Bowlby Monotropic Theory Of Attachment

Question 1

Bowlby’s theory of attachment

Answer 1

Focused on the evolutionary advantages of forming attachments. He believed we all have intrinsic tendency to form an attachment and it is not something that is merely learnt.

Question 2

Who was he building up on research from?

Answer 2

Lorenz and Harlow

Question 3

What did he contrast with his theory?

Answer 3

The learning theory

Question 4

ACSMI

Answer 4

Adaptive
Critical period
Social releasers
Monotropy
Internal working model

Question 5

Adaptive

Answer 5

Bowlby argued that there is evolutionary value in forming attachment as it is increases your chance of survival

Question 6

Why has the evolvement of attachment over time served as an important survival function for infants?

Answer 6

Because infants who are not attached are not protected and therefore unlikely to survive. Attachment helps infants survive

Question 7

Why has the evolvement of attachment over time served as an important survival function for adults?

Answer 7

Ensures the survival of offspring and is the only way for the parts to ensure that their genes are passed onto the next generations

Question 8

Critical period of a human:

Answer 8

First two years of a human infants life.

Question 9

Children who don’t have the opportunity to form attachments during the critical period:

Answer 9

Have difficulty forming attachments later on in life

Question 10

Social releasers

Answer 10

Behaviours such as smiling, crying and cooing - all which elicit caregiving type of responses from the carer

Question 11

How is attachment formed through social releasers?

Answer 11

During critical periods, attachment is determined by parental sensitivity to social releasers. Social releasers are INNATE and help the child capture the attention of the carer.

Question 12

Monotropy

Answer 12

The tendency to form one important attachment, often the infants biological mother. Based on who was most sensitive to social releasers during the critical period, the infant will form a primary attachment to them

Question 13

Internal working model

Answer 13

The special first attachment formed provides a template for future relationships and informs the infant of what to expect out of future intimate relationships.
The IWM led to the continuity hypothesis

Question 14

Continuity hypothesis

Answer 14

Individuals who have secure relationships (positive working model) in infancy continue to be emotionally and socially competent so that they can have secure intimate relationships with others in the future. Whereas those who experience difficulties in relationships during infancy (negative working model) are likely to have the same difficulties in adult relationships

Question 15

A strength of Bowlby’s theory of Monotropy is that there is supporting evidence for the concept of continuity hypothesis.

Answer 15

Sroufe et al (2005) conducted the Minnesota parent child study which followed ppts from infancy to late adolescence. Found continuity between the quality of early attachment and later emotional/ social behaviour.
Individuals classed as securely attached in infancy were highest rated for social competence later in childhood (less isolated and more empathetic)
Strength bc this is consistent with continuity hypothesis as those with a strong attachment in infancy were more socially competent compared to those who lacked a strong attachment in infancy
Theory increases in validity

Question 16

A strength of Bowlby’s theory is that it has practical applications for the care of adopted children.

Answer 16

Bowlby’s view of critical period (0-2 years) has led to adoptive agencies making it a priority to get the children who are still in their critical period adopted first. Strength bc this gives them the best chance to build a good internal working model and form strong attachments with their new caregiver based on Bowlby’s theory - and can go on to have healthy attachments in the future. His theory has helped the lives of adopted children and thus increases in utility.

Question 17

A weakness of the thorny is that there is refuting evidence for the concept of a critical period.

Answer 17

Tizard and Hodges found that while attachment generally happens in starting years of life, studies of orphaned children who have been adopted at the age of 3 and 4 are still capable of forming new attachments with their new adoptive parents. This is a problem because it is contradictory to Bowlby’s theory of a critical period which states attachment has to happen in the first 24 months, as close attachments can still happen outside of the critical period.
Weakness bc it refutes concept of critical period, indicating that it may not be vital for an attachment to form in the first 2 years of a babies life.
Decreases the validity of the theory

Question 18

Weakness of the theory id thst there is refuting evidence for the concept of Monotropy.

Answer 18

Schaffer and Emerson found that forming multiple attachments seemed to be the norm for babies (instead of having just one special bond). Around the age of 10 months, 30% of babies had multiple attachments. Bowlby also implied that the main attachment is likely to be with the biological mothers, but the study found that a 1/3 of the babies were strongly attached to their father instead. Bowlby underestimated the potential for children to form attachments with their father and also contradicts his claim that children form only one special attachment during development.
Decreases the validity of the theory.

Question 19

Weakness of Bowlby’s theory of attachment is he failed to acknowledge the role of learning in the attachment process.

Answer 19

According to learning theory, attachments are formed when infants associate the primary caregiver with the pleasure they experience from food (CC) or recognise that the caregiver has a role in removing the unpleasant experience of hunger (OC). This indicates that his theory is too narrow and he focused too much on the innate mechanisms involved in the formation of attachments instead of the role of learning by association and consequence.
Therefore his theory can be considered incomplete explanation of attachment, reducing in validity.