classic study - watson and rayner Flashcards
aim - P1, A01
Watson and Rayner’s aim was to demonstrate that simple emotional responses such as fear can be acquired through a process of classical conditioning
sample - P1, A01
one participant - little albert
one condition
* technically a pre experiment, not a true experiment
* not a case study because a case study involves a more complex study of many aspects of one individual
weakness, generalisability - P1, A03
one weakness of Watson and Rayner’s study is that it only used one participant who may have been unusual, although he was described as rarely being afraid or crying
All studies which only have one participant have problems of generalisability because the individual studied may not be representative of the wider population
in Albert’s case this is a particular problem because we are not certain of his identity so we have no way of knowing how representative a child he was
therefore, this means that the results might have been affected by participant variables so may not be able to be generalised to the wider population
dependant variable
fear response
independent variable
the pairing of a loud noise with the sight of a rat
procedure
- to test Albert’s baseline emotional responses to a range of objects, he was presented one at a time with a white rat, rabbit, dog, monkey, various masks, cotton wool and a set of wooden blocks - he showed no fear response to these objects
- albert’s response to a loud noise was tested by striking a hammer on a suspended steel bar - the conditioning then began 2 months later
- session 1 - when Albert was 11 months and 3 days old he was taken to a ‘lab’. a white rat was presented to him. when he reached towards the rat, the bar was struck loudly behind his head
- session 2 - a week later, albert returned. he was exposed five times to the paired sight of the rat and the loud noise behind his head. from this point he was tested with the blocks, to which he showed no fear - this is key to showing that he was not just getting more scared generally
- session 3 - a further five days later, albert returned and his responses to the rat and a range of other objects were assessed. the other objects included wooden blocks, a rabbit, a dog, a seal fur coat, cotton wool and Watson’s hair
- session 4 - five days later, Albert was taken to a new environment - a lecture room with 4 people present. he was placed on a table and assessed for responses to the various objects
- session 5 - albert was tested again one month later, when he was 12 months and 21 days old. the final tests involved a Santa Claus mask, fur coat, the rat, the rabbit, dog and the blocks
findings
at baseline testing, Albert displayed no fear of any of the objects but he did respond to the loud noise - he was startled and his lips trembled
this was the unconditioned response
in session 1, he reacted to the noise - cried
by session 2, he was more cautious towards the rat, not reaching out and pulling away when the rat nuzzled him
after further conditioning he began to cry and tried to rapidly crawl away
in session 3, Albert reacted to the white furry objects (the rat & rabbit), with the fear (cried - CR
he displayed mild fear towards the dog and none to the other objects
sessions 4 and 5 revealed that Albert’s fear reactions to white furry objects remained by became less extreme when he was in a different environment and after time
strength - good experimental controls
one strength of Watson and Rayner’s study is that the design of the study had some clever features that reduced the impact of extraneous variables and therefore enhanced the internal validity of the study
examples of the careful design include the fact that Little Albert was carefully selected for his emotional stability, making his individual characteristics less likely to affect the results
in addition the procedure took place in a well-controlled room to prevent the influence of other stimuli and also responses to wooden blocks were checked to ensure the reaction to the phobic objects was not simply a general increase un anxiety
therefore, this is important because the controls used in the experimental design make it more likely that changes in Albert’s behaviour were due to conditioning rather than extraneous variables
COUNTER ARGUMENT TO strength - good experimental controls
However, some aspects of the design were not well-controlled
for example, the rabbit was suddenly placed in front of Albert and a reluctant dog was pushed towards him
these actions might have triggered fear responses rather than the animals themselves
conclusion
Watson and Rayner concluded that it is relatively easy to condition an emotional response to a neutral stimulus
in this study it only took 2 sessions of pairing an unconditioned fear stimulus (the loud noise) and a neutral stimulus (the rat) were enough to produce a fear response (conditioned response) toward rats and similar objects - an example of stimulus generalisation
strength - application of findings
one strength of Watson and Rayner’s study is that it has clinical applications in helping understand how we can acquire phobias
as a result of studies of classical conditioning in humans, psychologists now have a good understanding of how phobias and related symptoms can be acquired
this has led to the development of effective therapies such as systematic desensitisation and flooding
therefore, this application of Watson and Rayner’s research demonstrates it’s significance in shaping clinical practice
weakness - ethical issues (issues and debates)
Watson and Rayner’s study raises ethical issues
there was a degree of distress involved when albert was deliberately alarmed by the loud noise, specifically made to be unpleasant, to condition an avoidance response
such an experience was beyond what you would normally expose a child to
therefore, there is a strong argument for saying that this study should not have been carried out for ethical reasons
