Attachment Essay Questions
Describe and evaluate animal studies of attachment (16 marks).
Harlow conducted a study to find out whether the provision of food or contact is more important
when forming an infant-caregiver attachment. Harlow did this by isolating Rhesus monkeys when
they were born, and they then had no contact with anyone. Harlow created two mothers, one of
which was made entirely of wire and the other was made of wire but covered in cloth. Eight Rhesus
monkeys were used in the study, and they were observed for 165 days. Four monkeys’ milk was
provided to them by the wire monkey and the other four monkeys got their milk from the clothed
monkey. Harlow measured the time that was spent with each mother, and their behaviour was
observed when scared.
Harlow found that the monkeys spent most of their time with the cloth mother, they spent roughly
18 hours with the cloth mum and about 1 hour with the wire. This didn’t change when the wire
mother was the one providing the milk. When the monkeys were frightened, they all clung to the
cloth covered monkey for comfort. This suggests that infants don’t necessarily develop an
attachment to the person who is feeding them, but rather the person who is providing comfort.
Harlow found that as these Rhesus monkeys grew up, they faced lots of consequences from Harlow’s
study. The monkeys developed very abnormally as they froze or fled when another monkey
approached them. Also, they did not show natural mating behaviour, as they weren’t bothered to
mate. The monkeys even killed their own offspring due to the lasting effects. Showing that. Harlow
concluded that ‘contact comfort’ was more important to the infant rather than feeding when
forming an attachment to their mother. Harlow also concluded from his study that contact comfort
is more important than food when forming an attachment and therefore suggests cupboard love
isn’t important in forming attachments. As suggested by?
The strengths of Harlow’s study are that his findings increased the understanding of the process of
how attachments form. Therefore, the research has been used in important practical applications, as
it has helped social workers understand risk factors in child abuse. This means that Harlow’s findings
have provided lots of detail into the attachment and social behaviour. This showed that it is
important to have high quality early attachments, so that the infant can socially develop normally
and thoroughly. Also, because Harlow conducted his experiment in a laboratory, so the
experimenters were able to establish high levels of control. This means the extraneous variables
won’t pose a threat to the experiment, which makes the findings of Harlow’s study more reliable.
However, Harlow’s study was conducted in a laboratory, which lowers the ability to generalise the
results. This means the study is not very ecologically valid, as the findings cannot be applied to
everyday situations. This is because wild Rhesus monkeys won’t have the choice between two
parents, and won’t face the same experiments that were put to the isolated Rhesus monkeys. Also,
the monkeys experienced lasting emotional harm as, for example, the monkeys found it hard to
form relationships with their peers. This means that Harlow’s study had serious ethical issues, but it
was argued that the experiments can be justified as it was argued that the experiment can be
justified as it increased the understanding of the process of attachment. This allowed the research to
offer better care for humans and animals. Another limitation is that the study was done on monkeys
and therefore cannot be generalised to humans. This means that Harlow’s findings aren’t accurate
and can’t be extrapolated to humans. However, several studies that have been conducted, e.g.,
Schaffer and Emerson, and their findings have been similar to what Harlow found.
Another animal study that was conducted was done by Lorenz, and he investigated what the effects
of imprinting are. Imprinting is when offspring follow the first large moving object they see. Lorenz
did this by taking multiple gosling eggs and splitting them into two groups. One set of the goslings
were left with their real mother, whilst the rest were put in an incubator. When the goslings hatched
the first animate object, they saw was Lorenz and therefore, the goslings imprinted on Lorenz’
, Lorenz found that the goslings who imprinted on him followed him, and the goslings that imprinted
on the goose followed that. Lorenz also found that imprinting can only occur in a definite period,
which is the critical period. This means that if the gosling hasn’t imprinted on the mother goose by a
certain time, then it probably never will. Lorenz then suggested that animals will imprint on a
persistently present mobile object within the first couple of days of its life. Therefore, imprinting is
similar to attachment as it bonds a young animal to its caregiver. Suggesting that. Also, Lorenz noted
that not all animals will imprint on humans, for example Curlews won’t. Lorenz noted that imprinting
is irreversible and the effects last for a long time. Also, early imprinting will affect the mating
preference of the offspring, through sexual imprinting. Sexual imprinting is where the offspring will
choose to mate with the same kind of object that they imprinted on. Lorenz described a peacock
being reared in a reptile enclosure, where the first moving object seen was a giant tortoise, which is
what the peacock imprinted on. Therefore, as an adult the peacock would direct its courtship
behaviour towards the giant tortoise, and therefore Lorenz concluded that the peacock had
undergone sexual imprinting. This was questioned by Guiton et al, as he found that chickens that
imprinted on washing up gloves would try to mate with them, just like Lorenz stated. However, the
chickens eventually learned to mate with other chickens. This suggests that imprinting, and sexual
imprinting, isn’t an irreversible process or long lasting as Lorenz believed.
