Evaluation

• COUNTER EVIDENCE FROM ANIMAL STUDIES

  One limitation of the learning theory explanation for attachment is the lack of support from animal studies. For example, Lorenz’s research with geese showed that they imprinted on the first moving object they saw, regardless of whether it was associated with food. Additionally, Harlow’s research with monkeys provides further evidence against the learning theory’s emphasis on food. According to the learning theory, the monkeys should have become attached to the ‘wire mother’ that provided food.
• However, Harlow found that the monkeys displayed attachment behaviors toward the soft, non-food-providing surrogate mother, demonstrating that factors other than food, such as contact comfort, are important in the formation of attachment. This suggests that the learning theory may oversimplify the process of attachment by focusing too heavily on the role of food.
• COUNTER EVIDENCE FROM STUDIES ON HUMANS

  The learning theory of attachment argues that we become most attached to the person who feeds us. However, contradictory evidence comes from Schaffer and Emerson (1969), who found that less than half of the children in their study formed attachments to the individuals who fed them. For example, a nanny may take care of a child, but the attachment often remains strongest with the parents. This contradicts the fundamental principle of learning theory because if it were correct, all babies would form attachments with those who fed them.
• Furthermore, Isabella et al. (1989) found that high levels of interactional synchrony, which involve the caregiver’s sensitivity to the child’s cues, predicted the quality of attachment. These factors, however, are not related to feeding. This suggests that food is not the primary factor in the formation of attachment, and other elements, such as emotional connection and responsiveness, are more important.
• SOME CONDITIONING MAY BE INVOLVED

  One strength of the learning theory is that elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment. While it seems unlikely that the association with food plays a central role in attachment, conditioning may still contribute. For example, a baby might associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult, which could influence the baby’s choice of their main attachment figure.
• Hay and Vespo (1988) suggest that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours, such as hugging, and reinforcing loving behaviour by showing approval. This suggests that learning theory may still be useful in understanding the development of attachment.
• However, both classical and operant conditioning explanations portray the baby as playing a relatively passive role in attachment, simply responding to associations with comfort or reward. Research, however, shows that babies take an active role in the interactions that produce attachment (Feldman, 2007). This active involvement of the infant challenges the passive role suggested by learning theory and points to the complexity of attachment formation.
• REDUCTIONISM

  The learning theory has also been criticized for being reductionist, as it simplifies the complexities of human attachment behaviour to basic concepts like association. One major weakness is that it does not account for the role of biology or evolutionary behaviours in shaping attachment. For example, Bowlby argues that attachments form because they are adaptive and promote survival, an idea rooted in evolutionary theory. This is something the learning theory does not address.
• As a result, the learning theory does not offer a comprehensive explanation for why attachments form, reducing its explanatory power when it comes to understanding the full range of attachment behaviours.