Bowlby’s theory of attachment posits that attachment is beneficial for survival, as infants are more likely to thrive with the protection of an attachment figure. According to this theory, attachment is innate and infants possess an inherent drive to form attachments. Social releasers are also present from birth to facilitate the formation of attachment by encouraging caregiving. Bowlby further argues that there is a specific sensitive period, occurring from 3-6 months, during which attachment should be established; beyond this period, forming attachments becomes increasingly challenging. Attachment figures serve as secure bases for exploration, fostering independence. Additionally, the theory proposes a hierarchical structure of attachments, focusing on one primary attachment figure called monotropy, while all others are considered secondary attachment figures. Infants also develop internal working models, which are expectations about attachment based on previous experiences. This concept aligns with the continuity hypothesis, suggesting that early attachments shape subsequent ones. Empirical evidence supports this theory, as the presence of attachment can be observed across different cultures. This suggests that Bowlby’s theory is applicable to all human beings and that attachment behavior is universal. Therefore, Bowlby’s theory accurately explains the concept of attachment.Moreover, the concept of the continuity hypothesis is corroborated by real-life scenarios. For instance, certain studies propose that individuals who experienced abuse during their childhood are more likely to become abusers themselves in their later years. Likewise, the case study of Genie serves as additional evidence for this hypothesis, as her upbringing without maternal care hindered her ability to establish any emotional connections.
Consequently, several studies lend support to Bowlby’s theory of attachment and the continuity hypothesis. Tronick et al conducted a study involving the Efe tribe in Africa, where infants were fed by multiple women but slept with their own mother at night. This finding emphasizes that the primary attachment figure is the main caregiver, challenging the learning theory’s belief that feeding is the dominant factor in forming attachments. Thus, this study aligns with Bowlby’s concept of monotropy, which suggests that attachments are formed in a hierarchical manner with one primary attachment figure – usually the mother.
However, Howes et al’s research on child-peer relationships contradicts the continuity hypothesis as an accurate explanation of later attachments. Their findings indicate no notable correlation between parent-child relationships and child-peer relationships, disproving the notion that early attachments manifest in future relationships. Consequently, this research undermines Bowlby’s attachment theory as it provides evidence against the continuity hypothesis, a vital aspect of the theory.
Furthermore, one could argue that this theory places excessive emphasis on survival. Evidence shows that healthy attachments can develop even after the sensitive period, at later stages in life. For instance, adoptions demonstrate the formation of such attachments beyond the sensitive period of 3-6 months. This exemplifies that attachments can be formed outside the conventional window of opportunity.The existence of evidence contradicts Bowlby’s theory, which states that attachment can only happen during the sensitive period and will not occur otherwise.
