Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment
An extension of Lorenz’s theory
Bowlby worked for many years as a child psychoanalyst so was clearly very influenced by Freud’s theories and child development. However, he also liked the work of Lorenz on the innate nature of bonds through imprinting and combined these two very different ideas to produce his own evolutionary theory of attachments. Bowlby believed that attachment is innate and adaptive. We are all born with an inherited need to form attachments and this is to help us survive. In line with Darwin’s theory of natural selection, any behaviour that helps you survive to maturity and reproduce yourself will be maintained in the gene pool. In human terms, the newborn infant is helpless and relies on its mother for food, warmth etc. Similarly the mother inherits a genetic blueprint that predisposes her to loving behaviour towards the infant.
Bowlby believed that an attachment promotes survival in 3 ways:
Other aspects of the theory (deary)
Monotropy
The argument here is not as straight forward as it first appears. On the face of it the debate is between many attachments or just the one. However, Bowlby, who was in the ‘one’ camp, did not actually believe that only one attachment was formed, rather that there was only one primary attachment. The ‘many attachments’ approach believes there are many attachments and that they are all similarly important to the child. The text also claims that Bowlby did not believe that the main attachment had to be the mother, saying that his words ‘maternal’ and ‘mothering’ were not intended to mean mother!
Suess et al (1992) found that the child’s attachment with mum is the best predictor of later attachment styles. This suggests that it’s the most influential attachment formed by the child.
Bowlby (1969) claimed that there was a hierarchy of attachments, with a primary caregiver, usually the mother at the top. The Efe, an African tribe, share the care of their children so that women in the village breast feed each another’s children. However, the infants still go on to form their primary attachment with their biological mother.
Schaffer and Emerson’s Glasgow babies study found that nearly a third of infants had five or more attachments by the age of 18 months.
The Internal Working Model and Continuity hypothesis
The internal working model is the concept of a schema. Strictly speaking an internal mental representation of what constitutes a relationship. This IWM provides a template and a set of expectations for future relationships. For example, a secure attachment as a child leads to greater emotional and social stability as an adult, whereas an insecure attachment is likely to lead to difficulties with later relationships. As already mentioned this is likely to be reflected in the parenting style when the child matures and has children of their own. This longer-term effect is the continuity hypothesis.
The IWM is measurable and testable. Later on we consider the love quiz, which, although it’s not the best piece of research, does suggest a correlation between early attachments and later relationship success.
Generally, however, research for the internal working model is at best mixed. Zimmerman et al (2000) assessed attachment style of children ages 12 to 18 months and then in a longitudinal study checked again at the age of 16 years (using interviews to determine the relationship the child had with its parents). They found that early attachment style was not a good predictor of later relationships and also discovered that life events such as parental divorce had a much greater impact.
A poor early start can be overcome by positive experiences at school and good adult relationships (Rutter & Quinton 1988).
An extension of Lorenz’s theory
Bowlby worked for many years as a child psychoanalyst so was clearly very influenced by Freud’s theories and child development. However, he also liked the work of Lorenz on the innate nature of bonds through imprinting and combined these two very different ideas to produce his own evolutionary theory of attachments. Bowlby believed that attachment is innate and adaptive. We are all born with an inherited need to form attachments and this is to help us survive. In line with Darwin’s theory of natural selection, any behaviour that helps you survive to maturity and reproduce yourself will be maintained in the gene pool. In human terms, the newborn infant is helpless and relies on its mother for food, warmth etc. Similarly the mother inherits a genetic blueprint that predisposes her to loving behaviour towards the infant.
Bowlby believed that an attachment promotes survival in 3 ways:
- Safety: the attachment keeps mother and child close to each other. Separation results in feelings of anxiety.
- Safe base for exploration: the child is happy to wander and explore (necessary for its cognitive development) knowing it has a safe place to return to if things turn nasty. This also develops independence necessary in later life.
- Internal working model: This was based on Freud’s idea of the mother-child relationship acting as a prototype fro all future attachments. Bowlby believed that this first relationship forms a template or schema that gives the child a feel for what a relationship is. It uses this in future years to develop other relationships and is particularly important in determining the parenting skills in later life.
