Learning theory of attachment

• The learning theory of attachment suggest that infants learn to form an attachment with the mother and all behaviour is learned through classical and operant conditioning.
• In classical conditioning, the process begins with an innate stimulus response. In attachment the innate unconditioned stimulus is food which produces an innate unconditioned response of pleasure. The mother/caregiver starts as a neutral response (no response). At first the infant simple feels pleasure and comforted by the food. However each time they are fed the mother or caregiver is there too. Thus they become conditioned to associate the pleasure of being fed and the mother.
• continuing: classical conditioning Consequently, the mother becomes a learned conditioned stimulus and this produces the learned conditioned response of pleasure which is stimulated even without food. This means that the infant feels happy when the mother is near, this starts attachment
• Operant conditioning involves learning to repeat a behaviour or not depending on its consequences. Positive reinforcement - this increases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated because it involves a reward for the behaviour. This can explain why infants 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, the reward reinforces the action so the infant repeats it, and cries again.
• Continuing operant conditioning: Also, there is negative reinforcement - this increases the likelihood of a behaviour being repeated because it involves the removal of, or escape from, unpleasant consequences.
• John Watson's theory is based on an approach to behaviour called 'classical and operant conditioning'. It argues that behaviour is learnt
• Drive reduction argues that when we feel discomfort, this creates a drive to reduce this discomfort. When an infant is fed, the drive of hunger is reduced, which produces a feeling of pleasure as they are comfortable again. This Is rewarding and so feeding is an example of positive reinforcement. The food is a primary reinforcer because it directly supplies a reward. The mother/caregiver who supplies the food is associated with the food and so becomes a secondary reinforcer. The infant becomes attached to the mother as she is a source of reward.
• The learning theory can provide an adequate explanation of how attachments form. E.g. we do seem to learn in a number of ways through association in real life (e.g. we associate certain situations with danger when we develop phobias even if that association is irrational). Watson and Raynor considered Little Albert to have a phobia of fluffy animals and toys through classical conditioning by banging a metal bar whenever he interacted with a fluffy toy.
• continuing strength: provide adequate explanation of how attachments form This is a strength because it provides real-life evidence that humans do form associations via classical conditioning, as the learning theory suggests, meaning it can be conducted that perhaps this is also an effective way for children to form attachments to their caregivers.
• There is strong evidence from psychological studies that suggest that attachments between the infant and their primary caregiver are not based on feeding. E.g. in Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study, the first attachments formed by 39% of babies was not to the person who carried out the physical care, such as feeding and changing the baby's nappy. Attachments were more likely to be formed to these individuals who are sensitive and rewarding to the baby and who play with the infant (secondary caregivers).
• continuing weakness: This is a weakness because it goes against the learning theory assumption that infants are more likely to form attachments with adults who meet their physical needs- creating doubt as to whether the theory can truly explain the attachment of infants to their caregivers.
• • Further evidence against the learning theory comes from animal research. E.g. Harlow's research (1959) found that when new-born rhesus monkeys were separated from their mother and placed in a cage with 2 surrogate 'mothers' (one made of exposed wire which provided food, and the other wrapped in soft cloth but offered no food), the monkeys preferred and spent most of their time with the cloth 'mother'.
• continuing weakness: further research This is a weakness because it suggests the learning theory of attachment via association (using classical conditioning) is unlikely to explain attachment as the monkeys should have become attached to the'mother' who provided food but instead primarily attached to the caregiver providing comfort.
• A major weakness of the learning theory of attachment is that it is too simplistic. It is mostly based upon animal studies such as Skinner's pigeon study. Behaviourists believe that humans are no different from animals in terms of how they learn, So argue we can generalise results from animal studies to humans. Yet, whilst some aspects of human behaviour can be explained by conditioning, not all behaviour can especially a complex behaviour like attachment.
• Continuing weakness: too simplistic Research suggests that the quality of attachment is associated with factors like developing reciprocity and good levels of IS (Isabella et. al). The best quality attachment is with sensitive carers who pick up on infant signals and respond appropriately. This clearly is a limitation, as it suggests that the explanations of attachment may lack validity because they are oversimplified views of behaviour.
• continuing weakness: too simplistic If attachment developed purely because of feeding, there would be no need for reciprocity and Interactional Synchrony, and we would not expect to find relationships between them and the quality of caregiver-infant attachments.