Explanations of attachment:Learning theory

• Dollard and Miller proposed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory. It emphasises the importance of the attachment figure as a provider of food. (Children learn to love whoever feeds them).
• Classical Conditioning:


  =learning to associate two stimuli together so that we begin to respond to one in the same way as we already respond to the other.
• Food serves as an unconditioned stimulus. Being fed gives us pleasure-unconditioned response. A caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus (produces no response). However, when the caregiver provides food over time they become associated with food. When the baby then sees this person there is an expectation of food. The neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus and caregiver produces a conditioned response. (An attachment is formed and caregiver becomes an attachment figure)
• Operant Conditioning:


  = involves learning from the consequences of behaviour.
• Operant Conditioning:


  If a behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, that behaviour is likely to be repeated again. This behaviour is said to be reinforced. If a behaviour produces a negative consequence (punishment) it is less likely to be repeated.
• Operant conditioning can explain why babies cry for comfort (an important behaviour in building attachment). Crying leads to a response from the caregiver (e.g. feeding). As long as the caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced.
• This reinforcement of crying is a two-way process. At the same time as the baby is reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops (escaping from something unpleasant is reinforcing). This interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment.
• As well as conditioning, learning theory draws on the concept of drive reduction. Hunger can be thought of as a primary drive- it’s an innate, biological motivator. We are motivated to eat in order to reduce the hunger drive. Sears suggested that as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger is generalised to them. Attachment is thus a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction os a primary drive.
• A limitation of learning theory explanations for attachment is a lack of support from studies conducted on animals. Lorenz‘s geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw regardless of whether this object was associated with food. Harlow’s monkeys also chose comfort over food. This shows other factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments.
• A further limitation is a lack of support from studies of human babies. Schaffer and Emerson found that babies tended to form their main attachment to their mother regardless of whether she was the one who usually fed them. This again suggests that food is not the main factor in the formation of human attachments.
• One strength of learning theory is that although it is unlikely that association with food plays a central role in attachment, conditioning may still play a role. For example, a baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult, and this may influence the baby’s choice of their main attachment figure. This means that learning theory may still be useful in understanding the development of attachments.
• However, both classical and operant conditioning explanations see the baby playing a relatively passive role in attachment development. In fact research shows babies take a very active role in the interactions that produce attachment (Feldman and Eidelman). This means that conditioning may not be an adequate explanation of any aspect of attachment.