Behaviourist -Classical Evidence: Watson and Rayner

Question 1

Methodology

Answer 1

• one participant
• aged 9 months
• Not a case study - focused only on Albert’s response to conditioning, no background info
• Not an experiment - only one condition, no independent and dependent variable
• controlled observation
• conducted in controlled conditions - well-lit dark room

Question 2

Procedures

Answer 2

• responses recorded with motion picture camera
• Emotional tests -
• Albert confronted suddenly with white rat, rabbit,dog, monkey, cotton wool, masks without hair (first time seeing these objects),
• tested with loud sound - striking a hammer on a suspended steel bar.
• Session 1 - 11months 3 days, brought to the lab again, white rat presented, when he reached out for it bar was struck, behind his head
• Session 2 - shown rat with no sound to see if he previous experience affected his behaviour
• Session 3 - question whether the learned link between rat and noise would be generalised to other objects, presented to rabbit, dog, cotton wool
• Session 4 - taken to a new environment, large well-lit lecture room with 4 people
• Session 5 - final tests involved a Santa Claus mask, fur coat, rat, rabbi,dog. See effect of time

Question 3

Conclusions

Answer 3

• Albert maintained a fearful response to furry objects over the time he was studied -
• demonstrates that learned responses generalise to similar stimuli
• suggests that many phobias are acquired in this way
• sucking his thumbs, Freud, sexual stimulation
• Watson and Raynor suggest that he is wrong that such stimulation is pleasure seeking, instead a form of compensation to block fear

Question 4

Evaluation of methodology and procedures- controlled study

Answer 4

Controlled study -
* run under controlled conditions
* conducted in a lab were variables could be controlled
* baseline condition where his pre-manipulation behaviour was established (not fearful)
* Control condition (blocks) - fear exclusive to furry objects
* recorded to be confirmed by others - strengthens liability
* no distractions

Question 5

Evaluation Methodology and procedures - the sample

Answer 5

• One participant
• difficult to generalise ability
• hospital life isn’t ‘normal’
• In a home for invalid children
• Mother works in the hospitial (consent) - might be hard to withdraw A from experiment (loose job?)
• without comparisons it is difficukt to know whether the observed responses are unique to this individual or not

Question 6

Evaluating - ethical issues

Answer 6

• creates fear in a young child - ‘in order not to disturb the child too seriously no further tests were given for one week’
• effects potentially long lasting
• psychological harm
• distressing
• remove thumb from mouth - observe full effects
• did intend to remove the learned condition - Albert suddenly removed from hospital
• W&R knew he would continue to be fearful

Question 7

Findings - Emotional tests

Answer 7

• Showed no fear response to the objects before conditioning
• Hospital attendants and mother reported they had never seen him in a state of fear or rage, practically never cried
• when bar was first struck - violently, arms raised in a characteristic manner
• 2nd - same and lips began to pucker and tramble
• 3rd - broke into sudden crying fir

Question 8

Findings - Sessions

Answer 8

• 1 - when bar was struck with rat, jumped and fell forward, burying his head on the table. 2nd, fell forward again, whimpering a little
• 2 - didn’t reach for rat this time, just stared, when rat placed nearer he reached out carefully but withdrew when rat nuzzle his hand. Played with blocks happily, cautious response just to rat
• 3 - happy with blocks, rat- immediately responded with fear. response to rabbit was as extreme - burst into tears and crawled away
• 4 - responses less extreme in new environment
• 5 - responded to test objects differently to control objects. Not as extreme but clearly avoided furry objects