Explanations of attachment: Bowlby's theory

• Bowlby gave an evolutionary explanation - that attachment is an innate system that gives a survival advantage. Imprinting and attachment evolved because they ensure young animals stay close to their caregivers and this protects them from hazards.
• Bowlby's theory is described as monotropic because of the emphasis on the child's attachment to one caregiver. This attachment is different from others and more important.
• Bowlby believed that the more time a baby spent with this primary attachment figure the better. There are two main reasons:

  1. Law of continuity - the more constant a child's care, the better the quality of attachment.
  2. Law of accumulated separation - the effects of every separation add up. So, 'the safest dose is therefore a zero dose'.
• Bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate 'cute' behaviours (eg. smiling) that encourage attention from adults. The purpose of these social releasers is to activate adult social interaction; Bowlby recognised that attachment is a reciprocal system.
• Bowlby proposed that there is a critical period of about two years when the infant attachment system is active. A child is maximally sensitive at 6 months and this may extend up to the age of 2 years. If an attachment has not formed in this time, a child will find it much harder to form one later.
• Bowlby argued that the child forms a mental representation (internal working model) of the relationship with their primary attachment figure. This internal working model serves as a 'template' for what relationships are like. A child whose first experience is a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are loving and reliable. However, a child whose first relationship involves poor treatment may expect such treatment from others.
• AO3 - The concept of monotropy lacks validity:


  The relationship with the primary attachment figure may simply be stronger than other attachments, rather than different in quality, as Bowlby believed. Other family members may well develop attachments with the baby that have the same qualities, such as comfort and a secure base from which to explore. This means that Bowlby may have been wrong to suggest that there is a unique quality to a child's primary attachment.
• AO3 - Evidence supporting the role of social releasers:

  Brazelton et al. (1975) instructed primary attachment figures to ignore their babies' social releasers. Babies (who were previously shown to be normally responsive) initially showed some distress, but eventually some curled up and lay motionless. This supports the idea that social releasers play an important role in attachment development.
• AO3 - Support for the idea of the internal working model:


  The idea of the internal working model predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed from one generation to the next. Bailey et al. (2007) studied 99 mothers. Those with poor attachment to their own parents were more likely to have one-year-olds who were poorly attached. This supports Bowlby's idea of an internal working model of attachment as it is being passed through families.
• AO3 - Socially sensitive research:

  The law of continuity and accumulated separation imply that working mothers may damage their baby's development. However Bowlby's theory did draw attention to a mother's importance and also had real-world applications (eg. day care). This means that although Bowlby's theory had important applications, it may also have contributed to the oppression of women, particularly working mothers.