Explanations for attachment: Bowlby’s theory
- Evolutionary explanation
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- Bowlby rejected learning theory as explanation for attachment – “if it were true, an infant of
a year or two should take readily to whoever feeds him and this is clearly not the case”
- Bolwby proposed an evolutionary explanation – innate system that gives survival advantage
Monotropy
- Monotropic theory because child’s attachment is to one particular caregiver
- Different and more important than others
- Bowlby called this person to ‘mother’ but it was clear that it did not need to be the biological
mother (or a woman)
- Bowlby said multiple attachments could only be formed after this attachment
Proposed the more time we spend with them the better. Put forward two principles to clarify this:
- Law of continuity: more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better quality their
attachment
- Law of accumulated separation: every separation from mother add up – Bowlby said (1975)
safest dose is a zero dose
^socially sensitive idea – places burden of responsibility on mothers
Social releasers
- Innate ‘cute’ behaviours like smiling, cooing and gripping to encourage attention from adults
- Purpose: activate adult social interaction – reciprocal process (Brazelton et al 1975), both
and baby both ‘hard-wired to become attached’
Bowlby proposed a critical period around 6 months where the infant attachment system is active
Now viewed as more of a sensitive period as can extended up to age of two
If attachment is not formed in this time, a child will find it much harder to form one later
Internal working model (IWM)
- Child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their PAF
- If first experience is loving relationship, tend to form all relationships that are loving and
good quality future relationships
- If first relationship involves poor treatment, tends to form further poor relationships
- IWM affects child’s later ability to be a parents themselves
- People tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented
- Explains why children from functional families tend to have similar experiences themselves
Strength (of Bowlby’s theory)
- Evidence supporting role of social releasers
- Clear evidence that cute baby behaviours are designed to elicit interaction from caregivers
- Brazelton et al (2015) observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers
- Researchers then instructed babies’ primary attachment figures to ignore their babies’ social
releasers
- Babies who were previously shown to be became increasingly distressed – some even curled
up and lay motionless
- Illustrates role of SR’s in emotional development and suggests they are important in process
of attachment development
- Evolutionary explanation
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- Bowlby rejected learning theory as explanation for attachment – “if it were true, an infant of
a year or two should take readily to whoever feeds him and this is clearly not the case”
- Bolwby proposed an evolutionary explanation – innate system that gives survival advantage
Monotropy
- Monotropic theory because child’s attachment is to one particular caregiver
- Different and more important than others
- Bowlby called this person to ‘mother’ but it was clear that it did not need to be the biological
mother (or a woman)
- Bowlby said multiple attachments could only be formed after this attachment
Proposed the more time we spend with them the better. Put forward two principles to clarify this:
- Law of continuity: more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better quality their
attachment
- Law of accumulated separation: every separation from mother add up – Bowlby said (1975)
safest dose is a zero dose
^socially sensitive idea – places burden of responsibility on mothers
Social releasers
- Innate ‘cute’ behaviours like smiling, cooing and gripping to encourage attention from adults
- Purpose: activate adult social interaction – reciprocal process (Brazelton et al 1975), both
and baby both ‘hard-wired to become attached’
Bowlby proposed a critical period around 6 months where the infant attachment system is active
Now viewed as more of a sensitive period as can extended up to age of two
If attachment is not formed in this time, a child will find it much harder to form one later
Internal working model (IWM)
- Child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their PAF
- If first experience is loving relationship, tend to form all relationships that are loving and
good quality future relationships
- If first relationship involves poor treatment, tends to form further poor relationships
- IWM affects child’s later ability to be a parents themselves
- People tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented
- Explains why children from functional families tend to have similar experiences themselves
Strength (of Bowlby’s theory)
- Evidence supporting role of social releasers
- Clear evidence that cute baby behaviours are designed to elicit interaction from caregivers
- Brazelton et al (2015) observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers
- Researchers then instructed babies’ primary attachment figures to ignore their babies’ social
releasers
- Babies who were previously shown to be became increasingly distressed – some even curled
up and lay motionless
- Illustrates role of SR’s in emotional development and suggests they are important in process
of attachment development
