Learning Theory

Classical Conditioning

Food is the unconditioned stimulus. Pleasure is the unconditioned response. The mother is the neutral stimulus. The mother becomes the conditioned stimulus. Pleasure becomes the conditioned response. This happens through repeated pairing of the two.

Operant Conditioning

Dollard and Miller (1950) - offered drive reduction theory.

Idea that a ‘drive’ is something that motivates behaviour. When an animal is uncomfortable they have a drive to reduce this discomfort. When a baby is hungry they have a drive to bed fed, when fed feeling of pleasure is produced and discomfort leaves (negative reinforcement).

The behaviour that led to being fed is more likely to be repeated. Food becomes primary reinforcer because it supplies reward. Person who supplies food becomes secondary reinforcer, a source of reward in their own right.

Attachment occurs as child seeks the person who can supply the reward (food).

AO3 Learning Theory is Reductionist

Learning theory is criticised for being reductionist because it explains attachment purely in terms of food and conditioning, ignoring emotional and biological factors.
Although learning theory acknowledges the role of oxytocin and reward, it oversimplifies attachment by focusing mainly on feeding as the primary reinforcer.
Research has shown that attachment is influenced by emotional care, responsiveness, and contact comfort, which are not fully explained by learning theory.
This suggests that learning theory provides an incomplete explanation of attachment and overlooks important psychological and biological influences.

AO3 Human Research Contradicts Learning Theory

Evidence from human studies also challenges learning theory.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that infants formed their main attachment to the person who was most responsive and sensitive, not the person who fed them.
In many cases, this was the infant’s mother, even when she was not the primary feeder.
This suggests that learning theory cannot fully explain attachment in humans, reducing its external validity.

AO3 Drive Reduction Theory is Limited

Drive reduction theory suggests that attachment forms because caregivers reduce discomfort, such as hunger.
However, people often form attachments to individuals who do not reduce discomfort, such as friends or romantic partners.
Additionally, some behaviours that increase discomfort (e.g. bungee jumping) are still repeated, which learning theory struggles to explain.
This suggests drive reduction theory cannot account for the full range of attachment behaviours.

AO3 Attachment Is Not Based on Food

One major limitation of learning theory is that attachment does not appear to be based on feeding.
Harlow’s (1959) research showed that infant monkeys preferred a cloth mother that provided comfort over a wire mother that provided food.
This demonstrates that contact comfort, rather than feeding, is the key factor in attachment formation.
Therefore, learning theory fails to explain why attachments form in the absence of food reinforcement, weakening its validity.