Learninv theory of attachment

Question 1

Leaning theory

Answer 1

-attachment is learned
-food causes attachment
-cupboard love
-the need to satisfy hunger is the ‘primary drive’
-because the caregiver reduces hunger, the attachment to them becomes the ‘secondary drive’

Question 2

Classical conditioning

Answer 2

Milk (UCS) -> Baby (UCR)
Mother (NS) + Milk (UCS) -> Baby (UCR)
Mother (CS) -> Baby (CR)

Question 3

Contradictory human research that food causes attachment

Answer 3

Schaffer and Emerson’s research showed that babies did not necessarily become attached to whoever fed them the most, rather, who spent time sensitively responding to them.

This is a weakness as it challenges a key assumption of learning theory, reducing its credibility.

Question 4

Contradictory animal research that food is the most important.

Answer 4

Research by Harlow’s monkeys showed that comfort is more important for attachment than food as when scared, the monkeys preferred a soft cloth mother without food over a wire mother with food.

This is a weakness as it challenges a key assumption of learning theory, reducing its credibility. However, it could be argued this research can’t be generalised to humans as we are much more complex than animals.

Question 5

Alternative explanation

Answer 5

For example, Bowlby’s monotropy theory argues that attachment is an innate system crucial for survival and therefore is not learned but inborn.

This is a weakness as learning theory therefore can’t be a sole explanation of attachment, reducing its usefulness.

Question 6

It ignored factors that contribute to an attachment forming

Answer 6

Research into caregiver infant interactions suggests interactions such as reciprocity and interactional synchrony are associated with developing an attachment.

This is a weakness because the theory is therefore incomplete and needs to consider a range of factors that cause attachment, as opposed to only focusing on food.

Question 7

Environmentally deterministic

Answer 7

It states we are controlled by our learning, this theory assumes who ever feeds us is who we become attached to.

This is a weakness because it completely ignores free will and our ability to choose who to attach to, reducing its validity.

Question 8

Reductionist

Answer 8

It reduces the complex process of attachment to mere associations with food and responses to crying, ignoring other factors.

It is therefore too simplistic, a more holistic approach that considers a how a range of factors influence attachment would be more realistic.