A03

• Point: One limitation of learning theory explanations for attachment is lack of support from animal studies.

  Evidence: Lorenz's geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw regardless of whether it was associated with food.

  Explain: Similarly, Harlow's monkeys also showed that they preferred a soft surrogate 'mother' over a wire one with milk.

  Link: Therefore, this indicates that factors other than food association are crucial in attachment formation.
• Point: A further limitation of learning theory explanations is lack of support from studies of human babies.

  Evidence: Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that babies formed their main attachment to their mother regardless of feeding.

  Explain: In addition, Isabella (1989) discovered that interactional synchrony predicted attachment quality, unrelated to feeding.

  Link: Thus, this indicates that human attachment is influenced by factors beyond mere feeding, contrary to learning theory predictions.
• Point: One strength of learning theory is that elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment.

  Evidence: Babies may associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult, influencing their choice of attachment figure.

  Explain: This suggests that while food association might not be central, conditioning processes could still contribute to attachment development.

  Link: Therefore, learning theory may offer valuable insights into certain aspects of attachment formation, despite its limitations.
• Point: Both classical and operant conditioning explanations see the baby playing a relatively passive role in attachment development.

  Evidence: Feldman and Eidelman (2007) shows that babies actively engage in interactions that contribute to attachment. 

  Explain: This challenges the notion of passivity in attachment formation.

  Link: Hence, conditioning may not provide a comprehensive explanation for attachment processes, given the active role of babies in shaping their attachments.