Describe and Evaluate the Behaviourist Theory of Attachment

675 Words3 Pages
The learning theory stipulates that attachment isn’t innate but is learnt; with the basis for learning being the provision of food. The infant will form attachment with whoever feeds it as they learn to associate the comfort of being fed with the presence of their mother. Through the process of classical conditioning they come to find the contact with their mother alone comforting. Over time through the process of operant conditioning they find that certain behaviours (e.g. smiling) bring desirable responses from others and learn to repeat these behaviours to provoke the desired response. This theory can be primarily criticised as it is highly reductionist and breaks a highly complex behaviour down into stimuli and response pairs. Evidence for it came from Pavlov’s dogs, which primarily lacks relevance to the formation of attachment as it was studying classical conditioning in dogs. Where when a bell was rung before they would fed, and eventually the bell alone would cause them to salivate in the expectation of being fed. Whilst as a lab experiment it had high control it also lacked mundane realism which subtracts from its validity and it is highly questionable if this could be generalised to the development of attachment. Especially as the study was performed upon dogs and it’s quite possible there may be variations between dogs and humans in the forming of emotional bonds making this unfair to generalise Harlow (1958) conducted an experiment upon Rhesus monkeys in which Rhesus monkeys separated from their mothers were provided with two surrogate mothers. One a wire frame with a feeding bottle, and the other one was more comfortable but did not provide food. It was found over time that the monkeys became attached to the comfortable mother, and rejected the wire frame one, which they would only ever approach for food. It was shown that they were truly attached to
Open Document