Learning theories including O'Connor et al.’s (2013) study on social learning, parenting and attachment.
The learning theory of attachment explains how children become attached to their mother (or parents) through the process of classical conditioning and operant conditioning. Children ‘learn’ to attach to their mother by associating their mother with food, and the pleasure they receive from being fed. Operant conditioning suggests children learn behaviour through reinforcement and punishment.
According to classical conditioning, an unconditioned stimulus paired with a neutral stimulus produces a conditioned attachment response. For example, before conditioning, food (e.g. milk) is an unconditioned stimulus which produces an unconditioned response (reflex) of relief from hunger. The caregiver (usually the mother) is originally a neutral stimulus; however, during conditioning, the baby associates the mother who feeds them (the neutral stimulus) with the food (the unconditioned stimulus) which results in the mother becoming a conditioned stimulus. This leads to a conditioned response of relief from hunger and the formation of an attachment, as the child learns to associate the mother with feelings of relief and happiness.
Social learning theory would claim that children learn their behaviour from observing role models.
Young children learn in the context of the parent–child relationship and the family environment.
Evidence from Harlow contradicts the learning theory of attachment. Harlow found that baby monkeys spent more time with a soft towelling monkey (which did not provide food), in comparison to a wire monkey which did provided food. This suggests that baby monkeys do not form attachments based on food, but actually prefer ‘contact comfort’. This goes against the learning theory of attachment which suggests that children attach on the basis of an association forming between the mother and food.
A second issue with the learning theory is that the theory and research is largely based on studies using non-human participants. Learning theorists argue that the principles of learning are the same in humans and animals; however, many psychologists argue that not all human behaviours can be explained in terms of conditioning, especially attachment. For example, psychologists like Bowlby argue that attachments are a complex behaviour that is an adaptive behaviour that aids survival. This suggests that the learning theory of attachment presents an overly simplified view of attachment, and many psychologists argue that attachment is far more complex than an infant forming an association between a mother and food.
O’Connor (2013) argues that children’s real-life experiences and exposures directly or indirectly shape behaviour, so their attachments can be learned.
Learning theories often use artificial settings which lack ecological validity to forming real life attachments.
Bowlby (1944) would argue that attachment is an innate process of bonding not learning from role models.
Harris (1998) found that children raised by the same parents in the same homes are no more alike than if they had been raised separately.
State one conclusion made by O’Connor et al. (2013). (1) October 2019
Explain one strength of the study by O’Connor et al. (2013). (2) October 2019
Explain one improvement that could be made to the study by O’Connor et al. (2013). (2) October 2019
Describe, using learning theory, how an attachment between Lorenzo and his mother could be formed. (4) January 2018
Evaluate learning theories as an explanation of attachment. (8) January 2017