Explanations of attatchment: learning theory and Bowlby

Learning Theory (Behaviourist Approach)

According to behaviourists, behaviour is not innate but learned.  Learning can be due to associations being made between different stimuli (classical conditioning) or behaviour can be altered by patterns of reinforcement (reward) and punishment (operant conditioning).

How does classical conditioning and the learning theory apply to children and their mothers

The learning / behaviourist theory of attachment suggest that attachment is a set of learned behaviours. The basis for the learning of attachments is the provision of food. An infant will initially form an attachment to whoever feeds it.

They learn to associate the feeder (usually the mother) with the comfort of being fed and through the process of classical conditioning, come to find contact with the mother comforting.

The attachment is due to a learned association between mother and the bringer of pleasure (food).

How does operant conditioning apply to young children

the child is positively reinforced to cry as they receive the desired response of attention, as the carer appears and removes something unpleasant (such as a soiled nappy) and so learns to cry again – negative reinforcement.

Difference between SLT and LT

both emphasise the role of reinforcement (an action that is rewarded being more likely to be repeated).  However, SLT emphasises the role of imitation. We watch others and if they are rewarded for their behaviour we are likely to copy it ourselves.

Strengths of LT

• Research to support: Dollard & Miller (1950) argued that in their first year, babies are fed 2,000 times, generally by their main carer, which creates ample opportunity for the carer to become associated with the positive experience of being fed, a form of positive reinforcement.

• Supporting research - the learning theory is plausible and scientific because it is based on an established theory that has supporting evidence. Pavlov found that when a NS – Bell was paired with UCS – food, it leads to the UCR – salivating. This can be applied to explaining attachment because the NS of the Mum, is paired with UCS – food, which leads to UCR – baby is happy. This improves the credibility of the learning theory as there is a clear application to explaining how attachments are formed.

• Usefulness: By understanding how attachments are formed, we can encourage certain behaviours. For example, making sure that fathers have an opportunity to feed the baby so that they can develop a healthy attachment with their child.

Weaknesses of LT

• Research to oppose: Schaffer & Emerson (1964) found that many of the babies developed a primary attachment to their biological mother, even when other carers did most of the feeding.

• Research to oppose: Harlow’s Monkey study – Harlow found when a baby monkey was placed with a wire monkey with food and a cloth monkey without food – the monkeys spent most of their time with cloth mother. This proves that food is not as important and contact comfort was the most important factor in the development of an attachment. Evidence to oppose – reduces the credibility of the learning approach because clearly food is not the only factor in building attachment. When frightened they always sought comfort on the cloth mum, not the one that fed them!

• Reductionist: As always the behaviourist explanation is reductionist because it takes a complex human behaviour and tries to explain it in the simplest terms possible.  It does not consider any internal processes or seek to explain the emotional nature of attachments simply how they arise as behaviours.In the Tronick study a mother firstly engages with the child, and then pulls a still face. The baby tries to reengage the mother, and when they fail, they become upset and distressed. When the mother begins to communicate again, the baby returns to a happy state. This shows the importance of interactional synchrony in building attachment, it is not all about food. Humans more complex and factors such as social and emotional connection are clearly involved in the formations of attachment. Harlow supports this idea too.

Bowlby (Biological Approach) – Why do attachments form?

Bowlby believed that children come into the world biologically pre-programmed to form attachments with others, because this will help them to survive. We are all born with an inherited need to form attachments and this promotes survival which in turn leads to increased chances of reproduction and passing on your genes.

Social releasers

He believed babies are born with the tendency to display certain innate behaviours (called social releasers) which help ensure proximity and contact with the mother or attachment figure. These are the cute behaviours that babies do that make us want to be close with them and look after them (e.g., crying, smiling, crawling, etc.)

Monotropy - Bowlby

Bowlby suggested that a child would initially form only one primary attachment (monotropy) and that the attachment figure acted as a secure base for exploring the world (he suggested it wasn’t always the mother). The attachment relationship acts as a prototype for all future social relationships so disrupting it can have severe consequences. 

Critical period - Bowlby

A Critical period is where babies must form an attachment within the first 2 years, an attachment would never occur and their are risks of damaging the child socially, emotionally and intellectually.

Sensitive period - Bowlby

Later on Bowlby revised his theory and called it a a Sensitive period. A child is maximally sensitive up to the age of 2, but it was still possible to form an attachment up to the age of 5 years. However it becomes more difficult for the child to form a first attachment after 2 years.

Internal working model - Bowlby

The internal working model is a schema. The IWM provides a template and a set of expectations for future relationships. For example, a secure attachment leads to greater emotional and social stability as an adult, whereas an insecure attachment is likely to lead to difficulties with later relationships. This longer-term effect is the continuity hypothesis.

Memory strategy for Bowlby’s evolutionary explanation:

So MAGIC!

So – Social Releasers: Crying and looking cute

M – Monotropy: Forming one special attachment, but you also have multiple attachments with others.

A – Adaptive Advantage: Attachments enable us to effectively adapt to our environment e.g. learning to walk and being fed so that we are more likely to survive, use mother as a safe base for exploration and safety in general in order to survive (Evolution)

G – Good quality care: This is all about quality not quantity of care. So mothers are responsive to their child’s needs and are constant and predictable. Separation from the mother is not recommended.

I – Internal Working Model: Your first attachment forms a template (schema) for your adult relationships in the future

C – Critical period/Sensitive period

Strengths of Bowlby;s theory

• Usefulness: Bowlby’s theory has been widely applied in practical situations. Study done showing children who were adopted before the age of 6 months had the most positive outcomes. This is a key strength of Bowlby’s critical period theory as it means it can be used to ensure that children are adopted as early as possible in order to avoid negative outcomes in the child’s future.

• Research to support: Further research to support  the idea of the critical period, for example Harlow’s monkeys. Those kept in isolation for 3 months and returned to a socialised group of monkeys were the least affected, but those in isolation for a year never recovered the effects. This shows that there are numerous studies that support the existence of a critical period and that attachments aid survival.

• Research to support IWM: strange situation where 99 mothers with1 year old babies were observed. They found that if mothers described poor attachments about their own parents (established through interviews) – they were also more likely to have children who were poorly attached in the observation. This association was also found in securely attached mother’s and babies.

Weaknesses of Bowlby’s theory

• Socially Sensitive Research (SSR): Bowlby’s concept of monotropy and his emphasis on mothers as the primary caregiver suggests they should get the blame when parenting goes wrong or if the child’s development is in any way impaired.

• Alternative explanation – Nature/Nurture: This theory underestimates the power of nurture and is too focused on the nature side of attachment. The learning theory provides an explanation which shows how attachments can be formed through a process of association and reinforcement. The baby learns to associate food with the mother. Therefore – Bowlby’s innate theory cannot provide a full explanation of attachment. It is impossible to separate nature from nurture and therefore a better explanation of attachment should take more of an interactionist approach.