Explanations for attachment

    Cards (10)

    • Learning theory of attachment:
      • Classical conditioning approach
      • NS = mother -> NR, US = food -> UR, NS + US = NS -> CS due to association between NS + CS
      • CS (mother) has taken on qualities of US
      • Attachment formed with mother = due to infant always feeling pleasure with mother because she feeds them
      • Attachment to mother is learned not innate
    • Learning theory of attachment:
      • Operant conditioning approach (Dollard + Millar 1950)
      • Hungry infant = discomfort/distress -> drive to reduce discomfort
      • Food reduces discomfort + drive = rewarding
      • Food = primary reinforcer
      • Feeder (primary caregiver) always present when drive reduced = associated with primary reinforcer (food)
      • Becomes secondary reinforcer -> reward for infant even without food = behaviour repeated
      • Pleasure at secondary reinforcer's presence = attachment bond
    • Learning theory of attachment:
      • Social learning theory (Hay + Vespo -> don't add into essays)
      • Parents = role models
      • Children learn attachment behaviours via:
      • Direct instruction
      • Role modelling
      • Social facilitation
    • Monotropic theory of attachment (Bowlby)
      • Attachment = adaptive + provides 2 advantages to infant (protection/care + template for later relationships (IWM))
      • Attachment adapted to EEA + desire to attach = innate in humans
      • Sensitive period = first 12 months for most (2.5-3 years for all)
      • If attachment isn't formed here, it's never formed
      • Infants born with social releasers
      • Monotropy = primary caregiver = special focus of attachment providing safe base -> first unique attachment = internal working model
      • Continuity hypothesis -> all later attachments follow this schema
    • Learning theory of attachment A&E point 1: weakened by well-replicated evidence
      • Harlow (1958) -> infant rhesus monkeys spent 17 hours a day with cloth mother instead of wire mother regardless of feeding behaviours
      • Learning theory = poor explanation -> rhesus monkeys not influenced by which mother fed them, only comforted by mother they could cuddle
      • If learning theory was correct the monkeys would have stayed with the wire mother if she fed them rather than the cloth mother
    • Learning theory of attachment A&E point 2: research evidence involving human children to support Harlow's theory against learning theory of attachment = no problem of extrapolation
      • Meltzoff + Moore (1977), Tronick et al. (1975) -> infants intentionally engage caregivers in interactions unrelated to feeding
      • Schaffer + Emerson (1964) -> infants became attached to most responsive person faster than person who fed them
      • 27% infants formed primary attachment to more responsive father
      • Learning theory = poor explanation of behaviour -> caregiver providing most interaction ≠ caregiver feeding them
    • Learning theory of attachment A&E point 3: theory should not be completely dismissed
      • Harlow's (1958) well-replicated findings on rhesus monkeys
      • Could be argued that learning theory is wrong but not entirely
      • US in classical conditioning + primary reinforcer in operant conditioning should be seen differently?
      • Attachment may be due to other unconditioned stimuli, e.g. interaction with primary caregiver becoming routine
    • Monotropic theory of attachment A&E point 1: theory has significant research evidence support
      • Hazan + Shaver (1987) Love Quiz -> strong correlation between childhood attachment types + current adult romantic relationships
      • Criticised for being retrospective + unreliable -> still has research support of Sroufe et al. (2005) Minnesota study = similar results!
      • Both studies strengthen theory because they found exactly what monotropic theory would expect to find
    • Monotropic theory of attachment A&E point 2: there's also evidence against the theory
      • Schaffer + Emerson (1964) -> 30% infants developed multiple attachments simultaneously (not one initial attachment then others later)
      • Zimmerman et al. (2000) -> some people's attachment type changed between childhood + adulthood
      • Some securely attached children whose parents had a messy divorce became insecurely attached
      • Some insecurely attached children became securely attached adults through loving romantic relationships
      • Contradicts Continuity Hypothesis
    • Monotropic theory of attachment A&E point 3: importance of Bowlby's research shouldn't be understated
      • Bowlby's theory focused on first primary attachment being important = studies done into disruption of attachment impacting children's lives
      • e.g. Robertson + Robertson (1971) -> children's hospitals study
      • Led to more care for children without parents + UK moved away from institutionalisation, introducing foster families
      • Parents also allowed to visit children in hospital
      • Bowlby's theory saved many children from distress + later issues forming relationships
    See similar decks