Harlows work has been criticized.

His experiments have been seen as unnecessarily cruel

(unethical) and of limited value in attempting to understand the effects of deprivation on
human infants.
It was clear that the monkeys in this study suffered from emotional harm from being reared
in isolation. This was evident when the monkeys were placed with normal monkey (reared
with a mother), they sat huddled in a corner in a state of persistent fear and depression.
In addition Harlow created a state of anxiety in female monkeys which had implications once
they became parents. Such monkeys became so neurotic that they smashed their infant's
face into the floor and rubbed in back and forth.
Harlow's experiment is sometimes justified as providing a valuable insight into the
development of attachment and social behavior. At the time of the research there was a
dominant belief that attachment was related to physical (i.e. food) rather than emotional care
Bowlby was very much influenced by ethological theory in general, but especially
by Lorenzs (1935) study of imprinting. Lorenz showed that attachment was innate (in
young ducklings) and therefore has a survival value.
Bowlby believed that attachment behaviors are instinctive and will be activated by any
conditions that seem to threaten the achievement of proximity, such as separation,
insecurity and fea
Bowlby (1969, 1988) also postulated that the fear of strangers represents an important
survival mechanism, built in by nature. Babies are born with the tendency to display certain
innate behaviors (called social releasers) which help ensure proximity and contact with the
mother or attachment figure (e.g. crying, smiling, crawling, etc.) these are species-specific
behaviors. Bowlby hypothesized that both infants and mothers have evolved a biological
need to stay in contact with each other. The infant produces innate social releaser
behaviors such as crying and smiling that stimulate caregiving from adults. The determinant
of attachment is not food but care and responsiveness. Bowlby suggested that a child would
initially form only one attachment and that the attachment figure acted as a secure base for
exploring the world. delinquency,
reduced intelligence,
increased aggression,

 depression,
affectionless psychopathy
Affectionless psychopathy is an inability show affection or concern for others. Such
individuals act on impulse with little regard for the consequences of their actions. For
example, showing no guilt for antisocial behavior.
It has provided researchers with evidence to support that fact that parents are not just there in a biological
capacity but also psychologically. The parents have an important role in the development of the child but it
is not that straight forward. It refers to a crucial time in the infants early life where relationships are
formed with their primary caregivers. The infant will seek closeness and safety from these caregivers and
when forced to be separated from them will usually display anxiety and distress. The way in which these
early relationships are formed has been shown to have consequences for later development in the
infant A famous study with young monkeys by Harlow (1958) showed that infant monkeys, who had been
separated from their mothers, clung to fluffy covered objects rather than the wire-coated food dispenser
indicating the infants need for nurture (Harlow 1958). Bowlby believed that an individuals attachment
style was developed during childhood and was influenced by the childs relationships with their primary
care givers. He also held the belief that the attachment style would be durable into adulthood and would
influence the way that individual related to others throughout their lifespan (Bowlby, 1969). Mary
Ainsworth was another influential attachment theorist who is known for her strange situation
experiments, which she developed during her studies in Africa. She noted that when children were
separated from their mothers, their reactions were plentiful but when the children were reunited again with
their mothers, the behaviour they displayed were more apparent and could be put into different
categories. Ainsworth would observe the attachment styles of children by placing the child in a new
environment and record their reactions to their primary care givers exiting the room and then returning
(Ainsworth, 1969). The child learns that if their primary care givers are responsive, they can count on
them and others when needed. On the contrary, if the childs care givers are cold, inconsistent or
unresponsive, the child will learn they can not count on them or others for comfort. This working model is
thought to persist through an individual's life time acting as a guide for future relationships and this is the
central belief underpinning Bolwbys attachment theoryBolwby claimed that for the infant to develop a
healthy internal working model there was a need for a long term stable relationship with the main carers.
He did not say that the attachment to the mother was the most important one but that attachment to the
father or a variety of people helped the development of the internal working model (Oates et al, 2005).
This has often been misinterpreted and one of the criticisms of attachment theory is that using the strange
situation to classify attachment types is only showing how the child is behaving when separated from its
mother. Children have different attachments to different persons in their life. They also form strong
relationships with their peers, which also has an affect on shaping their social relationships. Infant
attachment classification v Adult attachment classification
Type A Insecure-avoidant -------- Dismissive
Type B Secure -------- Autonomous
Type C Insecure resistant -------- Preoccupied/enmeshed
Type D Disorganised -------- Unresolved/fearfulA classic study by Sears et al (1957) which reported a
close association between parental style and aggressive behaviour in children, interpreted this as it was
the social environment that caused the aggressiveness. This research was challenged by Bell (1968)
who offered a very different explanation. Bell concluded that it was the childs aggressive behaviour that
caused the parents to adapt a more strict parental style purely to try and change their childs behaviour.
Basically, those parents that had children with difficult behaviour had to adapt a more strict parental style
whilst parents whose children complied had no need to. Research carried out since by Rutter et al (1997)

