Outline and evaluate animal studies of attachment (16 marks)
Lorenz conducted a study into attachment and demonstrated how imprinting occurred
within animal world. Lorenz divide 12 goose eggs, half hatched with the mother and the
other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz. The
gosling that hatched with Lorenz were found to imprint themselves on him and start
following him around. Moreover, imprinting was evident when Lorenz was to mix the
gosling together, as they would separate and go to who they were exposed to first. Lorenz
identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place (within few hrs of
hatching). If imprinting did not occur within that time, chicks did not attach themselves to
mother figure.
Harlow conducted research to examine, which factors were important in attachment. He
placed infant rhesus monkeys in cages and they were exposed to two mother figures. One
was a wire mother with milk treat and the other was a cloth mother for comfort.
Measurements were made through observation on the amount of time the monkeys spent
with each mother as well as their responses to frightening situations for example by a
noisemaking bear. The findings were that all the monkeys despite who fed them spent most
of their time with cloth mum and they found that when frightened all monkeys would run to
cloth mum for reassurance. These findings demonstrate that contact comfort was more
important than food when it came to attachment behaviour.
A limitation of Lorenz study is that his conclusion has been questioned. For example, Guiton
demonstrated that chicks, exposed to yellow rubber gloves for feeding them during their
first few weeks, became imprinted on the gloves. This supports the view that young animals
are not born with a predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object but probably on
any moving thing that is present during the critical window of development. Guiton found
that later spending time with their own species, chickens were able to engage in normal
sexual behaviour of their own kind. Thus, this is a limitation as it suggests that the impact of
imprinting on mating behaviour is not as permanent as Lorenz believed.
A strength of Lorenz study is there is research to support it. For example, the fact that
imprinting occurs within a critical period its similar to Bowlby idea of critical period within
human infant. This suggest that Lorenz study does have some external validity as there is
some key similarities with humans which may help us better understand human attachment
and importance of early years attachment for children. Also, the fact that imprinting
appears to impact the later sexual behaviour would also support Bowlby interval working
model explanation which suggested that early attachments would affect later relationships.
Thus, Lorenz study of the phenomenon of imprinting therefore provides strong evidence for
attachment in humans being shaped by childhood experience.
A limitation of Harlow study is that it can be seen unethical. For example, the monkeys
experienced great distress when they were removed from their biological mum. In addition
to this as a result of Harlow procedures it had long lasting effect on the monkeys, in that
they were unable to communicate with other monkeys and from relationships with peers
and showed distress in social situations were also sexually abnormal. This is a limitation of
Lorenz conducted a study into attachment and demonstrated how imprinting occurred
within animal world. Lorenz divide 12 goose eggs, half hatched with the mother and the
other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz. The
gosling that hatched with Lorenz were found to imprint themselves on him and start
following him around. Moreover, imprinting was evident when Lorenz was to mix the
gosling together, as they would separate and go to who they were exposed to first. Lorenz
identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place (within few hrs of
hatching). If imprinting did not occur within that time, chicks did not attach themselves to
mother figure.
Harlow conducted research to examine, which factors were important in attachment. He
placed infant rhesus monkeys in cages and they were exposed to two mother figures. One
was a wire mother with milk treat and the other was a cloth mother for comfort.
Measurements were made through observation on the amount of time the monkeys spent
with each mother as well as their responses to frightening situations for example by a
noisemaking bear. The findings were that all the monkeys despite who fed them spent most
of their time with cloth mum and they found that when frightened all monkeys would run to
cloth mum for reassurance. These findings demonstrate that contact comfort was more
important than food when it came to attachment behaviour.
A limitation of Lorenz study is that his conclusion has been questioned. For example, Guiton
demonstrated that chicks, exposed to yellow rubber gloves for feeding them during their
first few weeks, became imprinted on the gloves. This supports the view that young animals
are not born with a predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object but probably on
any moving thing that is present during the critical window of development. Guiton found
that later spending time with their own species, chickens were able to engage in normal
sexual behaviour of their own kind. Thus, this is a limitation as it suggests that the impact of
imprinting on mating behaviour is not as permanent as Lorenz believed.
A strength of Lorenz study is there is research to support it. For example, the fact that
imprinting occurs within a critical period its similar to Bowlby idea of critical period within
human infant. This suggest that Lorenz study does have some external validity as there is
some key similarities with humans which may help us better understand human attachment
and importance of early years attachment for children. Also, the fact that imprinting
appears to impact the later sexual behaviour would also support Bowlby interval working
model explanation which suggested that early attachments would affect later relationships.
Thus, Lorenz study of the phenomenon of imprinting therefore provides strong evidence for
attachment in humans being shaped by childhood experience.
A limitation of Harlow study is that it can be seen unethical. For example, the monkeys
experienced great distress when they were removed from their biological mum. In addition
to this as a result of Harlow procedures it had long lasting effect on the monkeys, in that
they were unable to communicate with other monkeys and from relationships with peers
and showed distress in social situations were also sexually abnormal. This is a limitation of
