L5: Learning Theory of Attachment

• Dollard and Miller (1950)

  • caregiver-infant attachment explained by learning theory
  • emphasises attachment figure as provider of food
• classical conditioning

  • food - unconditioned stimulus (UCS) -> unconditioned response of pleasure (UCR)
  • caregiver - neutral stimulus (NS)

  When caregiver provides food, it becomes associated with the food.

  • neutral stimulus -> conditioned stimulus (CS)
  • sight of caregiver -> conditioned response (CR) of pleasure

  This CR would be love; attachment is formed and so caregiver becomes attachment fig.
• Operant conditioning involves learning from the consequences of behaviour.
• • behaviour -> pleasant conseq. -> more likely to be repeated

  This behaviour has been reinforced.

  • behaviour -> unpleasant conseq. (punishment) -> less likely to be repeated

  Explains why babies cry for comfort.

  • crying -> caregiver resp. (e.g., feeding)
  • correct response -> crying reinforced

  Baby directs crying to caregiver -> CG responds with 'social suppressor' behaviour.

  • caregiver receives negative reinforcement -> crying stops
  • escaping from unpleasant thing -> reinforcement
• Mutual reinforcement strengthens the attachment between caregiver and infant.
• attachment as a secondary drive

  • LT: drive reduction
  • hunger -> primary drive (biological motivator)
  • Sears et al (1957): caregiver provides food -> primary drive generalised to them

  Attachment -> secondary drive

  • association of caregiver and satisfaction of primary drive
• limitation: counter-evidence from animal studies

  point: lack of support from studies conducted on animals

  evidence: Lorenz - geese imprinted on 1st moving obj. regardless of object's association with food

  • Harlow: no support for import. of food - monkeys displayed attachment to cloth mother instead of wire one which provided milk

  explain: this is a limitation of learning theory b/c it shows other factors (e.g., contact comfort) are more important than food in important of attachments
• limitation: counter-evidence from studies on humans

  point: lack of support from studies on human babies

  evidence: Schaffer and Emerson (1964) - babies formed main attach. to mothers regardless of whether or not she was the one to feed them.

  • Isabella et al (1989): high IS levels predicted quality of attachment

  Neither of these factors are related to feeding.

  explain: this is a limitation of LT b/c it further shows that other factors are more important in forming human attachments than food.

  link: limitation - counter-evidence from human studies b/c red. validity of theory