Problems with Attachment Research

One of the main goals of Balanced Parenting is to deconstruct attachment theory, today’s most popular parenting theory, as it has been criticized for pressuring parents to always do more for their children and adding to parent guilt and burnout. However, this can be hard to do because the theory has been purported as being highly scientific and research based. 

It is especially difficult to let go of attachment theory because the theory claims that if parents don’t do as it suggests, they will harm their children–and of course no parent wants to risk this. To help parents trust that it really is okay to move beyond attachment theory, this section will look closer at the research that is used by attachment theorists to support its claims.

The Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaption

The Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaption (MLSRA) is a seminal study done on child development and parenting that has been widely cited by attachment theorists as proof that the theory is accurate. For instance, Sroufe and Siegel (2011) cite this study as proof for attachment theory’s validity. They state: 

“What MLSRA has shown over the past 35 years in study after study is that attachment security with a primary caregiver measured in infancy predicted important aspects of adjustment and functioning throughout childhood and into adulthood. Those with secure histories had a greater sense of self-agency, were better emotionally regulated, and had higher self-esteem than those with histories of anxious (insecure) attachment.” 

Others have a different interpretation of this very same research. Speaking of the MLRSA, Allen (2016) explained: 

“As one would hypothesize, children rated as insecurely attached in infancy were more likely to display behavioral problems in preschool (Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985). However, in those instances where this association was not present (i.e., secure with behavior problems or insecure without behavior problems), children were more likely to display problems if their mothers were poor at setting limits on their child and/or displayed less confidence in their ability to manage the child’s behavior. Conceptually, these results suggest that caregivers who are emotionally supportive and comforting to their distressed children may still confer risk for poor developmental outcomes as a result of other parenting variables. Indeed, multiple reports from the Minnesota project suggest that models including other parent–child relationship variables beyond attachment classification were often preferred for predicting outcomes when compared to attachment classification alone (Sroufe et al., 2005).” 

This shows that the ideas purported by attachment theory–such as the emphasis on offering emotional support and the need for soothing distressed children–is actually not as important as confidently setting limits. This is a very different conclusion than that of Siegel and Sroufe argue. Allen’s conclusion regarding this research and what it shows actually aligns with the view of Bowen family systems theory–which suggests that limits and boundaries are necessary to support self-regulation, and that soothing children is not as important–and definitely not something parents need to excessively focus on. 

Ignoring Cross-Cultural Research

Attachment theory has also been criticized for ignoring cross-cultural research that disproves its claims. Speaking to this, Harvard psychologist Robert Levine explains: “Attachment researchers have ignored, dismissed, and distorted cross cultural evidence indicating greater diversity in both maternal behavior and infant emotional resilience that might refute the model” (p. 50).

Specifically, he discusses research by Grossman et al. (1985) studying parent-child attachment in Northern Germany which found that 49 percent of the infants were recorded as having an insecure, avoidant attachment (compared to 26 percent which was found in Mary Ainsworth’s original research). The researchers interpreted this to be the result of the cultural practice in Germany of valuing self-reliance and independence from a young age–that the “avoidant” infants had not actually experienced parental rejection had learned to be more independent and self-reliant. 

Speaking to this finding, Levine suggests that since this research happened decades ago, it is safe to conclude that attachment theory’s predictions are incorrect–because it predicts that insecure attachment causes mental health challenges. He says if this was true, then there would have been a huge mental health outbreak in Germany. Because of this, he argues that this cross-cultural evidence refutes attachment theory and it should be seen as a cultural ideology, not an objective science. 

Sara Zaske, author of “Achtung Baby: An American Mom on the German Art of Raising Self-Reliant Children” similarly suggests that attachment theory is more of a cultural ideology than a science. She also references the different emphasis on self-reliance in German cultures and suggests that American parents can move toward this, finding balance in parenting and helping children become self-reliant, by letting go of attachment theory. She says:

“I think there are a few things American parents can learn from the German approach to promote their baby’s independence and good sleep habits. First, we can relax a little on the attachment issue. If we can accept that the attachment theory is a cultural value and not a universal truth, it takes a lot of the heat off: you can put your baby down to play by himself without fearing he will develop into a psychopath. If you don’t breast-feed on demand you are not a terrible mother. We all want a loving bond with our children, but in all the hype around attachment parenting, it’s good to remember that detachment is also important–that our job as mothers is to give oru babies not only unconditional love but also the space to develop into their individual selves.”

