ANIMAL STUDIES OF ATTACHMENT
AO1:
Lorenz’s Goslings (1935): Harlow’s monkeys (1959):
Procedure Procedure
Investigated the idea of imprinting 8 monkeys that were raised in isolation till they were 8 months old were
Divided a clutch of goose eggs into two groups: placed into cages with two ‘surrogate’ mother
1. A control group which was left with their natural mother 1. A wire mother with a monkey like head that dispensed food (milk)
2. The other group was placed in an incubator and the first living thing 2. A wooden block covered in a soft towel (towel mother) that did not
they made contact with after they hatched was Lorenz dispense food
The behaviour of the goslings were then observed by Lorenz while he
interacted with them Findings
The monkeys cuddled the towel-mother more than the wire mother to
Findings seek comfort
The incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere. The experimental When the monkeys were frightened they always went to the towel
group formed an attachment with Lorenz through the process of mother
imprinting ‘Contact comfort’ is more important to monkeys than food in attachment
The control group followed the mother goose everywhere In later life, even those that did have contact comfort developed both
Claimed that if young animals are not exposed to a moving object during socially and sexually abnormally, as they did not show both normal
their critical period of 2 days, then the animal will not imprint, thus will interacting and mating behaviour towards other monkeys. This may be
fail to form a primary attachment due to them missing the critical period of 90 days after birth and not
Imprinting is a process similar to the human formation of attachment as it forming an attachment
allows animals to form a special bond with one moving individual
Early imprinting has an effect on later mate preferences (sexual Conclusion
imprinting). Animals, especially birds, will choose to mate with the same Food is not the primary reinforcer for attachment, it is the social
kind of animal which they were imprinted interaction rather than food
Conclusion
Imprinting has evolutionary value
AO2/AO3:
Research support for the concept ー Problems extrapolating to ー Criticisms of the concept of ー Ethical issues with using animal
of imprinting humans imprinting studies
P A number of studies have P A limitation of animal study P There is evidence that refutes the P Harlow’s animal attachment
demonstrated support for research is that it is difficult to idea that the effects of imprinting research can be severely criticised
Lorenz’s research and the extrapolate findings to humans are not as permanent as Lorenz on ethical grounds
concept of imprinting in animals E It is clear that human infants are believed E The monkeys suffered due to the
E For example, Guiton found that significantly more complex than E Imprinting is now thought to be a procedures of the experiment,
leghorn chicks, exposed to yellow animals (e.g., showing much ‘plastic’ or flexible mechanism. both physically and emotionally
rubber gloves used to feed them, greater emotional attachments to For example, Guiton found that (e.g. when Harlow deliberately
became imprinted to the gloves. adults). Additionally, the critical he could reverse imprinting in scared them). Since this species
Guiton also found that male period appears to be very chickens that tried to mate with a are considered similar to humans,
chickens later tried to mate with different in human infants of 0-12 glove. He found that after the suffering can be considered
the gloves. Thus, showing the months as proposed by Bowlby, spending time with their own quite serious too. The damage
impact of sexual imprinting compared to Harlow’s monkeys species, they were able to engage caused was long term since many
E This supports the view that young of 90 days and geese of up to 2 in normal sexual behaviour with of the monkeys could NOT have
animals are not born with the days other chickens normal sexual or social activity
innate ability to imprint to a E This makes it difficult to E This suggests the impact of when older
specific animal, but will bond with generalise the findings of Lorenz imprinting on mating behaviour is E This shows that Harlow’s research
any moving thing that is present and Harlow directly to humans not fixed and can be changed cause serious physical and
during their critical period because attachment behaviour in with experience psychological harm to monkeys
L Therefore, this demonstrates the general and importantly the L Therefore, Lorenz appears to L As a result, this diminishes the
strength of imprinting on critical period, is very different have overestimated effects of credibility of his investigations
attachment formation in animals between humans and animals imprinting on the development of
and shows that imprinting can L Therefore, it is potentially sexual and attachment behaviour
also affect the characteristics of a problematic to use animal studies
desirable mate to account for attachment in
humans
NOTE: Only select the relevant AO1s (e.g. 2/3 points) and four evaluation points (AO2/AO3)
