Explanations of attachment: Learning theory

• In line with the behaviourist approach, learning theory views children as being born with blank slates. Everything we know is learned through our experiences, so a baby has to learn to form an attachment with its mother.
• This is sometimes called the 'cupboard love' explanation because it emphasises the importance of food in attachment formation. Children learn to love whoever feeds them.
• Classical conditioning involves learning to associate two stimuli. In attachment:

  UCS (food) leads to UCR (a feeling of pleasure). This response is not learned so it is an unconditioned response (unlearned).
• A caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus. However, when the caregiver provides food over time, they become associated with 'food'. So the neutral stimulus becomes a conditioned stimulus. Once conditioning has taken place the sight of a caregiver produces a conditioned response of pleasure. The conditioned pleasure response is the basis of love. Now an attachment has formed and the caregiver becomes an attachment figure.
• Operant conditioning explains why babies cry for comfort. Crying leads to a response from the caregiver (eg. feeding). As long as the caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced because it produces a pleasurable consequence.
• At the same time as the baby is reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops. The interplay of positive/negative reinforcement strengthens an attachment.
• Hunger is a primary drive, an innate biological motivator. We are motivated to eat to reduce the hunger drive. Attachment is a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive. Sears et al. (1957) suggested that, as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them.
• AO3 - Counter-evidence from animal studies:

  Lorenz's geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw. Harlow's 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.
• AO3 - 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 et al. (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.
• AO3 - 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, though not the process of attachment formation.
• AO3 - Learning theory ignores other factors associated with forming attachments:

  Research into early infant-caregiver interaction suggests that the quality of attachment is associated with factors like developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony. Additionally, studies have shown that the best quality attachments are with sensitive carers that pick up infant signals and respond appropriately.