Watson and Rayner

Question 1

What is the methodology?

Answer 1

One participant.
Male infant.
Not a case study.
The focus was only on Little Albert’s response to conditioning.
(A case study would’ve involved a more in-depth analysis of the individual and aspects of his life.)
Watson classed it as an experiment, but it lacks the control we associate with experiments today.
The study could be considered as a controlled observation.
It was filmed on a motion picture camera.

Question 2

What are the locations of the study?

Answer 2

In a well-lit dark room where Albert was placed on a mattress on top of a table.
The other environment was a table in the middle of a larger well-lit lecture theatre.

Question 3

What did the emotional tests consist of?

Answer 3

Albert was confronted with:
A white rat.
A rabbit.
A dog.
A monkey.
Masks with and without hair.
Cotton wool.
Burning newspapers.
Albert was then tested with a loud sound.
This sound was made by striking a hammer upon a suspended steel bar.
One experimenter got Albert’s attention while the other used the hammer to strike the bar behind Albert’s head.

Question 4

What were the findings of the emotional tests?

Answer 4

Albert showed no fear response to the objects before conditioning.
Hospital attendants and Albert’s mother reported they had never seen him in a state of fear or rage.
He also rarely cried.

Question 5

What was the name of session 1?

Answer 5

Establishing a conditioned emotional response.

Question 6

How old was Albert during session 1?

Answer 6

11 months and 3 days.

Question 7

What did session 1 consist of?

Answer 7

A white rat was presented to him.
Albert then started to reach for it.
At that moment, the bar was struck just behind his head.

Question 8

What were the findings from session 1?

Answer 8

When the bar was struck, he jumped and fell forward, burying his head on the table where he sat, but didn’t cry.
When the bar was struck a second time he fell forward again, this time whimpering a little.

Question 9

What was the name of session 2?

Answer 9

Testing the conditioned emotional response.

Question 10

How old was Albert during session 2?

Answer 10

11 months and 10 days.

Question 11

What did session 2 consist of?

Answer 11

Albert was shown the rat with no sound.
This was to see if the previous experience affected his behaviour with the rat.
Albert was then exposed 5 times to the “joint stimulation”.
(He was shown the rat, and the loud noise was made behind his head at the same time)

Question 12

What were the findings from session 2?

Answer 12

Albert didn’t reach for the rat, he just stared at it. When the rat was placed nearer, he reached out carefully towards it but withdrew his hand when the rat started to nuzzle his hand.

Question 13

What was the name of session 3?

Answer 13

Generalisation.

Question 14

How old was Albert during session 3?

Answer 14

11 months and 15 days.

Question 15

What was the research question during session 3?

Answer 15

Would the learned link between rat and noise be generalised to other objects?

Question 16

What did session 3 consist of?

Answer 16

Albert was presented with: The rat.
Wooden blocks.
A rabbit.
A dog.
A seal fur coat.
Cotton wool.
John Watson’s hair.

Question 17

What were the findings from session 3?

Answer 17

Albert played happily with the blocks.
When he was shown the rat, he immediately response with fear, indicating that he retained his conditioned emotional response to the rat.
His response to the rabbit was as extreme as to the rat.
He burst into tears and crawled away.
Neither the dog nor fur coat produced as violent a reaction as the rabbit.
Albert played with Watson’s hair, showing no fear response.

Question 18

What was the name of session 4?

Answer 18

Changing the environment.

Question 19

How old was Albert during session 4?

Answer 19

11 months and 20 days/

Question 20

What did session 4 consist of?

Answer 20

Conditioned emotional response was “freshened-up” using some “joint stimulation”.
He was taken to a new environment.
It was a large well-lit lecture theatre room with 4 people present.
He was placed on a table in the centre of the room.

Question 21

What were the findings from session 4?

Answer 21

Albert response to the rat, rabbit and dog were less extreme since being taken to the new environment.
After further “freshening-up” the conditioned fear response was stronger.
Even when the fear response was weak it was noticeably different from his reaction to the building blocks.
He always played with them happily and never whimpered.
This shows a distinct learned response.

Question 22

What was the name of session 5?

Answer 22

The effect of time.

Question 23

How old was Albert during session 5?

Answer 23

12 months and 21 days.

Question 24

What did session 5 consist of?

Answer 24

Albert was presented with: A Santa Claus mask.
A fur coat.
The rat.
The rabbit.
The dog.
The blocks.

Question 25

What were the findings from session 5?

Answer 25

Albert responded to the test objects in a clearly different way than to the control objects.
(The blocks)
His reaction to the furry objects wasn’t as extreme as previously but he clearly avoided and whimpered. On occasions he cried.

