Animal Studies Flashcards
(20 cards)
Animal Studies
- Early research into attachment was often conducted on non-human animals on the basis that there is biological similarity between animals and humans.
-Therefore, if something was observed in animal attachment behaviour, it stands to reason that it could also be applied to humans. - Research using animal subjects are often seen as more ethical than when conducted with human participants as there is less potential for harm to human participants but also less psychological impact.
- Since researchers are often interested in seeing results over a life span, there are also practical advantages of using animals since they breed faster than humans do.
Key study: Lorenz (1935) - Aim
To examine the phenomenon of imprinting in goslings.
Key study: Lorenz (1935) - Method
- Lorenz conducted an experiment where he randomly divided greylag goose eggs into two batches.
- One batch, the control group, were naturally hatched by the biological mother.
- The second batch, the experimental group, were placed in an incubator, with Lorenz making sure he was the first large moving object that the goslings saw after hatching.
- The following behaviour of either the mother goose or Lorenz was recorded.
- Lorenz then marked the goslings so that he knew in which condition they were hatched and then placed them under an upside-down box.
- The box was then removed and the following behaviour of the goslings was recorded.
Key study: Lorenz (1935) - Findings
- Lorenz found that straight after birth the naturally-hatched goslings followed their mother, and the incubator-hatched goslings followed Lorenz.
- When the upside-down box was taken away, the naturally-hatched goslings moved immediately towards their mother, while the incubator-hatched goslings followed Lorenz. This shows that imprinting had occurred on the goslings and either their biological mother or Lorenz.
- The incubator-hatched goslings showed no attachment to their biological mother.
- Lorenz noted that this imprinting only occurred within a critical period of 4-25 hours after hatching; if a gosling did not see a large moving object to imprint on in these first few hours, it lost the ability to imprint.
- This relationship persisted over time and proved to be irreversible.
Key study: Lorenz (1935) - Conclusion
These results suggest that imprinting is an evolutionary/biological form of attachment exhibited by birds that typically leave the nest early, whereby they imprint onto the first large moving object they encounter after hatching.
Lorenz - Sexual Imprinting
- Lorenz also looked at the relationship between imprinting and adult male preferences.
- Findings - birds that imprinted on humans would often display courtship behaviours towards humans.
- Case study: A peacock was reared in a reptile house with tortoises. As an adult - the peacock would demonstrate courtship behaviours towards giant tortoises = sexual imprinting.
Key study: Lorenz (1935) - Strength
Point: A strength of Lorenz’s study into imprinting was its high level of control.
Evidence: The independent variable, the presence of either Lorenz or the biological mother, was carefully manipulated to observe its effects on imprinting. In addition, the timing of exposure during the critical period of 4-25 hours was strictly controlled, ensuring that the goslings’ attachment formation occurred within this narrow window. Moreover, the use of random allocation of the greylag goose eggs helps prevent the likelihood of other factors, e.g., the goslings’ natural tendencies or biases, from interfering with the findings of the experiment.
Justification: Such careful manipulation and control of variables ensured that any observed changes in the goslings’ behaviour was attributed to the experimental conditions, rather than extraneous factors. By eliminating such factors, the study ensured that it was measuring the process of imprinting accurately.
Implication: This high degree of control contributes to the reliability of this study, as it allows for easier replication by other researchers. Furthermore, because the study was not influenced by any external factors, this enhances the interval validity of the study, ensuring that the findings were directly related to the experiment’s intended focus.
Key study: Lorenz (1935) - Strength
Point: There is research supporting the notion of imprinting.
Evidence: Guiton et al. found that chickens imprinted on yellow washing-up gloves when they were the first large moving object they encountered after birth. The chickens later attempted to mate with the gloves.
Justification: The study supports Lorenz’s findings by showing that imprinting is not exclusive to geese but can also occur in other species, such as chickens. In addition, it suggests that imprinting is a biological and irreversible process.
Implication: This reinforces the credibility of Lorenz’s study, as it provides additional evidence that imprinting is an authentic phenomenon, underpinning the idea that it is an innate, evolutionary mechanism that can be observed across various species.
