Explanations of Attachment - Learning Theory Flashcards
Doller & Miller (1950) - ‘Cupboard Love’
Explanation emphasises importance of food in attachment formation - children learn to love whoever feed them.
Role of Classical Conditioning
1) CC involves learning to associate 2 stimuli, in attachment.
2) UCS (food) leads to UCR (feeling of pleasure) - Response isn’t learned so it is unconditioned response.
3) Learn to associate caregiver with feelings of pleasure when fed.
Caregiver Produces Pleasure
1) Caregiver starts as NS - produces no response.
2) When caregiver provides food over time, they become associated with ‘food’ –> So NS become CS.
3) Once conditioning has taken place the sight of caregiver produces a CR of pleasure - according to learning theorist, the conditioned pleasure response is the basis of love.
4) Now an attachment has formed - caregiver is an attachment figure.
Role of Operant Conditioning
1) OC explains why babies cry for comfort –> it leads to a response from the caregiver (e.g. feeding).
2) As long as CG provides correct response - crying is reinforced as it produces a pleasurable consequence.
3) Infants are reinforced in the behaviours that will produce desirable responses from others.
Negative Reinforcement
1) As the baby is reinforced for crying, the CG receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops - NR is escaping something unpleasant, which is reinforcing. —-> interplay of positive/negative reinforcement strengthens an attachment.
Drive Reduction
1) Hunger is a primary drive, an innate biological motivator –> we are motivated to eat to reduce the hunger drive.
2) Attachment is a secondary drive learned by association between CG & satisfaction of a primary drive - Sears et al. suggested as CG provide food, primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them.
Limitation of LT
COUNTER-EVIDENCE FROM ANIMAL STUDIES
1) Lorenz’s geese imprinted on first moving object they saw & Harlow’s monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to a wire one with milk —> in both studies imprinting/attachment didn’t develop as a result of feeding.
2) Shows other factors are important in attachment formation as well.
Limitation of LT
COUNTER-EV FROM HUMAN STUDIES
1) Schaffer & Emerson showed for many babies their main attachment was not to the person who fed them.
2) Isabella et al. found that interactional synchrony (unrelated to feeding) predicted attachment quality.
3) Again suggests other factors are more important in attachment formation than feeding.
Strength of LT
1) Seems unlikely that association with food is central to attachment - but conditioning may still play a role in attachment - E.g. a baby’s choice of primary AF may be determined by the fact that CG becomes associated with warmth & comfort.
2) Meaning conditioning could still be important in choice of attachment figures, though not the process of attachment formation.
BUT this ignores the fact babies take an active role in interactions that produces attachment - e.g. they initiate interactions (Feldman & Eidelman) —> suggests LT may not be appropriate in explaining any aspect of attachment.
Evaluation - SLT
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
1) Hay & Vespo suggest parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviour e.g. hugging - parents also reward babies with approval when they display their own attachment behaviour —> This means social learning theory can provide better explanations, including explaining the active role taken by babies in attachment development.
Limitation of LT
ANIMAL STUDIES
1) LT is based on research with animals (e.g. behaviourists use rats, dogs, pigeons).
2) Generalising –> can’t extrapolate findings of animals onto humans since their minds & behaviour are more complex.
