Learning theory of attachment

Behaviourist principles AO1

• Humans are born as tabula rasas (blank slates) so all behaviour is learned through experiences & the environment

• Classical conditioning - behaviour is learnt via association

• Operant conditioning - behaviour is learnt via consequences

Who proposed learning theory of attachment?

Dollard & Miller

Operant conditioning

• ‘Cupboard love theory’ - attachment develops as learned association between caregiver & the pleasure derived from food, rather than it being an innate biological process (nurture rather than nature)

• Caregiver (NS) —> no response

• Food (UCS) —> Pleasure/happy baby (UCR)

• Food (UCS) + Caregiver (NS) —> Pleasure/happy baby (UCR)

• Caregiver (CS) —> Pleasure/happy baby (CR)

Operant conditioning

• Positive reinforcement for baby - crying leads to a positive response/reward from caregiver eg feeding/comfort

• Negative reinforcement for caregiver - by feeding/comforting the baby the crying stops & unpleasant consequence is avoided

Primary & secondary reinforcers AO1

• Food is the primary reinforcer as it removes the drive of hunger & provides satisfaction

• Caregiver is the secondary reinforcer because they’re repeatedly associated with feeding & comfort

Social leaning theory

• Proposes that infants learn attachment behaviour modelled by parents (eg cuddling & smiling) through observation & then imitate this

Learning theory of attachment strengths AO3

• P - research to support

• E - Schaaf & Troup found that mothers who responded quickly & consistently to their infant’s crying had children who cried less over time, suggesting that infants learn through reinforcement that their needs will be met, therefore reducing crying.

• T - this supports operant conditioning, as crying is reinforced when it results in care and comfort

Learning theory of attachment limitations AO3

• P - conflicting evidence from Harlow’s study

• E - behaviourism suggests that food is a primary reinforcer in forming attachments. However Harlow’s monkeys sought comfort from & preferred the cloth-covered model over the wire model that dispensed milk, therefore suggesting that contact comfort is much more important than food in attachment. It also challenges classical conditioning as the monkeys didn’t form an attachment with wire model, despite the food association, suggesting that attachment isn’t a simple association between the caregiver & feeding.

• T - reduces validity of behaviourist approach & suggests that the explanation is limited as it fails to explain other factors/complexities in attachment

• P - also conflicting from Schafer & Emerson

• E - Learning Theory suggests that infants should attach to the person providing food, as feeding is a primary reinforcer. However, Schaffer & Emerson found that in 39% of cases, the mother was not the primary feeder, yet she was still the main attachment figure.

• T - This suggests that interaction & sensitive caregiving rather than food provision, is the key factor in attachment formation

• P - alternative explanations offer a better account

• E - Bowlby argues that attachment is innate during the critical period & aids survival/reproduction. His concept of monotropy & internal working model explain long-term social & emotional development & he also explains why attachments form, not just how.

• T - social learning theory may be limited as it doesn’t consider these long term effects & evolutionary influences so it is argued to be overly simplistic/reductionist. Bowlby’s theory may be more comprehensive rather than reducing complex behaviour down to simple stimulus-response.