learning theory of attachment

dollard & miller( 1950) proposed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory.(cupboard love theory)
-explanation based on observable behaviour

  • theory that we are born like "blank slates" all behaviour is learnt rather than being innate

classical conditioning

  • involves learning to associate 2 stimuli together so we begin to respond to 1 in the same way we respond to the other.
  • in the case of attachment, food= unconditional stimulus
  • being fed=pleasure, we dont have to learn = unconditioned response
  • a caregiver starts as neutral stimulus e.g. something that produces no response
  • however, when caregiver provides food overtime, they become associated with the food
  • when baby sees the person, theres an expectation
  • neutral stimulus becomes the conditioned stimulus
  • 1 condition has taken place the sight of the caregiver produced conditioned response= pleasure

operant conditioning

  • involves learning from the consequence of behavior
  • if behavior produces pleasant consequence , behavior is likely to be repeated
    - behavior= reinforced
  • if behavior produces unpleasant consequence (punishment) its less likely to be repeated
  • operant conditioning = explanation for why babies cry for comfort --> important behavior in building attachment
  • crying --> response from caregiver e.g. feeding
  • as long as caregiver provides correct response = crying is reinforced
  • baby directs crying from comfort towards caregiver who responds with comforting "social suppressor" behavior

reinforcement=2 way process

  • as the baby is reinforced for crying= caregiver receives negative reinforcement ( crying stops)
  • this interplay of mutual reinforcement strengthens attachment

AO3 - evaluation

attachment as a secondary drive

  • learning theory--> draws concept of drive reduction
  • hunger--> primary drive= innate, biological motivator
  • Sears et al (1957) suggested that caregivers provide food = primary drive of hunger becomes generalized
  • attachment= secondary drive learned by association between caregiver & satisfaction of primary drive

STRENGTH

LIMITATION

1- lack of support from studies supported from studies conducted on animals

3-shows that factors other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments

2- E.G. = Lorenz geese imprinting on 1st moving object they saw regardless of whether it was associated with food.

  • 2 wire mothers , 1 with food and one had soft wrapping and no food
    • also in harlows research with monkeys, there was no support of the importance of food
      -when given a choice, harlows monkeys displayed attachment towards a soft surrogate "mother" in preference to a wired one which provided milk

1- elements of conditioning could be involved in some aspects of attachment

2- conditioning may still play a role in attachment

  • E.G. = a baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult
    ---> may influence baby's choice of their main attachment figure

3- means learning theory may still be useful in understanding the developments of attachment

COUNTERPOINT

1- both classical and operant conditioning explanations see the baby playing a passive role in attachment development
--> responding to associations with comfort / reward

2- research shows that babies take an active role in interactions that produce attachment ( Feldman & Eidelman 2007)

3- means conditioning may not be the best explanation of any aspect of attachment

LIMITATION

1- lack of support from studies of human babies

2- E.G. = Schaffer & Emmerson( 1964)found babies tended to form main attachments to mothers regardless of whether she was the one who fed them #

  • they carried out a study using 60 infants from Glasgow
  • were observed every 4 weeks until 1 & again at 18 month (all normal births)
    -found 39% of cases, the person who fed bathes and changed baby wasnt primary figure but person whose most responsive

3- suggests food isn't the main factor in the formation of human attachments

2- another study, Isabella et al (1989) found high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of attachment ( not related to feeding)