Outline and Evaluate Learning Theory of Attachment. (12mark)

Operant conditioning is based on the ideas of reward and punishment. If a child is feeling hungry they will be in an uncomfortable state and want to reduce this. When fed a child’s hunger is satisfied and then feels comfortable. The infant learns that food is a reward and food is known as the primary reinforcer as it directly helps avoid discomfort. The person who supplies the food becomes the secondary reinforcer.  After a while, the presence of the mother is a source of comfort and security and the child develops an attachment with her because she is the one who is able to reward.

        Both learning theories, classical and operant, are often called ‘cupboard love’ theories as food is key to the development of attachment and this would seem reasonably true, however food many not play a role in the development of attachment. Harlow’s study called ‘The Origins of Love’ goes against the idea of food being important. Harlow experimented with the attachments formed between rhesus monkeys and surrogate mothers. Harlow created two wire mothers, one had a feeding bottle attached and the other was wrapped in cloth without any food. The theory suggests that the baby should go to the wire mother who had the food however when the monkey was scared it ran to the cloth mother to gain comfort. The monkey spent 17 to 18 hours on the cloth mother and only 1 hour on the mother which supplied the food. This suggests that comfort and contact could influence attachment not food.

However, this experiment was conducted on animals and therefore a baby may not react in the same way as the monkeys did. Can we apply the information from Harlow’s study to a baby? Schaffer and Emerson reinforced the idea of food not being the key in developing attachment. They observed 60 babies for a year and found out that the children were not most attached to those who fed them but to those who interacted with them the most and that it was the quality of interaction with the infant that was most important. This therefore suggests that food is not the most effective explanation of attachment and this backs up Harlow’s study. These studies suggest that ‘cupboard love’ theories are not likely to be the best explanation for attachment, although association and reinforcement may still play a part.