Learning Theory

• Cupboard of love
• Conditioning - classical

  Pavlov

  • Both stimulus and response happen naturally
  • Learning by association

  unconditional stimulus = salivation

  Neutral stimulus = steps/bell/metronome

  Conditioned stimulus = learned association

  Conditioned response = salivation
• Operant Conditioning - Skinner
• For Attachment:

  UCS = food

  UCR = happy when given food

  NS = mother’s presence

  CS = mother

  CR = when baby sees mother = happy
• Operant conditioning - learning by consequences
• Reinforcement: anything which has the effect of increasing the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated.
• Positive R: reward to get something pleasant when they happen I.e. food or praise
• Negative R: anything which has the effect of increasing likelihood of the behaviour being repeated by using consequences that are pleasant when they stop
• Punishment: the effect of decreasing the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated by using consequences that are unpleasant when happen.
• Operant conditioning can assist in attachment formation as behaviour is reinforced when learning by consequences. For example, PR is a reward and something pleasant is received when it happens such as baby receiving food or praise. When the baby wants to be fed, it will cry to gain attention from the mother, this is NR as behaviour is more likely to be repeated by using consequences ( the baby crying ) that are pleasant when they stop ( baby will stop crying when it receives food ).
• Evaluation:

  • Criticism of LT

  Behaviourists believe humans are no different from other animals in terms of how they learn. Behaviour patterns constructed from same basic building blocks of stimulus and response THEREFORE, they argue, legitimate to generalise from animal studies to human behaviour. However, not all behaviour can be explained by conditioning ( complex behaviour ( including attachment ). NON-Behaviourists argue that attachment involves innate predispositions/mental activity that can’t be explained by conditioning.
• THEREFORE BEHAVIOURIST EXPLANATIONS MAY LACK VALIDITY, THEY PRESENT AN OVERSIMPLIFIED VERSION OF HUUMAN BEHAVIOUR. - criticism of LT
• Attachment is not based on food

  • Main limitation is that it suggests food is key element in formation of attachment.

  Strong evidence to show that feeding has nothing to do with attachment. Harlow ( 1959 ) showed that infant rhesus monkeys were most ‘attached’ to the wire mother that provided contact comfort, not food, this is supported by Schaffer/Emerson research.

  THESE RESEARCH STUDIES THEREFORE SUGGEST THAT LEARNING EXPLANATION IS OVERSIMPLIFIED/IGNORES OTHER SIMPLIFIED FACTORS SUCH AS CONTACT COMFORT.
• Learning theory has some explanatory power

  • Strength of LT is it can explain some aspects of attachment.

   Infants do learn through association and reinforcement, but food may not be the main reinforcer, may be that attention and responsiveness from a caregiver are important reward that assist in the formation. Such reinforcers were not part of the LT account. It may also be that responsiveness is something that infants intimate and thus learn about how to conduct relationships.

  LEARNING THEORY MAY PROVIDE A COMPLETE EXPLANATION OF ATTACHMENT BUT IT STILL HAS SOME VALUE.
• Driving reduction theory is limited

  • Theory was popular in 40s  but no longer used by psychologists

  Can only explain a limited number of behaviour - there are many things that people do that have nothing to do with reducing discomfort. Theory does not adequately explain how secondary reinforcers work, they do not directly reduce discomfort yet they are reinforcing ( money is SR ).
• Alternative explanation

  • Bowlby’s theory many strengths compared to LT. It explains why attachments form whereas LT explains why it MIGHT. LT offers no strengths of attachment. Bowlby’s strengths include protection from harm and increased chances of survival.