2 explanations of attachment (learning theory) AO1 + AO3

learning theory (nurture)

behvaioural explanation of attachment, using concepts of classical conditioning and operant conditioning

bowlby’s monotropic theory (nature)

evolutionary explanation of attachment

• innate system

• biologically programmed

classical conditioning + operant conditioning

CC : attachment formed due to learning through association

OC: attachment formed through consequence

pavlov CC (AMRC)

a: investigate how sogs could be conditioned in CC

m: pavlov rang a bell (NS) before presenting food (US) to dogs. after repeating this, he observed the dogs’ reaction to the bell alone

r: dogs began to salivate when heard the bell, even without food being present (CR)

c: NS (bell) could become a CS, triggering a CR (salivation) without an US (food) - CC learned through association

skinner OC (AMRC)

a: inv how animals respond to OC

m: skinner box set up (controlled experiment) on animals (rats) where behaviours (pressing levers eg) were followed by rewards like food - behaviour is hsaped be reinforcement

r: behvaiours followed reward (+ reinforcement) while behaviour that removes discomfort (- reinforcement) are also strengthened - quickly learnt

c: OC determined which behaviours were repeated

applying OC and CC to attachment (on human infants)

OC: attachment forms because behaviour that brings reward is repeated

CC: attachment forms because the caregiver is associated with food and pleasure ‘cupboard love’

weakness: LTOA challenges its claims (PEEL)

p: weakness of LTOA is that research challenges its claims

e: LT suggests that animals and humans should attach to and be close to whoever feeds them. however in harlow’s study, the rhesus monkeys clung onto the cloth mother which provided no food, showing that comfort in attachment is more key.

e: lorenz’s geese imprinted before being fed and maintain these attachment regardless who fed them, showing that the caregiver and the food is no only the factor required to form an attachment

l: shows LT is wrong about the role of food in attachment and how there’s more factord

weakness: LT can be critisiced (PEEL)

p: LT can be criticised for being reductionist in its explanation to attachment

e: explains attachment through simole stimulus response associates and reinforcement linked to food, oversimplifies a complex emotional bond

e: research by isabella (1991) shows caregiver sensitivity and responsvieness, not feeding are the major predictors of attachment quakity

l: therefore, LT provides an incomplete explanation as it ignores the importance of caregiver sensitivity beyond food.