Attachment: Learning Theory Flashcards
What are the assumptions of learning theory’s explanation of attachment?
- Learning Theory’s explanation of attachment refers to a behaviourist explanation of attachment
- It depends on the Blank Slate assumption, meaning the attachment drive is not innate and rather infants are motivated to form attachments because they have learnt that their caregivers behaviour satisfies their innate drive to reduce hunger.
- Learning Theories depiction of attachment has been described as ‘cupboard love’, as the caregiver is only loved because they satisfy the infants need for food.
Explain Classical Conditioning.
- Through Classical Conditioning, the child learns to associate their caregiver with food, much as Pavlov’s dogs associated the bell and food.
- Before conditioning, the caregiver is initially a neutral stimulus, meaning the infant lacks an innate or learnt response to the caregiver. However, the infant does have an innate drive to reduce hunger, meaning food is an unconditioned stimulus which produces an unconditioned response.
- The caregiver feeding the infant means the Neutral stimulus is paired with the unconditioned stimulus, producing a conditioned response of pleasure from seeing the caregiver.
Explain Operant Conditioning.
- Operant conditioning has been used by learning theorists to explain attachment relate to voluntary behaviours, like an infant crying and a caregiver providing food.
- Learning Theory explains that infants cry because of positive reinforcement. Initially an infant crus without any clear purpose, however after the caregiver responds by feeding the infant, the crying is rewarded and thereby encouraged.
- Another attachment behaviour explained by learning theory is a caregivers attentive behaviour to a crying infant (eg. Feeding it when crying). This can be explained through negative reinforcement, as by feeding the crying infant, the caregiver is rewarded by the extinction of the crying, meaning they have been rewarded by the removal of an unpleasant stimulus. Further encouraging the caregiver to feed the infant.
- Food is a Primary Reinforcer, as it satisfies the infants innate drive to reduce hunger.
- The caregiver is then the Secondary Reinforcer, meaning the caregivers presence in itself becomes rewarding.
- A learning theorist would argue that this association is the same as an attachment bond. This can explain why an infant will eventually cry to attach its caregiver, and then stop when the caregiver is present, even in the absence of feeding.
What research support is there for learning theory’s account of attachment?
Dollars and Miller (1950) observed that in their first year, babies are fed 2000 times, generally by their main carer. This suggests there is a significant opportunity for infants to learn an association between food and the main carer who does the feeding. This supports learning theory’s explanation for both aspects of learning theory’s explanation of attachment. The 2000 feedings would allow babies to associate their carer with food through classical conditioning. Equally, the 2000 instances of feeding would provide many opportunities to positively reinforce the infants attachment behaviour of crying when they want to attract their carer. However this study provides limited support for learning theory’s explanation of
attachment. Although the 2000 feedings provide a potential for attachment to develop through
environmental learning, this study involves no manipulation of variables, so it’s impossible to say that the feeding is causing an association to develop. This means this study’s finding does not rule out the possibility that attachment to the caregiver is partly or even entirely biologically determined.
What research is there against learning theory’s explanation for attachment?
Harlow found that infant rhesus monkeys preferred to cling to a soft cloth covered ‘surrogate mother’ even if an uncovered surrogate was their source of food. The finding that the monkeys preferred the cloth covered surrogate challenged the central claim of learning theory’s explanation of attachment; that food is the basis of attachment. As if this assumption was correct than Harlows monkeys should have preferred the surrogate that provided food. Therefore this shows that contact comfort is more powerful than hunger. Furthermore, this research challenges the central claim that attachment is not an innate drive, as it showed that the monkeys immediately sought comfort with no conditioning. This suggests the attachment figures are not neutral stimuli but and unconditioned stimulus, which infants have an innate unconditioned response to. ). However, there are
reasons to be cautious of this challenge to learning theory’s explanation of attachment. Harlow’s
research was on rhesus monkeys. It is debatable whether findings derived from an animal study are
necessarily generalisable to humans. Therefore, it’s possible that the attachment behaviour Harlow
observed in monkeys differs from human attachment behaviour. However, this challenge is problematic as the behaviourists who developed learning theory did argue that we can understand human behaviour by studying animal behaviour.
What research challenges learning theory’s explanation of attachment?
Research on humans challenges learning theory. In Schaffer research into the stages of attachment, many of the babies developed a specific attachment to their biological mother, even in situations when another carer did most of the feeding. This finding challenges learning theory’s explanation for attachment , as if learning theory was correct, than the infants would automatically form an attachment with whoever was their primary feeder. fact that this doesn’t happen strongly suggests that learning theory’s claim that feeding is the main driver of attachment is wrong. Schaffers finding here implies that something else besides feedings cause infants to attach to their biological mothers. This may be an innate attachment to their biological mother or a learnt response to something else the biological mother is providing (eg. Contact comfort). Either chalange learning theory’s account of attachment. However, there are reasons to be cautious of this challenge as Schaffers research has issues with generalisation. The sample of the study (60 mothers from a working class Glasgow neighbourhood) may not be representative thus not generalisable.
