Learning Theory of Attachment Flashcards
(23 cards)
Learning theory
All behaviour is learnt rather than innate. Everyone is born “tabula rasa” and people are shaped by their experiences
Classical conditioning
Association
Operant conditioning
Consequence
Before conditioning:
Food serves as an UCS (unconditioned stimulus), being fed gives us a feeling of pleasure UCR (unconditioned response). Caregiver is the NS (neutral stimulus) because the child has not learnt to react to them in any way.
Unconditioned response
Food
Unconditioned response
Pleasure
Neutral stimulus
Caregiver
During conditioning
When the same caregiver (NS) provides food (UCS) over several feedings (they occur together), the caregiver becomes associated with the food itself
Association between:
Caregiver and food
NS and UCS
After learning
The caregiver becomes the conditioned stimulus as she starts eliciting the same response as the UCS even without the presence of food and becomes the Conditioned Response - the baby now forming an attachment to the caregiver
Conditioned stimulus
Caregiver
Conditioned response
Pleasure at sight of the caregiver
Negative reinforcement
Removal of an unpleasant experience in response to a specific behaviour
Operant conditioning in attachment:
- In OC, desirable behaviour is repeated due to consequences
- In case of attachment, hunger acts as a ‘drive’ (a feeling of discomfort that motivates behaviour)
- Babies engage in behaviour such as crying to reduce the drive
- Child may get fed - reduces hunger and leads to DRIVE REDUCTION
- Food is the reward + acts as primary reinforcer
- The person providing the food acts as the secondary reinforcement - known as the agent of drive reduction
Drive
A feeling of discomfort that motivates behaviour
Primary reinforcer
The actual thing that reduces the drive
Secondary reinforcement
The person who provides the food
The agent of drive reduction
Secondary reinforcement
AKA: the person who provides the food
Attachment
Strong, enduring, emotional relationship between 2 people (especially an infant and caregiver)
It’s a two-way process characterised by desire for closeness and a feeling of security when in the presence of the attachment figure
Strength of LT: practical applications.
- LT explains that feeding behaviour forms attachment through associating caregiver with pleasure provided by food. This explanation used to allow both parents to form an attachment with the infant. Father- feed child with formula or express milk
- SB: both parents can look after the infant by themselves - flexibility in way that families arrange childcare and parental leave from work
- LT has utility + can improve lives
Weakness of LT: Refuting evidence from animal research
- Harlow stated monkeys formed attachment with contact comfort from towel-mother, not food providing wire one
- Lorenz stated geese imprinted on 1st moving object seen even if didn’t provide food
- Shows animals don’t form attachment with those that feed them
- Refutes role of food based pairing and drive reduction attachment formation.
- Decreases in validity
Weakness of learning theory: Refuting evidence from human research
- Schaeffer and Emerson found infants have a stronger attachment with interactive and sensitive care-giver, not one who feeds the infant the most
- Infants had multiple attachments even if mothers did most of the feeding
- WB: LT is wrong in arguing food is a key factor in forming attachment rather than parental sensitivity to social releases.
- Decreases in validity
Weakness: there is an alternate well- rounded explanation
- Learning theory only tells us how attachment may be formed. Bowlby’s theory of attachment provides us with the why and how attachment is formed. Bowlby states attachment has evolutionary function as it grants infant survival and the parent’s genes are passed on
- Bowlby’s theory is more well rounded explanation of how and why attachment forms - learning explanation only explains how - weak explanation
- Decreases in validity
