Outline and evaluate Lorenz’s animal research in to attachment (16 marks).

Lorenz conducted research in to the attachment of animals and whether this attachment could be manipulated. He investigated whether geese always imprint on the mother of whether they would imprint on the first person they come in to contact with. Lorenz took a batch of fertilised eggs and split them in to a control group and an experiment group (independent subjects design). He ensured that the experimental group of eggs saw him first after hatching and maintained the normal scenario for the control group of the hatchlings seeing their mother first. He continued to observe the results of this. He discovered that if he reared the geese from when they hatched, then they would imprint on him. Even after growing in to adult geese, they would constantly follow him and would rather be around him than alone. Lorenz indicated a critical period of 32 hours in which the geese would imprint and after this period, it was unlikely that the geese would imprint on him. He also discovered that the most probable time for the gosling to imprint was between 13-16 hours. He concluded that the process of imprinting was a natural instinct of the goslings and they would imprint on the first large, moving object they saw after hatching. He concluded that the fact that the goslings needed food and protection was the reason that they imprinted on him, as he was the care-giver. He linked his findings to the idea of natural selection, stating that if they did not learn this behaviour then they would die out. To evaluate his research, a key strength of this investigation is the empirical supporting evidence. Having this alongside his research makes it more reliable and others looking at his research are more likely to believe the results. Examples of his empirical supporting evidence are the videos available online of the imprinting occurring and the investigation form start to end. Furthermore, another strength of his investigation is the fact that it was mainly ethical. The geese in his investigation were not harmed: they were extremely well cared for as they were given food and water as if their actual mothers were raising them. Also, the experiment itself was completely natural and they were raised in the same conditions that their mother would raise them in. After the experiment was concluded, they were released in to the wild. Despite this, an ethical issue that arose from his research was that they were taken away from their real mothers, causing stress for the mother goose. Moreover, a weakness to this investigation could be that his findings may not be able to be linked to the attachment to that of humans. Humans and birds are completely different species and humans are far more complex than birds, therefore the ways in which both form attachments could be completely different, making his research invalid. However, it could be argued that birds and humans are similar in terms of imprinting. An example which links to Lorenz’s research is foster care, in which children are taken in to foster care at a young age and are approached by new care givers, in hope they form a bond or attachment with them. In my personal opinion, I believe that Lorenz’s research is reliable and accurate to an extent. In the aspect of showing how others and not just the mothers or primary caregivers can form attachments, it is accurate, however, I agree that the fact that birds and humans are so different and humans being so much more complex may counteract Lorenz’s work and make it irrelevant when investigating attachment in humans. To conclude, there are both strengths and weaknesses to Lorenz’s investigation. Although mostly valid and reliable, the idea that attachment could differ between birds and humans could make his research somewhat unreliable when investigating attachment as a general topic rather than specifically attachment of animals. It could also be argued that Lorenz did not take in to account any other factors affecting attachment therefore his investigation itself could classed as too simplistic.