AO3: The Learning Theory of Attachment

• One weakness of the learning theory is that contact comfort may be more important than food in attachments; supported by Harlow's research which found that monkeys spent more time with a cloth mother than a wire mother which fed them, showing that comfort is more important. This is further supported by Schaffer and Emerson who found that the primary attachment figure isn't always the person who feeds the child, half the infants were not attached to the person who is primarily involved in their physical care. Therefore it may not be a suitable explanation for how attachments are formed.
• Another weakness is that the Learning theory is reductionist. Meaning that it focuses too much on basic processes and is therefore too simplistic to explain complex attachment behaviours. It also isn't a full explanation, it explains how attachments might form but not why. It doesn't explain the critical period. It also doesn't explain how all children form attachments at around the same age despite different upbringings. Therefore they must be biological in some way, which is ignored by the learning theory.
• Another weakness is that it is environmentally deterministic. Meaning that early learning determines later attachment behaviours- ignoring the role of nature and evolutionary benefits of an attachment- it would seem highly unlikely that instinct has nothing to do with formation of attachments. If forming attachments was environmentally determined, attachment should be different all over the world but it isn't, e.g. everyone attached to parents. Therefore, there is too much emphasis on nurture, not innate biological processes.