Explanations for attachment

• 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