supports Bells conclusions and agrees that the role of the child does influence the parents behaviour
(Oates et al, 2005).
In conclusion, the attachment theory has been found to be an influential theory used in explaining
interpersonal relationships throughout an individual's life and the theory has been used to account for
differences in the development of childrens social relationships by comparing attachment types classified
using experiments like the Strange Situation in early childhood with that persons attachment classification
in adolescence, based on standardized Adult Attachment Interviews (AAI) later on in life. However, it is
fair to say that there are many factors to take into account when trying to explain social development in
children. It might be the belief of most everyday people that they have been shaped by their parents and
when things in life go wrong, they get the blame. What people need to realise is that many personality
traits comes from the genes and not necessarily from their parents nurturing which has been backed up in
twin studies carried out by Harris (1998). The complexity of the cause and effect in the parent-child
relationship and the way that these take place in different economic, social and cultural areas means that
it might be nave to try and use one simple explanation for the differences in the development of childrens
social relationships. There is evidence to support the notion that internal working models formed in early
infancy stays with us into adolescence and adulthood. However, life experiences and changes in our
environment have also been proven to be influential in our development.

lack of contact comfort is psychologically stressful to the monkeys and the digestive problems are a
physiological manifestation of that stress
The importance of these findings is that they contradicted both the traditional pedagogic advice of
limiting or avoiding bodily contact in an attempt to avoid spoiling children and the insistence of the
predominant behaviorist school of psychology that emotions were negligible. Feeding was thought to
be the most important factor in the formation of a mother-child bond. Harlow concluded, however,
that nursing strengthened the mother-child bond because of the intimate body contact that it
provided. He described his experiments as a study of love. He also believed that contact comfort
could be provided by either mother or father. Though widely accepted now, this idea was
revolutionary at the time in provoking thoughts and values concerning the studies of love

This study is the most controversial and involved isolation of infant and juvenile macaques for
various periods of time. Monkeys placed in isolation exhibited social deficits when introduced or reintroduced into a peer group. They appeared unsure of how to interact with their conspecifics and
mostly stayed separate from the group, demonstrating the importance of social interaction and
stimuli in forming the ability to interact with conspecifics in developing monkeys, and, comparatively,
in children.
Critics of Harlow's research have observed that clinging is a matter of survival in young rhesus
monkeys, but not in humans, and have suggested that his conclusions, when applied to humans,
overestimate the importance of contact comfort and underestimate the importance of nursing. [