Other aspects of the theory (deary)
Monotropy
The argument here is not as straight forward as it first appears. On the face of it the debate is between many attachments or just the one. However, Bowlby, who was in the ‘one’ camp, did not actually believe that only one attachment was formed, rather that there was only one primary attachment. The ‘many attachments’ approach believes there are many attachments and that they are all similarly important to the child. The text also claims that Bowlby did not believe that the main attachment had to be the mother, saying that his words ‘maternal’ and ‘mothering’ were not intended to mean mother!
Suess et al (1992) found that the child’s attachment with mum is the best predictor of later attachment styles. This suggests that it’s the most influential attachment formed by the child.
Bowlby (1969) claimed that there was a hierarchy of attachments, with a primary caregiver, usually the mother at the top. The Efe, an African tribe, share the care of their children so that women in the village breast feed each another’s children. However, the infants still go on to form their primary attachment with their biological mother.
Schaffer and Emerson’s Glasgow babies study found that nearly a third of infants had five or more attachments by the age of 18 months.
The Internal Working Model and Continuity hypothesis
The internal working model is the concept of a schema. Strictly speaking an internal mental representation of what constitutes a relationship. This IWM provides a template and a set of expectations for future relationships. For example, a secure attachment as a child leads to greater emotional and social stability as an adult, whereas an insecure attachment is likely to lead to difficulties with later relationships. As already mentioned this is likely to be reflected in the parenting style when the child matures and has children of their own. This longer-term effect is the continuity hypothesis.
The IWM is measurable and testable. Later on we consider the love quiz, which, although it’s not the best piece of research, does suggest a correlation between early attachments and later relationship success.
Generally, however, research for the internal working model is at best mixed. Zimmerman et al (2000) assessed attachment style of children ages 12 to 18 months and then in a longitudinal study checked again at the age of 16 years (using interviews to determine the relationship the child had with its parents). They found that early attachment style was not a good predictor of later relationships and also discovered that life events such as parental divorce had a much greater impact.
A poor early start can be overcome by positive experiences at school and good adult relationships (Rutter & Quinton 1988).
|
Social releasers
Being innate the child has built in mechanisms for encouraging care-giving behaviour from parents. Children have ‘baby faces’ and their noises and facial expressions such as smiles encourage contact. It seems that adults are genetically primed to respond to these releasers by offering care and affection ‘Babies’ smiles are powerful things leaving mothers spellbound and enslaved. Who can doubt that the baby who most readily rewards his mother with a smile is the one who is best loved and best cared for?’ Bowlby 1957. |
|
Tronick’s still-face experiments highlight the importance of social releasers. When mum stops interacting and maintains a ‘still-face’ the child clearly shows distress and makes desperate attempts to elicit a response.
Sensitive period
Being innate Bowlby believed there would be a period in which they were most likely to develop, similar to the critical period for imprinting. Unlike a critical period (the only time in which an attachment may form), a sensitive period suggests a time when they are most likely to occur. Bowlby believed that for the human infant this was between the fourth and sixth month. After this it becomes ever more difficult for the child to form a first attachment.
Other evaluation points to make when discussing Bowlby
Bowlby’s theory has been very influential. It has been widely studied with some researchers agreeing, some suggesting modifications. It has been widely applied in practical situations, particularly in hospitals, children’s homes and fostering policy.
However, Bowlby seemed to overlook the relationships the child develops with its brothers and sisters. Schaffer (1996) describes these as horizontal relationships as opposed to the vertical relationships with parents, teachers and other adults.
Socially Sensitive Research (SSR)
Refers to research that could be used to discriminate against a group in society or perhaps put them at some sort of disadvantage. Even though individuals may not have been harmed in any way during the course of the study, the group(s) to which they belong may suffer as a result.
Bowlby’s concept of monotropy and his emphasis on mothers as the primary caregiver suggests they should get the blame when parenting goes wrong or longer term if the child’s development is in any way impaired. It has been suggested that his research into attachments and ‘maternal deprivation’ (next section) was politically expedient, being published in the mid-1940s.
