Methodology and Procedure
Cards (5)
- Weaknesses
- Method was artificial:
- location and controlled conditions make it artificial
- lacks ecological validity - harder to generalise conditioned responses to other environments
- Issues with sample
- Used 1 male ppt - Little Albert
- His response may not be the same as the response of another child e.g. a female ppt
- Unrepresentative sample = harder to generalise beyond
- Strength - Methodology
- Controlled methodology
- W+R had control over extraneous variables; controlled the presentation of the objects and location
- This level of control increases the internal validity of study, means that W+R have a scientific status behind them = making them trusted
- Weaknesses - Procedure
- Psychological harm
- Criticised for causing psychological harm in a vulnerable ppt
- Created distress and potential life long fear response in Albert, they prevented him from calming himself down by sucking this thumb
- Arguably an unethical way to carry out a procedure/study
- Strengths - Procedure
- Internally valid
- The 5 different session increases the strength
- For example the use of emotional test to determine if Albert was a calm and even-tempered baby with no prior fear reactions
- Increases the internal validity and means they have a legitimate measure of the effects on conditioning fear responses
- Replicable study
- Use of controlled observation + standardised procedures (procedures filmed)
- They can check for consistencies in results on effect of conditioning fear as they can replicate it from footage
- Increases the external reliability
- Weaknesses - Methodology
- Method was artificial:
- location and controlled conditions make it artificial
- lacks ecological validity - harder to generalise conditioned responses to other environments
- Issues with sample
- Used 1 male ppt - Little Albert
- His response may not be the same as the response of another child e.g. a female ppt
- Unrepresentative sample = harder to generalise beyond