Attachment Theory

AQA Specification

Bowlby's Monotropic Theory (1969)

Bowlby proposed that attachment is innate and adaptive — children are born with a biological drive to form attachments, particularly with one primary caregiver (monotropy), for survival and emotional development.

Key Concepts

Monotropy

Children form one primary attachment (usually the mother) that is qualitatively different from all others. This primary attachment figure provides a "template" for future relationships.

Internal Working Model

The primary attachment creates a mental schema for relationships. Secure attachment → expectation that others are trustworthy. Insecure → expectation of unreliable relationships. Influences adult romantic relationships.

Critical Period

Bowlby originally proposed attachment must form within the first 2.5 years. Later revised to a "sensitive period" — attachment is most easily formed in this window but not impossible afterwards.

Continuity Hypothesis

The quality of early attachment has a lasting influence on emotional development and later relationships. Securely attached children become emotionally competent adults.

Stages of Attachment (Schaffer & Emerson, 1964)

0-2 months

Asocial Stage

Similar response to all objects. Beginning to show preference for social stimuli (faces, voices).

2-7 months

Indiscriminate Attachment

Preference for people over objects. Accept comfort from anyone. No stranger anxiety.

7-9 months

Specific Attachment

Strong attachment to one primary figure. Show separation anxiety and stranger anxiety. Proximity-seeking behaviour.

9+ months

Multiple Attachments

Form attachments to other figures (father, grandparents, siblings). Secondary attachments provide a "safety net."

+ Continuity hypothesis supported by Hazan & Shaver (1987) — securely attached children had healthier adult relationships.
+ Has practical applications — influence on social work, adoption policy, childcare provision.
− Monotropy is challenged — Rutter argues multiple attachments are equally important, not just one primary figure.
− Feminist criticism — places burden on mothers as primary caregivers. Ignores role of fathers and alternative family structures.

Ainsworth's Strange Situation (1970)

A controlled observation to assess the quality of infant attachment. Conducted in a novel environment with the infant (12-18 months), caregiver, and a stranger.

The 8 Episodes

Parent and infant enter the room. Infant explores.
Parent sits while infant explores (using parent as secure base).
Stranger enters, talks to parent, approaches infant.
Parent leaves. Stranger offers comfort if needed. (Separation anxiety)
Parent returns, stranger leaves. (Reunion behaviour)
Parent leaves infant alone. (Separation anxiety)
Stranger enters and offers comfort. (Stranger anxiety)
Parent returns, stranger leaves. (Reunion behaviour)

Attachment Types

~66%

Type B — Secure

Exploration: Uses caregiver as secure base, explores freely.
Separation: Moderate distress when parent leaves.
Reunion: Enthusiastic greeting, quickly comforted.
Stranger: Cautious but friendly when parent present.

~22%

Type A — Insecure-Avoidant

Exploration: Explores freely, little reference to caregiver.
Separation: No distress when parent leaves.
Reunion: Ignores or avoids parent on return.
Stranger: No stranger anxiety. Treats stranger and parent similarly.

~12%

Type C — Insecure-Resistant

Exploration: Reluctant to explore, stays close to caregiver.
Separation: Very distressed when parent leaves.
Reunion: Seeks comfort but resists it (pushes away). Ambivalent.
Stranger: Very wary of stranger, not easily comforted.

+ Good inter-rater reliability — observers agreed on attachment classifications in 94% of cases.
+ Predictive validity — attachment type predicts later social and emotional development.
− Cultural bias — based on American norms. Van Ijzendoorn found different distributions across cultures (e.g., more avoidant in Germany, more resistant in Japan).
− Measures attachment to ONE person in ONE situation — may not reflect the child's other attachments or behaviour in familiar settings.

Maternal Deprivation vs Privation

Deprivation (Bowlby)

Loss of an attachment that has already formed. Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis: prolonged separation from the primary caregiver during the critical period leads to irreversible emotional damage, including affectionless psychopathy.

Evidence: Bowlby's 44 thieves study — 14 of 44 juvenile thieves were "affectionless psychopaths," and 12 of those had experienced prolonged early separation.

Privation (Rutter)

Never having formed an attachment at all. Rutter argued Bowlby confused deprivation and privation — privation is more damaging. The effects of privation are harder to reverse than deprivation.

Evidence: Rutter's Romanian orphan studies — children adopted before 6 months recovered well. Those adopted after 6 months showed lasting effects (disinhibited attachment).

AQA exam tip: The 12-mark question often asks you to "outline and evaluate Bowlby's theory." Structure: AO1 (6 marks) — describe monotropy, IWM, critical period, continuity hypothesis. AO3 (6 marks) — research support, cultural bias, alternative explanations (learning theory), practical applications, limitations of the 44 thieves study.