Animal Studies of attachment Flashcards
(7 cards)
Lorenz (1935) imprinting aim and procedure + results
-Certain animals form very strong bonds with their mother, with the infant animal following their mother, Lorenz termed this process imprinting and tested this strong bond
PROCEDURE:
Lorenz (1935) randomly divided a clutch of goose eggs, leaving one half to hatch with their biological mother and taking the other half to hatch in an incubator
-In later studies Lorenz tested the limits of imprinting by varying the time between hatching and the goslings first observation of a large moving object
RESULTS:
-Lorenz found that the goslings that had hatched with him imprinted on him and followed him, whereas the goslings that had hatched with their mother, imprinted on their mother and followed the mother goose
-Lorenz also found that the goslings had a critical period of around 32 hours; if the gosling did not see a large moving object to imprint on during this time, they would lose the ability to imprint
Conclusion of Lorenz’s research
-Lorenz’s results showed that imprinting is an extremely important biological feature of attachment for certian birds, and that imprinting first begins when the gosling observes a large moving object (not the result of any other sense e.g smell, touch, hearing)
Harlow (1958) infant monkey study aim procedure and results
AIM:
-Harlow (1958) conducted his study to investigate the “cupboard love” theory of attachment (babies love their mothers because they feed them)
PROCEDURE:
-Harlow (1958) took infant monkeys away from their biological mothers and placed them in a cage with two surrogate mothers; one surrogate mother provided food but no comfort, as it was made up of exposed wire, and the other surrogate mother provided comfort but no food, as the exposed wire was covered by a cloth
-The time the monkey spent with each surrogate mother was carefully recorded as well as which surrogate mother the infant monkey ran to when frightened by a mechanical monkey
RESULTS:
-Harlow (1958) found that the infant monkeys spent the majority of their time with the comfort-providing “cloth mother”, and only visited the “wire mother” when it needed food, and quickly returned to the “cloth mother”
-The infant monkey also quickly returned to the “cloth mother” for comfort when frightened by the mechanical monkey. The infant monkeys that did not have access to the “cloth mother” showed signs of stress -related illness
Harlow (1958) conclusion
-Harlow rejected the “cupboard love” theory, as the monkeys did not form an attachment with the wire monkey (food provider at all)
-Harlow instead argued that animals like the monkeys have a biological need for physical contact
Additional evaluations negative evaluation of generalising animal behaviour to human psychology
-A disadvantage of both Lorenz and Harlow’s animal studies is that it is very difficult to generalise animal behaviour to human psychology as human’s and animal’s biologies are very different. Therefore the results from both studies shouls not be expected to automatically apply to human behaviour
Positive and negative evaluation of Lorenz’s study (highly influential + Bowlby but later research on orphans found it is not critical period)
-Lorenz’s findings on the critical period in goslings are highly influential; Bowlby argued that, like goslings, humans also had a critical period, and that if they did not form an attachment during this time then it would result in permanent social problems
-However, showing the difficulty in generalising animal behaviour to human behaviour, later research on orphans found that this period is “sensitive” rather than critical, and can be improved with later care
Unethical nature of Harlow’s study (positive+negative evaluation) However has helped millions (cost benefit)
-Harlow’s study was unethical;the subjects used were primates and they clearly experienced a large amount of stress as a result of being taken from their mother and placed into stressful situations such as being frightened by a mechanical monkey
-However, some psychologists argue that the millions of infants that have been helped as a result of Harlow’s research, justifies the unethical nature of the study, from a cost benefit analysis perspective
