How many marks do you think this would get? A - level psychology AQA

AO1 - 5/6
AO3 - 6/10
In regards to your AO1, the content covered is fine, it's just when you finish discussing the studies you'd have to refer back to the idea that the principles of behaviour are the same between humans and animals since the question asks explicitly about what this suggests about human attachment, this is in particular referring to Lorenz's gosling study since you didn't add in that final closing sentence. I'd also refrain from calling them 'condition one' and 'condition two', rather saying 'in one condition' and 'in the other condition', since it flows a little better.
I wouldn't use Bowlby as a limitation of the critical period personally since he did include the idea of the critical period of 2 years for humans in his ASCMI theory, rather maybe the Czechoslovakian twins case study since that highlighted it didn't really have lifelong implications. This would strengthen your AO3 in my opinion since you're using more explicit points.
You may also benefit from discussing the findings of Romanian orphan study instead of name dropping it to show that extended knowledge they look for in these answers.
When naming a study in AO3, I'd advise against putting 'such as' before naming and explaining, rather something like 'for instance' or 'in particular'
SLT didn't explicitly prioritise food, it measured food, but applied it to all biological drives which took precedence over the concept of creature comforts. They concluded that the mother would more often be the PCG than the main feeder, but it wasn't 100% so it's important to highlight that difference. The closing sentence for this is vague, I'd suggest something like 'Because of these conflicting ideas, the importance of creature comforts affecting human attachment is inconclusive.' idk
Really strong foundations, it's just important to refine some words and concepts because they're picky when it comes to that.
Happy to help more

thanks,
for your suggestions of the Czechoslovakian twins and creature comfort with slt, would they still be awarded as they aren't on the mark scheme? they are relevant clearly, but my spec doesn't cover them.

A01 - 6 MARKS
A03 - 10 MARKS
JUNE 2022 AQA PAPER 1
Outline Lorenz’s and Harlow’s animal studies of attachment. Discuss what these studies might tell us about human attachment. [16 marks]
Lorenz studied attachment by randomly dividing 12 goose eggs into two groups. The geese were hatched in a natural environment with their mother in condition one. In condition two, they were incubated and the first thing they saw was Lorenzo. Their behaviour was recorded, and Lorenz found that through imprinting the geese attached to the first thing they saw within a critical period. This meant the control group followed the mother while the incubator group followed Lorenz, seeing him as their primary attachment. Using a controlled environment, Harlow used monkeys and reared them with two mother surrogates: one with plain wire dispensing milk and the other being cloth-covered with no milk. Time spent with each was recorded, and he found that time with the cloth-covered mother was longer, especially when fear conditions were added showing contact comfort is more important than food for attachment.
From these studies, we see that early neglect has long-lasting effects as Harlow's monkeys became antisocial, aggressive, and neglectful towards their children causing some of them to be killed. Applying this to humans, we could say neglect can lead to forming bad or a lack of relationships. Bowlby supported this with the internal working model as your primary attachment will form a schema for later relationships in life, if you are neglected you cannot form a healthy schema.
Lorenz and Harlow both agreed on the critical period, a “window of opportunity” for attachment. Lorenz found that if the geese did not have a mother figure, they would not form an attachment. Harlow argued that there was a 90-day critical period in which the monkeys should attach to their primary figure, if not the long-term damage would be irreversible. However, we cannot apply this to human attachment. Human studies have shown the critical period is more like a sensitive period as we have seen children recover from early neglect, for example, Romanian orphans. Research by Bowlby indicates this sensitive period can last up to 5 years which tells us humans can recover from early neglect much better than shown in animal studies.
Human attachment will likely not reflect the way animals attach so generalising animal studies to humans may not be valid. This is because Lorenz’s geese have a more simplistic way of attaching - through imprinting. If we are generalizing, Harlow’s study would be better suited because of the use of the mammalian species although the human brain is still more complex than a rhesus monkey. Human attachment therefore may have similarities with Harlow's findings but human attachment could be more complex.
Harlow is also supported by human studies such as Schaffer and Emerson. They argued responsiveness from the mother was more important than food for attachment through actions such as reciprocity and interactional synchrony. On the other hand, the studies of attachment contradict themselves as harlows emphasis on the importance of contact comfort goes against social learning theory - which prioritises food. Schaffer and Emerson also noted that a baby’s primary attachment would still become the mother, even if others were feeding them. Therefore, we can’t come to a definitive answer for our attachment.

