Learning theory of attachment

• Key assumptions of the learning theory:

  • Behaviour is a result of nurture as it is based on how you were raised by the people around you.
  • attachment is NOT innate
  • attachment is leant in 2 ways: through classical conditioning and operant conditioning
• In operant conditioning, the children learn to become attached to their caregiver as they give them food. This is known as the 'cupboard love' theory.
• Classical conditioning: learning through association

  • the person who feeds the infant becomes associated with food (food is the unconditioned stimulus, producing the unconditioned response, pleasure and the caregiver is the neutral stimulus)
  • They learn to associate the caregiver with the feeling of pleasure when they are fed which leads to the development of the attachment bond.
• Operant conditioning: learning through consequence

  • based on reinforcement, rewarding behaviour (positive reinforcement) reinforces it and increases the chance of the behaviour being repeated
• Operant conditioning in terms of attachment:

  • food satisfies the infant's hunger and makes them feel comfortable again. This is known as drive reduction.
  • Food acts as the reward and therefore becomes a primary reinforcer
  • The caregiver is linked with food as they provide it and becomes a secondary reinforcer. The infant then becomes attached to the caregiver because they are a source of reward (food)
• The learning theory is referred to as the 'cupboard love' theory as the infants primary motivation is to seek food.
• Strength: theory is plausible and scientific as it is likely that an association between the provision of needs (e.g. food) and the person providing these needs can lead to strong attachments. This means that researchers can be confident in the learning theory as an explanation for attachment.
• Limitation: challenging evidence for the learning theory comes from Harlow's baby monkey study. Harlow found that the monkeys gravitated towards the cloth surrogate when frightened. This suggested that the monkeys attached for emotional security rather than food. Therefore, Harlow's findings contradict the key assumptions of the learning theory, meaning it is not a complete explanation of attachment.
• Limitation: the theory is too simplistic. the focus on basic processes, such as reinforcement are too simple to explain complex processes like attachment. This means that it is not a complete explanation for attachment in humans.