What was the aim of Watson & Rayner’s study?
- To find out if a fear response can be conditioned on a 9 month old baby boy.
- To see if the fear response will be generalised to other animals and objects and how long conditioning lasts.
What was the sample of Watson & Rayner’s study?
1 baby boy. Was 9 months at start of the study but 11 months when conditioning began.
Why was Albert chosen?
Seemed healthy and quite fearlus (“practically never cried” according to Watson).
How much was Albert’s mother paid?
$1.
What type of sample was the study?
Opportunity sample.
What was the procedure of Watson & Rayner’s study?
- Tested him with a white rat, a rabbit, cotton wool and other stimuli to see if he had a fear reaction. He didn’t; they were NS.
- Banged an iron bar. He cried at the noise; noise was a UCS and crying was a UCR.
- Conditioned at 11 months: shown white rat 3 times, where it was paired with striking the iron bar. He whimpered.
- Week later, he was conditioned again. Rat was presented 3 times, paired with the noise.
What were the results of Watson & Rayner’s study?
When presetned with rat alone, he cried. This suggests that the NS is now a CS and his crying is a CR.
What other stimuli was presented to Albert?
Over 10 days, shown a rabbit, dog, and Watson wearing a santa mask.
What happened when he was presented with other similar stimuli?
Cried when he saw rabbit and santa mask (similar to rat). Crawled away and cried when it approached to the dog (less similar to rat) - generalisation of response.
Was there transferral of response to other settings from Albert?
Yes - was moved into lecture theatre with 4 others and had the same responses to the rat and rabbit.
Did Albert’s reactions last?
Tested a month later and found same responses but weaker.
What were the conclusions of Watson & Rayner?
- Successfully conditioned Albert to fear the white rat.
- Fear response generalised to other white, furry things.
- Transferred responses to other situations.
Was W&R generalisable?
No❌:
- Only 1 P which could be considered veyr unrepresentative as the baby could’ve been unsual in many ways
However, Albert was delibertely selected for his normalcy: seemed fearless and emotionally stable. His reactions would’ve been the reactions of any baby to these experiences that are quite common (cry out loud noise), so not unique.
- Therefore represent baby’s
- Cosh (2012) said that if Albert/Douglas Meritte died from hydrocephalus at 6, he was possibly sick at 1 when he did the experiment. He points out that he looks rather unfocussed.
- If Albert wasn’t healthy or normal child, then results cannot be generalised to all children.
- Cosh (2012) said that if Albert/Douglas Meritte died from hydrocephalus at 6, he was possibly sick at 1 when he did the experiment. He points out that he looks rather unfocussed.
Was W&R Reliable?
Yes✅:
- Standardised procedures and was carefully documented (right down to the numbers of days and the time of day) and it was filmed. It could be replicated quite easily but hasn’t been for ethical reasons.
- Surviving film of procedures means we can all view Albert’s responses and see his fear for ourselves - inter-rater.
Was W&R valid?
Yes✅:
- Study had careful controls, e.g. Watson hid behind a curtain when striking the iron bar so Albert would associate the noise with the rat, not him or the bar or hammer.
- Tested Albert’s reactions before conditioning, to make sure he didn’t have any pre-existing fear of white, furry things.
- Had good internal validity.
- Watson’s conclusions were in line with what classical cond predicted. Study fits well established theory = construct validity.
However:
- Setting for experiment lacks ecological validity as Albert was away from his playroom and familiar nurses (was in lecture theatre). This may have made him nervous. However, didn’t seem nervous and was with his mother the whole time.
