The Myth of Bonding

  • Martin Richards
Chapter

Abstract

During the last few years a new word—‘bonding’—has become established in the vocabularies of professionals concerned with neonatal services. The same word has entered the world of popular writing for parents and has been taken up by parents themselves. Many who use this word appear to believe that it has a respectable origin within developmental psychology and that it relates to a theory and a body of experimental evidence that is well established. I want to suggest that its provenance, or, rather, that of the concept it represents, is much more uncertain than some current usage suggests. I shall point out that there may be dangers for parents and children in the well-intentioned but uncritical use of the concept. Note: Most of the early work and discussions use the term ‘mother’ and not ‘father’ or ‘parent’. It is not always clear whether authors are using the term ‘mother’ interchangeably with ‘parent’, ‘caretaker’ or ‘father’ or whether they are referring only to the female biological parent. I have tried to be consistent in using the term adopted by other authors when referring to their work and otherwise using ‘parent’ when I am referring to either or both parents and ‘mother’ or ‘father’ when I specifically mean the female or male parent.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Campbell, S. B. G. and Taylor, P. M. (1980). Bonding and attachment: theoretical issues. In Parent—Infant Relationships (ed. P. M. Taylor), Grune and Stratton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Court, D. (1977). Report of the Committee on Child Health Services. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Goldberg, S. (1978). Prematurity: effects on parent—infant interaction. Pediat. Psychol., 3, 137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kaplan, D. M. and Mason, E. A. (1960). Maternal reaction to premature birth viewed as an acute emotional disorder. Am. J. Orthopsychiat., 30, 539–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Klaus, M. H. and Kennell, J. H. (1976). Maternal—Infant Bonding, Mosby, St LouisGoogle Scholar
  6. McGurk, H. (1979). Maternal Attachment Behaviour and Infant Development: The Significance of Temporary Separation at Birth. Report prepared for the Department of Health and Social Security, London. Unpublished.Google Scholar
  7. Minde, K. K. (1980). Bonding of mothers to premature infants: theory and practice. In Parent—Infant Relationships (ed. P. M. Taylor), Grune and Stratton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Richards, M. P. M. (1978). Possible effects of early separation on later development in children. In Early Separation and Special Care Nurseries (ed. F. S. W. Brimblecombe, M. P. M. Richards and N. R. C. Robertson), Clinics in Development Medicine, SIMP/Heinemann Medical, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Richards, M. P. M. (1979). Effects on development of medical interventions and the separation of newborns from their parents. In The First Year of Life (ed. D. Shaffer and J. Dunn), Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  10. Rödholm, M. (1981). Effects of father—infant postpartum contact on their interaction 3 months after birth. Early Human Devel., 5, 1–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ross, G. S. (1980). Parental responses to infants in intensive care: the separation issue re-evaluated. Clin. Perinat., 7, 47–61Google Scholar
  12. Svejda, M. J., Campos, J. J. and Emde, R. N. (1980). Mother—infant ‘bonding’: failure to generalize. Child Devel., 51, 775–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Waddington, C. H. (1975). The Evolution of an Evolutionist, Edinburgh University Press, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  14. Winnicott, D. W. (1958). Collected Papers, Tavistock, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Royal Society of Medicine 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Richards

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations