Behaviourist approach - Little Albert study Flashcards
Aim of study
Test whether it could be shown that our emotions can be acquired through classical conditioning
Methodology
1 - what type of study it is and name
2 - where it was conducted
Little Albert (only participant)
1 - an investigation to determine the effects of certain stimuli –> study can be called a controlled observation
2 - Was conducted in controlled conditions in a well lit dark room
Procedures
what was the findings
Responses recorded with motion pictures camera
Before conditioning, to test Alberts emotional responses to certain objects he was confronted with a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, cotton wool, mask with and without hair, burning newspapers etc. but not all at the same time
tested with loud sound with hammer and steel bar
Findings –> Albert had no fear response
Session 1 –> How old was Albert and findings
Establishing a conditioned emotional response:
Albert was 11 months and 3 days, brought to the lab white rat presented, joint stimulation ( paired sound and object) occurred
Findings:
When bar was struck Albert jumped and fell forward burying his head on the table. 2nd time Albert fell forward again and whimpered a little
Session 2–> How old was Albert and findings
Testing the conditioned emotional response:
a week later, 11 months and 10 days. Albert was only shown rat, was exposed to joint stimulation ‘five times’
Findings:
Albert showed new response to the rat, he didn’t reach for it.
His cautious behaviour was tested by giving him wooden blocks to play with –> calm response
Cautious response only to rat, further joint stimulation caused Albert to become more and more distressed
When he was shown rat again he cried
Session 3 –> How old was Albert, findings and conclusion
Generalisation:
Albert was 11 months and 15 days, returned for further testing. Research question was whether the learned link between rat and noise would be applied to other objects, Albert on several occasions was presented with the rat, wooden blocks, a rabbit, a dog, seal fur coat, cotton wool and j.Watsons hair
Findings:
Albert had calm response to wooden blocks
Albert immediately responded with fear to rat, indicates he still retained his conditioned fear response
Response to rabbit was as extreme as the response to rat
Dog or coat –> no violent reaction
Cotton wool –> first he feared it it but became less cautious
Albert played with watson’s hair
Conclusion: Albert’s fear of rat generalised into rabbit
Session 4–> How old was Albert, findings and conclusion
Changing the environment:
Albert was 11 month and 20 days old when his conditioned emotional response was ‘freshened up’ using Joint stimulation. Albert was taken to new environment –> Large well lit room
Findings:
in new environment Albert’s responses to rat, rabbit and dog were less extreme. After ‘freshening up’ conditioned response was stronger. Even when fear response was weak, different to response to wooden blocks
Conclusion:
Learned response was to FURRY OBJECTS
Session 5–> How old was Albert and findings
Effect of time:
Last time Albert was tested was at 12 months 21 days old. Final test involved Santa Claus mask, a fur coat, rat, rabbit, dog and blocks.
Findings:
Reaction to furry objects not as extreme but he avoided the objects occasionally whimpered.
Conclusion
Demonstrates a fear response can be created
total of 9 joint stimulations
Demonstrates conditioned responses generalise to similar stimuli –>Albert had fear response to various furry objects.
Watson and Rayner suggested it’s probable this is how people gain phobias
persistence of early conditioned responses would only be found in persons who are ‘constitutionally inferior’ (Psychologically weaker)
Freudian position
Freudian explanations were favoured in 1920’s
Thought Albert sucking thumb was sexual stimulation but Watson and Rayner thought he was wrong it was to comfort Albert to block fear
20 yr old Albert seeks help from Freudian therapist for phobia of furry objects, they would have said as a young infant he was scolded for playing with mums pubic hair.
Freudian interpretation of unconscious and conscious mind, Watson and Rayner do not agree with it and think fear was conditioned through classical conditioning
Evaluation of procedure
+Controlled study, –> controlled conditions extraneous variables such as Alberts emotions could be controlled
Films used to record, findings could be confirmed by others
_The sample –> Only tested on one child due to them leaving the university to be in a relationship. No one to compare Albert to, difficult to know whether the responses were only unique to Albert
_ not all phobias are conditioned, many people have phobias that do not have any triggering events, possible the traumatic event is forgotten (OST 1987) Also people who experience traumatic events don’t always develop phobia therefore –> learning alone cannot explain all phobias or almost everyone will have a phobia
Martin Seligman (1970) - genetically programmed to fear things which may have been dangerous in our evolutionary past “Ancient fears”
Ethical issues and social implications
This study is one of the most unethical psychology studies for 2 main reasons:
1)Involved creating fear in young child –> related to psychological harm
2)Effects were potentially long term
_creating fear
Albert was experiencing distress greater than what he would in everyday life
_lasting effects
They intended to remove learned conditioned response but Albert was suddenly removed from the hospital. Watson and Rayner said response would continue to persist. The researchers should have anticipated this and put procedures in place to prevent this from happening, ensured unconditioning took place.
_The real Albert
Hall BECK(2012) –> Albert was Douglas Merritte died at a young age from water on the brain, if he was Albert baby would have had brain damage would mean Albert was less healthy Watson and Rayners study could be made less valid
Powell and Digdon(2014) Albert was William Albert Barger died in 2007 had a lifelong dislike to animals testified by his niece
