelievable primary
caregivers, and the woman is out and about working. And the children do extremely well. Attachment
categories are gender-neutral.
McIntosh: If we could hose down the gender debate about attachment, then we might actually get
down to talking about the function of a primary caregiver: whether you are the mother or the father,
what is it that a primary attachment figure does to support optimal development? I see that as the
discussion that is most needed. Allan Schore talks about the importance of psychological gender and
the ability to fulfill the functions of the primary caregiver role: being nurturing, responsive, and a
secure base for comfort.
Siegel: Absolutely! I mean, if you outline the basics of a primary caregiver, you see how gender
neutral it is. The primary caregiver is someone who is tuned in to the internal experience of the child,
not just the childs behavior. That is the simplest way to say it. Males can do it, and females can do
it. And some females cannot do it, and some males cannot do it. It is really a matter of seeing the
internal world, not just managing behavior. And this reflective function can be taught: most can learn
to have mindsight enabling us to perceive our own and others internal worlds.