Back
to top
Could someone please mark this?
Watch this threadPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
maudeadams
Badges:
0
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Outline and evaluate the learning theory of attachment (12 marks)
The learning theory proposes that attachment occurs through nurture and is therefore learned. The learning theory includes classical and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning occurs because food produces pleasure, according to the theory. The mother feeds the child, and the child gains a sense of pleasure from the food – the pleasure is thereafter associated with the mother too, thus an attachment is formed. Similarly, operant conditioning occurs because food is associated with reward. The hungry baby is fed by the mother, reducing his/her hunger drive – this is rewarding for the baby. The baby then cries whenever it’s hungry, and the mother responds to it to stop the annoying cries – attachment is then formed.
The learning theory provides a plausible explanation for attachment, but is reductionist as it ignores other factors such as love and comfort.
Research conducted by Harlow in the 1950s shows that there is more to attachment than food. Harlow had a group of young monkeys and placed them in a room with a wire feeding mother and a cloth comfort mother. He observed that the monkeys only visited the wire mother for food, and spent 17 hours a day clinging to the cloth mother, suggesting that comfort is a more important factor than food.
However, this experiment was conducted on animals and therefore may not be applied to human behaviour.
Another study conducted by Schaffer and Emerson in the 1960s showed that for 40% of the human infants observed, their primary attachment figure was not the one who fed/bathed them, but the only who was sensitive to their needs and also played with them. The babies were observed in the own homes so has high ecological validity. The study also shows that responsiveness has a part to play in attachment, disproving the learning theory.
The learning theory of attachment ignores Bowlby’s evolutionary theory in which he states that attachment is due to nature and is innate, whereas the learning theory states that attachment is learned through nurture. His theory is supported by the work of Konrad Lorenz, who hatched two groups of goslings. One group were segregated on their own, without a mother, the other group hatched next to Lorenz. The ones that hatched next to Lorenz followed him everywhere, assuming he was his mother. This shows that attachment may be due to nature, not nurture, as the baby geese had not been conditioned. The control group wandered aimlessly.
The learning theory proposes that attachment occurs through nurture and is therefore learned. The learning theory includes classical and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning occurs because food produces pleasure, according to the theory. The mother feeds the child, and the child gains a sense of pleasure from the food – the pleasure is thereafter associated with the mother too, thus an attachment is formed. Similarly, operant conditioning occurs because food is associated with reward. The hungry baby is fed by the mother, reducing his/her hunger drive – this is rewarding for the baby. The baby then cries whenever it’s hungry, and the mother responds to it to stop the annoying cries – attachment is then formed.
The learning theory provides a plausible explanation for attachment, but is reductionist as it ignores other factors such as love and comfort.
Research conducted by Harlow in the 1950s shows that there is more to attachment than food. Harlow had a group of young monkeys and placed them in a room with a wire feeding mother and a cloth comfort mother. He observed that the monkeys only visited the wire mother for food, and spent 17 hours a day clinging to the cloth mother, suggesting that comfort is a more important factor than food.
However, this experiment was conducted on animals and therefore may not be applied to human behaviour.
Another study conducted by Schaffer and Emerson in the 1960s showed that for 40% of the human infants observed, their primary attachment figure was not the one who fed/bathed them, but the only who was sensitive to their needs and also played with them. The babies were observed in the own homes so has high ecological validity. The study also shows that responsiveness has a part to play in attachment, disproving the learning theory.
The learning theory of attachment ignores Bowlby’s evolutionary theory in which he states that attachment is due to nature and is innate, whereas the learning theory states that attachment is learned through nurture. His theory is supported by the work of Konrad Lorenz, who hatched two groups of goslings. One group were segregated on their own, without a mother, the other group hatched next to Lorenz. The ones that hatched next to Lorenz followed him everywhere, assuming he was his mother. This shows that attachment may be due to nature, not nurture, as the baby geese had not been conditioned. The control group wandered aimlessly.
