I’m going to discuss Bowlby’s Evolutionary Theory of Attachment and the Behaviourist’s Theory of Attachment which demonstrate two very different perspectives on attachment, which is universally accepted as a fundamental stage in a humans development.
Ainsworth (1973) and Bowlby (1969) stated that attachment is a deep and enduring emotional bond that connects one person to another across time and space.
Many theories such as Bowlbys Evolutionary theory of attachment have been put forward in an attempt to explain attachment in animals and humans. Bowlby suggested that attachment is an innate process serving an evolutionary function. He was heavily influenced by ethology and through his research, said that imprinting took place during a critical period and had a survival value – he argued that failure to imprint appropriately lead to poor social and emotional development. Social development involves learning the values, knowledge and skills that enable children to relate to others effectively and to contribute in positive ways to family, school and the community. Emotional development involves learning what feelins and emotions are, understanding how and why they happen, recognising ones own feelings and those of others, and developing effective ways of managing them. Bowlby applied his findings to attachment between a mother and child as he argued it was the same as animals, in that it is a reciprocal action where both parties are innately pre-programmed to form a bond between the two. He said that this attachment shows a behaviour pattern rooted in evolution and that this behaviour is therefore programmed into human beings.
Bowlbys Evolutionary theory of attachment would be described as a theory supporting the nature side of the nature nurture debate as he describes attachment as an ‘innate’ process that does not change, regardless of cultural differences, and always has the same purpose and function: to protect and keep the infant safe. Bowlby said that for the infant, the attachment between mother and child is monotropic and different in kind from any other attachments they may form. Bowlby claimed the infant displays social releasers such as smiling and crying which makes others respond, a ‘trigger; for the attachment process. He said that this attachment allows the infant to develop an internal working model which was crucial as it would continue to dictate the infants attachments into adulthood. He called this his ‘continuity hypothesis’, which shows that childhood attachment types correlate strongly with adult attachment types. This research by Hazon and Shaver (1987) is based on a self-report questionnaire with retrospective questions that try to explore childhood attachments through the participants own (biased) childhood memories. Bowlbys study of the 44 Juvenile Thieves supported his theory of a continuity hypothesis as it concluded that maternal separation or deprivation in a child’s early life caused permanent emotional damage. This was diagnosed as a condition called ‘Affectionless Psychopathy’, involving a lack of emotional development and characterised by a lack of concern for others, lack of guilt and an inability to form meaningful and lasting relationships and these 44 thieves partaking in the study, 14 were diagnosed as affectionless psychopaths and of those 14, 12 had had maternal separation in their early lives. Of the remaining 30 thieves, only 5 had had maternal deprivation at a young age, showing that the majority of those who had been through maternal deprivation as a child were affectionless psychopaths. Of the 44 in the control group, none of the participants were affectionless psychopaths, and two had suffered maternal deprivation. This concluding evidence supports Bowlbys evolutionary attachment theory.
Mary Ainsworth, a student on Bowlbys, developed The Strange Situation (1979), a procedure for assessing the quality of attachment between a mother and child. The aim of the study was to look at the quality and type of attachment formed between a caregiver and child. Ainsworth identifies three different types of attachment; secure attachment, insecure avoidant attachment and insecure resistant attachment. This links to Bowlby as he refers to the attachment ‘type’ being carried through to adulthood from childhood in his continuity hypothesis.
Many disagree with Bowlby’s Evolutionary Theory of Attachment. Schaffer and Emerson would argue that attachment is not monotropic, as although initially children form one attachment, they are able to form multiple attachments at the same time.
Bowlbys use of monotropy in his theory is often seen as a socially sensitive idea because it has major implications on a mothers lifestyle choices. For example, a mother being told that sustaining a substantial time apart from her infant will result in poor attachments forming and problems later in life, brings a large burden onto the mother, which could potentially force her to make choices about her lifestyle which could negatively impact their lifestyles such as not working.
Tronick et al (1992) on the other hand, supports the idea of monotropy. They researched the Efe tribe in Zaire, who communally care for their children, including breast feeding. However, the results showed that at six months of age, infants had formed a primary attachment to their mother only, despite being cared for by multiple women. This shows Bowlby may have been right about children only forming one strong attachment.
