Topic 4 Learning Theories - Classical & Contemporary Studies Flashcards
Whats the classic study for topic 4 learning theories?
Watson & Rayner (1920)
What’s the aim for Watson & Rayner (1920)?
To see if they could condition a phobic response to a white rat in an infant using principles of classical conditioning (neutral stimulus)
What’s the procedure for Watson & Rayner (1920)?
- Selected one child -> Albert -> 9 month old infant
- At 9 months, Albert was tested with a white rat, a rabbit, cotton wool and other stimuli to see if he had a fear reaction. He didn’t; this shows these were Neutral Stimuli (NS).
- Researchers checked his fear response by banging an iron bar. Albert cried at the loud noise; this shows the noise was an Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS) and the crying was an Unconditioned Response (UCR).
- 11 months, Albert was conditioned. He was shown the white rat three times. Each time the rat was paired with striking the iron bar. Albert started to whimper. A week later, Albert was conditioned again. The rat was presented 3 times, paired with the noise.
What are the findings for Watson & Rayner (1920)?
When the rat was later presented alone, Albert whimpered. The rat was paired with the noise again 2 more times. When the rat was presented alone another time, Albert cried.
This suggests that the NS is now a Conditioned Stimulus (CS) and Albert’s crying is a Conditioned Response (CR) (after conditioning).
Next 10 days: tested Albert’s reaction to rat & other white furry animals/objects (rabbit, santa mask, dog) -> rat, rabbit & santa mask: whimpering, crawling away, lesser reaction to dog (shows generalisation of response)
Tested a month later -> same reactions but less weaker
What are the strengths for Watson & Rayner study?
Scientific Methodology: Standardised procedures - replication Behaviours shown at every stage were documented, ensuring potential replication -> reliability & (measured fear in Albert before conditioning took place to act as a comparison)
Conducted study in another room to eliminate extraneous variables of setting -> if researchers didn’t do this, could not have been sure whether Albert was fearful of the white rat or just the room he was conditioned in
Application -> other learning psychologists built on Watson & Raynors research -> leading to flooding & systematic desensitisation
Validity -> careful controls -> Watson hid behind a curtain when striking iron bar so Albert would associate noise with rat not with him
What are the weaknesses for Watson & Rayner study?
Lacks Ecological Validity -> lab like env & not natural tasks (tasks confronted with not everyday life)
Unethical -> Psychological & Physical well being of Albert neglected because he was distressed -> researchers unable to treat his white rat phobia as Mother moved away with Albert -> experiment ended
Generalisability -> Cultural bias (American) -> influence their design of the study & analysis of results
What’s a Contemporary Study for Topic 4 Learning Theories?
Becker et al (2002)
What’s the aim for Becker et al?
Investigate the effect of prolonged exposure of television on attitudes to eating & eating behaviours in Fijian adolescent girls
What’s the procedure for Becker et al?
Natural exp -> researchers not manipulating or causing anything -> not taking advantage of smth that’s happening anyways
- prospective multi-wave cross sectional design -> used several different measures of the study
1st sample: (all around age 17)
- 63 girls before the introduction of tv in 1995
2nd sample:
- 65 girls 3 years (after tv) in 1998
- girls completed EAT questionnaire
- girls also received semi-structured interview
- girls asked questions on their height & weight & tv in their homes
What’s the results for Becker et al?
- Tv viewing increased - 41% in 1995 to 71% in 1998
- EAT score increased - 12.7% in 1995 to 29.2% in 1998
- self induced vomiting as a means of weight control increased from 0% in 1995 to 11.3% in 1998
What are the strengths for Becker et al?
High Ecological Validity -> natural occurring event (wasn’t controlled by researchers) -> impact can be assessed in wider context of conflicting cultural values
Generalisability -> two sample groups -> good size research sample
Reliability -> Standardised procedure - carefully documented -> interviews tape recorded & transcribed -> other researchers can read over what the girls said -> inter-rater reliability
What are the weaknesses for Becker et al?
Sample:
- not representative of the whole Fijian population -> 2 samples 63 & 65
- Even though both samples closely matched -> not directly comparable -> possibility of cohort effect due to different times
Issue of self-inducing vomiting is a western phenomenon -> Fijian history & cultural background not taken into account -> Fijian culture might not associate it with dissatisfaction
Ethics:
Becker & researchers not specialists in eating disorders & not competent to diagnosing anorexia -> unethical to give them a medical problem when they may have had some unhealthy diet habits
