In terms of classical conditioning, the infant stops crying when they are fed. The caregiver brings the food, and soon, the infant associated the presence of the caregiver with being fed. The infant then stops crying at the sight of the caregiver, thus responding to a conditioned stimulus.
This theory is often called the ‘cupboard love’ theory, as it concludes that attachments between infant and caregiver are formed because of the infant’s need for food. According to this theory, no food would mean no attachment.
However, a study by Harlow (1959) suggests that attachments are not formed merely on the basis of association between food and caregiver. Harlow put a baby monkey in a room with a ‘food mum’ and a ‘comfort mum’, and the study shows that the baby monkey only went to the food mum when it was hungry, but spent the majority of time with the comfort mum, implying that attachments are not solely formed through the need for food. These findings directly contradict the Learning Theory of Attachment.
Another criticism is the learning theory of attachment is based on the views of behaviourists. Most of their studies were carried out on animals, and one could argue that we should not compare animal’s simplistic responses with the complex workings of human beings.
Ainsworth (1970) also suggests that attachments are formed through caregiver sensitivity. This was suggested from the study ‘The Strange Situation’, when an infant was faced with varying degrees of interaction and desertion from the caregiver and a stranger. Ainsworth found that your child would be more likely to be securely attached if you were sensitive and caring.
This is supported by the work of Schaffer and Emerson (1964) who found that the first attachment of babies was not to the person who carried out physical care, such as feeding and changing the baby, but by those who are sensitive and rewarding to the baby.