Imprinting and the work of Konrad Lorenz
This idea comes from the work of ethologists on non-human animals, particularly birds. Just as physical characteristics of various species develop at certain stages of growth, the ethologists claim that perhaps attachments will only form during similar critical periods. The most famous examples of this are birds forming attachments to the first thing they see upon hatching. Think of Quackers!
Konrad Lorenz (1935) split a clutch of goose eggs and got half to be hatched by their mother and the rest were placed in an incubator and saw Konrad on hatching. The second group subsequently followed Konrad everywhere and became distressed if they were separated from him. Ethologists refer to the phenomenon as imprinting. It has the following characteristics:
This idea comes from the work of ethologists on non-human animals, particularly birds. Just as physical characteristics of various species develop at certain stages of growth, the ethologists claim that perhaps attachments will only form during similar critical periods. The most famous examples of this are birds forming attachments to the first thing they see upon hatching. Think of Quackers!
Konrad Lorenz (1935) split a clutch of goose eggs and got half to be hatched by their mother and the rest were placed in an incubator and saw Konrad on hatching. The second group subsequently followed Konrad everywhere and became distressed if they were separated from him. Ethologists refer to the phenomenon as imprinting. It has the following characteristics:
- Critical Period. The attachment has to form within a certain time following birth. With ducklings the strongest tendency, according to Lorenz, is between 13 and 16 hours after emerging from the egg. If no attachment has developed within 32 hours it’s unlikely any attachment will ever develop.
- Irreversible: once the bond is formed it cannot be broken, nor can its effects.
- Template: the attachment acts as a template or model for later, adult and romantic relationships.
|
Although of fragile and amiable appearance, Lorenz’s politics did leave a lot to be desired. In 1938, at the age of 35 he joined the Nazi party and devoted his research to the aims of the National Socialists. Some of his later research supported the idea of ‘racial hygiene’ proposed by the Nazis.
In later life, he joined the Austrian Green Party and distanced himself form his earlier politics. Some have claimed that his research suggesting genetic basis for many behaviours may have been inspired by his National Socialist beliefs though there is no evidence of any fudging or doctoring of results. |
Sexual Imprinting
Refers to the inappropriate courtships in later life that may result from incorrect imprinting. Immelmann (1972) imprinted newly hatched zebra finches on Bengalese finches. Later in life the zebra finches ‘preferred’ to mate with Bengalese finches rather than their own species. Lorenz himself reported a few examples including a peacock that had become imprinted on a giant tortoise. When it reached maturity the peacock would attempt courtship with giant tortoises. Male Jays imprinted on Lorenz would bring him worms in later life in a vain attempt at courtship.
Criticisms
Lorenz’s research on birds doesn’t generalise to other mammals let alone humans. Mammals, especially those further up the evolutionary scale, tend to form more closer and more emotional bonds. They also have the ability to form attachments long after the critical period found in birds. However, they still seem to have a sensitive period, in which attachments are more likely to develop.
Guiton et al (1966) disagreed with the irreversible nature of imprinting. They imprinted newly hatched chickens onto yellow rubber gloves (Marigolds if you prefer). In later life, just as the theory predicts, they did indeed try to mate with the gloves. However, when they had chance to spend time with others of their own species, they developed a ‘taste’ for mating with these instead.
Harlow’s monkeys (1959): ‘The origins of love.’
Harry Harlow used rhesus monkeys in his research into learning and noticed that many of the young monkeys kept in isolation became distressed when he cleaned out their cages. It seemed that the monkeys were forming an attachment with the sanitary towels he used to line the base of the cages.
Method
Harlow carried out a number of variations using sixteen young isolated monkeys. Some where kept in cages with both a wire surrogate mother and a softer one covered in Terry cloth whilst others were kept in cages with just one. Sometimes the monkeys would be fed by the wire mother and other times by the softer cuddlier mother. However, the important variation was the one with a monkey in a cage with a wire mother that provided food and a Terry cloth mother that didn’t (providing the monkey with a choice; food or comfort).
Findings
Harlow noticed that the monkeys would spend most time clinging to the cloth mother and occasionally feeding from the wire mother. When the monkeys were stressed by a mechanical toy banging a drum the monkeys would always run to the cloth mum for safety suggesting an attachment. Also the monkeys with only wire mothers produced water faeces which was attributed to stress.