Lorenz also concluded that imprinting is a form of attachment, which is mainly done by birds where
close contact is kept with the first large moving object seen. However, Lorenz can’t really generalise
his findings to humans. This is because human mothers show more of an emotional attachment to
their offspring than birds do. This means that Lorenz can’t exactly generalise his findings, as they
only apply to goslings and may be different in humans.
One of the strengths of Lorenz’s study is highly influential, as it suggested that attachment formation
is done under biological control and that it occurs within a specific time frame. This means that
attachment is a natural process, but will only occur in a set period time. This suggests that after this
period of time the bond will not form. This has led to psychologists developing more detailed
theories for attachment, which suggested there been a critical period. Therefore, this means that
Lorenz’s findings are more accurate, as other studies have investigated the critical period, and
gathered the same findings as Lorenz.
However, Lorenz was highly criticised for extrapolating his results to humans. This is because
humans and geese are physiologically different to each other, and the formation of attachment is
different. A human infant will develop their attachment with the primary caregiver and the gosling
will imprint on the first moving object they see, and therefore Lorenz’s findings for attachment can’t
be generalised to humans.
13/16- need to add more AO3 (evaluating points) to achieve full marks.
Describe and evaluate research into attachment on childhood and adult relationships. Refer to
evidence in your answer (16 marks).
Bowlby produced the monotropic theory for understanding attachments in childhood and later in
life. Bowlby produced this theory because he rejected the learning theory of attachment. Bowlby’s
monotropic theory claims that a baby will form one strong bond to a specific person, from an
evolutionary perspective as attachments are innate in order for the infant to survive. In Schaffer and
Emerson’s study on Glaswegian babies they found that infants are more likely to form attachments
to one person first. However, they also found that most of the babies formed multiple attachments
as well. This means that the idea of monotropy, when talking about attachment, isn’t accurate as
most babies will go on to form more than one attachment. This was supported by Suess, as they said
that the attachment to the primary attachment figure may just be stronger and therefore easier to
see. This suggests that Bowlby failed to see any other attachments that the infant may have formed.
Describe and evaluate animal studies of attachment (16 marks).
Harlow conducted a study to find out whether the provision of food or contact is more important
when forming an infant-caregiver attachment. Harlow did this by isolating Rhesus monkeys when
they were born, and they then had no contact with anyone. Harlow created two mothers, one of
which was made entirely of wire and the other was made of wire but covered in cloth. Eight Rhesus
monkeys were used in the study, and they were observed for 165 days. Four monkeys’ milk was
provided to them by the wire monkey and the other four monkeys got their milk from the clothed
monkey. Harlow measured the time that was spent with each mother, and their behaviour was
observed when scared.
Harlow found that the monkeys spent most of their time with the cloth mother, they spent roughly
18 hours with the cloth mum and about 1 hour with the wire. This didn’t change when the wire
mother was the one providing the milk. When the monkeys were frightened, they all clung to the
cloth covered monkey for comfort. This suggests that infants don’t necessarily develop an
attachment to the person who is feeding them, but rather the person who is providing comfort.
Harlow found that as these Rhesus monkeys grew up, they faced lots of consequences from Harlow’s
study. The monkeys developed very abnormally as they froze or fled when another monkey
approached them. Also, they did not show natural mating behaviour, as they weren’t bothered to
mate. The monkeys even killed their own offspring due to the lasting effects. Showing that. Harlow
concluded that ‘contact comfort’ was more important to the infant rather than feeding when
forming an attachment to their mother. Harlow also concluded from his study that contact comfort
is more important than food when forming an attachment and therefore suggests cupboard love
isn’t important in forming attachments. As suggested by?
The strengths of Harlow’s study are that his findings increased the understanding of the process of
how attachments form. Therefore, the research has been used in important practical applications, as
it has helped social workers understand risk factors in child abuse. This means that Harlow’s findings
have provided lots of detail into the attachment and social behaviour. This showed that it is
important to have high quality early attachments, so that the infant can socially develop normally
and thoroughly. Also, because Harlow conducted his experiment in a laboratory, so the
experimenters were able to establish high levels of control. This means the extraneous variables
won’t pose a threat to the experiment, which makes the findings of Harlow’s study more reliable.
