Watson and Rayner (1920) - Classic Study

Question 1

Main aim?

Answer 1

To investigate whether a phobia could be created in a child through classical conditioning

Question 2

Other aims?

Answer 2

whether a fear would be transerred to other animals and objects and to investigate the effect of time on the conditioned response

Question 3

How did they carry it out?

Answer 3

By simultaneously presenting the animal and striking a steel bar to make a loud noise to frighten a child

Question 4

Little Albert was chosen as a participant for the experiment as he

Answer 4

had been reared from birth

Question 5

The experiment took place in a ______________ so the environment was___________

Answer 5

hospital, not unsual for Little Albert

Question 6

Researchers thought they would do little harm as Albert was

Answer 6

healthy, unemotional and well developed

Question 7

The first thing researchers did was test Albert for his fear reactions to

Answer 7

various stimuli (rat, rabbit, cotton wool etc) when he was 9 months old, he showed no fear, they rechecked at 11 months

Question 8

Researchers hit a metal bar while presenting a rat to LA and then tested to see if

Answer 8

the response had been generalised or transferred to other objects such as building blocks, a fur coat, a rabit, a dog and santa

Question 9

How old was Albert when he was chekced for the effect of time on conditioning and when was he removed?

Answer 9

1 year and 21 days

Question 10

When the researchers first introduced the banging of the metal bar and the rat together,

Answer 10

Albert jumped on both occasions and on the second occasion he started to whimper and would move away from the rat

Question 11

Eventually Albert started to respond

Answer 11

negatively to stimuli such as rabbits, a fur coat and a santa mask

Question 12

At 11 months and 20 days when the rat was presented on its own, Albert’s response was

Answer 12

less severe than previous instances

Question 13

At 1 year and 21 days, Albert face a negative response to the

Answer 13

Santa mask, a fur coat, a dog, a rat and a rabbit

Question 14

The study was carefully documented, witnesses helped record the data and there were strict controls as

Answer 14

only one variable was changed at a time, if it could have been repeated ethically, it would have been replicable

Question 15

The study is evidence the cc can occur in humans as previous studies were on animals and generalisability was difficult, from this:

Answer 15

treatments for phobias that focus on deconditioning phobic stimuli (systematic desensitisation) could be used to help individuals overcome their issues - application

Question 16

The study is not ethical, researchers made sure Albert was easily frightened and they thought it was acceptable because he would get scared in real life, but there is

Answer 16

little doubt that he was distressed and although they allowed him to rest they continued despite his distress, they did not extinguish fears

Question 17

The setting and the task was artificial and Albert was in a lab situation which may have made him scared therefore

Answer 17

it may be the situation rather than the stimuli that induced fear in him, lacks internal validity

Question 18

It could be argued that the noise from a hammer and a steel bar could represent

Answer 18

a real life noise and that playing with white fur and having fears to animals natural

Question 19

It is also questionnable that Albert’s fear was even created in the first place as

Answer 19

there were random intervals during testing when Albert seemed completely fine with the rodent

Question 20

It was speculated that Little Alber may have suffered from hydrodephalus, along with other medical conditions whcih may have made his

Answer 20

reaction different to those of others who are not suffering from those conditions which makes it difficult to generalise to the conlcuiosn that CC works in humans