|Mei-iT!, _
T
r
— _
" * - ,
A
l
pc,
F
A
p
f
.
H
,
DRAFT
Symposium o n C o m p a r a t i v e
Social
Behavior
ARCHIVES
Man a n d B e a s t
Smithsonian
Institution
May 1969
ATTRACTION, A F F I L I A T I O N , AND ATTACHMENT*
R o b e r t B. Z a j o n c
The U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n
Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n
*
R e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d i n t h i s p a p e r was s u p p o r t e d b y t h e
N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e o f M e n t a l H e a l t h , G r a n t MH 12174.
The
inhabited-.regions of the e a r t h extend
square miles.
Dispersed
mates, approximately
today's
today
3.3
over t h i s area a r e , according
b i l l i o n people.
p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y a t 63 p e r
If
o v e r an a r e a o f some 52
probability
that
a t any
e a r t h i s occupied
500,000.
square m i l e .
But
another
within
feet.
This
t h a n 10
h a v e l o c a t e d one
a f e w yards„
persons per
ago
square m i l e .
d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n one
d i s t r i b u t e d , and
figures
tions
the nearest
minimal
on
in
certainly
the
other i s
today
t h e w o r l d p o p u l a t i o n d i d n o t e x c e e d 545
Again,
the nearest
I t i s , of course,
the
that
t h e r e never
t h a t we
a l l species
are not
each s p e c i e s
f r o m c h a n c e , as
Nevertheless,
i s revealed
by
precise
common o b s e r v a -
displays a characteristic
s t r e s s e d t h a t we
randomly
at a l l times,
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e r e a r e no
t i m e f o r most s p e c i e s .
I t s h o u l d be
probably,
1320
d i s t a n c e between people
no news t o us
s a m p l e s o f t h e same h a b i t a t .
distance.
somewhat o v e r
o t h e r w o u l d have been
n o t t h e c a s e , and
i t i s c e r t a i n l y obvious
to believe that
million.
t h e m o l e c u l e s o f oxygen i n a room, t h e average
i n d i v i d u a l and
at the present
c e n t u r y was
i f t h e y were d i s t r i b u t e d over
a d i s p e r s i o n which markedly departs
l e a d us
almost
I t i s a r a t h e r safe assumption t h a t
a g a i n , t h i s c e r t a i n l y was
e x c e e d e d 10 y a r d s .
successive
o f h a b i t a b l e ground
i n d i v i d u a l , we w i l l
a p e r i o d on e a r t h when t h e a v e r a g e n e a r e s t
manifest
The
yards.
h a b i t a b l e a r e a a t random, l i k e
was
indivi-
i s c e r t a i n l y n o t t h e case.
Hence t h e p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y d u r i n g t h e s e v e n t e e n t h
But
other
i n d i v i d u a l i s c e r t a i n l y q u i t e l o w , i n f a c t , one
Three hundred years
feet.
the nearest
g i v e n time a g i v e n square f o o t
by an
o n c e we
590
a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n a g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l and
10
esti-
t h e d i s p e r s i o n of p e o p l e over a l l t h e h a b i t a b l e a r e a s were random,
d u a l w o u l d be a p p r o x i m a t e l y
less
to recent
These e s t i m a t e s , t h e r e f o r e , p l a c e
t h e a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n a g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l and
find
million
are not speaking
average
here of
p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y and
n o t even o f l o c a l p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y , t h a t i s , s i z e
the area
of
the p o p u l a t i o n averaged over/a
of
particular habitat.
and
l o c a l d e n s i t y do v a r y d e p e n d i n g on - a v a r i e t y
may
be
ment.
Both, o v e r a l l density
of e c o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s ,
t a k e n as b a s i c i n d i c a t i o n s o f t h e s p e c i e s ' a d a p t a t i o n t o i t s e n v i r o n However, t h e a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n an i n d i v i d u a l and
the
nearest
conspecific i s i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y a constant, peculiar to the given
as
and
i s i t s c o l o r i n g , d i e t , bone s t r u c t u r e ,
or breeding p a t t e r n .
species
And,
unlike
average d i s p e r s i o n , i t represents a form of a d a p t a t i o n which
the
individuals
o f an a g g r e g a t i o n h a v e a c h i e v e d
For
the vast
majority
of species
w i t h r e s p e c t t o each o t h e r .
t h i s d i s t a n c e i s no m o r e t h a n a f e w b o d y l e n g t h s .
curious, therefore, that
t h e r e a r e p r a c t i c a l l y no
d e s c r i p t i v e d a t a on
I t is
the
problem.
Not
only i s the average nearest
d i s t a n c e between c o n s p e c i f i c s a
c o n s t a n t , b u t i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t a r e f o u n d n e a r t o e a c h o t h e r on one
t i o n remain
people
area
and
so f o r e x t e n d e d p e r i o d s o f t i m e .
other animals
T h i s i s n o t s a y i n g more t h a n
i n aggregations, t h a t t h e i r d i s p e r s i o n over
resembles more t h e d i s p e r s i o n o f m o l e c u l e s
liquids
o r g a s e s , and
But
saying
that
species
live
i n aggregations
has
has
t e n d e n c y o f c o n c e a l i n g a r a t h e r b a s i c p r o b l e m b e c a u s e i t i m p l i e s i n an
A r i s t o l i a n manner t h a t s u c h i s t h e n a t u r e o f b e a s t s
take i t from
as
an
i n s o l i d s t a t e s than i n
t h a t the s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of these aggregations
some,temporal s t a b i l i t y .
a
live
observa-
there.
The
t r e n d of research
and
t h a t we
i n t h i s a r e a has
might
tended
to
as
well
take
i t s main o b j e c t i v e the d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of aggrega-
t i o n s o f t h e v a r i o u s s p e c i e s , w h i l e t h e mechanisms m a i n t a i n i n g
social
o r g a n i z a t i o n are only r a r e l y the subject of systematic i n q u i r y .
The
v a t i o n t h a t animals
l i v e i n organized aggregations
f r o m a s k i n g some r a t h e r b a s i c and
significant
has
obser-
i n f a c t prevented
questions, questions which
us
are
3.
o n l y r e c e n t l y b e c o m i n g r e c o g n i z e d as s i g n i f i c a n t , as P r o f e s s o r Kummer h a s
p o i n t e d o u t i n h i s p a p e r . (Kummer, 1 9 6 9 ) .
I n science a l l constancies are precious.
They a r e p r e c i o u s b e c a u s e t h e y
a r e t h e t e r m s by means o f w h i c h some o f o u r s t u b b o r n e q u a t i o n s become
solvable.
I f t h e a v e r a g e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e i n d i v i d u a l and h i s n e a r e s t
c o n s p e c i f i c i s indeed.a c o n s t a n t , then o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the
b u t i o n o f t h e s e n e a r e s t d i s t a n c e s s u c h as
their
distri-
standard deviations,
s k e w n e s s , and k u r t o s i s , m i g h t a l s o be i m p o r t a n t b e n c h m a r k s o f t h e g i v e n
s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and m u s t d i r e c t l y
r e l a t e t o the s o c i a l behavior of the
individuals.
Why
then i s t h e r e f o r a l l species a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c average n e a r e s t
tance between i n d i v i d u a l s ?
o f animal populations.
self-limiting
N o t a g r e a t d e a l i s known t o d a y a b o u t
the dispersion
I t i s known, however, t h a t a n i m a l p o p u l a t i o n s a r e .
(Wynne-Edwards, 1 9 6 2 ) .
Once at c e r t a i n l e v e l o f
local
p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y i s r e a c h e d , h o m e o s t a t i c mechanisms a r e s e t i n t o
The
motion.
number o f b r e e d e r s m i g h t d r a s t i c a l l y d e c r e a s e , t h e number o f eggs w h i c h
a r e l a i d m i g h t decrease, newborns a r e l e s s l i k e l y
to survive,
growth
a n d m a t u r i t y m i g h t be r e t a r d e d , members o f t h e a g g r e g a t i o n may
and
dis-
newcomers n o t a c c e p t e d ,
i s more p r o m i n e n t , and
be
the colony might m i g r a t e , a g o n i s t i c
ejected
behavior
c a n n i b a l i s m i s a l s o n o t out of the q u e s t i o n .
Wynne-Edwards' k e e n a n a l y s i s p o i n t s o u t t h a t m o s t o f t h e s e a d a p t i v e
mechanisms a r e i n s t i t u t e d b e f o r e t h e p o p u l a t i o n b e g i n s t o s u f f e r f r o m
i n a c o n c r e t e way,
t h a t i s , b e f o r e t h e r e a r e any
the contrary, the c e i l i n g
density
signs of s t a r v a t i o n .
i s n o r m a l l y imposed, and
the l e v e l
"On
indefinitely
m a i n t a i n e d , w h i l e t h e members o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n a r e i n g o o d h e a l t h — s o m e t i m e s
actually
fat—and
When g u p p i e s
leading normal
lives."
reach a c e r t a i n density
(Wynne-Edwards, 1962,
p.
10).
they b e g i n e a t i n g t h e i r young a
few
A.
minutes a f t e r t h e i r b i r t h .
B r e d e r and C o a t e s ( 1 9 3 2 ) r a i s e d g u p p i e s i n two
a c q u a r i a , one h a v i n g ..a s i n g l e g r a v i d f e m a l e and t h e o t h e r c o n t a i n i n g f i f t y
mixed f i s h .
I n a few months b o t h c o l o n i e s r e a c h e d a s t a b l e l e v e l o f
population—nine individuals.
But i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g , t h a t i n t h e f i r s t
acquarium a l l the -young.in.the f i r s t b r o o d s u r v i v e d w h i l e succeeding broods
f a i r e d less w e l l .
I n f a c t , t h e f o u r t h b r o o d was e a t e n by t h e m o t h e r i n i t s
entirety.
I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t f o o d i n e x c e s s was p r o v i d e d a t a l l t i m e s .
Behavioral
r e a c t i o n s t o p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y and
mechanisms a r e o n l y b e g i n n i n g
that
i n t r a - s p e c i f i c aggression,
of behavior
in
t o be
understood today.
T h i e s s e n and
his
homeostatic
I t appears, f o r
d e c e l e r a t i o n i n m a t i n g , and
w h i c h appear w i t h c r o w d i n g m i g h t be
endocrine functions.
specific
other
an
increase
i n adrenal
colleagues
(1962), f o r
Endocrine f u n c t i o n s , which are
responses t o s t r e s s o r s , might i n i t i a t e
c o n s e q u e n c e o f w h i c h w o u l d be
certain level.
also
to maintain
the
conditions
typical
collective
the p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y below a
C h r i s t i a n ( 1 9 5 6 ) r e p o r t s t h a t a n d r o g e n p r o d u c t i o n , and
the onset of puberty,
He
c e r t a i n behaviors,
instance,
increases
C h r i s t i a n (1955) found under these
weights.
forms
r e l a t e d t o d e m o n s t r a b l e changes
h a v e shown t h a t i n m i c e t h e s e c r e t i o n o f a d r e n o c o r t i c o s t e r o i d s
w i t h p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y , and
instance,
hence
i s delayed i n male mice t h a t l i v e i n h i g h d e n s i t i e s .
f o u n d l o w e r g o n a d a l w e i g h t s and
suppression
m a t u r e males l i v i n g
i n densely populated
f u n c t i o n s , t o o , may
be
directly
quarters.
of spermatogenesis i n
Hence
reproductive
a f f e c t e d i n t h e case o f h i g h
population
densities.
Mechanisms t h a t m a i n t a i n
cated
population
i n s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n (Zajonc,
d e n s i t y a r e no
1969).
Also,
doubt deeply
t h e y do
explain
implithe
o
fact
that w i t h i n a given
other
i n d i v i d u a l s never
distance
from
(or extremely
a given
individual
t h e number o f
r a r e l y ) exceeds c e r t a i n m a g n i t u d e s .
But
t h e y do n o t e x p l a i n w h y , . e v e n d u r i n g p e r i o d s o f a b u n d a n c e a n d a f f l u e n c e
t h e d i s t a n c e between one i n d i v i d u a l a n d t h e n e a r e s t
fairly
constant.
resources,
From ..the. p o i n t o f v i e w o f e x p l o i t a t i o n o f t h e h a b i t a t ' s
i t would be::most e f f i c i e n t
f o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l s t o d i s p e r s e as f a r
-
a p a r t as p o s s i b l e .
specifics
Secondly, i f t h e average nearest
d i s t a n c e between con-
(ANDBC) i s - i n d e e d a c o n s t a n t , i t w o u l d b e a b s u r d
and
|
r e l a t i o n s h i p between ANDBC/population d e n s i t y .
for
c o n s p e c i f i c remains
t h e temporal
stability
o f these
t o speak o f a
T h i r d l y , we m u s t a l s o a c c o u n t
d i s t a n c e s between p a r t i c u l a r
individuals.
T h e r e . i s n o t h i n g i n .the .homeostatic mechanisms t h a t c o n t r o l d e n s i t y w h i c h
s u g g e s t an e x p l a n a t i o n s o f p a r t i c u l a r
What a r e t h e n
social
bonds.
t h e b e h a v i o r a l m e c h a n i s m s t h a t m a i n t a i n ANDBC?
u s e f u l t o assume, as P r o f . Kummer assumed i n t h e c a s e o f s p a c i n g ,
stability
o f ANDBC r e p r e s e n t s
an e q u i l i b r i u m m a i n t a i n e d
the f o r c e s o f a t t r a c t i o n o r cohesion
s i o n and r e p u l s i o n on t h e o t h e r .
It is
that the
by two o p p o s i n g f o r c e s :
o n t h e one hand and t h e f o r c e s o f d i s p e r however,
As t h e t i t l e
o f t h i s paper i m p l i e s , / I
shall
be
e x c l u s i v e l y concerned w i t h t h e f o r c e s o f a t t r a c t i o n , n o t o n l y because i t
is
a more p l e a s a n t
to
b e t h e s u b j e c t o f my r e c e n t r e s e a r c h .
affair
attraction, affiliation,
the l i t e r a t u r e ,
they w i l l
t o d e a l .with, b u t a l s o because i t j u s t
and attachment,
happens
S i n c e t h e t h r e e t e r m s o f my
title,
have been used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y i n
a l s o be used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y
i n t h i s paper. A l l
t h r e e terms r e f e r
t o t h e a f f e c t i v e bond between t h e i n d i v i d u a l and a g i v e n
stimulus object.
