Learningš ā¢ Watson & Raynor's Study (1920) Flashcards
Who was the subject for the study (+ Details)?
Little Albert
* 9 month infant
* Male
* Mother was wet nurse in Hospital
* Albert was also nursed in Hospital
* Albert was not real name, he was given a pseudonym for confidentiality
What is a Phobia?
A result of conditioning. If an unpleasant emotion is paired with a stimulus, then the two become associated with each other through conditioning, consequently producing what is known as a Phobia
What is a common result of a Phobia?
The key behavioural characteristic of a phobia is Avoidance. If a person with a phobia is presented with the object or situation they fear, their immediate response is to avoid italongside fear it. For example, a person with arachnophobia will fear and avoid being near spider.
What was the Aim for the study?
To demonstrate that the principles of classical conditioning can be used to explain how humans aquire phobic behaviours + (also that classical conditioning will work on humans, to show that a fear response can be created within a young child to a stimulus which does not naturally produce this response)
What was the Procedure for the study?
Was a Single-case Laboratory Experiment; the prodcedure involved 3 phases:
What were the Results for the study?
What was the Conclusion for the study?
Watson & Raynor concluded that is is possible to produce a fear response (Phobia) in a human using the process of classical conditioning
What happened to Little Albert after the study?
- The researchers wanted to desensitize him to identify if a conditioned simulus could be removed, but at the start new there wouldnt be enough time
- Albert left the hospital the day the last test took place, no desensitizing ever took place - he left from his mother removing him, inferring she didnt know the full extent of what was bein done to her son (Ethical concerns for deception)
- Little Albert was a pseudonym for Douglas Merritte. The boy died 5 years later (1925) of hydrocephalus(Water on the brain) - Watson & Raynor deny this though as it infers they could have been responsible for damages & his death
- If the events of the study didnt actually impact Albert, then his death could indicate him already having psychological/ structural brain abnormalities & being a neurologically atypical child, therefore deeming the results incapable of being generalised to others
What is the Generalisability of the study?
- Case Ideographic - the study was based on one individual participant, meaning it cannot be generalised to others as it is not representative + Links to theories of him being neurologically atypical so increasingly further away from the standard + his was not reared in a normal environment, a hospital was where he spent the early stages of his upbringing
- LINK + Phlegmatic - Hospital staff say he had never been seen to show fear or rage/ emotion; researchers deemed him phlegmatic (unemotional/ stoic/ unfaltered) - Watson & Raynor siad this was good as it meant if he ever did show fear or emotion then he must be really scared - increasing validity of claims
Therefore Albert may have responded differently to conditioning than other young children may have, inferring the findings were unique to him + also done on a child with underdevoloped levels of cognition so results not representative of adults
What is the Reliability of the study?
- The study has high reliability as the use of standardised procedures allows for high control over extraneous variables, means study is easily replicable & results can be checked multiple times, meaning study = reliable
What is the Application of the study?
- Research is applicable to real life as it demonstrated that phobias can be learnt through the process of classical conditioning. This therefore can be extrapolated backwards in order to understand how phobias develop so treatments may be engineered to help people
- Treatments e.g. Systematic Desensitisation (exposure therapy/ counter-conditioning)
What is the Validity of the study?
- Lacks Ecological Validity - findings cannot be generalised to other settings outside of laboratory environment as the prodcedure used created an **unnatual situation which didnt reflect real world envirronments or learning in everyday life
- Had high Internal Valdiity - due to controlled environment in laboratory no extraneous variables influenced the results or conditioning process
What were the Ethics of the study?
EXPERIMENT WAS NOT ETHICAL
* As Albert was removed from the experiment by his mother before researchers were able to remove his conditioned response he was left with a generalised phobia of a fear of numerous white simuli - leaving albert with sustained PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM
* When they made the loud noise by striking an iron bar with a hammer behind Alberts head, it would have been very near to his ears. The intensity and close proximity of the noise onto Alberts Timpactic Membrane (Ear Drum) would have been extremely painful - inferring Albert had to endure PHYSICAL HARM
Both of these instances showcase how the experiment was not ethical as a participant should come out of the experiment in the exact same physical and psychological state that they entered it in (Which Albert did not for both) - inferring a violation of modern ethical restrictions for psychological experiments
- Albert left the hospital the day the last test occured (so no desensitizing ever took place) as his mother removed him, inferring she didnt know the full extent of what was being done to her son (Ethical concerns for DECEPTION)
Complete this diagram explaining the Conditioning Process in the specific case of Little Albert
What does it infer about Albertās Conditioning if he also has the same fear response to other white, furry stimuli?
That his conditioning has Generalised from just the original Conditioned Stimulus of the white rat to other similar stimuli e.g. fluffly collar of a coat
