by CF

AO2 points for Bowlby's theory of attachment

cf6 — 2013-12-13 07:24:24 UTC

Czech twins

rooster28 — 2014-11-28 10:18:16 UTC

This case study crisises Bowblys theory of attachment because it goes against the critical period because they formed attachments very late. It also criticises the IWM because their later relationships were normal despite having an abusive step mother.

Scaffer and Emerson's (1964)

2014-11-28 10:18:24 UTC

Schaffer and Emerson's study of 60 infants from Glasgow supports monotropy from bowlby's theory this is because most of the infants formed attachments with only one person and bowlby believes you form only one special attachment. However, this study also criticises the theory because one third of the infants formed multiple attachments and appeared not to have special preferred attachment figure. :)

Hazan & Shaver (1987

NotDheeraj — 2014-11-28 10:19:34 UTC

The study by Hazan & Shaver (1987) supports Bowlby's theory of attachment particularly the internal working model, because the experiment shows that securely attached infants formed tended to have secure romantic attachments. This supports the internal working model because the internal working model outlines taut when an infant forms a certain schema of adults from a young age, it creates a template for the young children/adults (when it's older). This means that if the first relationship that is formed when the child is young is strong, then all other relationships that the child forms and will form will also be strong.

Erickson et al (1985)

cf6 — 2014-11-28 10:21:50 UTC

A study that supports Bowlby's theory of attachment is one by Erickson et al in which they observed 4-5 year olds in a pre-school setting. They found that securely attached children were less dependent on the teacher and vise versa. This supports the adaptive aspect because those children who had a secure base are more likely to explore which is essential for learning and development, whereas those who didn't would be more reluctant to explore, therefore being more dependent on the teacher.

Hodge's and Tizard (1989)

2014-11-28 10:24:14 UTC

This study of institutionalised children supports Bowlby's theory of attachment because it proves that these children formed no attachments in the early parts of their lives, so had difficulty forming relationships with peers. This supports the Internal Working Model area of Bowlby's theory of attachment, which states that the infant's first relationship will act as a blueprint for all of their future relationships, meaning a healthy first attachment should lead to healthy relationship attachments.

Harlow's Monkeys

2014-11-28 10:26:16 UTC

The Harlow's monkeys study supports Bowlby's theory of adaptiveness. The monkey would use the cloth "mother" as a safe base and return to her when threatened. This shows that the monkey would have an adaptive advantage as the cloth "mother" promotes a sense of security. Harlow's monkeys also supports Bowlby's theory of internal working model. Withouth the cloth "mother" the monkey would grow up disturbed and not be able to form future relationships as the IWM states that future relationships are based on the attachment bond.

Lorenz

2014-11-28 10:26:28 UTC

Lorenz supports the critical period as his research showed that if the baby geese had not made an attachment within 15 hours, then it would be very unlikely that they would ever form an attachment which is critical for survival. This proves that there is a deadline in which an attachment should be formed. Lorenz's research also supports the idea that attachments are adaptive. He found that geese attached to the first moving thing that they saw once hatched, showing that attachment is instinctive and is not learnt. Therefore, it must have evolved in order for survival.