Harry Harlow – 1905 1981

Biography

The history of twentieth-century psychological science is defined by dramatic ideological fractures, paradigm shifts, and methodological transformations. Few figures within this turbulent landscape occupy a position as intellectually transformative, methodologically innovative, and ethically polarizing as Harry Frederick Harlow (1905–1981). Operating primarily from his laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Harlow systematically dismantled the dominant behaviorist and psychoanalytic orthodoxies of his era. Through empirical investigations utilizing the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta), he demonstrated that affection, touch, and emotional bonding are not secondary drives derived from nutritional satiation, but primary, biologically hardwired evolutionary imperatives essential for normative mammalian ontogeny.

Before Harlow’s seminal interventions, academic psychology was largely held captive by the mechanical reductionism of John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner, alongside the drive-reduction formulations of Clark Hull and classic Freudian drive theory. These perspectives converged on a single mechanistic assumption: an infant’s attachment to its mother is merely a conditioned response or secondary drive piggybacking on the primary physiological reinforcement of lactation. Harlow challenged this conceptual consensus by engineering rigorous experimental apparatuses that isolated variables of tactile comfort, nutritional sustenance, and social interaction. His work illuminated the foundational importance of “contact comfort,” fundamentally redirecting child rearing, pediatric medicine, institutional childcare, and the emergent discipline of ethological attachment theory co-founded by John Bowlby.

Yet, Harlow’s scientific triumphs remain inextricably bound to ethical catastrophe. As his research trajectory transitioned from cognitive problem-solving and surrogate mothers toward total social isolation, experimentally induced psychopathology, and the construction of vertical deprivation chambers—which he notoriously termed the “pit of despair”—Harlow generated unprecedented insights into the mechanics of severe clinical depression and emotional trauma at the direct expense of non-human primate welfare. His willingness to inflict profound psychological torment upon sentient creatures catalyzed intense controversy, ultimately serving as a primary flashpoint for the rise of the modern animal liberation movement led by thinkers like Peter Singer. This comprehensive monograph explores the full trajectory of Harlow’s life, science, epistemological revolution, and enduring ethical shadow.

1. Biographical Foundations and Early Academic Development (1905–1930)

1.1 Early Life, Family Background, and Education in Iowa

Harry Frederick Harlow was born Harry Israel on October 31, 1905, in the modest agricultural community of Fairfield, Iowa. He was the third of four sons born to Alonzo Harlow Israel and Mabel Rock Israel. The socioeconomic and cultural environment of the American Midwest at the dawn of the twentieth century was characterized by traditional agrarian values, economic precariousness, and an austere cultural stoicism. Alonzo Israel was a restless, modestly successful merchant who operated a local dry goods store, while also pursuing eccentric intellectual and inventive hobbies, including attempts to design and patent agricultural equipment. Mabel Israel was a formidable, highly disciplined domestic figure whose emotional reticence and demand for academic achievement exerted a profound, complex psychological influence on young Harry.

From an early age, Harry demonstrated exceptional intellectual acuity, accompanied by a quiet, introverted demeanor and recurring episodes of melancholy. He displayed a natural gift for linguistic expression, humor, and analytical reasoning, yet his childhood was marked by a pervasive sense of social estrangement and physical frailty. Rather than flourishing in the agrarian and athletic pursuits valued by his peers, Harlow immersed himself in literature, poetry, and mechanical gadgets. His primary education in the public schools of Fairfield revealed a student of uneven focus: brilliant when intellectually stimulated, but prone to profound boredom and recalcitrance when confronted with rote memorization.

Upon completing high school, Harlow enrolled at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, in 1923. Reed was renowned for its intellectual intensity and progressive pedagogy, an atmosphere that both excited and overwhelmed the young Midwesterner. During his solitary year in the Pacific Northwest, Harlow initially gravitated toward English literature and the physical sciences, harboring romantic aspirations of becoming a writer or an engineer. However, he struggled with the damp climate, intense social isolation, and academic demands, experiencing severe bouts of homesickness and self-doubt. Recognizing that his academic trajectory required a different institutional climate, he made the consequential decision to leave Reed after a single academic year and seek admission to Stanford University in California.

Harlow’s arrival at Stanford in the autumn of 1924 marked the true commencement of his scientific apprenticeship. Although initially admitted with an undeclared focus in the humanities, he soon encountered the emerging field of experimental psychology. The transition was arduous; his undergraduate record was initially marked by mediocre grades as he wrestled with chronic financial strain, living in spartan off-campus boarding houses and working menial jobs to fund his tuition. Despite these obstacles, Harlow’s innate analytical brilliance caught the attention of faculty members who recognized his latent capacity for rigorous scientific inquiry and unconventional experimental design.

1.2 Stanford University Mentorship and Name Alteration

At Stanford, Harlow’s intellectual trajectory was decisively shaped by two titans of American psychology: Lewis Madison Terman, the developer of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales and pioneer of giftedness studies, and Calvin Perry Stone, an exacting comparative psychologist specializing in animal psychobiology and rodent sexual behavior. Under the guidance of Terman, who then served as the autocratic yet supportive chairman of the Stanford Psychology Department, Harlow was immersed in psychometric methodology, rigorous experimental control, and evolutionary interpretations of cognitive capacity. Terman recognized Harlow’s penetrating intellect, often inviting the young scholar to departmental seminars where his mordant wit and theoretical skepticism became prominent features of his academic persona.

However, it was Calvin Stone who fundamentally reoriented Harlow toward comparative animal research. Stone operated a demanding laboratory focused on the physiological mechanisms underpinning instinctive and learned behaviors in rodents. Harlow quickly abandoned his literary ambitions, recognizing that the systematic manipulation of animal behavior provided an empirical canvas upon which the most fundamental questions of mammalian psychology could be decisively tested. For his doctoral dissertation, conducted under Stone’s direct supervision, Harlow investigated the learning capacities, problem-solving proficiencies, and sensory thresholds of laboratory rats navigating complex maze environments. This work demanded meticulous experimental rigor, data collection, and statistical analysis—skills that would define his future laboratory infrastructure.

As Harlow approached the completion of his Ph.D. in 1930, he confronted a pervasive structural barrier within the American academic establishment: institutional antisemitism. Despite his Midwestern Protestant ancestry, his birth surname, “Israel,” was widely perceived as Jewish by university hiring committees across the United States. During the interwar period, elite American universities maintained unwritten quotas and exclusionary policies that severely curtailed the academic appointments available to Jewish scholars. Recognizing that his prized student’s academic prospects were substantially compromised by this systemic prejudice, Lewis Terman intervened with pragmatic, if culturally conservative, counsel.

Terman advised Harry to legally alter his surname to enhance his employability in the tightening academic job market of the Great Depression. Harry heeded the advice, choosing to discard “Israel” in favor of his father’s middle name, “Harlow.” The legal alteration was finalized in 1930, the very year he defended his doctoral dissertation. This forced nominal metamorphosis left an enduring psychological impression on Harlow, imbuing him with a lifelong cynicism toward institutional sanctimony, social conformity, and the hypocrisies of bourgeois academic culture. Newly christened as Harry F. Harlow, he entered the academic job market armed with an elite doctoral pedigree and a profound determination to carve out a unique methodological domain in comparative behavioral science.

1.3 Intellectual Climate of Pre-Harlow American Psychology

To fully appreciate the radical nature of Harlow’s subsequent empirical work, one must examine the intellectual orthodoxy that dominated American psychology during the 1920s and 1930s. The discipline was firmly in the grip of two theoretical frameworks that, despite profound differences in clinical orientation, shared a remarkably parallel reductionist view of early childhood attachment and emotional life: radical behaviorism and psychoanalysis.

Radical behaviorism, spearheaded by John B. Watson in the 1910s and later formalized into neobehaviorist drive-reduction models by Clark Hull, sought to purge psychology of subjective mentalistic concepts such as consciousness, feeling, intentionality, and love. Watson contended that human behavior could be entirely explained through chains of classical conditioned reflexes. In his infamous 1928 child-rearing treatise, Psychological Care of Infant and Child, Watson asserted that maternal affection was a dangerous, sentimental indulgence that risked producing neurotic, dependent adults. Watson warned parents never to hug, kiss, or rock their children, advising instead a handshake or a formal pat on the head upon the child performing an exceptional task. Attachment, in the behaviorist lexicon, was merely a secondary drive: the infant associates the physical presence of the mother with the primary reinforcer of milk, establishing a conditioned association through continuous oral reinforcement.

Simultaneously, the drive-reduction theory championed by Clark Hull of Yale University provided the mathematical and experimental scaffolding for this mechanistic perspective. Hull posited that all biological organisms are driven to act by primary biological needs—hunger, thirst, pain avoidance, and sexual appetite. When these biological needs arise, they generate physiological states of tension known as “drives.” Organisms engage in behaviors that reduce these drives, and any neutral stimulus repeatedly paired with drive reduction acquires secondary reinforcing properties. Under this theoretical umbrella, maternal love was conceptually categorized as a secondary, derivative drive; an infant loves its mother solely because she serves as the instrument that alleviates hunger and thirst.

