Learning theory

• Learning theory of attachment:

  • Children are born as blank slated and everything they learn is through experience.

  Attachments are formed through classical and operant conditioning. This is the idea of 'cupboard love', where we form attachments to the person providing us with food. Hunger is a primary drive and attachment is the result of association formed between caregiver and satisfaction of primary drive reduction (being less hungry / full).
• Classical conditioning - learning through association of two stimuli (e.g. a bell and food). This was demonstrated by Pavlov and his dog.
• Classical conditioning - Pavlov's dog:

  
  

  Food (Unconditioned stimulus) = Drooling (Unconditioned response)

  Food + Bell (Conditioned stimulus) = Drooling (Conditioned response)

  Attachment formation.
• Operant conditioning - learning through consequences of behaviour, reinforcement and punishment. This was demonstrated by Skinner and his rats.
• Operant conditioning - Skinner's rats

  
  

  Rats were starved and put in a box containing food and a lever. Every time the rat passed a certain line in the box, it would be given food. The line was moved further from the rat to make the task more difficult. Rat learned to pass the line to be rewarded.

  Next, food was only given if rat touched the lever. The it was only given if the rat actually pulled the level. Finally, the rat learned to pull the lever.
• Limitations of the learning theory of attachment:

  • Contradictory evidence from animal studies - Harlow demonstrated that contact comfort was more important than food in development to form an attachment. This suggest that there is no unconditioned stimulus (of food) and if there is, it has very little effect on the formation of attachments.
• Limitations of the learning theory of attachment:

  • Contradictory evidence from human studies - Brazleton et al emphasised the importance of interactional synchrony and reciprocity in the secure formation of attachments between primary caregivers and infants. Attachments form on the person most attentive to the infant, meaning the unconditioned stimulus of food is irrelevant.
• Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment - An evolutionary theory stating that attachments are innate (you are born with it).
• Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment:

  A= Adaptive – attachments are an advantage, or beneficial to survival as it ensures a child is kept safe, warm and fed.
• Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment:

  S = Social releasers – e.g. a cute face on a baby. These unlock the innate tendency for adults to care for a child because they activate the mammalian attachment system.
• Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment:

  C = Critical period – This is the time in which an attachment can form i.e. up to 2.5 to 3 years old. Bowlby suggested that if an attachment is not formed in this time, it never will. If an attachment does not form, you will be socially, emotionally, intellectually and physically stunted.
• Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment:

  M = Monotropy – means ‘one carer’. Bowlby suggested that you can only form one special intense attachment (this is typically but not always with the mother). This attachment is unique, stronger and different to others. Maternal deprivation, which is characterised by a lack of a mother figure during the critical period for attachment formation, results in emotional and intellectual developmental deficits i.e. affection less psychopathy and mental decline.
• Bowlby's monotropic theory of attachment:

  • I = Internal working model – This is an area in the brain, a mental schema for relationships where information that allows you to know how to behave around people is stored. Internal working models are our perception of the attachment we have with our primary attachment figure. Therefore, this explains similarities in attachment patterns across families. Those who have a dysfunctional internal working model will seek out dysfunctional relationships and behave dysfunctionally within them.
• Strengths of Bowlby's theory:

  • Supporting evidence - Internal working models, presented by Bailey et al. Through observing 99 mothers and the recording of their children's attachment types using the Strange Situation, researchers found poor insecure attachments were the same as the parents reports of their attachments with their parents. This suggests that internal working models are likely to be formed during this first initial attachment which has an impact on the ability of the children to become parents themselves later on.
• Limitations of Bowlby's theory:

  • Socially sensitive research - Despite Bowlby not specifying that the primary attachment figure must be the mother, it often is (in 65% of cases). Therefore, this puts pressure on working mothers to delay their return to work in an effort to ensure that their child develops a secure attachment. Any developmental abnormalities in terms of attachment are therefore blamed on the mother by default. This suggests that the idea of monotropy may stigmatise ‘poor mothers’ and pressure them to take responsibility.
• Limitations of Bowlby's theory:

  • Low ecological validity - Schaffer and Emerson found that a small minority of children were able to form multiple attachments from the outset. This idea is also supported by Van Izjendoorn and Kronenberg, who found that monotropy is scarce in collectivist cultures where the whole family is involved in raising and looking after the child. This means that monotropy is unlikely to be a universal feature of infant-caregiver attachments, as believed by Bowlby, and so is a strictly limited explanation of some cases of attachments.