T h e r e a r e some d i f f e r e n c e s i n e m p h a s i s w h i c h a r e n o t
critical
f o r o u r p u r p o s e s b u t w h i c h may b e p o i n t e d o u t i n p a s s i n g .
emphasizes t h e approach tendency which t h e g i v e n s t i m u l u s o b j e c t
in
the individual.
aspects
of
Attachment places
o f a f f e c t i v e bonds.
s t r e s s on t h e temporal
Affiliation
t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o animate o b j e c t s .
i s merely attachment
Attraction
elicits
a n d more p e r m a n e n t
or attraction
What i s t h e s o u r c e o f a t t r a c t i o n and
attachment between
conspecifics,
a n d w h a t mechanisms l e a d t o t h e f o r m a t i o n o f s o c i a l bonds o f a n i m a l
and
human a g g r e g a t i o n s ?
Explanations invoking
t h e o p e r a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c i n s t i n c t s s u c h as
g r e g a r i o u s o r t h e h e r d i n s t i n c t a r e t o d a y no
longer satisfactory.
a r e p r e v e n t e d f r o m r e l y i n g on s u c h t r a d i t i o n a l a n s w e r s , we
to experiential
that
filial
s u c h as l e a r n i n g
attachment i s developed
o f f s p r i n g , and
experiments
and
factors,
by r e w a r d s
Fisher
Attachment
In
It
d i s c o n t i n u e d , approach
some
Harlow
(1958)
shown t h a t
t o humans as r e a d i l y
puppies
as h a n d f e d
punishment.
t h e i r human h a n d l e r .
behavior
reappeared.
an e x p e r i m e n t on i m p r i n t i n g , Hess ( 1 9 6 4 ) a d m i n i s t e r e d s h o c k t o c h i c k s and
f o u n d a f a c i l i t a t i o n r a t h e r .than i n h i b i t i o n o f i m p r i n t i n g .
a t t a c h m e n t and
a t t r a c t i o n o f one
Moreover,
i n d i v i d u a l to the other i s not s u f f i c i e n t
to e x p l a i n the s t a b i l i t y
o f t h e s o c i a l b o n d b e t w e e n them.
requires mutuality.
s h o u l d t h e m o t h e r become a t t a c h e d t o h e r
It
seem
attachments
B r o d b e c k ( 1 9 5 4 ) has
(1955) p u n i s h e d puppies whenever t h e y approached
was
turn
would
But
can e v e n be f o r m e d w h e n a c c o m p a n i e d b y
B u t as s o o n as p u n i s h m e n t
i f we
t h e mother p r o v i d e s f o r i t s
C a l v i n (1960) r e p o r t t h e development of f i l i a l
by m e c h a n i c a l means a t t a c h t h e m s e l v e s
subjects.
reinforcement.
show t h a t a t t a c h m e n t can d e v e l o p w i t h o u t r e w a r d s .
I g e l and
And
immediately
some t h e o r i e s o f a t t a c h m e n t make t h i s c l a i m .
o f mammals i n t h e a b s e n c e o f l a c t a t i o n .
fed
and
the
i s perhaps
Why
p o s s i b l e t o f o r m u l a t e some h y p o t h e s e s
a s p e c t s o f l a c t a t i o n i n mammals, b u t w h a t e a r t h l y
Such s o c i a l b o n d
involving
1963
the pleasurable
j o y s m i g h t a goose d e r i v e
f r o m h a v i n g a number o f g o s l i n g s t r a i l b e h i n d h e r f o r w e e k s on
In
offspring?
end?
S c o t t r e v i e w e d t h e l i t e r a t u r e on i n t r a s p e c i f i c a t t r a c t i o n and
a t t a c h m e n t and
concluded
t h a t w h i l e r e i n f o r c e m e n t m i g h t enhance attachment,.
i t
i s not a necessary c o n d i t i o n f o r i t s occurrence.
cesses other than s p e c i f i c i n s t i n c t s
and
I t appears then t h a t
pro-
o t h e r than a s s o c i a t i v e l e a r n i n g
e x p l a i n t h e f o r m a t i o n and m a i n t e n a n c e o f a t t r a c t i o n s and
attachments
will
between
conspecifics.
We
s h a l l examine i n t h i s paper a r a t h e r s i m p l e p r o c e s s — n a m e l y ,
exposure—and attempt
to
another
is a sufficient
attempt w i l l
the
t o show t h a t t h e m e r e r e p e a t e d
An
be made t o show t h a t t h e a b o v e phenomenon i s a s p e c i a l c a s e o f
t h e mere r e p e a t e d
to a given stimulus object Is a s u f f i c i e n t
hancement o f h i s a t t i t u d e toward
i t , be
e x p o s u r e i s meant a s i t u a t i o n w h i c h
exposure of
an
c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e en»
t h i s s t i m u l u s o b j e c t a member o f
same s p e c i e s , o f d i f f e r e n t s p e c i e s , o r an
the
individual
c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e development o f a t t r a c t i o n .
more g e n e r a l h y p o t h e s i s , n a m e l y , t h a t
individual
exposure of the
repeated
inanimate o b j e c t .
By
the
"mere"
makes t h e s t i m u l u s o b j e c t a c c e s s i b l e t o
i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p t i o n and w h i c h
i s unencumbered by
other processes
c o n t i n g e n c i e s , s u c h as p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e r e i n f o r c e m e n t , r e q u i r e m e n t
or
t o make
p a r t i c u l a r responses, or other s t i m u l a t i o n s y s t e m a t i c a l l y associated w i t h
the
exposure of the c r i t i c a l stimulus o b j e c t .
I m p r i n t i n g and
Exposure E f f e c t s i n
Animals.
M o d e r n e t h o l o g y r e p r e s e n t s a c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n i n s t i n c t u a l and
i e n t i a l basis of animal
b e h a v i o r , and
i m p r i n t i n g r e p r e s e n t s such a compromise
w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e development of attachment
concepts
of i m p r i n t i n g
become c a p a b l e
certain
c r i t i c a l p e r i o d of the animal's
While
i t was
of
'innate
1
i n a variety
attraction.
The
certain
b e h a v i o r a l development" (Jaynes,
b e h a v i o r s , i t i s now
early
stimuli
behavior patterns /during/ a
o r i g i n a l l y believed that imprinting
s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s and
occur
and
t r e a t e d i t as a " p r o c e s s by w h i c h
of e l i c i t i n g
exper-
is restricted
clearly
apparent
to
any
certain
t h a t i t can
of species, i n a l a r g e v a r i e t y of s i t u a t i o n s ,
b e h a v i o r s , a t v a r i o u s ages o f t h e a n i m a l , t o a l m o s t
1956).
for a
variety
stimulus object,
and
that i t i s not .irreversible
W h i l e t h e c o n c e p t was
p r i n t i n g was
M a t t e r , 1967;
restricted
exclusively
to birds,
im-
C a i r n s , 1 9 6 6 a ; 1 9 6 6 b ; C o l l i a s , 1 9 6 2 ; C r o s s , Holcorab, &
G r a y , 1958;
1956;), f i s h e s
reptiles
initially
1965).
s u c c e s s f u l l y ..accomplished w i t h a v a r i e t y o f mammalian s p e c i e s
( A l t m a n n , 1958;
Thorpe,
(Sluckin,
H e d i g e r , 1950;
(Gandlund
( B u r g h a r d t & Hess,
S c o t t , 1958;
& M i l n e , 1966;
S h i p l e y , 1963;
Greenberg, 1963),
and
1966).
T h e r e i s e v i d e n c e . t o .show t h a t i n t r a s p e c i f i c a t t a c h m e n t s a r e d e e p l y
i n f l u e n c e d by t h e e a r l y
social experience.
n o r m a l Oregon f r u i t f l i e s
M a i n a r d i (1967) r e p o r t e d
that
( D r o s o p h i l a m e l a n o g a s t e r ) c o u r t O r e g o n f e m a l e s when
g i v e n a c h o i c e b e t w e e n O r e g o n and y e l l o w f e m a l e s .
Individuals reared i n
i s o l a t i o n , h o w e v e r , do n o t d i s c r i m i n a t e b e t w e e n O r e g o n and Y e l l o w f e m a l e s ,
and
court
t h e ones as o f t e n as t h e o t h e r s .
r e a r e d guppies
P i n c k n e y and A n d e r s o n
( L e b i s t e s r e t i c u l a t u s ) i n g r o u p s and
found that i s o l a t e d
r e g a r d e d as h a v i n g a m i n i m a l s o c i a l l i f e
from the s o c i a l e f f e c t s of experience.
an o p e n f i e l d t e s t , f o u n d t h a t
p a i r decreased w i t h time.
Latane
during the early
The
( T o l m a n , 1951)
r a t w h i c h has
i s also not
been
free
Latane', o b s e r v i n g p a i r s o f r a t s i n
the average
d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e r a t s o f each
T h i s s t u d y c o n f i r m s o t h e r s (Eckman, M e l t z e r , &
& Glass, 1968), i n which i t i s c o n s i s t e n t l y
t h a t a t t r a c t i o n between r a t s
found
increases over successive experiences.
While the conspecific i s rather
ing,
They
t h e y i n c r e a s e d t h e amount o f t i m e s p e n t
n e a r d i s p l a y g u p p i e s and b e h a v e d l i k e n o r m a l f i s h .
L a t a n e , 1969;
in isolation.
subjects tended t o a v o i d other f i s h
stages of t e s t i n g , but eventually
(1967)
likely
t o become t h e t a r g e t o f
i t i s w e l l known t h a t no l e s s p o w e r f u l a r e t h e s o c i a l e f f e c t s
e x p e r i e n c e when a n i m a l s a r e e x p o s e d t o members o f a d i f f e r e n t
imprintof
species.
Cairns
(1966b) used lambs w h i c h p r i o r
t o t h e experiment l i v e d
weeks under normal c o n d i t i o n s w i t h t h e i r m o t h e r s and o t h e r
for
several
lambs.
At the
b e g i n n i n g o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t t h e lambs w e r e s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e i r
and
f o r a period
o f 7 1 days c o n f i n e d
to live
small
flock
e i t h e r w i t h a dog i n t h e same
c a g e , w i t h a dog i n a n . a d j a c e n t c a g e , w i t h a n o n m a t e r n a l ewe, o r w i t h a
continuously
operating ..television set.
A t various
points o f the cohabitation,
t e s t s w e r e made i n w h i c h t h e lamb was p l a c e d i n a U-shaped maze and
to
c h o o s e b e t w e e n a n empty .compartment o r one c o n t a i n i n g
Figure
t h e cohabitant.
1 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f C a i r n s ' e x p e r i m e n t f r o m w h i c h i t i s c l e a r
t h a t when lambs h a v e t h e c h o i c e b e t w e e n s o l i t u d e a n d t h e i r
always p r e f e r
the cohabitant,
cohabitation.
equally
1 about
t h e lambs
A f t e r n i n e weeks C a i r n s a l l o w e d
and a t e t h e r e d
here
ewe.
1
affection.
his
lambs t o c h o o s e b e t w e e n t h e i r
H a v i n g l i v e d w i t h a dog f o r a p e r i o d
w e e k s , t h e lambs c h o s e t h e i r c o m p a n i o n s i n p r e f e r e n c e to • a ewe.
t o choose between a t e t h e r e d
continuously
was
playing
t e l e v i s i o n s e t p r e f e r r e d t h e ewe, b u t t h i s
lower
of nine
Having
preference
t h a n t h a t e x h i b i t e d by t h e
animals.
I n s i m i l a r e x p e r i m e n t s Gandland and M i l n e
g u p p i e s a n d r a t s i n t h e company o f t h e i r
either with or without
(1966) r a i s e d c h i c k e n s ,
kittens,
c o n s p e c i f i c s o r i n i s o l a t i o n , and
manipulable objects
m i r r o r s , o r moving t o y s .
given
co-
ewe a n d t h e ' t e l e v i s i o n , l a m b s r a i s e d w i t h a
n o t o v e r w h e l m i n g , and r e l i a b l y
control
they
B u t i t a l s o shows t h a t d o g s , ewes, a n d t e l e v i s i o n s e t s a r e
e f f e c t i v e i n gaining
habitants
cohabitant
and t h i s p r e f e r e n c e i n c r e a s e s o v e r t h e p e r i o d
Figure
of
allowed
s u c h as b a l l s o n s t r i n g s , m a r b l e s ,
R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e , when
a c h o i c e . r a t s showed a p r e f e r e n c e f o r o t h e r
rats.
But i n a l l t h e
10.
r e m a i n i n g a n i m a l s e x p o s u r e t o o b j e c t s had a p r o f o u n d e f f e c t on t h e i r s u b s e q u e n t s o c i a l c h o i c e s . ' Cats d i d p r e f e r t h e i r c o n s p e c i f i c s b u t n o t
absolutely.
There were s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s o f p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e t o y , e s p e c i a l l y during the early series of t e s t i n g .
Chickens, t o o , p r e f e r r e d other
chickens.
H o w e v e r , t h o s e r e a r e d w i t h o b j e c t s and i n i s o l a t i o n o f o t h e r
c h i c k e n s showed l e a s t p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e i r c o n s p e c i f i c s .
Guppies, however,
preferred objects to their conspecifics i n a l lconditions.
Denenberg,
different
exposed
Hudgens, and Zarrow
conditions.
One
(1964) r a i s e d f o u r groups o f mice
group l i v e d w i t h o t h e r mice, another
t o m a l e and f e m a l e . r a t s a f t e r w e a n i n g , a t h i r d
to
a r a t m o t h e r when t h r e e - d a y s
in
i s o l a t i o n a f t e r weaning.
to
a mouse o r one a d j a c e n t
g r o u p was
group
When g i v e n a c h o i c e
fostered
t o e n t e r a chamber
w i t h o t h e r mice o r i n i s o l a t i o n chose chambers a d j a c e n t
t o mice.
adjacent
living
I n t e r s p e c i f i c a t t a c h m e n t and i m p r i n t i n g i s a l s o p o s s i b l e b e t w e e n
Using a c i r c u l a r runway
C l o a r , and M a s s i n g i l l ( 1 9 6 7 ) a c h i e v e d
chicks.