Parental Deprivation Studies

Bowen family systems theory, which is a main family therapy theory and the basis of Balanced Parenting, has many ideas that run counter to attachment theory, and Bowen theorists have pointed out flaws in the conclusions drawn from research by attachment theorists. One example of this is Michael Kerr, today’s leading figure in Bowen theory. He explains that many developmental theories (including attachment theory) “blame the emotional problems of children on the failure of their parents to be sufficiently available, caring, and supportive.” 

He continues, “Support for the assumption that inadequate mothering creates emotional problems in chldren is often drawn from studies of humans, subhumans, subhuman primates, and other mammals demonstrating that premature separation of an infnat from its mother can lead to serious emotional and even physical consequences for the infant. Anaclictic depression (marasmus) in human infants can be triggered by not providing an infant with adequate physical contact, comfort, and stimulation. Harlow and Zimmerman (1959) demonstrated that infant rhesus monkeys who were denied access to theri mothers for a prolonged period had difficulty forming affectional ties in later life. Many other studies have shown detrimental effects in rats and mice who were separated prematurely from their mothers. Skolnick et al. (1980) for example, showed that premature separation of rat pups from their mothers significantly increased theri susceptibility (even in adult life) to getting stomach ulcers when they were experimentally restrained. It is evident from such studies that a developing mammal requires a certain type of interaction in the realtionship with his primary caretaker that permits or fosters normal development. A developing child, in other words, has reality needs.”

He continues, “It does not logically follow, however, that because emotional instability and “depression” can result from an infant’s being denied adequate access to its mother that most people who feel “insecure” or “depressed” suffer from “inadequte mothering.” While cases of true infant neglect or maternal deprivation do occur and the children suffer ill effects, these cases are assumed to represent a small percentage of mother-infant relationships.”

This may seem like a rather bold claim, especially when our culture is so heavily entrenched in the attachment viewpoint. However, what Kerr suggests actually is supported by research showing that 70 percent of children who were exposed to severe deprivation for over two years did not come to develop a severe attachment disorder (O’Connor et al., 2000). Remarking on this research, Allen (2016) stated: “[This] indicates that grossly pathogenic care is not a sufficient condition for attachment disorder behaviour to occur. This seriously undermines attachment theory.” 

This research really is devastating to attachment theory–it means that its main premise is applicable only in the rarest of circumstances. Even among the exceptions–those who actually experience extreme caregiving deprivation–the majority did not experience a severe attachment disorder. The mistake of attachment theorists is that they treat all individual and relational problems as if they stem from parental deprivation. Reflecting this idea, Robert Levine explains that attachment theory “[conflates] cases of severe separation and stress with moderate ones, as if they [are] part of a single continuum.” This is problematic because it makes parents unnecessarily worried that they will create an insecure attachment in their children, when this is not something the vast majority of parents need to be worried about–as demonstrated by the research. 

The Strange Situation Experiment

One foundational research experiment that was used to prove attachment theory’s scientific basis was that of the Strange Situation experiment, done by Mary Ainsworth. This experiment looked at the interactions of mother-infant pairs, categorizing the styles of attachment between them based on the way the infant responded to a brief “strange separation” from the mother. Being distressed when the mother leaves but being easily soothed when the mother returns was seen as evidence of a secure attachment in a child. Not being distressed when the mother leaves or not being easily soothed were evidence of an insecure attachment. Jerome Kagan, a Harvard psychologist who was named as the 22nd most eminent psychologists of the 20th century (just above Carl Jung), has criticized attachment theory and this experiment extensively. He stated: 

“There are several reasons to question [the experiment’s] conclusions. The first is that the original study which suggested a relation between maternal sensitivity and a secure attachment in the child was based on 23 infants, of whom only 7 were classified as insecurely attached. A second basis for doubt is that the attachment classifications are not very stable over intervals as short as six months. The third is that the claim fails the test of reasonableness. The mother and infant, who have been together for over a year, have experienced pain, pleasure, joy, and distress, and the infant’s representations of and behavioral reactions to the mother must contain aspects of all these experiences. Is it reasonable to believe that a half-hour sample of behavior in an unfamiliar laboratory room could reveal the history of all these experiences with the mother? Could any thirty-minute observation uncover psychological products created from over six thousand hours of interaction between these partners?” 

