ATTACHMENT 16 MARKERS
Animal studies of attachment: Lorenz and Harlow.
Explanations of attachment: learning theory and Bowlby’s monotropic theory
The concepts of a critical period and an internal working model.
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’. Types of attachment: secure, insecure-avoidant, and
insecure-resistant.
Cultural variations in attachment, including Van Ljzendoorn.
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation.
Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation.
The influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships, including the
role of an internal working model.
Discuss animal studies of attachment, including research by Lorenz and Harlow [16 marks]
Para 1 – Lorenz geese imprinting, procedure, findings, critical period, sexual imprinting.
Para 2 – can’t generalise to humans, mammals show more emotional attachment
Para 3 – yellow washing up glove study, sexual imprinting in chickens weakens theory.
Para 4 – Harlow contact comfort, procedure, findings, later life for Rhesus monkeys.
Para 5 – practical value, social workers understand risks of neglect and abuse.
Para 6 – ethical issues, not protected from harm, suffering is human-like if the findings can
be generalised to humans from monkeys.
Lorenz studied imprinting attachment behaviours in geese. Imprinting is the idea that some
animals have an innate readiness to bond with the first moving object that they see. He
divided 12 goose eggs, half were hatched in an incubator with Lorenz and the other half
hatched naturally with the mother. He discovered that once the birds hatched, they followed
the first moving object that they saw, so the geese that hatched in the incubator imprinted
onto Lorenz. Even when he put all 12 geese together again, they continued to follow the
object which they imprinted on. There is said to be a critical period for this imprinting process
to occur, which is just a few hours after birth. If the geese miss this period, they will never
form an attachment with their mothers. Imprinting behaviours continue into everyday life, as
birds that imprinted on a human would later have sexual behaviour towards humans.
An issue with Lorenz’s animal research is that his findings regarding imprinting cannot be
generalised to all animals. Research has shown that mammalian mothers show much more
emotional attachment to their young than birds do. This weakens Lorenz’s theory on
imprinting as different animals show different attachment behaviours, and his ideas cannot
explain all attachment behaviours.
Lorenz’s study on sexual imprinting is also weakened by a study done on chickens. The
study found that, even when chickens imprinted on a yellow washing up glove, they still
mated with other chickens when they grew older. This is a weakness for Lorenz’s theory on
imprinting because it suggests that it is not permanent and has a smaller effect on later life.
Harlow researched the importance of contact comfort in relation to attachment. He studied
baby rhesus monkeys, who he separated from their mothers at birth and raised in isolation
cages. They were then given two surrogate mothers. The first mother was made of wire and
was the food provider, whereas the other was made of soft towel and provided comfort.
Harlow measured how long the monkeys spent with each mother, which mother they would
run to when scared and which mother provided them with confidence to explore the cage.
Harlow found that the monkeys preferred the mother who provided comfort. He found that
the monkeys reared with only the wire mother were dysfunctional, aggressive, and even
, ATTACHMENT 16 MARKERS
attacked their own children later in life. This demonstrates the importance of contact comfort
in attachment.
A strength of Harlow’s research is that is has great practical value. His study emphasises the
importance of comfort in attachment and helps social workers to understand the long-term
risk factors of neglect and abuse. It has also ensured that animals held in zoos are cared for
more effectively. Therefore Harlow’s research has led to better treatment of children and
animals, which is beneficial to create better attachments and reduce long-term trauma.
A weakness of Harlow’s research is that it involved several ethical issues. The monkeys
were not protected from harm and suffered greatly from Harlow’s study. The effects of the
study showed clear signs of long term trauma for monkeys, which is greatly unethical. It can
be argued that if Harlow’s research is generalisable to humans, then the suffering
experienced by the monkeys was human-like. This is a significant criticism for his research
as it cannot be replicated ethically and therefore his results may be less reliable.
Two mothers at the toddler and parent group are chatting.
“I always felt sorry for my husband when Millie was a baby. He used to say his bond
with Millie was not as strong as mine because I was breastfeeding.”
