6. Explanations of Attachment Flashcards
2 explanations for attachment
- Learning Theory: behaviourist theory which suggests attachment is a learned process (nurture)
- Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory: evolutionary perspective which suggests attachment is an inherited behaviour (nature)
Outline Learning Theory as an explanation for attachment: introduction
Learning Theory suggests attachments are a learned process rather than innate.
Behaviourists suggest that the infant becomes attached to a caregiver through conditioning
2 types of conditioning in learning theory
- classical conditioning (learning by association)
- operant conditioning (learning by reinforcement)
Outline Learning Theory as an explanation for attachment: classical conditioning
one way we may learn attachment is through classical conditioning (learning by association)
when we are born we don’t need to learn that food is pleasurable and therefore the stimulus of food (an unconditioned stimulus) produces pleasure (an unconditioned response)
however, a caregiver doesn’t natural produce a please response and therefore is a neutral stimulus
overtime, the caregiver (usually the mother) provides food and so the child learns to associate that caregiver with this pleasure
as a result, the caregiver becomes a conditioned stimulus and the pleasure she brings is a conditioned response because the association has been learned (or conditioned)
over time, as an association is formed, the food-giver becomes a source of pleasure regardless of whether they provide food or not
Outline Learning Theory as an explanation for attachment: operant conditioning
another way we might learn an attachment is through operant conditioning (learning by reinforcement)
if a behaviour is positively reinforced (adding something positive or removing something negative), this makes it more likely we will repeat that behaviour
in terms of early attachments, the main behaviour being reinforced is crying; when a child is hungry they usually cry to show this distress
when the caregiver responds to this by feeding the child, this reduces the child’s discomfort and the child learns to repeat this behaviour in the future (positive reinforcement)
similarly, the sound of the child crying is distressing for the caregiver, therefore when feeding the child stops them crying, the caregiver learns to repeat this behaviour in the future (negative reinforcement)
in this way, the child and caregiver learn to mutually reinforce one another, strengthening their attachment
Evaluate Learning Theory as an explanation for attachment: Strengths
P: learning theory is a scientific and plausible explanation
E: learning theory and classical conditioning can explain how humans develop many behaviours in response to their environment
E: eg behaviourists have shown that many phobias develop when we learn to associate certain situations with danger even if the association is irrational
L: suggests learning may play a similar role in attachment as we clearly do learn through association
E: perhaps, even though Harlow suggests food may not be the main reinforcer, learning theory may still help explain attachment. it may just be that it is interaction and comfort rather than food that is the learned association
Evaluate Learning Theory as an explanation for attachment: Limitations
P: evidence against LT from Harlow (1959)
E: found that when rhesus monkeys were separated from their mother after birth and placed in a cage with 2 wire mothers where one mother consisted of exposed wire and a feeding bottle, and the other mother was wrapped in soft cloth but offered no food, the monkeys spent most of their time with the soft cloth mother
E: concluded that the monkeys valued comfort above the ability of the mother to provide food
L: suggests learning theory is inaccurate as the monkeys should have learned to associate the good mother w pleasure and attached to them instead
P: evidence against LT from Lorenzs theory of imprinting
E: this means that newborns imprint an image of the first moving object they see (usually their parents) within hours of being born which allows them to stick closely to this important source of comfort and food
E: evidence to support from Lorenz (1952) research using newly hatched Greylag geese who after seeing Lorenz as hatching as their first image, they followed him around and he became their ‘imprinted parent’
L: suggests attachment is innate as the infants were too young to have learned anything at this stage
P: evidence against from Schaffer and Emerson
E: observed infants in Glasgow, found they had many attachments (mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings) and weren’t always most attached to the person who fed them
E: concluded that attachments could be formed with many different people and that interaction and sensitivity were more important than food
L: LT does not explain why human children attack
P: evidence against LT from Tronick et al (1992)
E: studied an African Tribe, the Efe, from Zaire where it is tradition for infants to be looked after and breastfed by multiple different women
E: found that despite being fed by different women, at 6 months the infants still showed a primary attachment to their biological mother
L: LT would expect infants to be attached to the individual who feeds them, therefore this study would suggest LT is an inaccurate explanation of human attachment
