Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Classical Conditioning - Coggle Diagram
Classical Conditioning
-
unconditioned response
a response that occurs automatically when an unconditioned stimulus is presented
-
conditioned stimulus
once a neutral stimulus, but has been paired with unconditioned stimulus to bring out an unconditioned response
-
-
-
-
Pavlov (1927)
-
procedure
-
the bell was tested to ensure it was a neutral stimulus and was not associated with food, it was then paired with food multiple times (pavlov would sound the bell and immediately give the dogs some food)
findings and
conclusion
he found that the dogs would salivate when they heard the bell after repeated pairings even if no food was presented
the dogs have been conditioned to salivate when presented with food, the NR had successfully been pared with the CR
Evaluation
generalisability: procedure done on dogs, cannot be generalised to humans
reliability: standardised procedures, clear CS,CR, and NS
validity: good internal validity as other variables were kept controlled, he ensured the bell was a neutral stimuli. poor ecological validity due to low mundane realism. dogs were kept in unusual settings which may have altered their behaviour
ethics: by todays standards, the study is unethical due to the treatment of the dogs e.g. surgicsally altering their faces to collect saliva
Watson and Rayner (1928)
-
sample
one baby boy ('Little Albert'), 11 months old
procedure
-
- unconditioned stimulus and neutral stimulus were tested
- Little Albert was presented with the white rat while Watson hid behind a curtain and banged a metal rod, inducing a fear response
- this was done repeatedly
Findings and Conclusion
the white rat became a conditioned stimulus and brought out a condoned response of fear
he had learned through classical conditioning to fear the white rat, along with other similar fluffy objects
evaluation
reliability: standardised procedures, each step well documented and recorded so easy to replicate
generalisability: poor, experiment only done on one infant, cannot be generalised to any older age groups
validity: internal validity good as procedure was controlled e.g. Watson hid behind a curtain when hitting the metal rod to stop himself becoming a CS
ecological validity poor as the procedure lacked mundane realism, and was possibly a distressing environment (lab)
ethics: Albert was intentionally made distressed and scared throughout the procedure - no protection from psychological harm
CISAC
studies
- Pavlov (1927)
- Watson and Rayner (1928)
can explain
simple learned associations such as the US of fear being associated with, for example, spiders
therefore can explain the development of phobias
issues and debates
REDUCTIONIST: the theory ignores any biological explanations and almost all environmental.
NATURE/ NURTURE: only looks at nurture
applications
research done on learned associations can be applied to the understanding and treatment of phobias
cannot explain
more complicated human behaviour. this theory only looks at simple learned associations, and can only explain human behaviour to a very limited extent