Bowlby's Evolutionary

Bowlby's Evolutionary

1. Bowlby argues that attachments from through nature not nurture.

   • They have evolved as an adaptive process which promotes the survival of the species and so have become innate.

2. They do this in three ways

   • Monotropy
     • The formation of one main attachment
       • Leading to a desire in infants to maintain proximity, interact with and show separation anxiety from their PCG.
     • In evolutionary terms, this made it more likely that the infant would reach sexual maturity and pass on these behaviours, eventually causing the behaviours to become genetically programmed
   • Internal working model
     • An infant who maintained proximity with it's carer is likely to observe and learn the skills necessary for it to form a successful sexual relationship of its own
     • This leads to the development of a successful internal working model, increasing the chance of finding a mate and passing on our genes.
   • Social releasers
     • innate behaviours such as smiling or crying, to which the PCG will instinctively respond.
     • In this way the infant will remain close to the PCG and strength the bond between the infant and carer, making it more likely to survive.

3. Humans must form an attachment within a sensitive period (a few years), failure to do so and the infant will never form strong attachments.

4. Supporting research: Harlow

   • Monkeys will instinctively form an attachment with care-givers that closely resemble them and provide 'contact-comfort'.
   • This supports Bowlby's theory as instinctively seeking closeness with a carer will increase the infant's chance of survival.
   • As humans and monkeys share a similar biological make up, these findings can be used to explain attachments in humans.

5. Supporting research: Lorenz

   • Geese which were prevented from forming an attachment within their sensitive period could not then form an attachment with a carer in later life.
   • This supports Bowlby's argument that attachments must be innate and are not learnt (as suggested by Learning Theory) because failure to form an attachment within a 'sensitive' time period means they cannot be formed at all

6. :( Simplistic

   • Unfairly minimises attachment behaviours by ignoring other factors
   • This is because it suggests that attachment behaviour is innate and ignores how the formation of an attachment may be due to the infant's temperament (personality).

7. :( Unfalsifiable

   • Cannot be objectively tested using an IV and DV.
   • Because it assumes the ability to form an attachment has evolved and the evolution of attachment behaviour cannot be observed.