Explanations of attachment: Learning theory

• who developed the learning theory of attachment?

  dollard and miller
• importance of food

  sometimes called the 'cupboard love' explanation because ti emphasises the importance of food in attachment foundation. children learn to love whoever feeds them.
• role of classical conditioning

  classical conditioning involves learning to associate stimuli. in attachment:

  UCS (food) leads to UCR (a feeling of pleasure). this response is not learned so it is an unconditioned response.
• baby learns that mother produces a sense of pleasure

  a caregiver (e.g. mother) starts as NS, i.e. a thing that produces a neutral response.

  the person providing food over time becomes associated with 'food'. so the neutral stimulus becomes a CS.

  once conditioning has taken place the sight of the caregiver produces a CR of pleasure. according to a learning theorist, this is the basis of attachment love.
• role of operant conditioning

  operant conditioning explains why babies cry for comfort (an important building block for attachment)

  crying leads to a response from the caregiver (e.g. feeding). as long as the caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced because it produces a pleasurable consequence (positive reinforcement)
• negative reinforcement

  at the same time as the baby is reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops (negative reinforcement is escaping something unpleasant, which is reinforcing).

  this interplay of positive/negative reinforcement strengthens an attachment.
• drive reduction

  hunger is a primary drive, an innate biological motivator. we are motivated to eat to reduce the hunger drive.

  attachent is a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive. sears et al. suggested that as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them.
• strength: animal studies provide evidence against food as basis of attachment

  Lorenz's imprinted geese maintained attachments regardless of who fed them. harlow's monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to a wire one with milk. in both these animal studies, attachment didn't develop as a result of feeding. the same must be true for humans (that food doesn't create the attachment bond). after all, learning theorists believe that non-human animals and humans are equivalent.
• limitation: ignores other factors associated with attachment

  research shows that quality of attachment is associated with developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony. studies also show that the best quality attachments are with sensitive carers who pick up infant signals and respond appropriately. it is very hard to reconcile these findings with the idea that attachment develops primarily through feeding.
• strength: some elements of conditioning could still be involved

  the main problem with learning theory is the idea that feeding provides the unconditioned stimulus, reinforcement or primary drive. however, many aspects of human development are affected by conditioning so it seems plausible that it could still play a role in attachment (but not in relation to feeding). for example, associations (classical conditioning) between the primary caregiver and provision of comfort and social interaction could be part of what builds attachment.
• strength: human research also shows feeding isn't an important factor

  Schaffer and Emerson showed that for many babies a primary attachment was not to the person who fed them. this shows that feeding is not the key element to attachment and so there is no unconditioned stimulus or primary drive involved. the evidence suggests that other factors are more important than food in the formation of attachment