Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory Of Attachment Flashcards
Who proposed the monotropic theory of attachment?
Bowlby (1969)
What is the monotropic theory of attachment?
- Evolutionary explanation; attachment is part of an innate system that gives survival advantage.
- Infants attachment is at first monotropic; one attachment with a certain caregiver is different and more important than all other attachments.
- Law of accumulated separation (effects of every separation from the mother adds up so safest dose is zero dose)
- Law of continuity (the more predictable a child’s care is the better quality the attachment).
- Babies born with social releasers that encourage attention from adults to make them attach to baby.
- Critical period of 6 month to 2 years
- IWM is mental representation of first relationship and acts as a template for future relationships.
What are social releasers?
Innate set of cute behaviours that encourage traction from adults and activate interaction to make the adult attach to the baby.
What is the critical period that Bowlby described?
6 months is the critical period for attachment formation and it must form in this time. Sensitive period can extend up to 2 years.
What is the IWM
A mental representation of an infants first relationship with their primary attachment figure. This acts as a template for future relationships.
Parenting behaviour is also based off this.
What is meant by a monotropic bond?
An infants first bond is monotropic - it is formed with one particular person and is different and more important than all other attachments.
Evaluative points for monotropic theory
- Strength - supporting evidence for social releasers and internal working model
- Limitation - the theory is controversial and has an impact on the choices mothers make
- Limitation - the concept of monotropy lacks validity
Strength - supporting evidence
(Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment)
There is supporting evidence for the role of social releasers and the internal working model in attachment formation. Brazleton et al (1975) observed babies and their mothers and found that babies triggered interactions using social releasers. When the primary attachment figure ingnored the social releasers the babies became distressed and some even curled up and lay motionless. This illustrates the existence and role of social releasers in emotional development. Bailey et al (2007) provided supporting evidence for the internal working model in predicting that patterns of attachment are dose from generation to generation. They found that mothers who had poor attachments to their own primary attachment figure were more likely to have poorly attached babies. This supports Bowlby’s idea that a mother’s ability to form attachments to her own baby is influenced by her internal working model. This adds credibility to the monotropic theory and increases our confidence in the validity of its predictions.
Limitation - controversy and implications of Bowlby’s theory
(Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment)
However, Bowlby’s theory is controversial and has implications for the choices mothers make when their children are young. The law of accumulated separation and theory of monotropy may worry some mothers and could affect whether or not they go back to work. It also places burden on the mother, essentially blaming her if anything goes wrong in the child’s life. Whilst this may not have been Bowlby’s intention, the sensitive nature of his research has has implications on social policy; the government refused to fund for childcare for working mothers. It also reinforces discriminatory social attitudes towards working mothers.
Limitation - theory of monotropy lacks validity
Moreover, the concept of monotropy lacks validity. Schaffer and Emerson found that although most babies form a specific attachment from 7 months to 9 months, a significant minority (30% babies) had formed multiple attachments at 10 months. This contradictory evidence challenges Bowlby’s theory which states that during the critical period (of up to 2 years) a baby’s attachment is monotropic. It also contradicts the idea that the first attachment is different and unique in quality from other attachments; it may simply be that the first attachment is stronger and more influential than later relationships. This limits the validity of Bowlby’s theory and therefore his predictions. More research into the critical period is needed for a better understanding of its importance in attachment formation.
