Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

15.6: Why do we need to learn about Gerwitz’s theory of attachment?

  • Page ID
    9348
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    The reason that we have thrown an “old-fashioned” theory like Gewirtz’s (1969) into the mix is to illustrate alternative learning theory perspectives on the formation of attachment. The essential elements of Gewirtz’s theory are summarized as an example of an Understanding paper in Table 4.2. Like Bowlby and Ainsworth, his theoretical question was “How does an infant acquire and maintain a bond (tie, relationship) to a caregiver?” (Gewirtz, 1969, p. 160-161). However, as can be seen from the title of his chapter, he derived the answer to this question using concepts provided by social learning theory. According to Gewirtz, “dependence and attachment are best conceptualized as abstractions for classes of functional relationships involving the positive stimulus control over a wide variety of an individual’s responses by stimuli provided either by a class of persons (dependence) or by a particular person (attachment)… In attachment, the efficacy of discriminative or reinforcing stimuli in controlling an individual’s behavior systems depends upon the unique physical and/or behavioral characteristics of a particular “object” person dispensing those stimuli (e.g., his facial stimuli, tactile characterstics)” (1969, p. 161).

    Table 4.2. Example Paper: “Understanding Gewirtz”

    1. Theoretical question:

    How does an infant acquire and maintain a bond (tie, relationship) to a caregiver? (Gewirtz, 1969, p. 160-161)

    2. Theoretical context:

    Social learning theory (in title). Influenced by dependency research, operant conditioning, and drive theory.

    3. Key constructs and definitions:

    Attachment: “a form of (social) dependence of the behavior systems of one person upon the unique physical or behavioral stimuli provided by a particular other person (or a very few individuals)” (p. 162)

    Also called “person-specific dependency”

    Infant response/behavior system: approaches, visual orienting, regard, tracking,smiles, and directed vocalizations (p. 165)

    Caregiver discriminative and reinforcing stimuli:

    • Proximal: being held, touched, caressed, waved in the air, warmth, etc.
    • Distal: Sight of person, appearance (hair color, facial features, size), behaviors (gait, approach, movements in space, auditory stimulation (sounds made by approach, vocalizations), olfactory stimulation
    4. Target phenomenon:

    5. Explanation:

    Antecedents: Infant is hungry and caregiver provides food, so caregiver becomes a secondary drive in which caregiver stimuli comes to control infant response system.

    Consequences: Infant’s positive responses to caregiver reinforce caregiver behavior systems, so infant stimuli comes to control caregiver response system.

    Mechanisms:

    • From caregiver behavior to bond:

    Primary drives: Food satisfies infant’s primary drive for hunger.

    Secondary drives: Because mother feeds infant, she is associated with primary drive until mother acquires properties of primary drive, and controls infant’s behavior systems.

    • From bond to mutual control of behavioral systems:

    Discriminative stimuli: Caregiver stimuli preceding reinforcing event (food) come to control infant behavior, and so presence of caregiver stimuli increase the likelihood that that infant behavior will occur.

    Reinforcing stimuli: Infant’s positive response following caregiver behavior increases the likelihood that that caregiver behavior will occur in the future.

    Discriminative stimuli: Infant stimuli preceding reinforcing event (infant positive response) come to control caregiver behavior, and so presence of infant stimuli increase the likelihood that that caregiver behavior will occur.

    Reinforcing stimuli: Caregiver’s positive response following infant behavior increases the likelihood that that infant behavior will occur in the future.

    6. Optimization: “stronger” attachments are ones that have:

    • Greater number of behavior systems of child under caregiver control
    • Greater number of behaviors under control relative to others’ control
    • Greater degree of control over behavioral systems
    • Greater number of stimulus settings in which control operates

    7. Meta-theoretical assumptions:

    Social learning theory assumes that primary drives elicit behavior, associations between contiguous events lead to learning, external stimuli trigger behavior, and external contingencies control behavior.