PSY106 Exam Alternative 2003457

PSY106: Briefly outline and describe the influence of John Bowlby & Mary Ainsworth’s

Attachment Theory and their research studies for the understanding of human development

and wellbeing.

Exam alternative.

Student Number: 2003459

Word Count:583

University of Chichester
PSY106 Exam Alternative 2003457

When examining the role of human development upon people’s wellbeing, one key area that

can have lasting effects is a child’s developments and the attachment that they form

throughout childhood. Attachment is best described as an emotional bond between two

people which is mutually beneficial, with both parties seeking closeness and a more secure

feeling when in the presence of the other. When discussing the attachments of young babies

and their caregiver, the baby will instigate attachment using social releases, with the

caregiver reacting to the actions of the baby. This essay will explore the role of the primary

theorists Dr John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth, and the affect there work has had on the

study of Attachment Theory throughout the 1900’s and beyond.

Dr John Bowlby was one of the earliest attachment theorists beginning with one of his

first theories being that attachment was a “lasting psychological connectedness between

human beings” (Bowlby, 1969). He believed that children were born with a biological

mechanism that caused their primary caregiver to not leave their side. That both caregivers

and children’s attachment is innate being caused by social releases, smiling, crying or eye

contact. Another theory professed by Bowlby (1988) is the theory of monotropy, this was the

idea of a single attachment figure that all future attachment would be modelled upon, and if

this “internal working model” is not formed by 2.5 years old, it could have lasting effects

later in life (Thompson, Simpson & Berlin, 2021). These theories are still affecting how

parents plan on raising children, and how people are researching life and people to this very

day.

It was a few years before Dr Bowlby published “Attachment. Attachment and loss.

Vol. I.” that while at Tavistock Clinic he met, mentored and eventually began working with

Mary Ainsworth, another developmental psychologist who became equally as influential in

her own right. She is best known for her experiment known as the “Strange situation” where

a child would be separated from their caregiver and then observed, this observation would be
PSY106 Exam Alternative 2003457

used to ascertain the child’s style of attachment; Secure (type B), Insecure avoidant (type A)

and ambivalent (type C) (Ainsworth & Bell, 1970)

Throughout this partnership both Ainsworth and Dr Bowlby worked together shaping

research into attachment theory, Dr Bowlby formulated the basic theories and ideas, were as

Ainsworth brough a novel and innovative approach to testing his ideas thus helping to expand

the theories. This partnership also led to Ainsworth receiving an early copy of “The Nature of

the Child’s Tie to His Mother” (Bowlby, 1958), this renewed their partnership and

collaboration following her departure from the Tavistock clinic. After reading this early text

she professed that it influenced her analysis of the data she collected while working

continuing her studies within Uganda (Ainsworth, 1967). Due to this sharing of information

and findings Ainsworth’s contributions to Bowlby’s continued work cannot be

overemphasized.

In conclusion, the combined works of Ainsworth and Dr Bowlby shaped the way that

attachment was thought of. For the case of Dr Bowlby, his work was instrumental in

changing the way people thought about a child’s relationship with the primary caregiver and

the effect that disruption to this monotropy can have through bereavement, separation, and

deprivation. Ainsworth for her part influenced the notion of the primary caregiver as a secure

base from which a child can explore the world. In addition, she formulated the notion of

nurturing sensitivity to social releases and their role in the growth of infant-mother

attachment.
PSY106 Exam Alternative 2003457

PSY106: Briefly outline the historical context and motivation for Stanley Milgram’s

Obedience to Authority studies, and describe the effects of key variables in the design of his

studies on rates of obedience.

Exam alternative.

Student Number: 2003459

Word Count:677

University of Chichester
PSY106 Exam Alternative 2003457

Obedience is best described as a social influence whereby a perceived authority figure orders

someone to perform an action. In the 1950’s an American psychologist, Stanley Milgram

became interested with Solomon Asch’s work on conformity, during which he had verified

that people could be influenced to conform to group pressure. In later studies conducted by

Milgram, he was trying to ascertain just what people would be willing to do.