I m p r i n t i n g was
s t r o n g i m p r i n t i n g i n - 7 o u t o f 18
e s p e c i a l l y s t r o n g i n one
n e a r l y devoured.
( 1 9 3 0 ) was
a b l e t o show t h a t k i t t e n s r a i s e d i n t h e
not k i l l
their
c a g e m a t e when r e a c h i n g
T h r e e o f t h e 18 k i t t e n s r a i s e d i n s u c h a m a n n e r , h o w e v e r ,
rats.
of
Of t w e n t y
21 k i t t e n s
reaching
kittens raised.in isolation 9 killed
did k i l l
age.
adulthood.
other
r a t s when a d u l t s , and
r a i s e d i n a r a t - k i l l i n g e n v i r o n m e n t 18 k i l l e d
4 months o f
quail
subject which the e x p e r i -
t o p r o t e c t f r o m b e i n g p i c k e d up b y t h e hawk a n d
same cage w i t h a r a t w i l l
prey
and a s p a r r o w hawk, M e l v i n ,
menters were n o t a b l e
Kuo
kept
t o a r a t , t h e s u b j e c t s r e a r e d w i t h r a t s o r by
Mice
i t spredator.
was
o l d , and i n t h e f o u r t h group mice were
a r a t mother p r e f e r r e d t o s t a y n e a r chambers w i t h r a t s .
and
under
rats
before
11.
As t h e r e s u l t s . o f some o f t h e p r e v i o u s e x p e r i m e n t s s u g g e s t , i m p r i n t i n g
i s not l i m i t e d t o animate t a r g e t s .
I n f a c t , a l m o s t any o b j e c t o r r e p e a t e d
o c c u r r e n c e o f an e v e n t c a n become s u c h t a r g e t s .
Food p r e f e r e n c e s a r e r a t h e r
r e a d i l y and e a s i l y e s t a b l i s h e d by means o f r e p e a t e d e x p o s u r e .
For i n s t a n c e ,
R a b i n o w i t c h ( 1 9 6 8 ) f e d h e r r i n g g u l l s ( L a r u s a r g e n t a t u s ) and r i n g - b i l l e d
g u l l s (Larus delewarensis). a d i e t of e i t h e r f r e s h earthworms, p i n k c a t f o o d ,
and c a t f o o d dyed green.
The a n i m a l s w e r e p l a c e d on t h i s d i e t s h o r t l y
a f t e r h a t c h i n g and f e d t h e g i v e n f o o d e x c l u s i v e l y f o r a p e r i o d o f f i v e d a y s .
The r e s u l t s showed a c l e a r p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e d i e t w i t h w h i c h t h e c h i c k had
experience.
Out o f a t o t a l o f 132 t e s t s t h e f a m i l i a r f o o d was c h o s e n 122
times.
These p r e f e r e n c e s w e r e o f t h e o r d e r o f 9 0 % t o 100%.
These p r e f e r e n c e s a p p l i e d e q u a l l y t o c h o i c e s b e t w e e n c a t f o o d and worms, e v e n t h o u g h
worms a r e c l o s e s t t o t h e n a t u r a l d i e t o f t h e s e b i r d s .
And B u r g h a r d t
and
Hess (1966) r e p o r t t h a t s n a p p i n g t u r t l e s ( C h e l y d r a s e r p e n t i n a ) f e d e i t h e r
m e a t , f i s h o r worms p r e f e r r e d t h e f a m i l i a r d i e t i n 16 o u t o f 20 c a s e s .
Experiments w i t h food preferences, however, are not a
e v i d e n c e t h a t mere e x p o s u r e o r e x p e r i e n c e
results
i n attraction
to that object.
w i t h a particular stimulus object
Food has
Hence, i n these s t u d i e s t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n and
during imprinting
therefore likely
But
reinforcing properties.
i n g e s t i o n of the given
food
i s a l w a y s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e r e d u c t i o n o f h u n g e r , and
to acquire reinforcing
reinforcement i s not
were a b l e t o produce i m p r i n t i n g
is
effects.
r e q u i r e d and
o f o b j e c t s i n absence o f r e w a r d s .
Gottlieb
convincing
imprinting
can o c c u r
Thus, f o r i n s t a n c e P i t z
i n chicks
and
to a
Ross
to a s m a l l red cardboard
(1963) I m p r i n t e d d u c k l i n g s t o a m a l e M a l l a r d decoy e i t h e r
t h e e x o d u s c a l l o f t h e wood d u c k ( A i x s p o n s a ) o r s i l e n t .
variety
(1961)
box.
emitting
Both models
12.
produced the f o l l o w i n g response, although
effective.
t h e v o c a l m o d e l seemed t o be
S a l z e n and M e y e r ( 1 9 6 8 ) u s e d g r e e n o r d a r k - b l u e
and
r e c t a n g u l a r sponge dyed e i t h e r g r e e n o r y e l l o w , -
i m p r i n t e d on a l l o f t h e s e o b j e c t s .
H o f f m a n and
Peterson
( 1 9 6 0 ) had
W h i l e many r e s e a r c h e r s
equal
Their
an e l e c t r i c
success w i t h a t r a n s i l l u m i n a t e d y e l l o w
used a moving o b j e c t t o produce i m p r i n t i n g ,
Meyer (1968) used s t a t i o n a r y
T a y l o r , S l u c k i n , H e w i t t , and
objects w i t h considerable
Guiton
chicks
Kozma ( 1 9 6 7 ) i m p r i n t e d
P e k i n g d u c k l i n g s on a w h i t e p l a s t i c m i l k b o t t l e m o u n t e d on
and
cloth-covered
a
paper b a l l s /
and
more
train,
cylinder.
Salzen
success.
(1967) r e a r e d c h i c k s i n a box
just
large
e n o u g h t o accommodate t h e b i r d , w h i c h was
e i t h e r l i n e d w i t h a smooth o r
material.
the chick p r e f e r r e d to enter
box
Preference
w h i c h had
Not
the f a m i l i a r
(1967) exposed c h i c k e n
a s e r i e s o f one-second t o n e s .
hatched
i n a q u i e t and
i n g e a c h c h i c k was
familiar
tone
which spent
and
their
t h e r e was
w h i c h had
and
reinforcing
presented
attraction.
G r i e r , Counter,
A n o t h e r g r o u p o f eggs was
incubator*
incubated
the other of a d i f f e r e n t
frequency.
The
control
i n c u b a t i o n i n s i l e n c e showed no p r e f e r e n c e
d i d show movement t o w a r d
p r e f e r e n t i a l movement t o w a r d
A remarkable attachment
C r o s s , H a l c o m b , and M a t t e r
and
and
Six hours a f t e r
w i t h two s o u n d s o u r c e s — o n e p r o d u c i n g
p r e n a t a l experience
events,
eggs d u r i n g t h e t h i r d week o f i n c u b a t i o n t o
a sound-attenuated
over the o t h e r , although they
But
intrinsic
t h a t have n e v e r been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o t h e r r e i n f o r c i n g
e a s i l y become o b j e c t s o f p r e f e r e n c e
Shearer
the
texture.
o n l y t a c t i l e b u t a u d i t o r y s t i m u l i t h a t h a v e no
q u a l i t i e s and
can
tests revealed that
rough
the f a m i l i a r
the
chicks
f o r one
b o t h sound
hatch-
tone
sources.
tone f o r chicks
w i t h the a u d i t o r y s t i m u l u s .
t o a c o m p l e x a u d i t o r y s t i m u l u s was
(1967).
These e x p e r i m e n t e r s
produced
by
r a i s e d t h r e e groups
13.
o f r a t s under t h r e e r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t
in
conditions.
a chamber e q u i p p e d w i t h a s p e a k e r w h i c h ,
One g r o u p o f a n i m a l s
f o r 52 s u c c e s s i v e
lived
d a y s a n d 12 h o u r s
e a c h d a y , r e g a l e d t h e r a t s w i t h s e l e c t i o n s f r o m M o z a r t , s u c h as S y m p h o n i e s
No. 40 a n d 4 1 , V i o l i n C o n c e r t o No. 5, The M a g i c F l u t e , e t c .
rats
l i v e d f o r t h e same p e r i o d o f t i m e i n a s i m i l a r chamber b u t t h e i r
c o n s i s t e d e x c l u s i v e l y o f m u s i c by Schoenberg.
as
Another group of
program
This group heard pieces
such
P i e r r o t L u n a i r e , Chamber S y m p h o n i e s No'. 1 a n d 2, V e r k l a e r t e N a c h t , e t c .
A third,
less f o r t u n a t e group,
was p l a c e d i n s i m i l a r
same p e r i o d o f t i m e , b u t a l a s , i t was t o t a l l y
compartments f o r t h e
d e p r i v e d o f music.
A f t e r 52
then
d a y s a l l a n i m a l s were g i v e n a 15-day r e s t ,
preferences
d u r i n g a p e r i o d o f 60 d a y s .
and w e r e / t e s t e d
These t e s t s were p e r f o r m e d
t h e r a t s i n a chamber e q u i p p e d w i t h a f l o o r h i n g e d
suspended over
weight
floor
for their
t o lower
by p l a c i n g
i n t h e c e n t e r and
t w o m i c r o s w i t c h e s , one o n e a c h s i d e o f t h e h i n g e .
was s u f f i c i e n t
musical
The r a t ' s
e i t h e r one s i d e o r t h e o t h e r s i d e o f t h e
and thus t o a c t u a t e t h e g i v e n m i c r o s w i t c h .
As y o u may g u e s s , t h e
m i c r o s w i t c h c o n t r o l l e d access t o e i t h e r M o z a r t . o r Schoenberg.
I must
hasten
t o a d d , however, t h a t Cross and h i s c o - w o r k e r s d i d n o t p r o v i d e t h e a n i m a l s
with
choices between music which
they heard
F i g u r e 2 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s .
r a t s p r e f e r r e d Mozart t o Schoenberg.
with
Without
prior
w i t h M o z a r t made t h e a n i m a l s
that
here
t r u e Mozart l o v e r s and
Schoenberg l e d t o p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h i s
experience
l a t t e r form o f music.
s t r e s s , n o t w i t h o u t some f e e l i n g s o f s y m p a t h y , t h a t t h e p r e f e r e n c e
o f animals
r e a r e d w i t h M o z a r t was s t r o n g e r t h a n t h e p r e f e r e n c e
o f animals
that lived with
Schoenberg.
pieces.
training, the
I t i s c l e a r from t h e data
F i g u r e 2 about
experience
b u t w i t h new a n d d i s t i n c t
B u t we m u s t
f o r Mozart
f o r Schoenberg
These r e s u l t s a r e e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t
14.
with
those o f t h e c o n t r o l group.
I n t h e absence o f p r i o r
training, the
us
r a t s p r e f e r M o z a r t t o S c h o e n b e r g . Many o f ' / t h u s d e r i v e s o m e . s a t i s f a c t i o n
from
the fact
t h a t some l o w e r a n i m a l s
share
their
T h e s e l a t t e r s t u d i e s show n o t o n l y t h a t
- musical
tastes.
t h e r a t may h a v e a more t e n d e r
s o u l t h a n we h a v e come t o b e l i e v e , b u t a l s o , t h a t v e r y l i t t l e
i srequired
b e y o n d mere e x p o s u r e t o p r o d u c e d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e f e r e n c e and a t t r a c t i o n .
c o u r s e , one c o u l d a r g u e t h a t s u c h e x p e r i m e n t s
are unconvincing
Of
because
t h e y do n o t d e a l w i t h t h e f o r m a t i o n o f s t r o n g s o c i a l bonds b u t w i t h t h e
formation of t r i v i a l
the
animal's
attachment
fancy.
and
preferences.
U s u a l l y , i t cannot
having some.enduring q u a l i t i e s ,
do s u g g e s t
t h a t exposure e f f e c t s
o r whether i t i s simply a passing
which bear on t h i s
in
( 1 9 6 0 ) was a b l e t o u t i l i z e
establishing
question
l e a v e more t h a n t r i v i a l
quences on t h e s o c i a l c h o i c e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l .
Peterson
whether
choice i n these experimental s i t u a t i o n s i s I n d i c a t i v e of s o c i a l
There a r e , however, two e x p e r i m e n t s
which
be determined
conse-
I n one o f t h e f i r s t
of these,
t h e i m p r i n t e d s t i m u l u s as a r e i n f o r c e r
t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f new r e s p o n s e s .
First, shortly
after
h a t c h i n g , ducks were p r e s e n t e d w i t h a moving s t i m u l u s f o r s i x 45-minute
periods.
from
key
Following this
t h e a n i m a l was
separated
t h e s t i m u l u s and- a n a t t e m p t was made t o t r a i n t h e d u c k t o p e c k a t a
which would
eventually
present
was
i n i t i a l exposure s e r i e s >
present the previously imprinted stimulus.
trained
t o peck a t t h e key such t h a t every
t h e s t i m u l u s f o r a p e r i o d o f 40 s e c o n d s .
The d u c k was
e i g h t h peck
would
A s t a b l e response output
was
observed
o b t a i n e d b y P e t e r s o n , w i t h no a p p r e c i a b l e d e c l i n e i n r e s p o n s e r a t e / e v e n
after
twelve hours
of testing.
responses per minute.
have demonstrated
Using
The d u c k s r e a c h e d
a s i m i l a r procedure
r a t e s t h a t e x c e e d e d 30
H o f f m a n a n d Kozma
(1967)
t h a t s u c h i n s t r u m e n t a l b e h a v i o r a t t a i n e d b y means o f
15.
rewarding
for
as
responses w i t h the view of
l o n g as
conjectures
as
60
days.
the imprinted stimulus
is
maintained
W h i l e i t i s d a n g e r o u s t o make a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c
about animal behavior,
showing t h a t t h e ducks r e a l l y
i t i s tempting
" w a n t e d " t o see
to regard
these r e s u l t s
t h e s t i m u l u s on w h i c h
they
were imprinted.
Perhaps t h e most c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g
it
o c c u r s w i t h a g r e a t e r v i g o r and
T h i s , of course, i s t r u e of other
is
considerably
patterns.