Many of his experiments would be considered unethical today, in their nature as well as Harlow's
descriptions of them, heightened awareness of the treatment of laboratory animals contributing to

today's ethics regulations. The monkeys in the experiment were deprived of maternal affection,
potentially leading to what humans refer to as "panic disorders".[30] University of
Washington professor Gene Sackett, one of Harlow's doctoral students, stated that Harlow's
experiments provided the impetus for the animal liberation movement in the U.S.[2]
William Mason, another one of Harlow's students, continued conducting deprivation experiments
after leaving Wisconsin,[31] has said that Harlow "kept this going to the point where it was clear to
many people that the work was really violating ordinary sensibilities, that anybody with respect for
life or people would find this offensive. It's as if he sat down and said, 'I'm only going to be around
another ten years. What I'd like to do, then, is leave a great big mess behind.' If that was his aim, he
did a perfect job."[32]
Stephen Suomi, a former Harlow student who now conducts maternal deprivation experiments on
monkeys at the National Institutes of Health has been criticized by PETA and members of the U.S.
Congress.[33][34]
When challenged about the value of his work, Harlow stated:
The only thing I care about is whether a monkey will turn out a property I can publish. I don't have
any love for them. Never have. I don't really like animals. I despise cats. I hate dogs. How could you
like monkeys?[35]

Bowlby proposed that I 2-month-olds unmistakable attach- ment behavior is made

up of a number of component instinctual responses that have the function of
binding the infant to the mother and the mother to the infant. These component
responses (among them sucking, clinging, and following, as well as the signaling
behaviors of smiling and crying) mature relatively independently during the first
year of life and become increasingly integrated and focused on a mother figure
during the second 6 months. Bowlby saw clinging and following as possibly more
important for attachment than sucking and crying.
Bowlby also took great pains to draw a clear distinction between the old social
learning theory concept of dependency and the new concept of attachment, noting
that attachment is not indicative of regression, hut rather performs a natural,
healthy function even in adult life.
Attachment theory is a psychological, evolutionary, and ethological theory
concerning relationships between humans. The most important tenet of attachment
theory is that a young child needs to develop a relationship with at least one
primary caregiver for social and emotional development to occur normally. The
theory was formulated by psychiatrist and psychoanalyst John Bowlby. [1]

Within attachment theory, infant behaviour associated with attachment is primarily

the seeking of proximity to an attachment figure in stressful situations; the
caregiver.

Within attachment theory, infant behaviour associated with attachment is primarily

the seeking of proximity to an attachment figure in stressful situations; the
caregiver. Infants become attached to adults who are sensitive and responsive in
social interactions with them, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some
months during the period from about six months to two years of age. During the
latter part of this period, children begin to use attachment figures (familiar people)
as a secure base to explore from and return to. Parental responses lead to the
development of patterns of attachment; these, in turn, lead to internal working
models which will guide the individual's feelings, thoughts and expectations in later
relationships.[2] Separation anxiety or grief following the loss of an attachment
figure is considered to be a normal and adaptive response for an attached infant.
These behaviours may have evolved because they increase the probability of
survival of the child.[3] Research by developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth in
the 1960s and 70s underpinned the basic concepts, introduced the concept of the
"secure base" and developed a theory of a number of attachment patterns in
infants: secure attachment, avoidant attachment and anxious attachment.[4] A
fourth pattern, disorganized attachment, was identified later. In the 1980s, the
theory was extended to attachment in adults. [5] Other interactions may be
construed as including components of attachment behaviour; these include peer
relationships at all ages, romantic and sexual attraction and responses to the care
needs of infants or the sick and elderly. To formulate a comprehensive theory of the
nature of early attachments, Bowlby explored a range of fields, including
evolutionary biology, object relations theory (a branch of psychoanalysis), control
systems theory, and the fields of ethology and cognitive psychology. [6] After
preliminary papers from 1958 onwards, Bowlby published the full theory in the
trilogy Attachment and Loss (196982). In the early days of the theory, academic
psychologists criticized Bowlby, and the psychoanalytic community ostracised him
for his departure from psychoanalytical tenets;[7] however, attachment theory has
since become "the dominant approach to understanding early social development,
and has given rise to a great surge of empirical research into the formation of
children's close relationships".[8] Later criticisms of attachment theory relate to
temperament, the complexity of social relationships, and the limitations of discrete
patterns for classifications. Attachment theory has been significantly modified as a
result of empirical research, but the concepts have become generally accepted.[7]
Attachment theory has formed the basis of new therapies and informed existing
ones, and its concepts have been used in the formulation of social and childcare
policies to support the early attachment relationships of children.[
Age, cognitive growth and continued social experience advance the development
and complexity of the internal working model. Attachment-related behaviours lose
some characteristics typical of the infant-toddler period and take on age-related
tendencies.

