No tags yet.
What the spec says: Animal studies of attachment: Lorenz and Harlow.
OUTLINE AND EVALUATE ANIMAL STUDIES OF ATTACHMENT
A01
One animal study conducted into attachment was by Lorenz who demonstrated how imprinting occurred within the animal world. He divided several gosling eggs randomly into two groups; one half remained with the mother and could hatch naturally (control group) whilst the other half was put in an incubator to hatch (experimental group). Lorenz ensured that he was the first moving object the incubator group saw. He found that the incubator group followed him closely as if he was their mother and appeared to have formed a rapid attachment to him. When Lorenz marked and mixed the incubator group with the control group in a container and then released them, they separated immediately with the incubator group running to Lorenz and the normally hatched geese to their real mother. Lorenz called this formation of rapid attachment imprinting which is the tendency to form an attachment with the first large moving object seen after birth. In later studies, he discovered that the tendency to imprint is strongest between 13-16 hours after birds hatch. He argued the imprinting could only occur within the ‘window of development’ which he called a critical period and by the time birds reach 32 hours, the tendency to imprint has virtually passed and attachments will not take place. Lorenz also found that animals who imprint onto humans will later in life only attempt to mate with humans. This shows the impact imprinting has on adult mate preferences which he referred to as sexual imprinting.
Harlow conducted an animal study to show that attachment isn’t a learned process due to feeding bonds. He studied 8 new-born macaque monkeys who had been separated from their biological mothers at birth and were reared in isolation in cages until they were 8 months old. In each cage he placed two surrogate mothers, made of either wire with a monkey like face or a wooden block covered in soft toweling fabric. Both had a heating element attached to provide warmth and a feeding bottle to supply milk. Each monkey was placed in a cage with both surrogate mothers, with 4 monkeys having the bottle attached to the cloth mother and the remaining to the wire mother. Harlow measured through observation the amount of time the monkeys spent clinging to each mother and their responses when either was removed from the cage. He found that all monkeys preferred the cloth mother despite who fed them and spent most of their time with her. When the bottle was attached to the wire mother, they would visit her for feeding and return immediately to cling to the cloth mother. He conducted further research with the same monkeys to see the extent of their attachment. When placed in a room full of toys, the monkeys would huddle in a state of terror if the wire mother was present however they would explore the room when the cloth mother was there, returning to her if they were worried or startled using her as a safe base to explore.
He followed the monkeys into adulthood to see if early maternal deprivation had a permanent effect and found severe consequences. The monkeys reared with wire mothers were most dysfunctional; even those reared with cloth mothers didn’t show normal social development. The monkeys were scared of other monkeys, more aggressive and less sociable with some mothers neglecting their young and attacking them. Harlow concluded that contact comfort was more important than food when it came to attachment behaviour and also said there was a critical period where the attachment figure had to be introduced within 90 days for the attachment to form. If the motherless monkeys spent time with peers, they showed signs of recovering but this was provided it was before the age of 3 months. Monkeys who spent more than 6 months with the wire mother didn’t appear to recover which demonstrates the long lasting effects on behaviour.
A03
Lorenz studied imprinting in birds and although his findings have influenced our understanding of human development, it's difficult to generalise the findings from birds onto humans. This is because the mammalian attachment system is different to that of birds. For example, mammals show more emotional attachment towards their young than birds do, and mammals may be able to form attachments at any time though less easily than in infancy. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to generalise Lorenz’s ideas onto humans, meaning that this study lacks population validity.
Numerous studies have replicated Lorenz’s work and found similar findings which shows it has reliability. Guiton showed how chicks would become attached to yellow rubber gloves when used to feed them. This highlights that imprinting doesn’t only occur with living objects but any object that’s moving within the critical period of 2 days and would therefore support Lorenz’s study. However, Lorenz’s critical period can be criticised as being a learned response and may not be as fixed as he proposed. Guiton also found that chickens who imprinted themselves to rubber gloves were able to engage in normal behaviour provided they spent enough time with their own species later in life. This suggests that the impact of imprinting on adult behaviour isn’t as permanent as Lorenz first thought.
Harlow’s findings have a profound effect on psychologists’ understanding of human mother-infant attachments. Schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment development supports this as they found that attachments don’t development as a result of being fed by a mother figure but rather with who’s most sensitive their needs and offers contact comfort. Harlow showed the importance of the quality of early relationships in later social development including the ability to have adult relationships which has had important applications in a range of practical contexts. For example, it has helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse and so intervene to prevent it (Howe). Furthermore, these findings are also important in the care of captive monkeys in terms of understanding the importance of proper attachment figures for babies in zoos and in breeding programmes in the wild, all of which increase the validity of his study.
However, Harlow faced severe criticism for the ethics of his research due to the monkeys suffering greatly during the procedures. They also suffered great distress from separation and were subjected to intentional emotional harm. This species is considered similar enough to humans to generalise findings which means that their suffering was relatively human-like. Harlow himself was aware of the suffering caused and although some may argue that his research was incredibly important to justify the effects, his mistreatment of the monkeys shows his failure in protecting them as a psychologist.
Useful links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuJ3IdQqFHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZiwprikz_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O60TYAIgC4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQH4Taus0K4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOODJ4oCGgU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IysBMqaSAC8