Learning Theory Of Attachemnt

• Learning Theory


  •Behaviourists believe that we are born as blank slates and so everything can be explained in terms of experiences we have. They prefer to focus on explanations of behaviour (what people do) rather than might or might not be going on in their minds because it is more objective and allows more control.
• Learning Theory


  •They argue that all behaviour is learned through classical and operant conditioning. Conditioning means learning.In terms of attachment, this is sometimes called a ‘cupboard love’ approach because it suggests that children learn to love whoever feeds them.
• Positive reinforcement – this increases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated because it involves a reward for the behaviour
• Negative reinforcement - this increases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated because it involves the removal of, or escape from, unpleasant consequences.
• •Operant conditioning involves learning to repeat behaviour, or not, depending on its consequences. If a behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, that behaviour is likely to be repeated again (it has been reinforced). If a behaviour produces an unpleasant consequence, it is less likely to be repeated.
• •Drive reduction argues that when we feel discomfort, this creates a drive to reduce this discomfort.


  f

  
• Primary and secondary reinforcers

  •When an infant is fed, the drive of hunger is reduced, which produces a feeling of pleasure as they are comfortable again. This is rewarding and therefore feeding is an example of positive reinforcement.•The food is a primary reinforcer because it directly supplies a reward.•
• Primary And Secondary Reinforcers

  The mother or caregiver who supplied the food is associated with the food and so becomes a secondary reinforcer. The infant becomes attached to the mother because she is a source of reward.
• Eval Generalisability


  •Learning theory is largely based on studies of non-human animals such as Skinner’s research with pigeons. Behaviourists believe that humans are no different from other animals in terms of how they learn. Therefore, they argue that it is legitimate to generalise the results from animal studies to humans.
• Eval Generalisability


  •However, whilst some aspects of human behaviour can be explaining by conditioning, not all behaviour can, especially a complex behaviour like attachment. Research suggests that the quality of attachment is associated with factors like developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony (Isabella et al., 1989). The best quality attachments are with sensitive carers who pick up on infant signals and respond appropriately.••This suggests that the explanations of attachment may lack validity because they present an oversimplified view of human behaviour.
• Ao3 – contrasting research


  •A range of animal studies have shown that young animals do not necessarily attach to (or imprint on) those who feed them. Lorenz’s geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them. Harlow’s monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to a wire one that dispensed milk.••This suggests that attachment does not develop as a result of feeding.
• Ao3 – undermining research


  •Research with human infants also suggests that feeding does not appear to be an important factor in humans. For example, Schaffer and Emerson’s (1964) study found that 39% of infants developed a primary attachment to a person, regardless of who fed them.•These findings are a problem for the learning theory as they suggest that feeding is not the key element to attachment and so there is no unconditioned stimulus or primary drive involved
• Ao3 – useful principles of attachment


  •Learning theory may not provide a complete explanation of attachment, but it has some value. Infants do learn through association and reinforcement, but food may not be the main reinforcer. It may be that attention and responsiveness from a caregiver are important rewards that assist in the formation of attachment.••Such reinforcers were not part of the learning theory account but may be able to provide some explanation of attachment.