LEARNING THEORY EXPLANATION OF ATTACHMENT
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.
INTRODUCTION
Before we explore attachment theories, it's essential to understand behaviourism. Although we'll study this approach in detail later, grasping its basic principles now will help us see how it relates to attachment.
BEHAVIOURISM OVERVIEW
Behaviourism, or learning theory, is a psychological approach that began with Ivan Pavlov's work in the early 20th century. It suggests humans are born as "blank slates" (tabula rasa), meaning we don't have built-in personalities or knowledge. Instead, everything we become comes from what we learn through our environment and experiences at home. Behaviourists believe biological factors are unimportant and consider the mind a "black box," implying that internal thoughts are irrelevant and too complex to study scientifically.
There are two main types of behaviourism: classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Some psychologists also include social learning theory as part of behaviourism, but strictly speaking, it sits between behaviourism and the cognitive approach.
Understanding these basic principles of behaviourism will help us see how they apply to attachment theories, which we'll explore next.
There are two main ways behaviourists believe we learn:
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING Learning by associating one thing with another, like Pavlov's dogs learning to associate a bell with food.
OPERANT CONDITIONING: Learning is based on the consequences of our actions, meaning we learn to do things that bring rewards and avoid punishments.
Understanding these basic ideas of behaviourism will help us see how they apply to attachment theories, which we'll explore next.
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
Imagine you have a dog that naturally salivates when it sees food. Now, if you start ringing a bell just before presenting the food, the dog will begin to associate the bell with mealtime. After several repetitions, the dog will start to salivate upon hearing the bell, even if the food isn't present. In this scenario:
UNCONDITIONED STIMULUS (US): The food which naturally causes salivation.
UNCONDITIONED RESPONSE (UR): The dog's salivation in response to the food.
CONDITIONED STIMULUS (CS): The bell, which initially doesn't cause salivation on its own.
CONDITIONED RESPONSE (CR): The dog salivates in response to the bell after learning the association.
This process shows how a neutral stimulus (the bell) can, through association, trigger a response (salivation) that was originally caused by another stimulus (the food)
OPERANT CONDITIONING
Operant conditioning is a learning process where behaviours are influenced by the consequences that follow them. Simply, it's about learning from the results of your actions.
UNDERSTANDING "POSITIVE" AND "NEGATIVE"
In this context, "positive" and "negative" don't mean "good" or "bad." Instead, they're used mathematically:
POSITIVE: Adding something to the situation.
NEGATIVE: Removing something from the situation.
REINFORCEMENT
Reinforcement is used when you want a behaviour to continue or increase. It involves introducing or removing a stimulus to encourage the behaviour.
POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT: Adding something pleasant to encourage a behaviour.
Example: Giving a child a treat for cleaning their room makes them more likely to clean in the future.
NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT: Removing something unpleasant to encourage a behaviour.
Example: A driver fastens their seatbelt to stop the annoying beeping sound in the car, leading them to use it more regularly.
PUNISHMENT
Punishment is used when you want a behaviour to decrease or stop. It involves introducing or removing a stimulus to discourage the behaviour.
POSITIVE PUNISHMENT: Adding something unpleasant to discourage a behaviour.
Example: Scolding a pet for chewing on shoes makes it less likely to chew them again.
NEGATIVE PUNISHMENT: Taking away something pleasant to discourage a behaviour.
Example: Taking away a teenager's video game time because they missed curfew, aiming to reduce future lateness.
In essence, reinforcement aims to increase behaviours, while punishment aims to decrease them. Understanding these basic principles helps explain how behaviours are learned and modified through environmental interactions.
CLASSICAL CONDITIONING APPLIED TO ATTACHMENT
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 happen, 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 and removes this unwanted discomfort. This is known as negative reinforcement, where the consequences of a behaviour (crying, for example) lead 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 parents’ affectionate behaviour. Parents would also be teaching appropriate behaviour within relationships and rewarding this accordingly, encouraging it further.
EVALUATION
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 that 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 that this highlights how attachment may be innate and serve a purpose in future reproduction and relationships, not just a learned response. Some even proposed that the monkeys clinging to the cloth mothers in distress was further evidence of an evolutionary drive behind attachment, as many creatures look for safety and comfort when threatened.
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 significant weakness of 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) lead 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 that 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 that this highlights how attachment may be innate and serve a purpose in future reproduction and relationships, not just a learnt response. Some even proposed that the monkeys clinging to the cloth mothers in distress was further evidence of an evolutionary drive behind attachment, as many creatures look for safety and comfort when threatened.
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 it is questionable as to whether we learned anything meaningful from such cruelty to highlight attachment, which was not a learnt response.
A major weakness of 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.
