Little Emotional Albert - Watson, J.B., & Rayner, R

Little Emotional Albert - Watson, J.B., & Rayner, R.

Evaluation questions

· Independent variable:

o neutral/conditioned stimuli

· Dependent variable:

o Little Albert’s emotional reaction

· Original aim of the research:

o To show that all human behavior comes from learning and conditioning

o To show that the Freudian conception of psychology was wrong

o To show that if a stimulus that automatically produces a certain reaction is repeatedly experienced at the same moment as something else, then the latter thing will became associated in your brain with that reaction. (US = UR à US + NS = UR à CS = CR)

· The results:

o Little Albert was conditioned to fear the rat, and then, due to generalization, began to fear rabbits, dogs, fur coats, a package of cotton, etc. (anything that relates somehow to the rat)

· Is there cross-cultural support for the study?

o On one hand, yes, because according to this study and to Watson’s research in general, any child could be conditioned the same way Little Albert was.

· Is there any gender bias?

o Although the study only had one test subject, who was a boy, the answer would have to be no: this experiment did not involve girls, although the researchers probably did not have a specific intent in discriminating females from this study.

· Is bidirectional ambiguity resolved?

o Yes, because the stimuli are provoking a reaction in Little Albert. It would not make sense for the process to go the other way.

· Does the study help to open up or extend debate?

o Yes, because it gives more support for the nurture side of the nature versus nurture debate and completely contradicts the Freudian beliefs, therefore allowing for extended debate on the topic.

· Has it defined or helped to clarify the meaning of any concepts in psychology?

o It has defined the meaning of unconditional stimulus, unconditional response, neutral stimulus, conditioned stimulus, and conditioned response, generalization, extinction, behaviorism.

· Does the study employ concepts and definitions that can be criticized?

o These new concepts of unconditioned and conditioned stimuli and responses can definitely be criticized. For example, the study rejects any idea of genetics being part of emotional reactions, which is rather reductionist, and only uses one test subject, which takes away from its credibility.

· Does it reflect the values of a perspective or the psychologist?

o It definitely reflects the behaviorist ideas of the two researchers. They believed that behavior can be conditioned with different stimuli and constant repetition, and this is the only way they viewed this study.

· Are there other possible explanations that the study overlooks?

o The study completely overlooks the biological perspective, which could possibly be applied to this study, and also the Freudian perspective, which could also have something to do with Little Albert’s strong reactions. The biological perspective would have to do with Albert’s possible innate and genetic phobia of loud noises or rats. The Freudian perspective would take into account Albert’s past experiences with loud noises or animals, and his subconscious reactions to them. Taking into account these various perspective could shed more light on the explanation of the results of the study.

· What are the advantages/disadvantages of the methods used in the study?

o Advantages:

§ It clearly shows a passage and the connection between the loud noise, the rat, and the fear of the animal and of other objects close to it

§ It adds to the nurture side of the debate

o Disadvantages:

§ It is highly unethical to condition such a young child to have these fears

§ The study was only performed on one test subject, which takes away from the credibility of the study

§ The test subject was a male, thus creating possible discrimination against females

· Is the sample representative?

o Scientifically, it really is not, seeing as the test subject was only one, and thus it cannot possibly be said that he was representative of the whole 11-month child population.

· Is the study reliable?

o Yes, this study is reliable because it can be replicated and the same results would occur.

· Is the study supported by other research?

o The study is supported by Watson’s previous research on this topic. He came up with these ideas, so he is the only one testing them at the time.

· Is the study ethical?

o Although at that time, the study was ethical and met the ethical guidelines, with today’s standards, the study is not ethical at all. It is unethical to provoke an emotion, especially fear, in a child, and instill a certain behavior in him that might stick with him for the rest of his life. In addition, he was

· Is the study ecologically valid?

o Yes, because it can occur naturally, as much of learning does.

· Is mundane reality achieved? (Is the situation realistic/believable?)

o Mundane reality was not initially achieved because Albert was kept in a control environment, however, they did eventually achieve mundane reality when they took him out of the environment and tested his fear.

· Are there any procedural issues that would make replication difficult?

o There are procedural issues because the experiment was unethical in its entirety, and reproducing it nowadays would be difficult since there are rules and ethical standards that must be abided by. There have been studies done with animals, such as birds, which is a way to avoid the ethical issue of this particular study. Also, Albert was a baby, which is an issue to deal with when looking at the results.

· Could there be observer bias?

o Watson and Raynor recorded little Albert’s response to the different stimuli and it is possible that since both had so much weighing on the experiment, they saw what they wanted to see.

· Could demand effects have affected the outcome?

o No because Little Albert was too young to understand which results Watson truly wanted.

· Is construct validity established?

o Yes, construct validity is established because Watson was able to test everything he wanted from the study and tested everything except discrimination and extinction.

· Is there inter-rater reliability?

o Yes, there is inter-rater reliability because the study can be replicated. The reactions that show fear were described as anything negative, which means another researcher reproducing the study would not be likely to question if the test subject is afraid or not.

· How much training was necessary? Could maturation have taken place?

o Training was necessary in this study because if even the slightest thing went wrong, the result would change and Albert would have a different conditioned reaction.

· Could the study be contaminated?

o Yes, the study could be contaminated because there could have been other stimuli, such as the researchers or the place, which could have affected the results and possibly changed Albert’s conditioning. Also, past experiences with the stimuli that were present to Albert could have contaminated the research as well.

· Is this a correlation, or can causation be determined?

o Causation can be determined because the way in which the experiment was set up explains the steps the psychologists took to condition this fear in Albert. This shows a direct cause-and-effect experiment.