EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT

• Learning theory – the belief that attachments develop through conditioning processes (classical conditioning & operant conditioning)

• Classical conditioning – occurs when a response produced naturally by a certain stimulus becomes associated with another stimulus that is not normally associated with that particular response

• Operant conditioning – learning occurring via reinforcement of behaviour, thus increasing chances of behaviour occurring again

• Cupboard love theory – the belief that attachments are formed with people who feed infants

Classical Conditioning

• occurs when a response produced naturally by a certain stimulus becomes associated with another stimulus that is not normally associated with that particular response

Operant Conditioning

• Based on the ‘law of effect’ – where any action that has a pleasurable outcome will be repeated again in similar circumstances

• Attachments occur through caregivers becoming associated with reducing the unpleasant feeling of hunger (a negative reinforcement), so that the caregiver becomes a source of reinforcement (reward) themselves

Research

• Dollard and Miller (1950) – argued that in the 1^st year, babies are fed 2000 times, generally by their main carer – creates ample opportunity for the carer to become associated with the removal of the unpleasant feeling of hunger – a form of negative reinforcement supports the idea that attachment is learned through operant conditioning

• Schaffer and Emerson (1964) – found that in 39% of the cases, the mother (usually the main carer), was nto the baby’s main attachment figure – suggrsting that feeding is not the primary explanation of attachment refutes the learning theory

Evaluation

• Attachments are more complex behaviours with an intense emotional component

• This coupled with the fact that attachments develop with the people who do not feed babies

• Casts doubt on the learning theory

• Schaffer (1971) – commented that ‘cupboard love’ theories out things the wrong way round – babies do not ‘live to eat’ but ‘eat to live’; thus, they actively seek stimulation

• Bowlby (1973) – argued that babies only need food occasionally, but constantly require the emotional security that closeness to an attachment figure provides – suggests that food, and thus the learning theory, is not the main reason for the formation of attachments – conditioning and reinforcement through feeding do play a part in helping but are not the main reason

• Behaviourist explanations are reductionist, as they explain complex behaviours in the simplest way possible – does not consider internal cognitive processes

Exam Questions

Q1) Outline and evaluate Learning Theory as an explanation for attachment (8 marks)

Q2) Briefly outline findings that refute the Learning Theory of attachment (4 marks)

Q3) Explain what the cupboard love theory suggests, with appropriate evidence to support this (4 marks)

Q4) Briefly explain how behaviourist explanations can be seen as reductionist (4 marks)