Watson and Rayner: Little Albert Study
Investigating whether classical conditioning could also apply to humans with the learning of a fear response to animals- can fear of a white rat be induced by presenting it to a child whilst simultaneously making a loud noise that frightens the child
Based on Pavlov's dogs experiment- which there is a limited generalisability for since he used animals which have a lower level of cognitive functioning than humans
Smaller cerebral cortex and therefore more survival based instincts
Study of one ppt called Little Albert- 9 months old when selected from the hospital for invalid children that his mother worked at as a wet nurse
He was described to be healthy "stolid and unemotional"
Pre conditional testing acted to determine any of his pre-existing fears to ensure that the neutral stimulus chosen was actually neutral and did not already elicit a fear response
They found no fear response towards the white rat on its own or any other animals
However, when the suspended steel bar was struck on its own, Albert whimpered and started to cry- presenting a clear fear response - "the child broke into a sudden crying fit"
Conditioning process involved 5 different stages:
Session 1: at 11 months and 3 days old, testing of response to white rat and then first two pairings with the steel bar being struck at the same time
The first time, Albert moved away from the rat and jumped
The second pairing made Albert begin to whimper and once more jump back away from the rat
Albert was 11 months once the conditioning process began
In session two he was 11 months and 10 days old - the rat was presented unexpectedly and he reached out but did not touch it
Showing that there was some conditioning since he happily played with blocks therefore wasn't getting more fearful generally
The blocks were only presented when the rat was out of sight- testing his general emotional responses
The rat was presented repeatedly both with and without the steel bar sound- until the presentation of the rat alone was enough to make Albert cry and turn away
The association was properly established- producing the conditioned stimulus of the rat
Session 3- 11 months and 15 days - Still displayed some fear when the rat was presented on its own, but happily played with wooden bricks - so no general transfer of the fear response
Researchers began to test the transference of the conditioned response- showed Albert other objects including a rabbit, a dog, a fur coat, and a Santa mask
His response to each stimulus was recorded and in between he was again presented with the wooden blocks that he played with happily
The strength of the fear response varied for each object but some transference was recorded for these similar stimuli
Session 4- 11 months and 20 days - Albert presented with the rat again without any sound- he response was weaker than previously so the association was renewed
Then shown the rabbit, and dog both with and without the sound- strengthening the fear
Tested the transference of the response to another setting- a lecture theatre, with four observers present
Concluded that transference can occur to both different stimuli and different settings
Session 5- 12 months and 21 days - After a month, the fear response to the rat on its own remained but was slightly weaker, as well as the other responses to similar stimuli
He still continued to play happily with wooden bricks so hadn't just got more scared generally
Albert left the area before he could have the conditioned response removed- therefore the fear could have remained long lasting throughout his life
Also whether the fear response that was conditioned could be transferred to other similar stimuli
Also determined the effect of time on the conditioned response
Conclusions: It is possible to generate a conditioned fear response in humans after just a few pairings of the stimuli
To maintain the strength of this conditioned response over time, the pairings may need to be repeated in order to avoid extinction
A conditioned response can be transfered between other similar stimuli, as well as different settings - therefore there can be generalisation
The researchers did consider the ethics, claiming they were hesitant to induce the fear repsones- but concluded that he would face more worrying situations in his later life anyway- so began the testing at 11 months
They believed that because he was healthy "stolid and unemotional" they could do relatively little harm to him