0
reply
maudeadams
Badges:
0
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
tgwktm
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#3
(Original post by maudeadams)
Outline and evaluate the learning theory of attachment (12 marks)
The learning theory proposes that attachment occurs through nurture and is therefore learned. The learning theory includes classical and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning occurs because food produces pleasure, according to the theory. The mother feeds the child, and the child gains a sense of pleasure from the food – the pleasure is thereafter associated with the mother too, thus an attachment is formed. Similarly, operant conditioning occurs because food is associated with reward. The hungry baby is fed by the mother, reducing his/her hunger drive – this is rewarding for the baby. The baby then cries whenever it’s hungry, and the mother responds to it to stop the annoying cries – attachment is then formed.
The learning theory provides a plausible explanation for attachment, but is reductionist as it ignores other factors such as love and comfort.
Research conducted by Harlow in the 1950s shows that there is more to attachment than food. Harlow had a group of young monkeys and placed them in a room with a wire feeding mother and a cloth comfort mother. He observed that the monkeys only visited the wire mother for food, and spent 17 hours a day clinging to the cloth mother, suggesting that comfort is a more important factor than food.
However, this experiment was conducted on animals and therefore may not be applied to human behaviour.
Another study conducted by Schaffer and Emerson in the 1960s showed that for 40% of the human infants observed, their primary attachment figure was not the one who fed/bathed them, but the only who was sensitive to their needs and also played with them. The babies were observed in the own homes so has high ecological validity. The study also shows that responsiveness has a part to play in attachment, disproving the learning theory.
The learning theory of attachment ignores Bowlby’s evolutionary theory in which he states that attachment is due to nature and is innate, whereas the learning theory states that attachment is learned through nurture. His theory is supported by the work of Konrad Lorenz, who hatched two groups of goslings. One group were segregated on their own, without a mother, the other group hatched next to Lorenz. The ones that hatched next to Lorenz followed him everywhere, assuming he was his mother. This shows that attachment may be due to nature, not nurture, as the baby geese had not been conditioned. The control group wandered aimlessly.
Outline and evaluate the learning theory of attachment (12 marks)
The learning theory proposes that attachment occurs through nurture and is therefore learned. The learning theory includes classical and operant conditioning. Classical conditioning occurs because food produces pleasure, according to the theory. The mother feeds the child, and the child gains a sense of pleasure from the food – the pleasure is thereafter associated with the mother too, thus an attachment is formed. Similarly, operant conditioning occurs because food is associated with reward. The hungry baby is fed by the mother, reducing his/her hunger drive – this is rewarding for the baby. The baby then cries whenever it’s hungry, and the mother responds to it to stop the annoying cries – attachment is then formed.
The learning theory provides a plausible explanation for attachment, but is reductionist as it ignores other factors such as love and comfort.
Research conducted by Harlow in the 1950s shows that there is more to attachment than food. Harlow had a group of young monkeys and placed them in a room with a wire feeding mother and a cloth comfort mother. He observed that the monkeys only visited the wire mother for food, and spent 17 hours a day clinging to the cloth mother, suggesting that comfort is a more important factor than food.
However, this experiment was conducted on animals and therefore may not be applied to human behaviour.
Another study conducted by Schaffer and Emerson in the 1960s showed that for 40% of the human infants observed, their primary attachment figure was not the one who fed/bathed them, but the only who was sensitive to their needs and also played with them. The babies were observed in the own homes so has high ecological validity. The study also shows that responsiveness has a part to play in attachment, disproving the learning theory.
The learning theory of attachment ignores Bowlby’s evolutionary theory in which he states that attachment is due to nature and is innate, whereas the learning theory states that attachment is learned through nurture. His theory is supported by the work of Konrad Lorenz, who hatched two groups of goslings. One group were segregated on their own, without a mother, the other group hatched next to Lorenz. The ones that hatched next to Lorenz followed him everywhere, assuming he was his mother. This shows that attachment may be due to nature, not nurture, as the baby geese had not been conditioned. The control group wandered aimlessly.
hope this helps
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
