Evaluate the Usefulness of Harlow’s Work for Understanding Human Attachmen

...

However, problems arise when considering the criticisms of the Bowlby study. Michael Rutter (1972) argued many points in opposition to Bowlby, such as 'mothering is a rather general term which includes a wide range of activities,' implying that an infant can form a healthy attachment to anyone who performs these acts, not simply a biological mother (Wortis, 1973). He further suggested Bowbly oversimplified the concept of maternal deprivation. Bowbly referred to the term to infer 'separation from an attached figure, loss of an attached figure and failure to develop an attachment to any figure.' Rutter disagreed with this, stating each of these create different effects.

With Bowlby's research looking less reliable, Harlow's becomes less useful by proxy. However, similar to Harlow's research, Bowbly's extensive legacy is undeniable (Holmes, 1993). For example, children in hospitals used to suffer from limited access from their parents, but with Bowlby's work on the impact of separation, parents are now granted open access, proving the usefulness of Bowbly's research, and by effect, Harlow's.

In conclusion, it's difficult to rely on Harlow's research due to its many flaws, just as a distinct lack of external validity by using rhesus monkeys instead of human children. However, we cannot discredit the usefulness of Harlow's work on human attachment, as it has not only influenced a great amount of important research on the field, its application in the world has greatly benefitted many children's social development. Without it, many would be suffering much more than they do due societies misunderstanding of human attachment. It's possible we'd still assume food to be the source of attachment, and not fully understand its importance, meaning organisations such as orphanages, adoption agencies, social services groups and child care providers would provide a much worse environment for children to be exposed to. Moreover, the further research triggered by Harlow will likely continue more and more, having greater effect on improving our understanding, and application, of human attachment.

References

Agrillo, C., Beran, M. J, & Parrish, A. E. (2017) Do primates see the solitare illusion differenty? A comparative assessment of humans (Home sapiens), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), and capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Journal of comparative psychology, 128, 402-413.

American Psychological Foundation Gold Medal Award. (1974). American Psychologist, 29, 48-50.

Blum, D. (2002). Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the science of affection. Cambridge, MA, US: Perseus Publishing.

Bowlby, J (1944). Fourty-four juvenile thieves: Their character and home-life. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25, 19-52, 107-127.

Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. World Health Organization Monograph.

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, 1–23.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Atttachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bremner, A., Holt, N., Passer, M. W., Smith, R. E., & Vliek, M. (2015). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour (544). MrGraw Hill.

Comer, R., Furnham, A., & Gould, E. (2013) Social and emotional development, Psychology (76). UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Gross, R. D. (1987) Attachment and Seperation. Psychology: The science of the mind (448). Kent: Hodder and Stoughton.

Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. The American Psychologist, 13, 673-685.

Harlow, H. F. (1959). The development of learning in the rhesus monkey. American Scientist, 47, 459-479.

Harlow, H. F. (2008). The monkey as a psychological subject. Integrative psychological & behavioural science, 42, 336-347.

Harlow, H. F., & Suomi, S. J. (1970). Nature of love: Simplified. American Psychologist, 25, 161-168.

Holmes, J. (1993). John Bowlby and attachment theory. London: Routledge.

Lorenz, K. (1937). The companion in the bird's world. Auk. 54, 245-273.

Maestripieri, D. (2004). Science, power, and human nature at Goon Park. Psyccritiques, 49.

Rutter, M. (1972). Maternal Deprivation Reassessed. Middlsex, England: Penguin Books.

Tarvis, C. (2016). Thinking critically about psychology's classic studies. Skeptic, 19, 38-43.

Wortis, R. P. (1973). Review of Maternal deprivation reassessed. American Journal Of Orthopsychiatry, 43, 487-489.