Classical study: Watson & Rayner (1920) Flashcards
APRC - Watson and Rayner: Little Albert
(Aim)
Aim:
- To investigate using principles of classical conditioning whether or not a human child could learn to be afraid of a previously NS, which initially caused no fear response.
- To investigate whether the new fear would be generalised to similar objects
APRC - Watson and Rayner: Little Albert
(Procedure)
Procedure:
- Although only carried out on one participant this is an example of a laboratory experiment.
Sample – a 9 month old male infant called ‘Albert B’ or little Albert chosen for his ‘unemotional’ character.
- The procedure involved 3 phases:
1. Pre-conditioning testing
2. conditioning trials
3. post conditioning tests
Pre-conditioning: Albert’s response to several stimuli was noted.
- The stimuli included: adog, a monkey, a white rat, a rabbit, burning paper a loud noise.
Conditioning trials:
- At 11 months old Albert is again presented with the white rat.
- Every time he reaches for the rat a loud noise was made.
- The loud noise was made by striking a hammer against a steel bar behind Albert’s head.
- This process was repeated many times over several weeks.
Post conditioning test:
- The effects of the conditioning was tested by showing Albert the rat on its own and monitoring his reaction.
- 17 days after conditioning test began, the researchers noticed stimulus generalisation – the same fear response when Watson presented Albert with a rabbit, a dog, a seal skin coat and a Santa Claus mask.
- Watson also relocated the investigation to a lecture room to observe the effects of surroundings on Albert’s responses – control for context effects.
APRC - Watson and Rayner: Little Albert
(Results)
The study confirmed that a phobia of an object that was not previously feared could be learned. If a neutral stimulus (in this case, the white rat) is associated with an unconditioned stimulus (the loud bang) which naturally triggers an unconditioned response (fear), successive introductions of the white rat together with a loud bang would lead to a stimulus association being formed. The presence of the rat (now a conditioned stimulus) resulted in fear (now the conditioned response). Stimulus generalisation was observed as Albert transferred his feared response to other animals and objects hat were broadly similar to the white rat. In this study, Albert’s fear response lasted for 31 days after the emotional tests were carried out, although the reaction became weaker towards the end. It was not possible to test Albert’s fear response over a longer period of time, as he left the hospital.
APRC - Watson and Rayner: Little Albert
(Conclusion)
Watson and Rayner concluded that an infant could be classically conditioned to develop a fear of a white rat. They also proposed that, since the fear reaction was present one month after the initial association, such conditioned emotional responses have the potential to last a life time. Objects similar to the feared stimulus can also elicit a feared response.
GRAVE - Watson and Rayner: Little Albert
(Generalisability)
A problem with the experiment is generalisability. It was carried out on a single child - Albert. Usually a sample of one would be considered very unrepresentative. Albert was deliberately selected for his unemotional character. Therefore, Little Albert may not be representative of individuals of the same age and gender and this could invalidate the findings.
G
Also, Fridlund et al (2012) suggested that Albert (Douglas Meritte) was not a healthy child. They claimed that he had suffered from hydrocephalus since birth. Albert died from hydrocephalus at 6, he was possibly sick even at one year old. If Fridlund et al’s claims are true, then this study raises serious ethical and moral questions about their approach. If Albert wasn’t really a normal and healthy child, then the results cannot be generalised to all children.
GRAVE - Watson and Rayner: Little Albert
(Reliability)
A strength of Watson’s study is that it is scientific, there was a degree of control in observing the stimulus-response link, such as:
• Little Albert’s fear was measured before the conditioning took place to act as a baseline comparison.
• The study was conducted in a separate room to eliminate the effect of context as an extraneous variable; otherwise researchers could not have been sure whether Little Albert was fearful of the white rat or just the room in which he was conditioned.
• Behaviours at every stage were recorded meticulously to ensure potential replication.
This suggests that the study is highly reliable and can be replicated.
GRAVE - Watson and Rayner: Little Albert
(Application)
The main application of this study has been for Learning Psychologists, who have built on Watson & Rayner’s research and investigated phobias in greater depth. This has led to techniques like Flooding and Systematic Desensitisation.
Flooding involves exposing someone to the feared stimuli, letting them experience panic, but then letting the panic reaction wear off. They learn from this experience that the stimulus is not really harmful.
Systematic Desensitisation is a more careful approach, in which the patient gets used to pictures of the feared thing, then photographs, then seeing it at a distance, then close up, before handling it.
