Bowlbys Monotropy Theory (Attachment) Flashcards
How does attachment link to evolution
Attachment is a behaviour that has evolved because it is a survival instinct - innate
What did Bowlby base his theory on
Lorenzs theory of attachment
What does monotropic mean
one attachment is different from all of the others - the more time the mother spends with baby the better
What are social releases
Babies are born with a set of innate cute behaviours - smiling, cooing and gripping which encourages attention
Purpose is to activate adult social interaction and attach
Both baby and mother are hard wired to attach
Explain the internal working model
Child forms a mental representation of their relationship with primary attachment figure
Serves as a model for what a relationship is like
What would a bad relationship cause
If first relationship treatmentt is poor - they tend to dorm further poor relationships as they expect such poor treatment from others
How would the internal working model affects the child when they become a parent
People tend to base their parenting based on their own experiences of being parented
When is the critical period for infants
6 months - they are maximally sensitive and can extend up to 2 years of age
What are the strengths
supporting evidence
One strength of Bowlby’s theory is that there is supporting evidence for the role of internal working models.
Evidence:
Bailey et al. (2007) studied 99 mothers and assessed the attachment type of their infants using the Strange Situation, as well as interviewing the mothers about their own early attachments.
Explanation:
They found that mothers who reported poor attachments with their own parents were more likely to have infants with insecure attachments. This supports Bowlby’s idea that internal working models are passed down through generations and influence future relationships.
Link:
This increases the validity of Bowlby’s theory, as it shows that early attachments do play a key role in shaping later emotional and social development.
——————————————————————————-
Point:
One strength of Bowlby’s theory is that there is research support for the role of social releasers.
Evidence:
Brazelton et al. observed interactional synchrony and reciprocity between infants and their caregivers. In an experimental condition, caregivers were asked to ignore their babies’ social releasers such as smiling and cooing.
Explanation:
The babies initially showed distress and then became motionless, highlighting the importance of these innate behaviours in eliciting caregiver responses. This supports Bowlby’s idea that social releasers are biologically programmed to trigger attachment behaviours in adults.
Link:
This research increases the validity of Bowlby’s theory by demonstrating the evolutionary function of social releasers in forming attachments.
What are the weaknesses
lacks validity
Point:
One limitation of Bowlby’s theory is that it lacks validity due to its emphasis on monotropy—the idea that infants form one primary attachment before any others.
Evidence:
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that many infants formed multiple attachments from early on, rather than one single attachment first.
Explanation:
This suggests that Bowlby’s theory is too simplistic, as it doesn’t fully account for the possibility that several attachments can develop simultaneously and play important roles in a child’s development.
Link:
Therefore, the concept of monotropy may not accurately reflect real-life attachment patterns, reducing the overall validity of Bowlby’s theory.
——————————————————————————-
Socially Senstive
A further limitation of Bowlby’s theory is that it has been criticised for reinforcing traditional gender roles and placing an unfair burden on mothers.
Evidence:
By emphasising the idea of monotropy and the importance of a single primary attachment—usually the mother—Bowlby’s theory suggests that the mother must take primary responsibility for the child’s emotional development.
Explanation:
This has been challenged by feminists who argue that it creates social pressure on women to stay at home, limiting their lifestyle choices and career opportunities, while ignoring the role fathers or other caregivers can play.
Link:
Therefore, Bowlby’s theory may be socially biased and outdated, reducing its temporal validity and relevance in modern, diverse family structures
