Classic study: Watson and Rayner 1920 [little albert]

Question 1

Classic study: Watson and Rayner 1920 [little albert]

Aim

Answer 1

to find out if a fear response can be conditioned into a 9 month old baby with a rat

To see if the fear response will be generalized to other animals and objects

How long this conditioning lasts

Question 2

Classic study: Watson and Rayner 1920 [little albert]

• generalisability case study + 1 year old

Answer 2

Study had low generalizability due to their only being one participants in the oppitunity sample the 9 month-1 yr old “little Albert” chosen for his unemotionalness and overal stability

Due to it being on a singular participant and his extremely low age the results that a humans can be conditioned cannot be generalised to any human, of any other age group, or even other babys of other emotional states aswell as any other individual differences found in Little Albert

or the whole population due to possible participant effects and indivisual difference

Question 3

Classic study: Watson and Rayner 1920 [little albert]

+ test retest reliability

Answer 3

The study has high test retest reliability due to having a standardized procedure of little Albert being presented with a stimulus (e.g the white rat, to show he wasn’t previously affraid)

then this happened again 2 months later as he then had a four foot metal bar banged behind his ear (unconditioned stimulus) whenever he approached the neutral stimulus
thus creating a fear response (unconditioned response)
the NS was then associated with the UCR due to it being pared with the UCS
so the NS becomes a conditioned stimulus and the UCR becomes a conditioned response

this was repeated 5 times in one week then 2 times 17 days later (total of 7) and repeated a week later without the bar to see if the conditioning had worked

wooden blocks were given to calm him down but was always removed when conditioning was taking place

Due to the standardised procedure it is very easy to recreate this study and therefore has high test retest reliability

Question 4

Classic study: Watson and Rayner 1920 [little albert]

-ethics (distress + left untreated)

Answer 4

This study has low ethics due to the physical distress (banging poles behind his ears to make him scared) and mental harm ( after the age of one year old his mother withdrew him from the experiment before the conditioning could be treated and reversed therefore leaving lasting psychological damage to little Albert) given to the baby showing a lack of protection from halm (breaching BPS guidlines) making the study very unethical

Question 5

Classic study: Watson and Rayner 1920 [little albert]

+ Ecological Validity

Answer 5

During one trial a dog was presented which unexpectedly barked in Albert’s face 3 times resulting in a fear response with crying until it was removed, This is very likley to happen in real life as barking dogs oftern make babys cry, therefore the results of the study that a baby can be conditioned to fear a neutral stimuli (e.g. the white rat originaly used or this dog) is generalisable to real life giving it high ecological validity

Question 6

Classic study: Watson and Rayner 1920 [little albert]

conclusion + aplication

Answer 6

In conclusion the study showed that a fear response could be conditioned into a 9 month old baby boy (little albert) and that this response was generalised to simular stimuli (originaly a white rat but also white rabbits and a fur coat (to all of which he cried))
and conditioning was constant in different enviroments (in a lecture theater which was different to the original dark room)
This response eventualy declined with time (extinction)

Application: This Extinction can be used to treat phobias by just leaving them for a long period of time untill the phobia has become fully extinct and has disapeered

Question 7

Classic study: Watson and Rayner 1920 [little albert]

evaluate order

Answer 7

Aim (condition fear to 9 month old baby boy)

-generalisability (one baby)
+reliability (classical conditioning procedure without bar- (2 months) -with bar x 7 - (1 week) - then without again till 1 yr old
-ethics (psycho halm no decondition)
+eco validity (dog bark cry)
conclusion (prooved aim + continued in different enviroments and generalised to simular stimuli)
aplication (extinction treatment)