Can someone mark this and tell me what mark i'd get. I really struggled with this queWatch this thread
- Describe and evaluate learning theory as an explanation for attachment
The learning theory suggests that all behaviour is learned rather than inborn. When infants are born they are ‘blank slates’ and everything they become can be explained in terms of the experience they have. Dollard and Miller (1950) proposed that the learning theory can explain caregiver-infant attachment, learning theory demonstrates that attachment is learned through classical or operant conditioning. Classical conditioning is learning through association, a neutral stimulus is constantly paired with an unconditioned stimulus so that it eventually takes on the properties of this stimulus and is able to produce a conditioned response. Operant conditioning is learning through reinforcement if the behaviour is followed by a desirable consequence then that behaviour is more likely to occur again in future.
One study that contradicts the learning theory of attachment is by Schaffer and Emerson (1964). They found that babies formed a primary attachment to their biological mother even if other carers did most of the feeding. This suggests that food may not be the main factor of attachment, this is a weakness as it goes against the Learning theory that infants are more likely to form attachments with adults who meet their physical needs. However, one issue with Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that it lacks population validity as all ppts were from Glasgow and of working class so cannot be generalised to the whole population. Therefore, this shows that the learning theory may not entirely be accurate as there is strong evidence that thereother factors other than feeding for attachment but has low reliability and contains cultural bias.
Another study against the learning theory is Lorenz’s geese study (1952), Lorenz’s study demonstrated that geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless who fed them. This means that infants attach to the first moving object they see after birth, this contradicts the learning theory as it suggests that attachment is innate. However, one weakness of Lorenz’s study is that anthropomorphism is evident. He carried out his study on animals, this is an issue because humans and animals are physiological different thus the way a infant develops an attachment with their primary caregiver could be very different to the way a geese develops an attachment with their primary giver this means the findings cannot be generalised. Therefore this shows that the learning theory is inaccurate as there is adequate studies that show feeding isn’t the main factor of attachment however most of these have been carried out on animals which suggests that the findings lack generalisability.
sorry I wouldn't know what maker to give you, but I just wanted to say we aren't blank slates. you can't teach a blank slate what love is, or what funny is, or what happy or sad is. there is something already in us that is activated and recognises soemthing it already "knows" imo. noam chomksy said soemthing similar about this regarding language - that it's already there.