Question 26

What are the conclusions?

Answer 26

This study demonstrated that a fear response can be created.
Two “joint stimulations” in the first week were sufficient to create the conditioned emotional response.
Just seven “joint stimulations” were given to bring about the complete reaction.
This study also demonstrated that such conditioned responses generalise to similar stimuli.
Albert maintained a fearful response to many different furry objects over the time he was studied.
Watson and Rayner suggested that “it’s probable” that many phobias are acquired in this way.

Question 27

What is the controlled study evaluation point?

Answer 27

Carefully devised and run under controlled conditions.
The study was conducted in a “lab” of sorts (the dark room) where extraneous variables could be controlled.
All of these controls enable us to conclude that the observed effects were due to the conditioning rather than other sources.

Question 28

What is the “other controls in place” evaluation point?

Answer 28

There was a baseline condition where his pre-manipulation behaviour was established to show that he wasn’t a fearful child.
During the trials there was a control condition (the building blocks) which showed that Albert’s fearful responses were exclusively to furry objects.
Films were used to record Albert’s behaviour so that the findings can be confirmed by others.

Question 29

What is the sample evaluation point?

Answer 29

It was the researchers’ intention to eventually study more than one participant.
However, their dismissal from the University meant they couldn’t do this.
Therefore, any conclusions must be drawn from this one case.
Watson and Rayner describe Albert as “an extremely phlegmatic type”.
(Calm and even-tempered)
They suggest that, had he been emotionally unstable, he might’ve responded with even greater fear and the conditioned response might’ve persisted even longer.
Without any comparisons it’s difficult to know whether the observed responses are unique to this individual or not.

Question 30

How does Watson and Rayner’s study link to the Freudian position?

Answer 30

They noted that Albert often started sucking his thumb when scared.
(This was possibly a form of sexual stimulation)
Watson and Rayner therefore suggested that Freud may’ve been wrong in presuming that such stimulation is pleasure seeking.
Instead, it may be a form of compensation to block fear.

Question 31

What is the creating fear evaluation point?

Answer 31

Watson and Rayner were unsure whether they had created excessive fear in Albert.
Early in their article they say:
“We felt that we could do him relatively little harm in the studies.
Later they say:
“In order not to disturb the child too seriously no further tests were given for one week.”
Watson and Rayner comforted themselves by saying:
“Such attachments would arise anyway as soon as the child left the sheltered environment of the nursery for the rough and tumble of the home.”
They felt what Albert experienced in their study was fairly normal – but life in the hospital protected him.

Question 32

What is the psychological harm evaluation point?

Answer 32

They noted that one of Albert’s responses, when frightened, was to start sucking his thumb.
This had the effect of calming Albert down – but it also meant that it reduced the effect of the loud noise on conditioning Albert.
Therefore, in order to observe the full effects of the fearful stimuli, they removed his thumb from his mouth so the conditioned response could be obtained.

Question 33

What is the “lasting effects” evaluation point?

Answer 33

Watson and Rayner did intend to remove Albert’s learned conditioned responses.
However, Albert was suddenly removed from the hospital so this couldn’t be done.
Watson and Rayner believed that the responses they created would be likely to persist indefinitely in the home environment, unless an accidental method for removing them was hit upon.
They should’ve anticipated this issue at the beginning of the study and ensured that procedures were put in place to prevent the situation happening.
The child’s mother should’ve been fully informed of the procedures and the anticipated long-term consequences.

Question 34

What is the two-process theory?

Answer 34

One of the criticisms of classical conditioning as an explanation for phobias is that it can’t explain how they persist.
Watson and Rayner talk about “freshening-up” Albert’s conditioned response after a week.
(When Albert didn’t experience the rat and loud noise together the conditioned response lessened)
If classical conditioning had been involved it must disappear over time.

Question 35

How did O.H. Mowrer (1947) explain why conditioned responses don’t disappear?

Answer 35

In his two-process model the first stage is classical conditioning and the second stage operant conditioning occurs. Classical conditioning explains how phobias are acquired, and operant conditioning explains how they’re maintained.
Once a fear is learned an individual will avoid the situation producing the fear.
The avoidance of the phobic stimulus reduces fear is therefore reinforcing.
This is an example of negative reinforcement. The fact that no anxiety is experienced from this avoidance behaviour is positively reinforcing.
This reinforcement maintains the avoidance response.

Question 36

What did Ost (1987) suggest?

Answer 36

Not all phobias are preceded by a conditioning episode – though it’s possible that such traumatic incidents did happen but have since been forgotten.

Question 37

What did Di Nardo et al (1988) argue?

Answer 37

Some people who have experienced a traumatic incident don’t develop a phobia.