The
sensitivity
Lorenz
or
formed a t a l l .
s e v e n t h week as
to people.
the c r i t e r i o n
the only
But,
Sluckin
Fabricius
and
1959;
even w i t h a r e s t r i c t e d
when i t i s p o s s i b l e
terminates.
formed a t a given
the behavior
t o be
p e r i o d may
(1954) even i n ten-day o l d
animal.
e a r l y s o c i a l and
period
between
can
imprinted
be
restricted
five-day
ducklings.
amount
(Guiton,
Sluckin & Salzen,
sensory experience the
conventional
1961).
period
techniques
were o f f e r e d f o r t h i s
t h e most i m p o r t a n t
and
S o c i a l and v i s u a l
a considerable
S l u c k i n , 1965;
While several explanations
of
the p e r i o d of i m p r i n t i n g consists
t o a c h i e v e i m p r i n t i n g by
(Kaufman & H i n c k , 1961)
the period
observed i m p r i n t i n g i n
t h e p e r i o d o f i m p r i n t i n g by
M o l t z & S t e t t n e r , 1961;
( 1 9 6 2 , 1967)
time during which puppies
(1959b)
behavior
a remarkably s t a b l e p e r i o d
I n f a c t , Scott
d e p e n d i n g on
Boyd
animals.
forms of acquired
(1967) considers
the e a r l y experience of the
i s o l a t i o n prolong
But
Scott
m o s t e f f e c t i v e means o f e x t e n d i n g
restricting
1958,
other
i n young
I m p r i n t i n g , however,
t e s t of i m p r i n t i n g , the c r i t i c a l
S a l z e n and
c h i c k s , and
The
of
than
(1937) b e l i e v e t h a t i f a t t a c h m e n t s a r e n o t
extended.
old
l e a r n i n g as w e l l .
P e k i n g duck, f o r i n s t a n c e , has
become a t t a c h e d
on
probability
to i m p r i n t i n g ( G o t t l i e b , 1961).
t h i r d and
and
greater
m o r e s e n s i t i v e t o age
t h e y w i l l n o t be
the
i n the area of i m p r i n t i n g i s t h a t
i s the observation
phenomenon
that,
like
16.
marriage, i m p r i n t i n g exercises
a p r i o r i t y r i g h t , such t h a t once t h e a n i m a l
h a s become a t t a c h e d t o one o b j e c t , h i s a t t a c h m e n t t o o t h e r o b j e c t s a r e l e s s
likely.
One e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h i s p r i o r i t y may be t h a t t h e a p p r o a c h t e n d e n c i e s
t o t h e s e new o b j e c t s m u s t now c o m p e t e w i t h t h e a p p r o a c h t e n d e n c y t h a t has
developed to the primary t a r g e t .
We s h a l l r e t u r n t o t h e s e p o i n t s l a t e r .
E x p o s u r e e f f e c t s i n humans
B e s i d e s c r i t i c a l p e r i o d s , t h e l i t e r a t u r e on i m p r i n t i n g r e v e a l s o n e ,
p e r h a p s t h e o n l y one,
given
other s o l i d generalization:
o b j e c t are s u f f i c i e n t
t o p r o d u c e an i n c r e a s e
the stimulus object or i n the attachment of
be
t h a t o b j e c t s t a t i o n a r y or mobile,
limited
t o a p a r t i c u l a r age
A f e w y e a r s ago
t h e y o u n g e r age
were aghast.
protest!
g r o u p s , many o f us
Some o f us
against
This g e n e r a l i -
t h e new
o f Dr.
t h e war,
Spock.
h a i r f a s h i o n s , we
Many o f us
reserve
f o r honors scholars
and,
of
as we
and
f o r men
b e g a n t o a p p e a r among
the other side of the generation
o t h e r s as
judgement s t i l l
reared
according
t h i n k of
today.
i n our u n i v e r s i t i e s
c h i l d r e n l o o k t h a t way
a r e a p p a l l e d by
restrictive
these
looks.
and
gap
f a d , some as
a
a symptom o f t h e u t t e r p e r v e r s i t y
to the
permissive
R e g a r d l e s s o f w h a t a n t e c e d e n t s we
d i d not
i t is
Individual.
our
"new" y o u t h
I t simply
attributed
to
In kind
terms.
does n o t seem
proper
t o wear t h e h a i r s t y l e s o f L o u i s
a t t h e same t i m e , t h e g a r b o f a Davy C r o c k e t t .
our
s h a l l see,
t r e a t e d - t h e phenomenon as a p a s s i n g
which besets the e n t i r e o f f s p r i n g
philosophy
i n a t t r a c t i v e n e s s of
animate or inanimate.
hairstyles
on
a
to that object,
of the
when t h e new
exposure of
the i n d i v i d u a l
z a t i o n a p p l i e s t o human s u b j e c t s e q u a l l y w e l l , and
not
repeated
and
f e w e r and
But
now
more and
fewer-of the older
Many o f o u r h i g h s c h o o l s
r u l i n g s about the boys* h a i r l e n g t h .
have
XIV
more
generation
rescinded
17.
We h a v e g o t t e n u s e d t o i t , y o u s a y . We have, a c c e p t e d
t h e e f f e c t s o f r e p e a t e d exposure?
here
i t .
O r , h a v e we
A f e w y e a r s ago a s p e e c h c l a s s a t t h e O r e g o n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y was
a t t e n d e d by a m y s t e r i o u s s t u d e n t t o t a l l y
enveloped
B l a c k Bag s a t i n t h e b a c k o f t h e c l a s s r o o m
knew h i s i d e n t i t y .
the
instructor,
I n an i n t e r v i e w w i t h
i n describing
finally
to friendship.
a n d no o n e , e x c e p t t h e i n s t r u c t o r ,
of fellow students, said
Again, the e f f e c t o f repeated
t h a t t h e mere r e p e a t e d e x p o s u r e
a t t i t u d e s o f persons
exposure?
(Zajonc, 1968) i n which I reviewed
s t i m u l u s o b j e c t enhances h i s a t t r a c t i o n t o i t .
the
that
t o w a r d t h e B l a c k Bag t o c u r i o s i t y a n d
I have r e c e n t l y p u b l i s h e d a monograph
some e v i d e n c e s h o w i n g
The
t h e press, Professor Goetzinger,
the feelings
t h e i r a t t i t u d e changed f r o m h o s t i l i t y
i n a b i gb l a c k bag.
o f an i n d i v i d u a l t o a
This evidence covers
primarily
t o inanimate o r symbolic objects, b u t I believe
t h a t a t t r a c t i o n b e t w e e n c o n s p e c i f i c s , t o b e s u r e a more c o m p l e x c a s e , i s a
s p e c i a l c a s e o f t h i s m o r e , g e n e r a l phenomenon.
Such a s p e c i a l c a s e o f t h e e x p o s u r e
of
words.
languages
L e t me g i v e y o u - a f e w i l l u s t r a t i o n s .
There e x i s t
f o r many,
counts o f t h e f r e q u e n c i e s w i t h w h i c h c e r t a i n words occur.
E n g l i s h we h a v e s u c h
Lorge
e f f e c t can be f o u n d i n t h e meanings
(1944).
a c o u n t f o r 30,000 w o r d s c o l l e c t e d b y T h o r n d i k e a n d
A c a r e f u l reading of t h e Thorndike-Lorge tables w i l l
a r e m a r k a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e f r e q u e n c y o f words and t h e i r
especially
In
t h e e v a l u a t i v e aspect o f t h e i r meaning.
This remarkable
reveal
meaning,
relation-
s h i p can be summarized by s i m p l y s a y i n g t h a t words t h a t o c c u r i n language
o f t e n mean g o o d t h i n g s a n d w o r d s t h a t o c c u r l e s s o f t e n mean b a d t h i n g s .
We w i l l
a l l agree
Thorndike-Lorge
that
"love" i s better
than "hate".
According t o the
c o u n t " l o v e " i s more f r e q u e n t t h a n " h a t e " — I t
f r e q u e n t by a f a c t o r o f seven.
We w i l l
a l l agree
that
i s more
"good" i s b e t t e r
18.
t h a n " b a d . " I t i s more f r e q u e n t t h a n " b a d " b y a f a c t o r o f f i v e .
I n an
a t t e m p t t o e x a m i n e t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p m o r e e x t e n s i v e l y we h a v e e m p l o y e d a
l i s t o f 154 a n t o n y m ..pairs. A l a r g e number o f s u b j e c t s , a l l c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ,
j u d g e d w h i c h member o f e a c h a n t o n y m p a i r h a d " t h e more f a v o r a b l e m e a n i n g ,
r e p r e s e n t e d t h e more d e s i r a b l e o b j e c t , e v e n t , s t a t e o f a f f a i r s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c , e t c . " Words f r o m , a l l p a r t s o f l a n g u a g e w e r e i n c l u d e d . T a b l e 1 shows
Table
the results of this
values
our
is
inquiry
1 about.here
showing p r e f e r e n c e r a t i n g s
taken from t h e Thomdike-Lorge count.
subjects agreed i n t h e i r preferences
also clear that
the vast majority
together with
frequency
I t i s c l e a r , above a l l ,
that
o n most o f t h e antonym p a i r s .
of the pairs reflect
I t
the general
p h e n o m e n o n , t h a t i s , i f t h e member o f t h e p a i r i s more f r e q u e n t , i t i s a l s o
t h e p r e f e r r e d member o f t h e p a i r .
occur
toward
pronounced.
t h e bottom
We n o t e
Moreover, t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e r e v e r s a l s
o f t h e l i s t where agreement about p r e f e r e n c e i s l e s s
t h a t words o f w h i c h
we do n o t o r d i n a r i l y
think i n
e v a l u a t i v e terms a l s o conform t o t h e g e n e r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between goodness
o f meaning and t h e f r e q u e n c y
better
to
than " o f f " ,
"subtract".
of occurrence.
Thus f o r i n s t a n c e " o n " i s much
" i n " i s much b e t t e r t h a n " o u t " , a n d " a d d " i s c l e a r l y
But these preference r a t i n g s a f f e c t
frequencies
superior
quite
accurately.
There a r e p a i r s
this
culture.
o f antonyms a b o u t w h i c h
"White" occurs
t h e r e s h o u l d b e no s u r p r i s e i n
t w i c e a s o f t e n as " b l a c k " , a n d i t i s p r e f e r r e d .
"failure",
"Success" occurs
t w i c e as o f t e n a s
/
and i t i s p r e f e r r e d .
h e e d , h o w e v e r , f r o m t h e d a t a o n " p e a c e " a n d "war".
expressed
overwhelming preference
f o r the former,
While
We s h o u l d
take
o u r own s u b j e c t s
t h e frequency
data
which
19.
p r e s u m a b l y r e p r e s e n t t h e f e e l i n g s o f t h e e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n , show t h a t
"war"
i s favored.
I m i g h t a l s o add t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e f r e q u e n c i e s o f t h e German
e q u i v a l e n t s o f t h e s e w o r d s a r e . t h e same; B u t i n F r e n c h and S p a n i s h , t h e
w o r d s " p a i x " and " p a z " ..occur more f r e q u e n t l y t h a n " g u e r r e " and " g u e r r a " .
I
s h a l l r e f r a i n f r o m m a k i n g any c o n j e c t u r e s a b o u t t h e s e c o m p a r i s o n s .
It
turns out that
t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between frequency
i s not l i m i t e d
t h e meaning of words, but t h a t i t a l s o a p p l i e s t o the people's
toward
the t h i n g s f o r which
c o u n t r i e s and
t o American c i t i e s ,
tween our s u b j e c t s
highly
1
a t t i t u d e s to the c i t i e s
i n the w r i t t e n language.
We
flowers.
zero
Table
Table
Again,
we
.89,
that the r e l a t i o n s h i p
and
countries related
be-
quite
c o u n t r i e s and
trees, f r u i t s ,
cities
frequencies according
2 about
vegetables,
(made on s e v e n - p o i n t
to
scales
from
Thorndike-Lorge.
here
note t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between frequency
rank c o r r e l a t i o n s
to
h a v e a l s o a s k e d a number o f s u b j e c t s
the various trees, f r u i t s , vegetables,
The
attitudes
asked f o r a t t i t u d e s
t h e names o f t h e s e
2 shows t h e s e r a t i n g s
to s i x ) , together with their
We
found
r a t e a l a r g e v a r i e t y o f o t h e r i t e m s s u c h as
and
of
and we
to the frequencies w i t h which
occurred
to
these words s t a n d .
to
and
and
the a t t r a c t i v e n e s s
f l o w e r s i s r a t h e r pronounced.
f o r these f o u r groups of items are
.84,
. 8 1 , .85,
and
respectively.
O r d i n a r i l y we
or unpleasant.
do n o t t h i n k o f l e t t e r s
However, A l l u i s i
are,consistently better
between preference
liked
found
Adams ( 1 9 6 2 ) f o u n d
than others.
for letters
E n g l i s h , these authors
and
and
of the alphabet
t h a t some
C h e c k i n g on t h e
the l i k e l i h o o d of t h e i r
a c o r r e l a t i o n of
.84.
We
as b e i n g
pleasant
letters
relationship
occurrence
found a s i m i l a r
in
effect
w i t h numbers.
F i g u r e "3'shows t h e s c a t t e r p l o t f o r t h e f i r s t
20 n u m b e r s .
Figure 3 about here
It
appears f r o m t h a t f i g u r e t h a t , c o n t r a r y
large quantities
the
In
better
and
1 1
t o be more v a l u e d t h a n s m a l l q u a n t i t i e s ,
. the "bigger
" t h e -more t h e m e r r i e r " , o u r s u b j e c t s r a t e d t h e s e numbers
inverse r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r magnitudes.
their
to a cultural truism calling f o r
But the r e l a t i o n s h i p
between
l o v e f o r t h e s e numbers and t h e f r e q u e n c y o f t h e i r o c c u r r e n c e i n
E n g l i s h was
c l e a r l y supported.