However, Harlow’s study was conducted in a laboratory, which lowers the ability to generalise the
results. This means the study is not very ecologically valid, as the findings cannot be applied to
everyday situations. This is because wild Rhesus monkeys won’t have the choice between two
parents, and won’t face the same experiments that were put to the isolated Rhesus monkeys. Also,
the monkeys experienced lasting emotional harm as, for example, the monkeys found it hard to
form relationships with their peers. This means that Harlow’s study had serious ethical issues, but it
was argued that the experiments can be justified as it was argued that the experiment can be
justified as it increased the understanding of the process of attachment. This allowed the research to
offer better care for humans and animals. Another limitation is that the study was done on monkeys
and therefore cannot be generalised to humans. This means that Harlow’s findings aren’t accurate
and can’t be extrapolated to humans. However, several studies that have been conducted, e.g.,
Schaffer and Emerson, and their findings have been similar to what Harlow found.
Another animal study that was conducted was done by Lorenz, and he investigated what the effects
of imprinting are. Imprinting is when offspring follow the first large moving object they see. Lorenz
did this by taking multiple gosling eggs and splitting them into two groups. One set of the goslings
were left with their real mother, whilst the rest were put in an incubator. When the goslings hatched
the first animate object, they saw was Lorenz and therefore, the goslings imprinted on Lorenz’
, Lorenz found that the goslings who imprinted on him followed him, and the goslings that imprinted
on the goose followed that. Lorenz also found that imprinting can only occur in a definite period,
which is the critical period. This means that if the gosling hasn’t imprinted on the mother goose by a
certain time, then it probably never will. Lorenz then suggested that animals will imprint on a
persistently present mobile object within the first couple of days of its life. Therefore, imprinting is
similar to attachment as it bonds a young animal to its caregiver. Suggesting that. Also, Lorenz noted
that not all animals will imprint on humans, for example Curlews won’t. Lorenz noted that imprinting
is irreversible and the effects last for a long time. Also, early imprinting will affect the mating
preference of the offspring, through sexual imprinting. Sexual imprinting is where the offspring will
choose to mate with the same kind of object that they imprinted on. Lorenz described a peacock
being reared in a reptile enclosure, where the first moving object seen was a giant tortoise, which is
what the peacock imprinted on. Therefore, as an adult the peacock would direct its courtship
behaviour towards the giant tortoise, and therefore Lorenz concluded that the peacock had
undergone sexual imprinting. This was questioned by Guiton et al, as he found that chickens that
imprinted on washing up gloves would try to mate with them, just like Lorenz stated. However, the
chickens eventually learned to mate with other chickens. This suggests that imprinting, and sexual
imprinting, isn’t an irreversible process or long lasting as Lorenz believed.
Lorenz also concluded that imprinting is a form of attachment, which is mainly done by birds where
close contact is kept with the first large moving object seen. However, Lorenz can’t really generalise
his findings to humans. This is because human mothers show more of an emotional attachment to
their offspring than birds do. This means that Lorenz can’t exactly generalise his findings, as they
only apply to goslings and may be different in humans.
One of the strengths of Lorenz’s study is highly influential, as it suggested that attachment formation
is done under biological control and that it occurs within a specific time frame. This means that
attachment is a natural process, but will only occur in a set period time. This suggests that after this
period of time the bond will not form. This has led to psychologists developing more detailed
theories for attachment, which suggested there been a critical period. Therefore, this means that
Lorenz’s findings are more accurate, as other studies have investigated the critical period, and
gathered the same findings as Lorenz.
However, Lorenz was highly criticised for extrapolating his results to humans. This is because
humans and geese are physiologically different to each other, and the formation of attachment is
different. A human infant will develop their attachment with the primary caregiver and the gosling
will imprint on the first moving object they see, and therefore Lorenz’s findings for attachment can’t
be generalised to humans.
13/16- need to add more AO3 (evaluating points) to achieve full marks.
Describe and evaluate research into attachment on childhood and adult relationships. Refer to
evidence in your answer (16 marks).
Bowlby produced the monotropic theory for understanding attachments in childhood and later in
life. Bowlby produced this theory because he rejected the learning theory of attachment. Bowlby’s
monotropic theory claims that a baby will form one strong bond to a specific person, from an
evolutionary perspective as attachments are innate in order for the infant to survive. In Schaffer and
Emerson’s study on Glaswegian babies they found that infants are more likely to form attachments
to one person first. However, they also found that most of the babies formed multiple attachments
as well. This means that the idea of monotropy, when talking about attachment, isn’t accurate as
most babies will go on to form more than one attachment. This was supported by Suess, as they said
that the attachment to the primary attachment figure may just be stronger and therefore easier to
see. This suggests that Bowlby failed to see any other attachments that the infant may have formed.
