Learning Theory of Attachment

The learning theory of attachment suggests that attachment is a set of learned behaviors instead of innate biological behavior. The basis for the learning of attachments is the provision of food.

This theory encompasses two types of learning: classical conditioning, where an infant learns to associate the caregiver with comfort and eventually forms an attachment.

Operant conditioning, on the other hand, assumes that infants are in a drive state of internal tension or discomfort, and their actions focus on removing this discomfort.

Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning involves the formation of associations between different events and stimuli.

This process explains how an emotional bond is formed through associations with comfort and security, contributing to the infant’s attachment to their mother.

Classical conditioning, as explained in the context of attachment theory, posits that infants learn to associate their caregivers (usually the mother) with satisfying their needs and the subsequent pleasure.

Here is a basic breakdown of how it works:

1. Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS): The infant’s biological needs, such as hunger, creates discomfort. When these needs are satisfied, such as feeding, it leads to pleasure.
2. Unconditioned Response (UCR): The infant feels pleasure when their needs are satisfied.
3. Neutral Stimulus (NS): Initially, the mother is a neutral stimulus, as she is not innately associated with satisfying the infant’s needs.
4. Association: Over time, the infant begins associating the mother (NS) with satisfying their needs (UCS). The mother is present when feeding results in the infant associating the comfort and pleasure of feeding with her.
5. Conditioned Stimulus (CS) and Conditioned Response (CR): The mother becomes a conditioned stimulus. This means that her presence alone is enough to trigger a sense of security and pleasure in the infant (now a conditioned response), even without the original unconditioned stimulus (feeding). This formed association is what we understand as the attachment between the infant and the mother.

Dollard and Miller

John Dollard and Neal Miller created the learning theory of attachment, combining elements from Freud’s and Hull’s drive theories, unifying psychoanalysis and behaviorism. Their model posits that attachment is a learned behavior from classical and operant conditioning through drive reduction.

Operant conditioning proposes that infants are in a drive state, a form of internal tension or discomfort that motivates an organism to engage in behaviors that will reduce this discomfort. It is an impulse that prompts action to fulfill a need and restore equilibrium.

Dollard and Miller emphasized that a child’s attachment is primarily due to the caregiver providing food rather than an emotional bond.

When an infant is hungry, they experience discomfort, which creates a drive state and motivates them to reduce this discomfort.

The drive is reduced when fed, satisfying their hunger and making them comfortable.

Over time, the infant learns to view the food as a primary reinforcer or reward. This association leads to the development of an attachment, with the infant seeking the person’s presence associated with comfort.

The theory consists of four processes: drive, cue, response, and reinforcement. Over time, infants learn to associate discomfort relief with their caregiver, forming an attachment.

The secondary drive hypothesis is also a key part of their theory, explaining the development of complex systems of secondary drives from primary drives.

It asserts that primary drives, like hunger, become associated with secondary drives, like emotional closeness. As infants grow and experience different situations, these primary drives evolve into complex secondary drives.

The person providing the food becomes associated with this comfort, thus becoming a secondary reinforcer.

The hypothesis views attachment as a reciprocal learning process between child and caregiver, facilitated by negative reinforcement, wherein the caregiver seeks to alleviate the infant’s distress.

The infant’s behavior is also reinforcing for the caregiver (the caregiver gains pleasure from smiles etc. – reward). The reinforcement process is, therefore, reciprocal (two-way) and strengthens the emotional bond/attachment between the two.

Critical Evaluation

Learning Theory’s understanding of attachment has been scrutinized based on various empirical findings. For instance, Shaffer and Emerson (1964) found that attachments seem to be formed in responsive individuals rather than those who provide the care.

Schaffer and Emerson discovered that fewer than half of infants primarily bonded with the individual who typically fed them. This evidence challenges the theory’s assertion that feeding is the main driver of attachment formation.

Another notable critique comes from Harlow’s study of monkeys. His research indicated that the monkeys formed stronger attachments to the soft, comforting surrogate mother than the one providing food. This finding opposes the learning theory, which posits attachment formation largely through the provision and association with sustenance.

The learning theory of attachment does not explain why there is a critical period in most animals and humans,
after which infants cannot form attachment, or attachment might be more difficult. It does not explain why infants seem to go through the same stages at about the same age in the formation of attachment

Furthermore, Lorenz’s research involving goslings demonstrated imprinting on the first moving object they perceived. This seemingly instinctive behavior contradicts the learning theory’s proposition that attachment is a learned behavior, suggesting an innate predisposition instead.

Learning Theory is also critiqued due to its reliance on animal research, calling into question the validity of extrapolating its findings to humans. Though behaviorists argue that human and animal learning processes are similar, this perspective is overly simplistic and disregards the complexity of human behavior.

This simplification is a limitation of the theory, as it may not encompass all behavioral facets, such as attachment, which could also involve innate predispositions.

Another critique of the learning theory is its overemphasis on the role of food in attachment. Conflicting evidence, such as Harlow’s study, argues that comfort might play a more significant role than food in attachment formation.

Despite its focus on habit formation, critics note the theory overlooks factors like sensitive caregiving and interactional synchrony.

This is echoed in Schaeffer and Emerson’s findings, where the infants clung more to the cloth-covered wire mother, which provided comfort, not nourishment.

Additionally, the drive reduction theory, which forms part of the learning theory’s explanation, is no longer widely accepted, as it is overly simplistic. It fails to address behaviors driven by secondary reinforcers and cannot explain actions that cause discomfort rather than reduce it.

Despite these criticisms, learning theory offers valuable insights into attachment’s nature. It emphasizes the role of association and reinforcement in learning, implying that consistent responsiveness and sensitivity to a child’s needs from a caregiver can facilitate attachment.

The infant learns acceptable behaviors by replicating this responsive and sensitive behavior, indicating a potential interplay between innate and learned aspects of attachment formation.

Learning Check

Question 2

Miguel’s mother gave up work when he was born and stayed home to look after him. Miguel’s father works far away, so he is rarely home before his bedtime. Miguel is nine months old and has a very close bond with his mother.

Use learning theory to explain how Max became attached to his mother rather than to his father. (6 marks)

Answer According to the learning approach, attachment is a learned behavior. It can be learned through classical conditioning, learning through association, and operant conditioning, learning through consequences. According to classical conditioning food (UCS) produces pleasure (UCR). Miguel’s mother started as a neutral stimulus but was associated through repeated pairings with the food and became a conditioned stimulus. So Miguel felt pleasure when he saw his mother (CR). According to operant conditioning, food satisfied Miguel’s hunger and made him feel comfortable again (drive reduction). Food was, therefore, a primary reinforcer. His mother was associated with food and became a secondary reinforcer. Miguel became attached to his mother because she was a source of reward. However, his father being absent often was not associated with pleasure as he did not feed Miguel or make him feel comfortable, so the child shows no attachment to him.

FAQs

References

Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy; an analysis in terms of learning, thinking, and culture. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.

Harlow, H. F., Dodsworth, R. O., & Harlow, M. K. (1965). Total social isolation in monkeys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 54 (1), 90.

Harlow, H. F. & Zimmermann, R. R. (1958). The development of affective responsiveness in infant monkeys. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 102,501 -509.

Lorenz, K. (1935). Der Kumpan in der Umwelt des Vogels. Der Artgenosse als auslösendes Moment
sozialer Verhaltensweisen. Journal für Ornithologie, 83, 137–215, 289–413.