Bowbly's monotropic theory

• Bowlby proposed that attachment has an evolutionary explanation: that attachment was an innate system that gave a survival advantage.
• Imprinting and attachment are evolved because they ensure that young animals stay close to their caregivers and this protects them from hazards.
• Bowlby's theory is monotropic because it emphasises on a child's attachment to one particular caregiver.
• The primary caregiver in Bowlby's theory is referred to as the mother.
• The more time spent with the primary attachment figure, the better.
• Bowlby proposed that babies are born with a set of innate 'cute' behaviours like smiling, cooing and gripping that encourage attention from adults, which he referred to as social releasers.
• Bowlby recognised that attachment is a reciprocal process, with mother and baby having innate predispositions to become attached and social releasers triggering that response in caregivers.
• Bowlby proposed that there is a critical period around 2 years when the infant attachment system is active, and if attachment is not formed at this time, a child will find it much harder to form one later.
• Bowlby proposed that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary caregiver, which he referred to as an internal working model.
• The internal working model serves as a model for what relationships are like.
• The internal working model effects the child's later ability to be a parent themselves, with children from functional families tending to have similar families themselves.
• Bowlby believed that babies only form one primary attachment and only after this attachment is established could a child form multiple attachments.
• Bowlby's theory is not supported by Schaffer and Emerson who found that a significant minority of babies appeared to be able to form multiple attachments at the same time.
• Bowlby's theory is also unclear whether there is something unique about the first attachment.
• Perhaps suggest the primary attachment is just stronger not different in quality.
• Bowlby's theory is supported by clear evidence to show that cute infant behaviours are intended to initiate social interactions.
• Brazleton et al observed mothers and babies during their interactions, reporting the existence of interactional synchrony.
• When the primary attachment figures were instructed to ignore the babies signal, the babies showed distress or curling up and lying motionless, supporting the theory that cute infant behaviours are intended to initiate social interactions.
• Bowlby's theory is also supported by evidence that the internal working model effects the child's later ability to be a parent themselves, with children from functional families tending to have similar families themselves.