Learning Studies (Pavlov, Capafons, Watson and Rayner and Bandura)

Question 1

What is the name and date of the learning contemporary study?

Answer 1

Capafons (1998)

Question 2

What is the aim of the learning contemporary study?

Answer 2

To test whether systematic desensitisation is effective as a theraputic technique for treating a fear of flying.

Question 3

Who were the participants in the learning contemporary study? What participant design was used?

Answer 3

The study used 41 people with a fear of flying. 20 were randomly assigned to the treatment group and 21 were assigned to the waiting control group. The two groups were balanced in terms of age, sex, self-reported fer levels and some psychophysiological measures. They were recruited as a result of a media campaign advertising free intervention programme to treat a fear of flying. It was a laboratory experiment with a matched pairs design.

Question 4

Describe the procedure of the learning contemporary study.

Answer 4

• Before and after treatment, the following measures were taken. Answers to questions used to diagnose fear of flying, two questionnaires to measure fear of flying and physiological measures that include heart rate, palm temperature and muscular tension
• Initial testing took place in the form of individual interviews to complete self report measures. The participants were then shown a video showing a traveller taking a plane journey beginning with them packing their case and ending with them touching down at their destination. The participants were in the same room which was maintained at the same temperature and they all sat the same distance from the screen.
• The experimental group were given one two hour session per week with a minimum of 12 and maximum of 15. This included 4 sessions in relaxation, 3 sessions on the phobic stimulus hierarchy and 3 sessions on application of the systematic desensitisation
• The participants were tested 7 days after the final treatment session. A repeat of all the psychphysiological measures was taken.

Question 5

What were the results of the learning contemporary study?

Answer 5

Results showed that there were no significant differences between the control group and treatment group prior to treatment. There were no significant differences in scores between the beefore and after conditions in the control group. There were several significant differences in fear in the treatment groups.

For example catastrophic thoughts decreased from 10.3 to 5.0 and fear decreased from 25.6 to 13.3

Question 6

Evaluate the learning contemporary study in terms of generalisability.

Answer 6

Participants were both males and females of a range of ages all from Spain. They were recruited from a media campaign. This means that only those who saw the advert could have applied to take part. These people may somehow be different to the rest of the population, therefore the sample isn’t generalisable.

Question 7

Evaluate the learning contemporary study in terms of reliability.

Answer 7

The study is high in reliability. Several aspects of the procedure were standardised. For example, the temperature of the room, number of sessions and the distance they sat from the screen. This means that the experiment can be repeated by another psychologist and get similar results.

Question 8

Evaluate the learning contemporary study in terms of applications.

Answer 8

Can be used to help other peoples fears to be extinguished. By understanding the process of systematic desensitisation we can help treat other phobias. Therefore phobias that have a severe impact on the lives of normal people can be cured. This proves that it is right for the treatment to be on the NHS.

Question 9

Evaluate the learning contemporary study in terms of validity.

Answer 9

Increased internal validity as potential extraneous variables such as temperature of the room, viewing experience etc were all controlled. Therefore we can be certain that the experimental condition was only affected by the desired factor so we can establish a cause and effect relationship.

Low in ecological validity. Exposure to the phobic object consisted of a video of a plane journey which took place in a lab at a university This doesn’t reflect everyday life.

Question 10

Evaluate the learning contemporary study in terms of ethics.

Answer 10

Systematic desensitisation is generally considered a more ethical treatment for phobias in comparison to flooding. All of the participants gave informed consent and were told of their right to withdraw.

It could be seen as unethical as the control group did not recieve any treatment however, they were put on the priority list to recieve the treatment.

Question 11

What is the aim of Pavlov (1972)?

Answer 11

Pavlov aimed to look at reflexes and work out pathways in the brain in order to look for a mechanism linking to reflexes in the cerebral cortex. He chose to study dogs becuase they have the capacity for higher order thinking but are still able to be controlled.

Question 12

Why did Pavlov study salivation?

Answer 12

He chose to study this as it is a natural reflex response. It is able to be physically measured and observed which he did by surgically implanting a test tube in to the salvary gland of the dogs.

Question 13

Describe the procedure of Pavlov.

