Bowlbys explanation of attachment

AO1 - aid chances of survival

bowl by argued that infants are born with an innate tendency to from attachments with their parents to increase chances of survival.

AO1 - social releasers, critical period and its effects

According to bowl by, infants possess innate social releasers which unlock a biological tendency in adults to care for them.

examples include ‘baby face’ features or smiling and cooing.

babies must form an attachment during the critical period which is between 3-6 months of age

however, bowlby later recognised that infants could form an attachment after this period (up to 3 years of age), however he maintained that the successful formation of attachment would be increasingly difficult after this initial period

Bowlby said that if an attachment didn’t form during this time frame then the child would be damaged for life - socially, physically, intellectually and emotionally

AO1 - mono tropic theory of attachment, internal working model and its effects on later relationships

further more, infants form one special attachment which bowl by called monotropy

through the mono tropic attachment, the infant forms an internal working model which is a mental template for future relationship expectations. if there’s a healthy attachment with the caregiver then the infant, will develop strong relationships later in life

however if the child has a negative relationship with their caregiver, they will have difficult social and romantic relationships

AO3 - strength - support for the internal working model - Hazan and shavers love quiz

A strength of bowlbys theory comes from the research by Hazan and Shaver 1987. They used a self report questionnaire called “the love quiz” to assess the internal working model.

they found a positive correlation between early attachment types and later adult relationships .

this supports Bowlbys idea of an internal working model and suggests that our early childhood experiences do affect our later adult relationships

Sroufe et al also provided evidence for this in their Minnesota parent-child study, showing the outcome of early attachment type being carried forward and projected onto expectations of subsequent relationships - securely attached infants have more secure attachments (socially competent)

insecure attached more likely to struggle

AO3 - counter argument - mixed evidence for importance of monotropy

There is mixed evidence for the importance of monotropy.

Shaffer and Emerson 1964 refute the idea that infants must form one special attachment to their caregiver which supercedes all others and provides the foundation fro subsequent multiple attachments

(Shaffer and Emerson - 60 babies from Glasgow)

the did recognise that some infants do, in fact, follow this pattern but that there are others who can from multiple attachments with different care givers at the same time (e.g the mother and the father simultaneously)

this goes against Bowlbys notion of monotropy which forms a central part of his theory of attachment

Shaffer and Emerson 1964

60 babies Glasgow

6-8 months - primary attachment formed most often with the mother

10-11 months - most infants had formed multiple attachments

39% of babies did not form their primary attachment with the person who fed or cared for them most

the fact multiple attachments formed - and of similar strength to the primary attachment - suggests that the one relationship (often with he mother) is music more important than all the others.

AO3 - alternative explanation for attachment - temperament hypothesis.

There is an alternative explanation for attachment. Kagan 1984 proposed the temperament hypothesis which suggests that a Childs genetically inherited personality traits (temperament) have a role to play in forming an attachment with a caregiver.

It is thought that infants have differing temperaments because of their biological make ip which means that some are more sociable and ‘easy’ and others are more anxious and ‘difficult’ babies

it is argued that Bowlby ignored the role of temperament, preferring to instead focus not he early childhood experiences and quality of attachment, which is an oversight since personality differences in the child can influence whether they become securely or insecurely attached