Since t h e above f i n d i n g s a r e c o r r e l a t i o n a l i t i s ,
presumptuous
of course, e n t i r e l y
t o make c o n j e c t u r e s a b o u t c a u s a l d i r e c t i o n s .
k n o w w h e t h e r we
r a t e t h e word "sweet" more f a v o r a b l y
T h u s , we
do n o t
t h a n t h e word
"bitter",
or
b e c a u s e " s w e e t " i s u s e d more f r e q u e n t l y / b e c a u s e i t means s o m e t h i n g m o r e
pleasant than " b i t t e r " .
We
d o n ' t know w h e t h e r a p p l e s a r e l i k e d
because
t h e r e a r e many a p p l e s , o r many a p p l e s a r e p r o d u c e d b e c a u s e t h e y a r e a n
questions
attractive
the
fruit.
While these/remain v i r t u a l l y
same a b o u t t h e l e t t e r s
difficult
u n a n s w e r a b l e , we
o f t h e a l p h a b e t and a b o u t n u m b e r s .
to defend the p r o p o s i t i o n
language because i t i s a w e l l - l i k e d
that the letter
letter,
c a n n o t say
I t would
be
B occurs o f t e n i n our
o r t h a t t h e number 2 o c c u r s so
f r e q u e n t l y b e c a u s e f o r some o u t s i d e r e a s o n i t i s a w e l l - l i k e d number.
For
t h e s e t w o t y p e s o f m a t e r i a l we b e s t assume t h a t i t i s t h e f r e q u e n c y w h i c h
determines t h e i r
In
attractiveness.
c o n c l u d i n g t h e c o r r e l a t i o n a l e v i d e n c e on f r e q u e n c y and
should l i k e
to cite
poems w e r e a v e r a g e d .
full
of l i f e ,
two poems.
The
first
The
frequencies of the c r i t i c a l
exposure.I
words i n these
i s b y B r o w n i n g , and i t i s a l i g h t
thing,
j o y , and l o o k i n g t o t h e f u t u r e w i t h n a i v e b u t f e r v e n t
hope.
21.
Song.
The
year's a t t h e s p r i n g ,
And
day's a t t h e morn;
Morning's
Browning
a t seven;
The
hillside's
The
l a r k ' s on.the wingj
The
s n a i l ' s .on t h e t h o r n ;
dew-pearled;
God's i n h i s Heaven
All's
R.
right with
—
theworld.
•k
The
average
poem, t h i s
w o r d f r e q u e n c y i n t h i s poem i s 1,380.
t i m e by S h e l l e y , i n w h i c h he r e a c h e s
s t a r k c o n t r a s t t o Browning's
B u t , here's
another
a c o n c l u s i o n which stands i n
optimism:
Dirge.
Rough w i n d , t h a t m o a n e s t
P. B. S h e l l e y
loud
G r i e f t o o sad f o r song;
W i l d w i n d , when s u l l e n c l o u d
Knells a l l the night
Sad
long;
s t o r m , whose t e a r s a r e i n v a i n ,
B a r e w o o d s , whose b r a n c h e s
Deep c a v e s a n d d r e a r y m a i n
strain,
—
W a i l , f o r t h e w o r l d ' s wrong.
The
a v e r a g e w o r d f r e q u e n c y o f S h e l l e y ' s w o e f u l p i e c e i s 728.
mean t o s u g g e s t
literary
I do n o t
t h a t w o r d f r e q u e n c y b e t a k e n as t h e c o r n e r s t o n e o f a new
criticism.
I am u s i n g t h e s e poems as a f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e
e f f e c t s o f frequency o f exposure.
N e v e r t h e l e s s , we h a v e e x a m i n e d s e v e r a l
samples o f l i t e r a t u r e , and t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n a v e r a g e word f r e q u e n c y and
Only nouns, v e r b s , a d j e c t i v e s , and adverbs were c o u n t e d .
a r t i c l e s , and a u x i l i a r y v e r b s w e r e i g n o r e d .
Connectives,
22.
t h e mood o f a g i v e n p i e c e
Supporting
these
i s rather
c o r r e l a t i o n a l s t u d i e s on e x p o s u r e and a t t r a c t i o n i s
a l s o some g o o d e x p e r i m e n t a l
that
of
evidence.
I t i s q u i t e clear from t h i s
t h e a t t r a c t i v e n e s s o f a g i v e n s t i m u l u s o b j e c t may
i t s repeated
that
exposure.
evidence
be e n h a n c e d by
J o h n s o n , Thomson, a n d F r i n c k e
(1960) have
virtue
found
t h e s e m a n t i c r a t i n g s o f n o n s e n s e w o r d s c a n b e e n h a n c e d when t h e y a r e
presented
was
compelling.
repeatedly.
We h a v e s i m i l a r e v i d e n c e .
shpwn t o o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l
A number o f T u r k i s h w o r d s
s u b j e c t s d i f f e r e n t numbers o f t i m e s .
w e r e s e e n b y them f r e q u e n t l y , o t h e r s
infrequently.
Some words
These p r e s e n t a t i o n s w e r e
r a n d o m i z e d s u c h t h a t each o f t h e words a p p e a r e d i n d i f f e r e n t f r e q u e n c y f o r
d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s , a n d w h a t w o r d a p p e a r e d o n a n y one p r e s e n t a t i o n was
determined
by c h a n c e .
After viewing
these words, t h e s u b j e c t s were
told
we
t h a t w h a t t h e y j u s t saw w e r e T u r k i s h a d j e c t i v e s , a n d / u n a s h a m e d l y a s k e d them
t o guess what t h e words t h e y j u s t
we
saw m e a n t .
a p p r e c i a t e d how n e a r l y i m p o s s i b l e
f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h Turkish.
our
this
Nevertheless,
s u b j e c t s g u e s s t h e s e m e a n i n g s we
told
We
proceeded t o e x p l a i n t h a t
t a s k was, g i v e n t h e i r l a c k o f
we
insisted
that they t r y .
To h e l p
them t h a t e a c h o f t h e s e a d j e c t i v e s
meant e i t h e r s o m e t h i n g good o r s o m e t h i n g b a d , and''that i t ' w a s t h e i r
task
m e r e l y t o g u e s s f o r e a c h T u r k i s h w o r d i f i t m e a n t s o m e t h i n g good o r s o m e t h i n g
bad.
Figure
4 shows t h e r e s u l t s
of t h i s
experiment.
The same
experiment
Figure 4 about here
was
replicated using d i f f e r e n t
stimuli.
Thus, f o r i n s t a n c e Chinese
w e r e s u b s t i t u t e d f o r T u r k i s h w o r d s a n d u s e d i n t h e same m a n n e r .
first
was
observed these
ideographs
i n different
asked t o r a t e t h e i r meanings.
frequencies
The
ideographs
subject
and s u b s e q u e n t l y
I n t h e same way p h o t o g r a p h s o f men's
he
faces
23.
w e r e exposed
a s k e d how
d i f f e r e n t numbers o f t i m e s and
much t h e y l i k e d
t h e comparisons
them.
t h e s u b j e c t s were subsequently
F i g u r e s 5 and
6 show t h e s e r e s u l t s .
While
f o r t h e i d e o g r a p h s and f o r t h e p h o t o g r a p h s a r e somewhat
w e a k e r t h a n t h o s e f o u n d w i t h t h e T u r k i s h w o r d s , t h e r e a r e no r e v e r s a l s ,
the overall effect
still
s t a n d s up.
f a v o r a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n between
Out o f a t o t a l o f 36 c o m p a r i s o n s
and
32
f r e q u e n c y a n d l i k i n g , w h i l e f o u r show no
F i g u r e s 5 and 6 a b o u t h e r e
differences i n liking
shows s i m i l a r
as a f u n c t i o n o f p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e .
trends, but I w i l l
not describe i t here.
Other evidence
C u r r e n t l y we
are
s t u d y i n g some p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s w h i c h m i g h t e x p l a i n why r e p e a t e d
exposure increases the attractiveness of t h e stimulus object.
however,
n e e d n o t c o n c e r n us h e r e .
m o n o g r a p h on t h e e f f e c t s o f e x p o s u r e
by
Harrison
(1968).
observations.
First,
They a r e m o r e f u l l y o u t l i n e d i n my
( Z a j o n c , 1 9 6 8 ) and i n a r e c e n t
the object.
few
t h e e f f e c t o f e x p o s u r e i s m o s t p r o n o u n c e d when we
Secondly, t h e e f f e c t s of exposure on
That i s , e a r l y exposures produce t h e s t r o n g e s t
w h i l e e a c h s u c c e s s i v e e x p o s u r e adds l e s s a n d l e s s t o t h e t o t a l
of
article
I t s u f f i c e s f o r t h e p r e s e n t p u r p o s e s , t o make a
the subject to novel s t i m u l i .
are logarithmic.
These p r o c e s s e s
Thirdly,
expose
attraction
effects,
attractiveness
the e f f e c t of exposure i s easiest t o demonstrate
w h e n t h e s t i m u l u s i s a f f e c t i v e l y n e u t r a l , a n d when e x p o s u r e s a r e n o t
accompanied
b y o t h e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l e v e n t s , s u c h as o t h e r s t i m u l i
noxious, p o s i t i v e or negative r e i n f o r c e r s ,
r e s p o n d t o t h e s t i m u l i i n some s y s t e m a t i c
t h a t are
o r demands on s u b j e c t s t h a t
they
way.
The p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s t h a t a r e p r o b a b l y i m p l i c a t e d I n a change o f
a t t r a c t i o n w h i c h r e s u l t s f r o m r e p e a t e d exposure a r e perhaps
Consider a stimulus encountered f o r the f i r s t
time.
fairly
By d e f i n i t i o n ,
simple.
the
24.
s u b j e c t h a s no r e a d y r e s p o n s e t o t h i s n o v e l
s t i m u l u s , because i f t h e s t i m u l u s
has
never occurred
i t c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n c o n d i t i o n e d t o any o f h i s r e s p o n s e s .
But
i n many ways t h e n o v e l s t i m u l u s i s s i m i l a r
has
encountered i n t h e past.
By v i r t u e o f g e n e r a l i z a t i o n f r o m
s t i m u l i s e v e r a l response tendencies
tendencies
m i g h t be m u t u a l l y
state of mild stress.
may be e l i c i t e d .
these
Many o f t h e s e
familiar
response
i n c o m p a t i b l e , and.the i n d i v i d u a l experiences
a
Since t h e s t r e s s occurs i n d i r e c t a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h
the novel stimulus, the
Over successive
to s t i m u l i that the subject
stimulus receives
e x p o s u r e s many o f t h e s e
a low a t t r a c t i v e n e s s r a t i n g .
incompatible
r e s p o n s e s d r o p o u t , and
e v e n t u a l l y a s t a b l e response p a t t e r n t o t h e given s t i m u l u s i s e s t a b l i s h e d .
T h i s p r o g r e s s i o n i s a c c o m p a n i e d b y t h e r e d u c t i o n o f t h e m i l d s t r e s s and
d i s c o m f o r t which t h e organism experienced
stimulus
tive.
this
f o rthe f i r s t
Harrison
indeed
when i t e n c o u n t e r e d t h e n o v e l
t i m e , a n d t h e s t i m u l u s o b j e c t becomes more a t t r a c -
( 1 9 6 8 ) has p e r f o r m e d a s e r i e s o f e x p e r i m e n t s t o show t h a t
may b e t h e t y p e o f p r o c e s s t h a t o c c u r s w i t h
successive
e x p o s u r e s , and M a r g a r e t M a t l i n has' c o l l e c t e d f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e .
instance, Harrison
( 1 9 6 8 ) has d e m o n s t r a t e d
Thus, f o r
t h a t l a t e n c i e s o f word
associations
( a good i n d i c a t i o n o f r e s p o n s e c o m p e t i t i o n ) a r e l o n g e r when made t o n o v e l
stimuli
In
t h a n w h e n made t o f a m i l i a r
s t i m u l i and M a t l i n c o n f i r m e d
his results.
I n d e p e n d e n t e x p e r i m e n t s b o t h H a r r i s o n a n d M a t l i n h a v e shown t h a t
s t i m u l i which produce m i l d response c o m p e t i t i o n , t h a t i s which tend t o
elicit
liked
a number o f i n c o m p a t i b l e w e a k r e s p o n s e t e n d e n c i e s ,
than s t i m u l i
t o which a s i n g l e response has been
Whatever t h e n a t u r e
are less w e l l
attached.
of t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes which lead t h e
organism t o increase h i s attachment o r a t t r a c t i o n t o a repeatedly
stimulus object, i t i s s t i l l
a t t r a c t e d and a t t a c h e d
encountered
n e c e s s a r y t o e x p l a i n why a n i m a l s become
t o t h e i r c o n s p e c i f i c s , a n d why c e r t a i n p e r i o d s a r e
especially
favorable f o r t h e formation of these attachments.
which suggests i t s e l f
immediately i s that these attachments a r i s e
c o n s p e c i f i c s a r e t h e most f r e q u e n t s t i m u l i
f o r each o t h e r .
While
s o l u t i o n h a s some m e r i t s , i t i g n o r e s t h e p r o b l e m o f c r i t i c a l
Moreover,
The answer
because
this
periods.
t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t c o n s p e c i f i c s a r e t h e most f r e q u e n t s t i m u l i f o r
each o t h e r i s n o t e n t i r e l y
tenable.
Why s h o u l d n ' t a n e w l y h a t c h e d c h i c k n o t
become s t r o n g l y a t t a c h e d t o a t w i g o r a r o c k w h i c h h a p p e n s t o b e n e a r b y ?
And
some s p e c i e s a r e r a t h e r w i d e l y d i s p e r s e d d u r i n g c e r t a i n p e r i o d s o f t h e i r
lives.
freely
or
O y s t e r l a r v a e and l a r v a e o f t h e b a r n a c l e E l m i n i u s modestus d r i f t
i n t h e p l a n k t o n and s e t t l e o n l y i n t h e communities
barnacles.
They a r e a p p a r e n t l y a b l e t o p o s t p o n e
long periods of time u n t i l
1952;
The
fact
t h e i r metamorphosis f o r
t h e y have l o c a t e d t h e f a m i l i a r
Cole & K n i g h t - J o n e s , 1949; K n i g h t - J o n e s
of other oysters
settlement (Wilson,
& Stevenson,
that there exists periods p a r t i c u l a r l y
1951).
s u i t a b l e f o r t h e form-
a t i o n o f a t t a c h m e n t s i s i n p a r t due t o t h e p r o c e s s o f s e n s o r y m a t u r a t i o n
of
t h e animal
;
( S l u c k i n & Salzen, 1961).
