explanations

• Learning theory explanations of attachment are known as ‘cupboard love’ theories as they state that children learn to become attached to their caregiver because they give them food. One way in which this can occur is through the process of classical conditioning: food (unconditioned stimulus) leads to pleasure (unconditioned response). The caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus but as they are always present when food is provided (e.g. through breastfeeding) they become associated with the pleasure of receiving food, making them a conditioned stimulus. From learning theory perspective, attachment is therefore simply a conditioned response.
• Attachment can also be explained through drive reduction: hunger is a primary drive as it is an innate, biological motivator. As the caregiver

  provides food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them, meaning that attachment is a secondary drive learned through the association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive.
• A limitation of learning theory explanation is that they are challenged by animal/human research. For example, Harlow raised monkeys in isolation with wire-mesh ‘mothers’ found that the infants spent much more time clinging to the cloth-covered mother that provided comfort than the mother that provided food. Furthermore, Schaffer and Emerson found that > 50% of the infants in their study were not attached to the person primarily involved in their physical care. These findings challenge learning theory as they would have predicted that the infant would become attached to the source of food. It could be argued that factors other than food may act as reinforcers. For example, attentiveness and responsiveness could be more important. This therefore suggests that conditioning may play a role in the formation of attachments, but due to factors other than the provision of food.
• Furthermore, by focusing on the role of conditioning, learning theory explanations of attachment overlook other potentially vital components. Bowlby focused on the importance of nature rather than nurture in the development of attachments, stating that we are born with an innate drive to form attachments to aid our survival. Babies are born with ‘social releasers’ such as smiling which encourages attention from adults and activate the adult attachment system which leads to the provision of care. This therefore challenges learning theory explanations which state that attachment is simply a by-product of food provision and suggest that learning explanations do not provide a comprehensive account for attachment formation.
• However, it is possible that Social Learning Theory might provide a more valid learning theory explanation of attachment. Hay and Vespo (1988) suggest that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours, for example hugging. Parents also reinforce loving behaviour by showing approval when babies display their own attachment behaviours (such as giving attention or cuddles to their parents. Furthermore, the social learning perspective is based around the two-way interaction between baby and adult, so fits with research into the importance of reciprocity. This therefore means that learning explanations of attachment may well have some validity, even if those based on a purely behavioural approach lack support.
• Bowlby proposed an evolutionary explanation of attachment formation, stating that attachment was an innate system that gave a survival advantage. Bowlby’s theory is described as monotropic as it emphasises the importance of an attachment to one mother-figure: the primary attachment figure. He stated that the more time a baby spent with this primary attachment figure the better, with the law of continuity stating that the more constant and stable a child’s care the better the quality of their attachment and the law of accumulated separation suggesting that the effects of any separation add up and that ‘the safest dose is a zero dose’.
• Bowlby also proposed the concept of an internal working model – the mental representations that a child forms based on their relationship with their primary caregiver which provide the blueprint for their own later relationships (the continuity hypothesis). Bowlby stated that there was a critical period of approximately 0 – 2 ½ years during which the attachment system is active, and that the formation of attachments would be difficult after this time.