Animal Studies Of Attachment Flashcards
Intro
In the early 2oth century a number of ethologists conducted animal studies of the relationships between newborn animals and their mothers. Their observations informed psychologists’ understanding of caregiver-infant attachment in humans. One of the most prominent ethologists was Konrad Lorenz.
Imprinting
Lorenz (1952) first observed the phenomenon of imprinting when he was a child and a neighbour gave him a newly hatched duckling that then followed him around.
Procedure -As an adult researcher Lorenz set up a classic experiment in which he randomly divided a large clutch of goose eggs. Half the eggs were hatched with the mother goose in their natural environment. The other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz.
Findings -The incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere whereas the control group, hatched in the presence of their mother, followed her. When the two groups were mixed up the control group continued to follow the mother and the experimental group followed Lorenz.
This phenomenon is called imprinting - whereby bird species that are mobile from birth (like geese and ducks) attach to and follow the first moving object they see. Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place. Depending on the species this can be as brief as a few hours after hatching (or birth). If imprinting does not occur within that time Lorenz found that chicks did not attach themselves to a mother figure.
Sexual imprinting
Lorenz also investigated the relationship between imprinting and adult mate preferences. He observed that birds that imprinted on a human would often later display courtship behaviour towards humans.
In a case study Lorenz (1952) described a peacock that had been reared in the reptile house of a zoo where the first moving objects the peacock saw after hatching were giant tortoises. As an adult this bird would only direct courtship behaviour towards giant tortoises. Lorenz concluded that this meant the peacock had undergone sexual imprinting.
Harlow intro
Harry Harlow carried out perhaps the most important animal research in terms of informing our understanding of attachment. Harlow worked with rhesus monkeys, which are much more similar to humans than Lorenz’s birds.
The importance of contact comfort-Harlow
Harlow observed that newborns kept alone in a bare cage often died but that they usually survived it given something soft like a cloth to cuddle.
Procedure -Harlow (1958) tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother.In one experiment he reared 16 baby monkeys with two wire model ‘mothers’ (see picture on facing page)
In one condition milk was dispensed by the plain-wire mother whereas in a second condition the milk was dispensed by the cloth-covered mother.
Findings -The baby monkeys cuddled the cloth-covered mother in preference to the plain-wire mother and sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened (e.g. by a noisy mechanical teddy bear regardless of which mother (cloth-covered or plain-wire) dispensed milk. This showed that ‘contact comfort’ was of more importance to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour.
Maternally deprived monkeys as adults
Harlow and colleagues also followed the monkeys who had been deprived of a ‘real’ mother into adulthood to see if this early maternal deprivation had a permanent effect. The researchers found severe consequences. The monkeys reared with plain-wire mothers only were the most dysfunctional.
However, even those reared with a cloth-covered mother did not develop normal social behaviour.
These deprived monkeys were more aggressive and less sociable than other monkeys and they bred less often than is typical for monkeys, being unskilled at mating. When they became mothers, some of the deprived monkeys neglected their young and others attacked their children, even killing them in some
cases.
The critical period for normal development
Like Lorenz, Harlow concluded that there was a critical period for attachment formation - a mother figure had to be introduced to a young monkey within 90 days for an attachment to form. After this time attachment was impossible and the damage done by early deprivation became irreversible.
Strength-Lorenz-research support
One strength of Lorenz’s research is the existence of support for the concept of imprinting.
A study by Lucia Regolin and Giorgio Vallortigara (1995) supports Lorenz’s idea of imprinting. Chicks were exposed to simple shape combinations that moved, such as a triangle with a rectangle in front. A range of shape combinations were then moved in front of them and they followed the original most closely.
This supports the view that young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object present in the critical window of development, as predicted by Lorenz.
Limitation-Lorenz-generalisable
One limitation of Lorenz’s studies is the ability to generalise findings and conclusions from birds to humans.
The mammalian attachment system is quite different and more complex than that in birds. For example, in mammals attachment is a two-way process, so it is not just the young who become attached to their mothers but also the mammalian mothers show an emotional attachment to their young.
This means that it is probably not appropriate to generalise Lorenz’s ideas to humans.
Strength-Lorenz- applications to understanding human behaviour
Although human attachment is very different from that in birds there have been attempts to use the idea that some kind of ‘imprinting’ explains human behaviour. For example, Peter Seebach (2005) suggested that computer users exhibit ‘baby duck syndrome’ - which is the attachment formed to their first computer operating system, leading them to reject others.
Strength-Harlow-real world value
One strength of Harlow’s research is its important real-world applications.
For example, it has helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child development allowing them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes (Howe 1998). We also now understand the importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes in the wild.
This means that the value of Harlow’s research is not just theoretical but also practical.
Limitation-Harlow-generalisability to humans
One limitation of Harlow’s research is the ability to generalise findings and conclusions from monkeys
to humans.
Rhesus monkeys are much more similar to humans than Lorenz’s birds, and all mammals share some common attachment behaviours. However, the human brain and human behaviour is still more complex than that of monkeys.
This means that it may not be appropriate to generalise Harlow’s findings to humans.
Limitation-Harlow-ethical issues
Harpies research caused severe and long-term distress to monkeys. However his findings and conclusions have important theoretical and practical applications
