Explanations of attachment

classical conditioning

learning by association

A baby is born with reflexes. Food produces pleasure. The person providing food becomes associated with pleasure & : becomes a conditioned stimulus. The mother then becomes a source of pleasure independent of whether thy food is present. This is the basis of the attachment bond

operant conditioning

learning by reward

according to this theory rewarded behaviours are repeated. After feeding, the hunger drive is reduced and this is rewarding. Since the mother provides the food to reduce the hunger drive, she becomes a secondary reinforcer and the infant strives to be close to her & therefore becomes attached.

learning theory (behaviourism)

argues that behaviour not innate (inborn) but is learnt as the result of classical or operant conditioning

learning theory evaluation summary

• based on scientific experiments

• suggests attachment is associated with feeding

• Glasgow babies

• focuses on nurture not nature

learning theory evaluation - based on scientific experiments

A strength of Learning theory is that it is based on scientific experiments which were carried out on animals in lab conditions e.g. Pavlov's dogs and Skinner's rats. This allows high control of extraneous variables which means we can infer cause and effect. Therefore, it can be concluded that associations and rewards can lead to learning. Thus it can be inferred from this research that feeding does lead to attachment.

learning theory evaluation - suggests attachment is associated with feeding

The theory suggests that attachment is associated with feeding, however this is not the case as shown by Harlow's monkeys. Harlow (1959) showed rhesus monkeys went to cloth covered mum when frightened by toy drummer for comfort when it was the wire mum who fed them. Therefore, the core idea of feeding leading to attachment is flawed.

learning theory evaluation - Glasgow babies

Further evidence that feeding does not lead to attachment comes from Schaffer & Emerson in their study of Glasgow babies. They found that in about 40% of human infants the adult who fed, bathed & changed the infant was not the person to which the infant was the most attached. Infants were more likely to be attached to adults who were responsive to them and provided them with much stimulation is the form of touching & playing. Therefore, the core idea of feeding leading to attachment is flawed

learning theory evaluation - focuses on nurture not nature

A final criticism is that Learning theory is too simple, it reduces complex human behaviour of attachment down to learning through rewards & association. This is known as reductionism. In fact, there are other explanations of attachment e.g evolutionary theory which states that attachment is innate and promotes survival of the infant. Learning theory therefore only focuses on nurture and does not consider nature.

Bowlby’s evolutionary (monotropic) theory of attachment

Bowlby's (1969) theory is based on the ideas of imprinting. According to this theory attachment is an innate & adaptive process for both parent & child. It evolved because it promotes survival. According to Darwin's theory of evolution any behaviour which increases successful reproduction makes it more likely for those genes to remain. Attachment promotes survival in many ways: short term survival, long term survival.

The Evolutionary theory argues the innate tendency is to form a strong, qualitatively different attachment to one individual. Bowlby argued that infants have a hierarchy of attachments at the top of which is the central caregiver. This is called the monotropy hypothesis that argues that it is this primary attachment figure that forms the basis of the internal working model.

Bowlby argued that there was a critical period during which a child could form an attachment (up to 2.5 years) or the child would suffer long term damage.

Bowlby’s evolutionary theory - short term survival

attachment results in a desire to maintain proximity, anxiety on separation and thus ensures safety. The theory suggests a role of social releasers such as crying & smiling to encourage a response. Other humans are innately programmed to respond to these social releasers. This ensures survival of the infant.

Bowlby’s evolutionary theory - long term survival

the attachment styles we learn as infants and young children become an internal working model for what we believe relationships should be like. This provides us with a template for how to behave in future relationships. Therefore, if the child develops a good IM they will be able to form secure romantic relationships, which makes having children more likely. Thus ensuring survival of their genes.

Bowlby’s evolutionary theory evaluation summary

• love quiz

• Efe tribe

• methodological issues

• deterministic

• health development not from primary attachment

• critical period is flawed

Bowlby’s evolutionary theory evaluation - love quiz

Support for the internal working model is provided by Hazan & Shaver who found that adult romantic styles were related to childhood attachment styles using a love quiz. This questionnaire consisted of 3 parts and asked Ps questions about current relationship experiences, attachment history & attitudes toward love in order to identify current and childhood attachment types. The researchers analysed responses from a cross section of the population who had volunteered to take part in the study. Ps who were Secure in childhood rated their adult love experiences as happy & trusting & their relationships lasted longer than insecure types (10 years compared to 5 or 6 years). Ps who were Resistant in childhood experienced obsession, emotional highs & lows and extreme attraction & jealousy in their adult relationships. They worried that their partners would abandon them. Ps who were Avoidant in childhood typically feared intimacy in romantic relationships and they believed that they did not need love to be happy. These findings support the idea that early attachment experiences continue into adulthood as the internal working model proposes

Bowlby’s evolutionary theory evaluation - Efe tribe

There is evidence to support the monotropy idea. Evidence to support Bowlby comes from cross-cultural research in Zaire by Tronick et al (1992). The Efe tribe live in extended family groups. The infants are looked after and even breastfed by different women but usually slept with their mother at night. By the age of 6 months the infants do show a preference for their mothers, a single primary attachment. This supports the idea that we have one attachment greater than any other

Bowlby’s evolutionary theory evaluation - methodological issues

However, a criticism of the love quiz is that there are some methodological issues. The questionnaire uses retrospective data which means that participants have to think back many months or years and their memories may not be correct. Also, as it is a questionnaire Ps may be affected by social desirability bias. As romantic relationships & childhood experiences are personal topics, Ps may change their answers as they wish to be seen in the best light. Finally, as Ps volunteered the sample is likely to be biased with people who are happy in their relationships more likely to take part. This means that the findings may not represent the population and therefore the results can't be generalised. Therefore, as the supporting evidence for early attachment influencing later relationships is flawed, the internal working model and therefore the evolutionary theory may not actually be valid.

Bowlby’s evolutionary theory evaluation - deterministic

There are other problems with IWM part of the theory because it argues that childhood attachments provide a template for future relationships. However many other factors influence later relationships. e.g. experience of divorce during childhood or cheating within their past adult relationships.Furthermore some suggest we have an innate temperament that determines how well we forn relationships. Therefore as there may be other factors that affect later relationships besides your IWM, the theory is deterministic.

Bowlby’s evolutionary theory evaluation - health development not from primary attachment

There is evidence to refute the monotropy idea. Some disagree and feel that healthy psychological development is not best served by having one primary attachment. Different attachments may serve different needs in the infant eg. fathers style of play is more often physically stimulating & unpredictable whereas mothers are more likely to hold infants, soothe them, attend to their needs & read them stories. Therefore, maybe there isn't an attachment that is more important, they may be equally important in different ways

Bowlby’s evolutionary theory evaluation - critical period is flawed

One criticism of the critical period part of the theory is that it may not so absolute. Research has shown children who are adopted after the critical period can form attachments if extra effort is put in. Therefore 2 years may be a sensitive period rather than a cut-off point. This shows that Bowlby's idea of the critical period is flawed