Bowlby believed that attachments are natural and adaptive. He also believed that we are all born with an inherited need to form attachments and this is to help us survive. This can also line up with Darwin’s theory of natural selection, which explains that any behaviour that helps us to survive to maturity and reproduce will be maintained in the gene pool. For example; a baby relies on its mother for food and care etc and without the mother the baby would be helpless. Babies have social releaser which unlocks the innate tendency for adults to care for them; these are both physical and behavioural social releasers.
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 argued that the attachment behaviours in both caregivers and babies evolved ensuring the survival of the baby until maturity and reproduce. Babies produce instincts like crying and smiling which encourages the caregiver to look after it. Parents especial mothers as per to Bowlby have instincts to protect their baby from harm and nurture them ensuring their survival until maturity. Those babies and mother who don’t possess these behaviours have been less successful. A second most important concept in Bowlby’s theory was the idea of monotrophy a single attachment to one person who is most important to the baby.
They believe that education can help socialise children through religious assemblies, the National Curriculum and citizenship lessons. The New Right wants educational policies that will increase choice with market principles to raise standards. If a school is successful, it will attract parents and children purely because it is successful. The New Right believes that all parents have the right to send their child to a successful school â hence their support of parental choice. The New Right also believes that a successful school will gather sufficient momentum to build on its successes.
The evolutionary theory suggests that “prosocially tendencies exist in humans because of (a) genetically based predispositions to act prosocially, and (b) the evolutionary success of people who displayed such predispositions”. Penner, L. et al. (2005) This therefore suggests that prosocial behaviour is purely selfish as we will only engage in such actions to protect someone who we share genes with, so our genes will be passed onto future generations. “Kin selection is based on the premise that what matters in evolution is not individual fitness, but inclusive fitness, which is the successful transmission of one’s genes from all sources to the next generation” (Hamilton 1964). Kin selection therefore backs up the evolutionary theory as it provides an explanation as to why we regularly help our relatives.
A responsibility practitioners have is to make sure the health of the child is paramount this could be by preventing hazards and carrying out risk assessments and safety checks. A practitioner should be aware of the day care standards provided by the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) so the children are receiving the highest standards of care. “The EYFS sets standards to enable early years providers to reflect the rich and personalised experience that many parents give their
Nature and nurture, to me, are one in itself. From birth, nature, we have automatic instincts to survive; as we develop we form our personality from our surroundings and environment. Nature and nurture come together and form the person as a whole that we become as we grow from an infant into an adult. To me it seems evident how the tow should coincide together instead of fighting against one another, as man this is our natural tendency to do. Man kinds tendency is to believe only what can be seen and proven under a microscope, and denies what he cannot.
But what influences those things? What is Nature vs. Nurture? The Nature part of this argument is that people say that you are born with the traits you have. Meaning, whatever traits your parents have are split up some way and made a part of you when you are being conceived. The nurture part of it is that we are who we are because of the way that we are raised and the type of environment we are raised in.
Historically, they have been approached through one of two perspectives. First, the nature perspective suggests that human behavior is driven mostly by biology (evolution, genetics, brain chemistry, and hormones). In contrast, the nurture perspective suggests that behavior is driven mostly by the psychosocial environment (for example, how we were raised, our peers, the situations we are in at present). Interestingly, almost everyone in our culture seems to believe that nurture is more powerful than nature. More than likely, this is because it is easier to observe the effects of nurture in our lives (personal experience), because we have been told that nurture is more powerful in our culture (authority), and because it feels more empowering to believe that nurture has more of an effect, perhaps because it seems more controllable (bias).