3.3.1 Explanations of Attachment

The Learning Theory of Attachment

• Attachments are learned through the process of classical and operant conditioning

Classical conditioning application to attachment

According to the learning theory of attachment...

Attachments are learned through the experience of being fed by caregivers.

1. Before conditioning Caregiver (neutral stimulus) = No response (neutral response)

Food (unconditioned stimulus) = Happiness/Pleasure (unconditioned response)

2. During conditioning Caregiver (neutral stimulus) + Food (unconditioned stimulus) = Happiness/Pleasure (unconditioned response)

3. After conditioning Food + Caregiver (conditioned stimulus) = Happiness/Pleasure (conditioned response)

Operant conditioning application to attachment

Operant conditioning suggests that we learn through consequences.

In both of these ways, behaviour can be reinforced. (made more likely to occur)

• Staying near their caregiver is positive reinforcement, as babies learn that they get food when they stay near their caregiver.
• Staying near to their caregiver is negative reinforcement as babies learn that they can reduce hunger by staying near the caregiver.
• The baby associates the caregiver with the reduction of hunger/being given food.

Primary reinforcer = Makes you happy in itself (food)

Secondary reinforcer = What you associate it with makes you happy (mum)

Evaluation - the learning theory of attachment:

P: Learning theory provides a plausible explanation for how attachments are formed

E: Research by Dollard and Miller (1950) argues that babies are fed 2000 times by their caregivers in the first year of their life

E: Therefore, there is plenty of opportunity for babies to form an association between their caregivers and getting fed so it seems likely that this association can lead to strong attachments.

P: Studies such as Harlow's don't support the learning theory of attachment

E: Suggests that attachments are driven by comfort and not food

E: This goes against learning theory. Therefore, there may be other explanations

P: Studies such as Lorenz's don't support the learning theory of attachment

E: Goslings imprinted before they were fed

E: This goes against learning theory. Therefore, there may be other explanations

P: The learning theory of attachment can't explain Fox's (1977) observation of metapelites in Israel.

E: Despite being fed by foster mothers, babies form attachments with their own mothers

E: This suggests that the learning theory is invalid. Therefore, there may be other explanations

• Therefore, although it is a plausible explanation, most evidence suggests that it is not a good explanation for why we form attachments

P: Attachments are complex behaviours

E: When explaining attachments as simply down to feeding, behaviourism does not consider internal mental processes or the emotional nature of attachments.

E: Therefore, the behaviourist explanation of attachment is reductionist