classic study: watson and rayner (1920)

• watson and rayner: aim

  to investigate if they could classically condition a fear response in a child towards an animals by presenting it to an infant with a loud noise
• watson and rayner: sample

  little Albert who was a 9 months old male infant at the start of the research

  he was raised mostly in a hospital environment as this is where his mother worked

  he was reported to be solid and unemotional
• watson and rayner: type of study

  not a case study IS A PRE - EXPERIMENT
• watson and rayner: procedure

  the IV was the pairing of the loud noise with the rat

  the DV was the fear response measure via how much albert cried

  little albert went through a series of emotional tests and was found to not show any fear response to any situation

  the conditioning process started 2 months later
• watson and rayner: procedure (session 1)

  in a 'lab environment' little albert was presented with the white rat

  when he reached to touch the rat a bar was struck loudly behind his head

  this was done twice
• watson and rayner: procedure (session 2)

  a week later albert was exposed to the pairing of the rat and the loud noise 5 more times

  after this he was exposed to building blocks as a control which he showed no fear towards them
• watson and rayner: procedure (session 3)

  after 5 days little albert was tested on his response to the rat when a loud bar was struck behind his head

  he was further tested with other objects such as wooden blocks, a rabbit, a dog, cotton wool and a fur coat in the same way
• watson and rayner: procedure (session 4)

  after 5 days little albert was taken to a new novel environment (lecture theatre and with 4 people present)

  he was tested to see his response to the various objects and the loud noise
• watson and rayner: procedure (session 5)

  the final test a month later included a variety of different objects such as a santa clause mask, fur coat, the rat, the rabbit, the dog and the building blocks
• watson and rayner: results (baseline testing)

  it was found in the baseline testing that little Albert showed no fear to any of these stimuli expect the loud noise
• watson and rayner: results (session 1)

  in session 1 he did respond to the loud noise, fell forward and whimpered
• watson and rayner: results (session 2)

  by session 2 he was more cautious towards the rat and would not reach out for the rat like before

  after further conditioning he began to cry and crawl away from the rat
• watson and rayner: results (session 3)

  in session 3 this fear was generalised to the white furry objects (white rabbit and the rat) with mild fear towards the dog but no fear towards anything else
• watson and rayner: results (session 4 and 5)

  in session 4 and 5 his fear reactions to white furry objects remained the same but became less extreme in a different environment and over time
• watson and rayner: conclusion

  conditioning a phobia repose such as crying and crawling away from the rat was easy as it only took 2 sessions and stimulus generalisation occurs as little albert showed a fear response to similar looking white furry objects

  a conditioned repose can become extinct over time as little albert didn't cry at the initial presentation of the rabbit at 1 year and 21 days later
• watson and rayner: sample (+)

  little Albert was unemotional prior to the study and had no previous associations or fears as shown in the baseline testing

  therefore extraneous variables are controlled meaning internal validity is high as can accurately measure the loud bang associated to a fear response of the white rat
• watson and rayner: sample (-)

  only one 9 month old male baby was used in the study

  so not representative of a wider population of adults or females so can't generalise
• watson and rayner: standardised procedure (+)

  watson and rayner used a standardised procedure when conditioning little albert as they would bang the bar 7 times when associated with the rat

  therefore consistent measure of association of loud bang and rat so high in reliability so the study could be carried out in the future to test for consistency in results of associating a loud bang with a white rat
• watson and rayner: lab experiment (-)

  the study was carried out in a lab environment so not alberts natural environment meaning it may not be an accurate representation of how he would associate loud bangs with a rat in a more natural environment like a nursery

  this is a weakness as its low in ecological validity as Albert may have had a different repose in an environment he felt most natural in so an improvement would be to test him at home or in hospital with his mum to finding the most accurate results
• watson and rayner: ethical issues (-)

  psychological harm to albert as he would be left with a phobia of white rats so no protection from harm, no debrief and he couldn't withdraw or give his own informed consent
• watson and rayner: useful

  if we can learn a phobia we can unlearn a phobia

  so useful for clinical psychology when giving treatment to patients such as flooding therapy
• watson and rayner: not useful

  people have to consent to therapy first and phobia treatments are often psychologically distressing for the participant and unethical
• watson and rayner: classical conditioning

  UCS - loud bang

  UCR - fear response

  NS - white rat

  CS - white rat

  CR - fear response