classic: WR 1920 Flashcards
aim
- to demonstrate how classical conditioning can explain how humans acquire phobias by creating a fear response in a young child.
procedure
- one participant: 9 month old called little Albert
- lab experimentAt 9 months, Albert was tested with a white rat, a rabbit, cotton wool and other stimuli to see if he had a fear reaction. He didn’t; this shows these were Neutral Stimuli (NS).
The researchers also checked his fear response by banging an iron bar. Albert cried at the loud noise; this shows the noise was an Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS) and the crying was an Unconditioned Response (UCR).
At 11 months, Albert was conditioned. He was shown the white rat three times. Each time the rat was paired with striking the iron bar. Albert started to whimper. A week later, Albert was conditioned again. The rat was presented 3 times, paired with the noise.
- at 31 days into the experiment, he was taken from the hospital by his mum
results
- in the post conditioning tests the following observations were made about Albert:
- after the first trial Albert showed some distress
- after the second trial he seemed suspicious of the rat
- after the third trial he leaned away from the rat and and when the rat was put next to him he started to cry.
- 7 weeks later Albert cried in response to a number of similar stimuli such as the fur collar of a coat and Santas beard.
what do results show?
- although initially Albert displayed no fear of any objects only the noise, he then learned to respond to the rat with fear due to pairing with noise.
- this fear response generalised to the other furry objects he encountered. alberts fear response to furry objects remained but became less extreme when he was in different enviro.
conclusion
- it is possible to produce a fear response (phobia) in a human using the process of CC.
generalisability
:) study of human infant so more generalisable than a study using dogs eg pavlov
CA- only one child who may not have been typical, whether he was a sick child or very well developed. this lacks generalisability because the individual studied may not be representative of the population. participant variables and lacks validity.
C- although there was one child tested, subsequent research shows human can be CC.
reliability
:) high as the use of standardised procedures allows for high control over all extraneous variables.
behaviours shown at every stage were also filmed, ensuring potential replication. means we can replicate.
CA= ethical issues- not possible to replicate
application
- acquisition of human behaviours. it has demonstrated that phobias can be learnt through the process of classical conditioning. therefore, if we can understand how phobias develop we can incorporate this into treatment of this form of behaviour through use of SD.
validity
:) the study has high internal validity due to the strict controls. eg Albert had no prior learning due to his age that could have influenced the fear response to rats. they also tested him before the conditioning took place to act as a baseline comparison so cause and effect was easily established.
:( lacks ecological validity, so the findings can not be generalised to other settings outside the lab situation as the method created an unnatural situation which may not reflect learning in every day life. this is because we wouldn’t normally learn to be phobic of an object in such a controlled environment.
ethics
:( there are ethical concerns with this study as Albert was conditioned to fear numerous small white stimuli. his mother removed him from the experiment before the researchers were able to remove his fear. this goes against the present day guideline of protection which govern psychological research. the psychological and psychical well being of Albert was neglected.
CA= however you could argue that the benefits to others through the development of therapy outweigh the costs to Albert.
