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.
- 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
1) Before conditioning, food is an ‘unconditioned stimulus’ which produces an ‘unconditioned response’ in the child - relief from hunger/pleasure.
2) Before conditioning, the caregiver is a ‘neutral stimulus’, who produces ‘no conditioned response’ at all from the child.
3) During conditioning, the child associates the caregiver who feeds them (the ‘neutral stimulus’) with the food (the ‘unconditioned stimulus’).
4) Through many repeated pairings, the caregiver becomes a ‘conditioned stimulus’ who is associated with the pleasure from feeding. This results in the caregiver eliciting a ‘conditioned response’ (relief from hunger) from the child and the formation of an attachment.
Operant conditioning
- Skinner (1938) studied operant conditioning and showed that behaviour in non-human animals could be learned through consequences (reward or punishment).
- When a behaviour is rewarded (through positive or negative reinforcement) it is repeated and conversely when it is punished, it stops.
- Dollard and Miller (1950) applied the principles of reward and reinforcement to explain human attachment between a caregiver and an infant.
- 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 produced for the infant which is rewarding and 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.
- Hunger is called the primary drive and food is the primary reinforcer. The caregiver who provided it is called the secondary reinforcer. Attachment is called the secondary drive and it will occur as the infant seeks the person who can supply the reward, which is the caregiver.
Learning theory - weakness
Learning theory is undermined by research from Harlow. He found that baby rhesus monkeys spent more time with a soft towelling monkey which provided no food, in comparison to a wire monkey that provided food. This shows that baby monkeys do not form attachments based on presence of food alone and prefer contact comfort. These findings go against the learning theory ‘cupboard love’ explanation of attachment and suggest alternative processes may have been ignored. This counter-argument is further supported by Schaffer and Emmerson’s research which demonstrated that infants formed attachments to their mothers despite often being fed by other carers.
Learning theory - weakness
Learning theory is refuted by research from Lorenz. He found that upon hatching, baby geese followed the first moving object that they saw. This process, known as imprinting, appears to be innate (as they would have no time to learn this behaviour). This shows that non-human animals demonstrate some inborn attachment behaviours to aid survival which goes against the idea that we ‘learn’ to attach to a caregiver because they feed us.
Learning theory - weakness
There are methodological issues with the research evidence for learning theory. Much of the supporting research, for example Pavlov’s research on dogs and Skinner’s research with rats and pigeons is criticised for its over-reliance on animals. This is an issue because psychologists argue that behaviourist explanations provide an oversimplified account of attachment formation, which is in fact a complex emotional bond between a human infant and their caregiver. As a result, the learning theory explanation may lack validity since it is difficult to generalise animal findings to humans with confidence that they would behave in the same way.
Learning theory - (mainly a discussion)
There is an alternative to the learning theory to explain human attachment proposed by Bowlby. He believed that infants have an innate readiness during the critical period to form an attachment to their caregiver to protect them from harm whilst they are young and vulnerable. The evolutionary perspective not only explains how an attachment forms, but also why - to enhance survival. It is accepted that Bowlby’s theory provides a more comprehensive explanation of attachment rather than reducing a complex behaviour to a simple stimulus-response association.
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
Bowlby’s monotropic theory takes an evolutionary perspective. He argued that children are born with an innate tendency to form attachments with their parents to increase their chances of survival.
ASCMI
1) Adaptive
2) Social Releasers
3) Critical Period
4) Monotropy
5) Internal Working Model
1) Adaptive
Attachments are adaptive meaning they give humans an advantage, increasing the likelihood of survival. If an infant has an attachment, they are looked after by a caregiver.
2) Social Releasers
Infants possess inborn social releasers which unlock an innate tendency in adults to care for them. Social releasers are:
1) physical - the typical ‘baby face’ features that make babies appear cute such as big eyes and a button nose (neonatal features).
2) behavioural - crying, cooing and smiling to get attention.
3) Critical Period
Infants must form an attachment with their caregiver during the critical period (between 3-6 months of age). However, Bowlby later acknowledged that infants could form an attachment after this period (up to 3 years of age); 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 be damaged for life - socially, emotionally, intellectually and physically.
4) Monotropy
Bowlby believed that infants form 1 very special attachment with their primary caregiver - most frequently the mother. This special, intense attachment is called monotropy. If the mother is not available, the infant can bond with an ever-present adult, known as a mother substitute.
5) Internal Working Model
Through the monotropic attachment, the infant would form an internal working model. This is an internal template for future relationship expectations. If the child has a strong and healthy attachment with their primary attachment figure, then they will develop strong and healthy relationships later in life. However, if the child has a negative relationship with their primary attachment figure, they will have negative social and romantic relationships in their later life.
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory - Strength
A strength of Bowlby’s theory comes from research by Lorenz. Lorenz found that upon hatching, baby geese followed the 1st moving object they saw, during a 4-25 hour critical period. This process is known as imprinting and appears to be innate as they would have no time to learn this behaviour. Lorenz’s research supports Bowlby’s idea of a critical period and demonstrates that geese are born with behaviours that help them to survive. However, developmental psychologists, when referring to human attachment often prefer to use the term sensitive period, as attachments have been shown to develop beyond the optimal window of opportunity.
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory - Strength
Another strength of Bowlby’s theory comes from research by Hazan and Shaver (1987). They used a self-report questionnaire called ‘The Love Quiz’ to assess the internal working model. They found a positive correlation between early attachment types and later adult relationships. This supports Bowlby’s idea of an internal working model and suggests that our early childhood experiences do affect our later adult relationships. Sroufe et al. (2005) also provided evidence for this in their Minnesota parent-child study showing the outcome of an early attachment being carried forward and projected onto expectations of subsequent relationships.
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory - Weakness
There is an alternative explanation of attachment. Kagan (1984) proposed the temperament hypothesis which suggests that a child’s genetically inherited personality traits (temperament) have a role to play in forming an attachment with a caregiver. It is thought that infants have differing temperaments because of their biological makeup which means some are more sociable and ‘easy’ and others are more anxious and ‘difficult’ babies. It is argued that Bowlby ignored the role of temperament preferring instead to focus on the early childhood experiences and quality of attachment, which was an oversight since personality differences in the child can influence whether they can become securely or insecurely attached.
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory - (mainly a discussion)
There is mixed evidence for the importance of monotropy, which Bowlby emphasised as part of this evolutionary explanation of attachment. Schaffer and Emmerson (1964) refute the idea that infants must form one special attachment to their caregiver which superseded all others and provides the foundation for subsequent, multiple attachments. They did recognise some infants do, in fact, follow this pattern but that there are others who can form multiple attachments with different caregivers at the same time such as with the mother and father simultaneously.
