Learning Theory Of Attachment A03 Flashcards
1
Q
Limitation - Counter-evidence from animal research
A
- A range of animal studies has shown that actually young animals do not necessarily attach to (or imprint on) those who feed them
- Lorenz’s geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them.
- Harlow’s monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to a wire one that dispensed milk.
- In both these animal studies it is clear that attachment does not develop as a result of feeding.
- The same must be true for humans, i.e. that food does not create the attachment bond - after all, learning theorists themselves believed that non-human animals and humans were equivalent.
2
Q
Limitation - Counter-evidence from human research
A
- Research with human infants also shows that feeding does not appear to be an important factor in humans. For example, in Schaffer and Emerson’s study
- many of the babies developed a primary attachment to their biological mother even though other carers did most of the feeding.
- These findings are a 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.
3
Q
Limitation - Learning theory ignores other factors associated with forming attachments
A
- Research into early infant–caregiver interaction suggests that the quality of attachment is associated with factors like developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony (e.g. Isabella et al. 1989).
- In addition, studies have shown that the best quality attachments are with sensitive carers that pick up infant signals and respond appropriately.
- It is very hard to reconcile these findings with the idea of cupboard love.
- If attachment developed purely or primarily as a result of feeding, there would primary attachment be no purpose for these complex interactions and we would not expect to find relationships between them and the quality of infant–caregiver attachment.
