Bowlby's theory- explanation of attachment

• Bowlby rejected learning theory as an explanation for attachment and proposed an evolutionary explanation- attachment is an innate system that gives a survival advantage. (e.g. imprinting keeps young animals safe by ensuring they stay close to adult caregivers)
• Bowlby's theory is mono tropic as it emphasises the importance of a child's attachment to one particular caregiver. He believed that the child's attachment to this one caregiver is different and more important than others.
• Bowlby put forward two principles:

  • the law of continuity stated that the more constant and predictable a child's care, the better the quality of their attachment
  • the law of accumulated separation stated that the effects of every separation from the mother add up
• Bowlby suggested babies are born with a set of innate 'cute' behaviours like smiling, cooing and gripping that encourage attention from adults. He called these social releasers because their purpose is to activate adult social interaction and so make an adult attach to the baby.
• Bowlby recognised that attachment was a reciprocal process. Both mother and baby are 'hard-wired' to become attached.
• Bowlby proposed there is a critical period around 6 months when the infant attachment system is active. Bowlby viewed this as more of a sensitive period, and this possibly extends up to two. If an attachment is not formed in this time, a child will find it much harder to form one later.
• A child whose first experience is of a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are as loving and reliable and tend to bring these qualities to future relationships.
• A child whose first relationship involves poor treatment will tend to for further poor relationships in which they expect such treatment from others and/or treat others in that way.
• People tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented.
• However, the concept of monotropy lacks validity. Schaffer and Emerson found that although most babies did attach to one person at first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time. Also, the first attachment may simply be stronger but not necessarily different in quality from other attachments (other family members still provide the same key qualities-emotional support). This means Bowlby may be incorrect that there is a unique quality and importance to a child's primary attachment.
• There is clear evidence to support the role of social releasers. Brazelton instructed babies' primary attachment figure to ignore their babies' social releasers. The babies became increasingly distressed and some eventually curled up and lay motionless. This illustrates the role of social releasers one emotional development.
• There is also support for the internal working model. Bailey et al. found that mothers with poor attachment to their own primary attachment figures were more likely to have poorly attached babies. This supports Bowlby's idea that mothers' ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working model.
• However, some psychologists believe genetic differences like anxiety and sociability can affect things like parenting style and social behaviour. This means that Bowlby may have overstated the importance of the internal working model in social behaviour and parenting.
• Bowlby proposed that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure. This is called an internal working model because it serves as a model for what relationships are like.
• The internal working model affects the child's later ability to be a parent themselves. People tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented. This explains why children from dysfunctional families tend to have similar families themselves.