Learning Theory & Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory

This section explains learning theory of attachment and Bowlby’s monotropic theory. Understanding why and how attachments form has been a central focus in psychology. Two prominent explanations are the learning theory and Bowlby’s monotropic theory. These theories offer contrasting views on the mechanisms and importance of attachment in early development.

Learning Theory of Attachment

Learning theory suggests that attachment behaviours are acquired through conditioning processes, specifically classical and operant conditioning.

Classical Conditioning:

Process: Attachment is formed through the association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of basic needs, particularly feeding.

Unconditioned stimulus (UCS): Food naturally provides pleasure (unconditioned response, UCR).

Neutral stimulus (NS): The caregiver is initially neutral.

Through repeated pairings, the caregiver (now conditioned stimulus, CS) becomes associated with the pleasure derived from food (conditioned response, CR).

Example: A baby learns to associate their mother with the comfort of being fed, leading to attachment.

Operant Conditioning:

Process: Attachment behaviours are reinforced through rewards and punishments.

Positive reinforcement: When a baby cries and is comforted or fed by the caregiver, the crying behaviour is reinforced because it leads to a desirable outcome.

Negative reinforcement: The caregiver is negatively reinforced to respond to the baby’s needs because responding alleviates the crying, an unpleasant stimulus.

Drive Reduction Theory: Hunger is a primary drive, and food satisfies this drive. The caregiver, associated with the reduction of hunger, becomes a secondary reinforcer. The infant forms an attachment to the caregiver as they are the source of drive reduction.

Evaluation of Learning Theory:

Strengths:

Provides a plausible explanation for how attachment behaviours could be learned through environmental interactions.

Explains the role of reinforcement in caregiver-infant interactions.

Criticisms:

Harlow’s Monkey Study: Demonstrates that attachment is not solely based on feeding, as monkeys preferred comfort from a soft surrogate mother over a wire mother that provided food.

Lorenz’s Imprinting Study: Shows that attachment can be an innate biological process rather than learned behaviour, as geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw, irrespective of feeding.

Reductionist: Oversimplifies the complexity of attachment by ignoring emotional and cognitive factors, such as the need for comfort and security.

Contradictory Evidence: Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that infants formed primary attachments to caregivers who were most responsive and sensitive, not necessarily the ones who provided food.

Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory

John Bowlby proposed an evolutionary explanation for attachment, suggesting that it is an innate system that ensures the survival of the infant.

Monotropy:

Bowlby argued that infants have an in-built tendency to form a single, primary attachment figure (usually the mother). This attachment is qualitatively different from other secondary attachments.

Hierarchy of Attachments: The primary attachment figure holds a special status at the top of the attachment hierarchy, though infants can form multiple attachments.

Evolutionary Basis:

Attachment behaviours (e.g., crying, smiling) are adaptive and have evolved to increase the infant’s chances of survival by ensuring proximity to a caregiver who provides protection and care.

These behaviours promote the infant’s survival by keeping them close to the caregiver during vulnerable stages of development.

Social Releasers:

Infants are born with social releasers, such as crying, smiling, and cooing, which trigger caregiving responses from adults. These behaviours ensure the caregiver responds to the infant’s needs, fostering attachment.

Critical Period:

Bowlby proposed that there is a critical period for attachment formation, approximately within the first two years of life. If an attachment is not formed during this time, the child may suffer long-term developmental consequences.

Sensitive Period: Although Bowlby referred to this as a critical period, later research suggests it might be more accurate to consider it a sensitive period, where attachments are best formed, but not exclusively limited to this window.

Internal Working Model:

The primary attachment relationship forms a mental blueprint or internal working model for future relationships.

Influence: This model influences a child’s expectations of relationships, including their self-worth and how they relate to others.

Positive attachment: A loving and responsive primary attachment leads to positive expectations about relationships.

Negative attachment: A poor or neglectful attachment leads to difficulties in forming healthy relationships later in life.

Evaluation of Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory:

Strengths:

Support from Lorenz: His work on imprinting supports the idea of a critical period and the evolutionary basis of attachment.

Support from Harlow: Demonstrates the importance of comfort and security, reinforcing Bowlby’s emphasis on the quality of the primary attachment.

Real-World Applications: Bowlby’s theory has influenced practices in child care and adoption, emphasising the importance of forming secure attachments during early development.

Continuity Hypothesis: Empirical evidence supports Bowlby’s notion that early attachments influence later relationships. Studies like the Minnesota longitudinal study found a link between secure early attachment and better social competence in later life.

Criticisms:

Monotropy Challenged: Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that multiple attachments are common and that many infants form attachments to fathers, grandparents, and others, challenging the notion of a single primary attachment figure.

Cultural Variations: In some cultures, child-rearing practices involve multiple caregivers, suggesting that Bowlby’s emphasis on monotropy may be culturally biased.

Temperament Hypothesis: Kagan (1984) proposed that an infant’s temperament (innate personality) might be a more significant factor in attachment than the quality of caregiving, suggesting that Bowlby’s theory might overemphasise the role of the caregiver.

Determinism: Bowlby’s theory suggests that early attachments have a determinative impact on later relationships, but later research indicates that individuals can overcome early attachment difficulties through resilience and supportive relationships.

Key Concepts: Critical Period and Internal Working Model

Critical Period:

A biologically determined window during which attachment must form, approximately within the first two years of life.

Failure to form an attachment in this period can lead to long-term developmental and emotional difficulties (e.g., Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis).

Modern perspectives suggest a sensitive period might be more accurate, where attachment is ideally formed but not impossible outside this timeframe.

Internal Working Model:

A cognitive framework formed through the primary attachment relationship, influencing future relationship patterns and expectations.

Impact: Shapes an individual’s beliefs about their self-worth, the reliability of others, and the nature of relationships.

Longitudinal studies show that securely attached children often develop healthier relationships and self-esteem, while insecurely attached children may face difficulties.

Conclusion

Both the learning theory and Bowlby’s monotropic theory provide valuable insights into attachment, though they differ in their explanations. The learning theory emphasises environmental factors and conditioning, while Bowlby focuses on innate, evolutionary mechanisms. The concepts of the critical period and the internal working model further highlight the long-term significance of early attachment experiences in shaping future relationships and emotional well-being.