Learning Theory: Classical and Operant Conditioning

Learning theory, developed by Dollard and Miller (1950), is nicknamed "cupboard love" theory because it argues babies simply attach to whoever feeds them. It's a straightforward explanation that treats attachment like any other learned behaviour.

Classical conditioning works like this: initially, the caregiver means nothing special to the baby (neutral stimulus). Food naturally makes babies happy (unconditioned stimulus creating an unconditioned response). When the same person repeatedly provides food, the baby starts expecting food whenever they see that person (caregiver becomes conditioned stimulus). Eventually, just seeing the caregiver makes the baby happy - that's attachment forming through a conditioned response.

Operant conditioning creates a cycle where crying gets results. Baby cries for food, caregiver responds, baby stops crying when fed (negative reinforcement), and future needs get directed to that same caregiver. It's actually a two-way process since the caregiver also feels relief when the crying stops.

Key insight: According to this theory, attachment is a secondary drive - we naturally want to reduce hunger (primary drive), so we learn to attach to whoever satisfies that need.

Evaluating Learning Theory: What the Research Really Shows

Whilst learning theory sounds logical, the research evidence paints a very different picture of how babies actually form attachments. Most studies suggest comfort trumps food every time.

Harlow's monkey experiments delivered a crushing blow to learning theory. Monkeys consistently chose the soft, comfortable surrogate mother over the wire one that dispensed milk. Similarly, Lorenz's geese imprinted on him before being fed and stuck with that attachment regardless of who fed them later. Both studies show that comfort matters more than food in forming bonds.

Schaffer and Emerson's research found that many babies formed their strongest attachment to their biological mother, even when other people did most of the feeding. This directly contradicts learning theory's central claim that babies attach to their primary food provider.

The biggest criticism is that learning theory oversimplifies human relationships. It completely ignores crucial factors like reciprocity and interactional synchrony - the back-and-forth interactions and emotional connections that really build strong attachments. Reducing babies to just their biological needs misses the complex social and emotional aspects of human bonding.

Bottom line: Whilst learning theory offers a neat explanation, real attachment seems far more about emotional comfort and social interaction than simply who brings the bottle.