Evaluation of Animal Studies of Attachment

Strength of Lorenz’s research

Strength of Lorenz’s research

• Research support

• Regolin and Vallortigara (1995) supports Lorenz’s idea of imprinting

• Chicks followed the starting shape in a shape combination showed the most closely

• Supports the view that young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object present in the critical window of development - as predicted by Lorenz

Limitation of Lorenz’s research

• Generalisability to humans

• Had to generalise findings and conclusions from birds to humans

• Due to the mammalian attachment system being different to and more complex to that in birds

• Mammal attachment is also a two-way process and not just the young who get attached - showing an emotional attachment between them

• This means that it is probably not appropriate to generalise Lorenz’s ideas to humans

Strength of Harlow’s research

• Important real-world value and application

• Has helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child development - allowing them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes (Howe 1998)

• Also helps in the understanding of importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programs in the wild

• Means the value of Harlow’s research is both theoretical and practical

Limitation of Harlow’s research

• Generalisability to humans

• Hard to generalise findings and conclusions from monkeys to humans

• Although rhesus monkeys are more similar to humans than Lorenz’s birds, and are also mammals, the human brain and human behaviour is still more complex than that of monkeys

• Means it may be inappropriate to generalise his findings to monkeys

• Ethical issues - Harlow’s research also caused severe and long-term distress to the monkeys