Attachment, Deviance and Youth offending.

A way of conceptualising the propensity of human beings to make strong affectionate bonds to particular others and of explaining particular others and the many forms of personality disturbance including anxiety, anger, depression and emotional detachment to which unwilling separation and loss give rise. (Bowlby, 1970)

Attachment

Sigmund Freud1856 - 1939

Melanie Klein1882-1960

Anna Freud1895-1982

Donald Winnicott1896-1971

John Bowlby1907-1990

Mary Ainsworth1913-1999

History

• Pioneer of “attachment theory”.• The way a child is treated has a powerful influence

on a child’s development and later personality function.

• Post war influence• Mother as sole care giver.• Notion of Secure base and bonding• Borrowed from Klein and freud • Thinking routed in Psychological, evolutionary,

ethological theories.

John Bowlby

• Joined Bowlby’s research team.

• Developed Bowlby’s theories and empirically tested them.

• Categorised different attachment styles

• Strange Situation experiment.

Mary Ainsworth

Secure attachment In infancy a parent provides consistent emotional support as the primary caregiver. The child learns that people can be trusted and therefore see’s them in high regard and emotionally connects with people.

Insecure attachmentInconsistent and emotionally detached / inappropriate parenting leads to the infant believing that the parent cannot be relied on to provide emotional support. They form a negative view of themselves and other and struggle to form relationships.

The Internal Working Model

ClassificationsAttachment Pattern Child Caregiver

Secure Care giver as secure base for child exploration

Consistent and appropriate

Avoidant Treats strangers similar to care givers. No attachment. low self esteem and negative self image

Little to no response to distressed child.

Ambivalent/ resistant Anxious because of inconsistent care giver.

Inconsistent between appropriate and neglectful responses

Dissorginised Lack of coherent attachment illustrated by contradictory behaviors

Neglectful/ abusive behavior.

• Behaviors include stealing, lack of conscience, animal cruelty and self harming.

• Their actions are to represent themselves as powerful.

Disorganised

Disorganised

• Poor development of conscience.• Poor impulse control and lack of foresight.• Low self-esteem.• Poor interpersonal skills and relationships.• Lack of emotional awareness and sensitivity.• Reduced cognitive ability.• General developmental problems.

Fahlberg (1985)

“Although not all disturbed children grow up into anti-social adults, most adults who regally commit crimes or drink excessively or exhibit seriously unacceptable social behaviour have suffered disturbed relationships during childhood.” (Howe, 1995)

The Detrimental Effect of Insecure Attachment on Criminality

The 44 thieves study aims to determine the correlation between maternal deprivation in infancy and adolescence.

44 juvenile thieves were studied against 44 adolescents who were “emotionally disturbed” but did not steal.

The study found that 14 of the thieves were “affectionless” in comparison to none in those who did not steal.

The study concluded that there is a connection between the maternal deprived in infancy and criminal behaviour in

adolescence.

44 Juvenile Thieves (Bowlby 1944)

Youth Crime

• Argued that the lack of secure attachment is linked to later difficulties in understanding another persons point of view ie reflective capacity which is important in the development of morality

  • They also thought that some individuals can

become reattached to other through later life events and can rebuild their reflective capacity

Fonagy et al.

Case Study

Case StudyAileen Wuornos

KeithAileenBarryLori Dianne

Lauri Britta

Aileen Wuornos Gino Gram

KeithAileen

BarryLori

Lauri Britta

DianneLeo

Aileen Wuornos Gino Gram

• Inconsistent care.• Emotional and physical abuse from a primary attachment

figures.• Internal Working Model perceives others as unreliable. • Secondary conditional strategies.• “I'm wicked, worthless and hated” by those who should love me

leading to rejection and viewing others as untrustworthy (Shipley & Arrigo 2004).

• Protest, despair and detachment are reactions to separation from a primary caregiver (Bowlby 1969)

• Feeling of isolation in stressful situations (Fonagy et al., 1997)• Internal working model rejects her own feelings and greets

others with hostility as valuing will result in pain (Shipley & Arrigo 2004).

Aileen Wuornos Attachment Links

 negative forms of attachment are thought to have detrimental effect on the following : * intellectual and emotional development.  * academic attainment * mental health, substance abuse. * relationships * life chances * parenting capacity   (Howe,1995)

Taking a step back: What does this mean to social workers?

known risk factors influencing likelihood deviance/ criminality: poverty violence in the home mental health/ substance abuse lack of life opportunity/ academic achievement lack of usual emotional adjustment.   (Temple et al, 2007) with this in mind what do we do? 

Negative attachment, Deviance and Criminality

Attachment is the 'parent child process by which a person learns how to respond to the world and how they learn from the world' and is

therefore an important tool in a social worker's arsenal (Le Riche et al, 2009)

   

     "investments in preschool have substantially higher net benefits than ... most other social programs" (Temple et al, 2007)

Early Intervention

- american model long established and shaped UK    - perry high-scope: longest running. $13 - 1 cost benefit.  - chicago cpc closest to uk children center model:  - PACT (parent child therapy), routed in attachment therapy.    (attachment is a two way street)

Early Intervention

sure start (1998) children centers: - working with children, parents and communities. - focus on socialisation,  - health, 

- development and parent skills. - eventual academic attainment and life achievement.  - all are linked to prevention of deviant and criminal behaviors  

Children’s Centers

every little helps   individual and societal benefit lessens associated costs of crime (monetaraly and other) helps stop cycle of poverty crime deviance. helps parents consider their parenting and grow. benefiting parent and child family and community but... although sure start and children centers given statutory footing in 2009, cuts are still a reality. and not run for long enough yet to demonstrate full benefits.

Solve all life's problems?

So what do you think?

Biology- genes

Psychological –personality traits

Family-structure& style

Environment

Is it all down to attachment?

Insecure attachments produce troubling behaviours and not criminal behaviours.

Essential element of criminality is the absence of self control.

High self control= consideration of long term consequences of own behaviour

Low self control=no consideration such control is learned

Gottsfredson & Hirsch

Secure attachment in infancy does not protect from adverse social outcomes.Early attachment difficulties do not automatically pose risk for subsequent development problems.

Adams et al (2009)

Prenatal conditions or complications(learning problems)

Psychiatric disorder. Personality traits.

Biology-Genetics

Nature vs narture. Nature-genetic Nurture-parental upbringing Parents have less control over their children

than their children. To “fit in” children learn new things

Harris (1998) Environment

Individuals who socialise with people who

engage in criminal behaviour are likely to engage in criminal behaviour.

Crime seen as a norm. Children learn by socialisation. Bandura's social learning theory. Social and cultural factors .

Sutherland (1939) Environment

Children learn by socialisation. Bandura’s social learning theory. Social and cultural factors .

Sutherland (1939)

Ecological perspectives-environmental factors.

Critical story about how society is structured. Criminal behaviour is influenced by the

nature of the environment it occurs. Community interaction. Explain why some countries/areas have

higher crimes than others.

Clarke & Clarke

• Individuals who socialise with people who engage with people who frequently engage in criminal behaviour are themselves likely to engage in criminal behaviour. As they are likely to see this as a norm rather than a deviation from the norm.

Sutherland (1939)

Conclusion

Questions... Anyone?