Compare and Contrast the Work of Harry Harlow and Mary Ainsworth on Understanding Attachment.
- Submitted by: misspowerpuff100
- Views: 1635
- Category: Science
- Date Submitted: 12/06/2011 02:55 PM
- Pages: 2
- Report this Essay
Compare and Contrast the work of Harry Harlow and Mary Ainsworth on Understanding Attachment.
Introduction
Attachment, what do we really know about attachment? The classification for attachment is: a feeling that binds one to a person, thing, cause, ideal, or the like, to another, in other words an emotional bond. So is this an inbuilt tendency? Or do we learn to become attached to certain people or objects. You could say that we have no control over what we become attached too. Then again you could also say that we become attached to the things or people that are always there. So is that our control?
Another way of looking at attachment is to think about animal imprinting, birds in particular, i.e. an innate system that allows rapid learning to occur in animals directly after birth. For example; an Austrian ethology Konrad Lorenz, raised a clutch of goose eggs, the first thing seen, by the goslings, was Lorenz’s wellington boots, the young flock would follow the wellington boots wherever they went.(Lorenz and Kickert, 1981; Hess, 1958. As cited in Custance, 2010). In this essay however, we take a look at the different studies of Harlow and Ainsworth and sort through the differences and similarities of their work on understanding this complex subject.
Harry Harlow’s research into attachment was primarily, to determine whether infants bond with their mother’s because of ‘cupboard love’ i.e. the fact that their mothers provided them with food or because of ‘contact comfort’ i.e. the fact that their mother was warm and soft to touch. Whereas Ainsworth was far from convinced, it seemed conclusive to her that a baby loves his mother because she appeases their needs. (Custance, 2010).
Harlow originally planned to study intelligence in rats, but after observing monkeys at the zoo, he quickly realised that monkey intelligence far out-weighed that of rats. As a result, he secured funding for a primate laboratory at Wisconsin University, and set to work. He,...
Introduction
Attachment, what do we really know about attachment? The classification for attachment is: a feeling that binds one to a person, thing, cause, ideal, or the like, to another, in other words an emotional bond. So is this an inbuilt tendency? Or do we learn to become attached to certain people or objects. You could say that we have no control over what we become attached too. Then again you could also say that we become attached to the things or people that are always there. So is that our control?
Another way of looking at attachment is to think about animal imprinting, birds in particular, i.e. an innate system that allows rapid learning to occur in animals directly after birth. For example; an Austrian ethology Konrad Lorenz, raised a clutch of goose eggs, the first thing seen, by the goslings, was Lorenz’s wellington boots, the young flock would follow the wellington boots wherever they went.(Lorenz and Kickert, 1981; Hess, 1958. As cited in Custance, 2010). In this essay however, we take a look at the different studies of Harlow and Ainsworth and sort through the differences and similarities of their work on understanding this complex subject.
Harry Harlow’s research into attachment was primarily, to determine whether infants bond with their mother’s because of ‘cupboard love’ i.e. the fact that their mothers provided them with food or because of ‘contact comfort’ i.e. the fact that their mother was warm and soft to touch. Whereas Ainsworth was far from convinced, it seemed conclusive to her that a baby loves his mother because she appeases their needs. (Custance, 2010).
Harlow originally planned to study intelligence in rats, but after observing monkeys at the zoo, he quickly realised that monkey intelligence far out-weighed that of rats. As a result, he secured funding for a primate laboratory at Wisconsin University, and set to work. He,...