“I’m not sure”, says the other mother. “I think there’s something about a mother’s love
that makes it more special anyway – and so important for future development.”
Discuss the learning theory of attachment and Bowlby’s monotropic theory of
attachment. Refer to the conversation above in your answer. (Total 16 marks)
Para 1 – cupboard love, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, father doesn’t provide
food, so attachment is less strong.
Para 2 – Shaffer and Emerson found attachments were formed when other carers did
feeding.
Para 3 – Bowlby said attachment is innate, internal working model.
Para 4 – Bailey supports IWM, mothers with good attachments to their babies also had good
attachments to their own mothers.
Para 5 – socially sensitive, mothers forced to not return to work as they take the blame.
The learning theory explanation for attachment views that all attachments develop through
classical and/or operant conditioning. Dollard and Miller said that the learning theory could
explain attachments and introduced ‘cupboard love’, which emphasises the importance of
the caregiver as a provider of food. They proposed that children learn to love who feeds
them. This occurs through association and classical conditioning, where the baby associated
the caregiver with food. Being fed gives pleasure, therefore when the caregiver constantly
provides food over time, the baby becomes attached to the caregiver due to the conditioned
response of pleasure after seeing the caregiver. In the conversation, one of the mothers
states the reason for the baby not bonding as closely to the father is due to the fact he is not
breastfeeding the baby. This links to the idea of cupboard love because the mother is
suggesting that food is the reason for attachment. The father is not providing the baby with
food; therefore the baby isn’t forming a strong attachment with him and associating
happiness with the mother rather than the father.
One weakness of the learning theory explanation for attachment is Shaffer and Emerson’s
counter evidence. Their study showed that feeding doesn’t appear to be an important factor
in humans, as many babies developed a primary attachment to their biological mother in the
study, even though other carers did most of the feeding. This means that feeding isn’t
necessarily the key element to attachment, so there is no unconditioned stimulus or primary
drive involved. This counter evidence form human research is a weakness for the learning
theory, as it completely goes against what Dollard and Millar proposed, and suggests that
Animal studies of attachment: Lorenz and Harlow.
Explanations of attachment: learning theory and Bowlby’s monotropic theory
The concepts of a critical period and an internal working model.
Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’. Types of attachment: secure, insecure-avoidant, and
insecure-resistant.
Cultural variations in attachment, including Van Ljzendoorn.
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation.
Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation.
The influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships, including the
role of an internal working model.
Discuss animal studies of attachment, including research by Lorenz and Harlow [16 marks]
Para 1 – Lorenz geese imprinting, procedure, findings, critical period, sexual imprinting.
Para 2 – can’t generalise to humans, mammals show more emotional attachment
Para 3 – yellow washing up glove study, sexual imprinting in chickens weakens theory.
Para 4 – Harlow contact comfort, procedure, findings, later life for Rhesus monkeys.
Para 5 – practical value, social workers understand risks of neglect and abuse.
Para 6 – ethical issues, not protected from harm, suffering is human-like if the findings can
be generalised to humans from monkeys.
Lorenz studied imprinting attachment behaviours in geese. Imprinting is the idea that some
animals have an innate readiness to bond with the first moving object that they see. He
divided 12 goose eggs, half were hatched in an incubator with Lorenz and the other half
hatched naturally with the mother. He discovered that once the birds hatched, they followed
the first moving object that they saw, so the geese that hatched in the incubator imprinted
onto Lorenz. Even when he put all 12 geese together again, they continued to follow the
object which they imprinted on. There is said to be a critical period for this imprinting process
to occur, which is just a few hours after birth. If the geese miss this period, they will never
form an attachment with their mothers. Imprinting behaviours continue into everyday life, as
birds that imprinted on a human would later have sexual behaviour towards humans.
An issue with Lorenz’s animal research is that his findings regarding imprinting cannot be
generalised to all animals. Research has shown that mammalian mothers show much more
emotional attachment to their young than birds do. This weakens Lorenz’s theory on
imprinting as different animals show different attachment behaviours, and his ideas cannot
explain all attachment behaviours.
