Explanations of attachment: Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory Flashcards
What is evolutionary theory
The evolutionary theory argues that attachments are innate (infants are born to form them) and have evolved because they aid survival.
This theory therefore contrasts with the learning theory which argues that attachments are learned (nurture) rather than innate (nature).
Bowlby research on attachments - what did he focus on
Bowlby argued attachments evolved because of their survival value. Children have an innate drive to become attached to a caregiver because attachment has long-term benefits similar to the benefits of imprinting.
Bowlby proposed a number of important characteristics that aid the formation of an attachment – he specifically focused on:
1. Monotropy
2. Social releasers
3. The critical period
4. Internal working model
Other features of Bowlby’s theory is continuity hypothesis and secure base
The continuity hypothesis
The internal working model means there is consistency between early emotional experiences and later relationships. This leads to the continuity hypothesis – the view that there is a link between the early attachment relationship and later emotional behaviour; individuals who are securely attached in infancy continue to be socially and emotionally competent, whereas insecurely attached children have more social and emotional difficulties later in childhood and adulthood.
STRENGTHS OF BOWLBY’S THEORY OF ATTACHMENT
• Animal research support for imprinting and critical period
The research by Lorenz supports the view that imprinting is innate. A similar process is likely to have evolved in many species (including humans) to aid survival. For example, Lorenz found that baby birds tend to imprint on the first moving object when they hatch – this is similar to human babies – generally babies will imprint on their mother especially if she is breastfeeding. Furthermore Lorenz found that if the baby bird did not imprint within the critical period then they would be unable to imprint in the future. Similarly, Bowlby also found that if an attachment between the infant and caregiver was not formed in the critical period then it would be difficult to form in the future
• Support for Monotropy
Bowlby’s theory suggests that attachments have evolved to aid survival, and we should expect them to be universal .i.e. applicable in all cultures. Tronick et al. (1992) studied an African tribe in Zaire where babies are looked after and breastfed by other women, although these babies slept with their mother at night. It was found that these babies still showed one primary attachment. This also supports the idea of monotropy.
• Support for social releasers
There is also research support for the concept of social releasers – Brazelton et al (1975) observed mothers and babies during their interactions, reporting the existence of interactional synchrony. They then extended the study from an observation to an experiment. Primary attachment figures were instructed to ignore their babies’ signals – i.e. their social releasers. It was found that babies initially showed some distress but when the attachment figures continued to ignore their babies, some responded curling up and lying motionless – although this study is ethically questionable, it does support Bowlby’s claims on how social releasers elicit caregiving and reciprocity.
• Support for internal working model
The idea of internal working models is testable because it predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed on from one generation to the next. Bailey et al. (2007) tested this idea. They assessed 99 mothers with one year old babies on the quality of their attachment to their own mothers using a standard interview procedure. The researchers also assessed the attachment of the babies to the mothers by observation. It was found that the mothers who reported poor attachment to their own parents in the interviews were much more likely to have children classified as poor according to the observations. This supports the idea that as Bowlby said, an internal working model of attachment was being passed through the families.
• Support for the continuity hypothesis
• The Minnesota longitudinal study has followed participants from infancy to late adolescence and found continuation between early attachment and later emotional/social behaviour. Individuals who were classified as secure in infancy were rated the highest for social competence in later life.- this study supports Bowlby’s continuity hypothesis
WEAKNESSES OF BOWLBY’S THEORY OF ATTACHMENT
Counter evidence against monotropy and evidence for multiple attachments
Many psychologists argue that Bowlby puts too much emphasis on the child’s attachment with their primary attachment figure (usually the mother), and that other attachment figures are actually as equally important. For example, attachments to fathers help children in their social development, attachments to siblings help children to have relationships with peers. Bowlby mentioned the term ‘primary and secondary’ attachment as opposed to multiple attachments suggesting that attachments are formed in a hierarchy. Furthermore Schaffer and Emerson (1964) also focussed on the concept of multiple attachments and that each attachment figure held its own value in the infant’s life. Furthermore cross cultural research e.g. Tronicks study shows that infants can form multiple attachments too.
