4.3.1 - Watson and Rayner (1920) Little Albert: Conditioned emotional reactions Flashcards
what was the aim?
to see if classical conditioning could be used to condition a fear response into a 9 month old baby
also to see if the reaction (fear response) could be generalised to similar objects, and how long the conditioning would last
what was the sample?
one baby boy called Albert B.
he was 9 months when the study began and 11 months when conditioning began
chosen for his ‘stoic and unemotional character’
opportunity sample
mother (wet nurse at hospital) paid $1 for his participation
what was the procedure?
- at 9 months, Albert was tested with stimuli like a white rat, rabbit and cotton wool to see if he had a fear reaction - he didn’t so they became the neutral stimuli (NS)
- the researchers banged on an iron bar to test his fear response - after 3 times he began to cry, so the noise became the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) and crying the unconditioned response (UCR)
- conditioning began when Albert was 11 months - he was shown the white rat 3 times and this was paired with striking the iron bar
- a week later, the conditioning was repeated 3 more times - Albert began to crawl away when he saw the rat
- the rat was presented alone (Albert whimpered), then paired twice more with the noise, then alone again
- over the following 10 days, Albert’s reactions to other stimuli (rabbit, dog, Watson wearing Santa mask) were tested - he showed similar fear responses to these stimuli as to the rat
- Watson moved the investigation to a lecture room to see how surroundings affected Albert’s responses - his reactions to the rat and rabbit were the same
- 1 month later Albert was tested again - his reactions were the same but slightly weaker
- Albert’s mother moved away from the hospital and took him with her before he could be deconditioned
what were the results?
became clear that a phobia of an object could be learned through classical conditioning
stimulus generalisation occured because Albert’s fear response was transferred to similar white, fluffy objects
Albert’s fear response lasted for at least 31 days but became weaker towards the end
what were the conclusions?
infants could be classically conditioned to develop a fear of a white rat, and this fear response could be generalised to similar stimuli and transferred to other situations
the conditioning lasted over a month, so these conditioned emotions responses could potentially last a lifetime
evaluation - generalisability?
strengths:
Albert was selected for normalcy - reactions seem to be normal reactions of any baby to commonplace experiences
single case experiment - used one participant
weaknesses:
Albert’s unemotional character could mean other children wouldn’t react similarly
took place in USA so may not be generalisable to other cultures (cultural bias)
Cosh (2012) suggested Albert may have been a child called Douglas Meritte who died from hydrocephalus at age 6, meaning he could have had hydrocephalus during study - results couldn’t be generalised to normal, healthy children
single case experiment - used one participant
evaluation - reliability/replicability?
strengths:
used standardised procedure eg. changing one variable at a time and was carefully documented down to exact day so would be easy to replicate and show reliability (hasn’t been for ethical reasons)
procedure was filmed and can still be watched so others can interpret Albert’s fear responses (inter-rater reliability)
evaluation - validity?
strengths:
careful controls used eg. Watson hid behind curtain when striking bar - ensure Albert only associated noise with rat, not Watson or hammer
Albert’s reaction to rat was tested before conditioning to check he wasn’t already fearful - shows that fear was only due to association with noise
study moved to a different room to remove context as extraneous variable - ensured Albert was fearful of white rat, not just room he was conditioned in
study has construct validity as results fit with well-established classical conditioning theory
weaknesses:
lacks ecological validity - setting was largely lab-like (Albert away from usual nursery), tasks lacked mundane realism as babies wouldn’t normally encounter them
evaluation - ethics?
strengths:
presumptive consent obtained from Albert’s mother and she was present the whole time
she had right to withdraw and did so before he was deconditioned
weaknesses:
Albert not protected from psychological harm - was clearly distressed by conditioning
counter argument - guideline is that harm shouldn’t be greater than what participant would experience in real life and Albert would likely have had similar distressing experiences when he started nursery, conditioning a phobia will naturally cause some distress but this was necessary for aim of study
evaluation - applications?
other psychologists have built on research and investigated phobias leading to techniques to help people like flooding and systematic desensitisation
shows that phobias and emotional reactions can be learned, therefore they can also be unlearned
