Discuss learning theory as an explanation for attachment (12 marks)
Learning theories express the importance of food in developing attachments. One learning
theory comes through classical conditioning. This is when an unconditioned stimulus of food
brings an unconditioned response of pleasure. This is then paired with a conditioned
stimulus of the carer, which means that an association between the carer and pleasure
begins to form. This means that when the stimulus-response bond is strong enough, the
conditioned stimulus of a carer can bring about the conditioned response of pleasure.
Another learning theory is the cupboard love theory, which is a form of operant conditioning.
Cupboard love theory suggests that infants attach to their carers for food, as a result of
association, causing an alteration in behaviour through reinforcement. This means that the
baby has to learn to form an attachment with their caregiver. This occurs as the caregiver
rewards the baby by feeding them, so the baby begins to associate the caregiver with the
negative reinforcement of food, causing any action to bring the caregiver close to be
repeated. Therefore, food is the primary reinforcer, as it removes discomfort, acting as
negative reinforcement. The caregiver becomes the secondary reinforcer, as food doesn’t
come without them giving it.
A strength of cupboard love theory is that it has supporting evidence. This comes from
Dollard & Millar (1950) who found that in their first year, babies are fed ~2000 times. This is
usually by the main carer. This real life example means that there is plenty of opportunity for
the carer to become associated with providing negative reinforcement, by removing hunger.
This gives cupboard love theory real life application.
However, both of these learning theories could be considered to be reductionist. Harlow
contradicts learning theories, especially in his 2nd procedure. 16 baby monkeys spent time
with either a wire or cloth mother. In condition 1, the wire mother provided milk. In condition
2, the cloth mother provided milk. The baby monkeys, in both conditions, would stay with the
cloth mother. In condition 1, the monkeys would feed from the wire mother before
immediately returning to the cloth mother. This suggests that learning theories only simply
focuses on stimulus-response bonds & reinforcement. This means that factors, such as the
genetic make-up & the need for comfort over food, are not accounted for. This may mean
that whilst learning theories can be applied to some babies, others may not form as strong
attachments or form stronger attachments for other reasons than food. This explanation,
therefore, does not explain how attachments are formed beyond the primary caregiver. This
means that this explanation is oversimplified & potentially incomplete.
Furthermore, learning theories are environmentally deterministic. This is because they
suggest that early learning influences later attachments. This means that there is no free will
over who we attach to and so we have no control over our attachment behaviours & our
future relationships. This could potentially reduce quality of life, as some may be influenced
to have relationships with people they don’t want to.
Learning theories express the importance of food in developing attachments. One learning
theory comes through classical conditioning. This is when an unconditioned stimulus of food
brings an unconditioned response of pleasure. This is then paired with a conditioned
stimulus of the carer, which means that an association between the carer and pleasure
begins to form. This means that when the stimulus-response bond is strong enough, the
conditioned stimulus of a carer can bring about the conditioned response of pleasure.
Another learning theory is the cupboard love theory, which is a form of operant conditioning.
Cupboard love theory suggests that infants attach to their carers for food, as a result of
association, causing an alteration in behaviour through reinforcement. This means that the
baby has to learn to form an attachment with their caregiver. This occurs as the caregiver
rewards the baby by feeding them, so the baby begins to associate the caregiver with the
negative reinforcement of food, causing any action to bring the caregiver close to be
repeated. Therefore, food is the primary reinforcer, as it removes discomfort, acting as
negative reinforcement. The caregiver becomes the secondary reinforcer, as food doesn’t
come without them giving it.
A strength of cupboard love theory is that it has supporting evidence. This comes from
Dollard & Millar (1950) who found that in their first year, babies are fed ~2000 times. This is
usually by the main carer. This real life example means that there is plenty of opportunity for
the carer to become associated with providing negative reinforcement, by removing hunger.
This gives cupboard love theory real life application.
However, both of these learning theories could be considered to be reductionist. Harlow
contradicts learning theories, especially in his 2nd procedure. 16 baby monkeys spent time
with either a wire or cloth mother. In condition 1, the wire mother provided milk. In condition
2, the cloth mother provided milk. The baby monkeys, in both conditions, would stay with the
cloth mother. In condition 1, the monkeys would feed from the wire mother before
immediately returning to the cloth mother. This suggests that learning theories only simply
focuses on stimulus-response bonds & reinforcement. This means that factors, such as the
genetic make-up & the need for comfort over food, are not accounted for. This may mean
that whilst learning theories can be applied to some babies, others may not form as strong
attachments or form stronger attachments for other reasons than food. This explanation,
therefore, does not explain how attachments are formed beyond the primary caregiver. This
means that this explanation is oversimplified & potentially incomplete.
Furthermore, learning theories are environmentally deterministic. This is because they
suggest that early learning influences later attachments. This means that there is no free will
over who we attach to and so we have no control over our attachment behaviours & our
future relationships. This could potentially reduce quality of life, as some may be influenced
to have relationships with people they don’t want to.