British soldiers returning from war found their jobs had been taken by women, working the fields and in factories. Bowlby’s research provided an ideal excuse to get women back into the home, caring for children and vacating jobs for the returning men. In short it was good for morale!
Temperament hypothesis.
Perhaps the reason for a relationship between early attachment and later relationships has nothing to do with the type of attachment formed. Kagan (1984) believed it was all down to the temperament of the child. Those who are naturally good at forming relationships do so early in life and form close relationships with parents and this is true later in life as well; because of their pleasant temperament they are more popular with people in later life too.
Sensitive period
Being innate Bowlby believed there would be a period in which they were most likely to develop, similar to the critical period for imprinting. Unlike a critical period (the only time in which an attachment may form), a sensitive period suggests a time when they are most likely to occur. Bowlby believed that for the human infant this was between the fourth and sixth month. After this it becomes ever more difficult for the child to form a first attachment.
Other evaluation points to make when discussing Bowlby
Bowlby’s theory has been very influential. It has been widely studied with some researchers agreeing, some suggesting modifications. It has been widely applied in practical situations, particularly in hospitals, children’s homes and fostering policy.
However, Bowlby seemed to overlook the relationships the child develops with its brothers and sisters. Schaffer (1996) describes these as horizontal relationships as opposed to the vertical relationships with parents, teachers and other adults.
Socially Sensitive Research (SSR)
Refers to research that could be used to discriminate against a group in society or perhaps put them at some sort of disadvantage. Even though individuals may not have been harmed in any way during the course of the study, the group(s) to which they belong may suffer as a result.
Bowlby’s concept of monotropy and his emphasis on mothers as the primary caregiver suggests they should get the blame when parenting goes wrong or longer term if the child’s development is in any way impaired. It has been suggested that his research into attachments and ‘maternal deprivation’ (next section) was politically expedient, being published in the mid-1940s.
British soldiers returning from war found their jobs had been taken by women, working the fields and in factories. Bowlby’s research provided an ideal excuse to get women back into the home, caring for children and vacating jobs for the returning men. In short it was good for morale!
Temperament hypothesis.
Perhaps the reason for a relationship between early attachment and later relationships has nothing to do with the type of attachment formed. Kagan (1984) believed it was all down to the temperament of the child. Those who are naturally good at forming relationships do so early in life and form close relationships with parents and this is true later in life as well; because of their pleasant temperament they are more popular with people in later life too.
|
A brief biography: for background interest only
John Bowlby’s father (Sir Anthony Bowlby) lost his own father at the age of five and spent much of the rest of his life caring for his mother (John’s grandma). John himself, as was common for wealthy families at the time, was reared by a nanny until the age of four when she left. According to Bowlby, his mother was cold and reacted to his needs in the very opposite way that you’d expect a mother to react. At the age of seven, again as was, and still is common, John was sent to boarding school, so again was separated from friends and family. In the introduction to one of his many books Bowlby quotes Graham Greene; ‘Unhappiness in a child accumulates because he sees no end to the dark tunnel. The thirteen weeks of a term may just as well be thirteen years.’ It is very clear that his young life was not happy. He experienced many separations, including his father going off to war when he was seven. He studied psychology at Cambridge but took time off, spending six months in a school for maladjusted and delinquent children. He later referred to this as the most important six months of his life. Whilst there he noticed how many of the children had lost their mothers at a very young age. He later trained in medicine but didn’t enjoy the experience of medical practice. In 1939 he raised concerns about the desirability of evacuating young children and separating them from their mothers. Unusually for a psychoanalyst (or any other psychologist for that matter) he was keen to incorporate other approaches into his theories. He was particularly fond of the work of Konrad Lorenz (mentioned earlier) and his ethological work on the evolutionary advantages of attachments. According to Ainsworth, Bowlby’s theory appeared as a flash of inspiration after he had read Lorenz’s “King Solomon’s Ring.” |
|