Essay on Harlow and Ainsworth

Compare and argumentation interrogation by spate upon Harlow and Mary Ainsworth on understanding attachment chivy Harlow and Mary Ainsworth undertook studies sended at providing a clearer appreciation into the processes associated with attachment. even off though some(prenominal) Harlow and Ainsworth chose a contrasting draw near to their research, they met with some similarities. This essay will therefore try to some(prenominal) compare and contrast their researches, the regularitys they use as well as evidence gained done their various(prenominal) researches.It is I feel important to rush a brief understanding as to what attachment is, and and so help to generate a perspective in regards to what the auditions organism conducted are aiming to define. Attachment can be defined as a long terminus emotionally important relationship in which unitary individual seeks proximity to and derives security and cheer from the strawman of a nonher (discovering psychology p. 193, 2012). As such(prenominal) both Harlow and Ainsworth by means of their different approaches sought to investigate the mechanisms natural with baby bonding.Was it due to the fretfulnessr providing for their emotional and physical needfully or was it much deep-seated, in that infants were to a greater extent prepared to seek attachment to stimulus that met their needs, such as warmth, and low-keyedness as suggested by means of the researches of Bowlby (1948) (discovering psychology p. 196 ,2012) Harlow in his approach chose to base his research solely on animals, in this case the Rhesus Macaque monkey. He chose this method in part due to the concomitant that these monkeys confine approximately ninety four percent in common with military man deoxyribonucleic acid.Coupled with this was the come on factor concerning honour subject issues, as it would have undoubtedly raised unspoilt concerns had he chose to conduct his experiments on humankind infants. His observ ations were conducted but within the waitingly harsh surroundings metered through the laboratory environment, which differed in comparison to the research conducted by Ainsworth through her responses to sensitivity. Through his research, Harlow spy that the monkeys grew attached to strong pads placed in their cage, and suspected that the monkeys boned ith them and gained extend to comfort from them, as they were the only soft item in their otherwise harsh environment, (discovering psychology p. 202, 2012) Harlow thereof surmised that the softness of the sanitary pads along with the contact comfort the monkeys gained from them seemed a more important factor within the infant bonding process than the presence and publish of food. (discovering psychology p. 202, 2012)In order to further investigate his hypothesis, Harlow constructed dickens very different types of surrogate mothers, one being constructed of wire which lacked any form of tactile comfort, whilst the uphold was made of wood with a layer of loll around and cover with a soft layer of wipeling. both mothers had heating supplied by a light medulla and both had a feeding bottle inserted through the body providing the monkey with food. Through his observations and experimentation, Harlow noted the monkeys bonded with the soft bodied mother heedless of whether it contained a go forth of nourishment or not. discovering psychology p. 205, 2012). In contrast Ainsworths research focused on human infants, in part through her observations with mothers and their infants. Whilst living in Uganda, Ainsworth discovered a number of families with unweaned babies, and noticed that the more responsive the mothers were to the signals of the infant, the less the infant cried and the more confident the infant was, conversely the less responsive mothers were to signals the more the baby cried (discovering psychology p. 216, 2012).Ainsworth, though different in her approach, in her case observing children an d their carers in natural surroundings which differed from that of Harlow, in that he observed monkeys in a laboratory surrounding, they both save reached the same conclusion. Infants that feel secure, in that they have a safe base, whether this is succeedd by a terry towel covered mother or a doting parent, the tactile stimulus provided by each is of predominate importance in infant and monkey bonding. At the centre of Ainsworths research was what became known as the strange experiment, which she conducted in America, and consisted of a series of even consecutive episodes within a controlled environment. The experiment involved three people, the mother, infant and a stranger. (discovering psychology p. 217, 2012). Ethical considerations have to be taken into poster once more, for unlike Harlows monkeys who having been bred in immurement and could not choose to opt out, or and then be comforted as in Ainsworths experiments, whereby should the infant become distressed the exp eriment was stop and the infant immediately comforted.Monkeys though forming a Gordian hierarchical society are not deemed to be as difficult as humans, as such the responses to various stimuli employed by Harlow in his experiments could be deemed as being easier to interpret. In contrast to Harlows experiment, Ainsworth through her more closely controlled observations, and in thought that humans exhibit a more complex behaviour, she was able to delve deeper into the mechanisms associated with infant bonding, whereby she was able to define four different types of attachment. (Discovering psychology p. 204, 2012)Clearly the relevant studies undertaken by Harlow and Ainsworth had both their advantages and disadvantages. Harlow for example based his researches entirely on monkeys, within the harsh confines of the laboratory environment. The fact that Macaque monkeys share ninety four percent of DNA with human infants does not necessarily denote that their ensuant behaviour would be similar to that of human infants. in that location is a need to be very detailed how one interprets this genetic similarity, for a small battle in DNA can make a huge difference in a species anatomy and behaviour (discovering psychology p. 04, 2012). Ainsworth on the other pass a mode centred her research based on observations in both Uganda and America. She chose a more sensitive approach. Her observations were of infants interacting with primary care givers and strangers and gauging their reactions. Through this process she was able to delve deeper into the mechanisms of attachment, disposed(p) that not only are humans more complex as exhibited through their interactions, it also offered further opportunities for her to expand and deepen her researches.This however had its own disadvantages, for Ainsworth it seems did not factor into grudge the country of origin or cultural backgrounds of the infants being studied, along with the infants mood or indeed if the infant was us ed to the accompaniment they were being exposed to. (discovering psychology p. 219, 2012). This situation did not arise in the research conducted by Harlow, as all the monkeys had been raised in incarceration which in itself ensured a more general set of expected patterns of behaviour.Ainsworths study does not seem to reflect any innate behaviour in the infants, whereas the researches of Harlows, particularly concerning the wire and terry towel covered surrogate mothers seem to support his theory that regardless of species, that infants show an innate predisposition in forming attachments with carers who provide for their needs. This I feel was due to Harlow being able to look deeper into this facet of infant behaviour as he was not hindered by ethical considerations as was the case with Ainsworth.It is fair to say that both researchers had their utilisation criticised to some extent by the scientific community at large. Obvious questions having been raised as to the rigour of t heir findings, Harlow for his sole use of monkeys and how the research correlated to human behaviour, whereas the work of Ainsworth in her not taking into account of the differences of nationality and thus the cultural background of the infant. The primary aim of this essay was by way of making an inform comparison between the works of Harlow and Ainsworth.Were they able through their researches to show a clear insight into the mechanisms associated with infant bonding? What evidence did their different methods of approach provide? Are animals an effective means of basing a present as to the expectations of human behaviour? Researches that have insight into our innate tendencies allow us a glance into the hidden world of the psyche. Whether evidence provided has come via way of animal experiments, viewed as repugnant by many, or through closely monitored experiments with human infants. The implications can have a label effect upon other avenues of research that come to follow.Un doubtedly the work of both Harlow and Ainsworth has had a marked import upon and allowed for a deeper understanding into the mechanisms of infant bonding. The implications of their research has provided for a basis upon which to build a until now deeper and fare wider reaching insight, not only on the various stimuli associated with infant bonding, but also in regards to how the infant develops through their life and their wider range of affectionate interactions. (Word count 1440) References Brace, N. and Byford, J. Discovering Psychology (2012), Milton Keynes, The Open University.