watson and rayner

• Watson and Rayner 1920- Aim

  To test if classical conditioning works on huamns
• Watson and Rayner 1920- Procedure

  The little boy albert was aged 9 months at the start of the study and 11 when conditioning began.

  At 9 months Albert was tested with a white rat, a rabbit, cotton wool and other stimuli to see if he had a fear reaction- he didn't which shows these are neutral stimuli.

  
  

  Researchers also checked his fear response by banging an iron bar and Albert cried- this was the unconditioned stimulus and crying unconditioned response.

  
  

  At 11 months he was conditioned, each time the rat was shown it was paired with striking the iron bar, this was repeated 5 times one week later and 7 times 17 days later
• Watson and Rayner 1920- results

  • once paired on 7th time with the noise he conditioned the rat with response of crying
  • when rat presented alone albert whimpered
  • reaction to other fury objects were tested- found a generalisation of response as Albert was in fear of others such as rabbit and dog
• Watson and Rayner 1920- conclusions

  They had successfully conditioned albert to fear the white rat and his fear response generalised to other white fury things
• Waston and Rayner: generlisability

  Was carried out on one single child which although seems unrepresntative Albert was deliberately selected for his normalcy- he seemed fearless and stable
• Watson and Rayner: reliability

  Procedure was standardised for very reliable, although for obvious ethical reasons this study hasn't been replicated- also it being filmed improves its inter-rater reliability as we can see Alberts responses ourselves
• Watson and Rayner: validity

  Study had careful controls- for example Watson hid behind a curtain when striking the iron bar so that Albert would associate the noise with the rat not him. Also tested Alberts reactions before the conditioning making sure he had no pre existing fear of furry things
• Watson and Rayner: application to real life

  The study has lead to many applications to learning behaviours such as phobias and treatments such as flooding
• Watson and Rayner: ethics

  The study is VERY UNETHICAL- distress was caused which was the point of the study so Albert response would ne real however, they did not extinguish the fear reaction which may have left Albert with long term phobias.