Past to Present - Behaviourist Approach Flashcards
Unit 1
Behaviourist Appproach
Learning from experience- aided by rewards/punishments/seeing others.
Assumption 1
Assumption 1: Blank Slate
When we are born our mind is like a tabula rasa’. We are not born equipped with the ability to think and emotions/feelings have no influence over our behaviour. We learn through our interactions with the environment and it determines our behaviour.
Stands firmly on the nuture side of nature-nuture debate.
Assumption 1: Psychological example
Bandura (1963) demonstrated that children learn aggression through environmental influences. He exposed children to both aggressive and non-aggressive role models. The children who observed aggressive role models imitated the aggressive behavior, acting similarly towards a doll. However, children who saw non-aggressive role models did not behave aggressively. This study shows that aggression can be learned through observation of role models in the environment.
Assumption 2
Assumption 2: Behaviour learnt through conditioning
Classical Conditioning:
Associating two things together to give the same response to both.
Assumption 2
Classical Conditioning
Pavlov Dogs
Before conditioning:
Food (US) ——- Salivation (UR)
During Conditioning:
Bell (NS) ——– Food (UR)
After Conditioning:
Bell + Food (CS) ——– Salivation (CR)
Assumption 2: Operant Conditioning
Assumption 2: Behaviour learnt through conditioning
Operant Conditioning:
Reinforcement refers to something that will increase the likelihood of a behaviour occuring again.
Assumption 2
Positive reinforcement
Strengthens behaviour
Assumption 2
Negative reinforcement
Strengthens behaviour BUT stops something unpleasant from happening.
Assumption 2
Punishment
Weakens behaviour and therefore decreases the chance that behaviour will happen again.
Psychological example: Skinners rats
Skinner demonstrated, using
a rat, the mechanisms of positive and negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement was shown when the rats pressed down on a lever to receive food as a reward, and subsequently learnt to repeat this action to increase their rewards. Negative reinforcement was shown
when the rat learnt to press down on the lever to avoid the unpleasant consequence of an electric shock.
Assumption 3
Assumption 3: Humans and animals learn in similar ways
The principles by which animals and humans learn are the same. As a result, findings from animal studies can be applied to predict and make generalisations about human behaviour.
Assumption 3: Psychological example
Lorenz’s research on goslings showed that geese imprint on the first moving object they see after hatching. This research clearly shows that the
findings from research can be
applied to explain human
relationships.
Behaviourist assumptions to relationships - Assumption 1
Mother-child relationship:
The child is born as a blank
slate and ‘learns’ how to form relationships from the first relationship the infant has
with their primary caregiver.
(2)
Behaviourist assumptions to relationships - Assumption 1
An infant’s first relationship serves as a template for future relationships, with secure, warm bonds leading to happy relationships, and insecure, rejecting ones leading to difficulties.
Behaviourist assumptions to relationships - Assumption 2
Byrne (1971) developed the Reinforcement-Affect model, which states we like people who are present when we are reinforced. They become associated with the positive reinforcement and are viewed positively.
(2)
Behaviourist assumptions to relationships - Assumption 2
People’s feelings about their romantic relationships depend on their perceptions of the rewards, costs, what they deserve, and the likelihood of finding a better partner.
Behaviourist assumptions to relationships - Assumption 3
Lorenz explored the concept of imprinting in his research on goslings. Lorenz found that geese follow
the first moving thing they see (a process known as imprinting). This research clearly shows that the
findings from research can be applied to explain human mother-child relationships.
The assumptions application to therapy
The behaviourist approach assumes all behaviour is learned, including phobias. Systematic desensitisation (SD) is based on classical conditioning, where a person unlearns fear by forming a new association between the phobic object and relaxation (counterconditioning). This follows reciprocal inhibition, meaning we can’t feel fear and relaxation at the same time. SD also uses operant conditioning, as successfully staying calm in feared situations is positively reinforced, encouraging the person to move up their fear hierarchy.
Systematic densitisation
Systematic desensitisation aims to gradually and systematically break down the faulty association (i.e. fear) and replace it with a more functional response (relaxation). This is known as counter-conditioning.
Reciprocal Inhibition
Reciprocal inhibition is when you can’t feel two emotions at once.
E.g. anxiety and relaxation can’t be felt at the same time.
In vivo densensitisation
Involves facing the fear in real life
In vitro desensitisation
This is done in the person’s imagination.
Main components of Systematic desensitisation (SD)
Step 1:
SD starts by teaching the client relaxation techniques, which they will use throughout the therapy.
Step 2:
The client, with help from the therapist, creates an anxiety hierarchy, starting from the least scary (like imagining a spider) to the most scary (like holding a spider).
Step 3:
In the final step, the client uses relaxation techniques to face each fear on their list, starting from the least scary to the most scary. They must stay calm and relaxed at each level before moving to the next one.
