Continuity Hypothesis

• What is the basis of Bowlby's theory?

  • The basis of Bowlby’s theory is that our attachment styles affect our adult relationships later on in life as well
  • This is mostly that the caregivers can impact this in the first place.
• What relation does the schema have to the internal working model?

  • The attachment styles become an IWM for what our later relationships should be like.
  • It is similar to a schema as it shapes our expectations within the relationship.
  • Therefore the expectations we form in childhood will affect adulthood.
• What were the two aspects of developing an attachment style?

  • Bowlby suggest that there are 2 aspects of developing an attachment style:

  1. Attitude about ourselves - self-esteem 
  2. Attitude about others - interpersonal trust
• What happens if the two aspects of attachment style are fufilled?

  • These attitudes are developed depending on our caregiver interactions.
  • If the caregiver makes us feel highly valued and that they are dependable
  • This leads to a more healthy, secure attachment.
  • However, the absence of these conditions leads to an insecure attachment.
• What is Ainsworth et al (1978) do about the secure attachments?

  • Secure attachment occurs when the caregivers are responsive
  • The infants are not afraid of being abandoned as they know they are loved. 
• What is Ainsworth et al (1978) say about the insecure attachments?


  • Caregivers are distant and do not want intimacy.
  • Infants want to be close but they are likely to be rejected
• What can a healthy attachment style lead to?

  • The child who has a positive attachment style will develop a working internal model where they have positive interactions with friends and family
  • They will also have better parenting skills compared to someone with an insecure attachment style.
  • Early attachment styles continue into adulthood.
• What is a procedure regarding romantic relationship that can also be used for Bowlby's monotropic theory?

  • Support for the internal working model comes from Hazan and Shaver’s love quiz.
  • They used a questionnaire devised of 3 parts, asking p’s about relationship experiences, attachment history and attitudes towards love
  • This was to determine current and past attachment types.
  • They analysed responses from a cross section of volunteers from the population. 
• What were the findings of Hazan and Shaver?

  • P’s who were secure in childhood rated their experiences as happy lasted longer than insecure attachment types (10 years compared to 5 or 6)
  • P’s who said that they had an avoidant feared intimacy and did not believe that they needed love to be happy 
  • P’s who were resistant experienced obsession, emotional highs and extreme attraction, jealousy in adult relationships.
  • They were worried about abandonment. 

  The love quiz shows that there is a relation between early attachment type into adulthood and the continuity hypothesis.
• What are the methodological issues with Hazan and Shaver?

  • There are methodological issues with the love quiz.
  • The love quiz uses “retrospective data”, people will have to think back months or years back which reflects that they could input wrong details.
  • There is also social desirability bias due to the personal nature of romantic relationships and experiences.
  • Those who volunteered are likely to have people that are happy in their relationships.
  • The findings may not represent the population
  • Results may not be generalised
• What is evidence for childhood friendships regarding the Minnesota-child study?

  • Evidence for the continuity hypothesis comes from Minnesota parent-child study.
  • This followed p’s from infancy to late adolescence and found continuity between early attachment and social behaviour.
  • Those that had been identified as securely attached in infancy had been rated as higher on the social competency.
  • These people were known to be more popular and empathetic.
  • This supports the idea that early attachment influences later childhood relationships.
• What is evidence for childhood friendships regarding no attachment in critical period?

  • The theory suggests that those people with no attachment within the critical period have a lack of an internal working model.
  • This is shown when children who experience severe neglect develop attachment disorder.
  • They have no preferred figure of attachment and they have an inability to relate with others at age 5.
  • This supports that negative experiences in early attachment can influence later childhood relationships negatively. 
• What is supporting evidence for terrible parenting skills?

  • Supporting evidence comes from mothers being in care will interact poorly with their own children.
  • This is because they have no IWM to provide a working template for the mothers to look after their children effectively.
  • Harlow’s study of monkeys shows this as he found out that when motherless monkeys had children
  • They did not cradle the children like monkeys normally would.
  • This suggests that the theory that early attachment influences later parenting skills. 
• Why is the continuity hypothesis deterministic?

  • The theory is deterministic as it implies that early experiences will determine future relationships.
  • However, many children with insecure attachment have happy family relationships.
  • In addition to this, it may also be socially sensitive.
  • It blames parents for any later parental relationship problems.
  • Essentially, it argues poor parental interactions WILL cause later relationship problems.
• Why is the continuity hypothesis theory reductionist?

  • A criticism of the theory is that it is reductionist
  • It focuses on nurture.
  • The behaviour of the caregiver is argued to cause the attachment type and adult attachment type as well.
  • The theory does not consider the role of nature.
  • The temperament hypothesis would argue our “innate temperament” also determines how well we form relationships.
  • This shows that the continuity hypothesis is too simple to explain adult relationships.