Animal studies of attachment

Why are animal studies used?

Look at formation of early bonds between non human parents and offspring as attachment behaviour seems 2 b common 2 range of species= researcg conducted in hope that understanding this behaviour can help psychologists understand mother-infant attachments in humans

What animal study of attachment led to imprinting ?

Lorenz’s Geese 1935- aimed 2 investigate relationship between infant animals and mothers= goose eggs randomly dived into 2 groups= 1group left w mother so first things new goslings saw, 2nd group in incubator= Lorenz first things they saw= after hatched= incubator group followed him whereas control natural group followed mother, even after mixing them up still went back 2 groups = concluded incubator group imprinted on him =infant animals attach 2 and follow first moving object they see after hatching , Lorenz also concl. A critical period in which imprinting must take place= a time frame it must happen or wont happen at all eg as little as few hours =as the goslings imprinted irreversibly so early in life

Longevity of goslings bond w Lorenz support early attachment experiences do predict future bonds and also instinctive behaviour=biologically programmed in2 species= innately follow moving object=adaptive given premature mobility=biological basis for attachment =ADAPTIVE AS PROMOTES SURVIVAL

What research did Lorenz have to expand his theory of imprinting?

Imprinting relationship to adult mate preferences = when animal imprinted=ofetn led to courtship behaviour later being displayed

Lorenz = orphaned peacock reared in reptile house= imprinted in giant tortoises= courtship behaviour 2wards giant tortoises = SEXUAL IMPRINTING

What animal study did Harlow do?

Harlows Monkeys 1958= removed 16 Rhesus monkeys from mothers= reared with 2 surrogate mothers, 1 entirely from wire, other also wire but covered w soft cloth material and heated w hot water bottle= 1 condition, wire mother dispensed mil, other cloth one dispensed milk= investigated how long babies spent w each mother and behaviour 2wards

Found=spent most time w soft cloth mother regardless of where milk coming from, even in condition where wire mother dispensing milk= baby clung on to cloth mother and reached over 2 wire mother for milk =innate drive 2 seek contact comfort from parents= suggests attachment formed though emotional need for security rather than food like behaviourists suggest

Also sought comfort from cloth mother eg when frightened eg doll put in cage = new frightening experience = goes 2cloth mother for reassurance, protection and confidence

Also monkeys deprived of mother= MATERNAL DEPRIVATION =severe long term consequences particularly ones only reared w wire mother eg grew up 2 b less sociable, more aggressive and less skilled mating and when did and had offspring= often neglected/ attacked/ killed offspring

creature comfort vital 4 attachm and healthy functional social development eg socialising w others, knowing appropriate behaviours, parenting etc= isolated monkeys having long term dysfunctional behaviour shows early attachment experiences = predict long term social development

= animals have greater needs than just provision of food

Strength of research support for imprinting

Regolin et al 1995=chicks exposed 2 simple shape combos that move that moved eg triangle in front of rectangle, when a range of combos moved in front of them= followed original most closely= supports idea young animals born w innate mechanism 2 imprint on moving object present in critical window of development= supporting idea it’s irreversible

Weakness of generalisability for Lorenz

Can’t generalise Lorenz research= didn’t study humans and only birds= diffic 2 assume humans would act in same way= attachment formation in mammal as v did 2 birds eg mammal mothers tend 2 show more emotional reactions 2 offspring and have much larger critical period

Has influenced understanding of dev and attachment and is valuable but needs 2 be approached w caution = conclusions can’t be generalised + extrapolated 2 humans as birds imprinting much less complex than human attachment w our brains more developed as species = more complex emotional interactions like interactional synchrony and reciprocity = can’t be observed in goslings

Strength of practical application of Harlow

Eg knowledge from harlows research reported by Howe 1998=helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand lack of bonding experience = risk factor in child development = allows intervention and prevention of outcomes , + research educated us in captive care of wild monkeys in zoos and breeding programs = know monkeys need adequate attachment fig as part of care 2 enable healthy dev

Value of harlows research not theoretical but can b used practically in real world

Strength of generalisability for Harlows + COUNTER

Biological similarities of rhesus monkeys and humans as both mammals and have same brain structure and size , share 93% of DNA = harlows research did Eli better understand human attachment

However cognitive and emotional capabilities of humans far exceed apes, more neurone connections, more complex attachments eg IS and reciprocity, brains much more developed = caution must be applied when drawing wider conclusions about attachment behaviours

Weakness of ethical issues for Harlow ( extension of generalisability from b4)

Monkeys v stressed and suffered greatly form emotional separation from biological mother at early age due to Harlows procedures = if primates considered sufficiently human like 2 generalise findings 2 humans = logically psychological harm endured and effects it caused should b similar 2 that a human baby would experience = v unethical =negelcted and lacked emotional care = isolated and locked in cages= long term damage = sociallly impaired 4 life = huge violation on modern ethical guidelines (BPS)

= was insight obtained about attachment sufficiently important enough to psychologists it justified Harlows research? Did benefits outweigh costs?