ANIMAL STUDIES

Question 1

Outline Harlow’s study

Answer 1

→ SAMPLE: new-born rhesus monkeys
→ IV: wire mother w/ baby bottle + clothed mother w/o baby bottle (not real mother to rid confounding variables of how mother would act to baby)
→ DV: length of time infant spent with either mother
→ METHOD: separated new-borns from mother, raised in cages with both surrogate mothers. To frighten them, placed mechanical toy that makes loud noise in cage
→ RESULTS: monkeys spent significantly longer time with cloth mother, even if it provided no nutrition. Also preferred it when seeking comfort when afraid – when wire mother alone, monkeys preferred to be alone
→ TS there is an innate need for contact comfort

Question 2

EVALUATE harlows study

Answer 2

EVAL: cant generalise to humans, however we share 98.4% of our genes with monkeys, showing a close relationship
ETHICS: psych harm from being raised in isolation - when monkeys were placed w/ a monkey reared by a mother, they sat huddled in a corner in a state of persistent fear + depression. Also, created state of anxiety in f monkeys which had IMP when they became parents - so neurotic they smashed their child’s face into the floor + rubbed it back and forth.
EVAL: provides valuable insight into development of attachment. At the time there was a dominant belief that attachment was related to physical (i.e., food) rather than emotional care.
IMP: demo’s importance of emotional care in hospitals, children’s homes + day care. (preventing + intervening in child neglect)

Question 3

Outlined Lorenz’s geese study

Answer 3

→ SAMPLE: goose eggs / gooslings
→ IV: hatch normally vs incubated + first thing they saw = Lorenz
→ DV: recognition of mother figure + who they follow
→ METHOD: separated eggs in 2, one hatch normally other incubated and arranged in a way that the first thing they saw was Lorenz. Marked goslings, let them out together from upturned box + observed behaviour
→ RESULTS: normal group → mother, incubated group → Lorenz (showed no recognition of mother). This relationship persisted over time + PROVED IRREVERSIBLE

Question 4

Evaluate a Lorenz’s geese study

Answer 4

issues w/ generalizability: mammalian attachments are different to birds ∴, whilst some of Lorenz’s findings have greatly influenced understanding of development + attachment formation, caution must be applied when drawing wider conclusions about the results.
Conflicting evidence GUITON: found chickens would imprint on yellow washing up gloves if that was the largest moving object they first saw after birth + so would then try to mate w/ that object in adulthood. BUT, Guiton disagreed w. Lorenz’s predictions → relationship persists + is irreversible. TIB, with experience, the chickens could eventually learn to prefer mating w/ other chickens, suggesting the effects of imprinting may not be as permanent as initially thought.

Question 5

animal studies IDA

Answer 5

NATURE OR NURTURE?
NATURE → behaviour is determined by our biology (genes). TISB LORENZ: imprinting is irreversible process ∴ suggests a biological basis
HOWEVER
HARLOW: findings went against the idea attachments are formed as an innate evo advantage to be provided with safety and nutrition.
FURTHERED BY
GUITON: TS attachments not entirely bio but has overlaps with nurture.