Karteikarten
Learning theory of attachment: classical and operant conditioning
Karten in diesem Stapel (1)
- 1Classical conditioning is learning through association. It is based on stimulus/response mechanisms. Pavlov conducted research into how attachments are formed between dogs and their caregivers. The food is the unconditioned stimulus and this leads to pleasure and salivation, the unconditioned response. During the conditioning, the caregiver (the natural stimulus) is repeatedly paired with the unconditioned stimulus. Over time, the dogs learn a new stimulus/response mechanism - they salivate and show pleasure when they see the caregiver - the caregiver/feeder is now the conditioned stimulus and the salivation and pleasure is now the conditioned response. This association between an individual and a sense of pleasure is the attachment bond. Operant conditioning is learning through rewards and punishments. Rewards act as positive reinforcers - every time the infant does something good, they are praised which gives pleasant consequences and makes them more likely to behave in that way again. On the other hand, if behaviour results in an unpleasant consequence, it is unlikely that the behaviour will be repeated. Dollard and Miller (1950) suggested that a hungry infant feels uncomfortable and wants to reduce this feeling. This is called the drive state - the infant is motivated to get food and shows this using social releasers. When the infant is fed, the drive is reduced and this produces a feeling of pleasure (a reward). Food is the primary reinforcer and the feeder/caregiver is the secondary reinforcer. Attachments occur because the child seeks the person who can supply the reward.Provides an adequate explanation of how attachments form. We do learn through association and reinforcement but food may not be the main reinforcer. It may be that attention and responsiveness from a caregiver are important rewards that create the bond instead.
Cupboard love is not likely to be the best explanation for attachment because research shows that infants do not necessarily become most strongly attached to the person who feeds them. Harlow (1959) conducted an animal experiment in a lab – rhesus monkeys were placed in a cage with two wire mothers, one had a feeding bottle attached to it (lactating mother) and one was wrapped in soft cloth but offered no food. The monkeys spent most time with the cloth-covered mother and would cling to it especially when they were frightened (a proximity-seeking behaviour which is characteristic of attachment).
Shaffer and Emerson (1964) observed 60 babies from mainly working-class homes in Glasgow for a period of a year. They found that infants were not most attached to the person who fed them but instead were attached to the person who was most responsive and who interacted with them the most. This suggests that the ‘cupboard love theory’ is not likely to be the best explanation for attachment because it suggests that attachment is based on food alone.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Karteikarten am Ohne Titel, erstellt von tamarapress am 17/02/2014.
- Erstellt von
- tamarapress
- Aufrufe
- 14
- Bewertung
Mehr zu Learning theory of attachment