4. Serve and return (I)

It is all about relationships

Ratio
Ratio
Aug 8, 2017 · 7 min read

But what happens, wondered Bowlby, when mothers are taken out of our lives?

If Sigmund Freud looked down, delving around into the inner recesses of our incredibly sophisticated minds, John Bowlby looked up, exploring what binds us to our ancestors hunting in small tribes. The direction of Bowlby’s studies led to a very different view of relationships, one that binds them to the survival of the species. Relating is a primeval need. Without relationships, the human race would perish, just as an infant would die without the support of what we have come to call, for the sake of respect, a primary caregiver, usually the child’s mother.

At the heart of Bowlby’s theory is the concept of sensitivity, which has been translated from the science by communications experts into the idea of ‘serve and return’. I can explain the idea in terms used by language teachers. I am learning Spanish. My teacher says to me ‘Hola, que tal?’ She has served a ball, and it is on my side of the net. The first 20 times she serves I may fail to understand, and the ball runs out of play. The second 20 times I may understand but fail to make a reply that she can understand, the ball hitting my side of the net. The 41st time, I say ‘Bien. Y tu?’, the teacher understands, the ball is over the net, and my brain registers the success, forming new synapses or connections. The 4,100th time those synapses are firing naturally and I effortlessly glide the ball back to my teacher. This is how we grow, this is how our minds develop, physiologically.

At the heart of Bowlby’s theory is the concept of sensitivity, which has been translated from the science by communications experts into the idea of ‘serve and return’.

Bowlby received psychoanalytic training. So, he would have been used to the idea that mothers could be a force for ill, that some mothers seed neuroses in their offspring just as Freud proposed, as well as for good in our lives. But what happens, wondered Bowlby, when mothers are taken out of our lives? He studied a small group of institutionalised children and found a link between maternal separation and antisocial behaviour. In another study, this time of homeless children, he discovered that maternal deprivation was a risk for the mental health of children.

This was not a popular idea, particularly from advocates of psychoanalytic approaches. Bowlby realised the limitations of Freud’s and others psychological theories when explaining the disadvantage that follows from being deprived of the primary caregiver. So he looked for alternative paradigms and he found that research on animal behaviour in natural settings and evolutionary theory were more relevant to his emerging ideas.

Bowlby borrowed the concept of behavioural systems from ethology- the science of the function and evolution of animal behaviour- to make sense of the way children interact with their parents. A behavioural system comprises a repertoire of different behaviours that serve similar functions. For example, a mother providing warmth, physical contact, changing nappies and so on represents a set of behaviours that make up a system of caregiving. Such behavioural systems are considered to have evolved to ensure the survival of our genes, of the species.

Bowlby noted that the timing of the caregiver’s response was important- the nearer to the perceived threat the better. The quality of the response also matters. This process is called sensitivity, or serve and return.

Attachment, the idea for which Bowlby is perhaps best known, is one of several behavioural systems that contributes to the success of the humans. The new born child is entirely vulnerable, unable to survive more than few hours without sustenance. A series of behaviours — or a system- comprising crying, reaching out, making eye contact, and grasping, all indicate need. The caregiver picks up these signs and soothes the child. Bowlby noted that the timing of the caregiver’s response was important- the nearer to the perceived threat the better. The quality of the response also matters. As the caregiver gets to know her child she recognises the source of the threat or discomfort and responds to it and not to general distress. This process is called sensitivity, or serve and return.

Every infant, according to Bowlby, with a few extreme exceptions such as those raised in austere orphanages, develops an attachment with a caregiver. From birth, we are primed to find someone to meet our needs. The attachment relationship goes through a series of stages over the first couple of years of the infant life. In the first couple of months, babies are receptive to social stimuli from anybody, but they rapidly consolidate attachment bonds with the people who they see on a regular basis. Governed by simple behaviours at the beginning, such bonds will be coordinated by increasingly complex behaviours as the child builds language, cognition, and self-regulation. The apotheosis of the infant-parent relationship is known as the goal-corrected-partnership. At this stage infants are able to adjust the need to be physically close to the parent, delaying their gratification by forming a representation of their caregiver in their minds, a caregiver they can rely on to provide future love and support.

From birth, we are primed to find someone to meet our needs.

