Behaviourist approach

Question 1

About the behaviourist approach?

Answer 1

3 assumptions
Explanation for relationship formation
Aversion ( therapy)
Classic evidence – Watson and Rayner (1920) methodology, procedures, findings, conclusion
Classic evidence – Watson and Rayner (1920) evaluation of methodology, ethical and social issues, alternative evidence
Contemporary debate – conditioning techniques to control children’s behaviour (Unit 2)
Evaluating the behaviourist approach

Question 2

Assumptions?

Answer 2

Humans are born like a blank state
Behaviour learned through condition
Humans and animals learn in similar ways

Question 3

Assumption 1?
humans are born like a blank state

Answer 3

Behaviorists assert that humans are born as a “tabula rasa” (blank slate), meaning we lack inbuilt mental content and that our behavior is shaped entirely by environmental interactions, rather than internal thoughts or emotions. This perspective emphasizes nurture over nature, suggesting that social and environmental factors predominantly influence behavior, while genetic and biological factors are largely ignored. This view is known as environmental determinism, where early associations (e.g., “dentists = pain”) and the rewards or punishments from our environment shape our future reactions to people and situations.

Question 4

Assumption 2
Behaviour learned through condition

Answer 4

2 types of conditioning ( Classical and operant)

Question 5

Classic conditioning

Answer 5

New behaviors are learned through association, as described by Ivan Pavlov in 1902 through his experiments with dogs and classical conditioning.
Before Conditioning: Food acts as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) that naturally triggers salivation (unconditioned response, UCR).
During Conditioning: A neutral stimulus (NS), like a bell, is paired with the UCS repeatedly, leading to association.
After Conditioning: The bell becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS) that elicits salivation (conditioned response, CR).

Question 6

Operant conditioning?

Answer 6

New behaviors are learned through reinforcement, which increases the likelihood of a behavior recurring. Reinforcement can be positive or negative, both shaping behavior.
B.F. Skinner (1938) demonstrated this in the Skinner box, where an animal learns to press a lever for food (positive reinforcement). Once reinforced, the behavior is likely to be repeated.
Negative reinforcement strengthens behavior by allowing escape from unpleasant situations, such as completing homework to avoid detention.
In operant conditioning, punishment weakens behavior, reducing the chances of recurrence; for example, if a rat receives a shock after pressing the lever instead of food, it is less likely to press it again.

Question 7

Assumption 3
Humans and animals learn in similar ways

Answer 7

The laws of learning apply equally to humans and non-human animals, allowing us to study animal behavior in laboratories and generalize findings to humans. For example, Pavlov demonstrated classical conditioning with dogs, showing they could be trained to salivate at the sound of a bell. These principles inform behaviorist therapies for humans, such as systematic desensitization, where clients learn to associate a phobic object with relaxation rather than anxiety. Similarly, operant conditioning principles from Skinner’s work with rats are used to shape human behavior in various contexts, such as education and prisons, through methods like token economies, where desirable behaviors are reinforced with tokens that can be exchanged for rewards.

Question 8

What do they explain relationship formation in?

Answer 8

operant and classical conditioning

Behaviorists argue that all behavior is learned from the environment, suggesting that external factors play a crucial role in relationship formation. They might explain this process through various mechanisms:

Question 9

Operant conditioning

Answer 9

principles suggest that reinforcements and punishments drive our behavior in relationships. A new relationship can be positively reinforcing through attention, compliments, and companionship, encouraging us to spend more time together. Additionally, being with someone helps avoid feelings of loneliness and rejection, which is a form of negative reinforcement. Conversely, not being in a relationship may lead to punishment, such as receiving negative comments or being excluded from couple-oriented events, which decreases the desire to be alone and increases the likelihood of seeking a relationship.

Question 10

Classical conditioning?

Answer 10

We tend to like people associated with positive experiences. Meeting someone while feeling happy increases our inclination to like them compared to meeting them in a negative mood. A previously neutral person can gain positive value through association with happy events, illustrating how we learn to like others via classical conditioning, which can lead to forming relationships.

For example, in pet-owner relationships, operant conditioning principles are applied in training. Rewarding dogs for good behavior—such as sitting patiently or walking without pulling—enhances satisfaction for both the owner and pet, increasing the likelihood of repeated good behavior.

