Explanations of attachment: Learning theory

Question 1

What did Dollard and Miller (1950) suggest?

Answer 1

That attachment can be explained through principles of the learning theory (behaviourism). They argue that forming attachments is not something that infants are pre-programmed to do but that thy learn to attach to their caregivers-this theory is often referred to as ‘cupboard love’ due to the importance of food in facilitating attachments.

Question 2

How is classical conditioning used to explain attachment?

Answer 2

Food (UCS)=happy baby (UCR)
Mother (NS)+food (UCS)=happy baby(UCR)
Mother (CS)=happy baby(CR)

Question 3

How is operant conditioning used to explain attachment?

Answer 3

The body has several drive states (negative states we are motivated to eliminate e.g. hunger, pain, cold and thirst).When the infant enters these drive states it aims to reduce these feelings, by communicating with the caregiver its needs, these drive states will be reduced. So the contact with the caregiver reinforces the behaviour which means the infant will continue to seek out its caregiver for more positive outcomes. This is the basis of an attachment bond.
As the baby stops crying, its negative reinforcement for the caregiver. They both gain reinforcement suggesting that they both gain something positive from forming the attachment.

Question 4

What is a strength of learning theory as an explanation for attachment?

Answer 4

It’s clear to see that there are plenty of opportunities for an infant to associate its caregiver with food and/or be positively reinforced. Dollard and Miller (1950) estimated that a mother feeds their infant more than 2000 times within the first year whilst also attending to its other needs. They argued that this is strong evidence that the conditions are in place for the attachment bond to form.

Question 5

What are the limitations of learning theory as an explanation for attachment?

Answer 5

1. It does not account for situations where someone other than the parent has the feeding and caring responsibility- Schaffer and Emerson (1964)- less than half of the children in their study had attachments to those who fed them, many of the children had a nanny or au pair yet the infants were still aware of who their parents were and had the strongest attachments to them.
2. Classical conditioning claims that the attachment is based on the presence of food- Harlow’s research on rhesus monkeys contradicts this this as the monkeys preferred comfort over food.
3. Classical conditioning doesn’t explain why babies who are brought up in extreme poverty are still attached to their parents- they have less opportunities to associate the caregiver with food-this indicates that the theory is reductionist and offers a narrow explanation that can’t be applied to all family circumstances.