Explanations of attachment (Bowlby) (4)

Bowlby Monotropic theory (1)

Bowlby = interested on unconscious minds

 

• John Bowlby rejected learning theory as an explanation for attachment

• Bowlby explained attachment as an innate system that gives a survival advantage

• Imprinting and attachment evolved because they ensure young animals stay close to their caregivers and this protects them from hazards

Bowlby Monotropic theory (2)

Bowlby’s theory is described as Monotropic because of the emphasis on the child’s attachment to one caregiver. This attachment is different from others and more important

 

Bowlby believed that the more time a baby spent with this primary attachment figure the better (not necessarily the biological mother)

• argued there was one special caregiver

Bowlby Monotropic theory (3)

1. Law of continuity = the more constant a child’s care the better the quality of attachment

2. Law of accumulated separation = the effects of every separation add up “and the safest does is therefore a zero dose’

Babies are born with social releasers (1)

1. Bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate “cute behaviours” (smiling, cooing, gripping, that encourages attention from adults)

2. The purpose of these social releasers is to activate adult social interaction (to make the adult attached to the child)

 

Babies have a set of ‘cute’ behaviours designed to make a caregiver attach to them during a critical time.

Babies are born with social releasers (2)

Attachment was a reciprocal process, both the mother and baby are ‘hard-wired’ to become attached

 

Bowlby proposed that there is a critical period around six the months when the infant attachment system is active

1. Bowlby viewed this as more of a sensitive period

2. A child is maximally sensitive at sixth moths and this possibly extends up to the age of two, infants attachment system is active up to 2 years.

3. If an attachment is not formed in this time a child will find it much harder to form one later

Internal working model of relationship (1)

Bowlby argued that the child forms a mental representation (internal working model) of the relationship with their primary attachment figure.

 

This internal working model serves as a ‘template’ for what relationships are like.

 

A child whose first experience is a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are loving and reliable.

Internal working model of relationship (2)

However, a child whose first relationship involves poor treatment may expect the same poor treatment from others.

 

The internal working model model may also affect 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

• A cognitive framework on how relationships should work

• Mental Representation of what you understand relationships to be about, upbringing helps to form IWM

A03 - Evidence supporting the role of social releasers

Brazelton instructed primary attachment figures to ignore their babies social releasers.

 

Babies who where previously shown to be responsive initially showed some distress, and eventually some curled up and lay motionless.

 

This supports the idea that social releasers play an important role in attachment development.

A03 - internal working model, study of mothers with poor attachments to their parents

The idea of the internal working model predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next.

 

Bailey studied 99 mothers. Those with poor attachment to their own parents were more likely to have on-year-olds who were poorly attached.

 

This supports Bowlby’s idea of an internal working model of attachment because evidence shows that it is being passed through families

A03 - feminist concerns

The laws of continuity and accumulated separation imply that working mothers may damage their baby’s development.

 

Burman (feminist) points out that this belief sets up mothers to take the blame for anything that goes wrong for the child in the future, it also gives people an excuse to restrict mothers’ activities, for example returning to work.

 

Socially sensitive to argue that we only have one special caregiver, career? Fathers influence?

This means that Bowlby’s theory theory may have contributed to the oppression of women, and confinement in the domestic sphere and role of proc-creation