Evaluating Bowlby's attachment theory

Evaluating Bowlby's attachment theory

1. Imprinting in non-human animals - Lorenz supports view that imprinting is innate because goslings imprinted on the first moving object they saw. Similar process likey to evolved in many speices to enhance likelihood of their survival.

2. Sensitive period - research has shown people who attachment have failed to develop (Genie), shows once the sensitive period has passed it is difficult to form attachments. Hodges and Tizard found children that formed no attachments had later difficulties with peers.

3. Universality - if attachment evolved, we would expect attachment and caregiving to be universal. Tronik et al (1992) studied the Efe (African tribe) who lived in extended families where infants were looked after and even breastfed by different women but still usually slept with their mother, at six months they still showed one primary attachment. Supporting that its found in all cultures.

4. Monotrophy and hierarchy - Tronik's study also supports this idea of Bowlby. Study by Schaffer and Emerson found most infants has many attachments, but they maintained one primary object of attachment. They showed the primary figure was not always the person who fed them, they found it was the quality of caregiving rather than quantity. Harlow's monkeys show the importance of secondary attachments as monkeys raised with just mothers were later socially abnormal - didn't play or groom their peers (Blum, 2003). Human research supports this.

5. Caregiver sensitivity - Schaffer and Emerson found strongly attached infants had mothers who responded quickly to their demands and offered most interaction, opposite for weakly attached children. Also Harlow's monkeys who had one attachment to an unresponsive mother, later had difficulties in reproductive relationships and were poor parents - shows importance of interaction, Mirrored with humans in Carlson's study (1998), insensitive caregiving was associated with disorganised attachmentand having psychological problems as an adult.

6. The community hypothesis - Minnesota longitudinal study (Sroufe et al 2005) followed participant from infancy to late adolescence, found continuity between early attachment and later emotional/social behaviour. Secure infants rated highest for social competence, less isolated, more popular and empathetic.

7. Multiple attachments - many psychologists believe all attachment figures are equally important (Rutter, 1995). In the multiple attachment model all attachment figures are integrated into one single working model. Although its not so different from what Bowlby intended. Research on infant-father attachment suggest key role of fathers in social development(Grossman and Grossman, 1991). Sibling attachment important for learning how to negotiate peers. Prior and Glaser (2006) conclude from review of research that evidence still points to the hierarchy model as suggested by Bowlby's concept of monotrophy.

8. Alternative explanation; the temperament hypothesis - continuity hypothesis can be explain differently. Kagan, 1984, said an innately trusting and friendly personality could be prime factor in secure attachments and in forming adult relationships - certain personality characteristics of infant shape mothers respoinsivness. There's evidence that children are born with innate temperamental difference. Bokhorst et al (2003) looked at twins, greater temperamental similaries in identical twins than non-identical twins. Balsky and Rovine (1987) assessed babies 1-3 days old, found a link between certain physiological behaviours and later attachment types. Calmer and less anxious infeants were more likely to be securely attached. BUT Nuchmias said this was wrong and found no link.