Learning Theory Flashcards
What does the learning theory suggest?
it emphasises the importance of the caregiver as a provider of food. Learning theorists suggest that babies learn to be attached to their caregiver either through CLASSICAL and OPERANT conditioning.
What is classical conditioning?
involves learning through association. In the case of attachment, the pleasure of food (UCS) becomes associated with the caregiver who feeds the infant (NS). Through classical conditioning this person becomes a source of pleasure even when there is no feeding. The neutral stimulus (caregiver) has become a conditioned stimulus and now the sight of the caregiver alone produces the conditioned response of pleasure.
• Food (Unconditioned stimulus) = Pleasure (Unconditioned response)
• Caregiver (Neutral stimulus) + Food (Unconditioned stimulus) = Pleasure (UCR)
• Caregiver (Conditioned stimulus) = Pleasure (Conditioned response)
This association between the individual and a sense of pleasure
creates an attachment bond
What is operant conditioning?
Operant conditioning is explained by Dollard and Miller and involves learning through reinforcement. If a behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, that behaviour is likely to be repeated. Hunger is a primary drive, a hungry infant feels uncomfortable and will be ‘driven’ to seek food to satisfy his/her hunger. When the infant is fed, the drive is reduced, and this produces a sense of pleasure (a reward). Food is therefore a primary reinforcer because it directly reduces the discomfort, and the behaviour is likely to be repeated (learned).
Attachment is a secondary drive. The person who provides the food that reduces the drive becomes a secondary reinforcer. From then on, the infant seeks to be with the person who has become a secondary reinforcer because he/she is now a source of reward in their own right, and an attachment is formed.
Operant conditioning can explain why babies cry for comfort, an important behaviour in building attachment. Crying is positively reinforced by the caregiver as it creates a pleasant response, for example feeding. This reinforcement is a two-way process, at the same time as the baby being positively reinforced for crying, the caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops (removing the negative stimulus). If a behaviour escapes/removes something negative, that behaviour is likely to be repeated. This interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens an attachment..
What is the evidence for learning through association and reinforcement?
that it is plausible and scientific and is based on an established theory. This is because there is plenty of psychological research which demonstrates that we do learn lots of behaviours through association and reinforcement and so there seems to be no reason to believe that attachment would be any different. However, the problem with the learning theory is the idea that feeding provides the unconditioned stimulus, reinforcement or primary drive. It could be that association (through classical conditioning) between the primary caregiver and the provision of comfort and social interaction helps to build an attachment. For example, Harlow’s work with monkeys showed that it was contact comfort rather than the food which was the important factor in attachment and also in the study by Lorenz, the geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them. This therefore suggests that different elements of conditioning need to be considered when explaining attachment.
Research into caregiver interactions
a criticism of the learning explanation is that it does not take into account the quality of infant-caregiver interactions. Research into early infant-caregiver interactions suggests that the quality of attachment is associated with factors such as developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony. In addition, studies have shown that the best quality attachments are with sensitive carers that pick up signals and respond appropriately. Therefore, if attachment was purely as a result of feeding, there would be no purpose for these complex interactions, thus limiting the learning theory of attachment.
Evaluation on reductionist
behaviourist approach is criticised because it is reductionist simplifying the complex behaviour of attachment to purely a stimulus-response or through reinforcement. The learning explanation focuses on nurture ignoring nature and the view that attachments are innate. In a variation of Harlow’s research, infant monkeys continued to demonstrate attachment to highly abusive mothers who blasted them with cold air at regular intervals. Attachment occurred in the absence of rewards, showing the instinctive nature of this process. These are therefore significant omissions that are needed to gain a complete (holistic) understanding of why attachment occurs.
Alternative explanation
Hay and Vespo (1988) have proposed a newer explanation for infant-caregiver attachment based on social learning theory whereby attachment is acquired largely as a result of modelling and imitation of attachment behaviour by parents. Hay and Vespo suggest that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviour e.g. by hugging them and other family members, and instructing and rewarding them with approval when they display attachment behaviour of their own ‘that’s a lovely hug’. This explanation takes into account how attachment is learned indirectly rather than a direct approach as proposed by traditional learning theories of attachment.
