Behaviorist approach- study- 'Little Albert'

Question 1

Methodologies (6)

Answer 1

• One participant used (9 months male infant who was normal)
• known as ‘Albert B’ in the experiment but once known he was known as ‘little Albert’- although this wasn’t his real name
• controlled conditions- well-lit dark room, he was placed on a table on top of a mattress
• Not an experiment
• Not a case study
• could be classed as a controlled observation

Question 2

name of session 1

Answer 2

Establishing conditioned emotional response

Question 3

name of session 2

Answer 3

Testing conditioned emotional response

Question 4

name of session 3

Answer 4

generalization

Question 5

name of session 4

Answer 5

changing environment

Question 6

name of session 5

Answer 6

The effects of time

Question 7

age in session 1

Answer 7

11 months, 3 days

Question 8

age in session 2

Answer 8

11 months, 10 days

Question 9

age in session 3

Answer 9

11 months, 15 days

Question 10

age in session 4

Answer 10

11 months, 20 days

Question 11

age in session 5

Answer 11

11 months, 21 days

Question 12

session 1- procedures

Answer 12

• brought to the laboratory
• presented with the rat
• every time her reached for it, the loud noise was made

Question 13

session 2- procedures

Answer 13

• shown the rat without the loud noise to see the effects of the previous session
• ‘joint stimulus’ 5 times

Question 14

session 3- procedures

Answer 14

• investigated whether the relationship between the rat and the loud noise could be generalized for other animals/objects
• presented him with wooden blocks, rabbit, dog, seal fur coat, cotton wool John Watsons’ hair

Question 15

session 4- procedures

Answer 15

• changed environment
• emotional response ‘freshened up’ with the joint stimulation’
• large, well-lit room
• 4 other people
• placed on a table located in the center of the room

Question 16

session 5- procedures

Answer 16

• Tested for one last time
• involved the wooden blocks, Santa clause mask, fur coat, rat, rabbit and a dog

Question 17

What are the 3 conclusions from this study?

Answer 17

1- ease that conditioned responses would stick ( 2 simulations to develop the conditioned emotional response + 7 stimulation to complete the reaction
2- The emotional responses to a particular stimuli can be generalized to similar objects
3- Could explain how phobias develop. Only stick if they’re ‘constitutionally inferior’

Question 18

When will phobias stick?

Answer 18

constitutionally inferior

Question 19

What were the findings of the emotional tests?

Answer 19

• Little Albert showed no emotional response to any of the objects before the experiment started
• The hospital attendants and his mother stated that he had never seen him in a state of fear or rage, he barley cried
• When the bar struck behind his head for the first time, the researchers stated that….

Question 20

How did the researchers say Little Albert reacted to the bar struck behind his head for the first time in the FIRST STIMULATION

Answer 20

• Started violently
• Breathing was checked
• Arms raised in a characteristic manner

Question 21

How did the researchers say Little Albert reacted to the bar struck behind his head for the first time in the SECOND STIMULATION

Answer 21

• Same as the first
• lips started to pucker and tremble

Question 22

How did the researchers say Little Albert reacted to the bar struck behind his head for the first time in the THIRD STIMULATION

Answer 22

Broke into a sudden crying fit

Question 23

3 advantages of the study (evaluation)

Answer 23

• conducted in a lab
• emotional tests
• O.H Mower

Question 24

How is the study being conducted in a laboratory a benefit?

Answer 24

• Can control the conditions
• control extraneous variables
• ensure that the response was due to the ‘joint-simulation’ and not other variables
• Allows for the use of films

Question 25

How is the emotional tests seen as an advantage?

Answer 25

- prove that her wasn't just an emotional baby - Confirmed that his responses were due to the stimuli - Improved internal validity

Question 26

O.H Mower (1947)

Answer 26

- Explained why phobias don't just disappear - Classical conditioning explains how they are acquired Operant conditioning shows how they stick - Once the fear is learned, the individual will avoid the situation producing fear - This is a form of negative reinforcement

Question 27

3 disadvantages to this study (evaluation)

Answer 27

- Lack of follow up after - Psychological harm - Two- process theory

Question 28

How is a lack of follow up after a disadvantage?

Answer 28

- It only took place over a couple of months- no information on how long the phobia lasted - Watson and Rayner stated that they had planned on reversing the conditioning (unconditioned) but they were unable to due to Albert moving to a different hospital

Question 29

How is psychological harm a disadvantage to this study?

Answer 29

- Watson and Rayner stated that they would do no further tests for the next week to avoid causing him harm (clearly aware of the harm they are causing him) - To seek comfort when frightened, he started to suck his thumb, this was removed by the researchers (unethical)

Question 30

Two way process- disadvantage

Answer 30

- this cant explain how phobias last - the talk about 'freshening up' the conditioned responses a week later- this suggests that if this didn't happen then the conditioned response would have lessened. - If only classical conditioning was used, it may disappear overtime

Question 31

What are the 2 social implications from this study?

Answer 31

- Vulnerable children: Conditioning could be used to control their behavior and make it more 'normal', making them more socially accepted. This would allow them to participate as fully as possible within society and reward employment - Controlling the behavior of children: The use of negative/positive reinforcement such as rewards. However, this may lead to a society where people are only motivated by extrinsic factors

Question 32

findings of the second session

Answer 32

- Instead of reaching for the rat, he just stared at it - when placed nearer, he carefully reached out for it but drew his hand - Played happily with the blocks - When joint stimulation occurred, he got more distressed and started to cry and crawl away

Question 33

Findings of session 1

Answer 33

- When the bar struck, he jumped and fell forward, burying his head on the table - 2nd time the same thing happened except this time her whimpered a little

Question 34

Findings of session 3

Answer 34

- Happily played with the blocks until her was shown the rat where he immediately showed fear - Responded to the rabbit with as much fear as the white rat - played with Watsons' hair happily

Question 35

Findings of session 4

Answer 35

- In a new environment, his response was far less extreme than before - after 'freshening up', his response started to get stronger - When his reaction was weak, it was still noticeably different to his reaction to the building blocks

Question 36

Findings of session 5

Answer 36

- Albert clearly responded differently to the teat objects in a different way to the control objects (the blocks) - His reaction to the fury objects was not as extreme as the previous times but he clearly avoided them and whimpered, on occasions he cried