determinant of attachment isnt food but care and responsiveness
children initially form 1 attachment and they act as a secure base and a template for all future relationships
classical conditioning

bottle (US) -> baby (UR)
parent (NS) + bottle (pairing) -> baby (UR)
parent (CS) -> baby (CR)
attachment formed !
bowlbys evolutionary theory
monotropy - all children have an important initial attachment (who responds best to the social releasers)
internal working model - child learns what to expect from a relationship, created by attachment they have (trust or uncertainty)
critical period - attachments must form before child turns 2 and a half. otherwise risk maternal deprivation hypothesis - long term developmental consequences for life
learning theory eval :) - strengths
could explain characteristics of attachment like proximity seeking and seperation anxiety (theyre worrying about food)
learning theory eval :( - weaknesses
bowlby and lorenz argue attachment is innate rather than learnt
harlows monkeys preferred the one that provided comfort
shaffer and emerson - child formed attachment with most sensitive rather than who provided food
ignores emotion / love, cynical about relationships between children and parents
bowlbys theory eval :( - weaknesses
learning theory would argue attachment is learnt rather than innate
bolwbys theory eval :) - strengths
lorenz supports idea of imprinting / attachments are innate
glasgow study - supports idea of inital monotropy
consequences of harlows monkeys support critical period and internal working model
hazan and shavers love quiz supports internal working model in humans