EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT: LEARNING THEORY

Question 1

DOLLARD & MILLER (1950)

Answer 1

• proposed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory
• called ‘cupboard love’ = emphasises importance of caregiver as a provider of food

Question 2

CLASSICAL CONDITIONING

Answer 2

• food serves as an UNCONDITIONED stimulus, being fed = pleasure: UNCONDITIONED RESPONSE
• caregiver starts as NEUTRAL stimulus: when the same person provides food over time, they become associated with food
• neutral stimulus has become a CONDITIONED stimulus
• the sight of the caregiver produces a CONDITIONED response of pleasure in the baby

Question 3

OPERANT CONDITIONING

Answer 3

• can explain why babies cry for comfort - important behaviour in building attachment
• crying leads to a response in the caregiver, e.g. feeding
• as long as the caregiver provides the correct response, crying = reinforced
• baby then directs crying for comfort towards the caregiver who responds with comforting ‘social suppressor’ behaviour.
• this = two-way process
• at the same time the baby = reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT because the crying stops –> escaping from something unpleasant = reinforcing
• mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment

Question 4

ATTACHMENT AS A SECONDARY DRIVE

Answer 4

• learning theory draws on the concept of drive reduction
• hunger = primary drive –> innate biological motivator: we are motivated to eat in order to reduce the hunger drive
  SEARS et al (1957) suggested that, as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them
• therefore attachment = secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive

Question 5

AO3: COUNTER EVIDENCE FROM ANIMAL RESEARCH

Answer 5

• range of animal studies has shown that actually, young animals do not necessarily attach to those who feed then
• Lorenz’s geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them
• Harlow’s monkeys were attached to a soft surrogate is preference to a wire one that dispensed milk
• in both these studies, it is clear that attachment does not develop as a result of feeding
• the same must be true for humans
  HOWEVER, these contradictory findings were based on results from studies conducted on ANIMALS - cannot be said that the same findings can be generalised onto humans

Question 6

AO3: COUNTER EVIDENCE FROM HUMAN RESEARCH

Answer 6

• research with human infants also shows that feeding does not appear to be an important factor in humans
• e.g. SCHAFFER & EMERSON’S babies developed a primary attachment to their biological mother, even though other carers did most of the feeding
• these findings = problem for learning theory as they show that feeding is not the key element to attachment and so there is no unconditioned stimulus or primary drive involved.
  HOWEVER, the learning theory is ENVIRONMENTALLY REDUCTIONIST: to say that the reason why babies attach to primary caregivers is purely due to the fact that they provide food is reductionist, other factors should be considered: e.g. reciprocity or maybe an innate drive that causes the primary attachment to a biological parent.

Question 7

AO3: LEARNING THEORY IGNORES OTHER FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH FORMING ATTACHMENTS

Answer 7

• research into early infant-caregiver interaction suggests that the quality of attachment = associated with factors like developing RECIPROCITY and good levels of INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY
• in addition, studies have shown that the best quality attachments = with sensitive carers that pick up infant signals and respond appropriately
• hard to reconcile these findings with the idea of ‘cupboard love/’
• if attachment is developed purely as a result of feeding, there would be no purpose for these complex interactions and we would not expect to find relationships between these interactions and the quality of attachment.