Excellent answer but since it says Lorenz and Harlow would you not need to describe Harlow study as well e.g cloth vs wire monkey

I did that just after lorenz in A01. "using a controlled enviroment, harlow.."

I did that just after lorenz in A01. "using a controlled enviroment, harlow.."

A01 - 6 MARKS
A03 - 10 MARKS
JUNE 2022 AQA PAPER 1
Outline Lorenz’s and Harlow’s animal studies of attachment. Discuss what these studies might tell us about human attachment. [16 marks]
Lorenz studied attachment by randomly dividing 12 goose eggs into two groups. The geese were hatched in a natural environment with their mother in condition one. In condition two, they were incubated and the first thing they saw was Lorenzo. Their behaviour was recorded, and Lorenz found that through imprinting the geese attached to the first thing they saw within a critical period. This meant the control group followed the mother while the incubator group followed Lorenz, seeing him as their primary attachment. Using a controlled environment, Harlow used monkeys and reared them with two mother surrogates: one with plain wire dispensing milk and the other being cloth-covered with no milk. Time spent with each was recorded, and he found that time with the cloth-covered mother was longer, especially when fear conditions were added showing contact comfort is more important than food for attachment.
From these studies, we see that early neglect has long-lasting effects as Harlow's monkeys became antisocial, aggressive, and neglectful towards their children causing some of them to be killed. Applying this to humans, we could say neglect can lead to forming bad or a lack of relationships. Bowlby supported this with the internal working model as your primary attachment will form a schema for later relationships in life, if you are neglected you cannot form a healthy schema.
Lorenz and Harlow both agreed on the critical period, a “window of opportunity” for attachment. Lorenz found that if the geese did not have a mother figure, they would not form an attachment. Harlow argued that there was a 90-day critical period in which the monkeys should attach to their primary figure, if not the long-term damage would be irreversible. However, we cannot apply this to human attachment. Human studies have shown the critical period is more like a sensitive period as we have seen children recover from early neglect, for example, Romanian orphans. Research by Bowlby indicates this sensitive period can last up to 5 years which tells us humans can recover from early neglect much better than shown in animal studies.
Human attachment will likely not reflect the way animals attach so generalising animal studies to humans may not be valid. This is because Lorenz’s geese have a more simplistic way of attaching - through imprinting. If we are generalizing, Harlow’s study would be better suited because of the use of the mammalian species although the human brain is still more complex than a rhesus monkey. Human attachment therefore may have similarities with Harlow's findings but human attachment could be more complex.
Harlow is also supported by human studies such as Schaffer and Emerson. They argued responsiveness from the mother was more important than food for attachment through actions such as reciprocity and interactional synchrony. On the other hand, the studies of attachment contradict themselves as harlows emphasis on the importance of contact comfort goes against social learning theory - which prioritises food. Schaffer and Emerson also noted that a baby’s primary attachment would still become the mother, even if others were feeding them. Therefore, we can’t come to a definitive answer for our attachment.

Hi Lilerxn, I really like the answer you provided. The answer provides a well-rounded overview of Lorenz’s and Harlow’s studies, addressing their methodologies, findings, and implications for human attachment. It makes relevant comparisons between animal studies and human attachment, highlighting the limitations and similarities. It also include references to Bowlby, Schaffer and Emerson add depth to the discussion of human attachment and support the critique of animal studies.
However, the idea of generalizing animal findings to humans is valid but could be expanded. For example, discussing how differences in cognitive and social development between species affect the applicability of these studies could be insightful

Could you just say have different cognitive and social development or would you have to go more in depth into the social and cognitive development

it’s important to strike a balance between brevity and depth. You can state that "differences in cognitive and social development" affect the applicability of animal studies to humans. However, to strengthen your idea, briefly elaborating on how these differences impact the generalization would add depth and show a more thorough understanding

Could you give an example for what you explained in the last sentence

For example, in Cognitive Development s/he should explain that animals, like rhesus monkeys, have simpler cognitive processes compared to humans, whose more complex thinking can influence attachment behaviors differently. In Social Development s/he can highlight that human social structures and interactions are more intricate, which might affect how attachment forms and functions compared to animals.

This is great thanks. Can it be applied to Lorenz study as I know geese have complete different attachment system to mammalian

Yes, the concept of cognitive and social development differences can also be applied to his study as well

Ok thanks

Are you a psychology student as well

Your essay will now be picked up by Turnitin and all other plagiarism software - and copied by other students. Do not post your work online.