LEARNING - STUDIES Flashcards
classic study: Watson and Rayner (1920)
AO1:
AIM: to demonstrate that CC could be used to create a fear response in a child to a UCS
IV: the striking of the hammer against the steel bar
DV: how scared Little Albert was (fear response - crying)
SAMPLE: Little Albert, 9 months old infant, “emotionally stable”
CONTROL OF EVs: expt carried out in a black room with no distractions, extremely controlled setting, fear response to various other items was checked beforehand
PROCEDURE:
->1) the expt was conducted in a lab with a male infant, using repeated measures design
->2) before conditioning, LA was considered “emotionally stable” and hardly cried. His fear response was tested for multiple items: a rabbit, cotton wool, a santa mask, a dog, etc. He showed no fear and wanted to play with the rat, so it became the NS
->3) they checked his fear response to loud noises by banging metal bars behind his ears, they did this 3x and he cries (showing a fear response, so it became the NS)
->4) the loud noise of the metal bars was the UCS and the rat was the NS
->5) 2 months later, they presented LA with a rat and struck the bars behind his head. They repeated this 7x
RESULTS:
->when presented with the rat after the 7th time of banging the bars, he cried, therefore showing fear and distress
->when presented with other fluffy white objects he also showed a fear response (generalisation)
CONCLUSION:
->it is possible to artificially induce emotional/fear responses through classical conditioning
AO3: EVALUATION
G->(weakness) low generalisability
–>they only used one 9 month old boy volunteered by his mother, who worked as a wet nurse at the hospital, he was considered “emotionally stable”
–>therefore, Little Albert may have responded differently to how the other children would, meaning the findings are unique to him
R->(strength) high reliability as it has a standardised procedure
–>LA’s fear responses were tested before the expt was conducted. The rat was the NS and the loud noise was the UCS. LA was presented with a white rat and the bar was struck behind his head and his fear response was recorded. This procedure was repeat 5x in one week and 2x 17 days later
–>therefore, results can be tested for consistency
A->(strength) treatment of phobias
–>the expt with LA showed a decrease in fear after being exposed to the CS for the time he was away from the expt
–>this shows that extinction of a phobia can occur when the CS is shown without the NS. Knowing this, we can help treat people’s phobias by showing the CS with positive responses
V->(strength) high internal validity as there’s high control of EVs
–>the researchers hid behind curtains during conditioning and they used wooden blocks in between pairings to calm him down
–>therefore, this means we can establish C&E that the conditioning caused the phobia and nothing else (no EVs)
E->(weakness) highly unethical
–>LA underwent extreme psychological harm as the researchers conditioned a new fear that he did not previously have. His mother removed him from the expt before they were able to decondition the fear
–>therefore, breaking current day psychological guidelines
contemporary study: capafons et al (1998)
AO1:
AIM: to test whether SD is effective as a therapeutic technique for treating fear of flying (aerophobia)
IV: treatment group vs no treatment group
DV: fear response through biometric measures (eg. heart rate, palm temp) and questionnaires
SAMPLE: 41 ppts, 20 assigned to treatment group, 21 in control group, volunteer sample from a media advert for the treatment of aerophobia
CONTROL OF EVs: fear responses checked before and after treatment, ppts were all tested in the same room and the temp of the room and the distance from the screen was standardised for all ppts
PROCEDURE:
->1) ppts were interviewed individually to complete the self-report measures (answering some questions to diagnose fear of flying->2 questionnaires measuring their fear->heart rate, palm temp, muscle tension measured when watching a video of a plane journey)
->2)treatment had 3 phases: 4 sessions of relaxation and imagination, 2 sessions of hierarchy work, and 3-5 sessions of SD
->3) ppts were tested with post-treatment measures after around 8 weeks of SD. These measures were taken after 2 flights (out & return) 7 days after treatment ended
RESULTS:
->no significant differences in fear during flight before treatment between control group (26.0) and treatment group (25.6)
->fear during flight reduced significantly after treatment = 13.3
->fear during flight for control group actually increased = 35.8
CONCLUSIONS:
->SD was a successful treatment for the fear of flying
AO3: EVALUATION
G->(weakness) low generalisability
–>small sample size of 41 people and the sample was ethnocentric as all ppts were Spanish
–>the sample isn’t big enough to know everyone else would react this way
R->(strength) high reliability due to SP
–>ppt fear levels were tested before and after treatment, ppts took 2 questionnaires and watched a video simulating a plane ride (12 SD sessions, 2x 1 hour sessions a week)
–>therefore, can be replicated to test results for reliability
A->(strength) the findings of this study are applicable for overcoming phobias
–>we can come to the conclusion that SD can be used to cure aerophobia
–>this benefits society and people who want to cure their phobias
V->(weakness) low internal validity
–>volunteer sample used
–>this may cause demand characteristics as ppts may act biased because they know the aims of the study
E->(weakness) unethical
–>the control group thought they were getting treated for their phobia and didn’t, so there was deception
–>therefore, breaching ethical guidelines
named study: CC: Pavlov (1927)
AO1:
AIM: to study how cerebral cortex works in making associations and to look for a mechanism linking reflexes to the cerebral cortex
IV: the ticking metronome
DV: how much saliva the dog produced (in drops)
CONTROL OF EVs: windows had extra thick glass and each room had double steel doors to block vibration, noise, temp changes, and odours
