6. Bowlby's monotropic attachment theory

Bowlby’s monotropic attachment theory : why does attachment form

serves an important survival function

infants who are less attached = less protected

idea influenced by Lorenz’s research on imprinting

important that attachments are formed in 2 directions = parents must be equally attached to their infants to ensure they are care for and survive

define critical period

a biologically determined period of time during which certain characteristics can develop

3-6 months

how does attachment form

babies have an innate drive to become attached in the critical period (3-6 months)

attachment is determined by sensitivity = strongly-attached infants had more responsive, cooperative, and accessible mothers (Ainsworth 1971)

social releaser are important during the critical period to ensure attachments form from infant to parent (e.g. smiling)

infants have one special emotional bond (monotropy) = the primary attachment relationship

infants also form secondary attachments = provide emotional safety net = healthy psychological/social development

consequences of attachment

infant has one special relationship and forms an internal working model

consequences of an internal working model

1) short term = gives child insight into the caregiver’s behaviour and enables the child to influence the caregiver’s behaviour = true partnership forms

2) long term = acts as a template for all future relationships = generates expectations about what intimate, loving relationships are like

define continuity hypotesis

emotionally secure infants go on to be emotionally secure, trusting and socially confident adults

main principle of Bowlby’s monotropic attachment theory

strong attachment and its consequences are adaptive = any genetically predetermined behaviour that enhances and individual’s survival/reproduction will be naturally selected

one limitation is the term ‘critical period‘ may not be accurate

according to Bowlby it should not be possible to form attachments beyond the critical period (between 3-6 months)

psychologists have studied children who fail to form attachments during this period. Rutter et al shows that Bowlby’s claim is true to an extent = less likely that attachments will form after this period but it is not impossible

developments can take place outside this developmental window

researchers now prefer to use the term ‘sensitive period‘

one strength is research support for Bowlby’s concept of monotropy

the multiple attachment theory suggests all attachments are integrated into one single internal working model (seems contradictory to monotropy)

however, secondary attachments in Bowlby’s theory do contribute to social development

Grossman and Grossman (1991) did research on infant-father attachment and suggests a key role for fathers as secondary attachments = social development

healthy development requires one central person ‘higher’ than others in the hierarchy = supported by review of research, Prior and Glaser (2006)

supports Bowlby’s concept of monotropy

one strength is research support for the continuity hypothesis

Sroufe et al (2005) Minnesota parent-child study = followed pps from infancy to late adolescence = found continuity between early attachment and later emotional/social behaviour

pps who were classified as securely attached in infancy were highest rated for social competence later in childhood, les isolated, more empathetic

one limitation is alternate explanations

Kagan (1984) temperament hypothesis proposes that an infant’s innate emotional personality (their temperament) may explain attachment behaviour

infants with an easy temperament are more likely to become strongly attached because it is easier to interact with them, those who are difficult tend to be insecurely attached

Belsky and Rovine (1987) found that infants between 1-3 days old who had signs of behavioural instability more likely developed an insecure attachment

Bowlby = attachment type is due to the primary attachment’s figure’s sensitivity

Kagan = attachment can be explained in terms of infant behaviours

may be an interaction between the two = Spangler (1990) found mother’s perceptions of their infant’s temperament influenced the mother’s responsiveness