Learning theory, attachment

• Learning theory proposes that behaviour is learnt rather than innate, when children are born they are born with a blank slate (tabula rasa) and they learn through experience. Behaviourists believe we learn through conditioning
• Dollard and Miller (1950) proposed that care-giver infant interactions can be explained by the learning theory of attachment. Their theory is someone called "cupboard love" as it emphasises the importance of the caregiver as a provider of food.
• Classical conditioning was first investigated by Pavlov. Learning through association. A NS is constantly paired an UCS (which creates an UCR) . The NS takes on the properties of the UCS (NS is now CS) and produces a CR (same as UCR) when presented.
• A limitation of D&M's explanation is that it only explains one type of attachment - cupboard love. It doesn't account for all types of attachments such as emotional bonds or physical contact. Also, it ignores the role of genetics and temperament in shaping our attachment styles.
• Operant conditioning was first investigated by Skinner with his rat experiments. The rats learnt through reinforcement and punishment the consequences of actions.

  • positive reinforcement - action, positive consequence/reward = repeated
  • Negative reinforcement - action, removes pain, feel happy = repeated
  • Punishment - action, negative consequence = not repeated
• Classical conditioning is used to explain attachment, The infant innately responds to the UCS of food with an UCR of joy, the mother, who is the NS initially creates no response from the infant. However, whenever the mother is present, the infant is fed, the infant learns to associate the mother with food appearing, the mother is now a CS and the infant has a CR of joy whenever the mother is around as they associate the other with food.

  
• Attachment can also be learned by operant conditioning. The presence of the caregiver is reinforcing for the infant. The infant gains pleasure/reward as they are fed. The infant’s behavior is reinforcing for the caregiver (the caregiver gains pleasure from smiles etc. – reward). The reinforcement process is, therefore, reciprocal (two-way) and strengthens the emotional bond/attachment between the two.
• Operant conditioning is evident in attachment as when an infant is hungry they enter a "drive state" of crying. As the baby is crying, this results in them being fed as a "drive reduction", crying is more likely to be repeated to get food and is the primary reinforcer as provides the reward. Through classical conditioning, the person providing the food (caregiver) is associated with removing discomfort and becomes a secondary reinforcer, the infant seeks joy when the secondary reinforcer is present A they supply the reward, an attachment forms
• The social learning theory was first shown by Bandura, observing models and imitating rewarded behaviour and avoiding punished behaviour

  Hay and Vespo suggested modelling could be used to explain attachment. Infants observe their parents' affectionate behaviour which has positive consequences and choose to imitate it. Parents can also deliberately direct their infants on how to behave appropriately in relationships by rewarding good behaviour.
• A03, Learning theory

  Based on animal studies


  Many studies use non-humans, can this be applied to animals? Behaviourists argue humans are no different to animals in how we learn. Therefore, we arguably can learn about human behaviour through animals. However, is it valid to explain all attachment behaviour by conditioning? Attachment is very complex & arguably due to innate dispositions.

  Behaviourist approach lacks validity and is very simplistic
• AO3, Learning theory

  Attachment is not based on food


  Learning theory suggests food is the main explanation for attachment, however, much research disputes this.

  For example, Harlow's monkey experiment demonstrates that attachments form the strongest to the caregiver than provides comfort, not food. Schaffer and Emerson's research also supports this.

  Suggesting learning explanation is oversimplified and ignores factors such as comfort which can shape attachment
• AO3, Learning theory

  It has some explanatory power

  It can explain some aspects of attachment

  Infants do learn through reinforcement and association, however, food is unlikely the main reinforcer.

  • Attention & responses from the caregiver are arguably the rewards that assist attachment & not food as learning theory suggests.

  The learning theory still has some value, but is not the complete explanation of attachment
• AO3, Learning theory

  Drive reduction theory limited

  Drive reduction only explains a limited number of behaviours.

  • Many behaviours we decide have nothing to do with removing discomfort and may even bring discomfort (e.g. bungee jumping)
  • This theory also does not explain how secondary reinforcers work adequately. Secondary reinforcers don't remove discomfort but are reinforcing.

  There are many limits to the reduction theory
• AO3, Learning theory

  An alternate explanation

  There have been better theories, leading to the learning theory being rejected.

  Bowlby's theory E.g., explains why attachments for (SL only explains how). It explains why infants aren't always attached primarily to those who they are fed by. Bowlby's theory also demonstrates the strengths of forming attachments.

  Bowlby's theory offers a more complete explanation of attachment compared to the learning theory
• A primary reinforcer is a stimulus that is naturally reinforcing as it satisfies a biological need

  A secondary reinforcer is a stimulus that reinforces a behavior after it has been associated with a primary reinforcer.