Concurrently, the clinical domain of psychoanalysis, derived from the foundational theories of Sigmund Freud, converged upon a strikingly similar conclusion, albeit through a different theoretical vocabulary. Classical Freudian drive theory framed early infant attachment through the lens of psychosexual development, specifically the “oral stage.” The infant’s primary libidinal energy is concentrated on the oral zone, and the mother’s breast represents the initial object of cathexis. The infant’s emotional bond to the maternal figure is generated by the oral pleasure and biological gratification obtained during nursing. If an infant developed an emotional bond, it was fundamentally rooted in the nutritional satiation and oral stimulation provided by lactation.

Both leading psychological schools thus maintained that affectional bonds were strictly subordinate to nutritional gratification. Harlow looked upon these non-empirical assertions with deep skepticism. His training under Calvin Stone had instilled in him a commitment to comparative observation, evolutionary continuity, and empirical verification. Harlow observed that mammalian maternal behavior exhibited dimensions of physical tenderness, clutching, holding, and emotional attunement that could not be fully reconciled with simple caloric ingestion. Yet, as a junior scholar entering the profession in 1930, he lacked the experimental machinery, the taxonomic subjects, and the institutional backing necessary to mount a direct theoretical offensive against this behavioral consensus.

2. Establishment of the Primate Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison

2.1 Arrival at Wisconsin and Laboratory Infrastructure Development

In 1930, at the age of twenty-four, Harlow accepted an appointment as an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The university’s psychology department, while academically reputable, possessed virtually no dedicated experimental laboratory infrastructure for animal research. The Great Depression had severely constrained university budgets, and the administration could offer the ambitious young academic little more than an empty, abandoned building—a former masonry and machine shop located on the periphery of the campus on Charter Street—along with minimal startup funds.

Confronted with an absence of dedicated facilities, Harlow demonstrated remarkable practical ingenuity and industriousness. Rather than succumbing to institutional limitations, he personally mobilized undergraduate students and graduate assistants to scrub floors, haul bricks, install plumbing, and construct cages. This neglected industrial space was gradually transformed into what would officially become the Wisconsin Primate Laboratory. Harlow realized that if he were to make enduring scientific contributions, he could not simply replicate the standard rodent maze experiments prevalent across the major universities of the East Coast. He needed a scientific domain that was uniquely his own.

Initially, Harlow attempted to study primates by traveling to the Vilas Park Zoo in Madison, observing baboons, chimpanzees, and orangutans. However, the observational conditions of the public zoo proved scientifically inadequate: visitor interference, uncontrolled diet, variable climatic conditions, and the impossibility of precise experimental manipulation rendered quantitative psychometric testing unfeasible. Harlow resolved that he needed an on-site, fully controlled, self-sustaining breeding colony of non-human primates directly within the walls of his university laboratory.

Harlow selected the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta), a primate native to South and Southeast Asia, as his primary model organism. Procuring these animals during the early 1930s was exceptionally difficult and expensive, requiring complex arrangements with international animal importers who captured wild macaques from the jungles of India. These wild-caught primates arrived in Madison plagued by tuberculosis, parasitic infestations, dysentery, and profound psychological stress. Harlow and his fledgling staff quickly discovered that sustaining a breeding colony required mastering veterinary epidemiology and nutritional science.

To combat the high mortality rates caused by infectious diseases, particularly pulmonary tuberculosis transmitted between humans and primates, Harlow instituted radical sanitary protocols. He mandated the immediate separation of newborn infant macaques from their wild-caught biological mothers within hours or days of birth. These newborn infants were placed in sterile, climate-controlled nursery environments, reared on standardized infant formulas, and maintained under rigorous hygienic supervision. While this sterile nursery-rearing procedure successfully eradicated infectious mortality and yielded physically healthy, robust young monkeys, it inadvertently set the stage for one of the most serendipitous discoveries in the history of psychology—an outcome that would revolutionize Harlow’s research agenda.

2.2 Methodological Shift: Transition from Rodents to Non-Human Primates

The conceptual transition from rodent psychophysics to comparative primate behavior reflected Harlow’s growing dissatisfaction with the limitations of the classic rat model. Throughout the early twentieth century, American experimental psychology had elevated the white rat to the status of a universal proxy for all mammalian learning. Theorists such as Edward Tolman and Clark Hull formulated vast, generalized doctrines of human and animal cognition entirely on the basis of how quickly rodents negotiated wooden mazes to obtain food pellets. Harlow viewed this methodological fixation as short-sighted and intellectually impoverished.

Harlow recognized that while rodents were exceptionally well-suited for studying simple sensory-motor conditioning, spinal reflexes, and primary drive-reduction mechanisms, they possessed severe evolutionary and neuroanatomical limitations. The rodent brain lacks the massive neocortical expansion, the complex frontal lobes, and the intricate visual-spatial processing networks that characterize higher mammalian species. Most importantly, rodents possess entirely different sensory modalities and social systems: they are nocturnal, relying primarily on olfaction, tactile vibrissae, and auditory cues, with primitive, rudimentary affective and social repertoires compared to higher primates.

In contrast, the rhesus macaque shares profound evolutionary proximity and neuroanatomical parallels with Homo sapiens. Both humans and macaques are members of the order Primates, sharing an evolutionary lineage that diverged approximately twenty-five to thirty million years ago. Macaques possess high visual acuity, fully developed color stereoscopic vision, fine prehensile motor dexterity with opposable digits, and an expanded neocortex dedicated to complex cognitive processing, abstract problem solving, and nuanced social communication. In nature, rhesus macaques live in sophisticated, matrilineal social structures governed by intricate kinship alliances, dominance hierarchies, facial gestures, and complex vocal repertoires.

By transitioning to non-human primates, Harlow positioned his laboratory to address psychological phenomena that were entirely beyond the cognitive architecture of the laboratory rat. These included:

• The formation of generalized learning strategies, abstract conceptual reasoning, and insight learning;
• Complex, multi-step tool-use and intrinsic mechanical manipulation unmotivated by hunger or thirst;
• The neurobiological and social underpinnings of affective bonding, mother-infant attachment, and social development;
• The etiology of experimentally induced emotional psychopathologies, social trauma, and developmental isolation.

To execute this ambitious agenda, Harlow had to invent standardized observational techniques, precise operational definitions, and custom apparatuses capable of measuring monkey behavior with rigorous mathematical repeatability, laying the foundations for contemporary quantitative primatology.

3. Challenging Behaviorist Dogma: Learning Sets and Cognitive Primate Research

3.1 The Wisconsin General Test Apparatus (WGTA)

Before Harlow embarked on his iconic investigations into maternal affection, he spent nearly two decades revolutionizing the empirical study of primate learning and perception. A primary obstacle facing comparative psychologists in the 1930s was the lack of standardized, objective testing equipment for primates. The testing apparatuses of the era were frequently haphazard, exposing animals to experimenter bias, subtle behavioral cueing (the “Clever Hans” effect), and inconsistent spatial presentation of visual stimuli. In response to these methodological challenges, Harlow engineered the Wisconsin General Test Apparatus (WGTA), an ingenious innovation that became the universal standard in primate laboratories worldwide for half a century.

The WGTA was constructed with absolute experimental control in mind. It consisted of a seated cage for the primate, separated from the human experimenter by a mechanical wooden screen featuring a one-way observation mirror. In front of the animal sat a movable stimulus tray containing two or three recessed wells, over which varied visual objects (cubes, cylinders, painted blocks, and intricate geometric forms) could be positioned to conceal a food reward, typically a raisin or a small piece of fruit. The experimenter would raise an opaque screen, allowing the monkey to view the stimulus objects, make a single manual choice by displacing one object to expose the underlying well, and retrieve the reward if the choice was correct.

The methodological elegance of the WGTA resided in its absolute minimization of extraneous variables. By lowering a screen between trials, the experimenter could silently bait the wells and re-position stimuli without providing any spatial, auditory, or visual cues to the subject. The one-way vision screen permitted the researcher to record the monkey’s visual fixation, manual movements, latency of response, and behavioral demeanor without the human presence inadvertently cuing or intimidating the animal. The WGTA transformed comparative cognition from an anecdotal pursuit into an exact, quantitative laboratory science capable of generating thousands of discrete, highly controlled trials across large cohorts of animals.

3.2 The Formation of ‘Learning Sets’ (Learning to Learn)

Utilizing the WGTA, Harlow executed one of the most important theoretical breakthroughs in the history of cognitive psychology: the discovery of “learning sets,” commonly referred to as “learning to learn.” In 1949, Harlow published his seminal paper, titled The Formation of Learning Sets, in the Psychological Review. This work delivered a severe empirical blow to the behaviorist framework then championed by Clark Hull and B.F. Skinner.

Standard behaviorist dogma asserted that all learning proceeds incrementally through trial-and-error conditioning. According to this view, an organism forms discrete, isolated associations between a specific stimulus (S) and a specific response (R), bound together through reinforcement. If learning were simply a matter of slowly accumulating associative habit strength, an animal exposed to an endless series of brand-new visual discrimination problems should theoretically acquire each new discrimination at approximately the same slow, trial-by-trial associative pace.

Harlow tested this assumption by presenting rhesus macaques with hundreds of completely distinct, successive two-choice discrimination problems. In problem one, a monkey might have to choose between a blue triangle and a red circle (with the blue triangle reinforced). Once this discrimination was learned over many trials, the animal was immediately presented with problem two, featuring entirely new, unfamiliar objects: a green block versus an orange cup (with the orange cup reinforced). This procedure was repeated across hundreds of distinct object pairs. Harlow’s quantitative results were staggering and definitively refuted simple trial-and-error models:

• On the earliest discrimination problems (e.g., problems 1 to 20), monkeys exhibited standard, slow trial-and-error learning, requiring dozens of trials to reliably reach a 90% accuracy criterion;
• As the monkeys progressed through hundreds of unique problems, their learning curves transformed dramatically from slow, gradual ascents into nearly instantaneous, step-like vertical shifts;
• By the time the macaques had mastered several hundred problems, their accuracy on Trial 2 (the trial immediately following their initial, random guess on Trial 1) climbed to an astonishing 95% to 98%.

This empirical demonstration revealed that the primates were not merely learning individual stimulus-response associations; they were acquiring an overarching, abstract cognitive rule: a “learning set.” The monkeys had deduced the structural logic of the experiment: Win-Stay, Lose-Shift. If their initial random choice on Trial 1 yielded a reward, they retained that stimulus on Trial 2; if their initial choice yielded an empty well, they immediately shifted to the alternate object on Trial 2. Harlow proved that primates possess the cognitive architecture to “learn how to learn,” transitioning from crude associative conditioning to insight-driven, hypothesis-testing cognitive strategies. This discovery positioned Harlow as an early pioneer of the cognitive revolution that swept psychology during the late 1950s and 1960s.

3.3 Intrinsic Motivation and the Mechanical Puzzle Experiments

Emboldened by his findings on learning sets, Harlow next sought to confront the foundational assumption of Clark Hull’s drive-reduction theory: the doctrine that organisms will only exert effort, solve problems, or acquire new behaviors if driven by primary physiological deficits (e.g., hunger, thirst, electric shock avoidance) or secondary associations derived from those drives. In the early 1950s, Harlow, alongside colleagues Margaret Kuenne and Paul Meyer, conducted a series of experiments investigating what he termed “manipulation drive” and intrinsic motivation.

Harlow engineered intricate mechanical puzzles consisting of interlocking metal latches, hasps, pins, and hooks mounted on wooden boards. These puzzles required a precise, multi-step sequential operation to unlock: a pin had to be removed before a hook could be released, which in turn allowed a hasp to be lifted. Harlow placed these mechanical puzzles into the home cages of well-fed, non-deprived rhesus macaques, providing absolutely no extrinsic rewards—no food pellets, no water, and no social approval. To the profound surprise of classical behaviorists, the monkeys immediately engaged with the puzzles with intense focus, systematically manipulating the hardware, dismantling the mechanisms, and mastering the complex multi-stage solutions purely for the intrinsic pleasure of the task.

Harlow took the experimental design a step further by introducing an extrinsic food reinforcement condition. He hypothesized that if drive-reduction theory was accurate, adding a caloric food reward to the puzzle completion would accelerate the monkeys’ learning and enhance their problem-solving efficiency. The empirical outcome completely contradicted behaviorist predictions:

• Monkeys rewarded with food for solving the mechanical puzzles exhibited severe disruption in their problem-solving performance;
• The extrinsic food reward introduced profound emotional frustration, distraction, and behavioral agitation;
• Food-rewarded monkeys made significantly more persistent errors, frequently attempting to force open the final latch out of sequence rather than methodically working through the antecedent steps;
• The introduction of an extrinsic reinforcer appeared to destroy the animals’ natural, intrinsically motivated intellectual curiosity.

These findings, published in papers such as Learning Motivated by a Manipulation Drive (Harlow, 1950), demonstrated that higher primates possess a native, biologically hardwired drive to explore, manipulate, and master novel environmental stimuli. Decades before self-determination theory emerged in human social psychology through the work of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, Harlow provided the foundational empirical evidence that intrinsic motivation is a primary, powerful engine of mammalian cognition.

4. The Wire and Cloth Surrogate Mother Experiments: Unveiling Contact Comfort

4.1 Genesis of the Surrogate Mother Paradigm

By the mid-1950s, Harlow’s laboratory had maintained a closed, disease-free breeding colony of rhesus macaques for several years. Because the infant monkeys were separated from their biological mothers shortly after birth to prevent the spread of infectious disease, they were reared individually in wire-mesh nursery cages. Harlow and his research assistants began noticing a series of peculiar, non-nutritive behavioral phenomena among these nursery-reared infants that could not be accounted for by classical learning theories.

To keep the young monkeys warm and facilitate hygiene, the laboratory technicians placed folded cheesecloth or terrycloth pads on the floors of their wire cages. The infant macaques developed an extraordinary, fierce attachment to these pieces of cloth. They would spend hours draped over the fabric, clutching it tightly against their chests. Whenever laboratory staff entered the nursery to remove the soiled cloth pads for laundering, the infant monkeys reacted with intense panic, exhibiting shrill distress vocalizations, physiological trembling, and frantic, violent attempts to retain or recover the fabric. If deprived of the cloth, the infants curled into catatonic balls, pressed their faces into the cage corners, and displayed marked behavioral agitation.

This striking phenomenon provoked Harlow’s scientific intuition. Under Watsonian behaviorism and Hullian drive-reduction theory, these cloth pads were biologically meaningless: they provided zero nutrition, alleviated no physiological hunger, and possessed no secondary reinforcement capacity through pairing with caloric intake. The wire cages contained nursing bottles that dispensed warm milk, yet the infants did not exhibit emotional attachment to the metal wire structures that held their food. Instead, they directed their affection toward an inanimate piece of soft terrycloth.

Harlow formulated a hypothesis: infant attachment is not driven by the alleviation of hunger or thirst, but by an independent, fundamental evolutionary need for tactile comfort—what Harlow formally termed contact comfort. To test this hypothesis empirically, Harlow set out to construct artificial, inanimate substitute mothers that could decouple the variable of bodily softness from the variable of nutritional reinforcement, pitting physical warmth against the survival mechanics of the breast or bottle.

4.2 Experimental Design and Quantitative Findings

To execute this historic empirical confrontation, Harlow constructed two distinct types of surrogate mothers, identical in basic physical size and cylindrical proportions, but radically divergent in tactile and physical composition:

• The Wire Mother: A spartan, hollow cylinder manufactured from hard, unyielding welded wire mesh, topped with a stylized wooden head possessing rudimentary facial features. The wire mother was structurally functional, cold, entirely devoid of tactile warmth, but engineered to house a feeding bottle mounted directly in the center of its chest, dispensing warm milk via an artificial nipple.
• The Cloth Mother: A cylinder crafted from smooth wood, generously cushioned with soft foam rubber, and encased in a thick, textured sheath of warm tan terrycloth. It featured a rounded wooden head with painted eyes and an expressive face. Crucially, in the primary experimental condition, the cloth mother was entirely non-lactating; it provided no milk, no food, and no direct reduction of the primary hunger drive.

Harlow placed infant rhesus macaques into nursery environments where they enjoyed continuous, simultaneous access to both the wire mother and the cloth mother. For one cohort of infants, the wire mother dispensed milk while the cloth mother provided nothing. For a control cohort, the feeding arrangement was reversed: the cloth mother dispensed milk while the wire mother was dry. Harlow implemented automated electrical timing devices, alongside detailed observational logs, to measure the exact number of hours the infant monkeys spent physically contacting each surrogate every day.

The quantitative results, presented to the world in Harlow’s legendary 1958 presidential address to the American Psychological Association titled The Nature of Love, were unequivocal. Regardless of which mother dispensed the milk, the infant monkeys spent overwhelmingly vast portions of their lives clutched to the soft terrycloth mother:

• Infants reared with a lactating wire mother and a non-lactating cloth mother spent between 15 to 18 hours per day clinging to, sleeping on, and stroking the soft cloth surrogate;
• These same infants spent an average of less than one to two hours per day on the wire mother, visiting her strictly to feed, and promptly returning to the cloth mother the moment their nutritional thirst was satisfied;
• Infants fed by the cloth mother virtually ignored the wire mother entirely, showing zero behavioral interest in her unyielding wire frame.

Harlow proved that contact comfort was an overwhelming, primary psychological variable, completely outstripping lactation and nutritional reinforcement as the foundation of mammalian maternal attachment. Feeding kept the infant biologically alive, but contact comfort provided the vital emotional infrastructure around which the infant organized its behavior, physiological stability, and psychological security.

4.3 Fear Tests, Security Bases, and Exploration Paradigms

To evaluate whether the terrycloth surrogate functioned merely as a comfortable sleeping platform or as a genuine psychological anchor of emotional security, Harlow designed an ingenious series of stress and fear paradigms. He introduced frightening, anomalous stimuli into the infants’ testing cages. These stressors included mechanical, battery-operated toy monsters—such as a wind-up walking bear drumming violently on a metal snare, or a moving mechanical spider with flashing lights and clattering appendages.

The behavioral response of the infants was dramatic and consistent. When confronted with the clattering monster, the infant monkey was instantly gripped by terror, emitting high-pitched screams and screeching vocalizations. If only the wire mother was present in the chamber, the infant did not run to her for comfort; instead, the infant would race around the cage perimeter, collapse onto the floor, curl into a fetal position, clutch its own torso, and rock back and forth in an agony of unmitigated panic. The wire mother, despite having sustained the infant’s life through milk, offered zero solace in moments of terror.

In stark contrast, when the soft cloth mother was present in the chamber, the terrified infant raced directly across the floor and hurled itself onto the terrycloth torso, burying its face in the soft fabric and clutching the foam rubber with all four limbs. Within seconds of sustained tactile contact, an extraordinary physiological and behavioral transformation occurred:

• The infant’s rapid respiration and screeching vocalizations subsided;
• Its muscle rigidity dissolved, visibly replaced by somatic relaxation;
• Anchored by the physical contact with the cloth surrogate, the infant would slowly turn its head, orient its gaze toward the terrifying mechanical monster, and visually evaluate the threat;
• Within minutes, many infants would dismount from the cloth mother, cautiously approach the toy monster, swat at it, and begin exploratory inspection of the previously terrifying object, frequently returning to touch the cloth mother before venturing back out.

Harlow replicated these findings in an “open-field apparatus,” a novel, unfamiliar testing room filled with strange toys and objects. Infants placed in this room alone, or with only the wire mother present, were paralyzed by fear, freezing on the floor, vocalizing frantically, and sucking their thumbs. But when the cloth mother was wheeled into the center of the room, the infants used her as a literal “secure base.” They would cling to her briefly, calm themselves, and then fearlessly radiate outward to explore, manipulate toys, and map their novel physical environment. Harlow had empirically operationalized the psychological concept of the maternal figure as a foundational platform for autonomous exploration and mastery of the world.

5. Theoretical Implications for Attachment Theory and Developmental Psychology

5.1 Convergence with John Bowlby’s Ethological Attachment Theory

While Harlow was conducting his surrogate mother experiments in Madison, Wisconsin, the British psychoanalyst and child psychiatrist John Bowlby was working in London, struggling to formulate a comprehensive theoretical framework to explain the catastrophic emotional damage observed in children separated from their parents during World War II. Bowlby had grown deeply dissatisfied with traditional psychoanalytic dogma, which attributed maternal attachment entirely to feeding, oral gratification, and the mother’s role as a source of psychic drive reduction. Bowlby turned instead toward ethology, drawing heavily upon Konrad Lorenz‘s revolutionary work on imprinting in precocial birds.

Harlow’s empirical publications in the late 1950s provided Bowlby with the rigorous experimental proof his theoretical framework desperately required. The two scientists engaged in extensive correspondence, cross-pollinating their clinical and experimental findings. Bowlby visited Harlow’s laboratory at Wisconsin, witnessing firsthand the empirical reality of contact comfort in non-human primates. Harlow’s quantitative data proved conclusively that attachment was an independent, primary, hardwired evolutionary behavioral system—an instinctual adaptation designed to maintain physical proximity between vulnerable offspring and maternal caregivers, entirely decoupled from food ingestion.

In his landmark trilogy, Attachment and Loss (1969–1980), Bowlby integrated Harlow’s primate data to construct modern attachment theory. Harlow’s demonstration of the “secure base” phenomenon in rhesus macaques directly underpinned Mary Ainsworth’s subsequent formulation of the “Strange Situation” protocol, used to classify secure, avoidant, and resistant attachment styles in human infants. Harlow had provided the empirical bridge connecting evolutionary biology, comparative primatology, and developmental human psychology, dismantling decades of psychoanalytic and behaviorist theoretical error.

5.2 Impact on Pediatric Care, Institutionalization, and Child Rearing

The practical, real-world ramifications of Harlow’s surrogate mother experiments reverberated across pediatric medicine, clinical hospital administration, and everyday cultural practices of child rearing. In the first half of the twentieth century, Western medical advice had been thoroughly infected by the detached, hygienic prescriptions of John B. Watson. Pediatricians routinely advised mothers to feed their infants on rigid, mathematical four-hour schedules, to withhold physical coddling, to allow crying infants to “cry it out” alone in cribs, and to avoid picking up distress-vocalizing babies lest they become hopelessly “spoiled.”

Simultaneously, human pediatric hospitals operated under austere, sterile protocols. Parental visitation was severely restricted—often limited to a solitary hour once a week behind glass observation partitions—in an effort to shield pediatric wards from airborne bacterial and viral pathogens. The catastrophic emotional and physical decline of children subjected to prolonged hospitalizations had been clinically documented by Hungarian-American psychoanalyst René Spitz under the diagnoses of “hospitalism” and “anaclitic depression.” Spitz observed that despite receiving adequate nutrition, clean linens, and sterile medical care, institutionalized orphans languished, suffered severe developmental delays, exhibited high mortality rates, and displayed self-soothing rocking postures identical to Harlow’s wire-reared macaques.

Harlow’s work provided the undeniable, empirical explanation for Spitz’s clinical observations. He demonstrated that sterile hygiene and adequate caloric nutrition are fundamentally insufficient for biological and emotional survival: mammalian infants starved of tactile warmth, cuddling, and responsive physical touch experience catastrophic physiological and psychological failure to thrive. Harlow’s widely publicized research broke the back of Watsonian child-rearing dogma. Pediatric hospitals across the Western world began radically restructuring their pediatric wards, pioneering parental rooming-in protocols, permitting immediate skin-to-skin contact between mothers and newborns in delivery rooms (“kangaroo care”), and recognizing physical holding as an essential clinical vital sign in neonatology.

Furthermore, Harlow’s work carried revolutionary implications for family dynamics and the role of fathers. Because his experiments proved that the attachment bond was not genetically or biologically welded to the female mammary gland, Harlow forcefully argued that anyone capable of providing consistent, responsive contact comfort could serve as a primary attachment figure. Harlow wrote explicitly in 1958 that the American father was entirely suited to assume primary infant caregiving responsibilities, liberating fathers from being viewed merely as peripheral economic providers and establishing them as legitimate emotional caregivers.

5.3 Re-conceptualizing the Evolutionary Purpose of Affectional Systems

Beyond his initial discoveries regarding the mother-infant dyad, Harlow expanded his theoretical lens to construct a comprehensive phylogenetic taxonomy of mammalian social development, which he articulated as the five distinct “Affectional Systems.” Rather than viewing love as a monolithic, undifferentiated emotion, Harlow delineated five interconnected, sequentially emerging affectional systems, each possessing distinct developmental timecourses, physiological substrates, and evolutionary adaptations:

• The Infant-to-Mother Affectional System: Driven by contact comfort, warmth, nursing, and vestibular stimulation, this system ensures the fragile neonate’s physical survival and proximity to safety during its most vulnerable developmental window;
• The Maternal Affectional System: The complementary behavioral repertoire exhibited by the mother, mediated by neuroendocrine factors (such as oxytocin and prolactin), maternal care, physical protection, and gentle discipline, facilitating the gradual weaning and eventual autonomy of the offspring;
• The Peer (or Age-Mate) Affectional System: Emerging during early juvenile development, this system is primarily mediated through physical, social, and rough-and-tumble play. Harlow considered peer play an indispensable prerequisite for calibrating aggression, learning social dominance hierarchies, and mastering complex non-verbal communication;
• The Heterosexual (or Sexual) Affectional System: Maturing during adolescent and adult ontogeny, this system encompasses adult courtship behaviors, sexual posturing, copulation, and the establishment of mating alliances;
• The Paternal Affectional System: The behavioral orientation of adult males toward defending, protecting, socializing, and nurturing young juveniles within the broader social group.

Harlow stressed that these systems do not emerge in isolation; they are deeply interdependent and time-sensitive. Each system possesses a critical or sensitive developmental window during which specific environmental inputs must be present. If an early system—such as the infant-to-mother affectional bond—is truncated, damaged, or perverted by developmental deprivation, the downstream systems are fundamentally corrupted, creating devastating cascade effects across the animal’s entire adult social, sexual, and parental repertoire.

6. Total Social Isolation and the ‘Pit of Despair’ Experiments

6.1 Design of Total and Partial Isolation Chambers

Having established the primary biological reality of contact comfort and the developmental architecture of affection, Harlow’s research underwent a dark, dramatic escalation in the early 1960s. Moving beyond the benign, passive construct of terrycloth surrogates, Harlow sought to map the absolute limits of psychological endurance. He embarked on a systematic investigation into the etiology of psychopathology, asking a severe experimental question: what happens to a social primate if its consciousness is stripped of all contact with other living beings from the moment of birth?

Harlow engineered two distinct regimes of experimental deprivation: partial social isolation and total social isolation. In partial isolation, infant monkeys were housed in standard individual wire cages where they could see, hear, and smell other monkeys in the room, but were permanently barred from any direct physical or tactile interaction. In total social isolation, Harlow completely excised the social universe.

To achieve total social isolation, Harlow engineered the “vertical chamber apparatus,” an insidious device that he notoriously christened the pit of despair (and occasionally the “well of despair”). The chamber was an inverted pyramid constructed of cold, unyielding, polished stainless steel. The sides sloped inward toward a narrow, rounded wire-mesh floor positioned over a waste funnel. The top was sealed with a solid lid featuring a one-way observation mirror and a food/water dispensing system designed to deliver nutrition automatically without any human visual presence.

The geometry of the vertical chamber was intentionally engineered to produce inescapable psychological entrapment. The sloped, polished metal walls made it impossible for the monkey to climb, perch, or orient toward a flat horizon. Whenever the infant attempted to scale the sides, it would inevitably slip back down to the apex of the funnel. The infant was subjected to complete sensory monotony: uniform fluorescent lighting on a twelve-hour cycle, constant white noise from air blowers to drown out environmental sounds, and an absolute absence of social stimuli. Harlow subjected infant monkeys to this total sensory and social tomb for durations of three months, six months, and in the most extreme experimental cohorts, an entire uninterrupted year of life.

6.2 Catastrophic Behavioral Pathology of Isolated Primates

The behavioral pathology produced by total social isolation was catastrophic, profound, and largely irreversible. When Harlow and his research assistants removed infant macaques from the vertical chambers after six to twelve months of total isolation, the young animals were shattered creatures, utterly broken in their emotional and sensory-motor functioning.

Upon initial emergence into the outside world, the monkeys were plunged into profound sensory shock. They collapsed onto the floor of the testing arena, displaying what Harlow described as catatonic postures. They exhibited stereotypic behavioral pathologies that mirrored the most severe manifestations of human infantile autism, catatonic schizophrenia, and chronic clinical depression:

• Stereotypic Rocking and Self-Clasping: The isolate monkeys spent vast swathes of time crouched in tight balls, wrapping their arms frantically around their own torsos, burying their faces between their thighs, and rocking back and forth with hypnotic, repetitive rhythm;
• Profound Self-Injurious Behavior (SIB): The animals directed horrific self-injurious aggression against their own flesh. They would bite their own arms, legs, and fingers with such explosive violence that they severed their own skin, gnawed down to the periosteum, and tore out large patches of their own body fur (psychogenic alopecia);
• Complete Social Terror: When exposed to normally reared, age-matched peers, the isolate monkeys were incapable of engaging in play, courtship, or social communication. They fled in terror from any social approach, screaming hysterically and huddling against the walls;
• Paralysis of Aggression Modulation: The isolates were completely unable to interpret non-verbal primate social cues, such as submissive facial grimaces or dominant threat stares. When attacked by normal conspecifics, they failed to exhibit appropriate submission postures, leading to brutal, sustained beatings; alternatively, they would launch suicidal attacks against large, dominant adult males who easily could kill them.

Harlow proved that the severity of the developmental damage was strictly dependent on the duration and timing of the isolation. Monkeys isolated for only three months experienced severe immediate shock, but could gradually recover some social functioning if reintroduced to social groups. However, six months of total isolation produced profound, lifelong emotional crippling; and twelve months of continuous vertical chamber isolation completely eradicated all capacity for normative social life, permanently destroying the animal’s affective architecture beyond all natural repair.

6.3 Harlow’s Deliberate and Provocative Terminology

A distinctive, controversial hallmark of Harry Harlow’s scientific career was his deliberate, unapologetic deployment of macabre, emotionally loaded, and frequently provocative terminology to describe his experimental devices and paradigms. While standard behavioral scientists of the mid-twentieth century utilized sanitized, highly clinical, passive-voice jargon to describe their apparatuses—using terms such as “modified operant chambers” or “controlled sensory deprivation units”—Harlow consciously subverted this scientific decorum.

Harlow named his experimental creations with visceral theatricality:

• He named his vertical sensory deprivation chamber the “pit of despair” or the “well of despair,” explicitly acknowledging that its psychological objective was to induce absolute, inescapable despondency;
• When designing surrogate mothers with aversive biological stimuli to test the durability of infant attachment, he engineered models that shot compressed air, sprouted unyielding brass spikes, or vibrated violently, dubbing them the “iron maiden” and the “wicked stepmother”;
• When attempting to breed the adult female monkeys who had been socially crippled by isolation, and who violently rejected all courtship and copulatory overtures from adult males, Harlow engineered a mechanical restraining apparatus that immobilized the female in a mating posture, which he brazenly named the “rape rack”;
• He referred to testing corridors designed to induce acute panic as the “tunnel of terror.”

This rhetorical strategy was entirely deliberate. Harlow operated with a mordant, cynical humor, taking intense pleasure in shocking the complacency of the academic elite and puncturing the self-righteous, mechanized veneer of academic behaviorism. He argued that sanitizing psychological terminology served only to obscure the real, raw emotional phenomena under scientific investigation. By utilizing names like “pit of despair” and “rape rack,” Harlow forced the scientific community to confront the brutal operational reality of what experimental psychology was doing to its subjects.

However, this provocative rhetorical strategy ignited immense backlash. Within the broader psychological community and among the emerging animal welfare advocates of the 1970s, Harlow’s terminology was not interpreted as brilliant, subversive satire; it was viewed as explicit evidence of institutional sadism, callousness, and scientific hubris. By actively embracing the language of medieval torture, Harlow unwittingly provided his future biographers, ethical critics, and the burgeoning animal rights movement with the very linguistic ammunition that would permanently tarnish his historical reputation.

7. Maternal Deprivation and Peer Relationships: The ‘Together-Together’ and Peer-Only Rearing

7.1 The Consequences of Motherless Mothering

One of the most consequential, historically tragic phases of Harlow’s maternal deprivation research materialized when the female monkeys who had been reared in total isolation or with inanimate cloth surrogates reached chronological, biological sexual maturity. Harlow had initially hypothesized that while these animals had endured severe developmental privation, the biologically hardwired instinct of maternal care would spontaneously manifest once they gave birth to their own offspring, guided by innate neuroendocrine and evolutionary triggers.

The first monumental obstacle Harlow encountered was that these socially deprived females were entirely incapable of normal sexual reproduction. They possessed no comprehension of primate courtship rituals, failed to assume the species-typical female sexual posture of lordosis, and would violently attack any adult male that attempted to mount them. To circumvent this behavioral paralysis and achieve fertilization, Harlow and his laboratory technicians constructed the aforementioned “rape rack,” immobilizing the socially isolated females to force copulation with experienced, breeding-colony males.

When these “motherless mothers” subsequently gave birth, the outcome thoroughly shattered the romantic notion of an automatic, infallible “maternal instinct.” Rather than exhibiting natural maternal love, the motherless mothers displayed pathologies ranging from absolute, passive neglect to horrific, psychotic infanticidal violence:

• Passive Neglect: The majority of the motherless mothers simply ignored their screaming infants. They refused to hold them, nursing them only if the infant managed to crawl beneath the mother while she sat aloof and detached. When the infant attempted to climb into the mother’s fur to seek contact comfort, the mother would casually shove the baby away, step over it, or sit directly on top of the infant on the cold concrete floor, completely indifferent to its vocal screams of distress;
• Violent and Infanticidal Aggression: Other motherless mothers responded to their offspring with explosive, homicidal fury. They viewed the infant’s desperate attempts to achieve contact comfort as terrifying, hostile assaults. These mothers crushed their babies’ skulls with their teeth, bit off their infants’ fingers and toes, slammed their heads violently against the concrete floors of their cages, and chewed on their infants’ faces.

Laboratory staff were forced to intervene continuously to rescue the newborn infants from being battered to death by their traumatized biological mothers. Harlow’s findings delivered a profound, unsettling theoretical realization: maternal behavior in higher primates is not an autonomous, pre-programmed biological instinct that activates flawlessly upon parturition. Instead, the capacity to love, nurture, and protect an infant is a delicate, learned developmental competency that requires the individual to have experienced maternal love and emotional warmth during their own early ontogenetic development.

7.2 The Compensatory Role of Peer Affectional Systems

Recognizing the absolute devastation wrought by the absence of maternal care, Harlow sought to determine whether alternative social avenues could compensate for the missing mother-infant relationship. He designed the famous “together-together” rearing experiments, in which infant rhesus macaques were separated from their mothers at birth, but reared in small groups consisting entirely of age-matched peers.

The behavioral development of these peer-only reared monkeys revealed both the resilience and the severe structural limitations of compensatory social systems. In the absence of a maternal figure to serve as an anchor, the peer-reared infants displayed what Harlow identified as hyper-attachment and mutual clinging:

• The infants spent immense portions of their days locked in tight, bilateral clinging configurations, wrapping their limbs around each other’s bodies and desperately sucking each other’s ears, fingers, or tails (non-nutritive peer-sucking);
• This mutual clinging acted as an impediment to exploratory learning. While an infant with an adult cloth or biological mother would venture out to explore and return to the base of security, peer-clinging infants remained locked in tight, tangled balls of collective fear, displaying severe timidity toward novel environmental stimuli;
• As these peer-reared animals matured, however, they exhibited remarkable compensatory gains compared to total isolates. Once the mutual clinging began to dissolve at four to six months of age, the monkeys engaged in intensive peer play—rough-and-tumble wrestling, chasing, and mock fighting.

Harlow proved that peer play served as an indispensable developmental crucible. Through the physical dynamics of play, juvenile monkeys learned how to modulate the force of their bites, calibrate aggressive responses, interpret the non-verbal facial gestures of conspecifics, and negotiate social hierarchies. In many domains, peer play actually compensated for the absence of a mother. When these peer-reared monkeys reached adulthood, their social and sexual functioning was vastly superior to that of the mother-reared monkeys who had been deprived of peer contact. Harlow reached the profound conclusion that while a mother is ideal, peers are essential: a mammalian primate can achieve functional adult social competence without a mother if it has access to peer play, but no amount of maternal care can compensate for the total absence of peer relationships during juvenile ontogeny.

7.3 The ‘Therapy’ Paradigm: Rehabilitation via Younger Conspecifics

For years, the extreme pathologies induced by six to twelve months of total vertical chamber isolation were widely considered scientifically irreversible. Harlow had attempted to rehabilitate these emotionally broken isolates by placing them with normal, socially competent age-matched peers. These early rehabilitation attempts were catastrophic failures: the normal age-matched peers, having developed normative juvenile aggression and dominance dynamics, brutally attacked the passive, socially incompetent isolates, driving them deeper into catatonic terror and self-mutilation.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, Harlow, working alongside talented graduate students such as Stephen Suomi, conceptualized an ingenious, revolutionary developmental intervention: the “monkey therapist” paradigm. Suomi and Harlow hypothesized that what the chronically isolated monkeys needed was social contact that was completely devoid of aggression, social dominance demands, or complex territorial threats.

The researchers introduced three-month-old, normally reared infant monkeys—dubbed “therapists”—into the living environments of six-month-old chronic isolate monkeys. The developmental mechanics of the three-month-old infants were uniquely suited for this therapeutic role:

• At three months of age, normal infant monkeys do not possess mature aggressive drives or territorial dominance behaviors; they possess only an intense, non-threatening drive to achieve contact comfort and engage in gentle physical exploration;
• When placed with the terrified, rocking isolate monkey, the young infant therapist would not attack; instead, it would approach and gently cling to the isolate’s huddled body;
• Initially, the isolate monkey would attempt to flee or retreat into a tight, catatonic ball. The persistent infant therapist would follow, crawling around the isolate, gently burrowing under its arms, and initiating soft physical contact;
• Within weeks, the persistent, non-threatening tactile contact provided by the infant therapist began to melt the isolate’s frozen affective defenses. The isolate monkey ceased running away, accepted the clinging infant, and began returning the embrace;
• Gradually, over a period of six months, the isolate began engaging in gentle social play with the therapist. The self-injurious behaviors (SIB) and catatonic rocking dropped precipitously, replaced by exploratory locomotion and normative social grooming.

The “monkey therapist” experiments represented one of the most remarkable triumphs of Harlow’s laboratory. They proved that even the deepest, most pervasive neurodevelopmental trauma induced by severe social isolation was not permanently etched into biological stone. Recovery was achievable, but it required an extraordinarily gentle, non-threatening, developmentally attuned social scaffold. This paradigm carried profound implications for human clinical psychotherapy, guiding interventions for severely neglected, institutionalized, and psychologically traumatized children.

8. Psychopathology, Induced Depression, and Rehabilitation Attempts in Primates

8.1 Primate Modeling of Human Clinical Depression

In the final phase of his laboratory research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Harry Harlow redirected the massive infrastructure of the Primate Laboratory toward constructing rigorous animal models of human clinical depression. Collaborating closely with psychiatric researchers, including William McKinney and Stephen Suomi, Harlow sought to delineate the exact behavioral, cognitive, and neuroendocrine pathways linking acute social separation to the onset of severe affective disorders.

Harlow and his colleagues designed systematic maternal and peer separation paradigms. Infant monkeys who had formed secure, healthy attachments with their biological mothers or peer groups were subjected to abrupt, involuntary separations. Harlow’s quantitative behavioral analyses documented that non-human primates exposed to acute attachment rupture undergo an unmistakable, two-stage psychological collapse that mirrors, with striking fidelity, the classic clinical trajectory observed in human mourning, anaclitic depression, and major depressive disorder:

• The Protest Phase: Immediately following separation, the infant monkey was seized by acute hyper-arousal. The infant raced frenetically across the walls of the enclosure, pacing relentlessly, climbing the wire mesh, and emitting continuous, high-pitched vocal screams (coo-vocalizations). During this phase, which lasted from 24 to 72 hours, the animal actively searched for its lost attachment figure, exhibiting profound sleep disturbance, elevated heart rate, and an explosive surge in adrenocortical activation;
• The Despair Phase: When the protest phase failed to recover the attachment figure, the frenetic agitation collapsed into profound, psychomotor retardation. The infant sank onto the cage floor, assumed a hunched, bowed posture, buried its head between its limbs, and ceased all exploratory activity. During despair, the animals exhibited severe anorexia, loss of interest in rewarding food items (anhedonia), social withdrawal, and blunted affect.

Harlow demonstrated that repeated maternal or peer separations produced cumulative, chronic affective damage, leaving the animals with enduring, lifelong vulnerabilities to stress and neurochemical dysregulation. Biological assays revealed that monkeys in the despair phase exhibited profound perturbations in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, characterized by sustained hypercortisolemia and altered cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of monoamine neurotransmitters, including norepinephrine and serotonin (5-HT). Harlow had successfully constructed a valid, reproducible mammalian model of clinical depression, providing the global biomedical research complex with an empirical platform to test the biological underpinnings of affective illness.

8.2 Pharmacological and Somatic Treatment Trials

With an empirically verified primate model of clinical depression successfully operationalized, Harlow’s laboratory transitioned toward testing emerging biological and somatic interventions. The late 1960s and 1970s marked the dawn of the psychopharmacological revolution, an era characterized by the discovery of early classes of psychiatric pharmaceuticals, including monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs).

Harlow, McKinney, and Suomi designed rigorous pharmacological trials in which isolate-depressed and separation-depressed rhesus macaques were administered systematic regimens of imipramine, a prototypical tricyclic antidepressant. The experimental questions were methodologically rigorous: could a chemical compound, operating purely on monoaminergic neurotransmission at the synaptic cleft, alleviate the catastrophic behavioral despair induced by social trauma? And how would pharmaceutical recovery compare against purely social rehabilitation, such as the “monkey therapist” protocol?

The quantitative results were historically significant for biological psychiatry:

• Monkeys treated with imipramine demonstrated clear, measurable behavioral recovery from separation-induced despair, showing a gradual resolution of psychomotor retardation, recovery of normal sleep architecture, and a resumption of baseline food intake and self-grooming;
• However, pharmacological intervention alone failed to restore the animals’ nuanced social competence: while the drugs relieved the vegetative, depressive lethargy, the monkeys still exhibited social awkwardness and fear when reintroduced to peers;
• The most dramatic, durable therapeutic outcomes were achieved when pharmacological interventions were coupled directly with social rehabilitation (“monkey therapy”), demonstrating a profound, synergistic interaction between neurochemical stabilization and social-behavioral scaffolding.

These pioneering studies established Wisconsin as an early epicenter of modern psychopharmacology screening. Harlow’s primate models provided crucial preclinical proof of efficacy for early classes of psychiatric medications, demonstrating that affective disorders possessed real, pharmacologically manipulable neurobiological realities, while simultaneously proving that chemistry can never fully serve as a complete substitute for social connection and developmental healing.

9. Scientific and Methodological Critiques of Harlow’s Work

9.1 Methodological Limitations and Generalizability Concerns

Despite the immense influence of Harlow’s discoveries, his research program was subjected to severe methodological, theoretical, and epistemological critiques from within the disciplines of psychology and comparative biology. As the initial excitement surrounding the surrogate mother experiments stabilized, critical scholars began identifying significant structural limitations in Harlow’s laboratory methodology.

A primary critique focused on anthropomorphism and selective qualitative interpretation. While Harlow was an obsessive champion of quantitative instrumentation—using electrical counters, WGTA tracking, and formal observational schedules—his published prose frequently contained highly anthropomorphic, poetic, and emotionally charged descriptions of primate mental states. Critics argued that Harlow routinely projected human emotional categories—such as “love,” “despair,” “grief,” and “neurosis”—onto non-human primate behaviors that might have possessed alternative functional or physiological explanations.

Furthermore, methodological questions were raised regarding sample sizes, cohort selection, and environmental confounding variables:

• Several of Harlow’s most widely cited and historically influential isolation sub-studies relied on exceptionally small cohorts of animals—sometimes as few as four to six infant monkeys per experimental condition;
• The extreme total isolation paradigm confounded social deprivation with severe, indiscriminate sensory and physical deprivation. In the “pit of despair,” the monkeys were not merely deprived of social love; they were deprived of visual horizons, spatial variation, olfactory diversity, environmental temperature variation, and normal physical exercise. Critics argued that the catatonic posturing, stereotypies, and self-injurious behaviors (SIB) observed in the vertical chambers were not clean products of “psychological depression” or “maternal loss,” but rather the direct neuro-motor breakdown of a higher primate central nervous system subjected to massive, unnatural sensory deprivation;
• Generalizability constraints represented a persistent external validity challenge. Critics from human developmental psychology noted that while the rhesus macaque is an advanced primate, human infant ontogeny unfolds within a massive scaffolding of language, symbolic culture, extended kinship networks, and complex socio-cognitive constructs that cannot be neatly modeled by an infant monkey clinging to a terrycloth cylinder in a Wisconsin basement.

9.2 Alternative Interpretations from Ethology and Field Biology

A second, intellectually formidable wave of critique emerged from the burgeoning discipline of naturalistic primatology and field ethology. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, pioneering field biologists such as Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, and George Schaller were conducting long-term, immersive field observations of wild non-human primates in their native African and Asian ecosystems. These field primatologists looked upon Harlow’s laboratory contrivances with profound skepticism and philosophical disapproval.

Ethologists argued that Harlow’s laboratory environment was so artificial, so sterile, and so pathologically unnatural that it stripped the rhesus macaque of its true biological essence. In nature, rhesus macaques live in dense, multi-generational social troops consisting of extensive matrilineal kinship networks, complex male alliances, dynamic foraging strategies, and continuous ecological interactions with predators, climate, and terrain. To strip a primate infant of this rich ecological and cultural tapestry, lock it in a stainless-steel cone, and then claim to be studying “the nature of love” was viewed by field biologists as a fundamental, grotesque epistemological distortion.

Field ethologists argued that:

• Harlow’s laboratory was creating extreme, artificial, laboratory-induced neuroses that bore virtually no relationship to normative primate evolutionary biology;
• Harlow’s early dismissal of the father’s role—which he initially mocked as unnecessary until his later five-system model—and his isolation of the mother-infant dyad into a closed, two-party vacuum ignored the vital, protective role played by extended kinship networks, allomothering (aunt-like caregiving by juvenile females), and troop-wide social defense;
• The pathologies exhibited by the “motherless mothers” were not natural primate reactions to maternal absence, but were instead the desperate, psychotic reactions of animals that had been driven to profound madness by total sensory and social sensory deprivation.

These ethological critiques did not invalidate Harlow’s demonstration that contact comfort is biologically essential, but they placed vital ecological boundaries around his findings. They revealed that the laboratory can easily become a chamber of biological distortion if the evolutionary and naturalistic reality of the organism is completely discarded in pursuit of pure experimental control.

10. Ethical Controversies and Catalysis of the Animal Rights Movement

10.1 Ethical Condemnation within the Academic Community

During the first two decades of Harlow’s laboratory operations, his work was greeted with near-universal academic acclaim, showered with prestigious federal grants, institutional accolades, and widespread public fascination. However, by the late 1960s and early 1970s, the cultural, moral, and scientific zeitgeist began to undergo a seismic transformation. The deliberate infliction of profound, inescapable psychological agony upon intelligent, highly sentient primates sparked intense ethical condemnation, not merely from the lay public, but from within the ranks of professional academic psychology itself.

Academic critics began openly challenging the moral necessity and scientific proportionality of Harlow’s research. While the initial 1958 surrogate mother experiments had resulted in relatively manageable ethical distress, the subsequent decades of total isolation chambers, the “pit of despair,” the forced-mating apparatus, and the deliberate creation of infanticidal mothers crossed a profound moral boundary. Critics asked a fundamental, devastating question: what new, vital scientific knowledge was actually being gained by torturing infant monkeys in steel pits? Was it truly necessary to spend hundreds of thousands of federal research dollars to “prove” that complete isolation drives a social creature to suicidal madness, or that severe neglect produces abusive parenting?

Within the walls of the Wisconsin Primate Laboratory itself, deep moral fractures, internal guilt, and dissent began to emerge. Several graduate students and laboratory technicians experienced profound psychological distress, finding themselves unable to continue working in an environment where screaming, self-mutilating monkeys were daily routine. Some graduate students quietly transferred to other research programs, while others openly confronted Harlow regarding the ethics of the vertical chambers. Harlow, whose personal mental health was rapidly deteriorating during this period, responded to these internal moral protests with defensive mockery, callous dismissal, and an even more aggressive doubling-down on his macabre terminology, further alienating his academic colleagues.

10.2 Catalyzing the Modern Animal Welfare and Rights Movement

The historical irony of Harry Harlow’s legacy is that his research served as one of the most powerful, decisive catalysts for the birth of the modern animal liberation movement. In 1975, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer published his foundational, world-altering philosophical treatise, Animal Liberation. In the book’s central, devastating chapter examining institutionalized laboratory cruelty, Singer featured the primate research of Harry Harlow as his primary, definitive indictment of biomedical and behavioral science.

Singer quoted Harlow’s own published papers verbatim, confronting the reader with Harlow’s provocative, unapologetic prose detailing the “pit of despair,” the “rape rack,” and the systematic blinding, bludgeoning, and madness inflicted upon infant rhesus macaques. Singer argued that Harlow’s work represented a grotesque, indefensible manifestation of “speciesism”—the arbitrary philosophical discounting of the suffering of non-human animals based solely on their species membership. Singer pointed out the fatal moral contradiction at the core of Harlow’s science:

• Harlow justified his experiments by asserting that rhesus macaques are so evolutionary and psychologically similar to humans that their emotional suffering can serve as an exact, direct model for human psychological despair;
• Yet, Harlow simultaneously justified his ethical treatment of the animals by asserting that they are not human, and therefore possess no fundamental moral rights to be spared prolonged psychological torture;
• If the monkeys feel love, grief, depression, and terror exactly like human children, then subjecting them to the “pit of despair” is functionally and morally indistinguishable from subjecting human infants to the same horrors.

Singer’s expose transformed Harlow into the international poster-child for laboratory cruelty. Animal protection organizations, including the newly formed People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), founded by Alex Pacheco and Ingrid Newkirk in 1980, mobilized massive public campaigns around the imagery and language of Harlow’s laboratory. Wisconsin became a battleground, subjected to public demonstrations, protests, and intense investigative scrutiny that fundamentally reshaped public consciousness regarding the moral status of non-human animals.

10.3 Regulatory Reforms and Contemporary Laboratory Standards

The public outcry and philosophical firestorm ignited by Harlow’s research exerted an enduring, transformative impact on the statutory architecture governing biomedical and behavioral animal research in the United States and globally. Throughout the mid-twentieth century, animal welfare legislation in the United States had been virtually non-existent, and where it existed, it applied solely to the physical housing, sanitation, and feeding of domestic animals like dogs and cats, entirely excluding non-human primates and laboratory rodents.

The ethical scandal surrounding the Wisconsin primate studies served as a direct legislative driver for the sweeping 1985 amendments to the United States Animal Welfare Act (AWA). For the first time in federal legislative history, Congress formally mandated that research institutions must provide for the “psychological well-being” of captive non-human primates. Researchers were no longer permitted to simply keep primates physically alive in sterile, isolated metal cages; the law mandated social housing, environmental enrichment, cognitive stimulation, and the accommodation of natural species-typical behavioral needs.

Furthermore, these legislative reforms permanently established and empowered Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUC) across every university and research facility receiving federal funding. Under contemporary IACUC standards, any experimental protocol must undergo a rigorous, independent ethical cost-benefit analysis. The deliberate creation of chronic social isolation, the engineering of vertical deprivation chambers, and the intentional infliction of inescapable despair—the very experimental hallmarks of Harlow’s career—are today universally classified as extreme, unmitigated animal torture, entirely prohibited and legally indefensible within contemporary behavioral science.

11. Harlow’s Professional Leadership, Honors, and Complex Personal Life

11.1 Academic Honors, Presidencies, and Scientific Recognition

Throughout the zenith of his academic career, Harry Harlow was showered with the highest institutional honors that American science and psychology could bestow. He was recognized by his peers as a titan of the discipline, an intellectual pioneer who had fundamentally shattered the dogmas of radical behaviorism and established Wisconsin as one of the preeminent centers of psychological scholarship in the world.

Harlow’s scientific leadership was formal, extensive, and elite:

• In 1951, at the remarkably young age of forty-six, he was elected to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, cementing his position in the upper echelon of American scientific researchers;
• In 1958, he was elected as the sixty-sixth President of the American Psychological Association (APA), using his presidential address to deliver The Nature of Love, a lecture that electrified the scientific world and became an instant classic of psychological literature;
• In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson awarded Harlow the National Medal of Science, the nation’s highest scientific honor, citing his transformative studies into the mechanics of learning, motivation, and the affectional systems;
• Harlow was the recipient of the Gold Medal Award from the American Psychological Foundation (1973), the Howard Crosby Warren Medal from the Society of Experimental Psychologists (1956), and numerous honorary doctorates from elite universities throughout the world;
• From 1950 to 1963, he served as the influential founding editor of the APA’s premier journal, the Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology (JCPP), where his exacting methodological standards shaped the empirical trajectory of an entire generation of comparative behavioral scientists.

11.2 Personal Struggles, Depression, and Health Decline

Behind the glittering facade of institutional honors, international academic acclaim, and biting wit, Harry Harlow’s personal life was a harrowing landscape of severe psychiatric illness, chronic alcohol abuse, and devastating personal tragedy. The very psychological agony that he so ruthlessly engineered and studied in his laboratory primates was an intimate, tormenting reality within the confines of his own mind.

Throughout his entire adult life, Harlow fought a torturous, recurrent battle with severe major depressive disorder. He experienced devastating depressive collapses characterized by profound psychomotor retardation, creative paralysis, and crushing despair—periods that mirrored, with eerie precision, the “pit of despair” he constructed for his monkeys. To manage his chronic psychic agony, Harlow self-medicated with catastrophic quantities of alcohol, becoming a functioning, and eventually non-functioning, alcoholic whose professional demeanor was increasingly marred by erratic, volatile behavior and toxic social interactions.

Harlow’s romantic and domestic life was marked by profound complexity and instability:

• In 1932, he married his first wife, Clara Mears, an exceptionally gifted student who had studied under Lewis Terman at Stanford. The marriage yielded two sons, Robert and Richard, but was strained by Harlow’s obsessive work schedule, emotional coldness, and heavy drinking, culminating in a bitter divorce in 1946;
• In 1948, Harlow married Margaret Kuenne, a brilliant, formidable developmental psychologist in her own right. Margaret became his primary intellectual collaborator, managing the laboratory’s administrative infrastructure, co-authoring numerous foundational empirical papers, and providing the domestic stability that kept Harlow functional for two decades. The couple had two children, Pamela and Jonathan;
• In the late 1960s, Margaret was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer. Her protracted, agonizing decline devastated Harlow’s fragile emotional equilibrium. As his wife lay dying, Harlow sank into an apocalyptic depressive abyss. In 1968, he was admitted to the Mayo Clinic, where he underwent multiple courses of bilateral electroconvulsive therapy (ECT).