Question 11

Main components of systematic desentisation?

Answer 11

The behaviorist approach assumes that all behavior is learned. Behaviorist therapies leverage classical and operant conditioning principles to help individuals “unlearn” maladaptive behaviors associated with mental illness, promoting healthier behaviors through behavior modification.

Systematic desensitization, developed by Joseph Wolpe in the 1950s, primarily employs classical conditioning principles and stimulus-response associations to treat phobias. It involves counterconditioning, where clients learn to associate the phobic object with relaxation rather than anxiety, based on the concept of reciprocal inhibition (experiencing contrasting emotions simultaneously).

Operant conditioning is also involved, as feeling relaxed in the presence of the phobic object serves as positive reinforcement, encouraging clients to face increasingly feared situations.

Question 12

how does it work?

Answer 12

Problem: The patient is terrified of spiders.

Solution: The patient learns to relax completely. Together with the therapist, they create a desensitization hierarchy, consisting of imagined scenes that gradually increase in anxiety. The patient visualizes each scene while practicing relaxation techniques. After mastering one step, they move on to the next. Ultimately, the patient overcomes their initial fear of spiders.

Question 13

systematic desensitization and
What did Joseph Wolpe do?

Answer 13

An individual may learn that their feared stimulus is not so fearful after all—if only they could re-experience the weird stimulus
However, this never happens because the anxiety the stimulus creates blocks any intent to re-experience it.
developed a technique in the 1950s where phobics were gradually introduced to a feared stimulus

Question 14

Counter conditioning?

Answer 14

The diagram illustrates the steps of systematic desensitization (SD). It starts with the patient learning relaxation techniques, aiming to create a new stimulus-response link that replaces fear with relaxation in response to a feared stimulus. This process, known as counterconditioning, teaches a new association that opposes the original one. Wolpe referred to this as “reciprocal inhibition,” where relaxation inhibits anxiety.

Question 15

desensitization hierarchy

Answer 15

The diagram illustrates the desensitization hierarchy, a series of gradual steps developed at the start of therapy, ranking feared stimuli from least to most fearful.

Forms of Systematic Desensitization (SD):

In Vivo Desensitization: Clients confront feared situations directly while learning to relax.
In Vitro (Covert) Desensitization: Clients imagine the feared stimulus instead of facing it.
Research, such as Menzies and Clarke (1993), indicates that in vivo techniques are generally more effective than covert techniques.

Additionally, exposure techniques may include modeling, where clients observe someone coping well with the feared stimulus (Comer, 2002). Self-administered SD, noted by Humphrey (1973), has also shown effectiveness, particularly for social phobia.

Question 16

Classical conditioning and counter conditioning
Pavlov’s theory of classical conditioning?

Answer 16

Pavlov’s theory of classical conditioning explains how previously neutral stimuli (e.g., snakes, supermarkets or even clocks) can provoke anxiety in some people because they have become associated with a different event that we naturally find distressing
A distressing event, for example, being bitten ( UCS), produces a natural fear response, UCR
NS, e.g., the presence of a dog, becomes associated with the UCS, and thus the NS also becomes also to produce the UCR.
They are now called the CS and the CR, respectively
There is a reverse side to classical conditioning , called counter conditioning
This involves reducing a conditioned response, such as anxiety, by establishing an incompatible response, relaxation to the same conditioned stimulus ( e.g, snake, supermarket or whatever)

Question 17

Barbara streisand?

Answer 17

American singer, actress and director Barbara Streisand developed a social phobia while giving a concert during which she forgot the words to several songs
For 27 years, she avoided any public engagement
During an interview in 2006 with Operah Winfrey, Barbara revealed that she had overcome her social phobia through the use of antianxiety drugs and by gradually exposing herself to more public performances, starting with a small warm-up show, then a national tour, and finally performing in front of a large television audience—a desensitisation hierarchy!

Question 18

Research support?

Answer 18

Systematic desensitization (SD) has been shown to be effective for learned problems, such as specific phobias. Capafons et al. (1998) found that clients with a fear of flying exhibited reduced physiological signs of fear and reported lower anxiety levels in a flight simulator after a 12- to 25-week treatment period using both in vitro (covert) and in vivo (actual exposure) techniques.

