Outline and evaluate the learning theory of attachment. (16 marks)
According to the learning theory all behaviour is learned rather than innate, and
behaviourists propose that infant’s attachment to a caregiver is based on pleasure and
whoever satisfies their biological drive for food. Conditioning is given as an explanation of
how this attachment is formed, two types of conditioning are operant and classical
conditioning.
Based on classical conditioning the child learns to associate the carer with food. Food is the
unconditional stimuli, which is associated with pleasure (UCR). At the start the carer is a
neutral stimulus, but overtime as the carer feeds the child they become associated with
food and become a conditioned stimulus which give the conditioned stimuli pleasure. This is
how attachment is formed. Another way attachment is formed is operant conditioning and
this about the reinforcement of behaviour. The baby will learn to repeat behaviour
depending on it consequences and if behaviour produces unpleasant consequences it is
likely to decline. For example, when a baby feels discomfort they would want food to
remove this discomfort. They will learn that if they cry the carer will act in such a way and
feed them to stop the crying and remove this discomfort, negative reinforcement.
Hunger is a primary drive; an innate biological motivator and we are motivated t eat to
reduce this hunger drive. So, attachment is a secondary drive learnt by association between
the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive. As the caregiver provides food, the
primary drive (hunger) is associated to them.
A limitation of the learning theory is that it has contradicting evidence. For example, Harlow
and Harlow placed young monkey in a cage with two replacement mothers. One was made
of wire with a feeding bottle and the other was covered in a cloth that provided comfort
without a feeding bottle. According to the learning theory they would predict that the
monkeys would prefer the wire mother as it provided food and mean to remove hunger in
line with learning explanation. However, observation found the monkeys preferred the cloth
mum, especially when distressed showing attachment is not just about food but also contact
comfort. This research suggests that learning explanation of attachment is reductionist as it
over simplifies complex attachment behaviour to stimuli response links, food results in
attachment. Thus, research such as Harlow’s suggests the learning explanation of
attachment is to simplistic and reductionist as it overlook other explanations of attachment
e.g contact comfort.
A limitation of the learning theory come from human research that also shows that feeding
is not an important factor of attachment. For example, Schaffer and Emerson study showed
that for many babies a primary attachment was not to the person who cared for them and
fed them. Attachments were more likely to be formed to those individuals who are sensitive
and play with infant. This means that feeding is not a key element to attachment and may
not be the main reinforcer of attachment, but rather it could be responsiveness from the
caregiver. Therefore, this is a limitation as it goes against the learning theory assumption
that infants are more likely to form attachment to those who feed them and suggests other
factors are more important than food in formation of attachment.
According to the learning theory all behaviour is learned rather than innate, and
behaviourists propose that infant’s attachment to a caregiver is based on pleasure and
whoever satisfies their biological drive for food. Conditioning is given as an explanation of
how this attachment is formed, two types of conditioning are operant and classical
conditioning.
Based on classical conditioning the child learns to associate the carer with food. Food is the
unconditional stimuli, which is associated with pleasure (UCR). At the start the carer is a
neutral stimulus, but overtime as the carer feeds the child they become associated with
food and become a conditioned stimulus which give the conditioned stimuli pleasure. This is
how attachment is formed. Another way attachment is formed is operant conditioning and
this about the reinforcement of behaviour. The baby will learn to repeat behaviour
depending on it consequences and if behaviour produces unpleasant consequences it is
likely to decline. For example, when a baby feels discomfort they would want food to
remove this discomfort. They will learn that if they cry the carer will act in such a way and
feed them to stop the crying and remove this discomfort, negative reinforcement.
Hunger is a primary drive; an innate biological motivator and we are motivated t eat to
reduce this hunger drive. So, attachment is a secondary drive learnt by association between
the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive. As the caregiver provides food, the
primary drive (hunger) is associated to them.
A limitation of the learning theory is that it has contradicting evidence. For example, Harlow
and Harlow placed young monkey in a cage with two replacement mothers. One was made
of wire with a feeding bottle and the other was covered in a cloth that provided comfort
without a feeding bottle. According to the learning theory they would predict that the
monkeys would prefer the wire mother as it provided food and mean to remove hunger in
line with learning explanation. However, observation found the monkeys preferred the cloth
mum, especially when distressed showing attachment is not just about food but also contact
comfort. This research suggests that learning explanation of attachment is reductionist as it
over simplifies complex attachment behaviour to stimuli response links, food results in
attachment. Thus, research such as Harlow’s suggests the learning explanation of
attachment is to simplistic and reductionist as it overlook other explanations of attachment
e.g contact comfort.
A limitation of the learning theory come from human research that also shows that feeding
is not an important factor of attachment. For example, Schaffer and Emerson study showed
that for many babies a primary attachment was not to the person who cared for them and
fed them. Attachments were more likely to be formed to those individuals who are sensitive
and play with infant. This means that feeding is not a key element to attachment and may
not be the main reinforcer of attachment, but rather it could be responsiveness from the
caregiver. Therefore, this is a limitation as it goes against the learning theory assumption
that infants are more likely to form attachment to those who feed them and suggests other
factors are more important than food in formation of attachment.
