Learning theory

• Learning theory in the context of attachment

  • John Dollard and Neal Miller, believed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory.
  • This theory emphasises on the person who provides them food.
  • Infants have no innate tendency to form attachments
  • They learn attachments because of food
  • Learning is a result of conditioning, operant and classical, which is a form of learning.
  • all behaviour is learnt
• Use classical conditioning to explain caregiver-infant attachment

  • Classical conditioning is learning by association. In terms of CC, the child learns to associate the caregiver with food.
  • Food is an unconditioned stimulus, which is associated with pleasure.
  • At the start the caregiver is a neutral stimulus, so produces no response.
  • Over time, the caregiver regularly feeds the child, so becomes associated with food so becomes a conditioned stimulus which evokes a conditioned response (pleasure)
• How does operant conditioning explain crying for comfort?

  • A hungry baby will cry because it is distressed, e.g hunger
  • Feeding the baby makes it more comfortable and so crying is learnt through negative reinforcement
  • As long as the caregiver provides the correct response, behaviour e.g crying is reinforced.
  • This reinforcement is a 2 way process. At the same time the caregiver is experiencing negative reinforcement.
• How is the parent experiencing negative reinforcement?

  The caregiver is escaping an unpleasant experience.
• Attachment as a secondary drive

  • Dollard and Miller suggests drive reduction.
  • Hungry infant feels uncomfortable which creates a drive to reduce this discomfort.
  • When the infant is fed, the discomfort is reduced.
  • Food becomes a primary reinforcer as it reduces discomfort
  • Person supplying food is associated with avoiding discomfort so they become the secondary reinforcer.
  • Attachment occurs because the child seeks the person who can supply the reward.
• Use learning theory to explain how Max became attached to his mother rather than father (6marks)

  • Learning theory suggests attachment develops through classical and operant conditioning.
  • According to classical conditioning food produces pleasure
  • Max’s mother was associated with the food and becomes a conditioned stimulus.
  • According to operant conditioning food satisfied Max’s hunger and made him feel comfortable again (drive reduction)
  • Food was therefore the primary reinforcer, his mother was associated with food and became a secondary reinforcer
  • Max became attached to his mother
• Elements of conditioning play a role in forming attachments

  • For example, early in the development of attachment, the primary attachment figure could be chosen by reinforcement- they are the one that provides the most comfort (negative reinforcement)
  • This suggests the interaction between the primary caregiver and the provision of comfort and food has been established through the concepts of LT.
  • Suggests LT has contributed to understanding development of an attachment.
• Counter argument for conditioning

  • Research by Feldman, has found interactions become frequent and involves both mother and baby paying close attention to each others signals.
  • The study suggests babies take an active role whereas in learning theory they take a passive role in responding to associations with food and comfort.
• Social learning theory may be a better explanation

  • Hay and Vespo, suggest that parents teach children to love them by demonstrating attachment behaviours e.g hugging
  • Parents also reinforce loving behaviours by showing approval when babies display their own attachment behaviours e.g giving attention or cuddles to their parents.
  • Therefore social learning theory sees attachment as a reciprocal process.
• Counter-evidence from animal research

  • Supported by Harlow’s study who found that rhesus monkeys spent longer periods of time with soft-clothed mother due to contact comfort and only went to wired mother for food.
  • According to learning theory, young monkeys should have attached to any of the mothers who provided food, as they would associate it with a sense of pleasure and the reduction of their hunger drive. So Harlow’s research provides support for attachments forming from comfort not food.
  • Contradictory evidence reduces reliability
• Counter-evidence from human research

  • Supported by Isabella et al who found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of attachment.
  • Learning theory ignores important social interactions like interactional synchrony. Research has shown that good quality attachments are associated with good levels of these social interactions.
  • Contradictory evidence suggests that food is not the main factor in the formation of human attachments.