Attachment - learning theory Flashcards
what is the learning theory
Dollard and Miller proposed that the caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory. Their approach is sometimes called ‘cupboard love’ approach because it emphasis the importance of the caregiver as the provider of food
Classical conditioning:
Classical conditioning: Learning by association
Food serves as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) which gives us pleasure which is an unconditioned response (UCR)
The caregiver acts as a neutral stimulus (NS)
When the caregiver provides food they become ‘associated’ with the food and the caregiver now becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS) as there is an expectation of food with the caregiver
This association produces the conditioned response (CR) of pleasure at the sight of caregiver
Operant conditioning
Operant conditioning: Learning by consequences
It can explain why babies cry for comfort (an important behaviour in building attachment). Crying leads to a response by the caregiver e.g feeding then the baby is likely to repeat the act of crying as it leads to a pleasant consequence therefore the behaviour has been reinforced.
This reinforcement is a two-way process the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops (an unpleasant outcome is stopped) after providing attention to the baby so the caregiver’s behyaviour of giving a child attention is reinforced.
This interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment
Attachment as a secondary drive
Attachment as a secondary drive
Learning drive draws on the concept of drive reduction as well as conditioning
Hunger is a primary drive 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 thus attachment is a secondary drive learned by association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive
only strength of learning theory
The only main strength of learning theory is that it does provide an adequate explanation for attachment as we learn through reinforcement and association. However, food may not be the main reinforce, other ‘rewards’ such as attention and responsiveness may create the bond – which is not accounted for in the learning theory.
limitation - validity
Validity is questionable of the learning theory. Studies are largely based with animals and therefore there is not sufficient data to draw conclusions from their studies to directly apply to humans. Human behaviour is more influenced by emotions and the thinking process, which does not support the learning theory as it is oversimplified version of human behaviour.
limitation - counter evidence from animal research
Counter evidence from animal research: a range of animal studies have shown that young animals to not necessarily attach to (or imprint) on thise who feed them. Loren’z geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them. Harlow’s monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to a wire one that dispensed milk. In both studies it is clear that attachment does not form as a result of feeding so it is possible that food does not create the attachment bond.
Counter-evidence from human research:
Counter-evidence from human research: research with human infants also shows that feeding does not appear to be an important factor e.g in Shaffer and Emerson’s study many babies developed a primary attachment to their biological mother even though other carers did most of the feeding. This also shows that feeding is not the key element to attachment
