Bowlbys theory of attachment

Question 1

Feminist concerns

Answer 1

There is a case to be made that Bowlby’s theory has done more harm than good. The laws of continuity and accumulated separation do imply that working mothers can harm their babies, and this has made things awkward for working mothers – although this was never Bowlby’s intention. As Burman argues from a feminist perspective, Bowlby’s ideas can be used to blame mothers and restrict their activities – such as returning to work when they want to. Researchers need to be very careful about promoting an idea that is likely to have negative social consequences such as the oppression of women.
On the other hand, we should remember that before Bowlby’s time people didn’t think the mother’s role was important, and, in fact, many custody disputes were settled in favour of the father because mothers were not regarded as necessary. Also, Bowlby’s ideas have many practical applications that have made life better for babies. For example the law of continuity had led to the common use of key workers – nursery nurses responsible for building an attachment with particular babies in day care.
So on balance, although Bowlby’s theory raises sensitive issues, this is probably outweighed by its benefits for babies and mothers.

Question 2

Validity of monotropty challenged?

Answer 2

One limitation of Bowlbys theory is that the concept of monotropy lacks validity. Scaffer and Emerson found that although most babies did attach to one person at first, a signify ant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time. Also although that first attachments does appear to have a particularly strong influence on later behaviour this may simply mean it is stringer not necessary different in quality from the Childs other attachments. For example other attachments to family members provide all the same key qualities. This means that Bobbly may be incorrect that there is a unique quality and importance to the Childs primary attachment

Question 3

Support for social releasers?

Answer 3

One strength of Bowlbys theory is the evidence supporting the role of social releasers. There is clear evidence that cute baby behaviours are disigned to elicit interaction from caregivers. Brazelton et al observed babies trigger interaction with adults using social releasers. The researcher then instucted the babies primary attachment figures to ignore their babies social releasers. Babies become increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and lay motionless. This illustrates teh role of social releasers in emotional development and suggest that they are important in the process of attachment development.

Question 4

Support for internal working model?

Answer 4

A further strength of Bowlbys theory is support for the internal working model. The idea of the internal working model predicts that patterns of attchment will be passed from one generation to the next. Bailey assessed attachment relationship in 99 mothers attachment to their own primary attachment figures. The researchers also assessed the attachment quality of the babies. They found that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figures were more likely to have poorly attached babies. This support Bowlbs idea that mothers ability to form attachments to their is influenced by their internal working model

Question 5

Counterpoint

Answer 5

There are probably other important influences on social deveoplement. For example some psychologists beloved that genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour in both babies and adults. These differences could also impact on their parenting ability. This means that Bowlby may have overstated the importance of the internal working model in social bhevaiou and parenting at the expense of other factors.