A reinforcement model of imprinting: Implications for socialization in monkeys and men.

Abstract

The present model accounts for the characteristic phenomena of imprinting in terms of familiar behavioral processes by postulating that certain aspects of imprinting stimuli are primary reinforcers that innately elicit filial behavior. In doing so, these aspects serve as unconditioned stimuli, enabling the development of familiarity with the other characteristics of a given imprinting stimulus through classical conditioning. Familiarity serves to prevent novelty-induced fear reactions which would otherwise compete with the filial response at later stages of ontogenetic development. We suggest that these behavioral processes are the common denominators for socialization in several types of animals.According to many current views, imprinting and the behavioral effects it entails cannot be interpreted using the theoretical constructs that are familiar to psychologists. As a consequence, the now extensive literature in this area is often considered to be irrelevant to the broader issue of behavioral control in a social context, and imprinting is treated as a somewhat specialized phenomenon that is characteristic of only a limited range of animals such as precocial birds.Harlow, Gluck, and Suomi (1972) gave expression to this attitude when they noted: "We do not believe that the imprinting phenomenon aids in the analysis of infantmother ties in monkeys and men [p. 709]." We suggest here that the attitude characterized by such statements is based on a restricted and, in many respects, incorrect view of imprinting. More specifically, it is argued that there are a number of investigations in this area that imply that imprinting can be interpreted in terms of familiar behavioral processes and that this in turn implies that 1 Preparation of this manuscript as well as the research on which it is based was supported by Grant MH 19715 from the National Institute of Mental Health. We wish to thank Leonard Eiserer who made many important contributions to the research and to the conceptions that are central to this model. We also thank Richard Gonzalez for his valuable suggestions.2 Requests for reprints should be sent to Howard

Distress calling induced by reductions in group size in ducklings reared with conspecifics or imprinting stimuli

“…One approach to examining this issue is through the use of artificial stimuli as sibling surrogates. Such imprinting stimuli have proved to be of great value in elucidating the importance of various cues in filial imprinting (e.g., Hoffman & Ratner, 1973). The utility of artificial stimuli stems from the control the experimenter gains over half of the interacting social dyad; the major disadvantage is that the young bird's response to such stimuli may provide a distorted view of its normal social behavior (Hess, 1973;Johnston & Gottlieb, 1981).…”

“…This research has focused largely on filial and sexual imprinting, that is, the processes by which a young bird learns the features of its mother and the species with which it will subsequently mate, respectively (Brosset, 1971;Hess, 1973;Hoffman & Ratner, 1973;Immelmann, 1972;Schutz, 1965;Sluckin, 1965). Very little attention has been focused on sibling attachments (Shapiro, 1980).…”

The effects of tactile stimulation on imprinting in ducklings after the sensitive period

“…According to a commonly accepted conception of imprinting (Hess, 1959a;Hoffman & Ratner, 1973), the end of the sensitive period is largely caused by the maturational development of fear towards novel stimulus objects, since expression of this fear suppresses the filial responses that would otherwise be directed towards such objects. Even in RESULTS involved visual-only exposure to one of the stimulus objects (the balI for half of the subjects, the cube for the other hall), while the remaining session (the second session) involved visual-tactile exposure to whichever of the stimulus objects was not used in the visual-only sessions.…”

Tonic immobility in chicks during presentations and withdrawals of an imprinting stimulus

“…In addition, there are aversive aftereffects when exposure to an imprinting stimulus is terminated. Hoffman and Ratner (1973) demonstrated that withdrawal of an imprinting stimulus elicited a significant amount of distress-calling in ducklings which emitted no distress vocalizations while in the presence of the same stimulus. If withdrawal of the imprinting stimulus is negatively reinforcing, it should weaken the probability of a contingent response.…”

“…Hoffman and Ratner (1973), using distress-calling as an index of the duckling's affective state, demonstrated that mere presentation of the imprinting stimulus suppressed distress-calling. Further evidence in support of this finding comes from experiments showing that presentation of an imprinting stimulus can strengthen an operant response (Eiserer & Hoffman, 1973;Hoffman, Searle, Toffee, & Kozma, 1966).…”