Explanations of Attachment
Learning Theory
Learning theory
Dollard and Miller in 1950 proposed that attachment could be explained by learning theory. This approach is sometimes referred to as the cupboard love approach because it emphasises the importance of food and the attachment figure as the provider of food.
​
Classical conditioning
Classical conditioning involves the association between a stimulus and a response. In the case of attachment, food is the unconditioned stimulus and the unconditioned response is that of pleasure. The caregiver is initially a neutral stimulus, which does not produce a response. However, when the caregiver is associated with the food, eventually the caregiver becomes a conditioned stimulus. Therefore, the caregiver, a conditioned stimulus produces the now conditioned response of pleasure. This is how an attachment is formed, based on classical conditioning.
​
Operant conditioning.
Operant conditioning involves stimulus and response learning. In this case, there is positive enforcement and negative reinforcement involved in the attachment bond. When a baby cries, the caregiver usually feeds the baby. This means that the baby is being positively reinforced (rewarded) for that behavior. Therefore, the baby will cry in order to get the positive reinforcement of food. At the same time the caregiver receives negative reinforcement. The baby cries and to stop the baby from crying the caregiver feeds the baby. Therefore, the caregiver gets negatively reinforced for their actions. The caregiver learns that in order to escape from the unpleasant experience of listening to the baby cry, it has to give food. This is negative reinforcement – learning to perform an action to stop an unpleasant consequence.
​
As well as conditioning learning theory also refers to the concept of drive reduction. Hunger is thought of as being a primary drive. Sears et al in 1957 suggested that as the caregivers provide food, the drive of hunger is generalised to them. Therefore, in this case attachment is a secondary drive as it becomes associated between the caregiver and the primary drive of hunger.
Evaluation
1. One limitation of learning theory is that research conducted by Lorenz and Harlow disputes the claim that food is the main factor in creating the attachment bond. Lorenz demonstrated that attachment occurs due to imprinting, which is a following response and is not linked to food. Harlows research with rhesus monkeys also disputes the importance of food in the attachment bond, as the baby monkeys preferred ‘contact comfort’ over food.
​
2. Another limitation of learning theory comes from the work of Schaffer and Emerson in 1964. They found that the main attachment that was made to the mother was not based on whether the mother fed the baby but had more to do with the sensitive responsiveness of the caregiver. They found that babies make multiple attachments based on sensitive responsiveness not food. Another study by Isabella et al in 1989 found that other factors were more important than food in the attachment bond, i.e., interactional synchrony. This also has no relation to the provision of food.
​
3. One strength of learning theory is that it does have lots of research evidence to support it, both from Pavlov’s research with dogs and Skinner’s research with rats and pigeons conducted in laboratories. This gives the explanation scientific validity.
​
4. Another strength of learning theory is that it has been found that there are some elements of conditioning also involved in the attachment bond. Not only does the baby associate food with the caregiver but they also associate other things whilst being fed. They associate feeling warm and feeling comfortable with the adult, i.e. they get lots of cuddles. This means that the baby might want to go to the caregiver as they associate the caregiver with all these other things that happen whilst they are being fed.
​
5. A final limitation comes from the proposal that social learning theory plays a role in the attachment bond, through the use of role models. Parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviors. For example, they hug the child and show approval when babies demonstrate their own attachment behaviors. Hay and Vespa in 1988 suggest that this can give a more comprehensive explanation than learning theory as it includes a cognitive element to attachment. It is therefore not as reductionist and deterministic as learning theory.​​
Bowlby's Monotropic Theory
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
Bowlby in 1988 proposed a theory of attachment, which was influence by evolutionary theory (the research of Lorenz and Harlow) as well as the psychodynamic approach of Freud. Bowlby suggested that the attachment bond was an innate system that gives a survival advantage to the child. He proposed that attachment evolved in order to keep young animals safe by ensuring that they are protected by their main caregiver.
​
Monotropy
Bowby’s theory, (1958, 1969) is described as monotropic because he placed great emphasis on the child attachment to one particular caregiver. He called this other person the mother, but it was made clear that this need not be the child’s biological mother. He made it clear that the attachment had to be with one significant person. He believed that the more time that the baby spent spends with the mother figure, the better the quality of the relationship. He proposed the law of continuity. This suggests that the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of the attachment. He also proposed the law of accumulated separation. This states that the effects of every separation from the mother add up, and this potentially can damage the bond between the two. He therefore suggested that ‘the safest dose is therefore a zero dose,’ Bowlby, 1975.
