attachment: learning theory Flashcards
define the learning theory of attachment
emphasises the role of learning in development of attachment between primary caregiver and the infant, the baby learns to attach to mother through association and reinforcement (comfort)
outline the process of classical conditioning for attachment formation
food (ucs) = happy baby (ucr)
(ns) mother + food (ucs) = happy baby (ucr)
(cs) mother = happy baby (cr)
who proposed the learning theory explanation of attachment?
dollard + miller
why is it called the cupboard love approach?
the infant attaches to the caregiver who provides the food
how is operant conditioning important for the attachment learning process?
because attachment is due to child seeking out the person who supplies a reward or reinforcement
why is crying an important attachment behaviour?
because babies cry for comfort which is how attachment starts
how is crying positively reinforced for the baby?
because they gain comfort from the mother (positive reward)
what is drive reduction?
suggests that infants are born with innate drives, such as hunger and thirst, which only the caregiver, usually the mother, can reduce
how is crying negatively reinforced for the caregiver (or the crying stopping)?
because they comfort the baby to stop them crying (avoiding punishment)
how is attachment a secondary drive (relate it to hunger)?
hunger can be thought of as a primary drive - it’s an innate, biological motivator.
we are motivated to eat in order to reduce the hunger drive.
Sears et al. (1957) suggested that, as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them. attachment is thus a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary drive
ao3: how do animal studies into attachment counteract the learning theory? why is this a limitation of this explanation of attachment?
both Harlow and Lorenz found that food isn’t important, showing classical conditioning not accurate, meaning it can be reductionist and may lack validity
ao3: how is there counter evidence from human studies for the learning theory? why is this a limitation of this explanation of attachment?
Schaffer + Emerson- feeding isn’t an important factor as many babies form attachment although fathers do most of the feeding usually, showing no unconditioned stimulus is involved meaning the learning theory may lack validity
ao3: how might conditioning still be involved in attachment formation? why is this a strength of this explanation of attachment?
countercriticism: how would you counteract this strength?
as comfort is associated with the role of the PCG, even if the food element is wrong, crying still produces comfort for the baby, strength as research is partly credible as association between PCG and provision of comfy and social interaction may still be useful in explaining attachment formation
ao3: what was the new learning theory proposed by Dale Hay+ Jo Vespo (1988)?
why is this a strength of the learning theory explanation of attachment?
social learning theory is based on the idea that social behaviour is acquired largely as a result of modelling and imitation of behaviour. Hay and Vespo suggest that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviour, e.g. by hugging them and other family members, and instructing and rewarding them with approval when they display attachment behaviour of their own; ‘that’s a lovely smile/hug’, etc.
