Learning and Memory Essay #2: Behavior Systems Theory

Infant Attachment Conditioning and its Relation to Interpersonal Relationships

In the conditioning paradigm, there are several theories of how conditioning might actually work. One such theory is the behavior systems theory. While not a theory of conditioning per se, when conditioning is seen through the lens of the behavior systems approach much of the data that is left unexplained by other theories begins to make sense. The central premise of the theory is that there are specific systems in the brain that regulate specific behaviors and conditioning effects the system that is engaged at the time of Conditioned Stimulus/Unconditioned Stimulus presentation. Working from this assumption, it is possible to make some inferences about the psychological theory of attachment. According to the behavior systems approach, the attachment bond between mother and child will create a conditioning of the affected neural systems that will continue to regulate that child's interpersonal relationships through adolescence and into adulthood.

Pavlov's explanation of how conditioning occurred was that "neural activity provoked by the CS overlaps with neural activity produced by the US" (Purdy, Markham, Schwartz, and Gordon). While this is undoubtedly a simplistic explanation of the process, there may be a kernel of truth in it. Certainly, there are neurological correlates of conditioning. Given that the habituation of the Aplysia occurs as an alteration of the neural pathways, it would seem to follow that conditioning occurs as some form of neural change. The discovery of long-term potentiation, the strengthening of neural pathways that are frequently used, would seem to corroborate aspects of Pavlov's theory, although highly speculatively. It may not be the case that CS/US neural representations overlap, but that at some point in the neural communications between various systems of the brain the representations of the CS and the US feed into the behavioral system that either was engaged previous to CS/US presentation or that the US engaged thereby strengthening those neural connections for future communications. Of course, there are also memory considerations that aren't necessarily accounted for in this model, but it may very well be that the priming effect of novel stimulus discovered by Terry & Wagner in backwards conditioning trials (Purdy et al) is simply an extra neural reinforcement from the areas encoding short-term memory feeding into the area related to the behavioral response of the US/Unconditional Response.

While behavior systems theory proper doesn't necessarily engage in speculations about the cellular level of learning, it is a theory that reflects neurological organization, if only intuitively. A good comparison of the relation between behavior and the brain is as follows: "'In the study of behavior as well as neuroscience the investigator must typically deal with interlocking networks of organizational processes, rather than being satisfied with simple linear conceptualizations'" (Marshall, Stevenson-Hinde, pg. 54). The essential idea of the theory is that every species has specific systems that fulfill various functional roles in the organization of behavior, and those systems will be especially "sensitive to the intervals between stimuli" (Purdy et al, pg. 80).

There is considerable evidence that conditioning isn't a uniform process, but must take into account the behavior system engaged during the conditioning process. Two examples from the book were the long CS-US interval in the taste aversion paradigm and the engagement of different behaviors based on the CS-US interval in conditioning rats with food (Purdy et al). In the experiments of Garcia et al on taste aversion among animals, the CS-US interval was several hours between the CS of distinctively flavored or odored food or water and the US of nausea caused by a Lithium Chloride injection. In most conditioning experiments the CS-US interval cannot be longer than ten to twenty minutes at the most before creating inhibitory conditioning, but seen through the lens of ethology it would make evolutionary sense for an animal to be sensitive to conditioning at longer intervals in food consumption since it can take many hours for the adversive effects of bad food to show up. In Timberlake et al's experiments with rats, they found that different behaviors were conditioned based on the CS-US interval. From this they extrapolated a continuum of behavior systems that would be activated as the rats centered in on and consumed foods. The engagement of different behaviors based on CS-US intervals was also found in Akins et al in sexual conditioning experiments with Japanese Quail. These experiments found that longer CS-US intervals caused greater locomotor activity, while shorter intervals activated "courtship responses…including toe walking, vocalization, and feather ruffling.

While these are examples of very simple, uncomplicated conditioning experiments that don't necessarily translate directly into human experience with the wild card of higher-order consciousness, it is clear that conditioning is the context for a great deal of human learning. Attachment theory is an example of a much more complicated process of human conditioning; One that undoubtedly engages many of the neural systems of the brain. John Bowlby created this theory in the late sixties based on his knowledge of Konrad Lorenz's ethological "studies of imprinting in baby geese" (attachment theory, pg. 2). The theory claims that young children have innate mechanisms and propensities for developing bonds with their caregivers, but the nature of the relationship that develops "serves as an internal working model, or set of expectations about the availability of attachment figures, [and] the likelihood of receiving support from them during times of stress…This image becomes the basis for all future close relationships during infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adult life" (attachment theory, pg. 2). Quite simply children are conditioned by the US of their parents love and support or lack thereof to respond to the CS of people they meet throughout their lives with the CR of expectations and relations that model that original bond. It would seem that a level of inhibitory conditioning can take place, but the original relationship with our parents is the basis for the model that may then be revised, if only slightly.

The scientific evidence for this theory is somewhat speculative. Mary Ainsworth did some studies in the seventies that were intended to measure attachment bonds. While these studies did find several patterns of secure and insecure attachment bonds, they were very small samples and weren't done longitudinally, so we don't know the outcomes of insecure attachment (attachment theory, pg. 5). One study that was done in relation to behavior inhibition by Nachmias et al found that cortisol responses to the presence of a stranger in the absence of their caregiver were higher for insecurely attached children than those for who were securely attached. While there is still speculation about the specific role of cortisol in human functioning, there is some evidence that cortisol "may be related to the maintenance or failure of coping strategies" (Behavioral inhibition, pg. 61). The more widely accepted notion of cortisol is that it relates to fear and anxiety, but regardless, this evidence provides a basis for the notion that specific neural systems are engaged in the conditioning process and that attachment is a key concept in human interrelationships.

One of the drawbacks of the behaviorist approach is that it measured only the stimulus and the response. While this work has given us important concepts like conditioning, it seems to be holding back a fuller understanding of that process and its more complicated applications. The behaviorists were intent on giving psychology a more empirical orientation by studying only what could be observed, but with the advent of modern imaging technology and more advanced experimental techniques observation can be extended to include what's going on inside our brains as well as how we react. Nonetheless, psychology will always have a speculative element even as the imaging technology becomes more and more precise. Without philosophical speculations, a broader understanding of the process of human learning will never be perceived.