ATTACHM
EXPLANATION: LEARNING THEORY
Classical Conditioning – Attachment develops P – Animal studies challenge learning theory. E – Lorenz’s geese a
as infants associate caregivers with pleasure. monkeys formed attachments based on comfort, not feeding. E –
Food acts as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS), attachment is driven by emotional security rather than food. L – L
naturally bringing satisfaction. A caregiver, oversimplifies attachment by focusing only on food.
initially a neutral stimulus (NS), becomes a P – Human studies also contradict learning theory. E – Schaffer an
conditioned stimulus (CS) when paired with found babies bonded with caregivers who responded sensitively,
food, leading to a conditioned response (CR) of who fed them. E – This shows attachment depends on responsive
pleasure and attachment. than conditioning through food. L – Learning theory fails to explai
Operant Conditioning – Attachment is attachment patterns.
reinforced through positive and negative P – Learning theory ignores interactional factors. E – Research hig
reinforcement. Crying leads to a caregiver’s reciprocity and synchrony as crucial for attachment. E – Emotiona
response (comfort or food), reinforcing the play a bigger role than reinforcement mechanisms. L – Attachmen
infant’s behaviour. Caregivers also receive sensitivity and bonding, not just conditioning.
negative reinforcement, as responding to crying P – Conditioning may still have a role. E – Babies associate caregi
removes discomfort, strengthening attachment. comfort and security, reinforcing attachment. E – While food is ins
Attachment as a Secondary Drive – Hunger is classical conditioning might help shape attachment. L – Learning
a primary drive, motivating eating to reduce entirely wrong but is incomplete.
discomfort. Since caregivers provide food, P – Social learning theory offers a better alternative. E – Hay and V
infants associate them with drive reduction, children learn attachment behaviours by imitating and modelling
making attachment a learned secondary drive caregivers. E – Parents reinforce attachment through interaction,
tied to fulfilling the primary need. feeding. L – This supports a broader understanding of how attach
CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHME
Studies of Cultural Variations P – A strength of cross-cultural attachment research is its
van Ijzendoorn: compared rates of attachment size. E – van IJzendoorn’s meta-analysis included nearly 20
type in 8 countries in a meta-analysis of 32 and caregivers. E – Large samples improve internal validity
studies. Found that variations between results minimising the impact of anomalies. L – This increases the
of studies within the same country were generalisability of the findings.
actually 150% greater than those between P – Samples often fail to represent true cultural diversity. E
countries. IJzendoorn and Sagi (2001) found urban Tokyo differed fro
Simonella et al.: Italian attachment rates have in attachment types. E – This shows that comparing count
changed, maybe due to changing practices. overlook significant cultural variation within them. L – Ther
Jin et al.: Korean attachment rates similar to conclusions about cultural differences may be misleading
Japan could be due to similar child-rearing oversimplified.
styles. P – The Strange Situation may suffer from cultural bias. E –
Conclusions Western norms and may impose an etic perspective on no
It appears that attachment is innate and cultures (Grossmann & Grossmann, 1990). E – For example
universal and secure attachment is the norm. children seen as avoidant may actually be displaying cultu
However, cultural practices affect rates of independence. L – Cultural bias limits the cross-cultural va
attachment types. attachment types.
EXPLANATION: LEARNING THEORY
Classical Conditioning – Attachment develops P – Animal studies challenge learning theory. E – Lorenz’s geese a
as infants associate caregivers with pleasure. monkeys formed attachments based on comfort, not feeding. E –
Food acts as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS), attachment is driven by emotional security rather than food. L – L
naturally bringing satisfaction. A caregiver, oversimplifies attachment by focusing only on food.
initially a neutral stimulus (NS), becomes a P – Human studies also contradict learning theory. E – Schaffer an
conditioned stimulus (CS) when paired with found babies bonded with caregivers who responded sensitively,
food, leading to a conditioned response (CR) of who fed them. E – This shows attachment depends on responsive
pleasure and attachment. than conditioning through food. L – Learning theory fails to explai
Operant Conditioning – Attachment is attachment patterns.
reinforced through positive and negative P – Learning theory ignores interactional factors. E – Research hig
reinforcement. Crying leads to a caregiver’s reciprocity and synchrony as crucial for attachment. E – Emotiona
response (comfort or food), reinforcing the play a bigger role than reinforcement mechanisms. L – Attachmen
infant’s behaviour. Caregivers also receive sensitivity and bonding, not just conditioning.
negative reinforcement, as responding to crying P – Conditioning may still have a role. E – Babies associate caregi
removes discomfort, strengthening attachment. comfort and security, reinforcing attachment. E – While food is ins
Attachment as a Secondary Drive – Hunger is classical conditioning might help shape attachment. L – Learning
a primary drive, motivating eating to reduce entirely wrong but is incomplete.
discomfort. Since caregivers provide food, P – Social learning theory offers a better alternative. E – Hay and V
infants associate them with drive reduction, children learn attachment behaviours by imitating and modelling
making attachment a learned secondary drive caregivers. E – Parents reinforce attachment through interaction,
tied to fulfilling the primary need. feeding. L – This supports a broader understanding of how attach
CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHME
Studies of Cultural Variations P – A strength of cross-cultural attachment research is its
van Ijzendoorn: compared rates of attachment size. E – van IJzendoorn’s meta-analysis included nearly 20
type in 8 countries in a meta-analysis of 32 and caregivers. E – Large samples improve internal validity
studies. Found that variations between results minimising the impact of anomalies. L – This increases the
of studies within the same country were generalisability of the findings.
actually 150% greater than those between P – Samples often fail to represent true cultural diversity. E
countries. IJzendoorn and Sagi (2001) found urban Tokyo differed fro
Simonella et al.: Italian attachment rates have in attachment types. E – This shows that comparing count
changed, maybe due to changing practices. overlook significant cultural variation within them. L – Ther
Jin et al.: Korean attachment rates similar to conclusions about cultural differences may be misleading
Japan could be due to similar child-rearing oversimplified.
styles. P – The Strange Situation may suffer from cultural bias. E –
Conclusions Western norms and may impose an etic perspective on no
It appears that attachment is innate and cultures (Grossmann & Grossmann, 1990). E – For example
universal and secure attachment is the norm. children seen as avoidant may actually be displaying cultu
However, cultural practices affect rates of independence. L – Cultural bias limits the cross-cultural va
attachment types. attachment types.
