Compare_and_Contrast_the_Work_of_Harry_Harlow_and_Mary_Ainsworth_on_Understanding

Compare and Contrast the Work of Harry Harlow and Mary Ainsworth on Understanding Attachment. This essay will compare and contrast the work of psychologists Harry Harlow and Mary Ainsworth. To compare and contrast will be to emphasise the similarities and differences of both Harlow and Ainsworth’s work on understanding attachment, to which they have both made great contribution. Attachment refers to the mutually affectionate developing bond between a mother and any other caregiver (Custance 2010). It is a bond in which the infant sees the caregiver as a protective and security figure. Failing to form any type of attachment during the earliest years of childhood is thought to lead to social and emotional developmental issues that can carry on well into adult life (Custance 2010). Attachment theory was formulated by psychoanalyst John Bowlby with the theory of ‘cupboard love’ (affection that is given purely to gain a reward) (Custance 2010). There are differing theories on why and how infants form attachments but this essay will concentrate on the theories of Harlow and Ainsworth. Harry Harlow’s work on attachment was conducted on two groups of rhesus monkeys. The monkeys were separated from their mothers and were subsequently given a choice of two surrogate mothers, one made of wire, the other of towelling (or terry-cloth)(Custance 2010). In one group the wire mother provided food in the form of a baby feeding bottle containing milk and the terry-cloth mother provided no food. In the other group the wire mother did not provide food and the terry-cloth mother did. The young monkeys would cling to the soft terry-cloth mother whether or not it provided them with food, and they chose the wire surrogate mother only when it provided food. The monkeys would go to the terry-cloth mother for comfort when frightened or anxious no matter which mother provided them with food. Harlow concluded the monkeys bonded with care givers that provided tactile comfort rather than food (Custance 2010). Mary Ainsworth is known for her ‘Strange Situation’ (Custance 2010) studies with children. Her theory was that the quality of an infant’s attachment depends largely on the kind of attention the infant has received. She observed the attachment styles of children, mostly aged between 12 and 24 months, by placing them in an environment and recording their reactions to their mothers (or primary caregivers) leaving the room and then returning. Based on these observations Ainsworth concluded that there are different types of attachment. Three types of attachment are: ‘anxious-avoidant’, where the child shows little upset with the stranger, but will avoid contact with the parent on their return. The ‘securely attached’ child is one that will show moderate levels of proximity seeking towards the parents and is upset by their departure but deals with the parents return positively, often returning to play. The third type is the ‘anxious-resistant’ child; greatly upset by the parent’s departure and on reunion seems angry and will not be comforted or picked up (Custance 2010). There are similarities in the work of both Harlow and Ainsworth on attachment. Firstly, both of them used studies demonstrating attachment beyond Bowlby’s idea of ‘cupboard love’ (Custance 2010), with Harlow’s experiment in the 1950’s giving an example of the power and strength of attachment with the monkeys sometimes returning to an abusive terry-cloth mother. Ainsworth, also in the 1950’s, demonstrated this attachment strength by using an assessment of the ‘secure base’ behaviour in her experiments where the children have a secure place from which they can explore the world and then return safely (Bretherton 1992). Similarly, both Harlow and Ainsworth’s studies proved the prevalence of nurture over nature (behaviour over genetics) and that the importance of parental love and affection is vital for normal childhood development. A further similarity is that they both have been criticised following their work on attachment. Harlow has been ethically criticised for his controversial experiments with the baby monkeys in 1959 and in subsequent experiments where he subjected them to great levels of suffering, abuse and maternal deprivation (Custance 2010). Some took the view that his experiments were atrocious and cruel and Harlow himself admitted that he had no love for the monkeys and that he, indeed, did not even like animals (Custance 2010). The work of Ainsworth has also been criticised ethically because the child appears to be distressed through separation anxiety (wary or fretful reaction that infants and toddlers often display when separated from the person(s) to whom they are attached) and stranger anxiety (wary reaction to a stranger which occurs shortly after attachment to a primary caregiver) (Wadey 2010). In her Strange Situation experiment, however, Ainsworth did take ethics into account by having the children constantly monitored to reduce upset (Custance 2010) and in contrast to Harlow, one could say she replicated experiences that would not be unusual in the life of a small child. Any distress was short-term. Techniques she developed continue to be used today and procedures would not likely be considered unethical. Ainsworth was also criticised for her work not being ecologically valid (not being a true representation of a real environment or situation). The Strange Situation is based on a series of assumptions (for example, being left in a strange environment with a stranger having being separated from a caregiver). It is meant to highlight attachment behaviour in the home. It could be argued that this is simply providing a shortcut as a true representation would take many hours to observe. The study may also be seen to be culturally biased as it assumes that behaviour is the same in all cultures. It took place in the United States and may only reflect American values. Further studies using Ainsworth’s methods with other nationalities similarly lack validity as there are many cross cultural differences i.e. Israeli children being raised in a kibbutz and being accustomed to separation from their mother, showing little reaction when they leave (Custance 2010). In comparison, Harlow’s work may also not be seen as being ecologically valid as it was conducted in an unnatural setting and monkeys are not the same as humans, although there are similarities. (Custance 2010). There are also differences in the two studies; the most obvious being Harlow uses monkeys in his research and Ainsworth uses human children. Because monkeys could experience the emotions that humans feel, Harlow believed we could better understand how to raise human children by looking at how baby monkeys responded to alternative approaches to upbringing. As we have already touched upon, the work of Harlow would not be permitted on humans on ethical grounds. In addition, another difference is the method used in the two studies; Harlow used an experimental observational method of development psychology to determine the outcomes of his research. Ainsworth, on the other hand, used controlled observational studies to offer explanations of individual differences in attachment. Observational studies can sometimes, as we have seen, be questioned in terms of validity and reliability (Custance 2010). In this sense, this is also a similarity as they both used observation methods in a laboratory setting. One further difference is that Harlow uses a surrogate mother in his studies focusing on deprivation and Ainsworth focuses on children’s reactions on the departure and return of real mothers. In conclusion, in comparing and contrasting these two theories of why and how attachment is formed, one approach may not seem more appropriate than the other. From the evidence above it would be fair to say that despite the differences in the studies of Harlow and Ainsworth, they are more similar than people may confer. Though controversial, both studies have provided great understanding of the behaviour of children when forming attachments and have played an important role in the understanding of child development. They took the ideas of John Bowlby and investigated them further, with their work still being the framework for psychoanalytical studies of attachment used today. With Bowlby’s secure base behaviour idea, used in both the studies of Harlow and Ainsworth, being the backbone of attachment theory proving that attachment is innate (Custance 2010). For an infant without a secure base to return to could leave them feeling anxious, frightened and even aggressive. The studies have both shown that an infant will form attachments for more than purely the need for food and that they crave care, comfort and safety. These early attachment theories prove that an infant needs a loving and protective relationship with a parent or primary caregiver and this relationship will continue to develop into childhood and may possibly have an impact in later life. Works Cited Bretherton, I. (1992) ‘The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth’ [On-line] UK: Available: http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/online/inge_origins.pdf Accessed: February 10, 2011 Custance, D. (2010) ‘Determined to love'’ in Brace, N. and Byford, J. (eds) Discovering Psychology, Milton Keynes, The Open University. Wadey. P. (2011) ‘Attachment Theory, Mary Ainsworth’ [On-line] UK: Available: http://paulwadey.co.uk/AttachmentTheory/ Accessed: February 18, 2011