Influenced by the ethological studies, Bowlby proposed that these behaviours, also known as social releasers, were adaptive responses to separation from a primary attachment figure – a person who provides support, protection, and care. Human infants, like other mammal infants, are unable to feed or protect themselves. They are therefore dependent upon the care and protection of "older and wiser" adults. The central belief to an infant’s healthy development is the need for a committed care giving relationship with one or a few adult figures. However, Bowlby continuously emphasized the role of the female parent and had argued that fathers play a minor part during a child’s infancy. Additionally, he argued that the father’s prime role is to provide emotional and financial support to the child’s mother. Bowlby believed that over the course of evolutionary history infants who were able to maintain closeness to an attachment figure by expressing social releasers would be more likely to survive to a reproductive age. Additionally, a parent is programmed to respond positively to the infant’s social releasers, therefore, increasing the likelihood of their own genetic line continuing.
Bowlby argued that the bond between an infant and its caregiver formed what is known as an internal working model. This would be the building blocks for all of the infants’ future relationships. It was believed that if an infant has a good bond with its caregiver then he/she would go on to develop strong and healthy relationships throughout his/hers life. However, if a poor bond was formed then it is likely that the infant would not be capable of developing strong relationships in his/her future. Bowlby at first asserted that there was a certain time by which an infant ought to have created a strong attachment in order to develop healthy relationships in the future. This was referred to as the critical period, which was believed to have been formed by the age of 3 years old. Later, he modified this view and stated that there might be a sensitive, as opposed to a critical, period for the development of secure attachment so that, for example, adopted or fostered children who have had very poor early but good later experiences may yet develop the capacity to make secure attachment relationships.
Bowlby devised a motivational-control system, what he called the attachment behavioural system. This was believed to have been gradually "designed" by natural selection to regulate proximity to an attachment figure (See image below).
The attachment behaviour system is an important concept in attachment theory because it provides the conceptual linkage between ethological models of human development and modern theories on emotion regulation and personality. According to Bowlby, the attachment system essentially "asks" the following fundamental question: Is the attachment figure nearby, accessible, and attentive? If the child perceives the answer to this question to be "yes", he or she feels loved, secure, and confident, and, behaviourally, is likely to explore his or her environment, play with others, and be sociable. If, however, the child perceives the answer to this question to be "no", the child experiences anxiety and, behaviourally, is likely to exhibit attachment behaviours ranging from simple visual searching on the low extreme to active following and vocal signalling on the other. These behaviours continue until either the child is able to re-establish a desirable level of physical or psychological proximity to the attachment figure, or until the child "wears down," as may happen in the context of a prolonged separation or loss. In such cases of helplessness, Bowlby believed the child experiences despair and depression.
There are, however, weaknesses to Bowlby’s theory of attachment. The theory fails to explain why some children are able to cope with poor attachment experiences while others suffer long-term consequences. Bowlby’s argument that early attachment forms a template for future relationships would lead us to expect children to form similar sorts of relationships with all people as they are always working from the same template. However, the correlations among a child’s various relationships are actually quite low. For example, parent-child relationships do not always completely match with child-peer relationships (Howes et al. 1994).
As Bowlby theory takes into consideration the evolutionary argument, he is basing his belief on an assumption rather than a proven fact. He is making the judgement by looking backwards and arguing that a specific behaviour must be adaptive because it persists. He cannot know this is true, but is assuming it is likely.
Studies by Belsky, Gilstrap, and Rovine (1984), Lamb (1978), and Parke and Tinsley (1987) have provided evidence that show’s fathers to be competent attachment figures. Additionally, there is evidence that infants can be attached to a hierarchy of figures, including grandparents, and siblings (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964), as well as to day-care providers (Howes, Rodning, Galuzzo, & Myers, 1988).
Despite these criticisms, Bowlby’s theory continues to have an enormous impact on psychology and the emotional care of young children.
Bibliography
-
Jamieson, T (2005) Lectures notes: Theories of Attachment – Bowlby’s theory
-
Ross D. Parke, Peter A. Ornstein, John J. Rieser, Carolyn Zahn-Waxler (1995). A century of developmental psychology. American Psychological Association (APA): America