learning theory: explanations of attachment

• intro ↓

  - Dolland and Miller (1950) proposed that caregiver infant attachment can be explained by the learning theory – emphasizes the role of Learning in the acquisition of behavior via classical and operant conditioning

  - ( sometimes called a ‘cupboard love’) because it emphasizes the importance of the attachment figure as the provider of food
• classical conditioning ↓

  - classical conditioning involves learning via association

  - food serves as UCS which gives us pleasure UCR

  - the caregiver starts as a NS- produces no response

  - when the caregiver provides food over time they become associated with food

  - when the baby sees this, there's an expectation of being fed

  - The NS becomes CS

  - once conditioning has occurred, the caregiver produces pleasure CR

  - and attachment is formed with a caregiver becomes an attachment figure
• operant conditioning (1/2)↓

  - Learning from consequences of behavior

  - Behaviour is more likely to be reinforced if it produces a pleasant consequence

  - if you have a produces an unpleasant consequence (punishment) it's less likely to be repeated

  - can explain why babies cry for comfort- important behaviour and building attachment

  - cry leads to response from the caregiver e.g. feeding

  - as long as the caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced
• operant conditioning(2/2) ↓

  The reinforcement is a two way process. - whilst positive reinforcement occurs-baby rewarded for crying e.g food, caregiver receives negative reinforcement, because the crying stops and escaped something unpleasant

  - this mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment
• attachment as a secondary drive ↓

  - The learning theory draws on the concept of drive reduction

  - Hunger is the primary drive -~ an innate biological motivator

  - Were motivated to eat to reduce the hunger drive

  - Robert Sears et al (1957) suggested as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them

  - This makes attachment the secondary drive – learned by association between the caregiver and the satification of the primary drive
• ao3 counter evidence from animal studies ↓

  - Lack support from animal studies

  - Lorenz’s geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw regardless of whether it was associated with food

  - This is the same for Harlow’s research – both showed no support for the importance of food

  - His monkeys showed attachment to the clothe surrogate mother in preference to the wired one who provided milk

  - … shows that other factors other than the association of food are important in the formation of attachment
• ao3 counter evidence from human studies ↓

  - Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found babies tend to form their main attachment to their mother regardless of whether she was the one who usually fed them

  - Russell Isabella et al (1989) found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of the attachment - which isnt related to feeding

  - … suggests that food isnt the main factor for the formation of human attachment
• ao3 some conditioning may be involved + cp (1/2) ↓

  - e.g. a baby may associate feeling comfort and warmth with the presence of a particular adult – this may influence the baby’s choice od their main attachment figure

  - .. shows that the learning theory may still be useful in the understanding the development of attachment an
• ao3 some conditioning may be involved + cp (2/2)

  cp //Both classical and operant conditioning see the baby playing a passive role in attachment – respond to associations with comfort/rewards

  - But research shows that babies take on an active role in interactions that produce attachment (Feldman and Eildman 2007)

  - .. means that conditioning may not be sufficient explanation of any aspect of attachment