Schaffer and Emerson do not support Bowlby's Monotropic theory as they found most babies did attach to one person first. Also found a significant minority appeared able to perform multiple attachments
Unclear whether there is something unique about first attachment, studies of attachment tend to be more important in predicting later behaviour according to suess et al
Brazelton et al observed mothers and babies during interactions, reporting existence of interactional synchrony. Then, expanded study from observation to experiment and primary attachment figures told to ignore baby signals (ignore social releasers)
The babies curled up and lay motionless the longer they were ignored. Supports Bowlby's theory on significance of infant social behaviours eliciting caregiving
The internal working model is testable. Bailey et al assessed 99 mothers with one-year-old babies on the quality of attachment on their own mothers- standard interview procedure used
Mothers who reported poor attachments to their own mothers were more likely to have children classified as poor according to the observations. Supports Bowlby's idea that internal working model passed through families
Also pushes mother into a particular lifestyle - not returning to work. This was not Bowlby's intention as he wanted to emphasis the importance for mothers
Feminists like Erica Burman pointed out this places a big burden of responsibility on mothers, setting them up to take blame for anything that goes wrong in child's life
Different tradition of child development emphasised the role of temperament in development of social behaviour. Temperament is the child's genetically influence personality
Some babies are more anxious than others and some are more sociable than others as a result of their genetic makeup. Explains later social behaviour and temperament researchers accuse Bowlby of overemphasising importance of child's early experiences and quality of their attachment