Question 19

Not appropiate for all phobias?

Answer 19

Research indicates that systematic desensitization (SD) may be ineffective for generalized fears, such as agoraphobia, and may not be suitable for “ancient fears.” Martin Seligman (1970) proposed that humans and animals are genetically predisposed to quickly associate fear with potentially life-threatening stimuli, known as ancient fears (e.g., snakes, heights, strangers). This concept of biological preparedness suggests it was adaptive for our ancestors to learn to avoid these dangers quickly, explaining why modern threats (like toasters and cars) are less likely to induce fear since they were not present in our evolutionary past.

Question 20

Research support for biological preparedness?

Answer 20

Seligman’s concept is supported by research, such as Bregman (1934), who found that infants aged 8 to 16 months did not develop a fear response when a loud bell was paired with wooden blocks. This suggests that fear responses may only be learned with living animals, highlighting a connection to ancient fears.

Question 21

Symptom substitution??

Answer 21

Behavioral therapies may be ineffective for certain phobias because they address only the symptoms, leaving underlying causes unaddressed, which can lead to symptom substitution. For example, Freud (1909) documented the case of little Hans, who developed a phobia of horses due to repressed envy of his father. His phobia was resolved only after he acknowledged these feelings. If the therapy had focused solely on the horse phobia, the root issue would have persisted and manifested in another form. Thus, while behavioral therapies may seem to resolve symptoms, they can inadvertently lead to the emergence of new issues.

Question 22

Evaluation: ethical issues?

Answer 22

Anxiety controlled
Systematic Desensitization (SD) is generally considered more ethical than other behavioral therapies like flooding, which expose clients quickly to their most feared phobia. In SD, exposure occurs gradually, allowing clients to progress at their own pace. This approach enables therapists to assess the client’s relaxation level at each stage and ensures that they only move up the hierarchy when the client feels completely comfortable, minimizing anxiety throughout the process.

Question 23

Able to provide valid consent?

Answer 23

Systematic Desensitization (SD) is primarily used for phobias rather than conditions like depression or schizophrenia, as clients remain in touch with reality and can understand the therapy process. This allows for valid consent, and clients attend sessions voluntarily, with the option to withdraw at any time. However, it’s important to note that the process can still induce stress, as clients confront anxiety-provoking situations or objects they’ve long avoided, making it difficult to completely avoid mild anxiety.

Question 24

Classic evidence: Watson and rainer

Answer 24

John B. Watson, known as the father of behaviorism, argued that psychologists should study only observable behavior for scientific measurement. He founded behaviorism and focused on classical conditioning, building on Pavlov’s work. Watson proposed that emotions like fear, rage, and love are learned through conditioning rather than innate, suggesting that our emotional responses are acquired through experience. His research aimed to demonstrate that emotions could be conditioned.

Question 25

Methodology?

Answer 25

The study involved a single participant,
a 9-month-old male infant known as “little Albert.”
It is not a case study, as it focused solely on his responses to conditioning rather than an in-depth analysis of his life.
While Watson and Rayner labeled it an experiment, it had only one condition to determine the effects of certain stimuli and is better described as a controlled observation, conducted in a dark room designed for developing photographs, with Albert placed on a mattress atop a table.

Question 26

Procedures?

Answer 26

responses were recorded with a motion picture camera

Question 27

Emotional tests?

Answer 27

To test Albert’s emotional responses, he was suddenly presented with various objects, including a white rat, rabbit, dog, monkey, and masks, among others ( masks with or without hair, cotton wool, butning newspapers ) not al at the same time
—each being his first encounter with them. He was also exposed to a loud sound created by striking a hammer against a suspended steel bar, over one meter long and 2 cm in diameter. One experimenter gained Albert’s attention while the other struck the bar behind his head.

Question 28

Session 1? establishing a conditioned response

Answer 28

When Albert was 11 months and 3 days old, he was brought back to the lab, where he reached for a white rat. At that moment, the bar was struck behind his head.

Question 29

Session 2: testing the conditioned emotional response?

Answer 29

A week later, at 11 months and 10 days old, Albert returned for testing.
He was shown the rat without any sound to assess the impact of his previous experience. Then, he was exposed 5 times to “joint stimulation,” where the rat was presented while the loud noise was made behind his head five times.

