Comments on Bowlby's Attachment Theory

Personally, I have always viewed John Bowlby's evolutionary attachment theory useful as a strong guidance for practitioners and carers of very young children. 

As stated by McLeod, (2007) "Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment suggests that children come into the world biologically pre-programmed to form attachments with others, because this will help them to survive."

Through my experience of working with young children, I have found that some children do display this behaviour when they are very young, and, even at 5 months old, I have seen children becoming attached to their primary caregiver, in this instance the mother.

However, it should be taken into account that this theory may not be true for every child, and some may struggle to form attachments with other individuals regardless of whether they have been cared for by the same individual since birth or not. Any changes which may occur in the levels and rates of attachments of children and the primary caregiver may be due to individual differences, as each child's cognitions do also play an important role in attachments, it is likely that it is not solely evolution which has caused us to develop attachments.

I do also find this theory quite outdated and sexist towards females, as it assumes that a females natural place is at the home caring for a child, which, in my opinion, is a very outdated viewpoint. This view also disadvantages male caregivers, suggesting that a child will only usually form an attachment to a maternal caregiver, which is likely to be not the case.

To get the best use out of this theory and it's ideas, I would advise that early years practitioners use this theory alongside other theories from different perspectives, such as behaviourism.




References


McLeod, S. (2007) Bowlby's Attachment Theory [Online]. Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/bowlby.html (Accessed: 1 May 2013)