Learning theory (explanations of attachement)

• Learning theory is explained by what approach?

  Behaviourist approach
• who researched the learning theory of attachment?

  Dollard and Miller (1950)
• learning theory is also known as

  cupboard love theory
• role of classical conditioning in attachment

  classical conditioning involves learning to associate to stimuli:

  UCS (food) leads to UCR (a feeling of pleasure). this response is not learned to its an unconditioned response (unlearned)
• baby learns that mother produces a sense of pleasrue

  • a caregiver (mother) starts as a NS (something that produces no response)
  • however, when the caregiver provides food over time, they become associated with food
  • the neutral stimulus becomes a CS
  • once conditioning has taken place the sight of the caregiver produces a CR of pleasure.
  • now an attachment has formed and the caregiver becomes an attachment figure
• role of operant conditioning in attachement

  • operant conditioning explains why babies cry for comfort
  • crying leads to a response form the caregiver e.g. feeding
  • as long as the caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced because it produces a pleasurable consequence
• negative reinforcement in attachment

  • at the same time as the baby is reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops (negative reinforcement is escaping something unpleasant, which is reinforcing)
  • this interplay of positive/negative reinforcement strengthens an attachment
• what is meant by drive reduction

  • hunger is a primary drive, an innate biological motivator. we are motivated to eat to reduce hunger drive
  • attachement is a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive
  • sears (1957) suggested that as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them
• one limitation of learning theory is counter-evidence from animal studies

  Lorenz’s 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 these animal studies, imprinting/attachment did not develop as a result of feeding. this shows that factors other than feeding are important in attachment formation
• another limitation is counter evidence from human studies

  Schaffer and Emerson (1964) showed that for many babies their main attachment was not to the person who fed them. also, isabella (1989) found that interactional synchrony (unrelated to feeding) predicted attachment quality. this again suggests that other factors are more important in attachment formation than feeding.
• one strength is that some elements of conditioning could still be involved

  it seems unlikely that association with food is central to attachment. however, conditioning may still play some role in attachment. for example, a baby’s choice of primary attachment figure may be determined by the fact that a caregiver becomes associated with warmth and comfort. this means that conditioning could still be important in choice of attachment figures, through not the process of attachment formation
• one strength is that some elements of conditioning could still be involved: counterpoint


  however, this point of view ignores the fact that babies take a very active role in the interactions that produce attachment. for example they initiate interactions (Feldman and Eidelman 2007). this suggests that learning theory may be inappropriate in explaining any aspect of attachment