GRAVE - Watson and Rayner: Little Albert
(Validity)
Watson’s research makes a notable contribution to the understanding of the acquisition of human behaviours through the principles of classical conditioning. It also highlights the importance of the role of the environment in the shaping of our behaviour. Furthermore, a strength of Watson and Rayner’s study lies in its scientific methodology. The researchers employed a degree of control in observing the stimulus-response link. For instance, they measured fear in Little Albert before the conditioning took place to act as a baseline comparison. They also conducted the study in another room to eliminate the effect of context as an extraneous variable; if they had not done this the researchers could not have been sure whether Little Albert was fearful of the white rat or just the room in which he was conditioned. Behaviours shown at every stage were copiously documented, ensuring potential replication. As a result of the methodology employed, the reliability of the study could be assured.
Many would criticise this study for a lack of ecological validity. This is because the location of study was largely a laboratory-like environment; in addition the tasks given to Little Albert were not necessarily those that would be expected to confront him in normal everyday life.
Although ethical guidelines as we know them today did not exist at the time of Watson and Rayner research, the study can still be criticised on ethical and moral grounds. It could be claimed that the psychological and the physical well-being of the Little Albert was neglected by the research because he was quite obviously distressed by the conditioning process and the researchers were unable to decondition his phobia. Fridlund et al. (2012) suggest that Albert was not as healthy as Watson described.
They claim that Albert had suffered hydrocephalus since birth (an accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid in the brain) and presented a convincing argument that Watson knew about the child’s condition.
If Fridund et al. are correct about Albert’s health, this casts serious doubt over Watson and Rayner’s findings and raises further ethical and moral questions about their approach.
A significant problem in generalising from the research is that the case study is of one individual child. One of the reasons why Watson and Rayner selected Little Albert as a research participant was for his unemotional character. Therefore, Little Albert may not be representative of individuals of the same age and gender and this could invalidate the findings.
Finally, the research could be criticised for cultural bias. Albert and the researchers themselves represent one culture (USA). This would have influenced their design of the study and their subsequent analysis of results. As a result there is a question over the generalisability of their findings to other cultures.
GRAVE - Watson and Rayner: Little Albert
(Ethics)
Ethical guidelines did not exist at the time of Watson and Rayner’s study, however, the study can be criticised on ethical and moral grounds. It could be claimed that the psychological and the physical wellbeing of Little Albert was neglected. He was distressed by the conditioning process and the researchers were unable to decondition his phobia.
EVALUATION - Watson and Rayner: Little Albert (Booklet)
- Watson’s research makes a notable contribution to the understanding of the acquisituisition of human behaviour through the principles of classical conditioning.
It also highlights the importance of the role of the environment in the shaping of our behaviour. Furthermore, a strength of Watson and Rovner’s study lies in its scientific methodology. The researchers employed a degree of control in observing the stimulus response link. For instance, they measured fear in Little Albert before the conditioning took place to act as a baseline comparison.
They also conducted the study in another room to eliminate the effect of context as an extraneous variable; If they had not done this the researchers could not have been sure whether Little Albert was fearful of the white rat or just the room in which he was conditioned. Behaviours shown at every stage were copiously documented, ensuring potential replication. As a result of the methodology employed, the reliability of the study could be assured. - Many would criticise this study for a lack of ecological validity. This is because the location of study was largely a laboratory-like environment; in addition the tasks given to Little Albert were not necessarily those that would be expected to confront him in normal everyday life.
- Although ethical guidelines as we know them today did not exist at the time of Watson and Rayner’s research, the study can still be criticised on ethical and moral grounds. It could be claimed that the psychological and the physical well-being of the Little Albert was neglected by the research because he was quite obviously distressed by the conditioning process and the researchers were unable to decondition his phobia. Fridiund et al. (2012) suggest that Albert was not as healthy as Watson described.
- They claim that Albert had suffered hydrocephalus since birth (an accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid in the brain) and presented a convincing argument that Watson knew about the child’s condition.
If Fridlund et al. are correct about Albert’s health, this casts serious doubt over Watson and Rayner’s findings and raises further ethical and moral questions about their approach. - A significant problem in generalising from the research is that the case study is of one individual child. One of the reasons why Watson and Rayner selected Little Albert as a research participant was for his unemotional character. Therefore, Little Albert may not be representative of individuals of the same age and gender and this could invalidate the findings.
- Finally, the research could be criticised for cultural bias. Albert and the researchers themselves represent one culture (USA). This would have influenced their design of the study and their subsequent analysis of results. As a result there is a question over the generalisability of their findings to other cultures.
