Ainsworth Attachment Theory

Before Bowlby and Ainsworth came forth with attachment theory, the role parental attentiveness played in the cognitive and psychological development of the child was widely understated. Although similar theorists such as Piaget, Erickson, Freud, Kohlberg and Braufenbreener all vied for secured interactions between mothers and infants, their comments appeared to be understated in light of the developmental theories (Crain, 2010). As such, the theory positions itself as an incredible strength. When we focus on the primary interactions of an infant or child, we are witnessing the primordial ingredients that determine secured development. An additional strength is that this theory holds attachment figures accountable. When viewing specific stage theories, ecological models or system theories, there is little emphasis on parent-child dynamic, or the affects parenting holds on child development (Crain, 2010). I have always found it odd that there is no subsequent parent-model acting in concordance to specific stage
Considering the dismal history of children rights, this theory paved the way for considerable efforts in the assurance of healthy family interactions and human development. However, I do agree with the theoretical limitations discussed in critical research. The lack of information on the paternal role, in terms of attachment or otherwise is nearly nonexistent. Furthermore, because children do experience incredible attachments to their siblings, peers or other family members—research on attachment must expand to consider their long-term implications on child development. Lastly, supplementary evidence on the influence on meaningful interactions (what they look like), and not purely on what interactions to avoid, would considerably strengthen Attachment