Animal studies Of Attachment Flashcards
Why are studies sometimes carried out on animals rather than humans
-Either for ethical or practical reasons
What is imprinting
-An innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother/ or the fist object seen- which takes place during a specific time in development (usually the first few hours after birth/hatching)
Describe Lorenz’s (1935) animal study on imprinting (Aim and procedure)
-Aim: To investigate the mechanisms of imprinting where the youngsters follow and form an attachment to the first large moving object that they meet
-Procedure: Lorenz divided a clutch of Gosling eggs (greylag goose eggs) into two groups. One group was left with the mother to hatch naturally - this was the control group. The other group hatched in an incubator so that the first living thing that they saw was Lorenz. To test the effects of imprinting, they were marked with one of two colours to distinguish which group they were in and then they were all placed together.
Findings of Lorenz’s (1935) animal study on imprinting
-The Goslings quickly divided themselves up, with one group following their biological mother and the other group following Lorenz. Lorenz’s brood showed no recognition of their natural mother.
Conclusion of Lorenz’s (1935) animal study on imprinting
-This study suggested that the Gosling’s imprint on a persistently present moving object within the first 24 hours of them hatching, supporting the theory of imprinting
What is meant by the critical period of attachment
-The time period in which the window of attachments to be formed is open
What is the critical period of attachment for Goslings
4- 24hours
What is the critical period of attachment of monkeys
-90 days
What is the critical period of attachment for humans
6months old -2.5 years
Describe Harlow’s (1959) animal study on contact comfort (aim and procedure)
-Aim:To demonstrate that mother love (attachment) was NOT based on the feeding bond between mother and infant but the contact comfort that they can provide
-Procedure: Harlow separated infant Rhesus monkeys from their mothers shortly after birth. He placed them in cages with two artificial “mothers”:
-Condition1:Wire mother: Made of wire and mesh, which provided milk.
-Condition 2:Cloth mother: Soft, covered in cloth, but did not provide milk.
-Harlow observed them over 165 days and measured how much time the monkeys spent with each “mother” and how they reacted in stressful situation
Findings of Harlows (1959) animal study on contact comfort
-All of the monkeys spent more time on the soft cloth mother, rather than the wire mesh mother (18hrs per day)
-Furthermore, when they were frightened, all monkeys clung to the cloth covered mother to provide comfort
Conclusion of Harlow’s (1959) animal study on contact comfort
-These findings suggest that infants do not develop an attachment to the person that feeds them but to the person offering contact comfort
What happened to the maternally deprived monkeys as adults (Harlow)
Long lasting effects
-Suffered severe consequences- they were aggressive, less sociable, and less skilled in mating than other monkeys- they even often killed their own offspring
Evaluation of Lorenz’s study (1935)
-Further research support for imprinting
-Lacks generalisability to humans (issue of extrapolation)
-Out of date??
Which psychologists conducted further research that supports imprinting (Harlow)
Guiton et al (1966)
What did Guiton (1966) find (imprinting further support)
In their study Guiton exposed chicks to yellow rubber gloves shortly after they hatched. The gloves were also used to feed and interact with the chicks during their critical period. They found that chicks imprinted on a yellow rubber glove used during feeding, showing that young animals do not necessarily imprint on their biological mother, but on the first moving object they encounter within the first 24 hours after hatching.
This supports Lorenz’s conclusion that imprinting is an innate process, increasing he validity of his findings, suggesting that imprinting is a crucial mechanism in early development for some animals.
What is meant by extrapolation
How generalisable findings from animals are to humans
Why is there an issue of extrapolation in Lorenz’s study
-While imprinting is well-established in birds, human attachment processes are far more complex.
-For example, in birds, imprinting occurs within the first few hours (4-24 hours) after hatching, whereas humans have a longer critical period lasting months or even years (between 6months and 2.5 years) Moreover, human attachment is shaped by emotional bonding, social interaction, and how responsive the caregiver is to the infant’s signals.
-This means Lorenz’s findings lack generalisability to human attachment, making it difficult to apply his conclusions to human development.
Why may Lorenz’s findings be invalid
-His study was conducted in 1935. Our understanding of attachment has developed significantly since then. For example, his research focused mainly on imprinting in birds, which may not fully reflect the complexity of attachment in mammals, especially humans. Furthermore, early studies often lacked adequate controls of extraneous variables that may have had an impact on the findings, compromising its validity.
Evaluation of Harlow’s research on imprinting (1959)
-Generalisability to humans (extrapolation) (+ -)
-Methodological flaws in the design of the ‘surrogate mothers’
-Ethical issues
What methodological flaw is in the design of the ‘surrogate mothers’
-The wire mother and cloth mother had different heads, with the soft cloth mothers head more closely resembling one of a monkey than the other.
-This means that the baby monkeys may have preferred the cloth mothers not because of its ‘soft cloth’ material, but because its face looked more familiar, suggesting that this difference in appearance could have possibly acted as an extraneous variable.
-Therefore, this may have compromised the internal validity of the study, and instead counterpoints Harlow’s conclusion that contact comfort is the primary driver of attachment, not food.
Why can it be argued that Harlow’s research is more generalisable to humans than Lorenz’s study
-Harlow’s study focused on monkeys, which are much more similar to humans than birds are. As primates, humans and monkeys share some social and cognitive traits, meaning that Harlow’s findings of contact comfort may be more applicable to human infants than Lorenz’s research into imprinting on Goslings
Howver, why can it also be argued that Harlow’s research is not so generalisable to humans
-Despite the fact that monkeys and humans have more in common than birds, there are still key differences between monkey and human attachment.
-For example, the critical period of attachment for humans is between 6 months and 2.5 years, while for monkeys this is 9 days, and so human infants or attachments over a longer period of time than monkeys do.
-Furthermore, human infants also develop reciprocal attachments, where both the caregiver and infant play an active role in bonding, which is not shown in Harlow’s study, where attachment was one way- the monkey formed an attachment to the ‘surrogate mother’ but the mother didn’t.
-Therefore, while Harlow’s research does provide valid evidence for the importance of contact comfort in attachment, it shouldn’t be assumed that the process of attachment is the same in both infant monkeys and human infants
Why can it be argued that Harlow’s research is unethical
-Harlow’s research could not be done on humans as it would have been unethical, and so it was conducted with infant monkeys. However, this also therefore, raises the question as to whether it is really that ethical to conduct it with monkeys instead.
-Harlow’s procedures caused severe long term distress to the monkey Participants. For example, the monkeys became more aggressive, less sociable and less skilled in mating than other monkeys- they even often killed their own offspring.
-This suggests that the ethics of this research should have been been considered more carefully beforehand. However, while it may have been unethical, it did provide useful insights as to how essential early contact comfort is for a monkeys later physical, social and emotional development.