The quality of the social engagement is more influential than the amount of time
spent. The biological mother is the usual principal attachment figure, but the role
can be taken by anyone who consistently behaves in a "mothering" way over a
period of time. In attachment theory, this means a set of behaviours that involves
engaging in lively social interaction with the infant and responding readily to signals
and approaches.[12] Nothing in the theory suggests that fathers are not equally
likely to become principal attachment figures if they provide most of the child care
and related social interaction.[13] Some infants direct attachment behaviour
(proximity seeking) towards more than one attachment figure almost as soon as
they start to show discrimination between caregivers; most come to do so during
their second year. These figures are arranged hierarchically, with the principal
attachment figure at the top.[14] The set-goal of the attachment behavioural
system is to maintain a bond with an accessible and available attachment figure.
[15] "Alarm" is the term used for activation of the attachment behavioural system
caused by fear of danger. "Anxiety" is the anticipation or fear of being cut off from
the attachment figure. If the figure is unavailable or unresponsive, separation
distress occurs. [16] In infants, physical separation can cause anxiety and anger,
followed by sadness and despair. By age three or four, physical separation is no
longer such a threat to the child's bond with the attachment figure. Threats to
security in older children and adults arise from prolonged absence, breakdowns in
communication, emotional unavailability or signs of rejection or abandonment.[15]
The infant's behaviour towards the caregiver becomes organised on a goal-directed
basis to achieve the conditions that make it feel secure. [18] By the end of the first
year, the infant is able to display a range of attachment behaviours designed to
maintain proximity. These manifest as protesting the caregiver's departure, greeting
the caregiver's return, clinging when frightened and following when able.[19] With
the development of locomotion, the infant begins to use the caregiver or caregivers
as a safe base from which to explore.[18] Infant exploration is greater when the
caregiver is present because the infant's attachment system is relaxed and it is free
to explore. If the caregiver is inaccessible or unresponsive, attachment behaviour is
more strongly exhibited.[20] Anxiety, fear, illness and fatigue will cause a child to
increase attachment behaviours.[21] After the second year, as the child begins to
see the carer as an independent person, a more complex and goal-corrected
partnership is formed.[22] Children begin to notice others' goals and feelings and
plan their actions accordingly. For example, whereas babies cry because of pain,
two-year-olds cry to summon their caregiver, and if that does not work, cry louder,
shout or follow
As the formulation of attachment theory progressed, there was criticism of the
empirical support for the theory. Possible alternative explanations for results of
empirical research were proposed.[108] Some of Bowlby's interpretations of James
Robertson's data were rejected by the researcher when he reported data from 13
young children cared for in ideal rather than institutional circumstances on
separation from their mothers.[109] In the second volume of the trilogy, Separation,
Bowlby acknowledged Robertson's study had caused him to modify his views on the
traumatic consequences of separation in which insufficient weight had been given

to the influence of skilled care from a familiar substitute.[110] In 1984 Skuse based
criticism on the work of Anna Freud with children from Theresienstadt who had
apparently developed relatively normally despite serious deprivation in their early
years. He concluded there was an excellent prognosis for children with this
background, unless there were biological or genetic risk factors.[111] Bowlby's
arguments that even very young babies were social creatures and primary actors in
creating relationships with parents took some time to be accepted. So did
Ainsworth's emphasis on the importance and primacy of maternal attunement for
psychological development (a point also argued by Donald Winnicott). In the 1970s
Daniel Stern undertook research on the concept of attunement between very young
infants and caregivers, using micro-analysis of video evidence. This added
significantly to the understanding of the complexity of infant/caregiver interactions
as an integral part of a baby's emotional and social development.[112] In the
1970s, problems with viewing attachment as a trait (stable characteristic of an
individual) rather than as a type of behaviour with organising functions and
outcomes, led some authors to the conclusion that attachment behaviours were
best understood in terms of their functions in the child's life.[113] This way of
thinking saw the secure base concept as central to attachment theory's, logic,
coherence and status as an organizational construct.[114] Following this argument,
the assumption that attachment is expressed identically in all humans crossculturally was examined.[115] The research showed that though there were cultural
differences, the three basic patterns, secure, avoidant and ambivalent, can be found
in every culture in which studies have been undertaken, even where communal
sleeping arrangements are the norm.

