AO3

• A strength of Bowlby’s monotropy theory is supported by Hazan and Shaver (1987) through their Love Quiz study. They found that childhood attachment styles were linked to adult romantic relationships, with securely attached individuals having healthier relationships. This supports the idea that the primary attachment figure is crucial for future emotional bonds, as suggested by monotropy. The high internal validity of the study is strengthened by its use of a large sample, and it provides empirical evidence for Bowlby’s theory. However, the study's reliance on self-report questionnaires could lead to response bias, affecting the external validity of the findings.
• What was the main aim of Hazan and Shaver's (1987) Love Quiz study?

  To examine the link between attachment styles
• What did Hazan and Shaver find in their Love Quiz study?

  Securely attached individuals had healthier relationships
• How does Hazan and Shaver's study support Bowlby’s monotropy theory?

  It shows primary attachment influences future relationships
• What is one strength of Hazan and Shaver’s study in terms of validity?

  It has high internal validity due to a large sample
• What is a potential limitation of Hazan and Shaver’s Love Quiz study?

  It relies on self-report questionnaires, causing bias
• A strength of Bowlby’s concept of social releasers is supported by Brazelton et al. (1975). In their study, Brazelton observed the interactions between mothers and infants, focusing on behaviors like crying or smiling, which serve as social releasers that prompt caregiving responses. Brazelton found that when mothers responded to these cues, it reinforced the attachment bond, supporting Bowlby’s idea that social releasers are biologically programmed to initiate attachment behaviors. The study's high internal validity is strengthened by the controlled observation of natural interactions, ensuring that the findings are directly related to the concept of social releasers. This empirical evidence supports Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment by showing that social releasers play a critical role in the formation and maintenance of attachment.
• What is the role of social releasers in Bowlby’s theory of attachment?

  • Innate behaviors like crying or smiling
  • Trigger caregiving responses from attachment figures
  • Help form the attachment bond
• What did Brazelton et al. (1975) find regarding social releasers?

  They strengthen the attachment bond
• How does Brazelton et al. (1975) support Bowlby’s concept of social releasers?

  It provides evidence that social releasers trigger caregiving responses
• What is one strength of Brazelton et al. (1975) study in terms of validity?

  It has high internal validity due to controlled observation
• How does Brazelton et al. (1975) support Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment?

  It shows social releasers are biologically programmed
• A limitation of Bowlby’s concept of social releasers is highlighted by Suess and Schaffer (1993). They found that infants do not always respond to social releasers, such as crying or smiling, in the expected way, especially if they are exposed to multiple caregivers. This challenges Bowlby’s view that social releasers are universally effective in triggering caregiving responses, as it suggests that attachment behaviors can be more complex and context-dependent. In their study, Suess and Schaffer observed that the presence of multiple attachment figures (e.g., both parents or other caregivers) led to less clear-cut responses to social releasers. This raises questions about the validity of Bowlby’s theory, suggesting that social releasers may not be as universally critical for attachment as Bowlby originally proposed.
• What did Suess and Schaffer (1993) find in their study?

  Infants do not always respond to social releasers
• How do Suess and Schaffer’s findings challenge Bowlby’s concept of social releasers?

  They suggest social releasers may not trigger caregiving
• What limitation of Bowlby’s theory is highlighted by Suess and Schaffer?

  Social releasers may not explain attachment formation
• How do Suess and Schaffer’s findings affect the validity of Bowlby’s theory?

  They reduce the validity of Bowlby’s theory
• A limitation of Bowlby’s monotropy theory is that it overlooks the possibility of multiple attachment figures being equally important, which is supported by Schaffer and Emerson (1964). Their study found that many infants formed strong attachments to multiple caregivers, such as fathers, siblings, and grandparents, not just the mother. This contradicts Bowlby’s idea of monotropy, which suggests one primary attachment figure is more important than others. Schaffer and Emerson’s findings highlight the importance of multiple attachments in the child’s development, suggesting that attachment is not solely dependent on one primary figure. This challenges the validity of Bowlby’s theory, as it fails to account for the complex, varied nature of attachment in real-life family dynamics, where multiple figures contribute to the child’s emotional security.