Animal studies have provided profound, if controversial, insights into the nature of attachment. Students examine Lorenz's work on imprinting in geese and Harlow's famous experiments with rhesus monkeys. These studies challenged the prevailing 'cupboard love' theory, the idea that infants only attach to those who feed them, and highlighted the critical importance of contact comfort and early social experience.
National Curriculum Attainment TargetsAQA 4.1.3.3 Animal studies of attachmentAQA 4.1.3.4 Learning theory and Bowlby's monotropic theory
Divide the class into 'Pro-Research' and 'Animal Rights' teams. They must debate whether the suffering of Harlow's monkeys was justified by the knowledge gained about the importance of emotional care for human infants.
What does imprinting tell us about the critical period for attachment?
Use a simple 'follow the leader' activity to demonstrate the concept of a critical period. Discuss how Lorenz's geese followed the first moving object they saw and why this was an evolutionary advantage for survival.
How did Harlow's monkeys demonstrate the importance of contact comfort?
Students list the similarities and differences between rhesus monkeys and human infants. They then discuss in pairs why we must be cautious when applying Harlow's findings to human attachment policy.
To what extent can animal studies inform our understanding of human behaviour?
Harlow's monkeys preferred the wire mother because she had food.
This is the exact opposite of the findings. Harlow showed that monkeys spent significantly more time with the cloth mother, even if the wire mother provided food. Re-examining the 'time spent' graphs helps students see that contact comfort is the primary driver.
Imprinting is the same as human attachment.
Clarify that imprinting is an instantaneous, survival-based bond in birds, whereas human attachment is a much slower, more complex emotional process. Comparing the timelines of geese versus humans helps students see the difference in complexity.