The biggest challenge to the notion of the universality of attachment theory came
from studies conducted in Japan where the concept of amae plays a prominent role
in describing family relationships. Arguments revolved around the appropriateness
of the use of the Strange Situation procedure where amae is practiced. Ultimately
research tended to confirm the universality hypothesis of attachment theory.[116]
Most recently a 2007 study conducted in Sapporo in Japan found attachment
distributions consistent with global norms using the six-year Main and Cassidy
scoring system for attachment classification.[117] [118] Critics in the 1990s such as
J. R. Harris, Steven Pinker and Jerome Kagan were generally concerned with the
concept of infant determinism (nature versus nurture), stressing the effects of later
experience on personality.[119] [120] [121] Building on the work on temperament
of Stella Chess, Kagan rejected almost every assumption on which attachment
theory etiology was based. He argued that heredity was far more important than
the transient effects of early environment. For example a child with an inherently
difficult temperament would not elicit sensitive behavioural responses from a
caregiver. The debate spawned considerable research and analysis of data from the
growing number of longitudinal studies.[122] Subsequent research has not borne
out Kagan's argument, broadly demonstrating that it is the caregiver's behaviours
that form the child's attachment style, although how this style is expressed may
differ with temperament.[123] Harris and Pinker put forward the notion that the

influence of parents had been much exaggerated, arguing that socialisation took
place primarily in peer groups. H. Rudolph Schaffer concluded that parents and
peers had different functions, fulfilling distinctive roles in children's development.[1
Whereas Bowlby was inspired by Piaget's insights into children's thinking, current
attachment scholars utilise insights from contemporary literature on implicit
knowledge, theory of mind, autobiographical memory and social representation.
[125] Psychoanalyst/psychologists Peter Fonagy and Mary Target have attempted to
bring attachment theory and psychoanalysis into a closer relationship through
cognitive science as mentalization. [99] Mentalization, or theory of mind, is the
capacity of human beings to guess with some accuracy what thoughts, emotions
and intentions lie behind behaviours as subtle as facial expression.[126] This
connection between theory of mind and the internal working model may open new
areas of study, leading to alterations in attachment theory.[127] Since the late
1980s, there has been a developing rapprochement between attachment theory
and psychoanalysis, based on common ground as elaborated by attachment
theorists and researchers, and a change in what psychoanalysts consider to be
central to psychoanalysis. Object relations models which emphasise the
autonomous need for a relationship have become dominant and are linked to a
growing recognition within psychoanalysis of the importance of infant development
in the context of relationships and internalised representations. Psychoanalysis has
recognised the formative nature of a childs early environment including the issue of
childhood trauma. A psychoanalytically based exploration of the attachment system
and an accompanying clinical approach has emerged together with a recognition of
the need for measurement of outcomes of interventions.

Harlow, H.F. (1958) The nature of love, American Psychologist, vol. 13, pp. 573-685.
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969) Object relations, dependency and attachment: a theoretical review of the
infant-mother relationship, Child Development, vol. 40, pp.969-1025.
Oates, J., Lewis, C. and Lamb, M. E. (2005), Parenting and attachment, in Ding, S. and Littleton, K.
(eds.), Childrens Personal and Social Development, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing/The Open University.

Bowlby, J. (1953). Child care and the growth of love. London: Penguin Books.