explanations of attachment Flashcards
explain the cupboard love theory of attachment
Dolland and Miller (1950)
based on principles of learning theory
argues infants become attached to their caregiver because they learn that their caregiver provides food
how can classical conditioning be used to explain the Cupboard Love theory?
the mother is the NS - the NR is no response from the child
the food is the UCS - the UCR is pleasure as it is instinctual that the baby would feel happy when fed
when the UCS is paired with NS as the mother provides the food - this produces an UCR of pleasure
an association between mother and pleasure is made
the mother becomes the CS which produces a CR of pleasure
how can operant conditioning be used to explain attachment?
positive reinforcement - when a behaviour is made more likely when receiving a pleasurable stimulus - when a parent feed a crying baby, baby learns to repeat crying behaviour to get food
negative reinforcement - when a behaviour is made more likely when removing an unpleasant stimulus - parents feeding behaviour is negatively reinforced by baby stopping crying behaviour when fed
what are primary drives and secondary drives?
primary drives are instinctive and based on biological needs e.g. hunger, sleep etc
secondary drives are learnt and will lead to satisfying a primary drive e.g. money
attachment is a secondary drive according to cupboard love theory - learn to want attachment because it will lead to satisfying hunger
evaluations for learning theory as an explanation for attachment
+ face validity - makes intuitive sense that babies cry more when they learn crying gains them attention and food
+- behaviourist principles used to explain attachment can be backed up by well-controlled research e.g. Pavlov and Skinner - however research on human babies is impossible for ethical and practical reasons
- learning theory applied to attachment is environmentally reductionist - the complex interactions between caregivers and infants are as a result of simplistic stimulus associations, learnt responses and patterns of reinforcement - parents may say their relationship with child is more complicated and that they choose to care for them
- Harlow’s monkey research rejects cupboard love theory - monkeys did not become attached to wire monkey with milk but to cloth monkey with no milk due to contact comfort it provided - attachment is not learnt but instinctual
- alternative theories like Bowlby’s does not depend of learning theory - Bowlby’s monotropic theory gives an evolutionary explanation for caregiver-infant attachment so have an instinct to attach as they provide security
explain Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation of attachment
an evolutionary explanation of attachment
Bowlby argues infants have an innate drive to form an especially strong attachment to their mother (monotropy) and stay in close proximity
Bowlby argues this drive is instinctual as forming a strong attachment is vital to infant’s survival as their mother provides food and security
how can a monotropic relationship develop according to Bowlby?
babies instinctively use signals called social releasers (e.g. crying, smiling) that attract mother’s attention as mothers are biologically programmed to instinctively find these behaviours cute or alarming
how did Bowlby used Lorenz’s research to base his theory?
Bowlby based his theory on Lorenz’s discovery of a 32-hr critical period in geese, in which attachment must form or not at all
Bowlby suggests a strong monotropic attachment must form in the first 30 months after birth
Bowlby claims a lack of monotropy results in permanent negative social, intellectual and emotional consequences for the infant
how did Bowlby used Freud’s research to base his theory?
Used Freud’s focus on early childhood and Harlow’s monkey research to claim the child’s monotropic attachment to its mother provides a blueprint for future relationships (schema)
this internal working model guides how to conduct future relationships such as if people can be trusted or if relationships are loving
how did Bowlby explain strength of attachment in infant- caregiver relationships?
stronger attachments will form if care is consistent
weaker attachments will form with frequent/long separations
strength of the monotropic relationships can be seen in safe base behaviour
infants with good attachments will use their mother as a base to explore their environment but will show distress if mum disappears or if stranger approaches
evaluations for Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation of attachment
+- Bowlby’s base on Lorenz’s findings of a critical period in geese suggest a similar period in humans - difficult to apply animal research to humans - later research on orphans suggests a ‘sensitive’ period instead - period is important but suitable care can lead to recovery - counters Bowlby’s claim of permanent damage
+ Bowlby’s work impacted other researchers e.g Ainsworth and have been developed and applied to early childcare e.g. immediate physical contact between mother and babies after birth is important, social workers take neglect more serious due to long-term harm
- criticised due to alpha bias - exaggerates differences between gender suggesting father’s role is as a provider and mother’s monotropic role as a caregiver is crucial - reflection of 1940s view but lacks temporal validity due to changing nature of the modern family where both parents are likely to share caregiving
- alternative explanation is cupboard love learning theory - suggests attachment is based on association of mother and food - supported by controlled experiments
- the continuity hypothesis suggests that the quality of infant attachment can predict those infants’ later adult relationship styles due to the development of the internal working model - deterministic as people like to think that they have complete conscious control over their relationships
