Behaviorist approach- study- 'Little Albert' Flashcards
Methodologies (6)
- One participant used (9 months male infant who was normal)
- known as ‘Albert B’ in the experiment but once known he was known as ‘little Albert’- although this wasn’t his real name
- controlled conditions- well-lit dark room, he was placed on a table on top of a mattress
- Not an experiment
- Not a case study
- could be classed as a controlled observation
name of session 1
Establishing conditioned emotional response
name of session 2
Testing conditioned emotional response
name of session 3
generalization
name of session 4
changing environment
name of session 5
The effects of time
age in session 1
11 months, 3 days
age in session 2
11 months, 10 days
age in session 3
11 months, 15 days
age in session 4
11 months, 20 days
age in session 5
11 months, 21 days
session 1- procedures
- brought to the laboratory
- presented with the rat
- every time her reached for it, the loud noise was made
session 2- procedures
- shown the rat without the loud noise to see the effects of the previous session
- ‘joint stimulus’ 5 times
session 3- procedures
- investigated whether the relationship between the rat and the loud noise could be generalized for other animals/objects
- presented him with wooden blocks, rabbit, dog, seal fur coat, cotton wool John Watsons’ hair
session 4- procedures
- changed environment
- emotional response ‘freshened up’ with the joint stimulation’
- large, well-lit room
- 4 other people
- placed on a table located in the center of the room
session 5- procedures
- Tested for one last time
- involved the wooden blocks, Santa clause mask, fur coat, rat, rabbit and a dog
What are the 3 conclusions from this study?
1- ease that conditioned responses would stick ( 2 simulations to develop the conditioned emotional response + 7 stimulation to complete the reaction
2- The emotional responses to a particular stimuli can be generalized to similar objects
3- Could explain how phobias develop. Only stick if they’re ‘constitutionally inferior’
When will phobias stick?
constitutionally inferior
What were the findings of the emotional tests?
- Little Albert showed no emotional response to any of the objects before the experiment started
- The hospital attendants and his mother stated that he had never seen him in a state of fear or rage, he barley cried
- When the bar struck behind his head for the first time, the researchers stated that….
How did the researchers say Little Albert reacted to the bar struck behind his head for the first time in the FIRST STIMULATION
- Started violently
- Breathing was checked
- Arms raised in a characteristic manner
How did the researchers say Little Albert reacted to the bar struck behind his head for the first time in the SECOND STIMULATION
- Same as the first
- lips started to pucker and tremble
How did the researchers say Little Albert reacted to the bar struck behind his head for the first time in the THIRD STIMULATION
Broke into a sudden crying fit
3 advantages of the study (evaluation)
- conducted in a lab
- emotional tests
- O.H Mower
How is the study being conducted in a laboratory a benefit?
- Can control the conditions
- control extraneous variables
- ensure that the response was due to the ‘joint-simulation’ and not other variables
- Allows for the use of films
How is the emotional tests seen as an advantage?
- prove that her wasn’t just an emotional baby
- Confirmed that his responses were due to the stimuli
- Improved internal validity
O.H Mower (1947)
- Explained why phobias don’t just disappear
- Classical conditioning explains how they are acquired
Operant conditioning shows how they stick - Once the fear is learned, the individual will avoid the situation producing fear
- This is a form of negative reinforcement
3 disadvantages to this study (evaluation)
- Lack of follow up after
- Psychological harm
- Two- process theory
How is a lack of follow up after a disadvantage?
- It only took place over a couple of months- no information on how long the phobia lasted
- Watson and Rayner stated that they had planned on reversing the conditioning (unconditioned) but they were unable to due to Albert moving to a different hospital
How is psychological harm a disadvantage to this study?
- Watson and Rayner stated that they would do no further tests for the next week to avoid causing him harm (clearly aware of the harm they are causing him)
- To seek comfort when frightened, he started to suck his thumb, this was removed by the researchers (unethical)
Two way process- disadvantage
- this cant explain how phobias last
- the talk about ‘freshening up’ the conditioned responses a week later- this suggests that if this didn’t happen then the conditioned response would have lessened.
- If only classical conditioning was used, it may disappear overtime
What are the 2 social implications from this study?
- Vulnerable children: Conditioning could be used to control their behavior and make it more ‘normal’, making them more socially accepted. This would allow them to participate as fully as possible within society and reward employment
- Controlling the behavior of children:
The use of negative/positive reinforcement such as rewards. However, this may lead to a society where people are only motivated by extrinsic factors
findings of the second session
- Instead of reaching for the rat, he just stared at it
- when placed nearer, he carefully reached out for it but drew his hand
- Played happily with the blocks
- When joint stimulation occurred, he got more distressed and started to cry and crawl away
Findings of session 1
- When the bar struck, he jumped and fell forward, burying his head on the table
- 2nd time the same thing happened except this time her whimpered a little
Findings of session 3
- Happily played with the blocks until her was shown the rat where he immediately showed fear
- Responded to the rabbit with as much fear as the white rat
- played with Watsons’ hair happily
Findings of session 4
- In a new environment, his response was far less extreme than before
- after ‘freshening up’, his response started to get stronger
- When his reaction was weak, it was still noticeably different to his reaction to the building blocks
Findings of session 5
- Albert clearly responded differently to the teat objects in a different way to the control objects (the blocks)
- His reaction to the fury objects was not as extreme as the previous times but he clearly avoided them and whimpered, on occasions he cried
