infants have no innate ability to
form attachments they learn
through food.
Harlows monkeys and Lorenz Goslings go against this
evolutionary theory
the tendancy to form attachments
is innatend founf in babies and
mums
classical conditioning- learning through association
operant conditioning- learning via consequence
Bowlbys theory of attachment
Bowlbys theory states that we grom innate
attachments with our mothers for survival.
However, this attachment must be formed within
the critical period, which for humans is betwwen
birth and 2 years or an attchment will not be
formed. Bowlby put forward the idea of
MONOTROPY, the idea that we form a strong
attachment to 1 particular adult. The mother must
respond to spcial releases if she wants to become
the primary care giver. The first attachment formed
serves as a framework for all other attachments.
this is the internal working model.
evaluate
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT: lorenz goslings- supports the idea of
imprinting and having an innate attachment, they stay close to
their parent to survive and for food. And one strong attachments
for monotropy
however, human brain is more complex interms of
attachments we cant extrapolate to humans
HAZEN AND SHAVERS LOVE
QUIZ- supports IWM was a link
between the type of chidhood
people had and their future
relationships
RUTTER: MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS ARE NORM-
infants form attachments with multiple
adults, not just the mother, going against
monotropy.
LAMB- infants have secure attachments with
the fathers,grandparents and siblings, we
form secure attachments with those closest
to us , but these may vary (father for play)
SHAFFER AND EMERSON. found
children form attachments with
other people shortly after the
specific attachment. these prove to
be just as valuable to the child
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES- izendoorn cross
cultural studies- if attachments were innate
there would be no variance between
cultures