5. explanations of attachment: learning theory Flashcards
Learning theorists Dollard and Miler proposed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory sometimes called a ‘cupboard love’ approach, because it emphasises the importance of the attachment figure as a provider of food.
They proposed
children learn to love whoever feeds them
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
Classical conditioning involves learning to associate two stimuli together so that we begin to respond to one in the same way as we already respond to the other.
In the case of attachment,
explain the whole process
food serves as an unconditioned stimulus. Being fed gives us pleasure - we don’t have to learn that it is an unconditioned response.
A caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus, something that produces no response.
However, when the caregiver provides food over time they become associated with food when the baby then sees this person there is an expectation of food.
The neutral stimulus has become a conditioned stimulus.
Once conditioning has taken place the sight of the caregiver produces a conditioned response of pleasure.
To a learning theorist this conditioned pleasure response is love, an attachment is formed, and the caregiver becomes an attachment figure
OPERANT CONDITIONING
Operant conditioning involves learning from the consequences of behaviour. If a behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, that behaviour is likely to be repeated again. The behaviour is said to be reinforced. If a behaviour produces an unpleasant consequence (punishment) it is less likely to be repeated.
Operant conditioning can explain why babies cry for comfort - an important behaviour in building attachment.
Crying leads to a response from the caregiver, for example feeding. As long as the caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced. The baby then directs crying for comfort towards the caregiver who responds with comforting ‘social suppressor’ behaviour.
This reinforcement is a two-way process. At the same time as the baby is reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops - escaping from something unpleasant is reinforcing. This interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment.
ATTACHMENT AS A SECONDARY DRIVE
As well as conditioning, learning theory draws on the concept of drive reduction.
Hunger can be thought of as a primary drive - it’s an innate, biological motivator.
We are motivated to eat in order to reduce the hunger drive.
Sears et al. suggested that
as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them.
Attachment is thus a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive.
AO3: strength of LEARNING THEORY
some elements of conditioning still involved
One strength of learning theory is that elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment.
It seems unlikely that association with food plays a central role in attachment, but conditioning may still play a role. For example, a baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult, and this may influence the baby’s choice of their main attachment figure.
This means that learning theory may still be useful in understanding the development of attachments.
AO3: limitation of LEARNING THEORY
lack of support from human studies
A further limitation of learning theory explanations is lack of support from studies of human babies.
For example, Schaffer and Emerson found that babies tended to form their main attachment to their mother regardless of whether she was the one who usually fed them. In another study, Isabella et al. found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of attachment. These factors are not related to feeding.
This again suggests that food is not the main factor in the formation of human attachments.
AO3: limitation of LEARNING THEORY
counterevidence from animal studies
One limitation of learning theory explanations for attachment is lack of support from studies conducted on animals.
For example, Lorenz’s geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw regardless of whether this object was associated with food. Also, if we consider Harlow’s research with monkeys, there is no support for the importance of food. When given a choice, Harlow’s monkeys displayed attachment behaviour towards a soft surrogate ‘mother’ in preference to a wire one which provided milk.
This shows that factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments.
