Watson and Rayner (1920)

Watson and Rayner (1920)

1. Aim: To test whether it could be shown that our emotions can be acquired through classical conditioning

2. Procedures

   • There was one participant in this study - a 9 month old male infant, referred to as 'Little Albert'
   • Study is described as a controlled observation
   • Responses were recorded with a motion picture camera
   • His emotional responses were firstly tested to certain objects, such as a white rat, a monkey and some cotton wool
   • His emotional responses were then tested with a loud sound, made by striking a hammer upon a steel bar
   • About 2 months later, he was presented with a white rat again, however, whenever Albert started to reach for the rat, the bar was struck with the hammer
   • About a week later Albert was shown the rat with no sound to see if the previous experience had effected his behaviour
   • After this Albert was exposed 5 times to the 'joint stimulation'
   • 5 days later, Albert returned to test whether the learned link between rat and noise would be generalised to other objects. He was presented with objects such as a rabbit, a dog and a fur coat
   • 5 days later, he was taken to a new environment and tested again using the joint stimulation
   • The final test one day later involved testing his emotional responses to objects such as a Santa Claus mask, a fur coat and a rat

3. Findings and Conclusions

   • Albert showed no fear response to the objects before conditioning
   • When the bar was hit, he was violently startled, raised his arms and broke down into a crying fit
   • When Albert was tested again with the rat, he fell over and whmpered
   • When retested a week later with the joint stimulus, he just stared at the rat rather then reaching for it which he had done previously
   • Albert displayed cautious behaviour towards the rat, withdrawing his hand when the rat came too close
   • In the generalisation stage of the study, Albert played happily with the building blocks but when shown the rat he immediately responded with fear, indicating that he retained his conditioned emotional response to the rat
   • His response to the rabbit was as extreme as the rat. He burst into tears and crawled away
   • After changing environment, Albert's response to the rabbit and rat were less extreme than before, however after further exposure to the loud noise and the rat, the fear response was stronger
   • His responses were noticeably different from his reaction to the building blocks, indicating that a distinct learned response persisted towards the furry objects
   • After time, his reactions to the furry objects was not as extreme but were clearly different to his reaction to the control objects (the building blocks)
   • This study demonstrated the ease with which conditioned fear responses can be created - only seven 'joint stimulations' were given to bring about a complete fear response
   • Also demonstrated that the learned responses generalise to similar stimuli - Albert maintained a fear response towards many objects over time, not just the rat
   • Study suggests that there is a high possibility of phobias being acquired in this way
   • However, they suspected that the persistence of early conditioned responses would only be found in persons who are 'constitutionally inferior'
   • Favoured Freudian explanations during this time suggest that an infant sucking their thumb was a sign of sexual stimulation, however this study suggested that it was actually a form of compensation to block fear

4. Evaluation

   • The study was run under controlled conditions and conducted in a 'lab'-type setting where extraneous variables could be controlled
   • Additionally, there was a control condition present (the building blocks) which showed that Albert's fearful responses were exclusively to furry objects
   • Films were used to record Albert's behaviour so that findings could be confirmed by others, eliminating inter-observer bias
   • These controls enable us to infer cause and effect as we can conduct that the observed effects were due to the conditioning rather than other sources
   • There are issues with the sample in this study as only one participant was studied
     • Without any comparisons it is difficult to know whether the observed responses are unique to this individual or not and therefore we are unable to generalise these results, raising issues with the validity of this data
   • However, Watson and Raynor described Albert as 'an extremely phlegmatic type' - he was a calm and even-tempered baby
   • One of the criticisms of classical conditioning for phobias is that it does not explain how they persist over time - in this study, Albert's response has to be 'freshened up'
   • Despite this, the two-stage model including both classical conditioning and operant conditioning may explain why these phobias do not dissapear
   • Not all phobias occur by a conditioning episode and others who have suffered a traumatic incident do not develop a phobia, therefore learning alone cannot explain all phobias
   • However, it is possible that some people have suffered a traumatic event but have since forgotten about it
   • One alternative explanation is biological preparedness but Seligman argues that all animals are genetically programmed to rapidly learn association between certain stimuli and fear. These stimuli are referred to as ancient fears - things that would have been dangerous in our ancient past e.g. snakes

5. Ethical Issues

6. Social Issues