The idea that an attachment cannot be formed after the critical period has been challenged
Although children may find it harder to form an attachment after the critical period, it is very much possible. Tizard and Hodges found that 21/22 of children adopted aged 4 years went on to form a secure attachment with their adopted parents by the time they were 8 years old.
The idea that a poor first attachment relationship means that the child will always have poor future relationships has also been challenged
The theory implies that poor early relationships ‘sentence’ a person to adult relationships. Research has shown that individuals with difficult childhoods and insecure attachments can go on to develop positive and secure relationships in adulthood. This may be due to positive school experiences or strong adult attachments which lead them to develop feelings of security and trust later in life.
Bowlby ignores the role of the father and thus his theory is outdated and sexist
Bowlby’s theory also ignores the role of the father as a primary attachment figure – since Bowlby focuses more on the role of the mother and only sees the father as a secondary attachment figure if at all. In fact, the father’s role is seen as primarily economic. As we have seen, that fathers play an important nowadays in the upbringing of children – so his theory can be seen as sexist and outdated
Temperament may be an important as attachment
Bowlby’s approach emphasises the role of attachment in the child’s developing social behaviour. However, a different tradition of child development emphasised the role of temperament in the development of social behaviour. Temperament is the child’s genetically influenced personality. For example, temperament researchers suggest that some babies are more anxious or sociable than others depending on their genes. Kagan (1982) argued that it was a baby’s temperament that influenced the caregiver’s sensitivity and that generally more happier babies encouraged more sensitive caregiving than more moody babies. Thus Bowlby over emphasised the attachment relationship as being an important indicator of future relationships – rather relationship quality may be based on the individual’s temperament.
bowlby monotropic theory
Monotropy
Bowlby’s theory (1958, 1969) is described as monotropic because he believed that infants form a number of attachments but one of these has special importance. This bias towards one individual, this primary attachment figure, is called monotropy. This one attachment is most usually the mother but not necessarily the biological mother would be the person who responds most sensitively to the infant’s needs. He put forward two principles to explain this:
1. The law of continuity – stated that the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of their attachment
2. The law of accumulated separation – stated that the effects of every separation from a mother add up ‘and the safest dose is therefore a zero dose’ (1975)
This primary attachment figure provides the main foundation for emotional development, self-esteem and later relationships with peers, lovers and one’s own children.
Bowlby also proposed that the attachments the infant formed with individuals were hierarchical in nature with the primary attachment figure being the most important and thus at the top of the hierarchy and the rest following – he called these secondary attachments. These secondary attachment figures could be the father, siblings, grandparents, childminders etc.
Secondary attachment figures are also important in emotional development; they act as a kind of safety net and also contribute to social development.
bowlby on social releasers
Social Releasers
Bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate ‘cute’ behaviours like smiling, cooing and gripping that encourages attention from adults. These are called social releasers and are important during the time an attachment is being formed. An example of social releasers are smiling and having a ‘baby-face’ which elicit care-giving from the caregiver. These social releasers are innate mechanisms that explain how attachments to infants are formed because both the mother and baby have an innate predisposition to become attached and social releasers trigger that response in caregivers. Bowlby therefore recognised that attachment was a reciprocal process.
bowlby on critical base
Critical period/Sensitive period
Since attachment is innate, there is a limited window for its development i.e. a critical period. Bowlby argued that this period is the first 2 years of a child’s life.
If an attachment is not formed in this window, then it would be extremely difficult for the baby to form any further attachments. In fact Bowlby viewed this as more of a sensitive period – a child is maximally sensitive at the age of two but, if an attachment is not formed in this time, a child will find it much harder to form one later.
bowlby internal working model
- Internal working model
Bowlby proposed that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary caregiver – this is known as the internal working model. The idea is that the attachment between a caregiver and infant (i.e. the monotropy) becomes a template or internal working model about what future relationships will be like and what to expect from others – for example about whether others can be trusted, whether love is conditional .etc. This model has several consequences: (1) in the short term it gives the child insight into the caregiver’s behaviour and enables the child to influence the caregiver’s behaviour, so that a true partnership is formed; (2) in the long term it acts as a template for all future relationships because it generates expectations about what intimate, loving relationships are like.
