Explanations of Attachment Flashcards
Explanations of Attachment
- Cupboard love theory - Learning theory
- Bowlby’s monotropic theory - Innate theory
Learning Theory - Cupboard Love Theory - Dollar and Millar
- This approach is named ‘cupboard love’ as it emphasises the importance of the caregiver as the supplier of food.
- For example, infants learn to love whoever feeds them so attachments are learned and not innate.
- Therefore the cupboard love theory is based on the principles of the learning theory.
- The learning theory explanation of attachment explains how infants learn to become attached to their primary caregiver through the process of:
1) Classical conditioning - forms the attachment
2) Operant conditioning - maintains the attachment
Classical conditioning
- Classical conditioning refers to learning due to association.
- When two stimuli are presented to an individual at the same time, an association can be formed.
- In the case of the cupboard love theory of attachment and prior to conditioning, food is an unconditioned stimulus, instinctively providing pleasure, an unconditioned response. Additionally, the caregiver is a neutral stimulus, who produces no conditioned response at all from the child.
- As the mother is present every time the baby is fed (during the process of conditioning), the mother becomes associated with the pleasure of being fed; she changes from being a neutral stimulus to a conditioned stimulus. Now, in the presence of the mother, the infant experiences a conditioned pleasure response.
Operant conditioning
- Operant conditioning pertains to learning due to the patterns of reinforcement.
- When an infant feels hungry, it has a drive to reduce these unpleasant feelings and so will cry to receive comfort. When the caregiver provides food, a feeling of pleasure is evoked in the infant which is rewarding - this is called positive reinforcement. Therefore, the behaviour which elicited the reward, which is crying, will be repeated.
- This reinforcement is reciprocal as the caregiver also experiences a reward in the form of negative reinforcement when the infant stops crying, so they too will repeat the caregiving behaviour in the future.
Primary and Secondary Drives
- Drives are the desire to complete an action.
- Primary drives are instinctive; we don’t need to learn to want to eat or sleep as they are based on biological needs; we feel hungry and sleepy. In this case, hunger is the primary drive and food is the primary reinforcer; something that satisfies that feeling of hunger.
- Secondary drives are learnt; for example, according to cupboard love, we learn as infants we want attachment because we learn that it will lead to satisfying a primary drive, making attachment the secondary drive and the caregiver the secondary reinforcer.
Learning Theory - Strength
Point: A strength of the learning theory of attachment is that it has strong face validity, making it intuitively appealing.
Evidence: The theory suggests that attachment is formed through associative learning processes, such as classical conditioning (where an infant associates the caregiver with the satisfaction of basic needs) and operant conditioning (where attachment is reinforced by the caregiver’s responses to the infant’s needs). This straightforward explanation makes sense to many, as it aligns with our everyday understanding of how bonds are formed - through rewarding interactions and consistency.
Justification: The simplicity of the learning theory makes it accessible and easy to comprehend, increasing its face validity. The idea that infants form attachments because caregivers provide food is a logical assumption for many, as it directly connects the caregiver’s role with meeting the child’s basic needs.
Implication: As a result, the learning theory appears more credible to both researchers and the public alike, offering a pragmatic explanation for how attachment is formed, which makes it an appealing starting point for further exploration into attachment development.
Learning Theory - Weakness
Point: A significant weakness of the learning theory of attachment is that it is undermined by empirical research that contradicts its core assumptions, particularly regarding the role of food into attachment formation.
Evidence: Research by Harlow found that infant rhesus monkeys preferred to spend more time with a soft, towelling surrogate mother that provided no food, over a harsh, wire mother that offered food. This demonstrates that attachment is not solely based on the provision of nourishment, but instead, the monkeys sought comfort and security. Additionally, research by Schaffer and Emerson demonstrated that infants formed strong attachments to their primary caregiver, often their mother, even if they were fed by others.
Justification: These findings challenge the learning theory’s ‘cupboard love’ model, which proposes that attachment forms as a result of classical and operant conditioning, linked to food provision. Harlow’s research alludes to the fact that contact comfort is a more significant factor in attachment than the mere presence of food and Schaffer and Emerson’s research suggests that the claim that attachment is solely driven by feeding is flawed due to the presence of other caregivers who also provide nourishment to the infant.
Implication: This evidence indicates that the learning theory may oversimplify the attachment process by ignoring the emotional and comfort-related aspects associated with it. It implies that alternative processes, e.g., contact comfort and emotional bonding, may play a more major role than the learning theory accounts for, thereby reducing its explanatory power in explaining attachment development.
Counterargument: While Harlow’s research challenges the learning theory, it is important to note that it does not completely negate the role of reinforcement or food in attachment formation.
Evidence: Harlow’s study focused on infant rhesus monkeys and their preference for contact comfort, which showed that they were more drawn to the soft, towelling surrogate mother than the harsh, wire mother. However, it is crucial to note that the wire mother with food did still serve the role of meeting basic physiological needs, and the monkeys still spent time with it. It was even reported that the rhesus monkeys would try to receive food from the wire mother whilst clinging onto the towelling mother.