As relationships develop, the infant begins to log how the caregiver usually responds to his needs, forming mental representations or internal working models that are used to anticipate, interpret, and guide interactions with others. These internal working models are not set in stone; they adapt according to the infant’s development and environment.

I suspect this basic structure is replicated at least in part in healthy adult relationships, and in links between people who can help each other.

Not all relationships are the same. In the attachment behavioural system, the sensitivity of the caregiver’s responses influences the child’s sense of security. Tardy and less sensitive responses produce insecurity. Mary Salter Ainsworth, a Canadian researcher who was part of Bowlby’s initial team, designed a fairly simple and now very famous lab procedure- The Strange Situation Procedure- to explore the differences. It involves placing the infant and mother into an unfamiliar environment for a short amount of time, typically 20 minutes. After four minutes, a stranger enters the room, a potential threat to the child. After another three minutes, the mother leaves the room. Three minutes later the mother comes back into the room and the stranger leaves. The mother then leaves again for three minutes, so the infant is left alone. The stranger returns and engages with the child for another three minutes. Lastly, a second reunion with the mother takes place.

From analyses of the Strange Situation Procedure sessions, Ainsworth identified three major patterns of attachment relationships: secure, insecure-ambivalent, and insecure-avoidant. The securely attached infants are distressed when separated from their mother, but are comforted by her at reunion, and quickly return to play. It turns out these children have consistently sensitive mothers. Most infants, about 65% of the general population, are securely attached.

Ainsworth identified three major patterns of attachment relationships: secure, insecure-ambivalent, and insecure-avoidant.

A second group of infants are so distressed at separation that, on reunion, they only seek the mother’s comfort and cannot focus or get interested in further play. This group are called insecurely ambivalent. At home, the mothers of these infants are inconsistent, being readily available sometimes but over intrusive at other times. About one in fourteen (14%) infants experience an insecure-ambivalent relationship with their mother.

The third group show no apparent distress at separation, but avoid eye contact at reunion, and show more interest in play than comfort from their mother. At home, mothers in this group are observed pushing away infants’ request for comfort. This group are called insecurely-avoidant and account for about 21% of the general population.

The classification might have stopped here. But, one of Ainsworth’s doctoral students Mary Main discovered a forth category of attachment relationships: disorganised. She noticed that some children lacked a strategy to deal with the stress of separation. At reunion with their mothers, they would exhibit contradictory behaviours, for example wanting to be next to the mother but at the same time being frightened by her. As the evidence unfolded it became clear that parents who maltreat their infants, those who struggle with chronic and severe depression or substance abuse, and those with their own unresolved trauma from childhood were more likely to have children exhibiting these features of disorganised attachment.

How is it that mother-child relationships distribute across this four-way taxonomy? We don’t know. Genes are one candidate but the link to attachment — at least in infancy- is weak. This is not to say that genes don’t matter, they do. But their influence is mainly exerted in combination with the environment, like the mother’s attributes, the quality of partner relationships, and the amount of social support the parents receive. Genes are a double-edged sword: some genes help people get the most out of a warm and caring environment, whereas others accelerate the negative effects of inconsistent care. Scientists call this differential susceptibility and much research continues to understand better its effects.

How is it that mother-child relationships distribute across this four-way taxonomy?

But the primary focus of investigation remains serve and return, or sensitivity. The child cries for a reason. He is hungry. He is cold. He has woken up alone. He is tired. He wants his nappy changed. He is throwing balls over the net. The mother gets to recognise each cry for help and she increasingly responds more rapidly and accurately to her child needs. She is sensitive to her child’s needs. Although the predictive validity, the amount of variance in attachment styles explained by sensitivity, is not large, it remains the focal point for much attachment research today.


How does attachment theory make us think differently about responding to people facing challenging times? Rebeca discusses this next on Thursday.

Want to keep up with the R Word? Subscribe to our mailing list here. Learn more about how this conversation started here.

Previous |Next

Ratio

Written by

Ratio

www.ratio.org.uk

The R Word

The R Word is a conversation bringing together policy wonks, scientists, practitioners, philosophers, philanthropists, innovators, people facing down disadvantage, and others who will engage in a series of discussions about relational social policy.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade