4.3.1 Classic- Watson & Rayner (1920)

Question 1

Aim?

Answer 1

• To investigate whether you could condition a phobia into a child

-To investigate whether the phobia would be generalised

-To investigate whether time would effect the conditioned response

-To investigate whether the phobia can be conditioned out of a child

Question 2

Sample?

Answer 2

Single ppt
> Little Albert
Aged 9 months

Question 3

Method?

Answer 3

Lab

Question 4

Procedure?

Answer 4

• At 9 months Albert was assessed on his responses to a number of objects such as: a white rat, father christmas mask, etc.-to ensure there was no predisposed fear response so they could establish better cause & effect for creating CR of phobia/fear

-2 months later Albert was presented with the white rat again

-When he reached for it the experimenters hit a metal bar to frighten him

-The rat was the NS, the metal bar was the UCS and the fear response was the UCR

-repeated 5 times a week later and 2 times more 17 days later

-Used other white fluffy stimuli to test for the generalisability of the conditioned fear response eg. rabbit. dog, santa mask, cotton balls

Question 5

Results?

Answer 5

• first trial –> jumping violently
  -second trial –> Albert was suspicious of the rat
• third trial –>Albert leaned away from the rat
  -rabbit was placed next to him –>Albert cried
  -7 weeks later –>Albert cried in response to a white fury coat showing the fear had generalised

Question 6

Conclusion?

Answer 6

demonstrates that it is artificially possible to induce emotional responses by classical conditioning (learning via association), suggests that phobias can be learned from the environment.

Question 7

GRAVE-Generalisability

Answer 7

P-Low
E- Single case experiment- one ppt, aged 9 months, then 11 months
E- Cant’t generalise infants reaction to pairing of stimuli to adults or even to other children due to single case exp of an infant. W, limits our understanding of CC of learning via association/ pairing stimuli to create the response of fear in an individual.

Question 8

GRAVE-Reliability

Answer 8

P - High
E - Followed a standardised procedure such as hitting the metal bar every time Albert reached for the rat
E - Easily replicable to test for impact of CC on creating conditioned responses in ppt eg fear
P - Low
E - Study had some ethical issues such as distressing Albert
E - Study would not be replicable today due to guidelines

Question 9

GRAVE-Application

Answer 9

P - Yes
E - They found that phobias can be learnt through classical conditioning with Little Albert associating fear from a loud noise with a rat
E - This has therefore led to developments of treatments for phobias, such as systematic desensitisation that use the principles of classical conditioning by associating the object of fear with something good

Question 10

GRAVE-Validity

Answer 10

P - Low ecological
E - Took place in artificial conditions
E - Unnatural situation of hitting a metal bar when presented with a rat may not reflect learning in real-life
P - Low
E - No control group meaning it could have been down to a repeated exposure to the animal
E - Therefore cannot establish cause and effect for pairing of CS and UCS to create learnt response of fear in little Albert

Question 11

GRAVE-Ethics

Answer 11

P - Unethical
E - Little Albert’s mother withdrew him from the study before Watson and Rayner could uncondition the fear
E - Therefore he potentially sustained long term psychological harm due to lack of debrief