Crying leads to provision of food (positive reinforcement)
Removal of crying by providing care (negative reinforcement)
Drives in Attachment
Primary Drives: Instinctual needs like hunger and thirst
Secondary Drives: Learned desires, e.g., attachment to satisfy hunger
Evaluations of Learning Theory
Seen as environmentally reductionist
Supported by experiments like Pavlov's and Skinner's
Criticism: Oversimplifies attachment and neglects parental emotions
Harlow's research suggests comfort is more important than food
Alternative Theories
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory as a biological explanation
Suggests instinctual drive for close relationships
Aligns with evolutionary perspective
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
Infants form strong bonds with primary caregivers (monotropy)
Believed bond is crucial for survival
Innate behaviors like crying and smiling as social releasers
Influenced by Lorenz’s imprinting and Harlow’s research on monkeys
Critical period of attachment (first 30 months)
Internal working model: Blueprint for future relationships
Evaluations of Bowlby’s Theory
Influenced by animal studies but caution needed when generalizing to humans
Criticized for gender biases and deterministic views
Highlights importance of early child care practices
Alternative theories challenge its perspectives
Conclusion and Resources
Acknowledgments to Patreon supporters
Additional resources available for patrons
Note: These are study notes summarizing a lecture on attachment theories in psychology, focusing on behaviorist and biological perspectives, and evaluating key theories and experiments.