SPECIFICATION : Explanations of attachment: learning theory

THE LEARNING THEORY EXPLANATION OF ATTACHMENT

The basic principle for learning theory put forth by behaviourists is that all behaviour is learned rather than innate. Behaviourists propose an infant’s emotional bond and dependence on the caregiver can be explained through reinforcement, either through classical or operant conditioning.

Based on Classical Conditioning the baby would receive pleasure when given food (unconditioned stimuli) and the association of pleasure (unconditioned response) is formed with the caregiver as the person giving the food. Therefore, positive emotions, pleasure, and attachment behaviour towards the caregiver are merely conditioned responses due to their association with pleasurable acts such as feeding. This is then proposed to occur even in the caregivers presence when feeding does not occur as it continues as a conditioned response.

Another way attachment is explained is through Operant Conditioning through positive and negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when behaviour is rewarded, increasing the likelihood of repeated behaviour. Infants feel discomfort when hungry, so they desire food, a primary reinforcer, to remove this feeling. They learn that through crying they gain their caregiver’s attention who feeds them, removing this unwanted feeling of discomfort. This is known as negative reinforcement where the consequences of a behaviour (crying for example) leads to an unpleasant feeling ceasing (hunger). The child, therefore, displays proximity seeking and attachment behaviour with the caregiver as they become a secondary reinforcer and a source of reward (food) and remover of unwanted feelings.

Learning theory provides a plausible explanation of attachment forming as we learn from reinforcement and association. Other explanations have proposed that the reward that drives attachment may be the responsiveness and attention caregivers give.

Alternative explanations have incorporated social learning theory with Vespo et al (1988) suggesting that infants observe and imitate their parent’s’ affectionate behaviour. Parents would also be teaching appropriate behaviour within relationships and rewarding this accordingly, encouraging it further.

Evaluation/AO3

Emerson et al. found evidence to support learning theory to explain how attachment forms through studying 60 babies over 18 months. At three months old they showed no preference however after four months preferences started to develop with a special attachment from 7 months onwards with separation anxiety displayed on separation from their primary caregivers. This study found attachment was most likely to form with those most sensitive and responsive to the child’s need (through feeding and attention) as this would be most rewarding for them.

However, other research suggests feeding alone cannot fully explain attachments. Harlow et al. placed young monkeys with two “mothers”. One was made of wire with a feeding bottle, while another was covered in cloth without a feeding bottle. Behaviourists would predict the monkeys should spend more time with the wire mother as it provided food and a means to remove hunger in line with learning explanations. Observations however found the monkeys preferred the cloth mother especially when the distressed highlighting attachment is not merely about food but also contact comfort. More interestingly, as adults, the monkeys struggled to form reproductive relationships and tended to be poor mothers, suggesting that a caregiver's lack of interaction may cause maladjustment in later life. Evolutionists such as Bowlby may argue this highlights how attachment may be innate and serve a purpose in future reproduction and relationships and not just a learned response. Some even proposed the monkeys clinging to the cloth mothers in distress was further evidence for an evolutionary drive behind attachment as many creatures look for safety and comfort when under threat.

However, with animal research, we may not be able to generalise such findings to humans as the behaviour may vary greatly due to differences in intelligence, awareness and emotions between humans and animals. Therefore, such studies may lack external validity to wider generalisation and are considered reductionist for attempting to present an oversimplified version of human behaviour through animals. Behaviourists would argue that our core behaviour patterns are the same; therefore, generalisation from animals does apply as we share approximately 94% of our genetics with monkeys.

Ethical issues also arise with research such as Harlow's study as baby monkeys were isolated for up to 12 months, with some even dying due to stress-related anorexia brought about due to isolation. This highlights how cruel Harlow's study was purely in the name of understanding attachment behaviour and questionable as to whether we learned anything meaningful from such cruelty to highlight attachment was not a learnt response.

A major weakness for learning theory is it explains how attachment can occur but not necessarily why, unlike Bowlby’s attachment theory which provides a more holistic explanation. Bowlby argued that the advantages centred around protection and survival align more with our understanding of evolution.

Explanations of attachment

Explanations for why attachment occurs tend to focus on two main explanations, one of which is learning theory. The other explanation is ‘Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory’, which we will explore further in the spread.

