Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
4 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Research support for imprinting |
Guiton supported this through feeding chicks with rubber gloves for their first few weeks, and they became imprinted on the gloves. Supports animals imprinting on any moving thing present during critical window of development. Also that full grown chickens tried to mate with the gloves, showing early imprinting is linked to later reproductive behaviour. |
|
|
Criticism of imprinting |
Imprinting has king been considered an irreversible process. Yet Guiton found he could reverse the imprinting in chickens who tried to mate with rubber gloves. After some time chickens engaged in normal sexual behaviour with other chickens. Therefore it is reversible and another kind of learning |
|
|
Criticism of Harlow’s study |
Two stimulus objects (two wired mothers) differed in more ways than just cloth. Two heads were different, which is a confounding variable because it varied systematically with IV (cloth covered or not). Monkeys may of gone to the other mother because of the more attractive head. This lacks in internal validity. |
|
|
Using animals may not be accurate to explain humans |
Humans differ to animals, such as behaviour is governed by conscious decisions. However studies with animals reflect behaviour of humans, like in Schaffer and Emerson’s, that babies weren’t most attracted to the person who fed them. Therefore animals studies are useful to understand human behaviour, but we should seek confirmation by looking at research in humans |
