Classic Study Flashcards
Classic Study=
Watson + Rayner- Little Albert (1920)
A01- Aim
Aim-
1) To demonstrate that classic conditioning could be used to create a fear response in a child to innocuous stimulus (not usually expected to score children)
2) W+R hoped to show human behaviour could be accounted for through the process of classical conditioning
Classic Study=
Watson + Rayner- Little Albert (1920)
A01-Research and data collection method
Sampling method- Opportunity Sample
Research method- Repeated measures, Lab
IV- Stages of conditions, frequency and proximity of the loud bang
DV- Fear Response strength
Classic Study=
Watson + Rayner- Little Albert (1920)
A01-Sample, Procedure
Sample- Single Participant, male infant, aged 9 months at beginning of the study. Judged to be particularly emotionally stable,after being assessed on responses to multiple object including a white rat= no fear response
Procedure-
- Rat= Neutral Stimulus (no fear response) Before conditioning
- 2 months later= LA presented with a white rat, and reached out for it. Researchers stuck a 4 foot metal bar behind his ear, creating a loud bang and frightening LA
- Noise from bar= Unconditioned stimulus (elicited fear response from the start) During conditioning
- Repeated 5 x a week later
- Repeated 2 x more 17 days later
- LA’s response to the rat and noise, rat alone and other white fluffy objects was recorded (During conditioning)
Classic Study=
Watson + Rayner- Little Albert (1920)
A01- Procedure 2: Testing for generalisation
Generalisation:
- LA was tested using different stimuli to see if he had generalised his phobia to rabbits, a dog, cotton wool, hair and a Santa mask= other white fluffy things over 10 days
- LA was then taken to a new setting- to see if he would react the same to the rate, not just within the original environment which the phobia developed
- LA was removed from the study by his mother before he could be deconditioned as intended
Classic Study=
Watson + Rayner- Little Albert (1920)
A01- Results; procedure 1
Results
Rat+ Noise=
1st conditioning after loud noise- Jumped + fell forward
7th conditioning, rat presented- Jumped violently, stuck face into mattress
Rat alone=
Later presented with rat alone (2nd trial)- Whimpered + leaned away
Rat + noise twice more (3rd trial)- immediately cried + turned to crawl away from the rat
Classic Study=
Watson + Rayner- Little Albert (1920)
A01-Results: Procedure 2
Results-
7 weeks later- Presented with other white things over 10days
- Cried in response to variety of white things including fur coat ,Father Christmas beard, rabbit
-Dog= lesser reaction, crawled away
New location- Showed fear reaction to rat still by whimpering and crawling away
Classic Study=
Watson + Rayner- Little Albert (1920)
A01- Conclusion
Conclusion
-Demonstrates that it is possible to artificially induce emotional responses by classical conditioning
From this suggests phobias can be learnt from the environment
-They concluded that LA conditioned emotional reaction lasted longer than 1 month, but seems to decline with time= EXTINCTION. This was evident in the latter stages as LA started taking interest in the rabbit
-Fears can be generalised
-He was taken from hospital before conditions emotional response was removed (as intended), so don’t know how long effect lasted.
Classic Study=
Watson + Rayner- Little Albert (1920)
A03- Strength Experimental Validity
Experimental validity
-The study being a lab experiment followed strict controls of participant variables in this setting which meant no other factors could influence the conditioning. For example Albert had no prior learning due to his age which may have influence his fear response to rats. This allows for a cause and effect conclusions to be established confidently, increasing the experimental validity of the research into classical conditioning
Classic Study=
Watson + Rayner- Little Albert (1920)
A03- Strength Reliability
Reliability -
This study followed a standard procedure in the form of repeated measure, for instance a loud bang was created by the same metal bar, at the same distance away from Albert each time. This demonstrates how the study is high in test retest reliability as it is easily replicable to test for consistency in the results.
Competing argument- however, this is contradicted by the fact that in the many replications of Watson and Rayner’s study, no one has ever produced the same results
Classic Study=
Watson + Rayner- Little Albert (1920)
A03- Weakness Generalisability
The sample consisted of one participant- Albert, unique in the fact he was raised in the hospital environment from birth, demonstrating limitations in generalisability as this sample fails to reflect the wider population. Due to him being between 9 months and 2years at the time of the study and the single participant means conclusions made about classical conditioning would be difficult to apply to others in the population older than this. Furthermore, his upbringing very different to other infants as he had never been exposed to fear or rage from staff, Suggesting he may have responded differently to other young infants would’ve, making the findings completely unique to Albert.
Classic Study=
Watson + Rayner- Little Albert (1920)
A03- Weakness ethics
Ethics-
Albert was conditioned to feel fear in response to a white rat, which generalised onto other white objects such as a Santa mask. This distress could potentially have a lasting effect on his mental wellbeing and phobias later in life. The distress was prominent enough for LA mother to remove him from the study before it was completed and he was de-conditioned. This presents the violation of the BPS guidelines in protecting the participant from harm, showing a lack of respect for Alberts wellbeing, suggesting this study would be viewed today as unethical.
