Classic Study: Watson & Rayner (1920)

Classic Study: Watson & Rayner (1920)

1. Generalisability

   • The results lack generalisability as it was only tested on one child (Little Albert) and therefore cannot be generalised to the general population due to the lack of representation.
     • HOWEVER, Albert was selected as he was 'normal'. He seemed very emotionally stable and fearless, meaning that any child more fearful and emotional would also (likely) gather the same results, potentially to an even more extreme extent.

2. Reliability

   • The study took place in a controlled lab setting, which increases the reliability of the results as it could be replicated in the future.
     • Session 1: Metal bars were banged together when Albert was presented with the white rat, causing him to fall over and whimper.
       • Session 2: The rat was presented to Albert in 5 different noise conditions. Albert was found to start crying when presented with the rat.
         • Session 3: The stimulus was found to have generalised. Albert was presented with other white, furry items such as a white rabbit and Santa, and he was found to start crying and crawl away from them.
     • Watson hid behind curtains when striking the metal bars to ensure that Albert would associate the banging with the rat, not him.
     • Albert was tested beforehand for any fears to make sure there was no pre-existing fear of rats/white rats.

3. Application

   • Can be used to explain one reason as to how fears and phobias can be created. Furthermore, due to the results, it could be applied to counter-conditioning and how to treat phobias (e.g. flooding and systematic desensitisation) as there is a deeper understanding of phobias.
     • Aimed to see if classical conditioning could be used to condition a fear.

4. Ethics

   • Could cause mental and physical harm to Albert as they are purposely creating a fear and making him scared.
     • An associated was created between the white rat which he loved and loud banging, which made him cry. This was repeatedly done over 3 different sessions and was clearly distressing for Albert as he was cry, whimper, and try to move away from the rat after the association was made.
   • Little Albert was not counter-conditioned after the study was conducted, which could have left him with a serious phobia for life.
   • Despite having consent from the parents, it does not seem ethical to put a young baby through such a distressing time when they would have no understanding of what is happening and why.

5. Validity

   • The study shows high face validity, as the results demonstrated that you can create a phobia through classical conditioning.
   • The study was conducted in a lab, and therefore results may not reflect real life behaviours. This means the results lack ecological validity.