Counterargument: However, Guiton et al.’s findings do not fully follow Lorenz’s concept of imprinting.
Evidence: Guiton et al. found that although chickens imprinted on yellow washing-up gloves, they eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens, illustrating that imprinting may not be as permanent as Lorenz proposed.
Justification. Whilst Lorenz’s theory was based on the idea that imprinting forms a critical attachment in the early stages of development and could influence later mating behaviours, Guiton’s experiment proposes the flexibility of imprinting, rather than invalidating Lorenz’s theory. It is also important to note that imprinting can be a primary bond, but other factors, like social learning, could modify behaviours as animals grow and mature.
Implication: Therefore, this is a limitation of Lorenz’s study as he only considers a partial understanding of imprinting by suggesting that it is an irreparable and fixed process, which has been refuted by Guiton et al. However, Lorenz’s study could still be relevant when reflecting on the immediate impact of imprinting, even if later experiences shape or override it.
Key study: Lorenz (1935) - Weakness
Point: Lorenz’s study has been criticised for its reliance on non-human animals to study the process of imprinting.
Evidence: Lorenz conducted his study on goslings, and his findings about imprinting were based on birds. However, humans have a much more complex and flexible attachment system. Human infants, for instance, rely on multiple factors, such as emotional bonding, caregiving and social interactions to form attachments, rather than simply imprinting onto the first large moving object they encounter.
Justification: This indicates that Lorenz’s findings may not apply to human attachment behaviours, as the mechanisms of attachment in bird species could differ significantly from those in humans. The reliance on imprinting in birds, which is much more automatic and immediate, contrasts with the developmental processes in humans, where attachment forms more gradually and is influenced by an extensive range of factors.
Implication: This limits the generalisability of Lorenz’s study when it comes to explaining human attachment behaviours due to the differences in attachment formation amongst both organisms, making this study more relevant towards avian species instead.
Key study: Lorenz (1935) - Weakness
Point: A limitation of Lorenz’s study is that it overlooks ethical concerns.
Evidence: Lorenz’s study involved separating the goslings from their mother and imprinting them onto a different, human species (Lorenz). This means that the goslings likely would never have the opportunity to form an attachment with their biological mother. Additionally, the goslings were raised in a highly controlled environment where they were exposed to Lorenz as their primary attachment figure, potentially causing confusion and distress due to their biological dissimilarities.
Justification: The separation of the goslings from their mother and the imposition of Lorenz as their attachment figure raises these ethical concerns, particularly around animal welfare. The disruption of natural attachment processes may have caused distress or physiological harm to the animals, especially in the long-term.
Implication: This raises important ethical questions for future animal research, suggesting that researchers should prioritise the well-being of animals and ensure that studies do not cause unnecessary harm or distress or hinder innate, biological processes from occurring. This limitation also highlights the need for modern ethical guidelines to ensure that the welfare of animals is not compromised for scientific discovery.
Counterargument: Despite ethical concerns revolving around Lorenz’s study, it can be argued that the use of non-human subjects, specifically the goslings, was a necessary and justifiable decision for the sake of scientific advancement.
Evidence: Unlike studies involving human subjects,which would have posed significant ethical challenges, the use of birds allowed Lorenz to observe imprinting in a controlled environment without infringing human rights or exposing vulnerable individuals to stress. Moreover, the goslings weren’t substantially impacted by the study, with the greatest impact simply being different attachment experiences and later courtship behaviours. However, if he had used human subjects, the outcome would have resulted in much more detrimental consequences, e.g., emotional deficits.
Justification: This approach enabled Lorenz to investigate the phenomenon of imprinting in a way that would not have been possible with humans due to ethical constraints, providing valuable insights into attachment processes.
Implication: Therefore, although ethical concerns are important, Lorenz’s study can still be regarded as a major contribution to understanding attachment, as it provides meaningful understanding on imprinting and the critical period.
Key study: Harlow (1959) - Aim
To examine the extent to which contact comfort and food influences attachment behaviour in baby rhesus monkeys.