features of Bowlbys monotropic theory
- innate
- adaptive
- social releasers
- critical period
- monotropic
- internal working model
- continuity hypothesis
Outline Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation for attachment
- BMT suggests all infants are innately programmed to form an attachment from birth
- infants form an A to a caregiver because it is adaptive (good for survival)
- A is seen as a biological process bc he argues infants are born w an ‘attachment gene’ that programmes them to exhibit innate behaviours called ‘social releasers’ which increase their chances of reviving care
- Social releasers can be physical (baby face features) or behavioural (crying, clinging)
- these behaviours ensure the infant stays close to their caregiver who will feed and protect them
- the attachment gene also drives parents to provide care as this is also adaptive: increases chances of one’s genes continuing to next generation
- attachment is a two way process for which both babies and their caregivers are genetically programmed
- B argues there is a critical period which attachments tend to be formed (6 months to 2 1/2 years)
- infants who do not have the opportunity to form an attachment in this time will have difficulty forming attachments later in
- B did not deny that infants form lots of attachments, but he argues one relationship (usually w the mother) is of special significance; the drive to have one main A is called monotropy
- the first attachment was crucial for later development since child formed an internal working model or attachment ‘template’ for later relationships w others
- eg a close loving relationship between infant/mother would lead the child to expect future relationships to be warm and loving
- the IWM affects a child’s later parenting abilities as people tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented
- explains why children from functional families tend to have similar families themselves as the same attachment behaviours and abilities continue to follow the same template (continuity hypothesis)
Evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation for attachment: Strengths
P: evidence to support BMT from Lorenzs theory of imprinting
E: observed formation of attachment in greylag geese and found that animals imprint a mental imagine if the first moving thing they see to aid attachment
E: it concluded that the attachment process must be instinctive
L: supports Bs theory that the tendency to form attachments is innate due to the ‘attachment gene’ and generative programming; it is a biological process
P: support from Hazen and Shaver
E: ppts we’re asked to answer series of questions as part of the ‘love quiz’ which assessed their adult romantic relationships as well as their childhood relationship w their parents, found there was a strong correlation between the two based on attachment type
E: concluded that children do continue to follow some sort of relationship ‘template’ into later life
L: supports Bs theory that the internal working model allows an infant to form an attachment template which continues into adulthood
P: evidence to support from Tronick et al (1992)
E: studied an African tribe, the Efe from Zaire, where it is tradition for infants to be looked after and breastfed by multiple different women
E: despite this, found that at 6 months infants still had a primary attachment to their biological mother
L: supports Bowlby’s theory that infants will have a monotropic bond w their mother despite interacting w other individuals
Evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation for attachment: Limitations
P: evidence against from Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
E: observed infants in Glasgow, found that they had many attachments (mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings etc) and although mother was usually the main attachment, it was also often the father
E: concluded that attachments could be formed w many diff people
L: problem bc monotropy predicts the mother should be the main attachment figure not the father
P: researchers have criticised the idea of a critical period
E: Ritter et al (1990) found that, although it may appear less likely that attachments will form after this period, it is not impossible
E: concluded that a more accurate term to describe would be a ‘sensitive period’ to reflect the fact that although it’s an important window of time where children are most likely to from an attachment, such bonds can still be formed outside the window
L: suggests Bs theory may be overly negative abt the chances of healthy development following early deprivation
differences between Learning Theory and Bowlby’s Monotropic theory
LT suggests that attachment is learned through conditioning as children begin ‘tabula rasa’ (nurture argument) whereas BMT suggests attachment is innate as it is a biological and evolutionary process (nature argument)
LT suggests attachment is learned over time through positive reinforcement (operant conditioning), whereas BMT suggests attachment is formed during a critical period developing an internal working model for the continuity hypothesis
LT suggests attachment is learned by association (classical conditioning), whereas BMT suggests attachments form due to innate social releasers and because it is adaptive (good for survival)