(1)
Effectiveness of SD
Shown to be successful for overcoming problems that have been learned – e.g.. Specific phobias
Evidence:
Capafons et al (1998) found that people afraid of flying felt less fear and showed fewer physical signs of fear after 12 to 15 weeks of therapy using both in vivo and in vitro techniques
(2)
Effectiveness of SD
Systematic desensitisation exposure therapies have shown success rates of around 75- 80% (McGrath et al 1990; Marks, 1990), but dropout rates are high.
(3)
Effectiveness of SD
Systematic desensitisation (SD) is not always effective especially for some phobias like heights. Research shows that these phobias may have evolved to help us survive, which makes them harder to treat using conditioning techniques.
(1)
Appropriateness of SD
SD can be considered an ethical therapy. Valid consent is obtained from the client before SD can begin. The client is able to withdraw from the therapy at any point during the process, and the
introduction of relaxation techniques means clients rarely feel distress.
(2)
Appropriateness of SD
SD is more ethical than many other therapies. SD increases the individuals feeling of control, and the role of the therapist is to guide and help the client.
(5 points)
Watson & Raynor’s methodology
- Done under controlled conditions
- Focused on a single participant named Little Albert.
- Not considered a case study because it doesn’t analyse his life in depth—just his emotional reactions.
- Not an experiment because there was only one condition and can be described as a controlled observation.
- Was an investigation to determine the effects of certain stimuli.
Main components of Watson, J.B. and Raynor, R. (1920) Conditioned emotional reactions
Stage 1 of the research involved establishing a conditioned emotional response
Stage 2 of the research which occurred five days later involved transferring a conditioned response to other stimuli
Stage 3 of the research which occurred one month later involved exploring the effect of time on conditioned emotional responses
Watson & Raynor’s Procedures
Stage 1:
Age: 11 months 3 days.
Presented with a white rat → no fear initially. Conditioning introduced: Pairing rat presentation with a loud noise (striking a steel bar behind Albert’s head). Age: 11 months 10 days → Presented with the rat alone to test fear response. Procedure repeated: Joint stimulation (rat + noise) done 5 times. Observations recorded.
Stage 2:
Age: 11 months 15 days.
Presented with a range of stimuli: white rat, wooden blocks (neutral), rabbit, dog, fur coat, cotton wool, and Watson’s hair. Albert responded to similar stimuli (e.g., furry objects).
Age: 11 months 20 days. Fear response ‘freshened’ using joint stimulation. Context change: Taken to a lecture hall to observe response consistency.
Stage 3:
Age: 12 months 21 days.
Presented with new stimuli (Santa Claus mask, fur coat) alongside previous ones (rat, rabbit, dog, blocks). Fear responses observed and recorded to assess the persistence of conditioning over time.
Watson and Rayner: Conditioned emotional reactions
Before conditioning:
White rat (NS) → No response
Loud noise (UCS) → Fear response (UCR)
During conditioning:
White rat + loud noise (NS+UCS) → Fear response (UCR)
After conditioning:
White rat (CR) → Fear response (CR)
Watson & Raynor’s findings
Stage 1:
Before conditioning: Albert showed no fear of objects but was startled by the loud noise (did not cry).
During conditioning: Repeated joint stimulation (rat + noise) caused distress. Key observation: When later shown the rat alone, Albert cried ‘and began to crawl away so rapidly he was caught with difficulty before reaching the edge of the table.’ (1920, page 314.) —evidence of a conditioned emotional response.
Stage 2:
Conditioned fear extended to similar stimuli (rabbit, dog, cotton wool).
Reactions: Crying, withdrawing, and avoiding these objects.
Different setting: In the lecture hall, fear responses were weaker but still present, showing some context independence.
Watson & Raynor’s conclusions
Many phobias likely come from conditioned emotional reactions, either directly or through transfer. These responses may persist in people who are less strong-willed. Emotional issues in adults aren’t just caused by sex, as Freudians suggest, but also by conditioned and transferred responses formed in early childhood, especially in the emotions of love, fear, and rage.
Evaluation of Watson and Raynor’s methodology
The Little Albert study was a controlled experiment conducted in a lab setting, allowing for extraneous variables to be controlled. Several controls were used to ensure reliability:
- A baseline test confirmed Albert was not naturally fearful.
- A control condition (building blocks) showed his fear was specific to furry objects.
- Films recorded the study, ensuring findings could be reviewed and verified.
These controls helped ensure that the observed effects were due to conditioning rather than other factors.
(2)
Evaluation of Watson and Raynor’s procedures
The study had a major limitation—it only involved one participant (Little Albert). The researchers originally planned to study more babies, but their dismissal from the university prevented this. Albert was described as calm and even-tempered, meaning an emotionally unstable baby might have shown stronger or longer-lasting fear. Without comparisons, it is unclear whether Albert’s reactions were unique or applicable to others.
