Watson & Rayner

• Methodology:

  Normal male infant aged 9 months (Little Albert). Controlled observation. Well-lit dark room- Albert placed on mattress on top of table.
• How were the responses recorded (procedures) ?

  Motion picture camera.
• What were the emotional tests (procedures) ?

  Albert confronted with white rat, rabbit, dog, monkey, masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers etc, to test his emotional responses to certain objects. Then tested with loud sound made by striking hammer upon suspended steel bar. Bar=just over 1m in length & 2cm diameter. 1 experimenter got Albert's attention while other used hammer to strike bar behind Albert's head.
• Session 1: establishing a conditioned emotional response (procedures):

  Albert (11 months & 3 days old)-brought to lab. White rat presented & Albert started to reach for it. Bar struck just behind his head.
• Session 2: Testing conditioned emotional response (procedures) :


  Week later (11 months & 10 days old). Shown rat with no sound to see if previous experience affected his behaviour with rat. Exposed 5 times to the 'joint stimulation' (shown rat & loud noise made behind his head at same time).
• Session 3: generalisation (procedures) :

  11 months & 15 days old. Research question: whether learned link between rat & noise would be generalised to other objects. Presented with rat, wooden blocks, rabbit, dog, seal fur coat, cotton wool & Watson's hair.
• Session 4: Changing environment (procedures) :

  11 months & 20 days old- conditioned emotional response 'freshened' up using 'joint stimulation'. Taken to new environment (large well-lit lecture room with 4 people). Placed on table in centre of room.
• Session 5: effect of time (procedures) :

  12 months & 21 days-tested last time. Been to lab in the interim but no emotional tests conducted. Final tests involved Santa Claus mask, fur coat, rat, rabbit, dog & blocks.
• Findings of the emotional tests:


  Showed no fear response to objects before conditioning. Hospital attendants & Albert's mother reported they'd never seen him in state of fear or rage & he practically never cried. First time bar was struck: 'child started violently. 2nd stimulation same thing occurred & lips began to pucker & tremble. 3rd stimulation child broke into sudden crying fit. First time an emotional situation in lab produced any fear or crying in Albert'.
• Session 1 findings:

  Albert tested again, now with white rat. When bar struck, he jumped & fell forward, burying his head on table where he was sat, but didn't cry. 2nd time struck-fell forward again, now whimpering a little.
• Session 2 findings:


  Stared at rat-didn't reach for it. When rat placed nearer, he reached out carefully but withdrew hand when rat nuzzled his hand. His cautious behaviour tested by giving him blocks to play with which he did happily-shows cautious response was only to rat & his general emotional state was normal. After further 'joint stimulation' (rat + loud noise) he became more distressed. Again shown rat he began to cry & crawl away.
• Session 3 findings:

  Played happily with blocks. When shown rat, immediately responded with fear (he retained conditioned emotional response to rat). Response to rabbit was as extreme as to rat-burst into tears & crawled away. Neither dog nor fur coat produced as violent a reaction as to rabbit. Cotton wool in paper package which Albert played with, not touching wool at first but later being less cautious. Played with Watson's hair-no fear response.
• Session 4 findings:

  After taken to new environment Albert's responses to rat, rabbit & dog were less extreme than before. After further 'freshening up' (rat + loud noise), conditioned fear response was stronger. Even when fear response was weak it was noticeably different from his reaction to building blocks-always played with them happily & never whimpered. Showed distinct learned response persisted towards the furry objects.
• Session 5 findings:


  Responded to test objects in clearly different way to control objects (blocks). Reaction to furry objects not as extreme as previously but he clearly avoided them & whimpered. On occasions he cried.
• Conclusions:

  Fear response created. 2 'joint stimulations' in 1st week sufficient to create conditioned emotional response. 7 'joint stimulations' given to bring the complete reaction. Watson & Rayner suggested 'it's probable' many phobias acquired in this way. However they suspected persistence of early conditioned responses would only be found in persons who are 'constitutionally inferior'.
• Freudian position (conclusions)

