Bowlby's Monotropic Theory of Attachment

• Evolutionary Perspective:

  • Survival of the fittest- any characteristics that improve survival & reproductive success will be naturally selected.
  • Bowlby's theory states that attachments do not have to be learnt & that we have evolved to form attachments for survival, so they are innate.
  • Therefore, any trait that increases the likelihood of attachment occurring should be naturally selected.
• The What (basic assumptions of theory):

  • Bowlby (1969) disagreed with the Learning Theory & stated that:
  • Attachments are adaptive, they have been naturally selected because the bond increases the likelihood of survival (& ultimately reproduction as it aids our social development).
  • Therefore, the drive to attach to a caregiver is innate, ie pre-programmed.
  • All infants are born with the instinct to attach- genetically inherited.
• The How (the processes of attachment formation): 1

  • Infants are born with the tendency to display characteristics called social releasers (smiling, crying, giggling, cooing).
  • These provoke a caregiving response which is also innate (factors present in an individual from birth), ie we also have the instinct to nurture & protect our offspring.
  • It is through these reciprocal (two-way) instinctive behaviours that an attachment forms.
• The How (the processes of attachment formation): 2

  • The 'sensitivity hypothesis' says we will bond with the person who responds most sensitively to our social releasers.
  • This bias towards developing a primary attachment is called monotropy- one special attachment relationship.
• The How (the processes of attachment formation):3

  • There is a critical period for attachment:
  • -A limited window in which attachment development can happen
  • -Approx 3-6 months, outside of the critical period it will be increasingly difficult for attachments to form.
  • This was updated to 'sensitive period' of up to 2.5 years due to later research.
• The Why (why are attachments necessary?):

  • The attachment figure provides protection & therefore a secure base from which the infant can explore the world- independent behaviour is therefore fostered.
  • Bowlby states we create an internal working model based on attachment- an expectation or template of what other relationships will be like.
  • This is the 'continuity hypothesis', which states that there is a link between our early attachment quality & later emotional behaviour.
• Evaluation of Bowlby's Monotropic Attachment Theory- strength:

  • Evidence that attachments are innate- Tronick et al (1992) found that a tribe in Zaire lived with many females caring for & even breastfeeding infants that weren't their own.
  • Despite this, the infants still developed one primary attachment which wouldn't be the case if they learnt to attach based on food.
  • If attachments are similar in all humans, regardless of cultural difference in child rearing practices, then they must be innate rather than have been learnt, thus supporting Bowlby's theory.
• Evaluation for Bowlby's Monotropic Attachment Theory- strength:

  • Evidence for monotropy & the sensitivity hypothesis- Schaffer & Emerson (1964) studied 60 Glasgow babies in their own homes & found that infants formed a primary attachment to the caregiver who responded most sensitively to their needs, not necessarily the person who fed them.
  • This indicates that, as Bowlby states, food is not the basis of attachment; it's the quality of the relationship.
• Evaluation for Bowlby's Monotropic Attachment Theory- strength:

  • Evidence for attachments having to be formed during the critical period- Hodges & Tizard (1989) studied children who had been in orphanages during the sensitive period (thus unable to form an attachment) & found that in adolescence, these children had many attachment issues & peer problems.
  • This supports Bowlby's theory about a specific time-frame when attachments are most likely to develop.
• Evaluation for Bowlby's Monotropic Attachment Theory- strength:

  • Evidence for the continuity hypothesis- Sroufe et al (2005) tracked PPs from infancy to late adolescence & found that those with better early attachments had greater social competency later in life.
  • Supports the idea of a continuity in the quality of your attachment into later relationships.
• More on the Critical Period:

  • Later research indicated that the critical period is not as strict as Bowlby first stated; it has been suggested that the 'critical period' should actually be known as the 'sensitive period' & that it can last up to 2.5 years old.