Article

Changing attitudes towards the care of children in hospital: a new assessment of the influence of the work of Bowlby and Robertson in the UK, 1940-1970.

Centre for Child and Family Studies, Leiden University, the Netherlands.
Attachment & Human Development (Impact Factor: 2.38). 04/2009; 11(2):119-42. DOI: 10.1080/14616730802503655
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT It is generally believed that the work of Bowlby and Robertson was new and decisive in changing the hospital conditions for young children. The fact that parents in the UK and other European countries can now visit their sick child at any time they wish or even room-in is attributed to an acquaintance with Bowlby's findings and Robertson's well-known films about the potentially detrimental effects of hospital stays for young children. In this paper we shall argue that this picture is incomplete and that, historically, things were rather more intricate. Bowlby and Robertson were neither the first nor the only researchers who tried to change hospital policies. Moreover, the older hospital policies were not uniformly bad. Long before Bowlby and Robertson began their plea for reforms, several individuals and hospitals had already introduced conditions that we now still regard as exemplary. The whole change towards more liberal, flexible, and humane practices in children's wards took place over several decades and was fuelled by both worried medical doctors, pressure groups of parents, sympathetic editors of medical journals, and emerging new research findings such as those provided by Bowlby and Robertson. In that societal debate, the voices of Bowlby and Robertson were influential but not necessarily new or decisive.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
196 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this contribution the reciprocal influence of Harlow and Spitz concerning the consequences of maternal deprivation of monkeys and men, respectively, is described. On the basis of recently disclosed correspondence between Harlow and Spitz, it is argued that not only was Spitz's work on hospitalism an inspiration for Harlow to start his cloth and wire surrogate work with rhesus monkeys but, at the same time, Harlow's work was a new impetus for Spitz's work on the sexual development of (deprived) infants. It is described how the two men first established personal contact in the early 1960s, after Harlow had published his first surrogate papers, how they became close friends subsequently, and inspired each other mutually.
    Attachment & Human Development 07/2012; 14(4):425-37. · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this article we examine some origins of John Bowlby's attachment theory, a highly influential scientific approach to love and loss in contemporary society. Although some potential influences have been well-documented, others have either received no recognition or have failed to have an impact. We focus specifically on three of Bowlby's predecessors, exploring how these were differentially influential on his work. The first of these, Charles Darwin, was amply endorsed by Bowlby, both in terms of the adaptive background to his theory and more specifically in relation to Darwin's study of the emotions associated with grief. The second, Alexander Shand, was recognized as important but is cited little and omitted from the central issue of the resolution of grief. The third, Bertrand Russell, formulated ideas on attachment and separation before Bowlby, and possibly contributed to the intellectual forces that influenced him too. To our knowledge, Russell's work was not cited by Bowlby, despite the fact that it contained the seeds of many of Bowlby's ideas on attachment. It remains unclear whether this was because he had not read Russell or through omission; there is no definitive evidence either way. Tracing these historical origins illustrates how theory development involves a process of integration and selection, how even radical theories are rooted in previous scholarship, and how it can take decades for inspiring ideas to develop into full-blown, well-tested, theories. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)
    Review of General Psychology 03/2013; 17(1):28. · 1.78 Impact Factor
  • Archives de Pédiatrie 06/2010; 17(6):723-724. · 0.41 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
214 Downloads
Available from
May 29, 2014