Research support for imprinting
Type: Strength
Study: Guiton (1966)
- Chicks were exposed to rubber gloves for feeding them during their first few weeks, this led to the chicks imprinting on the gloves
- Young animals aren’t born with predisposition to imprint on a specific object, and rather imprinting on any moving object during critical period
- Male chickens later tried to mate with the gloves
- Showing that early imprinting is linked to later reproductive behaviour
Criticism of imprinting
Type: Criticism
- The original concept of imprinting is an encounter with an object leads to the image of the object being stamped irreversibly on the nervous system
- Hoffman argues imprinting is a more ‘plastic and forgiving’ mechanism
- Guiton found that he could reverse the imprinting in chickens who had initially tried to mate with the rubber gloves
- Suggesting that imprinting may not be irreversible as Lorenz suggested
Generalising animal studies to human behaviour
Type: Criticism
Study: Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
- Humans tend to differ from animals, with much more of the human behaviour being governed by conscious decisions
- However, Harlow’s research is supported by Schaffer and Emerson (1964)‘s findings that infants were not most attached to the person who fed them the most
- Therefore suggesting that the conclusions of animal research should be treated with caution, unless the findings have replicated in humans