Key study: Harlow (1959) - Method
- Harlow constructed 2 surrogate mothers: 1 harsh ‘wire mother’ and a 2nd soft ‘towelling mother’.
- A sample of 16 baby rhesus monkeys were used across the 4 caged conditions:
1. ‘wire mother’ dispensing milk and ‘towelling mother with no milk’.
2. ‘wire mother’ with no milk and ‘towelling mother’ dispensing milk.
3. ‘wire mother’ dispensing milk.
4. ‘towelling mother’ dispensing milk. - The amount of time the baby rhesus monkeys spent with each mother was recorded, alongside how long they spent feeding at each one.
- To test for mother preference during periods of stress, the monkeys were startled with a loud noise and their responses recorded.
- A larger cage was used in some conditions to observe the degree of exploration by the baby rhesus monkeys.
Key study: Harlow (1959) - Findings
- Harlow discovered that when given a choice of surrogate mother, the baby rhesus monkeys preferred to make contact with the soft ‘towelling’ mother irrespective of whether she dispensed milk.
- It was observed that they would even stretch across to the ‘wire’ mother for food whilst still clinging onto the ‘towelling’ mother for contact comfort.
- The baby rhesus monkeys in the condition with only the ‘wire’ mother showed signs of stress, such as diarrhoea.
- When startled by the loud noise, the baby rhesus monkeys would cling tightly to the ‘towelling’ mother in the conditions where the surrogate was available to them.
- When given larger caged conditions, greater exploration behaviour was seen by the baby rhesus monkeys with the ‘towelling’ mother, indicating emotional security.
- Some of the rhesus monkeys even went on to display the effects of maternal deprivation: They were: aggressive, less sociable, bred less than other monkeys and as mothers; they neglected their young and some even attacked them.
Key study: Harlow (1959) - Conclusion
Harlow concluded that baby rhesus monkeys appear to have an innate drive to seek contact comfort from their parents suggesting that attachment is formed through an emotional need for security rather than food, which is in contrast to the cupboard love theory explanation of attachment, which suggests that attachment is primarily driven by the need for food. This contact comfort provided by the mother is associated by lower levels of stress and a higher willingness to explore their surroundings.
Key study: Harlow (1959) - Strength
Point: Harlow’s study is marked by strong methodological design.
Evidence: The research was conducted under highly controlled laboratory conditions, where the independent variable - the type of surrogate mother - was deliberately manipulated. Additionally, extraneous variables were tightly controlled to reduce the likelihood of external influences on the monkeys’ behaviour. Harlow also used a comparative design by including multiple experimental conditions, which allowed for a clear distinction between the impact of feeding and contact comfort.
Justification: This level of experimental control increases the internal validity of the study, ensuring that the observed outcomes can be confidently attributed to the availability of comfort and security, rather than to confounding variables. The structured comparisons further support the establishment of a cause-and-effect relationship.
Implication: As a result, Harlow’s study offers reliable insights into the factors underpinning attachment behaviours. The methodological strength of the design ensures that the findings can form a sound foundation for further research and theory development in the field of attachment.
Key study: Harlow (1959) - Weakness
Point: A significant limitation of Harlow’s study is the ethical concerns surrounding the treatment of the baby rhesus monkeys.
Evidence: The procedure involves separating the monkeys from their biological mothers at an early age, which led to severe emotional deprivation. Harlow’s research also showed the effects of maternal deprivation in later life, the monkeys exhibited aggressive behaviour, were less sociable, had reduced breeding success, and neglected or even attacked their own offspring. The suffering experienced by these monkeys raises serious ethical questions about the welfare of the animals in the study.
Justification: This suggests that the emotional and psychological harm caused by the separation and lack of maternal care was significant and long-lasting, with observable negative effects on the monkeys’ behaviour and parenting. The fact that these issues persisted in the monkeys’ later lives, including the neglect of their own offspring, underscores the severity of the harm they endured. If the species of primates are considered to be sufficiently human-like to generalise the findings beyond the sample used, then it stands to reason that the effects of psychological harm that they had endured would be the same in a human infant too.