PROCEDURE:
->1) an experimenter observes a dog through a one way mirror and presents the dog with food and other conditioning stimuli with a remote control
->2) a tube carried the saliva from the dog’s mouth to a container where it was measured
->3) from an adjacent room they could present food - at first by sliding in a food bowl, later by blowing meat powder into the dog’s mouth at a precise moment
->4) in a series of expts, Pavlov used a variety of NS including a metronome, bell, and buzzer, as it does not produce a specific behavioural response in dogs
->5) the NS is paired with the UCS (food) to condition the new stimulus to produce the same response
->6) just before giving the dog food, he would strike the metronome (making the association between sound and food). After several pairings, the dog salivated to the sound of the metronome alone, in anticipation of the food
RESULTS:
->the dog started salivating after 9 secs of the metronome, and after 45 secs 11 drops had been collected
->after 20 or more pairings, the tone alone could cause salivation
CONCLUSION:
->Pavlov concluded it is “signalisation” in the brain that links the metronome to food and gives the reflex response of salivation
AO3: EVALUATION
G->(weakness) low generalisability
–>Pavlov tested only on dogs and not any other species
–>this means we cannot say that humans will react the same. Humans are more evolved than dogs, therefore the findings are not generalisable
R->(strength) high reliability due to SP
–>Pavlov presented the dog with food and sounded the metronome. A tube was connected to the dog to collect drops of saliva
–>therefore, can be replicated to test for reliability
A->(strength) Pavlov conditioned the dog to salivate to the sound of the metronome with or without food.
–>this is beneficial as it can help with addictions eg. drinking, by avoiding trigger factors such as bars
–>therefore, there is IRL application
V->(strength) high internal validity: high control of EVs
–>completely isolated room, steel doors, extra thick glass, blocks vibration/noise/temp change/odours
–>can establish c&e
E->(weakness) animal ethics guidelines breached (food deprivation and pain)
–>he starved his dogs for 3 days, and caused severe stress and anxiety to the dogs for his own benefit
–>therefore breaching animal ethics guidelines as stated by the HO, and cannot be tested for credibility
named study: SLT: Bandura (1961)
AO1:
AIM: to investigate if children could learn aggression via imitation
IV: if the child had a gentle or aggressive role model
DV: direct and indirect imitations of the aggressive role model
SAMPLE: 72 children, 36 male/36 female, between the ages of 3-5, 48 in experimental groups, 24 in control group (experimental group watched an aggressive or non-aggressive role model of the same or different gender)
CONTROL OF EVs: the children were pre-tested for how aggressive they were by observing their behaviour in the nursery and using 5-point rating scales. The groups were all matched to have similar levels of aggression
PROCEDURE:
->1) the children were taken one by one into a room with a role model who was taken to the opposite side of the room where there was a table, chair, toy mallet, and a 5 foot bobo doll. The experimenter leaves the room and the model begins to play with the toys for a minute, but then begins to act aggressively towards the bobo doll with verbal aggression “kick him” and physical aggression like throwing and punching (in the non-aggressive condition the role model continued playing nicely with the toys)
->2) after 10 mins the child was taken away and given wooden blocks to play with, which were then taken away so all children were equally frustrated
->3) the child was then taken to an experimental rom and given aggressive and non-aggressive toys. They had 20 minutes of free play observed through a one-way mirror
RESULTS:
->children w/ aggressive role models acted violently much more than w/ the non-aggressive role model
->same sex models lead to more likely to imitate
->boys showed more aggression than the girls (both w/ same sex models, boys mean agg score = 25.8, girls mean agg score = 5.5)
CONCLUSION:
->children exposed to aggressive role models will likely imitate the observed behaviour
->boys more likely to show aggression than girls
AO3: EVALUATION
G->(weakness) low generalisability due to narrow sample
–>the ppts were all American children aged 3-5. This age range is very narrow, meaning older children may react differently. It is also an ethnocentric sample as children from places other than America may not react in the same way
–>therefore, findings cannot be applied to the wider population
R->(strength) high reliability due to SP
–>room 1: aggressive role model in room with child, room 2: child plays with toys which then get taken away, room 3: child given aggressive and non-aggressive toys and were observed for 20 minutes through a one way mirror
–>therefore, we can replicate the study to test the findings for consistency
A->(strength) practical application IRL
–>as we have learned, children observe and imitate behaviour, so it is important for them to have appropriate role models
–>therefore, precautions were put into place like the watershed, meaning no violence or foul language is used before 9pm so that children do not view aggressive role models
V->(strength) high internal validity
–>high control of EVs; children pre-tested for aggression levels and matched pairs design to ensure the groups consisted of children w/ similar aggression levels
–>therefore, can establish cause & effect
E->(weakness) there are ethical concerns with this study
–>the children may have experienced psychological harm as they may have felt distressed by the aggressive role model. They were also potentially manipulated into performing the aggressive behaviour. They had no right to withdraw and were not debriefed afterwards
–>therefore, making the study unethical
named study: SLT: Bandura (1965, 1967 variations)
