Outline and evaluate the learning theory as an explanation of attachment (16 marks)
A01 –
1. Learning theory suggests attachment develops through classical and operant conditioning.
2. According to classical conditioning, food (UCS) produces pleasure (UCR). The child learns to
associate the mother with the receival of food, such as milk, and therefore forms an
attachment. The mother becomes associated with the pleasure of receiving food and
becomes a conditioned stimulus for the child.
3. According to operant conditioning food satisfies the infant’s hunger and makes it feel
comfortable again (drive reduction). Positive reinforcement can be seen when the baby
receives food and stops crying.
4. Food is therefore a primary reinforcer. The mother is associated with food and becomes a
secondary reinforcer.
5. Attachment occurs because the infant will seek the person who can supply the reward, who
typically is the mother.
A03 –
Point 1 plausible and scientific as found an established theory
Little albert learnt through classical conditioning to fear rats when they are associated with a loud
noise. Shows how it can be used to teach infants emotional responses to stimuli, thus can likely be
applied to infant associating happiness (emotional response) with a caregiver, leading to an
attachment.
point 2 opposing evidence, Harlow, and Lorenz
Explain what the learning theory would predict should have happened… monkeys show preference
to mother with milk however … Baby monkeys spent more time with a soft towelling mother who
provided no food, preference of contact comfort. Alternate processes may have been ignored.
Suggests explanation is environmentally reductionist and overlooks other explanations of attachment
Point 3 opposing evidence from human studies
Schaffer and Emerson 1964 found in 39% of cases, the mother was not the baby’s main attachment
figure. Attachments more likely to be formed with those who are sensitive and play with the child.
Significance of responsiveness in attachment > feeding.
Environmental reductionism is a HUGE one - this explanation is reducing something as complex as
attachment down to stimulus-response links. Isn't attachment surely more emotional if it's a two
way bond? Think about other factors this explanation ignores!
Nature v nurture - could you bring in Bowlby's monotropic theory as an alternative explanation here
to suggest attachment is not necessarily learnt but may be biological? This could lead on well from
your point on Harlow as Bowlby was largely influenced by the findings of Harlow so this would
make a natural flow in the development of your argument.
A01 –
1. Learning theory suggests attachment develops through classical and operant conditioning.
2. According to classical conditioning, food (UCS) produces pleasure (UCR). The child learns to
associate the mother with the receival of food, such as milk, and therefore forms an
attachment. The mother becomes associated with the pleasure of receiving food and
becomes a conditioned stimulus for the child.
3. According to operant conditioning food satisfies the infant’s hunger and makes it feel
comfortable again (drive reduction). Positive reinforcement can be seen when the baby
receives food and stops crying.
4. Food is therefore a primary reinforcer. The mother is associated with food and becomes a
secondary reinforcer.
5. Attachment occurs because the infant will seek the person who can supply the reward, who
typically is the mother.
A03 –
Point 1 plausible and scientific as found an established theory
Little albert learnt through classical conditioning to fear rats when they are associated with a loud
noise. Shows how it can be used to teach infants emotional responses to stimuli, thus can likely be
applied to infant associating happiness (emotional response) with a caregiver, leading to an
attachment.
point 2 opposing evidence, Harlow, and Lorenz
Explain what the learning theory would predict should have happened… monkeys show preference
to mother with milk however … Baby monkeys spent more time with a soft towelling mother who
provided no food, preference of contact comfort. Alternate processes may have been ignored.
Suggests explanation is environmentally reductionist and overlooks other explanations of attachment
Point 3 opposing evidence from human studies
Schaffer and Emerson 1964 found in 39% of cases, the mother was not the baby’s main attachment
figure. Attachments more likely to be formed with those who are sensitive and play with the child.
Significance of responsiveness in attachment > feeding.
Environmental reductionism is a HUGE one - this explanation is reducing something as complex as
attachment down to stimulus-response links. Isn't attachment surely more emotional if it's a two
way bond? Think about other factors this explanation ignores!
Nature v nurture - could you bring in Bowlby's monotropic theory as an alternative explanation here
to suggest attachment is not necessarily learnt but may be biological? This could lead on well from
your point on Harlow as Bowlby was largely influenced by the findings of Harlow so this would
make a natural flow in the development of your argument.
