ao3

• limitation - counter-evidence from animal studies

  Lorenz geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw. Harlows monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to a wire one with milk

  in both of these studies imprinting/ attachment did not develop because of feeding

  this shows that factors other than feeding are important in attachment formation
• limitation - counter-evidence from human studies

  Schaffer and Emerson showed that for many babies their main attachment was not to the person who fed them

  also Isabella et al found that interactional synchrony predicted attachment quality

  other factors are more important than feeding in the formation of attachment
• strength - elements of conditioning could be involved

  it seems unlikely that association with food is central to attachment. However, conditioning may still play a role

  FE a baby choice of primary attachment figure may be determined but the fact that the caregiver becomes associated with warmth and comfort

  this means that conditioning could still be important in choice of attachment figures, though not the process of attachment formation
• counterpoint - limitation

  however, this ignores the fact that babies take a very active role in the interactions that produce attachment. FE they initiate interactions.

  this suggest that the learning theory may be inappropriate in explaining any aspect of attachment
• alternative explanation -slt

  Hay and Vespa suggest that parents teach their kids to love them by modelling attachment behaviour

  parents also reward babies with approval when they display their own attachment behaviour

  this means that social learning theory can provide better explanations including explaining the active role taken by babies in attachment development