Explanations for attachment

• Identify the two explanations for attachment.

  The learning theory of attachment and Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment.
• Outline the learning theory of attachment.


  The learning theory of attachment proposes that infants attach to their caregiver because they provide them with food.

  Through classical conditioning, infants learn to associate their caregiver (the neutral stimulus) with food (the unconditioned stimulus).

  Because food creates the unconditioned response of pleasure, this results in the caregiver becoming a conditioned stimulus that creates a feeling of happiness in the infant.
• Outline the learning theory of attachment


  Operant conditioning is also involved in that infants are fed when they cry so they are negatively reinforced into crying for their caregiver as it removes the unpleasant feeling of hunger.

  Similarly, the caregiver is also negatively reinforced into taking care of the infant as they learn that when they feed them it removes the unpleasant sound of them crying.
• Outline Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment.


  Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment proposes that attachment is an adaptive behaviour that has evolved to aid an infant's survival.

  It also proposes that infants have an innate ability to display social releasers (e.g. crying and smiling) that help them form an attachment.

  Bowlby said that this attachment must form within the critical period of 2 years otherwise it would be difficult to form a later attachment and could have severe effects on the infant's later development.
• Outline Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment.


  Bowlby's theory is therefore described as monotropic because he said that this attachment occurs with a singular caregiver who is their most important attachment figure.

  This is because it determines the infant's internal working model (i.e. expectations of future relationships).

  This means that a secure attachment would result in the infant later developing positive and loving relationships while an insecure attachment would result in the infant later experiencing difficulty forming or maintaining relationships.
• Evaluate the learning theory of attachment: plausible and grounded in established, scientific theory. 


  This is because it is founded on the behaviourist concepts of classical and operant conditioning that are observable and so can be objectively studied. The concepts have also plenty of supporting evidence from both animal studies (e.g. Pavlov’s and Skinner’s demonstrating classical and operant conditioning in dogs and rats, respectively) and human research (e.g. Watson and Rayner’s study on Little Albert showing how phobias can be conditioned).
• Evaluate the learning theory of attachment: substantial opposing evidence. 


  Schaffer and Emerson found that over half of the infants they studied were not attached to the person who fed them. Harlow also found that monkeys spent most of their time clinging to the cloth surrogate monkey and would run to the cloth surrogate when fearful. This challenges the learning theory of attachment because, according to this theory, the monkeys should have attached to the wire surrogate which provided food.
• Evaluate the learning theory of attachment: opposing evidence from Lorenz’s study of goslings. 


  This is because Lorenz found goslings imprinted on the first moving object they saw within a critical period. This is a limitation of the learning theory of attachment because it suggests attachment is not learned and, instead, is an innate behaviour. Indeed, Bowlby’s alternative monotropic theory of attachment suggests that attachments form as part of an innate biological process in order to aid survival.
• Evaluate the learning theory of attachment: difficult to apply the findings of Lorenz’s study to human attachments. 


  This is because goslings are mobile from birth whereas human infants are immobile, meaning humans rely more on their caregivers for their survival. This is a limitation because this difference in the nature and complexity of the attachments between goslings and human infants may mean that human infants are more likely to display learned behaviours (e.g. crying and smiling) that encourage the caregiver to look after them (i.e. provide them with food).
• Evaluate the learning theory of attachment: environmentally reductionist. 


  This is because it attempts to explain the complex and highly emotional attachment between an infant and caregiver as a result of stimulus-response links. This is a limitation because research into infant-caregiver interactions has found that various other factors play a role in the formation and quality of an attachment such as caregiver responsiveness to interactions such as reciprocity.
• Evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment: supporting evidence.

  Meltzoff and Moore found that infants as young as 12 days old could imitate both facial and manual gestures displayed by adults. Lorenz found that goslings imprinted on the first large moving object they saw and this must happen within a critical period of 32 hours. This is a strength because Meltzoff and Moore’s findings support the proposal that infants are born with an innate ability to display social releasers. Lorenz’s findings support the proposal that attachments must form within a critical period.
• Evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment: supporting evidence.


  Hazan and Shaver created a love quiz that assessed the relationship between infanthood attachments and later romantic relationships. They found that infants who were securely attached developed secure, stable and loving adult relationships. Infants who did not develop secure attachments were at a higher risk of divorce in their adult relationships. This is a strength because it supports Bowlby’s proposal that early attachments help form an infant’s internal working model that then affects their later relationships.
• Evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment: opposing evidence. 


  Schaffer’s research showed the importance of multiple attachments at 9 months of age where infants extend their attachment behaviour to multiple adults that they regularly spend time with. Research into the role of the father also found that fathers are typically the secondary attachment figure but still play an important role.

  This is a limitation because it suggests that multiple attachments are important in an infant’s life, rather than just the monotropic attachment that Bowlby emphasised.
• Evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment: resulted in negative economic and social implications.


  Bowlby’s emphasis on the importance of a monotropic attachment meant that many mothers felt pressured to stay at home. This would have implications on the economy as it would reduce productivity in female-dominated workplaces and reduce contributions in the form of income tax etc. There are also social implications of this theory in that Bowlby’s idea of the internal working model could place mothers at blame for any later negative relationships their child experiences.