Quote:
Originally Posted by irishxrose
Harlow's attachment study was groundbreaking. Before Harlow's studies (and other theories that were developed and proven), it was assumed that because your mother fed you, that would impact you and how you developed, and how you attached to caregivers - and in many cases parental affection was considered not important. It was essentially assumed that food = security and comfort. It's also important to remember that the prevailing view for a very long time was that affection towards children could actually negatively affect a child (psychologically, and it was believed parental affection even led to disease!) - instead of positively, as newer research as shown. But anyway, that's why Harlow's experiments were so important. The way it was explained to you is interesting, in my psychology classes it was never referred to that way - it was only about attachment in general, and how attachment could affect monkeys (much like children), nothing to do with gender. It was essentially what was more important, food or security and what was the impact on development? The contact comfort variable overwhelmed every other variables and surprised the crap out of everyone - the monkeys found security in the cloth mothers, and spent the vast majority of the day with the cloth mother - while spending less than an hour with the wire mother who had food. I've never heard of the gender aspect, but Harlow's results can certainly be interpreted that way!
For those who are interested -
Here are a few videos on Harlow:
YouTube - Food or Security? Harlow's study on monkeys' attachment
YouTube - Harlow's Rhesus Monkey Experiments and the meaning of Love
About Harlow:
Psychology History
Harry Harlow and the Nature of Love - Classic Studies in Psychology
About attachment theory in general
YouTube - Attachment Theory
Ahem.  |
Hooray! I am so glad that someone besides me has actually heard of this study and doesn't think I'm crazy.
Andrika, the place that I read about this was actually in a book on the history of midwifing in America. I think that the author is an ultra-feminist sociologist, so that's probably why she interpreted the results the way she did.
To the more general question of why doctors sometimes don't let dads hold the baby post C-section: I think that doctors generally are just people who like to have things arranged in neat, organized boxes. (I hope I don't offend anyone by saying this). It's not that having all of the babies in the nursery is necessarily better for the baby or the family, it's just easier for them (the doctors) to keep track of things that way. They're quintessential bureaucrats -- they have a procedure, and they want that procedure to be followed regardless of individual circumstance.
But yes, it's dumb. If I had to have a C-section for any reason, I trust that my husband would insist on getting as much bonding time as possible with the baby in the aftermath.