Learning - Watson and Rayner et al. (1920)

Question 1

Aim of study

Answer 1

Aimed to demonstrate that simple emotional responses such as fear can be acquired through a process of classical conditioning

Question 2

Independent variable

Answer 2

The pairing of a loud noise (an unconditioned stimulus) with the sight of a rat (a neutral stimulus)

Question 3

Dependent variable

Answer 3

Fear response

Question 4

Sample

Answer 4

Little Albert - an 11 month old boy from America in the 1920s

Question 5

Pre-study measures (testing Albert’s baseline emotional responses)

Answer 5

Presented a range of different objects one at a time to him.
A white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, various masks, cotton wool and a set of wooden blocks.
Showed no fear response to any of these.
Showed a fear response to a loud noise through striking a hammer on a suspended steel bar

Question 6

Procedure - session 1

Answer 6

Albert was 11 months and 3 days old. Taken to a ‘lab’ (a well lit room)
White rat was presented to him, when he reached towards the rat, the bar struck loudly behind his head

Question 7

Procedure - session 2

Answer 7

A week after session 1
Exposed 5 times to the paired sight of the rat and the loud noise
Tested with the blocks to which he showed no fear
Key to showing that he wasn’t just getting more scared regularly

Question 8

Procedure - session 3

Answer 8

Five days later
Assessed Albert’s responses to the rat and a range of other objects (wooden blocks, a rabbit, a dog, a seal fur coat, cotton wool and John Watson’s hair)

Question 9

Procedure - session 4

Answer 9

5 days later
Albert taken to a new environment - a lecture room with 4 people present
He was placed on a table and assessed for responses to various objects

Question 10

Procedure - session 5

Answer 10

One month later (12 months and 21 days old)

Final test involved a Santa Claus mask, fur coat, the rat, the rabbit, the dog and the blocks

Question 11

Findings

Answer 11

Baseline testing: Albert showed no fear to any objects, responded to metal bar noise (startled and lips trembled) - the unconditioned response
Session 1: reacted to the noise (cried)
Session 2: more cautious towards the rat (not reaching out, pulling away when rat nuzzled him) after further conditioning, he began to cry and would crawl away
Session 3: reacted to white furry objects (rat and rabbit) with fear (crying - the conditioned response). Displayed mild fear towards the dog and none to other objects
Session 4 and 5: revealed that Albert’s reactions to white furry objects remained but less extreme when he wasn’t in a different environment and after time

Question 12

Conclusion

Answer 12

Easy to condition an emotional response to a neutral stimulus
In this study, two sessions pairing UCS and NS were enough to produce a CR towards rats and similar objects (stimulus generalisation)

Question 13

Low generalisability

Answer 13

Sample: only one 11 month old baby, this is not generalisable as it may be unique to only this case
Albert was deliberately selected for his normalcy (seemed fearless), his reactions are also typical of a baby

Question 14

High reliability

Answer 14

Everything was filmed, there is inter-rather reliability as experimenters or others could view it, analyse little Albert’s response and cross-check their findings
Procedures were generally quite standardised, all sessions were listed with what they did, this means that the study could be replicated for test-retest reliability

Question 15

Application

Answer 15

Flooding and systematic desensitisation: findings have been applied to research on phobias, which led to counterconditioning techniques to combat phobias
Understanding habits and reactions: if you have a fear or an irrational dislike it may be because of conditioning at an early age

Question 16

High validity

Answer 16

Careful controls: e.g. Watson hid behind a curtain when striking iron bar so Albert would associate the noise with the rat, not with him or the bar
Baseline testing: made sure that Albert didn’t have any pre-existing fear of white, furry things
This prevented possible extraneous variables from interfering with the findings
Construct validity: in line with what would be predicted by classical conditioning

Question 17

Low validity

Answer 17

Ecological validity: Albert was away from playroom and familiar nurses, put into a lab, might have made him nervous
(However, he didn’t seem nervous and he was with his mother the whole time)

Question 18

Ethical considerations

Answer 18

Albert’s mother gave consent and was present the whole time (valid presumptive consent)
Able to withdraw Albert from study and did so (but not for ethical reason, she had to move)

Question 19

Ethical issues

Answer 19

Unethical
Deliberately caused distress to an infant and continued even when he was upset.
Didn’t distinguish his fear reaction, possibly leaving him with long term phobias (ignores principle of reducing harm)
- however, Albert was chosen because he wasn’t easily frightened, this conditioning could completely wear off in time