Watson and Rayner

• Methodology


  one participant 9 months old Little Albert

  Controlled observation

  well-lit dark room,Albert was placed on a mattress on a table

  NOT a case study-only was an observation of Albert's behaviour,not an in-depth analysis of his life

  NOT an experiment-only one condition
• Procedures


  recorded on a motion picture camera
• Procedures


  Emotional tests

  tested Alberts response to objects;white rat,rabbit,dog,monkey,cotton wool,masks with/out hair

  his first time seeing any of these objects

  tested with a loud sound,striking a hammer on a steel bar(2cm diameter and 1 metre long)
• Procedures


  Session 1 Establishing a conditioned emotional response

  11 months 3 days

  Presented with the white rat and he started to reach out to it,when he did the bar was struck behind his head.
• Procedures


  Session 2 Testing the conditioned emotional response

  11 months and 10 days

  shown the rat with no sound

  introduced to the joint stimulation 5 times
• Procedures


  Session 3 Generalisation

  11 months and 15 days

  see if the link between the rat and the noise would be generalised to other objects

  Presented with the rat,wooden blocks,rabbit,dog,cotton wool,Watsons hair
• Procedures


  Session 4 Changing the environment

  11 months and 21 days

  emotional response was freshened up

  New environment-a large well-lit lecture room with 4 people,placed on a table in the centre of the room
• Procedures


  Session 5 The effect of time

  12 months and 21 days

  he had been to the lab in the meantime but no tests were conducted

  Final tests were;santa mask,fur coat,rat,rabbit,dog and blocks
• Findings


  Emotional tests

  no fear response to objects

  mum and doctors never seen him in a fear or rage,rarely cried.

  when the bar was struck,his lips puckered and trembled

  3rd time-crying fit
• Findings


  Session 1 Establishing a conditioned emotional response

  1-jumped and fell forward at the struck and buried his head but didnt cry

  2-fell forward,a little whimper
• Findings 


  Session 2 Testing the conditioned emotional response

  didnt reach for the rat,just stared

  He reached out when it was nearer but withdrew his hand when the rat nuzzled his hand

  He played with blocks happily,response was just to the rat

  After joint stimulation,more distressed and cried,crawled away when shown the rat
• Findings


  Session 3 Generalisation

  blocks- played happily

  rat- fear

  rabbit as extreme

  Cotton wool played with it in a packet,less cautious later

  Watsons hair played with it,no fear response
• Findings


  Session 4 Changing the environment

  response to the rat,rabbit and dog were less extreme

  After freshening up,fear responses were stronger
• Findings


  Session 5 The effect of time

  clear difference in response to test objects and blocks

  fear response not as extreme as before but avoided them and whimpered

  occasionally cried
• Conclusions


  ease to which a fear response can be created

  only needed 2 joint stimulations to create a conditioned emotional response

  7 joint stimulations to complete the whole reaction

  conditioned responses generalised to similar stimuli

  many phobias are acquired this way,but persistence of conditioned responses would only be found in people who are constitutionally inferior
• Conclusions


  Freudian position

  Freud was favoured at the time of the research

  Albert sucked his thumb when scared,sexual stimulation-to pass the oral stage of the psychosexaul stages

  This proved Freud wrong,stimulation is to block fear not for pleasure

  Freudian therapist may link his fear to being scolded for playing with mothers pubic hair,pushing memory into unconscious mind
• Evaluation-Methodology and procedures


  Controlled study

  extraneous variables could be controlled-in a lab

  Baseline condition,he wasnt a fearful child

  Control condition(blocks),response was to any furry object

  Films were recorded so findings can be confirmed
• Evaluation-Methodology and procedures


  The sample

  all conclusions are drawn from one case,there intention was to use more than one but had dismissal from the university.

  Albert was described as extremely phlegmatic(very calm and even-tempered),if he was emotionally unstable his response might have been greater and lasted longer.

  Without any comparison its hard to know whether the observed responses are unique to the individual or not.
• Evaluation-Ethical issues


  Creating Fear

  unsure whether excessive fear was created.

  They felt that they were doing little harm but they let Albert have 1 week rest.

  They were aware that it was distressing.

  If something creates greater stress than they would normally experience in real life then its classed as unethical.

  Watson and Rayner argue that Albert would have one day experienced what was happening but the hospital protected him
• Evaluation-More psychological harm


  they increased the effect of risk of harm

  When he was frightened,he sucked his thumb,which calmed him down and reduced the effect of the stimuli

  So they removed his thumb so the conditioned response was still made
• Evaluation-Ethical issues


  Lasting effects

  Alberts conditioned response wasnt unconditioned

  They intended to but Albert had to leave the hospital suddenly

  Responses would had persisted in the home environment unless it was accidentally removed
• Evaluation Social implication


  Health

  Designing hospital environments to avoid negative associations and employing conditioning in health campaigns to promote healthy behaviours.

  Therapies for phobias use principles of classical conditioning to reduce fear responses
• Evaluation Social implication


  Parents may use conditioning techniques to influence their childs behaviour,rewarding desired behaviours or using comfort objects to provide security