https://padlet.com/joan_ruddock/k8zbozg6bi2l Why might learning theory of attachment be seen as reductionist? Why might this theory be considered to be deterministic? To what extent can we generalise this theory to other cultures? Post your ideas to the padlet en-us 2018-01-22 14:05:32 UTC 2026-01-20 06:47:53 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/joan_ruddock/k8zbozg6bi2l/wish/223329174 Learning theory of attachment can be seen as reductionist as it only considers basic processes rather than complex emotional mechanisms. The theory attempts to reduce very complex human behaviour of attachment, down to an over-simplistic theory that the need for food is the basic idea behind
attachment.  (Alice, Carina, Danielle, Roberta, Sarah)

is reductionist because it takes a complex human behaviour and tries to explain it in the simplest terms possible.  It does not consider any internal processes or seek to explain the emotional nature of attachments simply how they arise as behaviours.  (omar) ]]> 2018-01-22 14:07:24 UTC https://padlet.com/joan_ruddock/k8zbozg6bi2l/wish/223329174 https://padlet.com/joan_ruddock/k8zbozg6bi2l/wish/223329278 This theory is extremely deterministic as it determines an infant will automatically form an attachment to the primary caregiver and does not take into consideration any alternatives. - Shaquila / Laura 

Assumes the infant has no free will to form attachments with who we want - it suggests we are all products of our learning (Studies against the learning theory: Haslow's monkeys showed we would choose comfort over food)-- Ashleigh, Carina and Kerriss]]> 2018-01-22 14:07:37 UTC https://padlet.com/joan_ruddock/k8zbozg6bi2l/wish/223329278 https://padlet.com/joan_ruddock/k8zbozg6bi2l/wish/223329415 This theory can't be generalised. Babies are individuals, therefore have their own environment. For example, the theory is not applicable for a child with disabilities. Laura

]]> 2018-01-22 14:07:53 UTC https://padlet.com/joan_ruddock/k8zbozg6bi2l/wish/223329415