expl of att: learning theory Flashcards
what is the learning theory
The name given to a group of explanations (classical and operant conditioning), which explain behaviour in terms of learning rather than any inborn tendencies or higher order thinking
Classical conditioning
The process begins with an innate stimulus-response.
innate stimulus (UCS)= food ->
innate response (UCR)= pleasure
During infant’s early weeks and months certain things become associated with food because they are present at the time when the infant is fed. i.e mum, chair, sounds. All of these things are called neutral stimuli.
If any neutral stimulus is regularly and consistently associated with a UCS it takes on the properties of the UCS and will produce the same response.
So the NS now becomes a learned or conditioned stimulus (CS) and produces a conditioned response (CR).
In this case the person who feeds the infant moves from being an NS to being a CS. Just seeing this person gives the infant a feeling of pleasure (a CR). Learning theorists called this newly formed stimulus-response ‘mother love.
Operant conditioning
Dollard and Miller: explanation of attachment based on operant conditioning and drive reduction theory.
A drive= something that motivates behaviour. When an animal is uncomfortable this creates a drive to reduce that discomfort.
In the case of a hungry infant there is a drive to reduce the accompanying discomfort. When the infant is fed, the drive is reduced and this produces a feeling of pleasure. (negative reinforcement
The behaviour that led to being fed is more likely to be repeated in the future because it was rewarding.
Food becomes a primary reinforcer because it supplies the reward.
Through the process of classical conditioning the person who supplies the food is associated with avoiding discomfort and becomes a secondary reinforcer, source of reward in his/her own right. Attachment occurs because the child seeks the person who can supply the reward
Social learning theory
Dale Hay and Jo Vespo: suggested that modelling could be used to explain attachment behaviours.
They proposed that chidren obseve
their parents’ affectionate behaviour and imitate this. Parents would also deliberately instruct their children about how to behave in relationships and reward appropriate attachment behaviours such as giving kisses and hugs.
AO3: LT attachments
lim: animal studies
lim: not based on food
str: explanatory power
lim: limited
LT att lim: animal studies
Based on studies with non-human animals
Eg: Pavlovs dogs
Behaviourists believe that humans dont differ from humans in how they learn
Our behaviour patters are constructed from the same basic elements of stimulus and response and therefore it is legit to generalise animal studies to human behaviour
But not all human behaviour can be explained by conditioning, especially complex behaviours like attachments
Non-behaviourists argue that attachment involved innate predispositions and mental activity that can be explained by conditioning
Therefore, behaviourists explanations may lack validity bc they present an oversimplified version of human behaviour
LT att lim: not based on food
LT suggests that foof is the key element in the formation of attachment
strong evidence that feeding has nothing to do w attachment: Harlow’s monkeys
Harlow’s study was w animals however it was backed by Schaffer and Emerson’s research
These research studies suggest that the learning explanation is oversimplified and ignores other important factors such as contact comfort
LT att lim: limited
Drive reduction theory is limited
Drive reduction theory was v popular in the 1940s , but it is no longer used by psychologists.
It can only explain a limited number of behaviours, there are mant things that ppl do that have nothing to do w reducing discomfort and sometimes do things to increase discomfort
eg: bunjee jumping
Furthermore, the theory doesnt adequately explain how secondary reinforcers work.
They dont directly reduce discomfort yet they are reinforcing.
Eg money is a secondary reinforcer
These limitations partially explain the rejection of the drive reduction system
LT att str: explanatory power
LT can explain some aspects of attachment
Infants do learn through association and reinforcement, but food may not be the main reinforcer
It may be that attention and responsiveness from a caregiver that assist in the formation of attachment
LT explanation has some value as infants do learn through association, but it does not provide a complete explanation so theories such as Bowlby’s monotropic theory may offer a more complete explanantion