Implication: This highlights a major ethical flaw in Harlow’s study, as it prioritises scientific discovery over the wellbeing of the animals involved. It brings attention to the need for ethical standards that safeguard the wellbeing of animal subjects in research, ensuring that their treatment aligns with humane and ethical guidelines.
Counterargument: Although Harlow’s study raises significant ethical concerns, it can be argued that the findings offer substantial practical value that outweighs these issues in certain contexts.
Evidence: Howe reports that the knowledge gained from Harlow’s research has been instrumental in helping social workers identify risk factors in neglect and abuse cases involving human children. This understanding can then be used to prevent such occurrences or, at the very least, recognise when intervention is necessary. Additionally, Harlow’s findings have been applied to the care of captive wild monkeys in zoos or breeding programmes, ensuring that these animals have appropriate attachment figures as part of their overall care.
Justification: This suggests that Harlow’s research has generated real-world benefits that continue to shape welfare practices for both human and non-human primates, even despite it being at the expense of the baby rhesus monkeys. It demonstrates how ethically controversial studies can still yield critical knowledge that contributes meaningfully to safeguarding the wellbeing of others.
Implication: Therefore, while the ethical concerns are valid, the lasting practical applications of Harlow’s work highlight its enduring relevance. It ensures that the attachment needs of both humans and animals are recognised and prioritised in contexts where their development and safety may be at jeopardy. This highlights the practical relevance of Harlow’s research, cementing its value beyond theoretical understanding.
Key study: Harlow (1959) - Weakness
Point: One limitation of Harlow’s study is its reliance on primate species to measure attachment behaviour.
Evidence: Although Harlow used 16 baby rhesus monkeys, which are biologically closer to humans than the geese used in Lorenz’s research, there remains considerable debate among psychologists about how far findings from non-human primates can be applied to humans. While primates share many behavioural and neurological similarities with humans, they are still evolutionarily and cognitively distinct. As a result, any attempt to apply Harlow’s findings to human infants involves a degree of speculation rather than certainty.
Justification: This ambiguity weakens the extent to which we can confidently apply Harlow’s conclusions to human attachment. The emotional complexity, social structures, and developmental processes of human infants may differ in critical ways from those of rhesus monkeys.
Implication: Consequently, this limits the generalisability of Harlow’s study, as its application to the human population is not guaranteed. Although the research provides strong insight, its relevance to human attachment behaviour remains somewhat constrained by the obvious differences between these species.
Animal studies - Strength
Point: A strength of animal studies, such as that of Lorenz’s and Harlow’s, is that they benefit from high control.
Evidence: Lorenz’s study was conducted in a controlled setting where goslings were exposed to either Lorenz or their mother, allowing for clear manipulation of the independent variable. Additionally, control variables, such as the duration of time the goslings were exposed to either Lorenz or their mother, was kept constant among both conditions. Harlow’s study used a controlled laboratory setup where different mother conditions, e.g., wire vs towelling, were manipulated and certain variables were controlled, including exposure time and duration.
Justification: This control enabled both studies to establish cause-and-effect relationships between attachment and the availability of attachment figures - imprinting for Lorenz and contact comfort for Harlow.
Implication: Such control and effective manipulation of variables elevates the internal validity of both studies as they allow for strong conclusions to be drawn regarding factors that influence attachment, thereby providing valuable insights into the nature of attachment.
Counterargument: On the contrary, both studies have been criticised for employing artificial environments in their studies.
Evidence: Lorenz’s study involved raising goslings in a laboratory setting, while Harlow’s monkeys were isolated in unnatural, caged conditions. These artificial settings may not extensively reflect real-life attachment processes.
Justification: The lab-based setups of both studies raises concerns about the generalisability of their findings. For instance, Lorenz’s goslings may have behaved differently if raised in more natural, avian conditions, and if Harlow’s monkeys were exposed to less distressing and troubling scenarios.
