Explanations: Learning Theory Flashcards
Learning Theory
Dollard and Miller (1950)
- Proposed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explain by learning theory.
- The approach is sometimes refered to a ‘cupboard love’ because it emphasises the important of the attachment figure as a provider of food.
- Children learn to love whoever feeds them.
Learning Theory
Classical Conditioning
- Associating two stimuli together so we begin to respond to one as we do the other.
- The food serves as the unconditioned stimulus and being fed brings pleasure (this is an unconditioned response).
- The caregiver starts as the neutral stimulus (produces no response).
- As the caregiver feeds the infant overtime, they become associated with the food.
- The neutral stimulus becomes the conditioned stimulus.
- The sight of the caregiver brings a conditioned response of pleasure.
- An attachment has formed as in this theory pleasure is love.
Learning Theory
Operant Conditioning
- Learning from the consequences of behaviour.
- If a behaviour produces a postive consequence, it is likely to be repeated and is said to have been reinforced.
- If a behaviour produced a negative consequence (punishment) the behaviour is less likely to be repeated.
- Babies crying for comfort is important for the formation of attachments.
- If the caregiver produces the right response (comforting ‘social suppressor’ behaviour), the crying behaviour is reinforced.
- It is a two-way process: the caregiver recieved negative reinforcement (escaping something unpleasant is reinforcing) because the crying stops.
- This interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens attachment.
Learning Theory
Attachment as a Secondary Drive
- Hunger can be though of as the primary drive.
- It is an inate biological motivator to eat to reduce the hunger drive.
- Sears (1975) suggested the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to the caregiver, as they feed them.
- Attachment is a secondary drive learned through association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of the primary drive.
Learning Theory: Evaluation
Counter-evidence from Animal Studies
Limitation
- There is a lack of support from studies on animals.
- Lorenz’s geese imprinted on the first object they saw regardless of association to food.
- Harlow’s monkeys show no support for the importance of food.
- When given the choice, Harlow’s monkeys prefered the soft surrograt mother, rather than the wire one that provided milk.
This shows other factors besides association with food are important in the formation of attachments.
Learning Theory: Evaluation
Counter-evidence from Studies on Humans
Limitation
- There is a lack of support from studies on human children.
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that babies formed attachment to a caregiver, regardless if whether they were the one who fed them.
- Isabella (1989) found high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of attachment.
- These factors are not related to food.
Suggests food is not the main factor in the formation of human attachments.
Learning Theory: Evaluation
Some Conditioning may be Involved
Strength
- Elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment.
- It is unlikely association with food plays a central role in attachment.
- However, conditioning might.
- For example, a baby may associate feeling warn and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult.
- This may influence the baby’s choice of attachment figure.
This means that learning theory may be useful in understanding the development of attachments.
Learning Theory: Evaluation
Counterpoint
(Some Conditioning may be Involved)
- Both classical and operant conditioning explanations see the baby playing a passive role.
- They simply respond to associations with comfort or reward.
- In reality, research shows babies play an active role in the interactions that produce attachment.
This means conditioning may not be an adequate explanation of any aspect of development.
