Bowlby's monotropic theory and the Learning theory Flashcards
What did Bowlby say about attachment and explain
- Attachment behaviour evolved because it serves an important survival function -
Evolution is when a species adapts to fit its environment because it provides a survival function - Bowlby believed that attachment was innate - Innate drive where babies are innately pre-programmed to form attachments. Attachment ensures the infant stays close to the caregiver who will care for and feed the infant
What are the key assumptions on Bowlby’s monotropic theory
A - Adaptive
S - Social releasers
C - Critical period
M - Monotropy
I - internal working model
What is the
- Adaptive
- Social releasers
Assumptions by Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Adaptive - Attachment is adaptive.
- They give our species a ‘survival advantage’
- Forms an attachment to the caregiver as the infant is kept from harm, given food, kept warm etc so the infant is more likely to survive
Social releasers - Babies are born with innate ‘cute’ characteristics
- These features encourage adults attention that activates the attachment system
- Bowlby realised attachment is reciprocal (social releasers trigger adult response)
- Social releasers are: Physical -baby face and Behavioural -Crying
What is the Critical period assumption from Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Critical period - Around 6 months when an infants attachment system is active
- A child is maximally sensitive at 6 months but Bowlby then said this extends up to the age of 2.5 years
- If an attachment wasn’t formed during this time this would have consequences on the child’s development (socially, emotionally, physically and intellectually)
What is the monotropy assumption in Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Monotropy - One special/single attachment. This has to be female (mother figure)
- Law of continuity - The more constant the child’s care the better the quality of attachment
- Law of accumulated - The effects of every separation from monotropy adds up (safest dose = 0 dose)
What is the internal working model assumption in Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Internal working model - Mental model of the relationship with the primary care giver
- This serves as a template for what future relationships will be like
Continuity hypothesis - Having a secure monotropy are secure infants = emotionally secure competent adults
Unsecure monotropy - infants have social and emotional difficulties in childhood and adulthood
How would you evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- Adaptive - Lorenz
- Social releasers - Brazelton et al
- Critical period - Sensitive period not critical
- Monotropy - Feminist concerns
- Internal working model - Bailey et al
How would you evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory
( Adaptive - Lorenz and Social releasers - Brazelton et al )
Adaptive - Lorenz supports the assumption that attachment is adaptive. His study found that the Goslings followed the first moving object they had seen during the 4-24 hr critical period. This process is known as imprinting and suggests attachment is innate and is genetically pre-programmed. Supports the idea of an evolutionary advantage
Social releasers - Brazelton et Al’s still face experiment. Cute babies are suppose to elicit a response When the mother stopped using reciprocity/responding to the child’s signals they became distressed, unresponsive etc. This suggests social releasers are critical for the development of attachment
How would you evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory
(Critical period - sensitive period)
Bowlby said that attachment must be formed during the critical period or else a child would struggle cognitively, socially etc in life.
Researchers suggest the period may be more flexible and a sensitive period not a strict cut off.
For example:
Kolvchova twins mum died when they were young and they were neglected in a cellar from 18 months-7 years old. But once found they could still develop strong attachments and both had an IQ above average years later.
Suggests early attachment is important but not entirely lost after the critical period challenging the determinist rigid nature of Bowlby
How would you evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory
(Monotropy - feminist concerns)
There have been feminist concerns over Bowlby as he reinforces traditional gender roles. This can but a burden on mothers as the monotropy suggests they cannot go back to work until there child is 2.5 years old. And also blames the mothers attachment if anything goes wrong in the child’s later life (e.g. committing a crime)
Also the role of the Dad is not mentioned suggesting he cannot form an attachment with his child and doesn’t take into account family dynamics such as Homosexual couples
Shows that Bowlby is outdate and stereotypes due to gender and doesn’t take into account family circumstances
How would you evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory
(Internal working model - Bailey et al)
Bailey et al researched 99 mothers about their relationship with there mothers and relationship with their child.
It was shown that the mothers had the same attachment type with their child as they did with there mother.
If they had a bad relationship with their mum they had a bad relationship with their chid
This supports the idea of the Internal working model
Who made the learning theory and what did they say about the learning theory
Dollard and miller
The approach is referred to as ‘cupboard love’ as it emphasises the importance of the caregiver as the provider of food
Attachment is learnt
What approach is the learning theory based on
Behaviourist approach that attachment is learnt
classical and operant conditioning
What is the process of classical conditioning in the Learning theory
- UCS - food creates UCR - pleasure
- NS - mother is associated with UCS- food to create UCR - pleasure
- CS - mum creates CR - pleasure
This forms an attachment between the infant and the mum as the mum is associated with the food and eventually the mum can produce pleasure alone
What does classical conditioning in the learning theory suggest
Shows attachment to Mother is a learnt response
What are the components of operant conditioning in the Learning theory
and explain them
- Positive reinforcement - Crying leads to a response form the caregiver. As long as the caregiver provided the correct response the crying is reinforced as it provides a pleasurable consequence e.g. The baby crying because they are hungry and then receiving food
- Negative reinforcement - At the same time the baby is being reinforced for crying the caregiver/mother is being negatively reinforced because by responding to the cry it stops (avoids/escapes from something unpleasant)
What is Drive reduction
- Innate primary drive - Food because the infant has an innate motivation to eat to reduce hunger
- Secondary drive/reinforcer - Mother learnt through association as she is providing the food and therefore is attached to a reward
How would you evaluate the Learning theory
- Primarily based on Animal studies
- Counter research form Animal studies
- Counter research from Human studies
- Bowlby’s theory of attachment
How would you evaluate the learning theory
(primarily based on Animal studies)
It is based primarily based on Animal studies e.g. Skinners operant conditioning using rats and pigeons
- Does not consider the complex emotional bonds between human infants and care givers
- Attachment has never been directly tested using humans. So will it still apply?
- Oversimplifies human attachment due to critical periods are lower and not acknowledging emotional, cognitive and social factors
How would you evaluate the learning theory
(Counter research from animal studies)
Harlow’s study of monkeys showed food had nothing to do with attachment as infant monkeys preferred the cloth covered surrogate mother compared to the wired surrogate mother who fed them
This shows food is not the reason for attachment but instead the contact comfort mothers provide
How would you evaluate the learning theory of attachment
(Counter research from human studies)
In Shaffer and Emersons study shows that food is not the reason for attachment
In the Specific attachment stage shown attachment was formed to the parent/caregiver who were the most sensitive and responsive to the infants signals rather than who provided the food
