Outline and evaluate animal studies of attachment
1. Lorenz (1952)
A01: goslings hatched in an incubator didn’t recognise their birth mother, followed
Lorenz. Thus, attachment is an innate irreversible process.
A03: However, Guiton found out that chickens who imprinted on rubber gloves
engaged in normal sexual behaviour after spending time with their peers. Results
provide support for the critical period. Attachment (imprinting) is reversible but only
in the window of the critical period. Outside of it, it has long-term consequences.
2. Harlow (1959)
A01: Infant monkey spent more time with a cloth - covered monkey, turning to the
wire-covered only for food.
A03: Results are supported by Schaffer and Emerson, found that infants attach to the
person who responds the most sensitively to their needs and not to the one who feeds
them. Therefore, contact comfort and mother’s sensitivity determine attachment. A
limitation of Harlow’s research, however, is the fact that surrogate mothers had
different heads. Confounding variable. Therefore, the study lacks internal validity.
3. Ethical issues in animal studies
A01: In Harlow’s research monkeys showed great distress and anxiety. Struggled to
socialise with their peers and engage in normal sexual behaviour.
A03: However, after conducting a cost-benefit analysis, some researchers have
concluded that costs to the animals were lower than the benefits to the society. Studies
such as Harlow’s highlighted the importance of mother’s sensitivity and were used to
provide a better care for human and primate infants which is a strength.
4. Research with animals cannot be generalised to humans.
A03: Results from Lorenz and Harlow tell as more about imprinting rather than the
process of human attachment. Attachment in humans involve more mental activity,
hence cannot reduce complex behaviour. Animal studies are useful to highlight
important aspects in human attachment but researchers should always seek
confirmation with research on human infants if possible.
1. Lorenz (1952)
A01: goslings hatched in an incubator didn’t recognise their birth mother, followed
Lorenz. Thus, attachment is an innate irreversible process.
A03: However, Guiton found out that chickens who imprinted on rubber gloves
engaged in normal sexual behaviour after spending time with their peers. Results
provide support for the critical period. Attachment (imprinting) is reversible but only
in the window of the critical period. Outside of it, it has long-term consequences.
2. Harlow (1959)
A01: Infant monkey spent more time with a cloth - covered monkey, turning to the
wire-covered only for food.
A03: Results are supported by Schaffer and Emerson, found that infants attach to the
person who responds the most sensitively to their needs and not to the one who feeds
them. Therefore, contact comfort and mother’s sensitivity determine attachment. A
limitation of Harlow’s research, however, is the fact that surrogate mothers had
different heads. Confounding variable. Therefore, the study lacks internal validity.
3. Ethical issues in animal studies
A01: In Harlow’s research monkeys showed great distress and anxiety. Struggled to
socialise with their peers and engage in normal sexual behaviour.
A03: However, after conducting a cost-benefit analysis, some researchers have
concluded that costs to the animals were lower than the benefits to the society. Studies
such as Harlow’s highlighted the importance of mother’s sensitivity and were used to
provide a better care for human and primate infants which is a strength.
4. Research with animals cannot be generalised to humans.
A03: Results from Lorenz and Harlow tell as more about imprinting rather than the
process of human attachment. Attachment in humans involve more mental activity,
hence cannot reduce complex behaviour. Animal studies are useful to highlight
important aspects in human attachment but researchers should always seek
confirmation with research on human infants if possible.
