Specification: Explanations of attachment: Bowlby’s monotropic theory. The concepts of a critical period and an internal working model.

Evaluation of Bowlby’s Theory

A strength of Bowlby’s theory comes from research by Lorenz. Lorenz found that upon hatching baby geese followed the first moving object they saw, during a 12–17 hour critical period. This process in birds is known as imprinting and appears to be innate (as they would have no time to learn this behaviour). Lorenz’s research supports Bowlby’s idea of a critical period and demonstrates that geese are born with behaviours which help them to survive. However, developmental psychologists when referring to human attachment often prefer to use the term sensitive period, as attachments have been shown to develop beyond the optimal window of opportunity. 

Another strength of Bowlby’s theory comes from research by Hazan and Shaver (1987). Hazan and Shaver used a self-report questionnaire called ‘The Love Quiz’ to assess the internal working model. They found a positive correlation between early attachment types and later adult relationships. This supports Bowlby’s idea of an internal working model and suggests that our early childhood experiences do affect our later adult relationships.  Sroufe et al. (2005) also provide evidence for this in their Minnesota parent–child study showing the outcome of early attachment type being carried forward and projected onto expectations of subsequent relationships. 

There is mixed evidence for the importance of monotropy, which Bowlby emphasised as part of this evolutionary explanation of attachment. Schaffer and Emmerson (1964) refute the idea that infants must form one special attachment to their caregiver which supersedes all others and provides the foundation for subsequent, multiple attachments. They did recognise that some infants do, in fact, follow this pattern but that there are others who can form multiple attachments with different caregivers at the same time such as with the mother and father simultaneously.  

There is an alternative explanation for attachment. Kagan (1984) proposed the temperament hypothesis which suggests that a child’s genetically inherited personality traits (temperament) have a role to play in forming an attachment with a caregiver. It is thought that infants have differing temperaments because of their biological makeup which means some are more sociable and ‘easy’ and others are more anxious and ‘difficult’ babies. It is argued that Bowlby ignored the role of temperament, preferring instead to focus on the early childhood experiences and quality of attachment, which was an oversight since personality differences in the child can influence whether they become securely or insecurely attached.