Animal studies

harlow’s research

aim =

method

results

aim=

method =Rhesus monkeys were taken from their mothers from Birth. The monkey were placed in controlled environment of a wire cage and reared with 2 surrogate mothers. One wire mother with food dispense and the other a cloth mother with no food. The amount of time the monkey spent on each other was recorded. Harlow also scared the monkeys to see which they ran to.

results = Despite the wire mother having the food they only spent a few hour a day on it and spent most of there time on the cloth mother. When the baby rhesus monkeys were scared they would run to the cloth mother for comfort. This showed that food didn’t build the attachment comfort did. This disproved the main theory at the time of cupboard love.

strength is that is challenged research

One strength of Harlow’s research is that it challenged some of the dominant theories of the time Prior to Harlow’s investigation, behaviourists had proposed that attachment was based upon concepts such as classical conditioning in which the child would learn to associate  the caregiver with food (the cupboard love theory).However, given that the monkeys in Harlow’s study spent significantly more time on the cloth mother rather than the wire mother which provided food, it instead supported the conclusion that attachment is based upon contact comfort. This supported Bowlby’s evolutionary theory that attachment is based upon emotional security as opposed to physical needs.

what is a real world application of harlows research

Whilst ethical issues are certainly an issue, the study nevertheless can be praised for its practical applications. For example, Harlow’s work has influenced the development of the key worker system in childcare settings, where children form one consistent attachment figure. As a result, the research has helped  to improve the care of orphaned and institutionalised children.This shows that Harlow’s study has had a significant impact beyond academic theory, and it has made a positive difference in real-world childcare practices

limitation about the ethical issues of harlow’s research

However, a major limitation of Harlow’s work is the ethical concerns surrounding the study. One of the key ethical issues that was breached through this research was that the monkeys experienced severe psychological harm with infant rhesus monkeys subjected to long-term emotional harm and distress. Some monkeys exhibited signs of severe psychological damage, including social withdrawal, aggression to those that tried to mate with them and an inability to parent their own offspring. As such, whilst the research was important and could not have been completed on humans, there are serious questions raised

Lack of generalisability

Despite this advantage, the fact that the study used rhesus monkeys means that the findings may not generalise to human attachment. For example, cultural, linguistic and cognitive factors play a much larger role in human bonding and attachments between a caregiver and infant are a two-way process, with mothers becoming attached to their infant as well as infants attaching to their mothers.This means that whilst monkeys are biologically similar to humans, human attachments actually involve more complex cognitive and emotional processes as well as social interactions, and the artificial environments in which Harlow’s monkeys were raised do not reflect those of human infants.This means that the attachment behaviours observed, such as preference for comfort over food, may not fully apply to human infants who experience more varied caregiver interactions.

Lorenz research imprinting

aim=

method =

results=

aim=

method= A clutch of goose eggs were randomly divided into 2 groups. Half of the eggs were hatched in an incubator and the first thing they same was Lorenz. The other half hatched with their mothers the first thing they saw was the mother grey lag goose. Once hatched the 2 groups were combined into one. And they saw who they followed around. To measure the critical period for imprinting Lorenz varied the time at which the ducklings saw a moving objects.

results= Those who had seen Lorenz first followed him and those who had seen the mother goose followed her.

lonzens strength of evidence for imprinting

One of the advantages of Lorenz’s work is that it provided strong support for the concept of imprinting in animals.

The study showed that geese follow the first moving object they see after hatching and the fact that those that hatched with Lorenz as the first moving object they saw followed him rather than the biological mother highlights the biological basis of attachment behaviour

This suggests that attachment can occur without feeding and is instead driven by innate mechanisms.

Such findings then went on to influence further attachment theories such as Bowlby’s with the concept of a critical period having parallels with how Bowlby viewed human attachment formation. As such, Lorenz’s work has lasting theoretical influence.

limitation imprinting is reversible

However, later research has questioned Lorenz’s claim that imprinting is irreversible.

For example, Guiton found that chickens who imprinted on rubber gloves could, with experience, later engage in normal mating behaviour with their own species

This suggests that imprinting effects may not be as permanent or rigid as Lorenz believed.

As such, the idea of a fixed critical period may be overstated, and the role of nurture may be important alongside innate processes

other evidence in support

Despite this, a further strength of Lorenz is that his work has been supported by further scientific studies.

For example, Regolin and Vallortigara exposed chicks to simple shape combinations that moved such as a triangle with a rectangle in front. When a range of moving shapes were presented to them, they followed the original shape most closely.

This supports Lorenz’s theory of imprinting, showing that young animals form strong early attachments to the first moving object they encounter. It also provides further evidence that imprinting occurs during a critical period and can influence later behaviour.

Therefore, this reinforces the validity of Lorenz’s conclusions by demonstrating that imprinting is an innate and adaptive process observed across species.

not generalisable to humans

A final criticism is that results from greylag goslings may not apply to humans.

Unlike birds, human infants have more complex attachment systems influenced by emotion, language and prolonged caregiving.

This means that human babies do not imprint on the first thing they see

As such, applying Lorenz’s findings directly to human attachment could be misleading.