Learning theory was the more popular explanation in the first half of the 20th century and explains attachment between an infant and mother based on the principles of conditioning (learning).

In contrast, Bowlby’s monotropic theory, explains attachment occurring due to innate biological programming which is hardwired into our genetics.

The Learning Theory of Attachment

The basic principle for learning theory put forth by behaviourists is that all behaviour is learned rather than innate. Behaviourists propose an infant’s emotional bond and dependence on the caregiver can be explained through reinforcement, either through classical or operant conditioning.

Based on Classical Conditioning the baby would receive pleasure when given food (unconditioned stimuli) and the association of pleasure (unconditioned response) is formed with the caregiver as the person giving the food. Therefore, positive emotions, pleasure, and attachment behaviour towards the caregiver are merely conditioned responses due to their association with pleasurable acts such as feeding. This is proposed to occur even in the caregiver’s presence when feeding does not occur, as it continues as a conditioned response.

Another way attachment is explained is through Operant Conditioning through positive and negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when behaviour is rewarded, increasing the likelihood of repeated behaviour. Infants feel discomfort when hungry, so they desire food, a primary reinforcer, to remove this feeling. They learn that through crying they gain their caregiver’s attention who feeds them, removing this unwanted feeling of discomfort. This is known as negative reinforcement where the consequences of a behaviour (crying for example) leads to an unpleasant feeling ceasing (hunger). The child, therefore, displays proximity seeking and attachment behaviour with the caregiver as they become a secondary reinforcer and a source of reward (food) and remover of unwanted feelings.

Learning theory provides a plausible explanation of attachment forming as we learn from reinforcement and association. Other explanations have proposed that the reward that drives attachment may be the responsiveness and attention caregivers give.

Alternative explanations have incorporated social learning theory with Vespo et al (1988) suggesting that infants observe and imitate their parent’s affectionate behaviour. Parents would also be teaching appropriate behaviour within relationships and rewarding this accordingly, encouraging it further.

Evaluating The Learning Theory of Attachment

Emerson et al. found evidence to support learning theory to explain how attachment forms through studying 60 babies over 18 months. At three months old they showed no preference however after four months preferences started to develop with a special attachment from 7 months onwards with separation anxiety displayed on separation from their primary caregivers. This study found attachment was most likely to form with those most sensitive and responsive to the child’s need (through feeding and attention) as this would be most rewarding for them.

However, other research suggests feeding alone cannot fully explain attachments. Harlow et al. placed young monkeys with two “mothers”. One was made of wire with a feeding bottle, while another was covered in cloth without a feeding bottle. Behaviourists would predict the monkeys should spend more time with the wire mother as it provided food and a means to remove hunger in line with learning explanations. Observations however found the monkeys preferred the cloth mother especially when the distressed highlighting attachment is not merely about food but also contact comfort. More interestingly, as adults, the monkeys struggled to form reproductive relationships and tended to be poor mothers, suggesting that a caregiver's lack of interaction may cause maladjustment in later life. Evolutionists such as Bowlby may argue this highlights how attachment may be innate and serve a purpose in future reproduction and relationships and not just a learnt response. Some even proposed the monkeys clinging to the cloth mothers in distress was further evidence for an evolutionary drive behind attachment as many creatures look for safety and comfort when under threat.

However, with animal research, we may not be able to generalise such findings to humans as the behaviour may vary greatly due to differences in intelligence, awareness and emotions between humans and animals. Therefore, such studies may lack external validity to wider generalisation and are considered reductionist for attempting to present an oversimplified version of human behaviour through animals. Behaviourists would argue that our core behaviour patterns are the same; therefore, generalisation from animals does apply as we share approximately 94% of our genetics with monkeys.

Ethical issues also arise with research such as Harlow’s study as baby monkeys were isolated for up to 12 months, with some even dying due to stress-related anorexia brought about due to isolation. This highlights how cruel Harlow’s study was purely in the name of understanding attachment behaviour and is questionable as to whether we learned anything meaningful from such cruelty to highlight attachment, which was not a learnt response.

A major weakness for learning theory is it explains how attachment can occur but not necessarily why, unlike Bowlby’s attachment theory which provides a more holistic explanation. Bowlby argued the advantages centred around protection and survival, which aligns more with our understanding of evolution.