Specification: Explanations of attachment: learning theory.

The learning theory explanation of attachment explains how infants learn to become attached to their primary caregiver through the process of either classical conditioning or operant conditioning. It is sometimes referred to as the ‘cupboard love’ theory because the main principles of this explanation for attachment focuses on food. In a nutshell, it is thought that infants will form an attachment to whoever feeds them. 

Operant Conditioning

Skinner (1938) was the first psychologist to study operant conditioning and show that behaviour in nonhuman animals could be learned through consequences (reward or punishment). When a behaviour is rewarded (through positive or negative reinforcement) it is repeated and conversely when it is punished the behaviour stops. Dollard and Miller (1950) applied the principles of reward and reinforcement to explain human attachment between a caregiver and an infant. 

When an infant feels hunger, it has a drive to reduce these unpleasant feelings and discomfort so is likely to cry in order to receive comfort. When the caregiver provides food, a feeling of pleasure is produced for the infant which is rewarding and this is called positive reinforcement. Therefore, the behaviour which elicited the reward, i.e. crying, will be repeated. This reinforcement is a reciprocal process since the caregiver also experiences a reward in the form of negative reinforcement when the infant stops crying, so they too will repeat the caregiving behaviour again in the future. 

Hunger is called the primary drive and the food is termed the primary reinforcer.  The caregiver who provided it is called the secondary reinforcer. Attachment, called the secondary drive, will occur because the infant will seek the person who can supply the reward, i.e. the caregiver. 

Evaluation of Learning Theory

Learning theory is undermined by research by Harlow. He found that baby rhesus monkeys spent more time with a soft towelling monkey which provided no food, in comparison to a wire monkey that provided food. This shows that baby monkeys do not form attachments based on presence of food alone and prefer contact comfort. These findings go against the learning theory ‘cupboard love’ explanation of attachment and suggest alternative processes may have been ignored. This counterargument is further supported by Schaffer and Emmerson’s research which demonstrated that infants formed attachments to their mothers despite often being fed by other carers. 

Learning theory is refuted by research from Lorenz. He found that upon hatching, baby geese followed the first moving object they saw. This process, known as imprinting, appears to be innate (as they would have no time to learn this behaviour). This shows that non-human animals demonstrate some inborn attachment behaviours to aid survival which goes against the idea that we ‘learn’ to attach to a caregiver because they feed us.  

There are methodological issues with the research evidence for learning theory.  Much of the supporting research, for example Pavlov’s research on dogs and Skinner’s research with rats and pigeons is criticised for its over-reliance on animals. This is an issue because psychologists argue that behaviourist explanations provide an oversimplified account of attachment formation, which is in fact a complex emotional bond between a human infant and their caregiver. As a result, the learning theory explanation may lack validity since it is difficult to generalise animal findings to humans with confidence that they would behave in the same way. 

There is an alternative to the learning theory to explain human attachment proposed by Bowlby. He believed that infants have an innate readiness during the critical period to form an attachment to their caregiver to protect them from harm whilst they are young and vulnerable. The evolutionary perspective not only explains how an attachment forms, but also why – to enhance survival. It is accepted that Bowlby’s theory provides a more comprehensive explanation of attachment rather than reducing a complex behaviour to a simple stimulus-response association.