Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Bowlby's Evolutionary Theory of Attachment - Coggle Diagram
Bowlby's Evolutionary Theory of Attachment
Evaluation:
Hazan & Shaver's Love Quiz
W - volunteer sampling = not very representative, sample is very biased (people with issues, difficult childhood may not sign up)
S - Love Quiz shows correlation between infant and adult relationships (supports continuity hypothesis)
W - retrospective, people may not remember their childhood
W - correlation does not equal causation
W - questionnaire was qualitative, forces participants to make a choice even if they feel they don't fit in any category/ fit in multiple
Research supporting Bowlby
Brazleton et al (1975)
- social releasers were ignored, infant gives up, infants elicit caregiving
Bailey et al (2007)
- IWM passed through families, parents who had a bad attachment with their own parents had a poor bond with their own child during observation
Seuss et al (1992)
- mother more important in predicting later behaviour (monotropy), however, may put stress on the mother and one bond may be different in strength not quality
The temperament hypothesis
- Infants with 'easy' temperament become securely attached and find it easy to form loving relationships as adults
Key words:
Adaptive
- infants become attached to a caregiver because attachment is adaptive (necessary for survival)
Imprinting
- some animals attach to and follow the first moving object they see
Monotropy
- innate need to attach to one main attachment figure
Internal Working Model
- mental representation (schema) of their relationships
Social releasers
- born behaviour that elicits caregiving from others
Critical period
- time within which an attachment must form
Continuity hypothesis
- secure infants become emotionally secure, trusting, confident adults