This research however was not concerned with the quality of attachment and provided no evidence of long term effects. The ‘communal child rearing’ also does not necessarily mean that the child spends the majority of its time with the mother, therefore leaving the research unreliable.
Bailey supported Bowlby’s internal working model. He assessed 99 mothers with 1 year olds and interviewed them about their relationships with their own mothers as well as their relationships with their babies via observation. Bailey concluded that a mother who had a poor attachment to her own mother is more likely to have poorly attached children. This shows that early parental experiences do have an effect on the childs own relationships later in life, supporting Bowlby.
Another theory put forward in an attempt to explain attachment in animals and humans is the Learning Theory of Attachment. This is a behaviourist approach, meaning humans are seen as ‘blank slates’ at birth, all that they become, think, feel and do is a result of their learning experiences following birth. In general, behaviourist theories focus’s on classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning is the process of learning by association, whereas operant conditioning is the process of learning by reinforcement. An example of classical conditioning would be breast feeding. The mother acts as a neutral stimulus while the milk acts as an unconditioned stimulus. Adding the two results in a reflex unconditioned response, pleasure. Initially the milk given to the child gives comfort and pleasure, however over time due to the mother being frequently linked to the milk, her presence alone leads to the sense of comfort and pleasure. This would be called a conditioned response as the mother has effectively taken on the properties of the milk.
Learning theory is a theory based on research with animals, which causes problems when applied to humans as it they are more complex and not as easy to condition as animals. It is also a reductionist theory meaning it does not take into account that babies require other things, such as physical and emotional stimulation. Food is only one factor. This also doesn’t explain the innate features of attachment
Lorenz carried out a key animal study of attachment, whereby he researched geese and their imprinting. Imprinting is an instant attachment formed by some animals on the first mobile thing that they see after birth. Lorenz’ study found that the group of goslings who saw him immediately after birth followed him, while the group of goslings who saw their mother first followed her. Even when put together, the groups would split, following their retrospective ‘mother’. Lorenz concluded that imprinting is due to nature rather than nurture, as it happens immediately after birth, meaning no nurturing can happen. This supports Bowlby’s Evolutionary Theory of attachment and its innateness, as well as his theory of montropy.
Lorenz’s goslings contradicts the Learning theory because it shows that attachment must have an innate component as the goslings imprinted straight away after birth. This supports Bowlby and his theory of monotropy as the goslings form one specific attachment. However, we must be careful about generalising results from animal studies to humans, as most animals, like geese, don’t nurture as humans do. They expect the goslings to imprint and follow when they are born, and if they do not the infant may be left behind. Whereas human babies cannot look after themselves and are not mobile after birth, therefore human parents have a different role to play.
The nature-nurture debate questions whether human behaviour is influenced more by nature factors or nurture factors. Nature refers to all of the genes and heredity factors that influence who we are – from physical appearance to our personality characteristics. Nurture factors refer to all environmental variables that impact who we are, including early childhood experiences, how we’re raised, social relationships and surrounding culture.
Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment supports the nature argument as he argues that attachment is innate. He said that babies are born with a drive to attach with their primary caregiver for survival and safety purposes.
The Learning Theory would support the nurture argument as it argues that babies are not born with an innate drive to attach. Instead, they attach because their primary caregiver provides them with food.
Lorenz would be on the nature side of the debate as his geese imprinted when they were born. This gives them survival benefits and therefore suggests that attachment is innate.
Ainsworths attachment types would be part of the nurture debate as the childs attachment type is influenced by the childs surroundings.
To conclude, Bowlbys Evolutionary Theory of Attachment is a ‘nature’ theory with 3 main components. Innate programming suggests all psychological and physical characteristics are naturally selected to help survival and reproduction. Another key component is that if a child doesn’t form an attachment during the critical period, then it wouldn’t be possible afterwards. The continuity hypotheses is another component of evolutional theory, suggesting that relationships with one special attachment figure (monotropy) provide an infant with an internal working model of relationships.
The learning theory of attachment is a ‘nurture’ theory with the basis that the infant attaches because it needs food. However this is not supported by evidence from research.