Answer 13

• Pavlov knew that putting food in a dogs mouth made it salivate. When he worked with the same dog repeatedly, the dog began to salivate to stimuli associated with food. Pavlov noted that there are some things that a dog doesn’t need to learn These reflexes are ‘hard wired’ and are unconditioned responses.
• Pavlov wanted to see if a dog could be conditioned to salivate to a completely unrelated stimulus- the sound of a metronome. Over several learning trials the dog was presented with the ticking of the metronome immediately before food appeared. From an adjacent room th researchers presented food and just before presentation, the metronome was sounded.

Question 14

What were the results of Pavlov?

Answer 14

After serveal pairings of food and tone, the dogs began to salivating to the metronome alone, in anticipation of the food. Salivation started after 9 seconds and by 45 seconds, 11 drops had been collected. Pavlov conditioned dogs to salivate to other stimuli- a buzzer, a light, a tough on the leg and the sight of a circle.

Question 15

What were the conclusions of Pavlov?

Answer 15

Pavlov concluded that environmental stimuli that previously had no relation to a reflex action could, through repeated pairings, trigger a salivation reflex.

Question 16

Evaluate Pavlov in terms of generalisability.

Answer 16

The experiment is low in generalisability. Pavlov used dogs to investigate the response. Humans have more complex brain structure and emotional response in addition to more language and reasoning skills. Therefore we cannot assume that humans woud respond in the same way as the dogs and so results can’t be generalised.

Question 17

Evaluate Pavlov in terms of reliability.

Answer 17

The research is high in reliability. The study was based in a laboratory and used a standardised procedure which helped to maintain strict control over extraneous variables such as using the sound proof chamber for the dogs to limit their distractions. Therefore when repeated, similar results can be obtained.

Also Pavlov repeated his experiments with different breeds of dogs and different stimuli and found very similar results.

Question 18

Evaluate Pavlov in terms of validity.

Answer 18

High in internal validity. Extraneous variables were contolled as the dogs were in a soundproof chamber. This allows for a cause and effect relationship to be obtained.

Animals including dogs are not likely to display demand characteristics. Therefore the response from the dogs was not affected.

Question 19

Evaluate Pavlov in terms of ethics.

Answer 19

A good ethical point is that Pavlov was a pioneer in anesthetics meaning the animals wouldn’t have suffered any pain when having the salivation tube inserted.

On the other hand, dogs are social animals and wouldn’t have liked being kept in a chamber for so long. Furthermore, they need exercise and human interaction which they didn’t get.

Question 20

What is the name and date of the learning classic study?

Answer 20

Watson and Rayner (1920)

Question 21

What is the aim of the learning classic study?

Answer 21

To see if a fear response can be conditioned in an infant to a white rat using classical conditioning. Would the fear be generalised to other similar objects

Question 22

Who were the participants in the learning classic study? What participant design was used?

Answer 22

A single case lab experiment with one child of nine months of age.

Question 23

Describe the procedure of the learning classic study.

Answer 23

Little Albert initially tested for his responses to various stimuli including a dog, a mask, a white rat, cotton wool and burning newspapers. He had no adverse reactions. When researchers struck a hammer on a pole initially Albert was startled, then his lips began to pucker, then the child began to cry.
Two months later conditioning began (11 months old)
When presented with a rat he reached out for it. Next time he went to touch it, the bar was struck, Little Albert was shocked but did not cry. After 7 more trials he began to crawl away very quickly at the sight of the rat. 17 days later there was evidence of stimulus generalisation. Leaned away from the rabbit, whimpered then burst in to tears. After 31 days in he was taken my his mother.

Question 24

What were the results of the learning classic study?

Answer 24

Confirmed that a phobia of an object that was not previously feared could be learned. Stimulus generalisation was observed and lasted for 31 days.

Question 25

What is the conclusion of the learning classic study?

Answer 25

An infant could be classically conditioned to develop a fear of a white rat. Fear responses have the potential to last a lifetime.

Question 26

Evaluate Watson and Rayner in terms of generalisability.

Answer 26

Low in generalisability. Little Albert was an 11 year old infant who had not tey learnt any fear responses. Also, it was only a single case lab study. Therefore, the results might not be generalisable to other aged children or adults who have existing fears. However, previous research has only been done on dogs so this is now research on humans.