After second world war, the world was questioning how and why the events took

place. During the Nuremberg war trials many of the accused based their defence upon the

idea of “obedience” stating that they were in fact just following orders given by their

commanders (Green, 1976). This is another area that interested Milgram and helped steer his

research towards obedience.

With his research into obedience starting in 1961, Milgram set out to answer the

question “are Germans different?” (Milgram, 1963). He soon discovered to the horror of

many that, not only the Germans, but most people are surprisingly obedient when they are

asked to do something that you would not believe them capable of (Milgram, 1973). For his

first study into obedience Milgram placed an article into the local paper, proposing to pay

male participants to join his study into “punishment and learning” as with all his studies there

was a certain level of deception, but this along with the “random” style of recruitment gave

his study a good ecological validity.

During this study participants were instructed to administer shocks to a learner based

in another room, although there was never a learner only a confederate of Milgram’s. The

participant would be instructed to deliver increasingly severe shocks to the confederate upon

them making a mistake. The confederate would act, pretending to become increasingly irate,

in pain and experiencing discomfort as the level of shock increased. It was believed prior to

the experiment that participants would only deliver slight shocks, and that just 1% of people
PSY106 Exam Alternative 2003457

would go on to deliver the highest level of shock. The outcome of this study went on to

surprise all those involved in its planning, it was found that almost all of the participants

choose to obey the instructions given to them and go above what was presented to them as a

safe limit, and 65% chose to follow the instructions and deliver the perceived maximum

shock, presented as potentially fatal to the learner (Milgram, 1963).

Over the following years after the first experiment Milgram repeated this experiment

23 more times, changing variables, mainly the person issuing the commands, at first this

person was wearing a lab coat, and holding a clipboard. The experiment was repeated with

changes in gender which was expected to affect the outcome although in practice the effects

were negligible. However, as the studies were continued this person was made to look far

more like an “every man” with no perceived authority other than the commands he gave. As

the person conducting the study became visually less authoritarian the level of obedience

dropped accordingly (Milgram, 1973).

More recently with thanks to the Yale University Archives, Stanley Milgram’s papers

have been published and researchers have been able to comb back through the research he

conducted which has drawn questions and criticism from those examining his files and

recordings. Many have questioned the reliability of his experimental scenario, for example

during one experiment, 46 participants delivered the maximum shock, when questioned

following completion of the experiment, 33 stated that they did not believe the learner was in

any pain (Hollander & Turowetz, 2017). This was not reported at the time and brings

question into whether the results of that particular experiment can be considered to be valid.

In conclusion the work of Milgram is insightful and does prove some of the things it

sets out to, such as the idea that uniform will make a difference to levels of obedience.
PSY106 Exam Alternative 2003457

Although to what degree people are going to conduct an action they are truly not willing to

partake in, may not be able to be answered by this study.

PSY106 Exam Alternative 2003457

Reference:
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of love.

Ainsworth, M. D. & Bell, S. M. (1970), Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated

by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41:49-67

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother1, International Journal of Psycho-

Analysi, 39, 350-373.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss. Vol. I. London: Hogarth. ISBN 978-0-

465-00543-7.

Green, L. C. (1976). Superior orders in national and international law. BRILL.

Hollander, M. M., & Turowetz, J. (2017). Normalizing trust: Participants’ immediately post‐

hoc explanations of behaviour in Milgram's ‘obedience’experiments. British Journal

of Social Psychology, 56(4), 655-674.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of abnormal and social

psychology, 67(4), 371.

Milgram, S. (1973). The perils of obedience. Harper’s Magazine, 247(1483), 62-77.

Thompson, R., Simpson, J., & Berlin, L. (2021). Attachment: The Fundamental

Questions (1st ed., p. 120). Gilford: Guilford Press.