Explanations of attachment: learning theory

• Dollard and Miller (1950) proposed the learning theory to explain caregiver-infant attachment and suggested that attachment is a learned behaviour that is acquired through both classical and operant conditioning. Their theory is also known as the 'cupboard love theory' as it suggests that infants learn to attach (love) to whoever feeds them.
• Attachment is said to be learnt via classical conditioning

  • food serves as an unconditional stimulus (UCS) which elicits the unconditioned response (UCR) of pleasure in infants.
  • the caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus (NS) producing no response
  • as the same caregiver is paired with food several times, the infants begin to associate being fed with the caregiver
  • the caregiver becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS), so the infant develops a conditioned response (CR) of pleasure toward the caregiver which is implied to be an attachment
• Attachment is said to be learnt via operant conditioning

  
  

  Positive reinforcement:

  • infants learn to associate staying close to their caregiver with the outcome of getting fed
  • the outcome is rewarding so babies repeat action of staying close to caregiver
  • the action of staying close has been positively reinforced

  Negative reinforcement:

  • babies learn to stay near their caregiver to avoid the unpleasant feeling of hunger
  • the action of staying close to caregiver has been negatively reinforced
• Sears et al. (1957) suggested that as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them. Attachment is thus a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive.​
• A weakness of the learning theory of attachment is that there is contradictory evidence from animal research. For example, Harlow's research using 16 rhesus monkeys discovered that the infant monkeys showed attachment behaviour to the cloth-covered mother whether or not it provided food and clung to the cloth-covered mother for comfort when frightened. This weakens this theory of attachment as Harlow's findings show attachment is driven by contact-comfort, not food as the theory proposes.
• A strength of the learning theory of attachment is that there is research support. For example, Dollard and Miller conducted an observational study in which they counted how many times infants are fed by their caregivers in the first year of life. It was found that babies were fed over 2000 times in their first year. This was viewed as plenty of time to form an association between their caregiver and being fed. Therefore, strengthening the learning theory as the supporting evidence indicates that it is believable, lending it construct validity.
• A weakness of the learning theory of attachment is the counter-evidence from human research. For example, in Schaffer and Emerson's study, many of the infants developed a primary attachment to their biological mother even though other carers did most of the feeding. This weakens the theory as it suggests that food is not the primary drive to forming attachment and instead, there are other factors involved.