Outline and evaluate the learning theory of attachment (16 marks)
Dollard and miller proposed a learning theory of attachment, stating that attachment is
based on the principle of behaviourism and all behaviour is learnt through either classical
and operant conditioning. The infant forms an attachment with the individual who cares for
it by forming an association. For example, food brings pleasure to the infant (primary
reinforcement) and so they begin to associate this feeling with the person who feeds it,
meaning the caregiver becomes the secondary reinforcement. This theory is also known as
the cupboard love theory as it states that attachments only form due to the infant’s love of
food, meaning there would be no attachment if no food was involved.
With operant conditioning, any behaviour that produces a reward will be repeated due to
positive reinforcement, for example crying. Being fed removes the feeling of hunger and
therefore removes negative reinforcement, so this again makes the behaviour (crying) more
likely to be repeated.
In terms of classical conditioning, the food is the unconditioned stimulus as it gives pleasure
and the caregiver is the neutral stimulus. Eventually the caregiver becomes a conditioned
stimulus as the infant forms an association. Overtime, the caregiver brings comfort and
pleasure to the infant, the same as food does.
Harlow’s research weakens this theory. He demonstrated that infant monkeys
formed attachment with a ‘cuddle mother’ and not the ‘food mother’ which completely
goes against what the theory states would happen. The monkeys spent most of their time
on the ‘comfort mother’ and only went to the ‘food mother’ when hungry.
However, it can be argued that research conducted on animals is not applicable if applied to
explain human behaviour but baby monkeys and baby humans are actually quite similar in
terms of basic needs and behaviour. Therefore, it is reasonable to use Harlow’s research as
a criticism for learning theory.
A strength of learning theory is that it can provide an adequate explanation of
how attachments form through association. However, it only considers food as the driving
force behind forming attachments but it may not be the only main reinforcer; it may be
that attention and responsiveness creates the bond. Therefore it can be argued that the
theory is over-simplistic.
However, Schaffer & Emerson (1964) found that infants were not most attached to the
person who fed them, but to the person who gave them the most attention and interacted
with them the most, contradicting the learning theory of attachment.
Furthermore, Fox (1977) studied attachment bonds between mothers, babies
and metapelets. They found that the children were generally more attached to their
mothers despite the metapelets doing the vast majority of feeding. This contradicts learning
theory as it states that food is not the main reason for attachment.
Dollard and miller proposed a learning theory of attachment, stating that attachment is
based on the principle of behaviourism and all behaviour is learnt through either classical
and operant conditioning. The infant forms an attachment with the individual who cares for
it by forming an association. For example, food brings pleasure to the infant (primary
reinforcement) and so they begin to associate this feeling with the person who feeds it,
meaning the caregiver becomes the secondary reinforcement. This theory is also known as
the cupboard love theory as it states that attachments only form due to the infant’s love of
food, meaning there would be no attachment if no food was involved.
With operant conditioning, any behaviour that produces a reward will be repeated due to
positive reinforcement, for example crying. Being fed removes the feeling of hunger and
therefore removes negative reinforcement, so this again makes the behaviour (crying) more
likely to be repeated.
In terms of classical conditioning, the food is the unconditioned stimulus as it gives pleasure
and the caregiver is the neutral stimulus. Eventually the caregiver becomes a conditioned
stimulus as the infant forms an association. Overtime, the caregiver brings comfort and
pleasure to the infant, the same as food does.
Harlow’s research weakens this theory. He demonstrated that infant monkeys
formed attachment with a ‘cuddle mother’ and not the ‘food mother’ which completely
goes against what the theory states would happen. The monkeys spent most of their time
on the ‘comfort mother’ and only went to the ‘food mother’ when hungry.
However, it can be argued that research conducted on animals is not applicable if applied to
explain human behaviour but baby monkeys and baby humans are actually quite similar in
terms of basic needs and behaviour. Therefore, it is reasonable to use Harlow’s research as
a criticism for learning theory.
A strength of learning theory is that it can provide an adequate explanation of
how attachments form through association. However, it only considers food as the driving
force behind forming attachments but it may not be the only main reinforcer; it may be
that attention and responsiveness creates the bond. Therefore it can be argued that the
theory is over-simplistic.
However, Schaffer & Emerson (1964) found that infants were not most attached to the
person who fed them, but to the person who gave them the most attention and interacted
with them the most, contradicting the learning theory of attachment.
Furthermore, Fox (1977) studied attachment bonds between mothers, babies
and metapelets. They found that the children were generally more attached to their
mothers despite the metapelets doing the vast majority of feeding. This contradicts learning
theory as it states that food is not the main reason for attachment.
