Animal Studies Flashcards
Who carried out animal studies on Rhesus monkeys?
Harry Harlow (1962)
What was the study looking to measure?
They were experimenting to see whether food is the primary basis of attachment.
Contents and procedures of the study.
o 2 fake ‘monkeys’
o One with a similar face and cloth body, one with no face and a wire cylinder with food.
What were the results of the study?
Harlow found that food simply isn’t sufficient enough to form an attachment and that ‘contact comfort’ is preferred.
However it would appear a responsive carer is most important.
Evaluation points of Harlow’s studies.
o CONFOUNDING VARIABLES
- 2 stimuli varied in important ways e.g faces of fake monkey’s.
- Varied systematically with IV
- Possible monkey preferred better looking animal, lacks internal validity
o PROBLEMS USING ANIMALS
- Aim is generalise research but we differ in many ways, not conclusive enough
- Our behaviour is governed by conscious decisions, our cognitive capacity differs.
- Compliments S+E study - food not primary attachment source
o ETHICAL ISSUES
- Created long lasting emotional harm for the monkeys, they found it difficult to form later relationships/ had abnormal sexual behaviours/ were aggressive etc
- Experiments could be justified by the effect it has on our understanding of attachments
- Research provided educational benefits of attachment
- Benefits > Costs
Who carried out animal studies on Goslings?
Lorenz (1935)
What was the study looking to measure?
The effect of Imprinting
Contents/Procedures of the study.
o Lorenz divided a group of eggs into 2
o One group was left with their mother and one was incubated
o He tested the imprinting effect by putting the two groups of goslings together.
What were the results of the study?
o When the eggs who were incubated hatched, they became imprinted on Lorenz.
o Even when the groups were mixed , the goslings continued to follow him everywhere.
o Found there was a critical period when attachments were to occur (2 days)
Evaluation points of Lorenz’s study
o GUITONS SUPPORTIVE RESEARCH
- Guiton (1966) found leghorn chicks, when exposed to a yellow glove, became imprinted on it
- Supports the view animals aren’t born with an urge to imprint on specific thing but any living thing
- Imprinting first viewed as irreversible
- Hoffman (1996) shows it be more of a ‘Plastic and Forgiving’ mechanism
- Guiton found it could be reversed and the chicks could then engage in normal sexual behaviour
- Imprinting may not be different to any other learning - fairly reversible.
