Sroufe et al’s (2005) longitudinal study, supports Bowlby’s theory of attachment by following participants from infancy to late adolescence & finding that early attachment type predicted later emotional & social behaviour. For example, secure infants were more likely to be rated as more popular. This supports the continuity hypothesis, because the infants showed continuity as the infant’s attachment in childhood became their adult social & emotional behaviour.
Also supporting Bowlby’s theory of attachment is Erickson et al (1985). Observing 4 to 5 year olds in pre-school settings, they found that securely attached children were less dependent on the teacher & were more confident undertaking tasks than insecurely attached children. This supports Bowlby’s theory of a secure base, by presenting the securely attached children as whiling to explore the world, because as infants they had a safe haven to return to when they felt threatened, fostering independence. The insecurely attached children never had this safe haven; therefore they feel more dependent upon their caregiver.
However Bowlby’s theory is challenged by the Czech twins. They were ‘discovered’ at the age of 7. They had been locked up & isolated from the outside world & abused by their stepmother since birth. When discovered, they had no language ability at all. After loving care from two sisters, by the age of 14 the Czech twins showed normal social & intellectual functioning & were able to form meaningful attachments. This suggests that Bowlby’s sensitive period theory can be undermined because the twins were over the sensitive period of attachment but yet still managed to form attachments with their caregiver’s. However it can be argued that the Czech twins had each other to form a primary attachment with & therefore had already formed a meaningful attachment.
Bowlby’s theory is also undermined by the fact despite rapid advances in genetics; there is no direct evidence of a gene for attachment or genes for attachment. This challenges Bowlby’s theory of innate & evolutionary emphasis on attachment because Bowlby suggested that babies are born with the adaptive & innate drive to become attached, similar to imprinting in animals. However, by not having a gene for this theory shows that Bowlby has no proof for his innate & evolutionary emphasis on attachment, but doesn’t disprove it either. Although, Lorenz would argue that his study on geese imprinting supports Bowlby’s innate theory, because he demonstrated that geese imprint on the first moving thing they see. It can be suggested that imprinting is likely to have evolved in species as to protect young animals & enhance survival.