Attachment may not be adaptive
Type: Criticism
- One limitation is that attachment may not be adaptive
- Bowlby suggests that attachment has evolved as an innate system to give a survival advantage
- Bowlby suggests attachments develop when the infant is older than 3 months
- This is a very late mechanism to protect infants
- Suggesting attachment has not evolved to ensure survival
- However, it could be argued that infants start crawling from 6 months when attachment is vital
A sensitive period rather than critical
Type: Criticism
Study: Rutter et al. (2010)
- Attachment may be less likely rather than impossible after the critical period
- Orphans found it hard to form attachments if they failed to form an attachment before 6 months of age, but could still form attachments - just much less likely
- The critical period is more of a sensitive period where infants are more likely to form attachments
Research support for internal working model
Type: Strength
Study: Sroufe et al. (2005)
- Minnesota parent-child study
- Followed participants from infancy to late adolescence
- Found continuity between early attachments and later emotional/social development
- Individuals who were classified as securely attached in infancy were rated highly for social compliance later in childhood
- Supports Bowlby’s continuity hypothesis because it demonstrates a clear link between early and later attachments
Temperament Hypothesis
Type: Criticism
Study: Belsky and Rovine (1987)
- Found that infants between one and three days old who had signs of behavioural instability were later judged to be insecurely attached
- Suggests that an infant’s innate emotional personality may explain their later attachment behaviour rather than adaption
- Supports temperament hypothesis and suggests Bowlby’s monotropic theory may not provide a complete explanation of attachment