Explanations of Attachment
Bowlby's Theory

  • Bowlby (1988) rejected learning theory
  • proposed: attachment is an innate system that gives a survival advantage
    • adaptive behaviour - behaviour increases chances of survival & reproduction

Monotropy

  • placed great emphasis on child's attachment to 1 particular caregiver
  • believed child's attachment to this 1 caregiver is different & more important than others
  • babies programmed to form strong relationship with 1 person (usually mother/person who responds most sensitively)
  • believed more time baby spends with primary attachment figure the better
  • 'Law of Continuity' - more constant & predictable a child's care is, the better quality of their attachment
  • 'Law of Accumulated Separation' - the effects of every separation from mother add up '& the safest dose is therefore a zero dose' (Bowlby 1995)

Social Releasers & Critical period

  • infants born with social releasers (e.g smiling, crying)
  • behaviours elicit (cause) caregiving, the innate tendency in adult to respond to social releasers
  • 2-way process - attachment forms as infant & caregiver interact
  • interplay between baby & adult attachment systems gradually builds relationship between baby & caregiver
  • proposed sensitive period where child is maximally sensitive at 6 months & possibly extends to 2 years old
  • if attachment is not formed in this time child will find it much harder to form one later
  • (Critical period)

Internal Working Model

  • proposed child forms mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure
  • IWM serves as a model for what relationships are like
    • will influence future relationships & parenting skills

A Secure Base

  • attachment important for protection & this acts as a secure base from which a child can explore the world
  • attachment fosters independence rather than dependence
    • child has confidence to run off on their own in a park but will check if primary caregiver is there

EVALUATION

validity of monotropy challenged

!LIMITATION!

  • concept of monotropy lacks validity
  • schaffer & emerson (1964)found although most babies did attach to 1 person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time
  • 1st attachment does appear to have a particulatory stong influence on later behaviour
    • may simply mean it's strong, not necesarrily different
  • means Bowlby may be incorrect that there is a unique quality & importance to childs primary attachment

Support for social releasers

!STRENGTH!

  • evidence supporting role of social releasers
  • clear evidence that cute baby behaviours are designed to elicit interaction from caregivers
  • Brazelton et al (1975) observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers
    • researchers instructed babies' primary attachment figures to ignore baby's social releasers
      • babies (previously shown to be normally responsive) became increasingly distressed & some eventually curled up and lay motionless
  • illustrates role of social releasers in emotional development & suggests that they are important in process of attachment development

Support for IWM

!STRENGTH!

  • idea of IWM predicts patterns of attachment will be passed from 1 generation to next
  • Bailey et al (2007) assessed attachment relations in 99 mothers & 1 year old baby
    • researchers measured mothers attachment to their own primary attachment figures (e.g. parents)
    • also assessed attachment quality of babies
    • found mothers with poor attachment to own primary figures were more likely to have poorly attached babies
  • supports idea that mothers ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their IWM (which in turn comes from own early attachment experiences)

HOWEVER

  • probably other influences on social development
  • e.g. some psychologists believe that genetic differences in anxiety & sociability affect social behaviour in both babies & adults
  • these differences could also impact on their parenting ability (Kornienko 2016)
  • means Bowlby may have overstated importance of IWM in social behaviour & parenting at expense of other factors

Feminist concerns

!LIMITATION!

  • laws of continuity & accumulated separation suggests that mothers who work may negatively affect childs emotional development
  • feminists like Burman (1994) point out that this belief sets up mothers to take blame for anything that goes wrong for child in the future
    -also gives people excuses to restrict mothers activities
    • e.g. going to work

HOWEVER

  • prior to Bowlby's time, people didn't think the role of mother was important
    • many custody disputes settled in favour of father
  • Bowlby's ideas have many real-world applications, such as key workers in day care who built attachment with particular babies