Implication: Therefore, while both studies provide crucial insights into attachment, the lack of ecological validity limits the extent to which their findings can be applied to real-world human attachment
Animal studies - Weakness
Point: A major limitation of animal studies in attachment, such as those conducted by Lorenz and Harlow, is the ethical concerns and moral implications they raise.
Evidence: In Harlow’s study, baby rhesus monkeys were deliberately isolated and exposed to emotionally distressing conditions involving unresponsive surrogate mothers. This resulted in long-term psychological damage, including increased aggression, social withdrawal and neglectful or abusive parenting behaviours later in life. While Lorenz’s study with goslings may appear less ethically severe, it still involved separating hatchlings from their biological mothers and exposing them to an unnatural rearing process that could have disrupted their instinctual development and social functioning.
Justification: The use of species with varying levels of sentience - rhesus monkeys being especially close to humans - intensifies ethical burden. When animals endure lasting harm or distress, it raises questions about whether the scientific knowledge accumulated justifies the procedures used.
Implication: As a result, these studies have influenced the formulation of more rigorous ethical guidelines in psychological research, reinforcing the importance of protecting animal welfare and ensuring that research involving sentient beings balances scientific value with humane treatment.
Counterargument: Despite the ethical concerns surrounding these studies, they have made a substantial contribution to our understanding of attachment.
Evidence: Harlow’s findings have had a significant impact on child welfare practices. For instance, Howe highlights how Harlow’s research has helped social workers identify risk factors in child neglect and emotional deprivation, allowing for earlier intervention. In addition, knowledge from Lorenz’s imprinting research has informed practices in animal rearing and conservation, such as bird breeding programmes where early bonding is mandatory.
Justification: These practical applications demonstrate that the insight gained from both studies extends well beyond theoretical knowledge. By observing the negative effects of maternal deprivation, Harlow’s monkeys and the critical period of imprinting in Lorenz’s goslings, psychologists and caregivers have been better equipped to promote healthy attachment and emotional development in both human and non-human populations.
Implication: Therefore, although the ethical implications of these studies are important and should not be compromised, their contributions to psychological understanding and welfare practices justify their scientific value. They underscore how research, even when ethically complex, can lead to improvements in care, intervention, and development across a range of settings.
Animal studies - Weakness
Point: A key limitation of both Lorenz’s and Harlow’s study is their overreliance on animals to discover how attachment behaviour works in humans.
Evidence: Lorenz conducted his research on goslings, a species with significantly different biological and cognitive structure to humans. Similarly, although Harlow used rhesus monkeys - which are more evolutionarily similar to humans - there are still notable differences in brain complexity, emotional processing, and social behaviour.
Justification: This is problematic because the mechanisms of attachment in animals, especially in aviated species like geese and primate species like monkeys, may not fully reflect the multifaceted nature of human attachment, which involves language, culture and a broader range of emotional influences.
Implication: As a result, this limits the generalisability of both studies, as whilst they offer useful models for understanding the basic principles of attachment, the conclusions drawn may not fully capture the complexities of human attachment formation, suggesting that caution must be taken when attempting to apply these findings to humans.
Counterargument: However, although it is true that Lorenz and Harlow’s findings cannot be fully generalised to humans, using animals is a more ethical and practical alternative for studying early attachment.
Evidence: Replicating such procedures on human infants would raise tremendous ethical issues, such as deliberately separating babies from their mothers or exposing them to distressing conditions, which could have long-lasting effects on the infants, e.g., such as insecure attachment styles. Whilst Harlow’s baby rhesus monkeys did go on to display long-term repercussions as a result of the study, such as aggressive behaviour and social withdrawal, Lorenz’s goslings didn’t face the same degree of negative outcomes, but instead displayed courtship behaviour towards human species if they had imprinted on Lorenz.
Justification: Therefore, while generalisability is limited, animal studies provide a foundation understanding of the biological processes and emotional needs involved in attachment. It also enables controlled experimentation that would not be feasible or morally acceptable in human research.
Implication: This means that, despite their limitations, Lorenz and Harlow’s animal studies remain profound in their contributions to psychological research, offering insights that inform our understanding of human attachment while maintaining a safer and more ethical approach to experimentation.
