Watson and Rayner - classical study Flashcards
what did Watson and Rayner want to find out - hypothesizes ?
- whether they could condition fear of an animal by simultaneously presenting the animal and striking a steel bag to make a loud noise
- if fear would be transferred to other animals and objects
- if there would be an effect of time on the conditioned response
- to see how possible it is to remove the fear response in the laboratory
why was little Albert chosen for the experiment ?
- reared almost from birth in a hospital environment
- mother was a wet nurse in home for invalid children
- normal life
- healthy from birth
- one of the better developed babies
- healthy (weighed 21 pounds at 9 months)
- well developed
- thought study would do little harm
- no one had seen him in a state of fear and he barely cried
- thought fears would develop anyway once he’d left the nursery for home
how was Albert conditioned to fear the rate initially ( 11 months, 3 days ) ?
- white rat presented to Albert
- He reached for it with his left hand
- as his hand touched the rat a bar was struck immediately behind his head
- Albert jumped violently and fell forwards, burying his face in the mattress
- he did NOT cry
- went to touch with right hand
- bar struck
- jumped violently fell forward and whimpered
what was Alberts initial response to the rat ?
curiosity
went to reach it
after the initial encounter with the rat, how did Albert respond to it when presented with it a week later (11 months, 10 days)
- steady fixation on the rat
- no tendency to reach for it
- when rat nosed Albert, he immediately removed his hand
- began to reach for the rats head, but withdrew his hand when he got near
when tested with blocks after the rat, how did ALbert respond (11 months 10 days)
- immediately began to pick them up
how many episodes did Albert have of joint stimulation - rat + sound then rat being presented alone ?
7
after 7 episodes of joint stimulation, how did Albert respond to the rat being presented to him ?
- he began to cry
- turned sharply away from the rat
- fell over and began to crawl away
at 11 months 15 days, Albert was brought back to see if his fear had been generalised, what did he now fear ?
- rat (withdrew hand, turned away)
- rabbit ( leaned away, burst into tears, crawled away)
- dog (shrank back, cried)
- fur coat ( cried and crawled away)
- cotton wool (kicked it away)
- santa mask
inbetween being presented white furry things, Albert was presented with blocks, how did he respond ?
- played with them immediately
- smiling
- gurgling
- laughing
- played energetically with them
- slammed them down with force
Watson and Rayner also wanted to assess the effect of time on conditioning, at 1year 21 days, what was ALberts response to the rat ?
- he allowed the rat to crawl towards him but when rat touched his hand, he withdrew it immediately
- leaned away
- when rat placed on his arm, he withdrew and began to fret
- when rat placed on his chest he covered his eyes with his hands
what are the conclusions ?
- fears could be transferred to other similar stimuli
- directly conditioned emotional responses last longer than 1 month
give strengths of the experiment
- valid
- applicable
how was the experiment valid ?
- high internal validity = controlled = changes in little Alberts behaviour was due to conditioning
- Albert had emotional stability, making individual characteristics less likely to affect results
- objects like wooden blocks were used to ensure reaction to phobic objects wasn’t just due to an increase in anxiety
how is the study applicable ?
- psychologists have a good understanding as to how phobias can be acquired through association of stimuli
- led to development of therapies like systematic desensetisation
how is the study valid (standardised) ?
- standardised procedure, easy to repeat, it had a pre conditioning phases and 7 episodes of joint stimulation
name weaknesses of the experiment ?
- not generalisable
- lacks ecological validity
- not reliable
- ethically questionable
how is the experiment not generalisable ?
- study only has 1 participant
- Albert may have been unusual as he was described as rarely being afraid or crying
- reared in a hospital environment
these results are potentially not representative of how other children/adults respond to the same stimuli, findings are unique to him
how does the study lack ecological validity ?
- unnaturall, everyday life not reflected
how is the study not reliable ?
- only has 1 participant so difficult to find consistent trends in data
- albert may have been unusual as he rarely displayed emotion
- small sample size so hard to see consistent trends in data
how is the study not ethical ?
- albert was distressed and deliberately alarmed by the loud noise
- researchers didn’t extinguish the fear as his mother removed him from the study before the phobia could be removed
- Albert may have suffered with long term psychological issues with an acquired phobia which remained
- full consent not given from albert (baby)
- he wasn’t protected from mental harm
- mother may not have been informed of the full implications of the experiment
