bowlby monotropic

• Infants have a biologically innate desire to survive, and therefore it is beneficial for them to form one strong attachment to a caregiver, who is able to look out for them and allow them to survive. This is usually the mother, and is given the term monotropy. 
• Based on principles from Lorenz’s geese (critical period) and Harlow’s monkeys (need for physical comfort) 

  Bowlby states that there is a critical period of 3 years 
• The strength of an attachment is dependent on the frequency of interaction, and this effects the internal working model, which is a schema for future relationships. If the interaction with the primary caregiver was frequent, the individual was more likely to have a positive outlook on relationships, and if there was infrequent contact, it may lead to difficulty forming a connection with individuals in future relationships. 
• Adults are also ‘programmed’ to take care of children via ‘social releasers’. These are actions by a child which adults find cute, such as smiling and noises made by the baby, which increases the desire for a caregiver to

  take care of the child.
• + Supporting evidence from Lorenz studies

  • Animal studies lack generalisation
  • Environmentally deterministic idea, people feel that they are ‘doomed’ for future relationships if they had negative experiences as a child

  -Alpha bias, exaggerates differences between men and women in parenthood, with father’s role being solely resource production

  -Lacks temporal validity, roles of men and women in childrearing has vastly changed, with women being more involved in the workplace, and men more involved in raising children/parenting
• There is research evidence to support key elements of Bowlby’s theory. For example, Bailey (2007) assessed 99 mothers on the quality of their attachment to their own babies through observation and the quality of their attachment to their own mothers via an interview and found that the mothers who reported poor attachments to their own parents were much more likely to display poor attachments with their own children, as identified by the observations. These findings therefore support Bowlby’s proposal of an internal working model as they suggest that patterns of attachment are being passed from one generation to the next.
• Furthermore, it could be argued that the concept of monotropy lacks validity. Shaffer and Emerson found that most babies attached to one person first (as proposed) but that a significant number also formed multiple attachments at the same time. Furthermore, Thomas (1998) suggests that from an evolutionary perspective it may be more beneficial to have a network of attachments to support infants rather than a reliance on one figure. These findings therefore suggests that Bowlby may have placed too much emphasis on the importance of the attachment to one single person
• A further issue with Bowlby’s theory is that it is socially sensitive. Monotropy is a controversial idea as it suggests that separation from this figure is harmful for the infant, therefore questioning whether mothers should return to work while the child is young. It could also be argued that the theory under-estimates the role of the father, with evidence suggesting that the quality of the father’s play with an infant is important for adolescent attachments. This is therefore a limitation of Bowlby’s theory as his proposals may be challenged by mothers, fathers and child-care providers in modern society where remaining at home with an infant is not always an option.