Justification: While contact comfort does play a role in attachment, the learning theory still holds relevance in explaining the initial formation of attachment. The theory could be seen as addressing how early attachment may start with food and care, but other emotional factors, like comfort, might later become more prominent as the bond develops. Therefore, the learning theory does not necessarily reject the influence of comfort, but rather emphasises the gradual integration of it over time.
Implication: As a result, this demonstrates that the learning theory may still offer a useful initial framework for understanding attachment, especially in the early stages, but needs to be incorporated alongside other explanations, such as Bowlby’s attachment theory to fully account for the complexity of the attachment process.
Learning Theory - Weakness
Point: A key limitation of the learning theory of attachment lies in the methodological issues surrounding its supporting research.
Evidence: Much of the foundational evidence for learning theory derives from animal studies, such as Pavlov’s research with dogs and Skinner’s work with rats and pigeons, which focused on the principles of classical and operant conditioning. While these studies offer insight into basic learning mechanisms, they lack direct relevance to complex human behaviours like attachment.
Justification: Relying heavily on animal research is problematic because it may oversimplify the formation of attachment, which in humans is not purely a product of stimulus-response learning but involves intricate emotional, social and cognitive processes. Unlike animals, human attachment is deeply influenced by factors such as empathy and sensitivity, which cannot be adequately captured in animal models.
Implication: Consequently, research into the learning theory’s explanation of attachment lacks generalisability, as findings extracted from animal studies cannot be confidently applied to human infants due to the stark differences between them. This limits the theory’s applicability to real-world human attachment behaviour and reduces its overall explanatory power.
Learning Theory - Strength
Point: One strength of the learning theory is that it is grounded in the scientific principles of behaviourism, making it a testable and falsifiable theory.
Evidence: The theory draws heavily on the work of Pavlov (classical conditioning) and Skinner (operant conditioning), who used highly controlled, objective methods such as lab experiments with animals. These studies established clear causal relationships between stimuli, responses and reinforcement - concepts that the learning theory applies to attachment formation.
Justification: Because the theory is based on observable behaviour and measurable outcomes, it can be empirically tested and replicated under controlled conditions. This gives the theory a strong degree of scientific rigour, especially when compared to more abstract theories, such as those based purely on evolutionary ideas. The emphasis on association and reinforcement provides a clear, structured explanation that can be systematically investigated.
Implication: As a result, the learning theory is seen as scientifically credible and contributes to psychology as a distinct scientific discipline. Its testability allows for continued research and refinement, even if later evidence, such as that of Bowlby’s, highlights its limitations. This means that the theory remains valuable for understanding certain aspects of attachment behaviours, even if it does not provide a complete explanation.
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
Bowlby’s monotropic theory is an evolutionary explanation of attachment. It suggests that infants have an innate drive to form one special attachment (monotropy) to their primary caregiver (usually their mother). He stated that this drive is instinctual as a strong attachment is vital to the infants’ survival and development.
ASCMI
1) Adaptive
2) Social Releasers
3) Critical Period
4) Monotropy
5) Internal Working Model
(these are components not stages)
Adaptive
Attachments are adaptive meaning they give humans an evolutionary advantage, increasing the likelihood of survival. If an infant has an attachment, they are looked after by a caregiver.
Social Releasers
Infants are born with innate behaviours and traits that trigger caregiving responses. These behaviours encourage the caregiver to respond to the infant’s needs and thus bond with the infant, initiating the attachment process. Social releasers are:
- Physical - the typical ‘baby face’ features that make babies appear cute, such as big eyes and a button nose (neonatal features).
- Behavioural - crying, cooing and smiling.
Critical Period
Bowlby claimed that there is a specific window of time during which an attachment must form. Initially, he suggested a critical period of 3-6 months of age but later acknowledged that infants could form an attachment after this period (0-2.5 years); however, he maintained that the successful formation of an attachment would be increasingly difficult after this initial period. Bowlby said that if an attachment did not form during this time frame, the child would face social, emotional and cognitive deficits later in life.
Monotropy
Bowlby proposed that infants form one special attachment with their primary caregiver - most frequently the mother. If the mother is now available, however, the infant can bond with an ever-present adult, known as a mother substitute.
Internal Working Model
Through the monotropic attachment, the infant would form an internal working model. This is an internal template for future relationship expectations and is based on this first, primary attachment. If the caregiver is responsive and loving, the child will expect future relationships to be trustworthy and secure. If not, they will struggle with trust and intimacy later in life.
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory - Strength
Point: One strength of Bowlby’s monotropic theory is that it is supported by animal research, specifically Lorenz’s study on imprinting in geese.
Evidence: Lorenz found that baby geese would form an attachment to the first large moving object they saw after hatching, usually within a critical period of 4-25 hours. This imprinting process appeared to be innate and irreversible, indicating that geese are biologically programmed to attach quickly for survival as they wouldn’t have had any time to learn this behaviour.
Justification: This supports Bowlby’s concept of a critical period, during which attachments must form to ensure healthy development and survival. It also aligns with the idea that certain attachment behaviours are evolutionarily adaptive, promoting proximity to a caregiver. The findings reinforce the biological basis of attachment, suggesting it is not simply learned through conditioning as proposed by the learning theory.
