Outline and evaluate Bowlbys explanation for attachment

Bowlbys theory can then also be supported by the research of universality. If as Bowlby suggests, attachment did evolve to provide an important biological function, then we would expect attachment and caregiving behaviours to be in all cultures. In one study of attachment Tronick (1992) studied an African tribe called the Efe, from Zaire, who lived in extended family groups. The children are looked after and even breastfed by different women but usually sleep with their own mother at night. Despite such differences in childrearing practices the children, at six months, still showed one primary attachment. This supports the view that attachment and caregiving are universal and not influenced by different cultural practices.

Bowlby’s evolutionary explanation for attachment also has its criticisms however, and the first piece of research to do so is about multiple attachments. Many psychologists believe all attachment figures are equally important and follow by the multiple attachment model, where there is no primary and secondary attachment but that all attachments are combined into one single working model. However this may not be so different to what Bowlby intended. Secondary attachments, in his theory, do contribute to social development, but healthy development requires one central person standing about all the other in a hierarchy. Research on infant-father attachment, for example, suggests a key role for fathers in social development, and relationships with siblings are important for learning how to negotiate with peers. Prior and Glaser (2006) conclude from a review of research that the evidence still points to the hierarchy model as suggested by Bowlby’s concept of monotropy.

The next piece of research that does not support bowlbys theory is not so much a criticisms or refinement, but more so an alternative explanation. One of the key features of Bowlby’s theory is the suggestion that there are continuities between early attachment and later social/emotional behaviours - the continuity hypothesis. However, such continuity in development can be explained without using Bowlby’s theory. An innately trusting and friendly personality could be the prime factor in forming close adult relationship. This is called the temperament hypothesis and means that a certain personality or temperamental characteristics of the infant shape a mother’s responsiveness. There is evidence that children are born with innate temperamental differences. Thomas and Chess (1977) identified three basic infant personality types: easy, difficult, and slow-to-warm-up. There is also evidence that such temperamental differences contribute to attachment. Beksly and Rovine (1987) assessed babies aged on to three days old and found a link between certain physiological behaviours and a later attachment types. They found that infants who were calmer and less anxious were more likely it be securely attached, whilst on the other hand Nachmias (1996) found no association between early temperament and attachment strength.

In conclusion I believe that bowlbys explanation for attachment is a strong theory as there is plenty of evidence and supporting points. Every theory will have one or two criticisms, however one of bowlbys was simply an alternative explanation that in itself has much less support than bowlbys theory. Bowlbys attachment theory has had a big influence on many aspects of everyday life and everyone’s understanding of emotional development.