Conclusion
The evidence suggested that warmth and comfort rather than food were more important in nurturing an attachment and provided scientific evidence against the behaviourist (and psychodynamic) cupboard love theories.
Refers to the inappropriate courtships in later life that may result from incorrect imprinting. Immelmann (1972) imprinted newly hatched zebra finches on Bengalese finches. Later in life the zebra finches ‘preferred’ to mate with Bengalese finches rather than their own species. Lorenz himself reported a few examples including a peacock that had become imprinted on a giant tortoise. When it reached maturity the peacock would attempt courtship with giant tortoises. Male Jays imprinted on Lorenz would bring him worms in later life in a vain attempt at courtship.
Criticisms
Lorenz’s research on birds doesn’t generalise to other mammals let alone humans. Mammals, especially those further up the evolutionary scale, tend to form more closer and more emotional bonds. They also have the ability to form attachments long after the critical period found in birds. However, they still seem to have a sensitive period, in which attachments are more likely to develop.
Guiton et al (1966) disagreed with the irreversible nature of imprinting. They imprinted newly hatched chickens onto yellow rubber gloves (Marigolds if you prefer). In later life, just as the theory predicts, they did indeed try to mate with the gloves. However, when they had chance to spend time with others of their own species, they developed a ‘taste’ for mating with these instead.
Harlow’s monkeys (1959): ‘The origins of love.’
Harry Harlow used rhesus monkeys in his research into learning and noticed that many of the young monkeys kept in isolation became distressed when he cleaned out their cages. It seemed that the monkeys were forming an attachment with the sanitary towels he used to line the base of the cages.
Method
Harlow carried out a number of variations using sixteen young isolated monkeys. Some where kept in cages with both a wire surrogate mother and a softer one covered in Terry cloth whilst others were kept in cages with just one. Sometimes the monkeys would be fed by the wire mother and other times by the softer cuddlier mother. However, the important variation was the one with a monkey in a cage with a wire mother that provided food and a Terry cloth mother that didn’t (providing the monkey with a choice; food or comfort).
Findings
Harlow noticed that the monkeys would spend most time clinging to the cloth mother and occasionally feeding from the wire mother. When the monkeys were stressed by a mechanical toy banging a drum the monkeys would always run to the cloth mum for safety suggesting an attachment. Also the monkeys with only wire mothers produced water faeces which was attributed to stress.
Conclusion
The evidence suggested that warmth and comfort rather than food were more important in nurturing an attachment and provided scientific evidence against the behaviourist (and psychodynamic) cupboard love theories.
|
|
Long term consequences
The monkeys developed dysfunctional relationships in later life. They were unable to socialise, would often respond aggressively to other monkeys and tended to be bullied if left alone. Their relationships with the opposite sex were less successful in terms of reproductive capacity and generally made poorer parents. This ties in nicely with Bowlby’s concept of an Internal Working Model and Continuity Hypothesis that we’ll see later.
Evaluation
The research was of significant practical value, both in the treatment of other species in captivity and in parental neglect of human infants. The research highlights the need for good emotional care in early life and has proved invaluable in helping to rescue children from families were that is missing.
Ethics
It is clear that the monkeys suffered emotionally, not only in the short term but through into adulthood. They never fully recovered from their experiences. The reason Harlow chose monkeys was because of their position high up on the evolutionary scale.
Some psychologists believe that what we learned about human deprivation was sufficient to warrant this suffering in monkeys.
The monkeys developed dysfunctional relationships in later life. They were unable to socialise, would often respond aggressively to other monkeys and tended to be bullied if left alone. Their relationships with the opposite sex were less successful in terms of reproductive capacity and generally made poorer parents. This ties in nicely with Bowlby’s concept of an Internal Working Model and Continuity Hypothesis that we’ll see later.
Evaluation
The research was of significant practical value, both in the treatment of other species in captivity and in parental neglect of human infants. The research highlights the need for good emotional care in early life and has proved invaluable in helping to rescue children from families were that is missing.
Ethics
It is clear that the monkeys suffered emotionally, not only in the short term but through into adulthood. They never fully recovered from their experiences. The reason Harlow chose monkeys was because of their position high up on the evolutionary scale.
Some psychologists believe that what we learned about human deprivation was sufficient to warrant this suffering in monkeys.