Explanations of attachment: Learning theory

Explanations of attachment: Learning theory

1. classical conditioning

   • unconditioned stimulus (UCS) = food
   • unconditioned response = pleasure
   • neutral stimulus (NS) = mother
   • NS is regularly associated with UCS = UCR
   • NS becomes conditioned stimulus (CS) - 'mother love'
   • CS = Conditioned response (CR) - pleasure
   • attachment is now formed

2. Operant Conditioning

   • Dollar & Miller (1950)
     • based on operant conditioning & drive reduction theory
   • infant is hungry = discomfort = drive to reduce unpleasant feelings
   • infant is fed = pleasure & removal of discomfort
     • positive reinforcement
   • food becomes primary reinforcer, who supplies the food becomes the second reinforcer & a source of pleasure themselves
     • = attachment occurs as child seeks person who can supply reward

3. Evaluation

   • Supporting research is based on animals
     • learning theory based on studies such as Pavlov's research on dogs & Skinner's research on rats
     • behaviourists = humans no different from animals in terms of learning. Non-behaviourists = attachments too complex to explain in simple cause & effect
     • therefore behaviourists may present a oversimplified version of human behaviour & attachments
   • too much emphasis on food
     • Harlow (1959) showed infant rhesus monkeys most attached to wire monkey that provided contact comfort & not food
     • learning theory suggests food is a key factor in attachment, while this research suggests its not the most important factor
     • Suggests learning explanation of attachment is oversimplified & ignores important factors e.g. contact comfort
   • good explanatory power
     • learning theory says infants do learn through association & reinforcement - however food may not be most important
     • its possible parental attention & responsiveness are important factors in attachment - but basic principles of learning theory are supported
     • therefore this shows that even though learning theory doesn't provide a full explanation it still has some value
   • drive theory is outdated
     • drive theory was popular in 1940s, but many examples of human behaviour that increase discomfort
     • e.g. some people engage in extreme activities like bungee jumping or sky diving which increase discomfort
     • suggests humans are not always motivated to reduce discomfort & that underlying principles of drive theory are outdated
   • Bowlby (1969) may provide better explanation
     • bowlby's theory has many advantages in comparison to learning theory
     • e.g. bowlby's theory can explain why attachments form (learning only says how), outlines benefits of attachment (not explained by learning)
     • shows bowlby's theory provides a more complex explanation of attachment