Explanation 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 - classical conditioning

  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

  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.
• Outline the learning theory of attachment - negative reinforcement

  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. This means that infants and their caregivers learn to show attachment behaviours towards one another, thus helping to form and strengthen their attachment.
• Strength - LT of attach. - plausible and grounded in scientific theory

  founded on the behaviourist concepts of classical and operant conditioning that are observable and so can be objectively studied. supporting evidence from both animal studies (dogs/rats) and human research (study on Little Albert showing phobias can be conditioned) strength suggests the learning theory of attachment is a scientific, plausible theory of how an association between can form between a caregiver and food to result in the formation of an attachment. adds credibility to the learning theory of attachment.
• Limitation of the learning theory of attachment - 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 when monkeys were raised in isolation with two surrogate mothers they spent most of their time clinging to the cloth surrogate monkey (no food) and would run to the cloth surrogate when fearful. This challenges the learning theory of attachment because, according - the monkeys should have attached to the wire surrogate which provided food. These studies therefore question the validity.
• LT of attachment limitation - lorenz study

  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
• LT of attachment limitation of lorenz - difficult to apply findings to human attch.

  This is because goslings are mobile from birth whereas human infants are immobile, meaning humans rely more on their caregivers for survival. limitation because this difference in the nature and complexity of the attachments between goslings and human infant-human infants are more likely to display learned behaviours (e.g. crying/smiling) that encourage the caregiver to look after them (i.e. provide food). It is therefore possible that the learning theory of attachment is more applicable for human infants.
• Limitation of LT of attach. criticised for being enviro. 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.
• Moreover there is a positive correlation between the amount of interactional synchrony between an

  infant and caregiver and the strength of their attachment.

  These findings are difficult to apply to the learning theory of attachment because if attachment

  developed purely as a result of stimulus-response associations regarding feeding, we would not expect to find relationships between these complex social

  interactions and the quality of infant-caregiver attachment. This therefore questions the appropriateness of the learning theory’s reductionist approach to explaining attachments
• Outline Bowlbys 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 Bowlbys monotropic theory of attachment - explanation

  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.
• Strength of Bowlby - received SE

  Meltzoff and Moore found that infants as young as 12 days old could imitate both facial + manual gestures displayed by adults. Lorenz’s + found that new-born goslings imprinted on the first moving object they saw and this imprinting has to happen within a critical period of 32 hours. strength because Meltzoff + Moore’s findings support Bowlby’s proposal that infants are born innate ability to display social releasers to help them form attachments. Lorenz’s findings support Bowlby’s proposal that attachments must form in critical period. + cred to bowlby
• Bowlbys theory - love quiz SE

  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. strength because it supports Bowlby’s proposal that early attachments help form an infant’s internal

  working model that then affects their later relationships. adds credibility of Bowlby theory of attachment.
• Bowlby Opposing E

  Schaffer’s stages of attach -importance of multiple attachments at 9 months whereby infants extend their attachment behaviour to multiple adults that they regularly spend time with (grandparents). role of the father - fathers are typically the secondary attachment figure but still important role e.g. they offer the role of an exciting play mate - absent father can lead to poorer performance at school, increased likelihood of delinquent behaviour. limitation - multiple attachments are important in an infant’s life, rather than just the monotropic attachment. ? Cred.
• Outline procedure -Ainsworth strange sitch

  Involves observing infants and their mothers in a controlled environment to assess what type of attachment they have formed. recording operationalised behavioural categories in a standardised series of 8 episodes each lasting 3 minutes each. mother and infant first enter a room with toys to assess the infant’s exploration behaviour and use of the mother as a safe base. other episodes, a stranger enters to measure stranger anxiety and the mother leaves to measure separation anxiety. final one -mother returns to assess the infants’ reunion behaviour.
• Outline Ainsworth findings - three types of attachment

  Ainsworth found that there were three types of attachment: secure (most common) whereby the primary caregiver is sensitive to their infant’s needs;

  insecure-resistant (least common) whereby the primary caregiver was inconsistent with their care; and insecure-avoidant whereby the primary caregiver

  was insensitive to their infant’s needs.
• Outline Ainsworth findings - behaviours

  Infants with a secure attachment would show exploration behaviour and use the mother as a safe base. They would also show happiness upon reunion

  and be easily soothed. In contrast, infants with an insecure-resistant attachment would not explore the room and would resist comfort when reunited

  with their caregiver. Finally, infants with an insecure-avoidant attachment would explore the room without using the mother as a safe base and would be

  indifferent when the mother returns.
• Outline Ainsworth's findings - separation anxiety

  Infants with a secure attachment would also show moderate separation and stranger anxiety whereas infants with an insecure-resistant attachment

  would show extreme levels and infants with an insecure-avoidant attachment would show no separation or stranger anxiety.
• Strength - lab enviro High level of control - Ainsworth

  standardised series of 8 episodes that all lasted same amt of time for each infant. Strengt-enables research to be easily replicated to check reliability of findings into types of attach. enabled the strange situation to be replicated in different countries to investigate cultural variations in attachment - Van Ijzendoorn’s research. high level of control prevents extraneous variables from affecting results e.g. child spends the same amt of time in each episode- if left longer - shown more sep anxiety regardless type of attch had - +cred
• Strength of Ainsworth - used operationalised behavioural categories

  This is because the observations involved

  observing pre-determined specific behaviours such as exploration behaviour, stranger anxiety, separation anxiety and reunion behaviour. This is a strength as it makes the research more objective and increases the inter-observer reliability of the findings. Indeed, research has found an inter-observer reliability rate of 94% when using the strange situation. Therefore adds credibility.
• Limitation of Ainsworth strange situation - lacks ecological validity

  This is because it was conducted in an artificial lab

  environment that the infant is not familiar with. This is a limitation because the infants may act differently compared to if they were being observed in

  their everyday homes. As a result, the strange situation may be measuring their response to being in an unfamiliar environment rather than their

  attachment type. Therefore questions credibility.
• Limitation - ainsworth - fails to consider individual differences - affect type of attach

  children who regularly attend day care may show characteristics of insecure avoidant attachment despite having a secure attachment - are used to being separated from their mother - so likely to show no separation anxiety. infants who are shy may be identified as having an insecure-resistant attachment despite having a secure attachment- they may not want to explore + showing extreme stranger anxiety. these factors could lead to incorrect attachment types being identified in the infants ? cred