AO3 - Learning theory

• Animal studies like Harlows monkey study contradict the learning theory of attachment.
• Evolutionary studies, which suggest attachment is innate, contradict the learning theory.
• The learning theory may be less valid as there are other explanations that tell us why they form and not just how . For example Bowlby's Monotropic theory.
• Schaffer and emerson's study contradicts learning theory as they found that 39% of the samples main attachment figures was someone other than the person who fed them.
• Schaffer and emerson's (1964) shows that not all infants strive to form attachments based on food like learning theory suggests.
• Harlow found that the monkeys preferred comfort more than food - spending up to 15 hours a day with the comfort mother and just 1 hour with the wire mother.
• Refuting research evidence -

  Research evidence that refuted the claim of learning theory that we attach to those who feed us, is the study into stages of attachment by Schaffer & Emerson,

  They found that most infants attached to their most responsive carer, which was not necessarily the one who fed them. 39% of the infants main attachment was with someone other than the one who bathed and fed them.

  Attachments were more likely to be formed to those individuals who are sensitive and rewarding to the baby and who play with the infant.

  This suggests that Learning theory of attachment may not be the only reason why infants attach as attachment is more complex than just associative learning as children will attach to those who are sensitive to their needs and not necessarily the person who provides food.
• More refuting research evidence -

  There is research that refutes the fundamental ideas for the learning theory that we attach to those who feed us.

  For example Harlow’s monkey study contradicts the idea that food is key for learning how to form attachment, as Harlow found that when he studied Rhesus monkeys, that they spend most of the time in a day holding onto the cloth mother that provided COMFORT ONLY and only went to the feeding mother who gave NO comfort, when hungry and when fully fed would return to the cloth COMFORT mother

  This suggests that food is not the driving force in building attachments contrary to the claims of learning theory so alternative reasons need to be considered to explain how attachments are formed.
• Scientific theory due to its research +

  A strength of Learning theory of attachment is that this can be considered a scientific theory because it suggests attachments are learnt through association and reinforcement which are principles that can be objectively measured & observed.

  For example the principles of classical conditioning, learning via association, were observably and scientifically demonstrated in Watson and Raynor’s study of Little Albert who learnt to associate a white rat with fear where cause and effect could be established. Similarly Skinner’s work on operant conditioning - learning via consequences, was scientifically studied using highly controlled experiments with rats and pigeons to establish cause and effect.

  This suggests that the learning theory of attachment can be validated as a credible way to explain attachment relationships
• Alternative explanation -

  Another problem for the learning theory is that it may be not be able to fully explain how attachments occurs when no learning is involved based on food. So, other explanations for attachments that tell us how as well as why they form should also be considered.

  For example, Bowlby’s monotropic theory can explain how we have evolved to form attachments for survival. So Bowlby’s monotropic theory takes a nature view on attachment behaviour, which is the opposite to the nurture view of the learning theory.

  This therefore implies that the learning theory may be limiting our understanding of attachments as we need to consider the impact of biological reasons ( nature) for attachment alongside nurture to best to explain attachment behaviours.