|
I was actually reading about a study that somewhat relates to this. It was done in the 1950's by a guy named Harry F. Harlow. I'll see if I can find the link about it because I'm not sure I can explain it the right way.
Basically, he did this study with infant monkeys that were kept in cages with two dolls. One of the dolls was covered with a terry cloth (i.e. a soft doll), and the other was made of just plain wire. The monkeys all received their milk from a nipple placed at breast height in one of the dolls. Half of the monkeys got their milk from the wire doll, and the other half got it from the terry cloth doll. The point of the experiment was to see whether the monkeys that got their milk from the wire doll would show an inclination to 'cuddle' with that doll/use it as a security object, even though it wasn't very soft/comforting. (Researchers had previously noticed that infant monkeys spend a lot of time cuddling with blankets and other soft objects that are left in their cages and tend to use them as security objects, almost like infant humans do).
The results showed that all of the monkeys spent the same amount of time (and a significant amount of time) cuddling with the terry cloth doll, regardless of where their milk came from.
The way that this study was explained to me is that the doll that the milk comes from represents the monkey's mother, and the doll with no milk represents the monkey's father. In other words, the monkeys were just as happy to cuddle/bond with the 'father' (the non-milk producing parents) as long as he was sufficiently 'cuddly' -- milk wasn't a pre-condition to bonding. The results were supposed to help discount gender stereotypes and show that it was just as important/possible for fathers to bond strongly with their infants in the first few days of life as it was for mothers.
Hope I explained that the right way. Off to find a link that might explain it better....
|