Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Watson & Rayner (1920) - Conditioned emotional response (LEARNING…
Watson & Rayner (1920) - Conditioned emotional response (LEARNING CLASSIC STUDY)
Aim
To investigate if an infant aged between 9 and 11 months old could be conditioned to produce an emotional fear response to an animal, using principles of classical conditioning.
They also aimed to find out whether the fear could be transferred to other animals or objects and the effect of time on the conditioned response.
Conclusions
Little Albert was removed from the study so there was no way of seeing if these responses could be extinguished. However, he was conditioned to fear white rats and other furry objects. It was concluded that a conditioned emotional response can occur in humans after only a few pairing of stimuli, but this must be repeated. The CR can be transferred to other similar objects (exhibiting stimulus generalisation).
Results
Establishing a conditioned emotional response - They found that Little Albert showed a conditioned fear response to the white rat when it was presented
without the loud bang of the hammer on the steel bar, after conditioning.
Transfer of fear to other objects - Stimulus generalisation could be seen when similar stimuli like rabbits, a dog, a fur coat and cotton wool were presented. Different negative behaviours, resembling the CR were shown.
The effect of time on conditioning - After about a year, Little Albert still portrayed negative responses towards the white rat and the other similar stimuli, but still played with the blocks.
Procedure
Using classical conditioning, Little Albert was tested for fear reactions at 9 months old. They initially tested Little Albert to see what he was naturally afraid of as a baseline measure of his phobic responses. He was presented with a white rat and when he went to touch it they hit a steel bar with a hammer to cause an unconditioned fear response to a loud bang. Little Albert puckered his lips, trembled and had a crying fit. This was then repeated with a rabbit, cotton wool and other furry stimuli up till he was 11 months. No fear response was shown towards playing blocks, which acted as a control.
Before conditioning:
UCS (steel bar struck with hammer) → UCR (fear)
NS (white rat) → no fear response
During conditioning:
UCS (steel bar stuck with hammer) + NS (white rat) → UCR (fear)
After conditioning:
CS (white rat) → CR (fear)
Evaluation
✓/✗ Validity - The setting for the experiment lacks ecological validity because Albert was away from his playroom and familiar nurses. It was conducted in a contrived environment, which may have made him nervous. Therefore, he may not be reflective of his usual behaviour. However, there was high internal validity due to the good use of controls and standardised procedures. Furthermore, a baseline measure before the conditioning took place to ensure Albert didn't have any pre-existing fears of white, furry objects.
✗ Generalisability - Little Albert was the only infant studied so his behaviour may be unusual and unrepresentative of other young children or the adult population, who may have responded differently.
✓ Application - This research has demonstrated that phobias can be learnt through the process of classical conditioning. The findings about conditioning emotional reactions can be used to help develop therapies to treat phobias by pairing a phobic object with a relaxation response. Flooding involves directly exposing an individual to the phobia, letting them experience panic, but then letting the panic reaction wear off. They learn from this experience that the stimulus is not really harmful. In systematic desensitisation, the patient is gradually exposed to their fear and are taught coping mechanisms, to eventually treat the phobia.
✓ Reliability - The study had a standardised procedure, strict controls and it was carefully documented by film (number of days and the time of day). The surviving film of the procedures means we can all review Little Albert’s responses and see his fear for ourselves, providing inter-rater reliability.
✓/✗ Ethics - The procedure caused Little Albert distress and was continued. The fear of the phobic stimuli wasn't extinguished later, possibly leaving him with long-term phobias, ignoring protection from harm. Eventually, at 6 years old Albert died of hydrocephalus which may have been a result of or present at the time of the study. However, Albert's mother gave presumptive consent and was present the entire time of the procedure. She also was given the right to withdraw Albert from the study.
Sample
Little Albert was reared in a hospital since birth as his mother was a wet nurse and he was healthy and emotionally stable. The study was conducted when he was between 9 to 11 months.
Method
This was a lab experiment.