To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e
a n i m a l i s u n a b l e t o make f i n e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s , as i s t h e c a s e w i t h a f e w - d a y s
old
puppy, o b j e c t s o f a t t a c h m e n t c a n n o t be c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m each
o t h e r , and t h e a n i m a l ' s b e h a v i o r t o w a r d h i s environment
great deal of generalization.
i s marked by a
Thus S c o t t ( 1 9 6 7 ) c o u l d n o t e s t a b l i s h
a t t a c h m e n t s i n p u p p i e s b e f o r e t h e y w e r e t h r e e weeks o l d , a n d G o t t l i e b
f o u n d no i m p r i n t i n g i n 7-hours o l d P e k i n g
ducklings.
I m p r i n t i n g and a t t a c h m e n t have a f o r m o f e x c l u s i v e n e s s such t h a t
a
c o m m i t m e n t h a s b e e n made, new a t t a c h m e n t s a r e l e s s l i k e l y
approach
(1961)
t o form.
tendencies which t h e organism has a c q u i r e d i n r e a c t i n g
o b j e c t o f h i s f i r s t attachment a r e i n c o n f l i c t w i t h approach
once
The
to the
tendencies
26.
w h i c h t h e a n i m a l may d e v e l o p t o w a r d a n o t h e r o b j e c t .
The e x c l u s i v e n e s s o f
i m p r i n t i n g i s demonstrated by a s t u d y c a r r i e d o u t by G u i t o n (1961) i n which
h e f o u n d t h a t c h i c k s i m p r i n t e d t o an i n a n i m a t e o b j e c t l e s s e f f e c t i v e l y i n
g r o u p s t h a n when t r a i n e d i n i s o l a t i o n .
Of c o u r s e , i n g r o u p s , t h e y w e r e
i m p r i n t i n g on each o t h e r .
The g r e y l e g g o s l i n g c a n n o t f o l l o w K o n r a d L o r e n z
a n d i t s dam a t t h e same t i m e , u n l e s s K o n r a d L o r e n z a n d t h e g o s l i n g ' s dam a r e
i n s e p a r a b l e companions, a c o n d i t i o n w h i c h i s n o t a l t o g e t h e r o u t . o f t h e range
of
possibilities.
The p r i o r i t y
in
two
to
themselves
facts.
rights
e x e r c i s e d by f i r s t
1967;
First,
a n i m a l s k e p t . i n i s o l a t i o n d u r i n g p e r i o d s most f a v o r a b l e
t o form attachments
show o v e r - t i m e . a' m a r k e d d r o p i n t h e i r
1
( S l u c k i n , 1965;
Moltz & S t e t t n e r , 1961).
Secondly,
( C a i r n s , 1966b; L o r e n z ,
c h i c k s a r e r e a r e d i n mixed
own s p e c i e s e v e n o n t h e i r
1937; S l u c k i n , 1 9 6 5 ) .
groups
isolation
restrict
technique prevent
i t from exposure
i t s physical environment, they
m a t u r a t i o n , and hence t h e y
do
It
do
not prevent
important stimulus o b j e c t — i t s e l f .
After
choose
1942).
But c o n s i d e r an a n i m a l r e a r e d i n i s o l a t i o n .
the
between
own k i n d , a l t h o u g h many
(Schooland,
first
When d u c k l i n g s and
and g i v e n s o c i a l - c h o i c e t e s t s
a c h i c k and a d u c k l i n g , t h e y p r e f e r t h e i r
i n d i v i d u a l s of the other species
S l u c k i n & Salzen, 1961; Scott,
i n e x p e r i e n c e d and i s o l a t e d
a n i m a l s show p r e f e r e n c e f o r members o f t h e i r
encounter
cannot
e x p l a i n t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e c r i t i c a l p e r i o d because o f
the f o r m a t i o n of attachment s t i l l
ability
a t t a c h m e n t s , however,
all,
While experiments u s i n g
t o s o c i a l o b j e c t s and
n o t delay
i t s sensory
i t s exposure
t o one v e r y
t h e a n i m a l e m i t s sounds w h i c h
c a n l e a r n t o d i s c r i m i n a t e , i t s e e s v a r i o u s p a r t s o f i t s own b o d y , i t s l e g s ,
wings,
f e e t , o r i t s c o l o r i n g , i t can f e e l
o d o r , a n d t h e r e m u s t be t h o u s a n d s
i t s t e x t u r e , i t c a n s m e l l i t s own
o f o t h e r cues a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
t h e animal's
27.
own b o d y a n d own b e h a v i o r t h a t a r e v e r y much l i k e t h o s e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e
bbdiesand behavior of h i s c o n s p e c i f i c s .
I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , f a l s e t o assume
t h a t an a n i m a l t h a t has b e e n i s o l a t e d f r o m b i r t h has had no e x p o s u r e t o s o c i a l
s t i m u l i , a n d t h a t a member o f t h e same s p e c i e s p r e s e n t e d t o an a n i m a l k e p t
i n i s o l a t i o n s i n c e i t s b i r t h i s n o v e l t o i t as i s a f o o t b a l l , an e l e c t r i c
t r a i n , o r a member o f a n o t h e r s p e c i e s . By v i r t u e o f t h e same p r o c e s s whereby
exposure leads to t h e - f o r m a t i o n of attachment t o other o b j e c t s , t h e i s o l a t e d
a n i m a l s d e v e l o p some f o r m o f a t t a c h m e n t t o t h e o n l y o b j e c t s and e v e n t s t o
w h i c h i t i s exposed:
i t s own b o d y and i t s own b e h a v i o r . P e r h a p s w h a t i s
k n o w n by p s y c h o a n a l y s t s as p r i m a r y n a r c i s s i s m has an e x p e r i e n t i a l b a s i s a f t e r
all.
The
fact
t h a t f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h t h e p a t t e r n s o f one's own
b e h a v i o r i s an
important determinant of a t t r a c t i o n t o o t h e r conspecifics i s b e a u t i f u l l y
illustrated
by t h e r e s u l t s o f P r a t t and
Sackett
r h e s u s monkeys w e r e r e a r e d i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y
E i g h t monkeys l i v e d i n n e a r l y c o m p l e t e
except
f o r the f i r s t
(1967).
Three groups
i n t h e absence o f t h e i r
of
mothers.
i s o l a t i o n f o r a p e r i o d o f 9 months
5 t o s e v e n days when t h e y saw
a human.
Between t h e
n i n t h and
e i g h t e e n t h m o n t h t h e s e monkeys l i v e d
i n w i r e cages f r o m w h i c h
c o u l d see
and h e a r humans and
s e c o n d s e t o f e i g h t monkeys
was
housed from b i r t h
third
each o t h e r .
The
t o 18 m o n t h s i n w i r e c a g e s k e p t i n a l a r g e r o o m .
s e t o f e i g h t monkeys was
reared i n peer
18 m o n t h s o f t h e i r
lives.
groups
the
entire first
the
animals were t e s t e d f o r t h e i r s o c i a l c h o i c e s .
Table 3 about
of
t i m e each group
early
subject.
A
of various sizes during
Following this i n i t i a l
experience
T a b l e 3 shows t h e amount
here
spent w i t h animals which
e x p e r i e n c e as t h e t e s t
they
I n no
had
e i t h e r t h e same o r
different
c a s e t h e t e s t a n i m a l and
the
28.
s t i m u l u s animal had p r e v i o u s c o n t a c t .
I t i s c l e a r from t h e data t h a t
t o t a l l y d e p r i v e d monkeys a r e o n t h e w h o l e l e s s s o c i a b l e t h a n a n i m a l s p a r t i a l l y
d e p r i v e d o r animals r a i s e d i n f u l l c o n t a c t w i t h t h e i r peers.
They a r e l e s s
a t t r a c t e d t o o t h e r .animals.
B u t more s t r i k i n g i s t h e f a c t t h a t a n i m a l s p r e f e r
o t h e r s w h i c h h a d - t h e same r e a r i n g e x p e r i e n c e .
T o t a l l y d e p r i v e d monkeys l i k e
b e s t o t h e r s t h a t were t o t a l l y d e p r i v e d .
P a r t i a l l y d e p r i v e d monkeys l i k e
b e s t p a r t i a l l y d e p r i v e d m o n k e y s , a n d monkeys r e a r e d i n f u l l c o n t a c t w i t h
o t h e r s p r e f e r p e e r s t h a t a l s o had f u l l c o n t a c t . T h i s o c c u r r e d , i t must a g a i n
b e s t r e s s e d , when t h e a n i m a l s w e r e g i v e n s o c i a l c h o i c e s b e t w e e n t e s t
monkeys w i t h w h i c h t h e y w e r e p r e v i o u s l y n o t a c q u a i n t e d .
Apparently the
r e a r i n g c o n d i t i o n p r o d u c e s a d i s c r i m i n a b l e o v e r a l l b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n and
d i s c r i m i n a b l e emotional responses t h a t a r e d i s t i n c t f o r t h e v a r i o u s conditions.
A n o r m a l l y r e a r e d monkey becomes a d e s i r a b l e s o c i a l o b j e c t o n l y
f o r o t h e r n o r m a l l y r e a r e d monkeys. B u t t h e same monkey i s r e j e c t e d b y one t h a t
was t o t a l l y d e p r i v e d o f c o n t a c t w i t h m o n k e y s .
If
and
exposure i s a s u f f i c i e n t
attachment
maintains
nearest
one
i n animals
c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e development o f a t t r a c t i o n
a n d i n humans, w h a t t h e n i s t h e f a c t o r
a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c average d i s t a n c e between t h e i n d i v i d u a l and h i s
conspecific?
T h i s q u e s t i o n i s c o n s i d e r a b l y more c o m p l e x t h a n t h e
w i t h w h i c h we w e r e d e a l i n g .
affiliation,
and a t t a c h m e n t ,
I f t h e r e were only f o r c e s o f a t t r a c t i o n ,
a l l species
would l i v e
communities where t h e r e i s " s t a n d i n g room" o n l y .
species
which
l i k e barnacles,
But o f course,
in
o n l y few
would s u r v i v e under these c o n d i t i o n s .
There e x i s t v a r i o u s mechanisms, d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t s p e c i e s ,
counteract
attachments
the forces of attraction.
w h i c h was d i s c u s s e d
above.
First,
which
i s t h e f a c t o r o f primacy o f
By v i r t u e o f i t s b e h a v i o r a l c o n s e -
q u e n c e s w h i c h m a i n t a i n p h y s i c a l p r o x i m i t y b e t w e e n one a n i m a l
and a n o t h e r ,
once a g i v e n attachment had been formed i t p r e v e n t s t o some e x t e n t t h e
development o f a t t a c h m e n t t o o t h e r s o c i a l o b j e c t s .
To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e
a n i m a l remains i n t h e p r o x i m i t y o f t h e o b j e c t o f i t s f i r s t attachment
a t i c a l l y repeated exposure t o o t h e r s t i m u l i i s i m p a i r e d .
system-
Secondly^
. w h i l e i m p r i n t i n g and attachment c l a i m primacy and e x c l u s i v e n e s s t h e y
do n o t c l a i m t o t a l .primacy (Salzen & Meyer, 1968) n o r t o t a l e x c l u s i v e n e s s .
The i n d i v i d u a l t h a t has become a t t a c h e d t o one member o f h i s community i s ,
by v i r t u e o f exposure-to o t h e r members and by v i r t u e o f t h e i r
to
similarity
Thirdly,
t h e p r i m a r y o b j e c t o f h i s a t t a c h m e n t , a l s o a t t r a c t e d t o them./
t h e s e o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s have attachments o f t h e i r own.
The t o t a l
: a l l
configur-
a t i o n o f a l l p r i m a r y attachments i n a community can t h e n i n i t s e l f a c t as a
force of dispersion.
These networks o f d i v e r s e a t t r a c t i o n s may l e a d t o a
homeostatically maintained s o c i a l distance that i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a
g i v e n a n i m a l a g g r e g a t i o n . ^ The r e l a t i o n o f t h e species t o i t s h a b i t a t ,
and i n p a r t i c u l a r t e r r i t o r i a l mechanisms which r e g u l a t e t h i s r e l a t i o n , are
a l s o i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s i n p r e v e n t i n g complete
Individuals.
agglomerations o f
I n t h e same way p r i o r i t y r i g h t s over mating p r i v i l e g e s ,
dominance s t r u c t u r e s , and o t h e r forms o f s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n which determine
the
individuals
1
access t o s c a r c e r e s o u r c e s and which a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
i
agonistic behavior, are c l e a r l y very s i g n i f i c a n t factors i n counteracting
attachment and a t t r a c t i o n .
Each species and each a g g r e g a t i o n has p r o b a b l y
i t s own p a r t i c u l a r e q u i l i b r i u m whereby t h e t e n d e n c i e s t o approach and become
a t t a c h e d a r e r e s t r a i n e d by t h e i r o p p o s i t e s .
Each species has p r o b a b l y
developed p a r t i c u l a r h o m e o s t a t i c b e h a v i o r a l mechanisms which m a i n t a i n such
an e q u i l i b r i u m , and t h e r e a r e p r o b a b l y some d i f f e r e n c e s between d i f f e r e n t
a g g r e g a t i o n s o f t h e same s p e c i e s as w e l l .
What these mechanisms a r e i s f a r
30.
f r o m known today, and t h e i r d i s c o v e r y and d e s c r i p t i o n w i l l r e q u i r e an enormous
research e f f o r t .
I n c o n c l u s i o n , i t would appear t h a t man
a s i m i l a r c a p a c i t y f o r attachment
to others.
c a p a c i t y t o g a i n l o v e from exposure.
Familiarity
One
and o t h e r animals a r e endowed w i t h
I t c o n s i s t s s i m p l y o f one's
F a m i l i a r i t y does n o t breed contempt.
breeds!
l a s t word r e l e v a n t t o t h e aims o f t h i s symposium on Man
and Beast.
