Boone_007
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#1
Hey peeps, I'm doing AS Psychology and need help with one weakness associated with Bowlby's theory.

Please could you help me out with the temperament hypothesis. Please could you use simple words as I have difficulty understanding complicated ones
Firstly, what is it???
Secondly, how is it considered a weakness of Bowlby's theory of attachment.

Please help
Many Thanks
xxx
0
reply
Message
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 8 years ago
#2
(Original post by Boone_007)
Hey peeps, I'm doing AS Psychology and need help with one weakness associated with Bowlby's theory.

Please could you help me out with the temperament hypothesis. Please could you use simple words as I have difficulty understanding complicated ones
Firstly, what is it???
Secondly, how is it considered a weakness of Bowlby's theory of attachment.

Please help
Many Thanks
xxx
Hi there

The temperament hypothesis was first put forward by Kagan (1984). This basically suggests that infants are born with an innate personality. The idea is that infants with a naturally friendly personality for example are more likely than those with difficult personalities to form an attachment. The nice personality causes the infants to be easier to interact with, which in turn leads to bonds being formed.

That is that what it is. You may want some studies to support this though.

Thomas and Chess (1977) identified three different personality types - 'Easy', 'difficult' and 'slow to warm up'.

Bockhurst et al (2003) observed that identical twins have more similar temperaments (personalities) than non idenitcal twins. This suggests that the way the twins were genetically coded determines how much of a chance the infant gives itself of being able to form attachments.

Belsky and Rovine (1987) observed babies aged between one to three days old. It was found that those babies who had been calmer and less of a hassle were more likely to go on to be securely attached than the difficult ones.

So, overall, it seems that the personality, not an innate desire, plays the most important role in attachment. To recap, calmer, friendly and trusting etc infants are more likely to go on to form attachments because they are more likely to positively shape the mother's responsiveness. This is Bowlby's weakness. This temperament hypothesis provides an additionnal explanation with evidence to support it.

I do hope this helps you. If you need any more explaining, please do not hesitate to let me know. I hope that the exam goes well for you!
1
reply
Boone_007
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#3
Well thank you very much for the reply. Your the only one who has responded Thank you so much! I honestly appreciate this.

If you ever need anything, do not hesitate to contact me either
THANK YOU!!!
0
reply
2georgiadavies
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
I know that this was written a while ago but I thought I would just answer it anyway.
Temperament is the genetic personality of a child and it was developed by someone called Kegan. He stated that some babies have easy temperament whereby they are accepting of a routine, interactive and generally well-behaved. This makes interactions with the CG easier and more engaging (likely to indicate a secure attachment).
Other infants have hard temperments whereby they are fussy and struggle to adapt to change or routine. They are classed as difficult and thus are more likely to be represented as insecurely attached.
Now, this is mostly a limitation for Ainsworth strange situation because it is implying that our genetic personality may determine how we respond and attach to others around us. Because of temperament acting as a strong confounding variable (one that disrupts the validity of the findings as there are differences in individuals that cannot be changed), it means that conclusions are limited. This is because it may be that attachment types and parenting styles are actually determined by temperament (genetic make-up/ influence) instead.
As for Bowbly's monotropic theory, the same really applies as it does not Ainsworth. Temperament suggests some Babies are more anxious and others are more sociable and it may affect the quality of an individuals attachment. Thus it may be out of the control of the environment. This undermines Bowlby's emphasis on the law of continuity and law of accumulated separation as it may not be the amount of time spent with an infant or now constant a child's care is. It may just simply be unchangeable and pre-determined how interactive a child is going to be. This supports the idea of attachment types running in generations as the trait is passed on to offspring. Therefore, temperamental differences rather than the quality of attachment may explain later social behaviour.
0
reply
lott.kwn
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
do you have any more studies that support or contradict this theory? or something for the continuity hypothesis?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are you confident you could find support for your mental health if you needed it in COVID-19?

Yes (27)
19.42%
No (112)
80.58%

Watched Threads

View All