Learning theory

Outline:

 Learning theory of attachment suggests attachment develops through classical and

operant conditioning processes.

 It is sometimes called a ‘cupboard love’ approach because it emphasises the

importance of the attachment figure as a provider of food.

 According to classical conditioning, food (UCS) produces pleasure (UCR). Initially

the caregiver (NS) does not elicit a response (No UCR). Infants learn to associate the
caregiver (NS) with food (UCS), over time the caregiver becomes conditioned
stimulus and is associated with pleasure (CR).

 According to operant conditioning, a child’s crying leads to a response from the

caregiver such as feeding. The child then continues to cry whenever they see the
caregiver due to positive reinforcement as they expect to receive the same response –
food. This reinforcement is a two-way process as when the caregiver gives the child
food, they avoid the discomfort of their child crying, so they continue this behaviour
due to negative reinforcement.

 Food satisfies the infant’s hunger and makes it feel comfortable again (drive
reduction). Food is therefore a primary reinforcer. The mother is associated with food
and becomes a secondary reinforcer. The infant becomes attached to the mother
because she is a source of reward.  
Evaluation

A strength of the learning theory as an explanation of attachment is that there is supporting

evidence. Food has shown to be a strong reinforcer. For example, Skinner demonstrated that
rats could be conditioned to press a lever for food. Furthermore, a child is fed nearly 2000
times in the first year. This shows that it is likely that there is an association would form
between the caregiver and food.

One limitation of the learning theory is that it provides an incomplete explanation of

attachment. Both classical and operant conditioning explanations see the baby playing a
relatively passive role in attachment development, simply responding to associations with
comfort or reward. In fact, research shows that babies take a very active role in the
interactions that produce attachment (e.g. Feldman and Eidelman 2007). This means that
conditioning may not be an adequate explanation of any aspect of attachment.

Another limitation of learning theory explanation for attachment is the lack of support from
studies conducted on animals. For example, Lorenz's geese imprinted on the first moving
object they saw regardless of whether this object was associated with food. Also, if we
consider Harlow's research with monkeys, there is no support for the importance of food.
When given a choice, Harlow's monkeys displayed attachment behaviour towards a soft
surrogate 'mother' in preference to a wire one which provided milk. This shows that factors
other than association with food are important in the formation of attachments.

An additional limitation of learning theory explanations is lack of support from studies of

human babies. For example, Schaffer and Emerson found that babies tended to form their
main attachment to their mother regardless of whether she was the one who usually fed them.
In another study, Russell Isabella et al. found that high levels of interactional synchrony
predicted the quality of attachment. These factors are not related to feeding. This again
suggests that food is not the main factor in the formation of human attachments.

A further limitation of learning theory is that there is a better explanation. Dale Hay and Jo
Vespo suggest that parents teach children to love them by demonstrating (modelling)
attachment behaviours, for example hugging. Parents also reinforce loving behaviour by
showing approval when babies display their own attachent behaviours (e.g. giving attention
or cuddles to their parents). This social learning perspective has the further advantage that it
is based around two-way interaction between baby and adult, so it fits better with research
into the importance of reciprocity.