This theory can be both criticised and supported through studies carried out by several researchers. For instance; Konrad Lorenz (1952) was an ethologist who found that a group of goslings became attached to the first living thing they encountered. This immediate attachment is referred to as imprinting. Lorenz’s findings suggest and support the idea of an innate drive to form an attachment. However, there is also the issue of extrapolation.
On the other hand, a study which contradicts the theory was carried out by Schaffer and Emerson in 1964. They conducted a large-scale observational study and found that after a main attachment was formed, multiple attachments followed. This contradicts Bowlby's suggestion of monotropy as there was more than one attachments formed. The study also has high ecological validity but can also be criticised as being prone to bias as the infants’ mothers kept the records.
When considering the Internal Working Model proposed by Bowlby, two studies can be used to support this concept. In 1987, Hazan and Shaver found a strong relationship between childhood attachment type and adulthood attachment type. In a more recent study, Black and Schutte (2006) found a similar result, which suggests that the relationship between child and caregiver does form a template for future relationships. It also strongly supports the continuity hypothesis concerning attachment experiences. Nevertheless, both studies depend on the memories of young adult and so, the accuracy of this retrospective data can be questioned.
Koluchová (1976) studied the Czechoslovakian twins, Andrei and Vanya, who were confined children. For five years, they were locked in a cellar and regularly beaten. They had no significant attachment or relationship with anyone during this time. According to Bowlby’s Internal Working Model, the Czech twins should not have been able to form positive relationships of any kind due to not having a monotrophic attachment in their childhood. Therefore, they would have no experience or template to base future relationships on. Andrei and Vanya’s adulthood experiences undermine Bowlby’s theory as they currently live normal lives, have above average intelligence, are experiencing warm relationships and have children.
A case of privation which supports Bowlby’s suggestion of a critical period is that of Genie who was found at the age of 13 in 1970. Susan Curtiss (1989) carried out research as several methods were undertaken to ensure Genie improved socially and emotionally. However, Genie’s language development did not have positive results. Her case suggests that it was the result of not having made an attachment within the critical period that led to problems in her social and emotional development.
In conclusion, Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment has many strengths and weaknesses. The learning theory can be used to undermine Bowlby’s theory as it suggests that attachments are learned whereas Bowlby suggests that they are innate. Also, his suggestion of an Internal Working Model can simply be due to the explanation that some infants may simply be better than others at forming relationships. Overall, his theory is based on the assumption that attachment exists due to it being adaptive, as it was first proposed by Darwin’s theory of evolution.
