Ethology and Attachment Theory

What is ethology and why does it matter to developmental psychology?

Ethology is the study of evolutionarily significant behaviours of a species in its natural surroundings (Miller 2016). It is a subdiscipline of zoology, rooted in Darwin's work on natural selection.

It matters to developmental psychology for two reasons: (1) it shares a commitment to naturalistic observation of behaviour; (2) it focuses on the biological basis of development. It was also welcomed as a counterweight to extreme behaviourism, which denied innate biological influences entirely.

What are the four basic concepts of ethology?

• Species-specific innate behaviour — stereotyped, universal within a species, present without learning, and relatively stable once established (e.g. songbirds sing the correct song at maturity even if they've never heard it)

• Evolutionary perspective — innate behaviours are genetically transmitted because they facilitate survival; natural selection favours adaptive behaviours. Organisms must adapt to changing environments (links to Piaget's assimilation/accommodation — Lecture 8)

• Learning predispositions / critical periods — specific time windows in which animals are biologically ready to acquire particular behaviours; outside this window learning may be harder or impossible

• Ethological methodology — uses both naturalistic observation (in the field) and laboratory studies (isolating animals, manipulating stimuli) to distinguish innate from learned behaviours

What is imprinting, and what did Lorenz demonstrate?

Shortly after birth, certain birds enter a sensitive period during which they learn to recognise and follow a moving stimulus — normally the mother. This is imprinting: a rapid, biologically prepared form of learning that locks in an attachment to the first salient stimulus encountered.

Lorenz split goose eggs between a natural condition (hatched with mother) and a Lorenz condition (Lorenz made a quacking sound on hatching). The second group imprinted on Lorenz and followed him — even after being reunited with their mother and siblings. Lorenz argued imprinting, once established, cannot be reversed.

What are the implications of imprinting for attachment theory?

Lorenz's work suggested that attachment is innate and genetically programmed — not learned through reward or habit. The existence of a critical/sensitive period means timing matters: attachment must form within a specific developmental window. This idea fed directly into Bowlby's thinking about the biological basis of human attachment.

What was Harlow's challenge to 'cupboard love' theory?

The prevailing view ('cupboard love') held that infants attach to whoever satisfies their primary drives — hunger, thirst. Attachment was secondary to feeding.

Harlow tested this by giving infant monkeys two surrogate mothers: a wire mother (provided milk) and a cloth mother (provided comfort, no food). Infants consistently preferred the cloth mother — clinging to her for comfort, running to her when frightened — even though she provided no food. This showed that comfort and contact are a primary need, independent of feeding.

What did Harlow's deprivation experiments show about long-term effects?

Monkeys raised without a real mother grew up to be frightened, withdrawn, unable to mate, and inadequate parents — suggesting serious long-term consequences of early deprivation.

However, a crucial replication adjusted the independent variable: monkeys given just 20 minutes a day of play with other motherless peers developed normal play, mating, and parenting skills. This raised a vital question: was the harm from maternal deprivation specifically, or from social deprivation more broadly? The latter seems more likely — pointing to the importance of peer contact, not just the mother.

Who was Bowlby and what was his theoretical starting point?

John Bowlby (1907–1990) was a London psychoanalyst who bridged ethology and psychoanalysis to create attachment theory. He drew on Lorenz's imprinting (attachment is innate/critical periods), Freud's oral stage (pain from absence of the mother), and Erikson's basic trust vs mistrust (the caregiver relationship as the foundation of trust).

His observations of WWII orphans — and the distress caused by separation from caregivers — motivated his theory. His work had a direct practical impact: it led to the reorganisation of children's hospital wards to allow parental visiting.

What is Bowlby's core theory of infant-caregiver attachment?

Bowlby proposed that humans have a biological predisposition to maintain proximity to caregivers. Infants are equipped with innate signalling mechanisms — crying, smiling, babbling — that draw caregivers close. Caregivers are equally biologically primed to respond. This is a two-way, synchronised attachment behaviour system shaped by evolution to ensure survival.

There is a sensitive period (roughly the first 2–3 years) during which this bond must form. Disruption leads to a predictable sequence: protest → despair → detachment, and in some cases psychopathology.

What did Bowlby claim about maternal deprivation?

