[E,M&S.I] Classic Research: Watson & Reyner [Little Albert] Flashcards
Name all 3 ethical implications of W&R’s research.
Lack of protection from harm
Lack of informed consent
Lack of a right to withdraw
Name all social implications of W&R’s research
- Treatment of fears
- Education
Describe the first ethical implication of W&R’s research.
- Lack of protection from harm
- Albert left with a fear of furry animals that wasn’t there originally/experienced distress.
- Didn’t leave the same as he arrived/experienced more harm than normal life.
Describe the second ethical implication of W&R’s research.
- Lack of informed consent
- Mother consented, unsure if she was fully informed as Albert was removed before reconditioning.
- Albert wasn’t counter conditioned/mother didn’t know everything.
Describe the third ethical implication of W&R’s research.
- Lack of right to withdraw
- Albert repeatedly tried to crawl away but still had to continue/mother withdrew him instead [her right]
- Despite distress, he had to continue until his mother removed him.
Describe the first social implication of W&R’s research.
- Practical applications in the treatment of fears
- Knowledge of how phobias are created, development of an appropriate therapy to recondition. Helps ppl who have learnt fear from environment
- Rothbaum used S.D for a flying phobia, 93% took test flight.
Describe the second social implication of W&R’s research.
- Positive effects in education
- Le Francois [2000] maximise pleasant stimuli and minimise unpleasant stimuli in classrooms so students have more positive associations with their learning.
- Suggests classical conditioning can be used by teachers and improve academic performance.
Name all the methodology points in W&R’s research.
- Internal validity
- Lacks ecological validity
- Population validity
- Inter rater reliability
- Internal reliability
Evaluate the methodology of W&R’s research: Internal Validity
- 9 months: carried out whether Albert was scared of eg rabbit/rat
- Didn’t show fear
- Means that w and r were certain that had created a real fear response
- Means it was accurate.
Evaluate the methodology of W&R’s research: Lack of ecological validity
- Carried out in a lab in a hospital: small dark room with no natural light
- Metal bar noise not natural either
- Environment was not reflective of everyday life where children learn fears.
Evaluate the methodology of W&R’s research: Population validity
- L.A remarked as ‘stable’ and ‘phlegmatic’ (meaning ‘indifferent’)
- Healthy child
- Therefore he is likely to be representative, the way he learnt fear is likely how others will too.
Evaluate the methodology of W&R’s research: Inter rater reliability
- Always one or more researcher recording Albert’s behaviour
- W&R acting as a ‘check’for each other’s recordings
- Means it’s consistent as it isn’t one person recording everything.
[LEAST UNDERSTOOD] Evaluate the methodology of W&R’s research: Internal reliability
- Procedures were all standardised and written down [same rat, same noise, etc]
- Recordings are consistent, research can be repeated if needed to prove its reliability as the procedures and instructions were kept the same.