For s t u d e n t s of a n i m a l b e h a v i o r as a s p e c i e s , man has r e c e n t l y become t h e
that
f a v o r i t e t a r g e t of a t t a c k .
I must hasten t o add/the aims o f t h i s a t t a c k are
more m o r a l than s c i e n t i f i c , and t h a t t h e b a s i s of these a t t a c k s a r e more l i k e l y
t o be found i n the p o p u l a r p r e j u d i c e s about man
s c i e n t i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n about him.
and i n r e l i g i o u s dogma than i n
N e v e r t h e l e s s , we are regarded today as t h e
most v i c i o u s , a g g r e s s i v e , promiscuous,
i n d e c e n t , and Immoral s p e c i e s , and un-
l i k e a l l o t h e r species we unashamedly a l l o w our p o p u l a t i o n t o i n c r e a s e i n d e f i n itely.
But from t h e p r e s e n t r e v i e w we l e a r n , a t l e a s t , t h a t man
may
share w i t h
o t h e r animals the same b e h a v i o r a l mechanisms t h a t mediate t h e f o r m a t i o n of
s o c i a l and n o n s o c i a l attachments.
of
L i k e o t h e r a n i m a l s , he can, j u s t by v i r t u e
r e p e a t e d exposure t o t h e g i v e n o b j e c t , come t o l i k e i t more and more.
And as a m a t t e r o f f a c t , the study of exposure e f f e c t s i t s e l f , and i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e s t u d y of word f r e q u e n c i e s and o f t h e i r meanings, g i v e s us a clue
t h a t n o t a l l i s hopeless.
count t h e word MAN
To w i t , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Thorndike-Lorge
word
occurs 7355 times i n 4 1/2 m i l l i o n i n s t a n c e s , b u t t h e
word BEAST occurs o n l y 91 t i m e s .
31.
References
A l l u i s i , E. A., & Adams, 0. S.
and
f i l t e r i n g i n man.
A l t m a n n , M.
P r e d i c t i n g l e t t e r preferences:
Perceptual
Aesthetics
and Motor S k i l l s , 1962, 14, 123-131.
S o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n i n t h e moose c a l f .
Anim..'.' Behav. j . 1958, _6,
155-159.
B r e d e r , C. M., J r . , & Coates, C. W.
A p r e l i m i n a r y study o f p o p u l a t i o n
and sex r a t i o o f L e b i s t e s , Copeia,
Brodbeck, D. J .
B u l l . E c o l . Soc. Amer., 1954, 35, 73.
B u r g h a r ^ t , G. M. & Hess, E. E.
Chelydra s e r p e n t i n a .
426.
Food i m p r i n t i n g i n t h e snapping
turtle,
Science, 1966, 1 5 1 , 108-109.
Development, maintenance, and e x t i n c t i o n o f s o c i a l attachment
b e h a v i o r i n sheep.
C a i r n s , R. B.
1932, 147-155.
An e x p l o r a t o r y study o f t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f dependency
b e h a v i o r i n puppies.
C a i r n s , R. B.
stability
J . comp. p h y s i o l . P s y c h o l . , 1966, 62_ 298-306.
f
Attachment b e h a v i o r o f mammals.
(a)
P s y c h o l . Rev*_» 1966, 73, 409-
(b)
C h r i s t i a n , J. J.
E f f e c t o f p o p u l a t i o n s i z e on t h e a d r e n a l glands and r e p r o -
d u c t i v e organs o f male w h i t e mice.
Amer. J . P h y s i o l . ,
1955, 1 8 1 ,
477-480.
C h r i s t i a n , J. J.
A d r e n a l and r e p r o d u c t i v e response t o p o p u l a t i o n s i z e i n mice
f r o m f r e e l y growing p o p u l a t i o n s .
C o l e , H. A., & K n i g h t - J o n e s , E. W.
E c o l o g y , 1956, 3]_
t
258-273.
The s e t t i n g b e h a v i o r o f l a r v a e o f t h e
European f l a t o y s t e r , Ostrea e d u l l s L., and i t s i n f l u e n c e on methods o f
c u l t i v a t i o n and spat c o l l e c t i o n .
Fishery
I n v e s t . , London.
1949, 17,
s e r . 2, No. 3.
C o l l i a s , N. E.
S o c i a l development i n b i r d s and mammals.
Roots o f b e h a v i o r .
New York:
I n B l i s s , E. L. (Ed.)
Harper & Bros., 1962.
C r o s s , H. A., Halcomb, C. G., & M a t t e r , W. W.
I m p r i n t i n g o r exposure l e a r n i n g
i n r a t s g i v e n e a r l y a u d i t o r y s t i m u l a t i o n . Psychon. S c i . , 1967, _7, 233-234.
32.
Dennenberg, V. H.,
modification
Hudgens, G. A.,
& Zarrow, M. X.
Mice r e a r e d w i t h
rats:
of b e h a v i o r by e a r l y e x p e r i e n c e w i t h another s p e c i e s .
Science, 1964, 143,
380-381.
Eckman, J . , M e l t z e r , J. D.,
& L a t a n e , B.
of f a m i l i a r i t y o f environment.
Gregariousness I n r a t s as a f u n c t i o n
J. p e r s o n , soc. P s y c h o l . , 1969, 1 1 ,
107-114.
Fabricius,
E., & B o y d
r
H.
Experiments on t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a c t i o n s o f d u c k l i n g s .
W i l d f o w l T r u s t Annual R e p o r t , 1952/1953, 6_ 84-89.
t
F i s h e r , A. E.
The e f f e c t s o f e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t on t h e s o c i a l and
exploratory
behavior i n puppies.
State U n i v e r s i t y ,
Gandland, D, K.,
Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis.
Pennsylvania
1955.
& M i l n e , D.
f u n c t i o n o f development
Species d i f f e r e n c e s
and environment.
i n approach b e h a v i o r as a
Anim. Behav., 1966, 14,
539-545.
G o t t l i e b , G.
Developmental age as a b a s e l i n e f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f t h e
c r i t i c a l period i n imprinting.
J . comp. p h y s i o l . P s y c h o l . , 1961, 54,
422-427.
G o t t l i e b , G.
A n a t u r a l i s t i c s t u d y o f i m p r i n t i n g i n wood d u c k l i n g s ( a i x sponsa)
J. comp. p h y s i o l . P s y c h o l . , 1963, _56, 86-91.
Gray, P. H.
Theory and evidence o f i m p r i n t i n g i n human i n f a n t s .
J. Psychol.,
1958, 46, 155-166.
Greenberg, B.
P a r e n t a l b e h a v i o r and i m p r i n t i n g i n c i c h l i d
fishes.
B e h a v i o u r , 1963, 2 1 , 127-144.
G r i e r , J. B., Counter, S. A.,
i n chickens.
G u i t o n , P.
chicks,
& Shearer, W. M.
Prenatal auditory
imprinting
Science, 1967, 155, 1692-1693.
The e f f e c t o f i s o l a t i o n on t h e f o l l o w i n g response of Brown Leghorn
Proc. r o y . phys. S o c ,
Edinb.
1958, 27_
$
9-14.
33.
G u i t o n , P. S o c i a l i z a t i o n and i m p r i n t i n g i n Brown Leghorn c h i c k s .
1959, 7, 26-34.
G u i t o n , P.
The i n f l u e n c e of i m p r i n t i n g on t h e a g o n i s t i c and c o u r t s h i p respon-
ses o f t h e Brown Leghorn cock.
H a r l o w , H. F.
Anim. Beh., 1961, 9_, 167-177.
The n a t u r e o f l o v e .
H a r r i s o n , A. A.
Amer. P s y c h o l . , 1958, 13, 673-685.
Response c o m p e t i t i o n , f r e q u e n c y , e x p l o r a t o r y b e h a v i o r ,
and
J . person, soc. P s y c h o l . , 1968, 9_ 363-368.
liking.
9
H e d i g e r , H.
W i l d animals i n c a p t i v i t y .
Hess, E. H.
Imprinting i n birds.
London:
Long-term e f f e c t s .
c o n t r o l by an i m p r i n t e d s t i m u l u s :
J. exper. a n a l . Behav., 1967, 1£, 495-501.
I g e l , G. J . , & C a l v i n , A. D.
i n f a n t dogs.
B u t t e r w o r t h , 1950.
Science, 1964, 146, 1128-1139.
Hoffman, H. S., & Kozma, F., J r . B e h a v i o r a l
Jaynes, J.
Anim. Beh.,
The development o f a f f e c t i o n a l responses i n
J. comp. p h y s i o l . P s y c h o l . „ 1960, 53, 302-305.
Imprinting:
The i n t e r a c t i o n o f l e a r n e d and i n n a t e b e h a v i o r :
Development and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n .
I .
J. comp. p h y s i o l . , P s y c h o l . , 1956, 49,
201-206.
Johnson, R. C., Thomson, C. W.,
& F r i n c k e , G.
and v i s u a l d u r a t i o n t h r e s h o l d s .
Kaufman, I . C., & Hinde, R. A.
w i t h special reference
Word v a l u e s , word f r e q u e n c y ,
P s y c h o l . Rev., 1960, 67^ 332-342.
Factors
influencing distress c a l l i n g i n chicks,
t o temperature changes i n s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n .
Anim. Behav. , 1961, _9> 197-204.
K n i g h t - J o n e s , E. W.,
the barnacle
29,
& Stevenson, J. P.
Gregariousness d u r i n g s e t t l e m e n t i n
Elminus modestus Darwin.
J . mar, b i o l . Ass. U.K.,
1951,
281-297.
Kummer, H.
Spacing mechanisms i n s o c i a l b e h a v i o r .
Washington, D. C ,
Kuo, Z. Y.
1969.
The genesis o f c a t s ' responses t o r a t s .
1930, 1 1 , 1-35.
Symposium on Man and Beast,
J. compar. P s y c h o l . ,
34.
L a t a n e , B.
Gregariousness and f e a r i n l a b o r a t o r y r a t s .
J . exper. soc. Psychol.
1969, _5, 61-69.
Latane', B., & Glass, D. C.
S o c i a l and n o n s o c i a l a t t r a c t i o n i n r a t s .
J. person, soc. P s y c h o l . , 1968, _9, 142-146.
L o r e n z , K.
M a i n a r d i , M.
The companion i n t h e b i r d ' s w o r l d .
Auk, 1937, 54, 245-273.
Scomparsa d e l l e p r e f e r e n z e s e s s u a l i i n t r a s p e c i f i c h e n e l maschio
d i D r o s o p h i l a melanogaster a l l e v a t o i n i s o l a m e n t o .
A t t i . Accad. Naz. d e i
L i n c e i , 1967,.43, 107-108.
M e l v i n , K. B., C l o a r , F. J . , & M a s s i n g i l l , L. S.
to a hawk.
P s y c h o l . Record, 1967,
M o l t z , H. , & S t e t t n e r , L. J.
235-238.
The i n f l u e n c e o f p a t t e r n e d - l i g h t d e p r i v a t i o n on
the c r i t i c a l p e r i o d f o r i m p r i n t i n g .
54,
I m p r i n t i n g o f bobwhite q u a i l
J . comp. p h y s i o l . P s y c h o l . , 19J51,
279-283.
P e t e r s o n , N.
Control
o f b e h a v i o r by p r e s e n t a t i o n
o f an i m p r i n t e d
stimulus.
Science, 1960, 132, 1395-1396.
P i n c k n e y , G. A., & Anderson, L. E.
Lebistes r e t i c u l a t u s .
Rearing c o n d i t i o n s
and s o c i a b i l i t y i n
Psychon. S c i . , 1967, 9_, 591-592.
P i t z , G. F., & Ross, R. B.
I m p r i n t i n g as a f u n c t i o n o f a r o u s a l .
J. comp.
p h y s i o l . P s y c h o l . , 1961, 54, 602-604.
P r a t t , C. L., & S a c k e t t , G. P.
peer c o n t a c t d u r i n g
R a b i n o w i t c h , V. E.
Selection of s o c i a l partners
rearing.
as a f u n c t i o n o f
Science, 1967, 155, 1133-1135.
.The r o l e of e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e development o f food p r e f e r -
ences i n g u l l c h i c k s .
Anim. Beh., 1968, 16, 425-428.
S a l z e n , E. A., & Meyer, C. C.
R e v e r s i b i l i t y of imprinting.
J. comp• p h y s i o l .
P s y c h o l . , 1968, 66, 269-275.
S a l z e n , E., & S l u c k i n , W.
The i n c i d e n c e of t h e f o l l o w i n g response and t h e d u r -
a t i o n o f responsiveness i n domestic f o w l . Anim. Behav., 1959, 7_, 172-179.
35.
Schooland,
J . B.
Are t h e r e any i n n a t e b e h a v i o r tendencies?
Genet, p s y c h o l .
Monogr., 1942,-219-287.
S c o t t , J . P.
Animal b e h a v i o r .
S c o t t , J . P.
C r i t i c a l p e r i o d s i n b e h a v i o r a l development.
949-958.
Chicago:
U n i v e r . o f Chicago Press, 1958.
Science, 1962, 138,
- .
S c o t t , J . P.
The.process o f p r i m a r y s o c i a l i z a t i o n i n canine and human i n f a n t s .
Monographs soc. r e s . C h i l d Develop., 1963, 2*J ( 1 , Whole No. 8 5 ) .
S c o t t , J . P.
The .development of s o c i a l m o t i v a t i o n .
Symposium on M o t i v a t i o n .
1967.
L i n c o l n , Nebr.:
I n D. Levine (Ed.) Nebraska
U n i v e r . o f Nebraska Press,
111-132.
S h i p l e y , W. U.
The d e m o n s t r a t i o n i n t h e domestic guinea p i g of a process r e -
sembling c l a s s i c a l i m p r i n t i n g .
Anim. Behav., 1963, ^11, 470-474.
S l u c k i n , W.
I m p r i n t i n g and e a r l y l e a r n i n g .
S l u c k i n , W.,
& Salzen, E. A.
Chicago:
A l d i n e , 1965.
I m p r i n t i n g and p e r c e p t u a l l e a r n i n g .
Quart. J.
exp. P s y c h o l . , 1961, 13, 65-77.
T a y l o r , A., S l u c k i n , W., H e w i t t , R., & G u i t o n , P.
by domestic c h i c k s t o two t e x t u r e s .
