Review of Attachment Theory by John Bowlby

Introduction to Bowlby's Evolutionary Theory of Attachment

Bowlby's theory is an evolutionary theory because he believes attachment is a behavioral system that has evolved due to its survival and reproductive value. Caregiving is adaptive because species have adapted over many years to enhance the survival of the offspring, allowing them to reproduce later. Bowlby's theory consists of various ideas. According to Bowlby, children have an innate drive to become attached to a caregiver. This is similar to imprinting, which is an innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother figure, occurring during the sensitive period. Since attachment is innate, there is likely to be a limited window for its development.

The Sensitive Period and Internal Working Model

This sensitive period is said to be when a child is 3-6 months old, during which they are most sensitive to attachment. After this stage, attachment can become more challenging. The internal working model is a cluster of concepts about relationships and what to expect from others. In the short term, it provides the child with insight into the caregivers’ behavior. In the long term, it acts as a template for future relationships as it generates expectations. This is similar to the continuity hypothesis, which suggests that emotionally secure infants become emotionally secure, trusting, and confident adults. Social releases, such as smiling, crying, and appearing cute, elicit caregiving responses.

Monotropy and Secondary Attachments

This elicits monotropy, where the relationship the infant has with their primary attachment figure is of special significance. Infants also have secondary attachment figures, which form a hierarchy. These secondary attachment figures act as a safety net and also contribute to social development. Attachment fosters independence rather than dependence. A secure base provides a child with a place to return to after exploring the world.

Supporting Studies for Bowlby's Theory

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) supported Bowlby's Evolutionary Theory of Attachment by observing 60 babies. They found that infants had multiple attachments (grandparents, mothers, fathers, friends, etc.) but maintained one primary attachment figure. This was based on the quality of caregiving, which supports the concept of monotropy—the idea that we have one primary attachment figure and a hierarchy of secondary attachments (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964). Harlow (1958) also supported Bowlby's theory by demonstrating that infant monkeys who formed an attachment with an unresponsive and insensitive wire mother became maladjusted adults with reproduction issues, highlighting the importance of interaction. This supports the idea that having a primary attachment figure is innate and crucial for emotional and social development (Harlow, 1958).

Critiques of Bowlby's Theory

However, the multiple attachment model suggests that there are no primary or secondary attachments. Instead, all attachments are integrated into a single model. This presents a weakness in Bowlby's theory of attachment, as it emphasizes the special significance of a primary attachment figure in emotional development and the hierarchical contribution of secondary attachment figures to social development. The multiple attachment model challenges this by proposing an integrated approach.

The Temperament Hypothesis

Another critique is the temperament hypothesis, which suggests that personality traits may affect attachment. Belsky and Rovine (1987) assessed infants aged 1-3 days and found that those who were calmer and less anxious were more likely to be securely attached. This contradicts the evolutionary theory, which posits that attachment influences personality rather than the other way around (Belsky & Rovine, 1987). This insight adds complexity to understanding the factors influencing attachment and suggests the need for further research to explore these dynamics.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Bowlby's evolutionary theory of attachment provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the role of attachment in development, it is not without its critiques and alternative perspectives. The theory's emphasis on monotropy and the sensitive period remains influential, yet the debates around multiple attachments and the temperament hypothesis invite further exploration and consideration of the intricate dynamics of human relationships.

• Schaffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. (1964). The development of social attachments in infancy. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 29(3), 1-77.
• Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13(12), 673-685.
• Belsky, J., & Rovine, M. (1987). Temperament and attachment security in the strange situation: An empirical rapprochement. Child Development, 58(3), 787-795.