BOWLBY’S MONOTROPIC THEORY: EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT
→ Bowlby rejected learning theory as an explanation for attachment
→ Instead, he looked at Lorenz’s & Harlow’s work for ideas, and proposed an evolutionary explanation - that attachment was an innate system that gives a survival advantage
~MONOTROPY~
Bowlby believed that children have one attachment to a caregiver that is superior to the others - he believed that this attachment is different and more important than the rest
He called this person the ‘mother’ but it didn’t have to be the biological mother or a woman
THE LAW OF CONTINUITY - the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of their attachment
THE LAW OF ACCUMULATED SEPARATION - the effects of every separation from the mother add up, therefore the ‘safest dose’ is zero
~SOCIAL RELEASERS~
Bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate ‘cute’ behaviours (e.g. smiling - which encourages attention from adults by activating the adult attachment system)
Bowlby recognised that attachment was reciprocal; mother and baby have an innate predisposition to become attached and social releasers are what trigger that response in the caregiver
~CRITICAL PERIOD~
Bowlby proposed that there is a sensitive period around 6 months where the infant attachment system is active.
He suggested that this extends up to the age of 2.
It’s harder to form attachments later in life if they haven’t made an attachment in this critical period
~INTERNAL WORKING MODEL~
Bowlby proposed that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure.
This forms a template for all future relationships, and affects the child’s ability to be a parent themselves (e.g. a child whose first experience is loving and reliable will form the expectation that all relationships are like this, and will bring these qualities to future relationships)
EVALUATION
Research Support
→ SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL RELEASERS
One strength of Bowlby‘s monotropic theory is the evidence supporting the role of social releasers.
Psychologists observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers. The researchers then instructed the baby’s primary attachment figures to ignore their babies social releasers.
They found that babies become increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and lay motionless.
This illustrates the role of social releasers in emotional development, and suggests that they are important in the process of attachment development.
→ SUPPORT FOR INTERNAL WORKING MODEL
Another strength of Bowlby‘s monotropic theory is support for the internal working model.
The idea of the internal working model predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next.
Psychologists assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their one-year-old babies. The researchers measured the mothers’ attachment to their own primary attachment figures (PAF), then measured the babies’ attachment quality.
They found that mothers with poor attachment to their PAF were more likely to have poorly attached babies.
This supports Bowlby’s idea that mothers’ ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working models.
However, there are other important influences on social development.
For example, some psychologists believe that genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour in both babies and adults.
These differences could also impact their parenting style.
This means that Bowlby may have overstated the importance of the internal working model in social behaviour and parenting at the expense of other factors.
Conflicting Evidence
→ VALIDITY OF MONOTROPY CHALLENGED
One limitation of Bowlby‘s monotropic theory is that the concept of monotropy lacks validity.
Schaffer & Emerson found that although most babies attached to one person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time.
Also, although the first attachment does appear to have a strong influence on later behaviour, it may just be due to it being stronger, not necessarily different in quality from the other attachments.
This means that Bowlby may be incorrect that there is a unique quality and importance to the child’s primary attachment.
→ Bowlby rejected learning theory as an explanation for attachment
→ Instead, he looked at Lorenz’s & Harlow’s work for ideas, and proposed an evolutionary explanation - that attachment was an innate system that gives a survival advantage
~MONOTROPY~
Bowlby believed that children have one attachment to a caregiver that is superior to the others - he believed that this attachment is different and more important than the rest
He called this person the ‘mother’ but it didn’t have to be the biological mother or a woman
THE LAW OF CONTINUITY - the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of their attachment
THE LAW OF ACCUMULATED SEPARATION - the effects of every separation from the mother add up, therefore the ‘safest dose’ is zero
~SOCIAL RELEASERS~
Bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate ‘cute’ behaviours (e.g. smiling - which encourages attention from adults by activating the adult attachment system)
Bowlby recognised that attachment was reciprocal; mother and baby have an innate predisposition to become attached and social releasers are what trigger that response in the caregiver
~CRITICAL PERIOD~
Bowlby proposed that there is a sensitive period around 6 months where the infant attachment system is active.
He suggested that this extends up to the age of 2.
It’s harder to form attachments later in life if they haven’t made an attachment in this critical period
~INTERNAL WORKING MODEL~
Bowlby proposed that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure.
This forms a template for all future relationships, and affects the child’s ability to be a parent themselves (e.g. a child whose first experience is loving and reliable will form the expectation that all relationships are like this, and will bring these qualities to future relationships)
EVALUATION
Research Support
→ SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR SOCIAL RELEASERS
One strength of Bowlby‘s monotropic theory is the evidence supporting the role of social releasers.
Psychologists observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers. The researchers then instructed the baby’s primary attachment figures to ignore their babies social releasers.
They found that babies become increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and lay motionless.
This illustrates the role of social releasers in emotional development, and suggests that they are important in the process of attachment development.
→ SUPPORT FOR INTERNAL WORKING MODEL
Another strength of Bowlby‘s monotropic theory is support for the internal working model.
The idea of the internal working model predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next.
Psychologists assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their one-year-old babies. The researchers measured the mothers’ attachment to their own primary attachment figures (PAF), then measured the babies’ attachment quality.
They found that mothers with poor attachment to their PAF were more likely to have poorly attached babies.
This supports Bowlby’s idea that mothers’ ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working models.
However, there are other important influences on social development.
For example, some psychologists believe that genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour in both babies and adults.
These differences could also impact their parenting style.
This means that Bowlby may have overstated the importance of the internal working model in social behaviour and parenting at the expense of other factors.
Conflicting Evidence
→ VALIDITY OF MONOTROPY CHALLENGED
One limitation of Bowlby‘s monotropic theory is that the concept of monotropy lacks validity.
Schaffer & Emerson found that although most babies attached to one person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time.
Also, although the first attachment does appear to have a strong influence on later behaviour, it may just be due to it being stronger, not necessarily different in quality from the other attachments.
This means that Bowlby may be incorrect that there is a unique quality and importance to the child’s primary attachment.
