Explanations Of Attachment:Bowlbys Theory Flashcards
Intro
John Bowlby (1988) rejected learning theory as an explanation for attachment because, as he said, ‘were it true, an infant of a year or two should take readily to whomever feeds him and this is clearly not the case. Instead Bowlby looked at the work of Lorenz and Harlow for ideas and proposed an evolutionary explanation - that attachment was an innate system that gives a survival advantage. So attachment, like imprinting, evolved as a mechanism to keep young animals safe by ensuring they stay close to adult caregivers.
Monotropy
Bowlby’s theory (1958, 1969) is described as monotropic because he placed great emphasis on a child’s attachment to one particular caregiver (hence the word mono).
He believed that the child’s attachment to this one caregiver is different and more important than others. Bowlby called this person the ‘mother’ but it was clear that it need not be the biological mother (or indeed a woman). Bowly believed that the more time a baby spent with this mother-figure - or primary attachment figure as we usually call them now - the better. He put forward two principles to clarify this:
• The law of continuity stated that the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of their attachment.
• The law of accumulated separation stated that the effects of every separation from the mother add up and the safest dose is therefore a zero dose’ (Bowlby 1975.
Social releases and the critical period
Bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate ‘cute’ behaviours like smiling, cooing and gripping that encourage attention from adults. He called these social releasers because their purpose is to activate adult social interaction and so make an adult attach to the baby. Bowlby recognised that attachment was a reciprocal process. Both mother and baby are ‘hard-wired’ to become attached.
The interplay between baby and adult attachment systems gradually builds the relationship between baby and caregiver, beginning in the early weeks of life (as we discussed on page 74). Bowly proposed that there is a critical period around six months when the infant attachment system is active. In fact Bowlby viewed this as more of a sensitive period. A child is maximally sensitive at six months and this possibly extends up to the age of two. If an attachment is not formed in this time, a child will find it much harder to form one later.
Internal working model
Bowly proposed that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure. This is called an internal working model because it serves as a model for what relationships are like.
A child whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are as loving and reliable, and they will bring these qualities to future relationships. However, a child whose first relationship involves poor treatment will tend to form further poor relationships in which they expect such treatment from others and/or treat others in that way.
Most importantly the internal working model affects the child’s later ability to be a parent themselves. People tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented. This explains why children from functional families tend to have similar families themselves.
Limitation-validity of monotropy challenged
One limitation of Bowlby’s theory is that the concept of monotropy lacks validity.
Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy Emerson (1964) found that although most babies did attach to one person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time. Also, although the first attachment does appear to have a particularly strong influence on later behaviour, this may simply mean it is stronger, not necessarily different in quality from the child’s other attachments. For example other attachments to family members provide all the same key qualities (emotional support, a safe base etc).
This means that Bowlby may be incorrect that there is a unique quality and importance to the child’s primary attachment.
Strength-support for social releasers
One strength of Bowlby’s theory is the evidence supporting the role of social
releasers.
There is clear evidence that cute baby behaviours are designed to elicit interaction from caregivers. T. Berry Brazelton et al. (1975) observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers. The researchers then instructed the babies’ primary attachment figures to ignore their babies’ social releasers. Babies (who were previously shown to be normally responsive) became increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and lay motionless.
This illustrates the role of social releases in emotional development and suggests that they are important in the process of attachment development.
Support for internal working model
A further strength of Bowly’s theory is support for the internal working model.
The idea of the internal working model predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next. Heidi Bailey et al. (2007) assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their one-vear-old babies. The researchers measured the mothers’ attachment to their own primary attachment figures (i.e. their parents). 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 supports Bowlby’s idea that mothers’ ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working models (which in turn comes from their own early attachment experiences).
Counterpoint -There are probably other important influences on social development. For example some psychologists believe that genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour in both babies and adults. These differences could also impact on their parenting ability
(Kornienko 2016).
This means that Bowly may have overstated the importance of the internal working model in social behaviour and parenting at the expense of
other factors.
