Mai Yongsakul

Psychology: ATTACHMENT
Friday 1st October 2010
Mr. Smith

OUTLINE & EVALUATION OF BOWLBY'S

THEORY

John Bowlby's theory was more evolutionary based. He proposed that attacment was
important for survival – infants are physically helpless and need adults to nurture, care and
protect them in order for them to grow. Without this assistance, they would not survive.
Therefore, it is likely that human beings had been evolved in such a way that infants were born
with an intrinsic tedency to form an attachment in order to increase their chances of survival.
On the other hand, adults/ the care-givers of an infant too develop an attachment to them.
Bowlby suggested that all human beings had some sort of innate programming which helped
them form attachments – adults would have a drive for helping the infant to survive: caring,
nurturing, feeding them etc. The bond/attachment between the care-giver and infant was
considered to have a long-term benefit in addition to the short-temr beneifit of ensuring food
and safety. In the long term, it could be fundamental importance for emotional relationships
because it would provide a template for those relationships. However there is the concept of a
'critical period' which is a feature of biological characteristics. The 'critical period' was when the
development does not take place during the set developmental period that attacments were
supposed to happen – this would then result in the infant making no attachment to a carer at
all. It is believed that if a child does not form an attachment before the age of 2.5 years, then it
would not be possible thereafter.

There are a number of case studies that show evidence supporting Bowlby's theory.
Sroufe et al (1999) conducted an experiment in which he followed a group of children from the
age of 12 months to adolescence. They were observed throughout their childhood by teachers,
trained observers and camp counsellors at special events arranged for the children. At the end
of the experiment, Sroufe's results showed that those children who were rated as being
securely attached in infancy were also rated as being more popular, having more initiative and
being higher in social competence as well as self-confidence and self-esteem. This indicated
that social competence was linked with early attacment style, supporting Bowlby's views of the
long-term benefits of attachment. Other case studies also had evidence to support this as well.
Hodges and Tizard (1989) preformed a longitudinal study of children living in orphanages who
had formed no attachments in the early parts of their lives – they later on discovered that it
was these children that had difficulties forming relationships with peers. The results of other
experiments that were conducted were similar as well: children that had secure attchments
were less dependent on their teacher – and they also had better relationships throughout their
childhood and adulthood as well.

On the other hand, there are also many theories and experiements that challenged
Bowlby's theory. Due to the new technology and scientific research done today, there was no
direct evidence suggesting that there was a gene for attachments. Another case study
challenging Bowlby's theory was Schaffer and Emerson's (1964) study: their results showed
that several of the infants that they observed formed multiple attchments instead of just one.
This factor appeared to show that the infant did not have a preferred attchment figure which
too argued against Bowlby's theory. The Czech twins case is probably the strongest evidence
against Bowlby's theory. The twins had been locked pu and isolated from the oustide world as
well as being abused from their stepmother since birth. When they were discovered at the age
of 7, they had no language skills ag all – however after loving care from two sisters, by the age
of 14 the twins started to show normal and social intellecutual fuctioning and were able to form
meaningful attachments. The evidence in this case dismisses the 'critical period' feature in
Bowlby's theory compeltely as it shows that even though the twins were not able to create any
attchments for a long time after the 'critical period', they were still able to develop their
attchments in the end.