Learning theory and Bowlby's theory past paper improvements

Question 1

Outline and evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment (8)

Answer 1

AO1:
Imfants have an innate drive to adapt/survive (evolutionary)
Babies seek proximity to carer (mother) for safety
Babies use signals - social releaasers to attract the carer (reciprocity), both mother and baby have innate predisposition to become attached and social releasers trigger that response in caregivers
Monotropy - This attachment is to a single specific caregiver and this relationship is more important than all the rest
Critical/sensitive period for attachment to take place (around 2 years) after, harder for child to form attachment
Consequences of attachment - internal working model and law of continuity (the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of their attachment

• Monotropy is a socially sensitive idea
  Law od accumulated separation states substantial time apart from primary attachment figure risks poor quality atatchment that will disadvantage child later on
  Feminist Erica Burnman (1994) pointed out this places burden of responsibility on mothers, they take blame for anything that goes wrong in the rest of the child’s life
  Might prevent mothers from returning to work
  Bowlby saw himself as boosting mother’s status by emphasising importance of their role

Question 2

Outline and evaluate the learning theory of attachment (8)

Answer 2

Idea of “cupboard love” - children learn to become attached to their caregiver because they give them food
Attachment as secondary drive - Hunger=primary drive (due to innate, biological motivator) Caregivers provide food, hunger becomes generalised to carer, attachment becomes secondary drive, learned by association between caregiver and satisfactino of a primary drive
Classical conditioning, food=UCS, pleasure=UCR+CR, caregiver=NS+CS
Operant conditioning, crying=caregiver response, correct response (e.g. being fed)? Crying reinforced, neg reinforcement for carer as stops the crying
- Counter-evidence from human research
Feeding doesn’t appear to be an important factor in humans
Schaffer and Emerson, Many babies developed primary attachment to biological mother despute other carers doing most of the feeding
Shows feeding not key element to attachment, no UCS or primary drive involved