Learning theory explanation of attachment

Learning Theory 

Learning theory is put forward by behaviorists who prefer to focus their explanations solely on behaviour. It proposes that all behaviour is learned rather than inborn. When children are born they are like blank slates and everything they become can be explained in terms of experiences they have.

Behaviorists suggest that all behaviour is learned either through classical or operant conditioning.

Classical conditioning:

Classical conditioning involves learning through association. Ivan Pavlov, a Russian physiologist, first described this type of learning. He was conducting research on the salivation reflex in dogs, recording how much they salivated each time they were fed. He noticed they started salivating before they were fed. The dogs salivated as soon as they heard the door open, signalling the arrival of food. The dogs had come to associate the sound of the door with food. They had learned a new stimulus response (S-R). They learned to salivate (response) when the door opened (stimulus). 

The same principles can be used to explain attachment. Food (UCS) naturally produces a sense of pleasure (UCR). The person who feeds (CS) the infant becomes associated with the food; pleasure now becomes a conditional response (CR). The association between an individual and a series of pleasure is the attachment bond.

Operant conditioning:

The second explanation used by the behaviorists is called operant conditioning. Learning also occurs when we are rewarded for doing something. Each time you do something and it results in a pleasant consequence, the behaviour is 'stamped in' or reinforced. It becomes more probable that you will repeat this behaviour in the future. If you do something and it results in an unpleasant consequence, it becomes less likely that you will repeat the behaviour. These two outcomes are called reinforcement and punishment respectively.

Validity:

Learning theory is largely based on studies with non-human animals. Human behaviour may be similar in some ways but also is different because human behaviour is more influenced by higher order thinking and emotions. Behaviorists explanations may lack validity because they present an oversimplified version of human behaviour. Behaviorists on the other hand, believe that we are actually no different from other animals. Our basic building blocks of stimulus and response and therefore it is legitimate to generalise from animal experiments to human behaviour.