Attachment: Bowlby's theory

Question 1

What does Bowlby’s monotropic attachment theory (1969) state?

Answer 1

• Attachment behaviour evolved as it serves an important survival function.

– A child needs to be close to an adult for protection Attachments are formed in two directions.

1. Child attaching to parent (for survival)
2. Parent attaching to the child (to ensure that the child is cared for and survives)

• This means that the parents who look after their offspring are likely to produce subsequent generations

Bowlby’s explanation of monotropic theory is evolutionary: In a dangerous environment, infants would die if left to fend for themselves, so nature selects for those babies who naturally behave in ways that form bonds with caregivers who will protect them. These natural behaviours are not learned, as learning theory suggests, but are instead pre-programmed from birth (innate).

Question 2

What was Bowlby’s first phase of attachment?

Answer 2

During the first few months of life, a baby will respond indiscriminately towards any adult.

Question 3

What was Bowlby’s second phase of attachment?

Answer 3

At 3-6 months old, a baby will direct behaviour more towards the primary caregiver, using social releasers such as crying and smiling to promote proximity and an intimate response.

Question 4

What was Bowlby’s third phase of attachment?

Answer 4

At 6 months the baby will show intense attachment to the primary caregiver, treating them as a safe base when exploring. They will seek the caregiver when distressed as a source of comfort and show distress upon separation and strangers.

Question 5

What does the mnemonic ASCMI stand for?

Answer 5

• Adaptive
• Social Releasers
• Critical Period
• Monotropy
• Internal Working Model

Question 6

Which 3 elements of Bowlby’s theory have evolutionary roots?

Answer 6

Adaptive, Social Releasers, Critical Period

Question 7

Which 2 elements have psychodynamic roots?

Answer 7

Monotropy, Internal Working Model

Question 8

What is the adaptive element?

Answer 8

An innate tendency to form attachments to their primary caregiver. This gives us an ‘adaptive advantage’ making us more likely to survive. Helps the infant keep safe, get food and keep warm.

Question 9

How does Lorenz (1952) support the adaptive element?

Answer 9

He showed how animals use imprinting as a survival tool. The fact that the animals in his research imprinted straight away shows that attachment is adaptive.

Question 10

What is the social releasers element?

Answer 10

These are important during the critical period to ensure that attachments develop from parent to infant. Bowlby suggested one important mechanism in this process is social releasers, such as smiling and having a “babyface”, all of which stimulate caregiving. These social releasers are innate mechanisms that explain how attachments to infants are formed. Babies have social releasers that ‘unlock’ the innate tendency of adults to care for them. They are physical: baby face, and behavioural: crying/smiling

Question 11

What other feature does the social releasers element include?

Answer 11

Providing a safe haven when the child is afraid. They can return to the attachment figure for comfort. The caregiver is treated as a secure base when the child explores.

Question 12

How does Harlow support the safe base feature of the social releaser element?

Answer 12

Harlow found that rhesus monkeys who sought comfort from cloth covered monkeys were better adjusted psychically and mentally, suggesting that comfort is important - not just food.

Question 13

What is the critical period?

Answer 13

Babies have an innate drive to become attached. Innate (biological) behaviours usually have a special time period (a
critical period) for development. The critical period for attachment is around 3-6 months. Infants who do not have an opportunity to form an attachment during this time seem to have difficulty forming attachments later on. For learning theorists, food was the most important factor

Question 14

What happens if attachments aren’t formed in the critical period?

Answer 14

The child doesn’t develop socially, emotionally, intellectually or physically. They may also struggle to form attachments beyond this point.

Question 15

What is monotropy?

Answer 15

Bowlby believed that infants form one very special attachment with their mothers. This special, intense attachment is monotropy. This individual is often the infant’s biological mother but not always. Infants also form many secondary attachments that provide an important emotional safety net and are important for healthy psychological and social development.

Question 16

According to Bowlby, what does monotropy mean when the mother isn’t present?

Answer 16

The infant could bond with another ever-present, adult, mother substitute.

Question 17

What is the internal working model?

Answer 17

Bowlby’s theory says that an infant’s monotropic (primary) attachment forms a template for all relationships that follow. This template is known as the internal working model and is a cognitive framework through which the individual understands themself and their expectations for relationships with other people. The internal working model also creates some consistency between the emotional experiences of early life and the emotional experiences of later relationships.

Question 18

What is the continuity hypothesis?

Answer 18

This proposes that infants who are strongly attached will continue to be socially and emotionally competent as an adult. Whereas infants who are not strongly attached have more social and emotional difficulties in childhood and adulthood. Therefore, there is a continuity from infancy to adulthood in terms of the emotional type.

Question 19

A03: Bowlby’s theory

Answer 19

+ Supports the continuity hypothesis
+ Research support
- Alternative explanation
- There is mixed evidence for monotropy

Question 20

A03: Supports the continuity hypothesis

Answer 20

According to Bowlby’s theory, one outcome of attachment is the effect it has on subsequent relationships. This has been tested by the Minnesota parent-child study (Sroufe et al, 2005). This followed participants from infancy to late adolescence and found continuity between early attachment and later emotional/social behaviour. Individuals who were classified as securely attached in infancy were highest rated for social competence later in childhood, were less isolated and more popular, and were more empathetic. This supports the continuity hypothesis because there is a link between early and later attachments

Question 21

A03: Research support

Answer 21

A strength of Bowlby’s theory comes from research by Hazan and Shaver (1987). They used a self‐report questionnaire called ‘The Love Quiz’ to assess the internal working model. They found a positive correlation between early attachment types and later adult relationships. This supports Bowlby’s idea of an internal working model and suggests that our early childhood experiences do affect our later adult relationships. Sroufe et al. (2005) also provide evidence for this in their Minnesota parent–child study, showing the outcome of early attachment type being carried forward and projected onto expectations of subsequent relationships.

Question 22

A03: Alternative explanation

Answer 22

There is an alternative explanation for attachment. Kagan (1984) proposed the temperament hypothesis which suggests that a child’s genetically inherited personality traits (temperament) have a role to play in forming an attachment with a caregiver. It is thought that infants have differing temperaments because of their biological makeup which means that some are more sociable and ‘easy’ and others are more anxious and ‘difficult’ babies. It is argued that Bowlby ignored the role of temperament, preferring instead to focus on the early childhood experiences and quality of attachment, which was an oversight since personality differences in the child can influence whether they become securely or insecurely attached.

Question 23

A03: There is mixed evidence for monotropy

Answer 23

There is mixed evidence for the importance of monotropy. Schaffer and Emmerson (1964) refute the idea that infants must form one special attachment to their caregiver which supersedes all others and provides the foundation for subsequent, multiple attachments. They did recognise that some infants do, in fact, follow this pattern but that there are others who can form multiple attachments with different caregivers at the same time (e.g. the mother and father simultaneously). This goes against Bowlby’s notion of ‘monotropy’ which forms a central part of his theory of attachment.