Although this theory has some significance in the establishment of attachment, it has several weaknesses which cause it’s explanations to become less appreciated. The main problem with the learning theory is that it devalues the complex human behaviour in forming an attachment as an infant, by using too simple ideas as explanation. The simplistic ideas of co-ordinating a response to a stimulus and the idea of reinforcement reduce the complications involved in the human responses. In addition to these obstacles, the theory also claims that feeding is the basis of attachment, that infants form attachments with only those who feed them. Although in some cases this may be true, research has proven that around 40% of infants form attachments with figures other than those who provide food.
The psychoanalytical approach was devised by Freud, who believed that the human personality can be divided into three separate parts; the ‘id’, ‘ego’ and ‘superego’. He claimed that the ‘id’ part of someone’s personality made specific demands on that person and that it was the innate, instinctive part of our personality, which commands instantaneous satisfaction. Freud declared that infants are born with an innate incentive to pursue pleasure, which he called the ‘Pleasure Principle’. He believed that in infancy, the demand made by the ‘id’ is for oral satisfaction. Feeding can fulfil the need for oral satisfaction and so the person who provides this becomes recognised as the ‘love object’. Therefore this is the person with whom the infant forms an attachment.
However, this theory was heavily criticised along with the learning theory for suggesting that attachment is relevant to and formed by feeding. Freud’s connection between food and attachment was proved wrong by Harlow’s study with Rhesus monkeys showed that food alone was not a basis for attachment, but that comfort and security played a larger part in forming an attachment. Although Harlow was criticised for applying animal behaviourism to that of humans, research completed by Shaffer and Emerson showed that 40% of those infants studied formed attachment with a figure other than the one that fed it. Nowhere is the problem of credibility more apparent than when considering Freud’s concepts of the personality being split into three parts and that there is a specific component named the ‘id’ which makes demands, whose view is so ver y different from the conventional. His beliefs are only are hypothetical suppositions that are unscientific and therefore difficult to revere to.
Thirdly, the evolutionary theory proposed by Bowlby, claimed that infants developed an attachment to a specific caregiver because it was adaptive. By this, he meant that infants formed attachments in order to be reproductively successful. He based this on the belief that infants who didn’t make an attachment to a caregiver would be less likely to survive, and therefore less likely to reproduce. It was suggested that it’s extremely important for infants to form attachments so that not only are they well cared for when young and defenceless, but that these attachments form a basis for social relationships in later life. The provision of how to form a relationship with other people is done so by the initial attachment formed in infancy, and so therefore promotes the fundamental necessity to survive and reproduce. His conclusion to this idea was that infants have an attachment ‘gene’ and that they have an inborn drive to be attached. In order to fulfil this desire, he claimed that infants use social releasers, such as crying, cooing and smiling, to form attachment, evoking care and attention from those nearby.
Although this theory is well recognised it has several criticisms, which weaken its policies. Bowlby suggested that attachment in infancy is a basis for those relationships formed in later life, however the correspondence between early attachments and those later on is very low and not appreciated universally. Furthermore, research done by Howes, Matheson and Hamilton has shown that parent-child relationships, those established in infancy, and child-peer relationships, those established in later life, have little similarity. Bowlby’s belief that infant’s formation of attachments is innate is difficult to confirm and his claim that attachments assist survival, but as there are hardly any threats towards an infant’s survival today, his theory may be thought of as out-dated.
Personally, I think that although all three theories have elements of truth in them, they are very difficult to judge on those merits alone when there are countless criticisms that belittle their arguments. In my opinion, there are several components out of the three theories with which I can identify. I find Bowlby’s argument that infants are innately aware of the necessity to form attachments most viable and I can recognise the sense in his claim that infants use ‘social releasers’ to their advantage, in order to form relationships with others. However, although I can appreciate these specific parts of his theory, I don’t agree with Bowlby’s point that attachment is adaptive, as I can’t distinguish any obvious link between survival and reproduction being related to attachment. In relation to the learning theory, although I can appreciate that in certain circumstances behaviour can be learnt and infants can learn to associate caregivers with specific stimuli, I don’t think that these are the only contributing factors to the formation of an attachment. I personally believe that infant’s are born with an instinctive drive which allows them to form attachments, rather than them being a blank state at birth that learns specific responses to particular stimuli. In my opinion, Freud’s theory is the most difficult to identify with. This is because there is no scientific knowledge or research to back up his claims, proving that although his theory may have some relevance, the belief that an individual has demands made upon it by the ‘id’, his theory is based purely upon supposition.
In conclusion, it is apparent that although psychologists have made specific developments, they have not been entirely successful in defining and explaining attachment due to the various criticisms, which weaken their overall arguments. Therefore, although there are various theories that have been put forward in an attempt to explain attachment and the formation of attachments, I believe that it is up to the individual to determine how successful psychologists have been in their explanations, as the theories are open to personal interpretation.