  • Albert often sucked thumb when scared (possibly form of sexual stimulation)
  • Freud may have been wrong in presuming such stimulation is pleasure seeking
  • May be form of compensation to block fear
• Future scene (Albert in his 20s)

  1. Seeking help from Freudian therapist for furry object phobia

  2. Therapist analyses his fear of seal skin coat

  3. Therapist may propose he tried to play with mother's pubic hair & was scolded violently for it

  4. Scolding caused him to push memory into unconscious mind where it continued to exert effect-leading to phobia
• Evaluate the sample:


  Conclusions drawn from 1 case. W & R described Albert as 'an extremely phlegmatic type' (he was calm & an even-tempered baby). They suggest that had he been emotionally unstable he might have responded with even greater fear & the conditioned response might have persisted longer. No comparisons so hard to know whether observed responses are unique to this individual or not.
• Evaluate the controlled study:

  Controlled conditions-study conducted in lab (dark room) where extraneous variables controlled. Baseline condition where his pre-manipulation behaviour was established to show he wasn't a fearful child. Control condition during the trials (building blocks)-showed his fearful responses were only to furry objects. Films used to record his behaviour so findings confirmed by others. Can conclude observed effects were due to conditioning rather than other sources.
• Creating fear (ethical implications):


  W & R seemed unsure whether they had created excessive fear in Albert. Sounded like they were aware that they were causing distress. They felt what Albert experienced was fairly normal-life in the hospital protected him. 'Such attachments would arise anyway as soon as child left sheltered environment of nursery for rough & tumble of home'.
• More psychological harm (ethics) :

  In addition to risk of harm caused by creating fear. Noted that one of his responses when frightened was to suck thumb- had effect of calming him down but reduced effect of loud noise on conditioning Albert. In order to observe full effects of fearful stimuli they had to remove thumb from mouth so conditioned response could be obtained. (Wanted to make sure he was very scared).
• Lasting effects (ethics):

  Did intend to remove his learned conditioned responses. However he was suddenly removed from hospital so this couldn't be done. They believed that responses they created likely to persist indefinitely in home environment unless an accidental method for removing them was hit upon. Researchers should have anticipated this issue at beginning of study & ensured procedures put in place to prevent this happening. E.g, at the outset his mother should have been fully informed of procedures & anticipated long-term consequences. 'Unconditioning' should have taken place.
• Social implications:

  Conditioning could be used to induce fear in people & brainwash them. Conditioning can be used in therapies to reverse fear and remove phobias.
• Alternative evidence (learning is not only explanation for phobias):


  Not all phobias preceded by conditioning episode- though it's possible such traumatic incidents did happen but have been forgotten (Ost, 1987). Some people experience traumatic incident e.g, bitten by dog but don't develop phobia (Di Nardo et al, 1988).
• What is biological preparedness?


  Seligman (1970)- argued animals (& humans) genetically programmed to rapidly learn association between certain stimuli & fear. Stimuli referred to as ancient fears (would have been dangerous in our evolutionary past). It's adaptive to rapidly learn to avoid such stimuli. E.g, snakes.
• 2-process theory (alternative evidence):


  Classical conditioning as explanation for phobias doesn't explain how they persist. Watson & Rayner freshened up Albert's conditioned response after a week. When he didn't experience rat + loud noise together, conditioned response lessened. If only classical conditioning involved, it might just disappear over time (no reinforcement).
• O.H Mowrer (1947):


  Explained why it doesn't disappear. In his 2-process model, 1st stage is classical conditioning & in 2nd stage operant conditioning occurs. Classical conditioning explains how phobias acquired & operant explains maintenance. Once fear learned, person avoids situation producing fear (e.g, Albert would avoid furry things in future). Avoidance of phobic stimuli reduces fear & is negatively reinforcing. No anxiety experienced from this avoidance behaviour (positively reinforcing). Reinforcement maintains avoidance response.