Harry Harlow's loving monkeys

How interesting! Good post.
I think that the research into physical contact and comfort is really interesting because it is a huge part of human relations too. I know that when infants aren't held a lot as babies, as the individual develops they long for the comfort that we innately love. I think that those who had plenty of holding as babies also desire the loving comfort of others around them. As you said the dogs who experienced a lack of physical attention became socially inept and aggressive, this could be very telling about the role of appropriate attention and comfort in human development. Of course, it would be unethical to deny comfort to infants on the grounds of research but sadly there are plenty of case studies that would probably be telling in results of aggression and relational problems.

Really good post! It is very intriguing and it got me thinking a lot. There has always been talk about babies that weren't held often that turn out longing for that comfort even in some other forms, but I never really put much thought into why that is true and how it relates to other animals. Your two examples were great and really showed the meaning of what you were talking about. It was helpful and interesting. I also liked that you brought up the point that other factors could be contributing to reactions the monkeys had. That is a good thought and would be really interesting to know what the answer is.

Excellent post. This research is very interesting, and goes along with a theme I have noticed throughout psychology: a lot of times what we think is our own personal reaction to something is actually just our instincts taking over. For example, while we think we love our parents unconditionally by our own free will, it is quite likely that it is simply our subconscious responding to the stimulus of nourishment and affection. Another example of this is evidenced with sexual attraction. The textbook cites that when an attractive female gives our her number, a male is twice as likely to call back when the digits are received on a rickety bridge as opposed to a stable one. This is because of the false association of the arousal with the woman, and not the bridge.

Very interesting post. It seems natural that the young cling for nourishment. But I am surprised to see that they also do so for comfort. Something that I wouldn't really expect to see in the wild (you wouldn't think of two animals "loving" each other), where it's all about survival and you need to be close to whomever provides the food. Comfort seemed to be instead just a bi-product of attachment due to nourishment, but comfort actually is what infants draw to along with food.

This serves as a testament to the fact that touch is an extremely strong and influential sense. It's weird to think about the history of things like hugging and how norms base on touch have remained throughout history, and as you have written, can even be applicable to animals like monkeys and dogs. Just goes to show that we aren't too different from animals after all, in some respects. Good work!!

Yes! It's nice to be reminded of just how important contact and touch are. I took a few alternative therapy classes awhile back and things like massage and elderly care involving even simple hand-holding or also the ever popular animal therapy where people bring pets in to visit the elderly, sick, or dying. We also learned how much preemie babies respond to touch and will actually grow stronger faster than those who are just on tubes etc. with no touch. It's amazing what such simple things can really do! (of course if the touch is wanted and not all gross and creepy) ;)

Contact comfort also interests me deeply. It is so odd to me how the monkeys could love an inanimate object because it was soft. The monkeys associated feelings of comfort with something that was simply soft. But it makes me better understand when people say they love their childhood "blankie" or action figure. People do the same thing and became attached to seemingly worthless things.