Attachment: Bowlby's Monotropy.
Explanations: Bowlby’s Monotropy.
Bowlby’s theory of attachment is based off evolutionary ideas. Influenced by Lorenz and Harlow, Bowlby described his theory as monotropic because he placed great emphasis on having and maintaining one specific attachment. Bowlby saw the need for a baby to spend as much time with the primary caregiver as possible. A reason for this being the law of continuity stating the more time the baby spent with the caregiver and the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality attachment they will form. The second was the law of accumulated separation, saying every separation the caregiver has can add up and therefore the safest dose is a zero dose.
Another feature was social releasers and critical period. This suggested babies were born with innate ‘cute’ behaviours like crying, cooing or smiling. Their purpose is to gain the attention of the caregiver and make the adult feel love towards the baby. Bowlby noticed attachments were reciprocal meaning both the mother and baby have innate predispositions to become attached and social releasers can trigger that care.
Interplay between caregiver and infant gradually build the relationship starting in the early weeks of life. Bowlby proposed there was a critical period around two years in which the infant attachment system is activated. This can also be viewed as more of a sensitive period. If an attachment is not formed by this time a child will find it much harder to form one later in life.
The Internal Working Model was also featured. This is Bowlby’s proposition that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with the primary caregiver. This idea is called an internal working model as it’s a model for what future relationships will be like. If a child’s first relationship is loving and caring, then the child will think that all future relationships will also be this way inclined and may also bring these qualities to their future relationships too.
Following this, the internal working model also affects the child’s ability later in life to be a parent themselves. Most people tend to base their parenting behaviour off their own experiences of being parented. Therefore, this is a reason as to why children usually go on to have similar family relationships as they experienced themselves.
Evaluation of the attachment theory is, firstly, monotropy is not supported by all theorists. For example, Schaffer and Emerson found most babies did attach to one person first, but, they still formed multiple attachments at an early age even without full development of their first attachments. Whereas, Bowlby’s theory was that multiple attachments could only be formed after one primary attachment was fully developed. Therefore, disapproving his idea.
Social releasers have been proven to be vital, just as Bowlby thought. Brazleton et al proved this through a trial in which mothers were asked to ignore their baby’s social releasers. The responses of the babies were distress, but, as the attachment figures continued to ignore their babies, they began to curl up and lie motionless. This supports the theory and demonstrates the need for social releasers in quality interactions.
Lastly is the idea of the working model being proved to be valid. Bailey et al presented results showing mothers who were reported to have had poor attachments to their own parents in the interviews being more likely to have children who were also classified as poor. This supports the idea an internal working model of attachment was being passed through families and Bowlby’s ideas can be trusted.