Question 27

Evaluate Watson and Rayner in terms of reliability.

Answer 27

Not very reliable as it was a single case lab exeriment which means that it is hard to compare results to test for reliabilty. However, there was a standardised procedure and so strict controls over extraneous variables by limiting any distractions. An example of the standardised procedure is that he had 7 classical conditioning pairings every five days.

Question 28

Evaluate Watson and Rayner in terms of applications.

Answer 28

Can be used as a way to help people with phobias as a treatment, systematic desensitisation. By understanding that fear can be learnt by association we can help people to extinguish the behaviour and change the lives of many people by allowing them to do things that they previously couldn’t.

Question 29

Evaluate Watson and Rayner in terms of validity.

Answer 29

Low in ecological validity. The experiment took place in a laboratory which is not an everyday environment for a baby.

However, the child was the son of one of the nurses at the hospital and so spent a lot of time in the hospital in the nursery there. This increases the validity.

Question 30

Evaluate Watson and Rayner in terms of ethics.

Answer 30

The researchers gained informed consent as the mom was fully informed and gave consent for Little Albert to take part. The mom was made aware of her right to withsraw and used this right to remove Little Albert from the study prior to completion. The fact that Little Albert was removed from the study poses the question that the mother didn’t fully understand what the study would involve.

Question 31

What is the aim of Bandura (1961)?

Answer 31

The aim of the study was to see if children, after observing aggression, would imitate the role models behaviour.

Question 32

Who were the participants in Bandura? What participant design was used?

Answer 32

72 children between the ages of 3 and 5 who were all from Stanford University Nursery School were recruited. They formed 8 groups of 6 children in the experimental condition and 24 controls. The experimental condition was made up of boys/girls with same sex or opposite sex role-models.

Question 33

Describe the procedure of Bandura.

Answer 33

• In stage one, the children were exposed to the role model for ten minutes. The aggressive role models displayed physical and verbal aggression including phrases such as ‘pow’ and ‘sock it to him in the nose’. The non aggressive condition had the role model playing with the toys nicely.
• Next the children were deliberately irritated by being prevented from playing with the toys ‘these are my best toys, they’re not for you’
• In the final stage the children were left to play with the toys in a room and were observed by two researchers through one way glass for 20 minutes. Both aggressive and non-aggressive toys were available.

Question 34

What were the results of Bandura?

Answer 34

Children in the aggressive condition made more aggressive responses than those in the non-aggressive condition. This suggests that the behaviour was learnt from the role models. It was also found that overall males were more aggressive than females. This suggests that there could be another contributing factor for aggression

Question 35

Evaluate Bandura in terms of generalisability.

Answer 35

The sample that was used was very limited. Only 72 children between the ages of 3 and 5 were included and they all came from the same nursery school, Stanford University Nursery. Therefore, it is possible that some of the behaviours learned were from the nursery and the findings can’t be generalised to adults or other children.

Question 36

Evaluate Bandura in terms of reliability.

Answer 36

There is high reliability as there was a standardised procedure. The same toys were available for each child in each room and models had standardised behaviours, both physical and verbal instructions. Therefore the experiment can be easily repeated to gain similar results.

Inter-rater reliability was very high. Both experiments that were observing had good levels of aggreement which reduces subjectivity and researcher bias.

Question 37

Evaluate Bandura in terms of applications.

Answer 37

Findings can be applied to real life in terms of phobias where modelling can be used to explain aquisition of a phobia and vicarious modelling can be used to remove phobias. For example, seeing your role model interacting with whateveryou ar ephobic of and being rewarded by the experience.

Question 38

Evaluate Bandura in terms of validity.

Answer 38

The study is low in ecological validity as the experiment was conducted in a lab setting and the tasks were artificial. This doesn’t reflect the way that children would actually learn.

High internal validity as it allows for precise control over extraneous variables. Many variables were controlled such as the gender of the model and how long the children were observed for. This allows a cause and effect relationship to be established.

Question 39

Evaluate Bandura in terms of ethics.

Answer 39

One negative point is the nature of the aim, to deliberately try to get children to be aggressive. This could have an affect on the children for the rest of their lives.