He continues, “But there are other problems. When a mother leaves her infant in an unfamiliar place, between about 15 and 20 percent are temperamentally biased to become extremely fearful when faced with this discrepancy, especially if a stranger is in the room. These excessively fearful infants are not easily soothed when the mother returns and are labeled insecurely attached, even though they may have had sensitive, predictable mothers. They are simply temperamentally prone to become very fearful when unfamiliar events occur. In Mary Ainsworth’s original study, excessive irritability at home was the best predictor of a resistant-insecure attachment.”

He further explains, “Children who have been attending day care centers from an early age have become accustomed to their mothers leaving them in an unfamiliar place and are less likely to cry when the mother leaves. Because they are minimally fearful during the mother’s brief absence, they continue to play when she returns. However, they too, ar called insecurely attached. One investigator who observed mother-infant pairs in their homes during the first year found that children’s behavior in the Strange Situation–whether securely or insecurely attached–was not related to the mother’s sensitivity but ratheher to the child’s temperament. The extremely irritable, fearful infants were most likely to be classified as resistant-insecurely attached, while those who were easy to care for were more often classified as securely attached.”

His comments on the experiment make a lot of sense. It seems strange that this experiment is lauded as so scientific when it clearly is highly subjective in nature. Realizing this can help parents–and especially mothers–to feel calmer about the way their babies respond to them. If the baby doesn’t respond the “right” way when she leaves and returns, it doesn’t mean she is a bad mother. In reality, it could be for many reasons–which, most likely, have nothing to do with how good of a mother she is. It could even be a sign that, like the German mothers in the previously mentioned study, she has done a good job of promoting her child’s self-reliance. 

Internal Working Models

One idea that was arrived at “scientifically and objectively” from the Strange Situation experiment was that of internal working models. These are assumed to be mental representations about children’s relationships, others, and themselves, stemming from how they are treated by their caregivers. They are assumed to come to expect others to be loving and accepting or rejecting—and to see themselves as lovable or unlovable—and this determines how they feel and act in relationships. However, many suggest that concluding that internal working models exist based on this research is subjective and pseudoscientific, an outgrowth of mystical thinking. Speaking to this, Berghaus (2011) explains: 

Attachment theorists simply accept/presume that internal working models exist, and from there assume that internal working models have a causal relationship with behavior. This is an example of the “transformation paradigm” (Fraley & Ledoux, /). In the transformation paradigm, inputs (in the case of attachment theory, inputs would include parenting responses during the first few months of life) are some how transformed into stored “internal working models,” . . .  somewhere in the “mind.” These transformed entities are later transformed yet again into behavior. However, since this processes responsible for these transformations cannot be objectively defined, measured, or quantified, and because the structures in which such transformed entities reside are purely hypothetical, the adherence to the transformation paradigm (and other concerns) prevents psychology from being a natural science. It therefore remains largely a philosophical (some commentators prefer superstitious; see Fraley, ) endeavor.”

He continues: “Had Bowlby and Ainsworth not been so taken with psycho-behaviorology analysis, they may have been able to separate their scientific findings from their pseudoscientific beliefs and presented a theory devoid of mysticism and nonscientific premises. Had their successors been more attracted to scientific rather than mystical explanations of behavior, they may have avoided backtracking to pre–Freudian time.” 

Additionally, meta-analytic research does not align with the existence of IWM’s. Atkinson et al (2000) explains that based on their meta-analysis, “the existence of internal working models in infancy remains an assumption, an assumption, we argue, that is inconsistent with the meta-analytic data” (p. 806). 

Conclusion

Overall, the research that is often utilized by attachment theorists to prove its validity, falls short. In multiple instances, the research has been misinterpreted to support attachment theory’s claims, and the research actually points to a need for greater balance and the inherent resilience of infants and young children. Additionally, many scientists have criticized attachment research for being unreasonable and unscientific–and research has refuted the ideas that stem from it.

This can hopefully take some of the edge off of parents, helping them to move beyond attachment theory and trust that, truly, they can let go of attachment theory without harming their children. We can move away from our anxious, child-focused parenting culture, and instead embrace balance in parenting and support our children’s self-reliance.