Bowlbys Monotropic Theory
- Created by: MollyL20
- Created on: 22-11-20 14:48
View mindmap
- Bowlby's monotropic theory
- John Bowlby proposed an evolutionary theory: that attachment was an innate system that gave a survival advantage. Imprinting and attachment evolved to ensure that young animals stay close to their caregivers
- Monotropy
- He placed a great emphasis on a child's attachment to one particular caregiver and believed that the one main caregiver is different and more important than others
- He believed that the more time a baby spent with this primary attachment the better. He put forward 2 principles to clarify this:
- The law of continuity stated that the more constant and predictable a child's care is, the better the quality of attachment
- The law of accumulated separation stated that the effects of everyday separation from the mother add up
- Social releasers and the critical period
- Bowlby suggests that we are born with innate behaviours such as smiling, cooing and gripping that encourages attention from adults. These are social releasers
- He recognised that attachment was reciprocal both mothers and babies have an innate predisposition to become attached and social releasers trigger that response in caregivers
- The interplay gradually builds up the relationship, Bowbly proposed that there is a critical period of around 2 years but now calls it more of a sensitive period if an attachment hasn't been formed in this time then the child will find it harder to form one
- Internal Working Model
- Proposed that a child forms mental representation of their relationships with their PCG. IT has a powerful effect on the nature of the child's future relationships
- Children whose first relationship involves poor treatment tend to from poor relationships in which they treat others that way or expect treatment a certain way?
- The internal working model affects the child's later ability to be a parent themselves. People tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented
- This explains why children from functional families tend to have similar families themselves
Comments
No comments have yet been made