Outline and evaluate learning theory of attachment (16 marks)
The learning theory of attachment, proposed by Dollard and Miller, suggests that humans are born
as a ‘blank slate’ and any attachments formed are formed by learning. This follows the ‘cupboard-
love’ theory, which suggests that babies learn to attach to those who feed them. Both classical and
operant conditioning are used in this theory. In terms of classical conditioning, the mother, the baby
and food are all involved. The unconditioned stimulus of food leads to the unconditioned response
to pleasure. The mother acts as the neutral stimulus, and when paired with the food, a pleasure
response is elicited. Eventually, the baby will be classically conditioned into associating the mother’s
breast (now a conditioned stimulus) with pleasure, leading to a conditioned response. Operant
conditioning involves the mother and the baby. The baby cries to gain the positive reinforcement of
the attention they get from their mother. This is a two-way process, as the mother performs
negative reinforcement by providing the baby with care to avoid the negative emotions associated
with the baby crying. Here, attachment is a secondary drive as the mother is what causes the
attachment.
A limitation of this theory is that it has contradictory evidence with both animal and human studies.
Lorenz found that the geese form an attachment upon birth, suggesting an innate attachment drive.
Harlow found that monkeys don’t necessarily attach to the mother that feeds it, but to the mother
that provides contact care. As for human studies, Schaffer and Emerson found that babies can form
multiple attachments, not just to the person that feeds them. This is a limitation as it reduces the
credibility of Dollard and Millers theory. However, we must be careful when generalising animal
studies to humans. Although both Lorenz and Harlow found contradictory results, this does not
mean that they apply to humans, as humans do not attach the same way that monkeys and geese
do.
Another limitation of this theory of attachment is that there is an alternative theory. Bowlby’s
monotropic theory describes attachment as an innate phenomenon the babies have evolutionarily
adapted to in order to maintain survival. This theory may be seen as more fitting, as it sees babies as
the defenceless creatures they are and describes how they have biologically adapted to survive. This
is a weakness as Bowlby’s theory provides scientific credibility clarity where Dollard and Millers’ falls
short.
The learning theory of attachment, proposed by Dollard and Miller, suggests that humans are born
as a ‘blank slate’ and any attachments formed are formed by learning. This follows the ‘cupboard-
love’ theory, which suggests that babies learn to attach to those who feed them. Both classical and
operant conditioning are used in this theory. In terms of classical conditioning, the mother, the baby
and food are all involved. The unconditioned stimulus of food leads to the unconditioned response
to pleasure. The mother acts as the neutral stimulus, and when paired with the food, a pleasure
response is elicited. Eventually, the baby will be classically conditioned into associating the mother’s
breast (now a conditioned stimulus) with pleasure, leading to a conditioned response. Operant
conditioning involves the mother and the baby. The baby cries to gain the positive reinforcement of
the attention they get from their mother. This is a two-way process, as the mother performs
negative reinforcement by providing the baby with care to avoid the negative emotions associated
with the baby crying. Here, attachment is a secondary drive as the mother is what causes the
attachment.
A limitation of this theory is that it has contradictory evidence with both animal and human studies.
Lorenz found that the geese form an attachment upon birth, suggesting an innate attachment drive.
Harlow found that monkeys don’t necessarily attach to the mother that feeds it, but to the mother
that provides contact care. As for human studies, Schaffer and Emerson found that babies can form
multiple attachments, not just to the person that feeds them. This is a limitation as it reduces the
credibility of Dollard and Millers theory. However, we must be careful when generalising animal
studies to humans. Although both Lorenz and Harlow found contradictory results, this does not
mean that they apply to humans, as humans do not attach the same way that monkeys and geese
do.
Another limitation of this theory of attachment is that there is an alternative theory. Bowlby’s
monotropic theory describes attachment as an innate phenomenon the babies have evolutionarily
adapted to in order to maintain survival. This theory may be seen as more fitting, as it sees babies as
the defenceless creatures they are and describes how they have biologically adapted to survive. This
is a weakness as Bowlby’s theory provides scientific credibility clarity where Dollard and Millers’ falls
short.