Bowlby made strong claims: disruption of the mother-infant relationship leads to grief, mourning, detachment, and — in serious cases — psychopathology. He argued that even a separation of a fortnight could cause serious harm, and that children deprived of continuous maternal care were likely to develop antisocial tendencies. He famously stated that mother love is as important for mental health as vitamins and proteins are for physical health.

These claims were later challenged — Rutter (1972) argued it is inadequate parenting and early disruption (not separation per se) that causes maladjustment, and wider support networks can buffer the effects.

What is maternal sensitivity and why is it central to Ainsworth's theory?

Mary Ainsworth (1913–1999), Bowlby's student, argued that the key variable determining attachment quality is maternal sensitivity — the mother's ability to perceive and respond appropriately to the infant's signals. How the caregiver responds shapes whether the infant develops secure or insecure attachment.

What was the Strange Situation experiment?

Ainsworth observed 100 middle-class American mother-infant pairs (age ~1 year) through a two-way mirror in a structured playroom procedure. The key observations tracked four behaviours:

• Separation anxiety — distress when mother leaves

• Willingness to explore — using mother as a secure base

• Stranger anxiety — response to an unfamiliar person

• Reunion behaviour — how the infant responds when the mother returns

The procedure involved a staged sequence of separations and reunions with mother and a stranger.

What are the attachment styles identified by Ainsworth (and Main)?

• Secure (66%) — explores freely using mother as a base; distressed when she leaves; pleased on return. Associated with sensitive, responsive caregiving.

• Insecure-Avoidant (22%) — unaffected by mother's absence or return; shows no preference over stranger. Associated with unresponsive care — the child learns that communicating needs has no effect.

• Insecure-Resistant (12%) — intense distress at separation; but rejects the mother on reunion. Associated with inconsistent care — needs are sometimes met, sometimes ignored.

• Disorganised (added by Mary Main) — incorporates both resistant and anxious behaviours; typically associated with frightening or frightened caregiving.

What are the methodological critiques of the Strange Situation?

• Low ecological validity — it is an artificial laboratory procedure, not a natural setting; behaviour may not reflect real-world attachment

• Single universal definition of maternal sensitivity — assumes one way of being a good caregiver, ignoring cultural variation

• Excludes the wider context — focuses only on the mother-infant dyad; ignores the role of fathers, family, community, and culture

• Sample bias — original study used 100 middle-class American families; findings may not generalise

What are the feminist critiques of attachment theory?

Attachment theory has significant socio-political implications. By placing the mother at the centre of the child's entire social and emotional development, it holds mothers solely responsible for outcomes and creates a powerful myth of the "monotropic" (single-figure) bond.

This has been used — often negatively — to constrain women's participation in work and public life. Evidence challenges this: Anna Freud and Sophie Dann's study of WWII orphans (the Bulldogs Bank children) showed that children with no consistent adult attachment formed strong peer attachments and showed resilience, suggesting multiple attachments can support healthy development.

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) also found that by 18 months, only a minority of infants were attached to just one person; 31% had five or more attachments, and in 39% of cases the primary carer was not the person who fed or bathed them.

What are the cultural critiques of attachment theory?

Attachment theory takes a universalist position — treating attachment as a bio-behavioural system that operates the same way across all cultures. Critics argue for a sociocultural position — that attachment is a quality of close relationships shaped by specific cultural contexts.

Neckoway et al. (2007) raised the question: is attachment theory consistent with Aboriginal parenting realities, which may involve communal and extended-family care rather than a primary dyadic bond?

Stern et al. (2021) extend this critique to race: attachment research has paid insufficient attention to African American families' unique context — intergenerational trauma of slavery, Jim Crow, ongoing racist policies, and the intersection of racism and poverty. They call for anti-racist perspectives in attachment theory, drawing on intersectionality, critical race theory, and Bronfenbrenner's bioecological model.

What does Rutter's (1972) work add to the critique of maternal deprivation?

Rutter revisited Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis in a study of boys aged 9–12. His key finding: it is early life disruption and inadequate parenting — not separation from the mother per se — that are the common causes of poor social adjustment and relationship difficulties. Boys who had been separated from their mothers when younger did not necessarily become maladjusted adolescents if the wider support network was adequate. The type of separation and the availability of other supportive relationships matter greatly.