Lorenz’s study on sexual imprinting is also weakened by a study done on chickens. The
study found that, even when chickens imprinted on a yellow washing up glove, they still
mated with other chickens when they grew older. This is a weakness for Lorenz’s theory on
imprinting because it suggests that it is not permanent and has a smaller effect on later life.
Harlow researched the importance of contact comfort in relation to attachment. He studied
baby rhesus monkeys, who he separated from their mothers at birth and raised in isolation
cages. They were then given two surrogate mothers. The first mother was made of wire and
was the food provider, whereas the other was made of soft towel and provided comfort.
Harlow measured how long the monkeys spent with each mother, which mother they would
run to when scared and which mother provided them with confidence to explore the cage.
Harlow found that the monkeys preferred the mother who provided comfort. He found that
the monkeys reared with only the wire mother were dysfunctional, aggressive, and even
, ATTACHMENT 16 MARKERS
attacked their own children later in life. This demonstrates the importance of contact comfort
in attachment.
A strength of Harlow’s research is that is has great practical value. His study emphasises the
importance of comfort in attachment and helps social workers to understand the long-term
risk factors of neglect and abuse. It has also ensured that animals held in zoos are cared for
more effectively. Therefore Harlow’s research has led to better treatment of children and
animals, which is beneficial to create better attachments and reduce long-term trauma.
A weakness of Harlow’s research is that it involved several ethical issues. The monkeys
were not protected from harm and suffered greatly from Harlow’s study. The effects of the
study showed clear signs of long term trauma for monkeys, which is greatly unethical. It can
be argued that if Harlow’s research is generalisable to humans, then the suffering
experienced by the monkeys was human-like. This is a significant criticism for his research
as it cannot be replicated ethically and therefore his results may be less reliable.
Two mothers at the toddler and parent group are chatting.
“I always felt sorry for my husband when Millie was a baby. He used to say his bond
with Millie was not as strong as mine because I was breastfeeding.”
“I’m not sure”, says the other mother. “I think there’s something about a mother’s love
that makes it more special anyway – and so important for future development.”
Discuss the learning theory of attachment and Bowlby’s monotropic theory of
attachment. Refer to the conversation above in your answer. (Total 16 marks)
Para 1 – cupboard love, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, father doesn’t provide
food, so attachment is less strong.
Para 2 – Shaffer and Emerson found attachments were formed when other carers did
feeding.
Para 3 – Bowlby said attachment is innate, internal working model.
Para 4 – Bailey supports IWM, mothers with good attachments to their babies also had good
attachments to their own mothers.
Para 5 – socially sensitive, mothers forced to not return to work as they take the blame.
The learning theory explanation for attachment views that all attachments develop through
classical and/or operant conditioning. Dollard and Miller said that the learning theory could
explain attachments and introduced ‘cupboard love’, which emphasises the importance of
the caregiver as a provider of food. They proposed that children learn to love who feeds
them. This occurs through association and classical conditioning, where the baby associated
the caregiver with food. Being fed gives pleasure, therefore when the caregiver constantly
provides food over time, the baby becomes attached to the caregiver due to the conditioned
response of pleasure after seeing the caregiver. In the conversation, one of the mothers
states the reason for the baby not bonding as closely to the father is due to the fact he is not
breastfeeding the baby. This links to the idea of cupboard love because the mother is
suggesting that food is the reason for attachment. The father is not providing the baby with
food; therefore the baby isn’t forming a strong attachment with him and associating
happiness with the mother rather than the father.
One weakness of the learning theory explanation for attachment is Shaffer and Emerson’s
counter evidence. Their study showed that feeding doesn’t appear to be an important factor
in humans, as many babies developed a primary attachment to their biological mother in the
study, even though other carers did most of the feeding. This means that feeding isn’t
necessarily the key element to attachment, so there is no unconditioned stimulus or primary
drive involved. This counter evidence form human research is a weakness for the learning
theory, as it completely goes against what Dollard and Millar proposed, and suggests that
