Watson and Rayner EVALUATION

Watson and Rayner EVALUATION

1. GENERALIABILITY-

   • Low generalisability- Watson and Rayner's study only used one participant (little Albert). A case study is only representative of one person, therefore the results cant be generalised to a wider poulations
     • HOWEVER, could generalise to other babies raised in a similar environment. Little Albert was raised primarily in a hospital environment, so any other babies raised in the same way could show a similar response

2. RELIABILITY

   • High reliability- the methodology used was relatively simple and was documented step by step so it can be easily replicated. Little Albert was exposed to the loud noise and the rat in a set of standardised procedures based on Pavlov's theory of CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
     • HOWEVER- reliability could be LOWERED as little Alberts behaviour can't be standardised, as in not every person would react the same as the baby if the study was repeated

3. APPLICATIONS-

   • HIGH- the results provided an explanation of how a fear response is learnt- so if it can be learnt it can therefore also be unlearnt though treatments based on classical conditioning. SYSTEMATIC DESENSITISATION
     • HOWEVER- there was never a follow up experiment to see if the ear response could be unlearnt or not

4. VALIDITY-

   • HIGH- the study was scientific and carried out in a lab with strict lab conditions with high levels of control (they used toy blocks as a baseline to show Albert played normally when given unconditioned objects. CAUSE AND EFFECT links are made showing that fear response can be learnt. This study supports PSYCHOLOGY AS A SCIENCE.
     • HOWEVER, the ecological validity of the study is lowered as it was done in very controlled conditions- small quite room. Babies are born into a far more complex environment and even though they did move him into a bigger room with more people in it, they controlled the stimuli he was exposed to

5. ETHICS

   • LOW- prior to the experiment, Albert was not easily frightened, but he became more fearful of many other situations, therefore there was little protection from psychological harm (on numerous occasions he described as crying and whimpering in response to stimulus such as the rat and dog. IN ADDITION, it was never made clear if the babies mother and father knew what would happen to little Albert (issue around informed consent raised
     • HOWEVER, ethical guidelines did not exist at the time.