​
Social releasers and the Critical Period
Bowlby suggested that babies are born with an innate set of behaviours which encourage the adult to form the attachment with that child. Babies look cute, and they also smile and coo. He referred to these behaviours as social releasers because the purpose of these behaviors is to activate social interaction with the caregivers. They help to makes sure that the adult attaches to the baby. Bowlby also suggested that attachment was a reciprocal process i.e. that both the mother and the baby are destined to form that attachment. He also proposed the idea of a critical period for this attachment to form between the mother and the baby. He suggested that the critical period starts at around six months of age when the baby begins to demonstrate that it has made that primary attachment. This then extends to the age of two years old. Therefore, the critical period for the child to make an attachment is between six months to two years of age. He also suggested if the attachment is not formed during this time then the child will struggle to find to make an attachment later on.
​
Internal working model.
Bowlby also proposed that children form what he referred to as an internal working model. This is a mental representation of their relationship with the primary attachment figure. He calls it an internal working model because it gives a sense of what relationships should be like. It also predicts the quality of their future relationships. If a child has a first experience which is loving and warm with a reliable caregiver then they will form an expectation that all relationships should be similar, i.e. loving and reliable. They will bring this ‘template’ of how relationships should be into all future relationships that they make. If a child has a poor first relationship with the adult primary caregiver then this will lead to a child expecting that all other relationships will be similar later on in life. Not only does this affect relationships in terms of childhood friendships and romantic relationships, it also impacts the child’s ability to be a parent themselves.
​
Evaluation.
1. One limitation of Bowlby’s theory is that the concept of monotropy is said to lack validity. Schaffer and Emerson in 1964 found that although most babies do tend to make one primary attachment, they then go on to make multiple attachments, and sometimes these multiple attachments occur at the same time. They concluded that although babies do make a first attachment, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it has that much of an impact on later behavior. This means that Bowlby may be incorrect suggesting that that the early relationship with the primary caregiver has a unique effect on later relationships.
​
2. One strength of Bowlby’s research is that there is evidence supporting the role of social releasers. There does appear to be some evidence that babies do behave in a way, which helps to illicit interaction from caregivers. Tronick in 1978 observed how babies trigger interactions using social releasers. The Still Face Experiment, involves the caregiver interacting with their child and then suddenly, when signalled to do so, turning their face away. When the caregiver turns back around to look at the baby again their face is still and unsmiling. They are told to ignore the baby’s attempts to interact until they are signaled to do so again. Tronick found that the child tries to engage with the caregiver and then eventually starts to get distressed, waving their arms around and crying. This therefore gives evidence for the importance of social releasers in emotional development and the bond between caregiver and child.
​
3. Another strength of Bowlby’s theory is that there is lots of evidence for his concept of the internal working model. The internal working model is a template for all future relationships. A study by Bailey et al in 2007 gave evidence for the idea of continuity of relationships from one generation to the next. In the study 99 mothers were assessed alongside their one-year-old babies. The researcher interviewed the mothers and assessed them using the adult attachment interview in order to determine the quality of the relationship with their own mothers. They then used the strange situation to get an idea of the babies attachments to the mothers. It was found that mothers with poor attachments to their own mothers were more likely to have babies that were poorly attached to them. By contrast mothers with good attachments with their own mothers were likely to have babies who had secure attachments to them. This therefore supports Bowlby‘s idea that the internal working model helps to predict the quality of later relationships.
​
4. One weakness of Bowlby’s theories is that feminists have criticised Bowlby because they argue he puts too much emphasis on the relationship between the baby and the mother. This can potentially have a negative impact on the woman and is therefore social sensitive. Feminist like Burman in 1994, propose that Bowlby’s theories are harmful to women as they can be used to blame the woman for anything that goes wrong with the child in the future. It also can be used as a way of restricting the mothers activities, for example, going back to work. However, Bowlby would argue that his intention was to emphasise the importance of the mother in the child’s development. His research has been used in a positive way to ensure that children who are in childcare whilst parents are at work, are assigned to a key worker to ensure that the child has continuity of care.​​