Attachment is the term often used to describe the emotional

relationship an infant shares with its caregivers. It’s an attachment formed to

help babies survive, to communicate to others to care for them, and at an
early age this is simply achieved by the baby crying. Yet these relationships
are not only important for the baby’s survival, but they are to satisfy emotional
needs, to form connections and relationships that will become very important
in life. It is widely agreed that babies will have one strong affectional tie and
this will typically be with its mother (or nearest relating) and this will generally
last a lifetime. Attachment is identified by four characteristics, which are,
seeking proximity, where babies will look for security and reassurance from
their caregiver. Distress on separation, when a child will shows certain degree
of stress when removed from the presence of its caregiver. Joy on reunion,
when the baby will show behaviours of happiness and affection when reunited
with their caregiver. And finally general orientation, where baby and caregiver
will direct their attention towards each other. Attachments can be formed
throughout any period of a person’s life, even during adulthood, new
attachments are formed.
There are two theories to which argue how and why attachments are
formed and made, the learning theory (forming attachments through
association) and the evolutionary theory (attachments are genetic).
The evolutionary theory of attachment also referred to as Bowlby’s
theory. Looking at Darwin’s theory of evolution we learn that animals survive
because the genetically stronger more apt animals will survive and reproduce
specific traits that are naturally selected. This can be used to help explain
attachment, an infant who has a stronger relationship with its mother, will
survive and therefore the traits from the infants with stronger attachments will
be naturally selected. Bowlby’s theory looks at several factors within
attachment, like imprinting in animals, which suggests that attachments are
formed rapidly after birth, which was proved by Lorenz. This was evident in
the experiment with goslings when he made sure he was the first thing the
newly hatched goslings would see, they showed typical behaviours of
attachment towards Lorenz. This is called the critical period; the imprinting
between 13 and 16 hours is the window of development in which attachments
should be made. This is also supported by the studies of Hodges and Tizard
who found that children who formed no attachments during the
critical/sensitive period they found it hard to cope with situations and peers.
The theory explains that within attachments is monotropy and a hierarchy. A
baby will form a primary attachment with one individual and all other
attachments fall under a hierarchy. It suggest that the primary attachment will
be with the caregiver who doesn’t just feed and care for the baby but the
individual who responds to infant the most sensitively e.g. responding to
baby’s social releasers. This is supported with evidence from Fox who studied
a community in which children are raised and cared for communally. The
infant will have a nurse who feeds and cleans the baby etc, and only
spending an hour or so with their genetic parents. Despite the nurse being the
caregiver who fed and cared for them, the children showed a stronger
attachment to their parents and only a weak one with their nurse.
Bowlby’s theory explains the internal working model that argues that the
mother figure will provide a model or a ‘map’ for all of a child’s future
relationships and attachments. It suggests that a child whose mother figure
has been emotionally responsive, a secure base and exuded other positive
behaviour will in later life be a happy secure adult perfectly able to form
relationships well with other people. Whereas a child with an inadequate
primary caregiver, who is unresponsive and inconsistent will in adulthood tend
to have a negative self image and find it hard to form strong relationships.
This is also true with the continuity hypothesis that link early emotional
experiences and later relationships. A study by Hazan and Shaver confirms
this when they asked people about childhood memories and romantic
relationships; their findings concluded that romantic relationships tended to
reflect their early experiences. Those with negative early memories were
more likely to be distant or clingy in relationships.
However despite all positive evidence supporting Bowlby’s theory, it is
almost impossible to verify whether attachment is genetic or in-built because,
as of yet no gene has ever been identified or discovered to carry this
evidence. The studies used to support the evolutionary theory also lack
validity, because many studies use animals or non-responsive subjects e.g.
babies. So it makes it difficult to generalise or ask the participants questions,
so this is a very big flaw in the studies.
There is evidence that argues against Bowlby’s theory of monotropy as a
study by Harlow showed that monkeys raised just by their mother alone in
their first six months, would later become socially abnormal upon being
reintroduced into the group. This presents the importance of secondary
attachments and that they are obviously essential to help infants develop
properly.
Other studies, that question the monotropy and hierarchy suggested by
Bowlby, show that infants generally don’t show any particular preference for
their mother or father in certain situations, which highlights that there may not
be just one primary attachment. A study by Lamb shows that boys between
15 and 24 months would actually show a preference to their fathers; despite
perhaps the mother being the primary caregiver, this shows the importance of
multiple attachments.

Overall to conclude it is fair to say that Bowlby’s ideas are well

supported by clear evidence and perhaps is the stronger theory against the
learning theory. But there are still areas that can be questioned, e.g. no
specific ‘attachment gene’, and perhaps more evidence is needed before one
can claim that the evolutionary theory is the correct and only way attachments
are formed. We must always take into consideration the importance of other
factors when forming attachments than just genetics or ‘built in’ traits.