Bowlby put forward a theory of attachment based upon the assumption that attachments are formed due to their evolutionary advantages. The theory states that attachments are adaptive and become attached because of the long term benefits such as feeding and protection from a caregiver. It also states that infants have social releasers which are physical and behavioural characteristics that elicit an innate tendency to look after, such as smiling or crying. The attachment is a monotropic attachment to the mother which occurs within the critical period, which is from birth to two and a half years of age. This attachment helps the infant to form an internal working model which is a schema for all future relationships.
Bowlby’s theory is an evolutionary approach to attachment. These attachment behaviours are displayed to ensure the survival of the infant. It is also an instinct for the parent to make an attachment. He states that infants are born with social releasers for example crying, smiling, a cute face with big eyes and a small nose. These social releasers encourage the care giver to provide care.
This conditioning is how attachments form between the mother and the source of pleasure according to the learning theory. Operant conditioning is when the mother is a source of positive reinforcement (rewards). The mother is reinforced through the reward of having a happy baby. Harlow’s research contradicts the learning theory. He suggests that attachment is innate.
Bowlby begun to explore this. Bowlby (as cited in Oates, 2005) was inspired by this previous ethological work and was interested in linking such findings with human development (Oates, 2005). Bowlby’s focus was children’s attachment during the critical period and the effect it has on later development. Bowlby was influenced by work of Winnicot. Winnicot’s (1953) work on mothers and infants demonstrated the important for mothers to be emotionally ready to be a ‘good enough mother’ by having tolerance of waiting out a child’s frustration and the confidence in providing satisfaction (Oates, 2005).
We are all born with an inherited need to form attachments and this is to help us survive. He also said that attachments were irreversible- once they were made they could not be broken. * Babies are biologically programmed to form attachments. By doing cute things lie smiling, they form attachments with adults who look after them when they are most vulnerable, helping the baby survive. This is called social releasers.
Although doctors, counselors, and foster care workers try their hardest to protect the children placed in foster care, the damage can and still does occur. After this occurs, the best plan of actions is to treat the child to correct the damage so the child can live a normal emotional life. According to the Society of Child Development, Inc, children at the infant stage of life need to form an emotional bond with a caregiver. That is normally the biological mother. Infants in biologically organize their attachment behaviors around the availability of their caregivers.
Bowlby put forward the principle of monotropy, believing that the infant displays a strong innate tendency to form an attachment with one significant person, not necessarily, but usually the mother. (Gross, R. 2005). This was criticised by Rutter (1981), who claimed that the mother is not special in the way that the infant shows its attachment, as children will show a whole range of attachment behaviours towards a variety of people. Bowlby (1969), cited in Martin et al 2007 p. 546) claimed that the most important attachment behaviours are sucking, cuddling, looking, smiling and crying. According to Freud the newborn infant lives in a solipsistic world of ‘primary narcissism’ and experiences a build-up of tension with the need to suck the breast as an expression of his infantile sexuality.
A secure attachment is where someone is always there for the child to make the child feel safe, secure and comforted. John Bowlby believed that children who have a secure attachment are more confident and are more likely to go off on their own to explore different things but only knowing that they can go back to their main carer at any time. (Working with life experiences pp26-27).The child becomes dependant on their primary carer and this can be identified from a very young age, and as the child gets older they will still turn to their primary carer whenever they are hurt or upset. John Bowlby believed that if the child does not have a secure attachment (main carer) when they are young then they are more likely to be disruptive and could have attachment problems throughout adulthood. (About.com attachment theory.
Hewas in support of child day care as long as it was continuous and high quality,although a preference of parental care was suggested by Rutter. There is a difficulty in isolatingvariables which result in positive and negative attachments. Indeed somefeminists argue that stay at home mothers are often at risk of harming theirchildren through an inability to cope and lack of support from immediate orextended family. Associated with this argument is that of the risk fromdomestic violence which increases isolation and effects the development of thechild - even if the primary caregiver is ever present. From the 1950s anincreased development of the nuclear family has been argued to provide a duelfunction.
Here four child-rearing patterns were identified permissive: parents who are available as resources but non-intrusive, authoritative: parents who encourage rational explanation to promote independence, nonconformist: parents who provide only a child’s basic needs and are otherwise neglectful and authoritarian: parents who value forceful imposition and obedience. According to Baumrinds findings child-rearing pattens have significant influence on the way in which a child develops both socially and cognitively which “many researchers have confirmed” (oates, Lewis, Lamb pg 36). She also brought to attention the capacity of two-way influences between child-parent/primary caregiver relationships. This research could be portrayed as a modification to attachment theory as the “parenting style” the writer feels could also be seen as the “consistent experience of a certain kind of primary attachment relationship” which was at the very foundation of Bowlbsy attachment theory as he viewed this to be a key component in the development of the