Implication: Therefore, Lorenz’s research lends credibility to Bowlby’s theory, particularly the idea that attachment is an innate, evolutionary process with a time-sensitive window by displaying a similar process occurring among goslings.
Counterargument: However, a limitation of using Lorenz’s research to support Bowlby’s theory is that it is based on animal studies.
Evidence: Lorenz studied imprinting in geese, which is a biologically programmed response seen in precocial species - animals that are mobile from birth. However, humans are altricial (born helpless and reliant on caregivers) and form attachments based on emotional bonds, not just physical following.
Justification: Because human attachment is much more complex, involving higher cognitive and emotional processing, it cannot be assumed that findings from birds directly reflect the psychological and social development of human infants.
Implication: This challenges the extent to which Lorenz’s findings can be used to support Bowlby’s theory, suggesting that the evidence may lack generalisability to humans and should be interpreted with caution when applied to human developmental psychology. Although its validity as support for human attachment mechanisms is limited, it can be useful in understanding how attachment works in avian species.
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory - Strength
Point: A key strength of Bowlby’s monotropic theory is the supporting research for the concept of the internal working model.
Evidence: Hazan and Shaver conducted a study known as ‘The Love Quiz’, a self-report questionnaire published in a newspaper, which asked adults about their childhood attachment experiences and their current romantic relationships. They found a positive correlation between early attachment types and the quality of adult romantic relationships. For example, individuals who were securely attached as children tended to have more trusting and long-lasting relationships as adults. Similarly, Sroufe et al. through the Minnesota parent-child study, found that infants who were securely attached went on to be more socially competent and have positive peer relationships in adolescence.
Justification: These findings provide empirical support for Bowlby’s proposal that the early bond with a caregiver forms a mental framework that guides expectations and behaviours in future relationships. The consistency between early attachment quality and later relationship outcomes strengthens the argument that attachment has a lasting and developmental impact.
Implication: Therefore, the internal working is not only theoretically sound but also supported by longitudinal and correlational research, highlighting the credibility of Bowlby’s theory and emphasising its real-world relevance in understanding long-term social and emotional development.
Counterargument: On the other hand, a limitation of such research supporting Bowlby’s concept of the internal working model is that the evidence is largely correlational, making it difficult to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship.
Evidence: For example, Hazan and Shaver’s Love Quiz found a positive correlation between early attachment types and adult romantic relationships. Additionally, Sroufe et al.’s Minnesota longitudinal study linked early attachment security to later social competence. However, these studies do not control extraneous variables, such as temperament and life experiences, which may also influence later relationships.
Justification: Because of this, we cannot confidently conclude that early attachment causes the outcomes observed in adulthood. It is equally plausible that a third factor is responsible for both early attachment behaviours and later social functioning.
Implication: This undermines the explanatory power of the internal working model and therefore limits Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation of attachment because it illustrates that other factors, barring early attachment, may influence later outcomes.
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory - Weakness
Point: An alternative explanation for attachment formation is the temperament hypothesis, which offers a different perspective from Bowlby’s monotropic theory.
Evidence: Kagan argued that an infant’s innate temperament, or genetically determined personality traits, plays a more significant role in attachment development than the quality of early caregiving. According to this view, some infants are naturally more sociable and relaxed, making it easier for them to form secure attachments, while others may be more anxious or irritable, making secure bonding more difficult - regardless of caregiver sensitivity.
Justification: This explanation suggests that attachment style may be the result of inborn temperament rather than early emotional bonds. If temperament is the key factor influencing attachment, then Bowlby’s theory may overemphasise the role of early experiences and underestimate the child’s biological contribution to the attachment process.
Implication: Consequently, the temperament hypothesis challenges the validity of Bowlby’s theory as the sole explanation of attachment by proposing that differences in attachment may stem from biological predispositions, rather than caregiver responsiveness alone. This highlights the need for a more interactionist approach that considers both nature and nurture in understanding attachment development.
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory - Weakness
Point: A limitation of Bowlby’s concept of monotropy is that it does not adequately account for individual differences in attachment formation.
Evidence: Schaffer and Emerson refuted the idea of a single, primary attachment being formed first, which superseded all other attachments, and then leading to subsequent attachments. They found that, while some infants did follow this pattern in their study regarding the stages of attachment, others were capable of forming multiple attachments simultaneously, such as to both their mother and father.
Justification: Bowlby’s theory posits that a hierarchical structure of attachment exists, with one primary attachment at the top. However, the findings from Schaffer and Emerson indicate that individuals may develop attachment bonds in different ways, signifying that attachment styles can vary across individuals.
Implication: This challenges the universality of Bowlby’s theory due to its oversimplification in considering how attachment formation may differ amongst individuals. This theory fails to explain why certain infants deviate from the monotropy pattern and therefore cannot be applied to them. Instead, this theory must consider how factors such as temperament, family structure and caregiving environment, influence the establishment of an attachment to offer a more comprehensive explanation.
