explanation of attachment:learning theory evaluation

Question 1

what does it mean when we say that their is a counter argument for the learning theory

Answer 1

there is a range of animal studies that actually show young animals do not necessarily attach to (imprint) on those who feed them

e. g. Lorenz’s 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 these animal studies it is clear that attachment does not develop as a result of feeding. The same must be true for humans, i.e. that food does not create the attachment bond -learning theorists themselves believed that non - human animals and humans were equivalent

Question 2

what does it mean when we say that there is counter-evidence from human research

Answer 2

research with human infants also shows that feeding does not appear to be an important factor in humans
e.g.
Schaffer and Emerson’s study showed many of the babies developed a primary attachment to their biological mother even though other carers did most of the feedings

These findings are a problem for learning theory as they show feeding is not the key element to attachment an so there is no unconditioned stimulus or primary drive

Question 3

the learning theory ignores other factors associated with forming attachments - why is this a limitation

Answer 3

research into early infant- caregiver interaction suggests that the quality of attachment is associated with factors like developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony (e.g. Isabella et al 1989)

AND, studies have shown that the best quality attachments are with sensitive carers that pick up infants signals and respond appropriately
It is very hard to reconcile these findings with the idea of cupboard love
If attachment developed purely/ primarily as a result of feeding, there would be no purpose for these complex interactions and we would not expect to find relationships between them and the quality of infant caregiver attachment

Question 4

some elements of conditioning could still be involved - why is this an strength

Answer 4

it seems fairly certain that as a whole, the learning theory is not a good explanation for infant - caregiver attachment

However, we do believe that many aspects of human development are affected by conditioning
The problem with learning theory as an explanation for attachment is mostly the idea that feeding provides the unconditioned stimulus, reinforcement or primary drive

It is still credible that association (classical conditioning) between the primary caregiver and the provision of what builds the attachment