Evaluation: Alternative evidence
A limitation of classical conditioning as an explanation for phobias is that it does not explain how they persist over time. Watson and Rayner noted that Albert’s fear weakened after a week when he was not exposed to the rat and loud noise together, suggesting that without reinforcement, the fear could fade.
(2)
Evaluation: Alternative evidence
Mowrer (1947) proposed the two-process theory to explain this. Classical conditioning causes the initial fear, but operant conditioning maintains it. When an individual avoids the phobic stimulus (e.g., Albert avoiding furry objects), their fear decreases, which acts as negative reinforcement—escaping the unpleasant situation strengthens the avoidance behavior. Additionally, the absence of anxiety due to avoidance is positively reinforcing, making the phobia more resistant to extinction.
(3)
Evaluation: Alternative evidence
Not all phobias come from a traumatic experience, and some people who do experience trauma, such as a dog bite, do not develop a phobia (Ost, 1987; Di Nardo et al., 1988). This suggests that learning alone cannot explain all phobias. An alternative explanation is biological preparedness, proposed by Seligman (1970), which suggests that humans are genetically programmed to fear certain stimuli, known as “ancient fears”, that were dangerous in our evolutionary past (e.g., snakes). This means we learn some fears more easily because they helped our ancestors survive.
Ethical issues and social implications of Watson and Raynor’s research
Created fear
Watson and Rayner were unsure if they caused excessive fear in Albert. They first said the study would do “little harm” but later avoided further tests to “not disturb the child too seriously.” This suggests they knew it was distressing. Ethical guidelines state participants shouldn’t face more distress than daily life. They justified their actions by saying Albert would face similar fears outside the nursery.
Ethical issues and social implications of Watson and Raynor’s research
More psychological harm
Watson and Rayner made the fear worse by stopping Albert from sucking his thumb, which calmed him down. They did this to ensure the conditioning worked and he showed a full fear response. This increased psychological harm as they deliberately removed his way of coping.
Ethical issues and social implications of Watson and Raynor’s research
Lasting effects
Watson and Rayner didn’t remove Albert’s learned fear responses because he was suddenly removed from the hospital. They believed the fear would persist indefinitely unless accidentally undone. They should have anticipated this and made sure unconditioning occurred, such as informing the mother about the long-term effects and ensuring procedures were in place.
Evaluating the behaviourist approach
Scientific Approach
(Strength)
The behaviourist approach is scientific, focusing on observable and measurable behaviour. It uses stimulus-response to explain feelings and thoughts. This method allows psychologists to quantify and compare behaviour, ensuring that conclusions are based on evidence rather than belief. This approach is especially useful for proving the effectiveness of treatments for mental disorders.
Evaluating the behaviourist approach
Focuses on the here and now (Strength)
The behaviourist approach focuses on current symptoms rather than past events or deep causes. Treatments like aversion therapy and systematic desensitisation aim to remove symptoms by creating new stimulus-response links (e.g., alcohol with nausea, fear with relaxation). It doesn’t try to understand why the behaviour developed, just aims to treat it. This direct approach works for many but may not be enough for all people or disorders.
Evaluating the behaviourist approach
Successful applications (Strength)
Behaviourist principles are widely applied in real life. Systematic desensitisation use classical conditioning to treat addictions and phobias. In education, operant conditioning shapes behaviour with positive reinforcement and punishment. Skinner designed a teaching machine that lets students learn at their own pace with immediate, positive feedback, reinforcing correct answers and offering further explanations for wrong ones. This improves learning by providing consistent, immediate rewards.
Evaluating the behaviourist approach
Emphasis on nurture (Weakness)
The behaviourist approach focuses solely on environmental influences, ignoring nature (genetic factors). It emphasises nurture, assuming behaviour is shaped entirely by learning. However, this overlooks internal factors like motivation, emotion, and innate abilities. If learning were the only factor, everyone could become a surgeon or rocket scientist, showing that behaviour is also influenced by genetics and other internal factors.
Evaluating the behaviourist approach
Determinist approach (Weakness)
Behaviourists believe behaviour is shaped by environmental stimuli (classical conditioning) or rewards/punishments (operant conditioning), meaning we are controlled by external factors. This determinism ignores thought processes before behaviour and suggests we don’t make choices, undermining free will. It implies that individuals have no personal responsibility for their actions. As a result, people may not be held accountable for wrongdoing and could be punished to change their behaviour, rather than taught to think responsibly.
Evaluating the behaviourist approach
More relevant to animals than humans (Weakness)
Behaviourism has its roots in experiments with animals, like Pavlov and Skinner’s research. For example, Wolpe (1958) created a phobia in cats using electric shocks and then treated it using systematic desensitisation (SD). However, human anxiety doesn’t always respond the same way. Wolpe (1973) treated a woman with a phobia of insects using SD, but it failed because her fear was related to marital issues, not conditioning. This shows that SD may not always address the underlying cause of phobias in humans.
