How Has Bowlby’s Original Formulation of Attachment Theory

Bowlby’s (1946) original formulation of attachment theory drew upon both psychoanalytic and ethological theory and generated a significant amount of subsequent research. The core principle behind Bowlby’s theory was that the formation of a stable, healthy attachment with a caregiver in the early years of life is the key for an infants’ future emotional, social and cognitive development. Bowlby explained that this primary attachment relationship develops because infants need a mechanism to ensure survival. Attachment is therefore an adaptive behaviour which ensures the infant receives food, security and a safe base from which to explore the world. Several innate behaviours have evolved in order to elicit caregiving such as crying and smiling in addition to motor behaviour such as approaching and following. These are all planned to increase proximity and contact between an infant and caregiver. It is the caregivers’ reactions to such behaviours which facilitates the construction of a dynamic transaction between an infant and their attachment figure. These interactions continue throughout the lifespan.

Bowlby (1946) described the attachment bond as monotropic, that is, it is established between an infant and one other person. Whilst other relationships are formed, these are qualitatively different from the primary attachment relationship and do not have the same impact on later emotional development. This bond develops from around seven months of age and is synchronous with the age at which an infant learns to crawl.

Bowlby suggested that here, an attachment provides a purpose in that it provides a secure base from which to explore. Building on Bowlby’s ideas, Robertson & Robertson (1971) demonstrated how the existence of an infants’ attachment to a person was reflected in the amount of distress an infant showed when they were separated from an attachment figure. The term separation anxiety was used to describe this reaction which, coupled with a marked

References: Ainsworth M(1978) cited by Wood C, Littleton K & Oates J (2003) p.30 ’Lifespan Development’ in Cooper T & Roth I (eds) Challenging Psychological Issues, Milton Keynes, The Open University Bowlby J 1946 cited by Wood C, Littleton K & Oates J (2003) p.22-29 ’Lifespan Development’ in Cooper T & Roth I (eds) Challenging Psychological Issues, Milton Keynes, The Open University Goldfarb W (1947) cited by Gross R (1996) p.560 in Psychology: The Science of Mind & Behaviour (3rd ed) 1996, London, Hodder & Stoughton Educational Hamilton C E (1994) cited by Wood C, Littleton K & Oates J (2003) p.33 ’Lifespan Development’ in Cooper T & Roth I (eds) Challenging Psychological Issues, Milton Keynes, The Open University Ijzendoorn van M H & Kroonenberg P M 1997 cited by Oates J, Lewis C & Lamb M E (2005) p30 ’Parenting and Attachment in Ding S & Littleton K (eds) Children’s Personal & Social Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University Main M & Goldwyn R (1985) cited by Oates J, Lewis C & Lamb M E (2005) p.38 ’Parenting and Attachment in Ding S & Littleton K (eds) Children’s Personal & Social Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University Main M & Solomon J (1990) cited by Oates J, Lewis C & Lamb M E (2005) p.28 ’Parenting and Attachment in Ding S & Littleton K (eds) Children’s Personal & Social Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University Robertson J & Robertson J (1971) cited by Gross R (1996) p.550 in Psychology: The Science of Mind & Behaviour (3rd ed) 1996, London, Hodder & Stoughton Educational Vondra J I , Shaw D S & Kevenides M C (1995) cited by Oates J, Lewis C & Lamb M E (2005) p.30 ’Parenting and Attachment in Ding S & Littleton K (eds) Children’s Personal & Social Development, Oxford, Blackwell/The Open University Zimmerman P, Becker-Stroll F, Grossman K E, Scheurer-Englisch H & Wartner U (2000) cited by Wood C, Littleton K & Oates J (2003) p.33 ’Lifespan Development’ in Cooper T & Roth I (eds) Challenging Psychological Issues, Milton Keynes, The Open University