Outline and evaluate the learning theory of attachment. (12 marks)

The second key principle of the learning theory is classical conditioning in explaining why attachments are formed. This is the idea that we learn through association. Milk is an unconditioned stimulus to the baby, which produces an unconditioned response of happiness or pleasure. The mother is a neutral stimulus, but, as the mother provides the baby with milk the baby learns to associate the mother with the feelings of please so she becomes a conditioned stimulus, soon she alone brings feelings of happiness in the child, a conditioned response. And so an attachment is formed.

The learning theory provides a plausible and scientifically reliable explanation for attachment. It seems likely that the child will form a strong bond with their primary caregiver, and in return the caregiver will have a strong bond with the baby. This is another strength of the model, it reflects the reciprocal nature of attachment. However, it is reductionist as it seems likely there are other more important factors than just food that play a role in attachment and there is evidence to support this.

However, Shaffer and Emmerson’s findings undermine the learning theory as they found only 39% of the babies they studied formed their first attachment to their main caregiver, less than half of the babies. Suggesting there is more to attachment than food.  The learning theory cannot account for this. Furthermore, Harlow, studying baby rhesus monkeys who she reared in isolation away from their mother found that the monkeys would go to the robot mother who provided comfort as opposed to the robot mother who provided food. Although we must be cautious with these results as they concern monkeys so we can’t generalise. But it has important implications for attachment research and provides further support for the argument that there is more to attachment than food.

Therefore, it seems likely there are other factors involved in attachment. Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment is argued by many to be a much stronger argument to explain why attachments are formed.