Classic study: Watson and Rayner (1920)

Question 1

Evaluate Watson and Rayner

3

Answer 1

> Extraneous variables, ^int reliability. Albert selected for his emotional stability, individual characteristics >likely affect results. In well controlled room (prevent influence of other stimuli)

Only 1 ppt, described as being rarely afraid. All n = 1 studies = >generalisability as individual not representative of population, especially in Albert’s case (identity hidden). Ppt variables.

As a result of CC studies, psycho’s have good understanding of how phobias and related symptoms (anxiety) can be acquired = effective therapies

Question 2

What was Watson and Rayner’s aim?

1

Answer 2

• Show simple emotional responses (fear) can be acquired through CC

Question 3

What was Watson and Rayner’s procedure?

6

Answer 3

• Albert showed no fear response to any tested objects (baseline)
• Session 1: White rat shown to Albert, when he reached toward it, bar struck loudly behind his head
• Session 2: Exposed 5x to paired sight of rat/loud noise behind head. Then tested w blocks, showed no fear
• Session 3: Albert’s responses to rat and range of other objects assessed e.g. cotton wool, rabbit
• Session 4: Taken to new environment (lecture room), assessed again his responses
• Session 5: When 12 months old tested again, final test involved Santa Claus mask, fur coat, rat…

Question 4

What did Watson and Rayner find?

4

Answer 4

• S1 cried to loud noise
• S2 more cautious to rat, not reaching out for it
• S3 Albert reacted to white furry objects (rat, rabbit) with fear (cried - CR) didn’t to other objects
• S4/5 Albert’s fear to white furry objects remained but became >extreme when in different environment

Question 5

What did Watson and Rayner conclude?

1

Answer 5

• Pair UCS (loud noise) with NS (rat) = fear response (CR) to rat and similar objects (stimulus generalisation)