Question 30

Session 3: generalisation?

Answer 30

At 11 months and 15 days, Albert returned for testing to determine if his learned association between rats and noise generalized to other objects. He was presented with a rat, wooden blocks, a rabbit, a dog, a seal fur coat, cotton wool, and John Watson’s hair.

Question 31

Session 4: changing the environment

Answer 31

At 12 months and 21 days, Albert underwent final testing after several visits to the lab without emotional tests. He was presented with a Santa Claus mask, a fur coat, the rat, the rabbit, the dog, and the blocks.

Question 32

What is the findings, emotional tests?

Answer 32

Before conditioning, Albert showed no fear responses and was rarely seen upset by hospital staff and his mother. During the first trial of conditioning, after a loud noise was struck behind him, Albert startled, raised his arms, and exhibited signs of distress. With subsequent stimuli, his anxiety increased, culminating in a crying fit. This marked the first instance of fear or crying observed in a laboratory setting, as documented by Watson and Rayner (1920).

Question 33

Session 1? establishing a conditioned emotional response

Answer 33

Albert was tested again with a white rat. When the loud bar was struck, he jumped and buried his head on the table but did not cry. On the second strike, he fell forward again and whimpering slightly.

Question 34

Session 2: testing the conditioned emotional response

Answer 34

When retested a week later, Albert displayed a new response to the rat. He stared at it without reaching out initially but cautiously extended his hand when the rat was closer, then withdrew when it nuzzled him. His cautious behavior was confirmed when he played happily with blocks, indicating his overall emotional state was normal. However, after further pairings of the rat with the loud noise, Albert became increasingly distressed. When shown the rat again, he began to cry and crawled away quickly, requiring intervention to prevent him from falling off the table.

Question 35

Session 3: generalisation?

Answer 35

Albert played happily with blocks but exhibited immediate fear when shown the rat, indicating he retained his conditioned response. His reaction to the rabbit was similarly intense; he burst into tears and crawled away. Neither the dog nor the fur cat elicited as strong a reaction as the rabbit. He interacted with a package of cotton wool cautiously but showed less fear, and when playing with Watson’s hair, he displayed no fear response.

Question 36

Session 4: changing the environment

Answer 36

After being taken to a new environment, Albert’s responses to the rat, rabbit, and dog were less extreme. However, after additional exposure to the rat and loud noise, his conditioned fear response intensified. Even when his fear response was weaker, it remained noticeably different from his reaction to the building blocks, which he played with happily and without any signs of distress. This indicated that a distinct learned fear response persisted towards the furry objects

Question 37

Session 5: the effect of time?

Answer 37

Albert’s responses to the test objects (the furry items) were clearly different from his reactions to the control objects (the blocks). While his reactions were less extreme than before, he still avoided the furry objects, whimpered, and occasionally cried.

Question 38

Conclusions?

Answer 38

The study illustrated how easily a fear response can be established; just two joint stimulations in the first week were enough to create a conditioned emotional response, and seven were required for a complete reaction. It also showed that learned responses generalize to similar stimuli, as Albert maintained fear towards various furry objects throughout the study. Watson and Rayner suggested that many phobias may be acquired in this manner, although they believed that the persistence of such responses would likely be seen only in individuals they deemed “constitutionally inferior.”

Question 39

The freudian position?

Answer 39

In their 1920 study, Watson and Rayner critiqued Freudian explanations in psychology. They noted that Albert often sucked his thumb when scared, suggesting it might be a compensatory behavior to block fear rather than a pleasure-seeking action. They imagined a scenario where, as an adult, Albert might seek help from a Freudian therapist for a phobia of furry objects. The therapist might incorrectly attribute his fear to a repressed memory involving his mother, proposing that scolding for inappropriate behavior led to his phobia. Watson and Rayner argued instead that Albert’s fear could stem from conditioning related to his mother’s pubic hair, challenging the conventional Freudian interpretation.

Question 40

Evaluation: methodology and procedures?

Answer 40

Controlled study?
The Little Albert study was conducted under controlled conditions in a “lab” (darkroom) to minimize extraneous variables. Several controls were implemented:

Baseline condition: Albert’s behavior was observed before the experiment to ensure he wasn’t naturally fearful.
Control condition: During trials with building blocks, it was shown that Albert’s fear responses were specific to furry objects, not just general fear.
Filming: Albert’s behavior was recorded for verification and replication of findings.
These controls suggest that the fear responses observed were due to conditioning rather than other factors. However, the study’s conclusions are limited since it was based on just one case. Additionally, Watson and Rayner described Albert as a calm, even-tempered baby, implying that a more emotionally unstable child might have had a stronger or longer-lasting response. The lack of comparison to other children makes it difficult to generalize the findings.

Question 40

Evaluation alternative evidence
2 process theory?

Answer 40

The 2-process theory by Mowrer (1947) addresses a limitation of classical conditioning in explaining phobias. While Watson and Rayner showed that Albert’s fear weakened when he didn’t experience the rat and loud noise together, this suggests that classical conditioning alone cannot explain the persistence of phobias.

Mowrer’s model includes two stages:

Classical conditioning explains how phobias are acquired (e.g., Albert’s fear of the rat).
Operant conditioning explains how phobias are maintained. After acquiring fear, individuals avoid the phobic stimulus, which reduces anxiety and reinforces the avoidance behavior. This is an example of negative reinforcement, as escaping the feared object reduces discomfort, making the avoidance more likely to continue.

Question 41

Learning is not the only explanation?

Answer 41

Learning alone cannot fully explain phobias. Not all phobias are preceded by a traumatic event, and some people who experience trauma (e.g., being bitten by a dog) do not develop a phobia (DiNardo et al., 1988). This suggests other factors are involved.

One alternative explanation is biological preparedness, proposed by Martin Seligman (1970), which suggests that humans are genetically predisposed to rapidly associate certain stimuli (like snakes or heights) with fear. These “ancient fears” are thought to be adaptive, helping humans avoid dangers that were prevalent in our evolutionary past.

Question 42

Ethical issues and social implications?

Answer 42

The Watson and Rainer study is considered one of the most unethical in psychology for two main reasons:

It involved inducing fear in a young child.
The potential for long-lasting psychological harm.

Question 43

Creating fear?

Answer 43

Watson and Rainer were uncertain about the extent of fear they induced in Albert. Initially, they believed the harm would be minimal, but later they acknowledged that no further tests were conducted for a week to avoid disturbing him too much. This suggests awareness of the distress caused. They justified their actions by suggesting that the attachments Albert formed during the study were normal and would happen eventually when he left the controlled environment.

Question 44

More psychological harm?

Answer 44

In addition to inducing fear, Watson and Rainer escalated the psychological harm by preventing Albert from calming himself. When Albert began sucking his thumb in response to fear, which helped soothe him, they removed his thumb to ensure he experienced full distress. This decision was made to observe the complete effect of the fearful stimuli, prioritizing the study’s results over Albert’s comfort.

Question 45

Lasting effects?

Answer 45

Watson and Rainer planned to undo Albert’s conditioned fears, but he was unexpectedly removed from the hospital, preventing this. They acknowledged that Albert’s fear of furry objects could persist indefinitely unless accidentally reversed. The researchers should have anticipated this and informed Albert’s mother about the potential long-term effects, ensuring that “unconditioning” procedures were in place to prevent lasting harm.

Question 46

Watson and Rayner?

Answer 46

John B. Watson, a key figure in behaviorism, conducted the Little Albert study at 42. His graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, became his lover, leading to Watson’s resignation from the university. The couple married, had two sons, and co-authored Psychological Care of Infants and Children. As behaviorists, they believed in shaping children’s environment over parental affection, so their sons were raised without kisses or cuddles, focusing on promoting independence. After his academic career, Watson worked as an advertising executive, applying behaviorist principles to marketing.

Question 47

The real Albert B

Answer 47

Watson and Rayner described Little Albert as a healthy, unemotional child raised in a hospital environment. Researchers have since tried to identify Albert’s real identity. Hall Beck (2012) suggested Albert was a baby named Nerritt, who died young from hydrocephalus, potentially challenging the study’s validity. More recent research by Howell and Digdon (2014) identified Albert as William Albert Barger, who passed away in 2007. His niece reported that Barger had a lifelong fear of animals, possibly indicating that the conditioning had a lasting effect.