The temporal convergence between Harlow’s personal psychiatric collapse, his ECT treatments, and his laboratory’s turn toward the “pit of despair” is one of the most chilling, psychologically fraught chapters in the history of science. It was precisely during and immediately following his wife’s cancer diagnosis and his own electroconvulsive treatments that Harlow designed the vertical depression chambers and ordered his staff to plunge infant monkeys into total darkness. Biographers and historians, such as Deborah Blum in Love at Goon Park (2002), have noted that Harlow appeared to be externalizing his own personal psychological hell into the stainless-steel geometry of his laboratory.

Margaret died in 1971. In a bizarre, desperate bid to reclaim the lost stability of his past, Harlow remarried his first wife, Clara Mears, in 1972. However, his physical and mental health were in terminal decline. Harlow was diagnosed with advancing Parkinson’s disease, accompanied by alcohol-induced neurodegeneration. He retired from the University of Wisconsin in 1974, moving to Tucson, Arizona, where he lived his final years as an increasingly isolated, physically trembling, and deeply disillusioned man. Harry Harlow died on December 6, 1981, leaving behind an intellectual legacy that fundamentally remade developmental psychology, alongside a moral burden that science continues to navigate today.

12. The Enduring Legacy and Epistemological Impact of Harlow’s Primate Research

12.1 Transformative Epistemological Shift in Psychological Science

The historical significance of Harry Harlow’s scientific career cannot be reduced merely to his specific empirical discoveries regarding terrycloth surrogates or learning sets; it must be understood as an immense, transformative epistemological shift in psychological science. Harlow effectively forced a recalcitrant, hyper-behaviorist discipline to take the human heart seriously as an object of quantitative empirical inquiry.

Prior to Harlow, the concepts of “love,” “affection,” “tenderness,” and “comfort” were actively banished from the lexicon of academic psychology. Watson, Skinner, and Hull had convinced the scientific establishment that internal affective states were either entirely non-existent or represented unscientific, sentimental mysticism that could not be verified by controlled operational measurement. By bringing love into the laboratory—by measuring it in units of hours spent on cloth, by calculating proximity in fear paradigms, by demonstrating that an infant would starve itself to hold a soft surrogate—Harlow stripped radical behaviorism of its intellectual authority.

Harlow proved that emotion is not a secondary, derivative epiphenomenon of digestion, but a primary, biologically hardwired evolutionary reality. He wedded rigorous, quantitative, psychometric laboratory methodology to deep evolutionary biology, laying the empirical foundations for what would emerge decades later as evolutionary psychology, affective neuroscience, and modern developmental psychopathology. He permanently legitimized the study of internal affective life, proving that the most profound dimensions of mammalian existence can be investigated with scientific rigor without reducing them to mere mechanical conditioning.

12.2 Influence on Modern Neuroscience and Epigenetics

In the decades since Harlow’s death, modern molecular neuroscience, neuroendocrinology, and epigenetics have validated, expanded, and illuminated the underlying physiological mechanisms of his original behavioral findings. Harlow’s empirical discoveries regarding contact comfort, maternal deprivation, and the consequences of early life trauma anticipated the modern biological revolution in early childhood brain development by nearly half a century.

Contemporary neuroscience has revealed the intricate neurochemical and epigenetic substrates that underpin the behavioral trajectories Harlow observed:

• The Oxytocin and Opioidergic Systems: We now recognize that the sensation of “contact comfort” is neurochemically mediated by the rhythmic stimulation of low-threshold unmyelinated C-tactile afferents in the skin. This tactile stimulation triggers massive central releases of oxytocin and endogenous beta-endorphins within the ventral striatum, amygdala, and nucleus accumbens, directly down-regulating sympathetic autonomic arousal and promoting profound somatic security;
• HPA Axis Programming and Toxic Stress: The catastrophic behavioral panic and subsequent despair documented in Harlow’s isolated monkeys are now understood as the neurotoxic consequence of unbuffered cortisol surges during critical sensitive windows of brain development. The absence of a maternal buffer causes an epigenetic downregulation of glucocorticoid receptor gene expression within the hippocampus, permanently crippling the negative feedback loop of the HPA axis and locking the organism into a permanent state of neuroendocrine hyper-reactivity;
• Epigenetic Transmission of Trauma: The horrific maternal behavior of Harlow’s “motherless mothers” was an early behavioral demonstration of the transgenerational epigenetic transmission of trauma. Contemporary research by neurobiologists like Michael Meaney and Eric Nestler has proven that the absence of early maternal licking, grooming, and touch results in widespread DNA methylation changes across hundreds of genes governing social bonding, empathy, and maternal responsiveness, literally altering the physical architecture of the brain across generations.

Harlow possessed no functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanners, no DNA sequencing machines, and no molecular assays. Yet, through pure, meticulous behavioral observation and apparatus design, he mapped the macroscopic behavioral reality of the very neurodevelopmental circuits that modern molecular biology continues to map today.

12.3 Historical Duality: Scientific Breakthroughs versus Moral Transgression

Ultimately, Harry Frederick Harlow occupies an agonizing, profoundly paradoxical position in the pantheon of modern science. He stands as a towering, unavoidable case study in scientific progress achieved at an immense moral cost. His legacy cannot be cleanly reconciled: one cannot celebrate his revolutionary contributions to child welfare, pediatric medicine, and attachment theory while sanitizing or ignoring the horrific, deliberate torment he inflicted upon hundreds of sentient non-human primates.

In university psychology curricula across the world, Harlow remains the definitive archetype of historical duality:

• On one hand, he was the brilliant, visionary iconoclast who rescued millions of human children from the emotionally barren, Watsonian child-rearing manuals of the interwar period, giving science the empirical tools to prove that children need cuddling, holding, warmth, and love just as much as they need food and clean air;
• On the other hand, he was the dark, cynical architect of the “pit of despair” and the “rape rack,” a man whose personal demons, alcoholism, and institutional hubris led him to systematically manufacture madness, mutilation, and suicidal despair in our closest evolutionary kin.

Harlow’s life and work forced modern science to confront its own moral soul. His experiments proved beyond all evolutionary doubt that primates are rich, emotional, feeling creatures capable of love, terror, despair, and grief. Yet, in the very act of proving that reality, Harlow subjected those very creatures to the absolute extremes of psychological horror. The enduring lesson of Harry Harlow is that scientific genius divorced from ethical empathy inevitably degenerates into cruelty; and that the pursuit of psychological truth must never again be purchased through the manufactured torment of the innocent.

Conclusion: The Paradoxical Legacy of Harry Frederick Harlow

Harry Frederick Harlow transformed twentieth-century psychological science by confronting its deepest theoretical errors. In an era when behavioral psychology had reduced human and mammalian experience to cold stimulus-response bonds, and psychoanalysis had welded maternal love to oral lactation, Harlow wielded empirical observation to prove that love is real, measurable, and essential for the survival of the mammalian mind. His surrogate mother paradigms permanently re-anchored human parenting, pediatric medicine, and developmental theory in the vital necessity of contact comfort, physical tenderness, and emotional responsiveness.

Yet, the absolute totality of his legacy remains forever scarred by the dark, vertical shadow of the isolation chambers. The very methods he utilized to map the architecture of affection became an engine for the industrial production of psychological agony. In Harlow’s career, the triumph of scientific breakthrough and the tragedy of moral blindness sit in permanent, irreconcilable tension. He remains a foundational, haunting figure: the scientist who taught the world the true nature of love, through an experimental crucible of inescapable despair.

References

• Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Blum, D. (2002). Love at Goon Park: Harry Harlow and the science of affection. Basic Books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_at_Goon_Park
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. Basic Books.
• Harlow, H. F. (1949). The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review, 56(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062474
• Harlow, H. F. (1950). Learning motivated by a manipulation drive. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(2), 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056906
• Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13(12), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047884
• Harlow, H. F., & Harlow, M. K. (1962). Social deprivation in monkeys. Scientific American, 207(5), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1162-136
• Harlow, H. F., & Harlow, M. K. (1965). The affectional systems. In A. M. Schrier, H. F. Harlow, & F. Stollnitz (Eds.), Behavior of nonhuman primates (Vol. 2, pp. 287–334). Academic Press.
• Harlow, H. F., & Suomi, S. J. (1971). Social recovery by isolation-reared monkeys. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 68(7), 1534–1538. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.68.7.1534
• Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
• McKinney, W. T., Suomi, S. J., & Harlow, H. F. (1971). Depression in monkeys of socially induced behavioral and biochemical changes. Archives of General Psychiatry, 25(2), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1971.01750140072013
• Singer, P. (1975). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York Review/Random House.
• Spitz, R. A. (1945). Hospitalism: An inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00797308.1945.11823126
• Suomi, S. J., & Harlow, H. F. (1972). Depressive behavior in young monkeys subjected to vertical chamber confinement. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 80(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032845
• Watson, J. B. (1928). Psychological care of infant and child. W. W. Norton & Company.