The f o r m a t i o n o f attachments
Anim. Beh.,
T h i e s s e n , D. D., Zolman, J . F., & Rodgers, L. A.
1967, 15, 514-519.
R e l a t i o n between a d r e n a l w e i g h t ,
b r a i n c h o l i n e s t e r a s e a c t i v i t y , and h o l e - i n - w a l l b e h a v i o r o f mice under
d i f f e r e n t l i v i n g conditions.
J . comp. p h y s i o l . P s y c h o l . , 1962, 55_, 186-
190.
T h o r n d i k e , E. L., & L o r g e , I . The t e a c h e r ' s wordbook o f 30,000 words.
York:
New
Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1944.
Thorpe, W. H.
L e a r n i n g and i n s t i n c t
Tolman, E. C.
Behavior and p s y c h o l o g i c a l man. B e r k e l e y :
Press, 1951.
i n a n i m a l s . London:
Methuen,
1956.
Univer. of C a l i f o r n i a
36.
W i l s o n , D. P. The i n f l u e n c e o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s u b s t r a t u m on t h e metamorphosis of t h e l a r v a e of marine a n i m a l s , e s p e c i a l l y l a r v a e o f Ophelia
b i c o m i s Savigny. Ann, i n s t . ocean.,
1952, 27_ 49-156.
9
Wynne-Edwards, V. C. Animal d i s p e r s i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o s o c i a l b e h a v i o r .
York:
Hafner, .1962.
Z a j o n c , R. B.
A t t i t u d i n a l e f f e c t s o f mere exposure.
Monogr. Supplement,
Z a j o n c , R. B.
1969.
New
(Ed.)
1968, 9_, P a r t 2,
J . person, soc. P s y c h o l . ,
1-27.
Animal s o c i a l psychology.
New York:
W i l e y & Sons,
i,00j
,90!
.80
.701.60
I
.50 .40-
—O
—•
-O
- -A
.30 .20-
CANINE - INTERACTION
CANINE - RESTRICTION
INANIMATE
CONTROL
.10
0
2
3 4
WCCKH
KH«. I . ( H i o i V c
I n i s l . in:ixi* H'lii's, u i l l i
or
9
COHABITATION
i<ir o f b u n d s i n n o i i r o n 10 hi:il.s :il i-.u-li 1«'s1. u v c k
(From C a i r n s , 1966; a) .
From
Cross,
Halcomb
re
III
17
16
8T
Matter
Mozart
Schoenberg
1
5 15
1
LU
5 14
so.
Im
7"
m
13
1
12
I
11
•a
10
MOZART
SCHOENBERG
EXPOSURE
CONTROL
GROUP
FIG 2. Musical preferences of r a t s reared w i t h Mozart, o f r a t s reared w i t h Schoenberg,
and of r a t s without musical background. (From Cross, Halcomb, & Natter, 1967).
20,000
15,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
r =
.81
6,000
5,OO0h
4,0003,0001—
2,000
>1
O
C
©
000
900:
800;
700;
3
600|
c r
©
»-
Li-
10
8
20
500;
!
400;
12
15
300!
16
14
100
90 i
80
70j
11
18
200!
17
19
13
60
50>
34
3.6
J
3.8
1
I
4.0
I
Affective
I
4.2
I
I
4.4
1
Rating
1 » 1
4.6
4.8
|?IG. 3. S c a t t e r plot of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the frequency of occurrence and the
a f f e c t i v e r a t i n g s of numbers of 1 to 20.
I
«
5.0
|
5.:
SI
-5S
;S^LCW
mm
FREQUENCY
jjjMJj HK3M
IKTtTAF
jpfesH L O W
AFWORBU
FREQUENCY
FREQUENCY
HIOM F R E Q U E N C Y
ttARICtK
BtWOJNI
NANSOMA
KAOtROA
ENANWAL
DIL.IKU
ZABUt-ON
LOKANTA
JANDARA
CIVAORA
,
2
3
4
I
a
2
3
<*
B
RATED " G O O D N E S S * O F MEANING
R A T C O " G O O D N E S S " O F MEANING
Fio.*^. Average rated affective connotation of
nonsense words exposed with low and high frequencies. ( F r o m Z a j o n c , 1 9 6 8 )
Fio. £ Average rated affective connotation of
Chinese-like characters exposed with low and high
frequendes. ( F r o m Z a j o n c , 1 9 6 8 )
V
m m
1
1
i
1
fl
7
Fio. 6. Average attitude toward photographs exposed with low and high frequencies.
(From Z a j o n c , 1968)
3
TABLE
.'Preference and f r e q u e n c y oC 1 y -
ntonyio p a i r s .
(From Z'-jone, I<J6£;)
J
u *-»
k
2-
00
<*>
100
too
100
100
100
100
ICO
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
9*
99
99
98
9ft
9ft
9ft
9ft
99
98
98
98
9ft
98
98
9ft
.98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
9?
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
96
9696
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
ABLE
ATTENTIVE
BETTER .
ENCOURAGE
FR IB POLY
KONESt .
POSSIBLE
ADVANCE
PEST
CLEAN
COCFORTAILE
TAVORABLI
GOOD
CSATEFUL
PEACE
PRESENT
PURE
RESPONSIBLE
REWARD
RICHT
SKTLE
TOLERANT
VICTORY
ADD
ADVANTAGE
AGREEABLE
. CAPABLE
DESIRABLE
FIND
FORTUNATE
FORWARD
FRIEND
HIGH
B000RA6LE
KIND
LEGAL
LIFE
LOVE .
. MATURE
MORAL .
PLEASANT
POLITE
RELIABLE
SUCCESS
VALID
VOLUNTARY .
ADEQUATE
COMPETENT
FOUND .
IMPORTANT
LIKELY
ON
PATIENCE
PATIENT
PATIENTLY
POPULAR
POSITIVE
PROFITABLE
PROMOTE
REMEMBER
SATISFACTORY
WILLINGLY
ABOVE
ACTIVE.
EARLY
ntojrr
FULL
1
t
uve
PRESENCE
PROBABLE
RATIONAL
REASONABLE
RESOLUTELY
•TRORG
SUCCEED
SUPERIOR
TIMELY
UNABLE
'INATTENTIVE
WORSE
DISCOURAGE
UNFRIENDLY
DISHONEST
IMPOSSIBLE
RETREAT
WORST
DIRTY
UNCOMFORTABLE
UNFAVORABLE
BAD
UNGRATEFUL
WAS
ABSENT
IMPURE
IRRESPONSIBLE
PUNISHMENT
WRONC
FROWN
INTOLERANT
DEFEAT
SUBTRACT
DISADVANTAGE
DISAGREEABLE
INCAPABLE
UNDESIRABLE
LOSE
UNFORTUNATE
. BACKWARD
ENEMY
LOW.
DISHONORABLE
UNKIND
ILLEGAL
DEATH
HATE
' IMMATURE
IMMORAL
UNPLEASANT
IMPOLITE
UNRELIABLE
FAILURE
INVALID
INVOLUNTARY
INADEQUATE
INCOMPETENT
LOST
UNIMPORTANT
UNLIKELY
OFF .
IMPATIENCE
IMPATIENT
IMPATIENTLY
UNPOPULAR
NEGATIVE
UNPROFITABLE
DEMOTE
FORGET
UNSATISFACTORY
UNWILLINGLY
BELOW
PASSIVE
LATE
BACK
EMPTY
DIE
ABSENCE
IMPROBABLE
IRRATIONAL
UNREASONABLE
IRRESOLUTELT
WEAK
FAIL
INFERIOR
UNTIMELY
(•>
930
49
2354
205
357
393
1289
452
1850
781
348
93
3122
194
472
1073
197
267
154
3874
2143
42
118
2018
404
38
176
160
2698
136
736
2553
1674
58
1521
180
4804
5129
91
272
457
115
78
573
22
28
95
69
2892
1130
364
30224
139
392
85
418
92
57
90
1682
154
66
941
186
1022
1094
1129
4307
277
64
33
135
30
770
264
166
27
239
4
450
147
19
41
459
103
292
221
112
23
1001
'
1
3
1118
63
4
30
80
890
216
13
166 6
41
43
30
42
393
106
139
883
1224
!
ft
34
34
815
756
17
19
114
3
9
262
56
26
59
23
1074
40
25
3644
39
79
82
12
28
12
2
882
32
13
529
29
2859
6387
393
1079
163
14
9
36
4
276
620
40
6
95
95
95
93
95
95
95 .
93
95
94
94
94
94
94
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
92
92
92
92
92
92
91
91
91
91
90
90
90
90
90
69
88
88
86
83
83
84
63
63
79
76
78
78
77
74
72
72
70
70
68
68
67
67
63
64
63
63
*}
-»
11
]
1
1
1
1
1
I
5857
5 5
35
35
34
52
51
ACCEPT
DIRECT
INCLUDE
INCREASE
HOST
PRACTICAL
REGULARLY
RICH
WEALTH
APPROVE
CONSCIOUS
LEADER
OBEDIENT
TOGETHER
AGREEMENT
CERTAIN
FIRST
MAJOR
NORMAL
REGULAR
UNSELFISH
UPWARDS
WIDE
MORE
NOW
UP
UPWARD
VISIBLE
YES
ALWAYS
FAMILIAR
MAXIMUM
OPTIMISM
AGREE
NECESSARY
OVER
SWEET
WHOLE
LIGHT
DEEP
SMOOTH
WHITE
IN
INDEPENDENT
FAST
COMEDY
FASTEN
DAY
DRY
LONG
UNSHAKEN
USUALLY
UPSTAIRS
INNER
INTERIOR
NEAR
UNLIMITED
INSIDE
WRAP
INFINITE
INTERNAL
COKING
INFORMAL
ANSWER
HEN
DIFFERENT
INWARD
MAN
BUS BAND
USUAL
OFFENSE
HOT
IMPORT
INWARDLY
lNCOWPICUOOS
FLAY
MORTAL
00
REJECT
INDIRECT
EXCLUDE
DECREASE
LEAST
IMPRACTICAL
IRREGULARLY
POOR
POVERTY
DISAPPROVE
UNCONSCIOUS
FOLLOWER
DISOBEDIENT
APART
DISAGREEMENT
UNCERTAIN
LAST
MINOR
ABNORMAL
IRREGULAR
SELFISH
DOWNWARDS
NARROW
LESS
THEM
DOWN
DOWNWARD
INVISIBLE
NO
NEVER
UNFAMILIAR
MINIMUM
PESSIMISM
DISAGREE
UNNECESSARY
UNDER
SOUR
FART
DARK
SHALLOW,
ROUGH
BLACK
OUT
DEPENDENT
8LOW
TRAGEDY
UNFASTEN
NIGHT
WET
SHORT
SHAKEN
UNUSUALLY
DOWNSTAIRS
OUTER
EXTERIOR
FAR
LIMITED
OUTSIDE
UNWRAP
FINITE
EXTERNAL
OOlNO
POtttAL
QUESTION
WOMEN
SAME
OUTWARD
WOMAN
WIFE
UNUSUAL
DEFENSE
COLD
EXPORT
OUTWARDLY
CONBPICUOUS
WORK
IMMORTAL
667
31
23
416
333
38
86
781
3443
1239
12
340
122
5
656
857
243
146
171
45
116
299
373
45
70
4
1835
276
143
21
BOO
107
5154
3517
366
83
335
43
340
44
33
137
9
40
391
393
1357
80L5
7665 10208
11716
5534
Ul
27
110
74
2202 11742
3285
5715
345
39
43
86
28
11
729
38
715
107
7320
2961
102
679
1663
1585
2387
1005
104
881
346
294
2663
1083
73253 13649
134
18
434
514
126
189
142
16
4349
3385
592
319
3362
887
6
83
718
91
314
226
143
97
185
48
1338
1633
43
67
656
921
293
17
2
7X
36
26
4623
I486
64
166
2131
1302
3614
2552
1194
1747
43
54
7333
2431
1788
1668
273
316
223
86
1092
1006
86
88
33
39
2606
2720
54
26
TABLE 2
P r e f e r e n c e r a t i n g s o f t r e e s , f r u i t s , v e g e t a b l e s and f l o w e r s , and t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g f r e q u e n c i e s (From Zajonc, 1968).
rTrees
PINE
WALNUT
OAK
ROSEWOOD
f*
A.P.R.**
Fruits
f:
r
A.P.R.
Vegetables
f
Flowers
f
A.P.R.
172
4.79
APPLE
220
5.13
CORN
227
4.17
ROSE
801
5.55
75
4.42
CHERRY
167
5.00
POTATO
384
4.13
LILY
164
4.79
125
4.00
STRAWBERRY
121
4.83
LETTUCE
142
4.00
VIOLET
109
4.58
3.96
PEAR
62
4.83
CARROT
96
3.57
GERANIUM 27
3.83
33
4.00
RADISH
43
3.13
DAISY
62
3.79
HYACINTH 16
3.08
8
BIRCH
34
3.83
GRAPEFRUIT
FIR
14
3.75
CANTALOUPE
1.5 3.75
ASPARAGUS
5 • 2.33
2.71
CAULIFLOWER
27
1.96
YUCCA
1
2.88
8
2.63
BROCCOLI
18
1.96
WOODBINE
4
2.87
GOOSEBERRY
5
2.63
LEEK
3
1.96
ANEMONE
8
2.54
MANGO
2
2.38
PARSNIP
8
1.92
COWSLIP
2
2.54
SASSAFRAS
2
3.00
AVOCADO
ALOES
1
2.92
POMEGRANATE
YEW
3
2.83
ACACIA
4
2.75
(*) Frequency o f usage ( L - C o u n t ) .
16
(**) Average p r e f e r e n c e r a t i n g .
43.
TABLE 3.
Mean number o f seconds spent w i t h each type o f s t i m u l u s
animal
f o r each r e a r i n g c o n d i t i o n ( f r o m P r a t t & S a c k e t t , 1967).
Rearing
condition
of
experimental
animal
Rearing c o n d i t i o n o f
stimulus animal
Totally
deprived
Partially
deprived
Peerraised
All
conditions
Totally
deprived
156
35
29
220
Partially
deprived
104
214
103
442
94
114
260
468
Peer r a i s e d