learning theory: explanations of attachment

Cards (9)

  • 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