Watson and Rayner (1920) Little Albert: Conditioned emotional reactions.
To investigate whether emotional responses could be conditioned in a controlled laboratory setting.
Specifically to investigate whether fear could be conditioned in a young baby aged from nine to eleven months old.
They wanted to see if:
Fear of a white rat could be conditioned in a young child using the loud sound of a hammer hitting a steel bar.
Whether the fear response, if one was conditioned, would transfer to similar objects.
The effects of time on a conditioned fear response.
If the fear response did not disappear after an amount of time could it be deconditioned.
The study was carried out on a healthy, emotionally stable child called Albert, who was nine months old at the start of the study. At about nine months of age Albert was presented with a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, masks with and without hair and burning newspapers. Albert did not show fear towards any of the objects presented to him.
At nine months and 26 days old Albert was exposed to a hammer hitting a suspended steel bar, causing Albert to startle. The third time this was carried out Albert cried.
11 months 3 days. Albert was presented with a white rat and just as his hand touched the rat the metal bar was hit by the hammer. This was done a second time and Albert jumped violently and began to whimper.
11 months 10 days: The rat was presented to Albert with no sound. He was also presented with blocks after the rat was taken away. He played with the blocks. Then the rat was presented and the sound made, Albert was startled and fell over. This was done another two times before the rat was presented on its own again. There were a further two joint presentations before the rat was presented on its own for the third time.
11 months 15 days: Albert was shown the rat on its own two times, he played with the blocks between each presentation. Albert was the shown the rabbit on its own, followed by the dog, a seal fur coat, cotton wool and Watson’s head to see if Albert would play with his hair. He was also presented with a Santa Claus mask. Blocks were given to Albert between each item for him to play with and calm him down.
11 months 20 days: Albert was presented with the rat alone, and then the rat was placed on his hand and the steel bar hit. After this he was presented with the rat alone two more times, followed by the rabbit. After being given the blocks to play with the rabbit was again presented, and as Albert reached for it the steel bar was hit by the hammer, and then the rabbit was presented on its own. The same procedure was carried out for the dog.
On the same day Albert was taken to a well-lit lecture room where he was presented with the rat alone, the rabbit alone, the dog alone, then the rat a second time followed by the rat and the loud noise. Albert was then shown the rat on its own twice followed by the rabbit and the dog.
1 year 21 days: Albert was presented with the Santa Claus mask followed by the fur coat, the rat, the rabbit and the dog, with blocks being given to Albert between the presentations of each object.
11 months 10 days: Albert did not reach for the rat at first. When the rat’s nose touched his hand he withdrew his hand. When the rat was presented on its own for the second time Albert whimpered and moved his body ways from the rat. On the third presentation of the rat on its own Albert began to cry, turned away from the rat sharply and began to crawl away from the rat.
11 months 15 days: Albert began to whimper when he saw the rat the first time, and turned away from it. The second time he saw the rat he crawled away from it. The rabbit caused Albert to lean away from it before he began to cry and crawl away from it. He did not have such an extreme reaction to the dog, but he did try and move away from it when it came too close to him, and he began to cry when the dog was made to get close to Albert’s head. When shown the seal fur coat he withdrew his body from it and began to fret. When the cotton wool was place near Albert’s feet he kicked it away, and he withdrew his hand was it was placed there. Albert would not play with Watson’s hair, but he would play with the hair of two other observers. Albert also showed a negative reaction to the Santa Claus mask.
11 months 20 days: The first time the rat was presented on its own Albert withdrew his body from the rat, but did not cry. After the steel bar had been hit Albert’s reaction was almost as strong as the previous trial but he did not cry, and the second time it was presented he tried to crawl away to avoid the rat whilst gurgling and cooing. When the rabbit was presented he leant over away from it and began to whimper, but his reaction was not as strong as previous trials. When the rabbit was presented on its own after the steel bar was hit Albert’s response again moved his body away from it and began to whimper.
When Albert was moved to the lecture theatre he showed no initial fear of the rat the first time it was presented but he did hold his hands out of the way of the rat. He has a slight fear reaction to the rabbit, and he turned away from the dog and cried. After the rat had been paired with the sound again Albert drew his body away when the rat was presented on its own and whimpered, he whimpered and fell over when the rabbit was presented and at first did not cry when the dog was presented. When the dog barked it caused Albert to fall over and cry.
1 year and 21 days: Albert withdrew from the Santa Claus mask and whimpered when he was forced to touch it. He wrinkled his nose at the fur coat and moved his hands away from it. When he accidently touched the coat he began to cry, and he whimpered when the coat was put on his lap. When the rat was presented he sat very still, even as the rat was moving towards him. When the rat was put on his arm Albert moved his arm away as quickly as possible, and when it crawled against his chest he began to fret and covered his eyes. Albert did not try to avoid the rabbit at first, but after a few seconds he puckered his face and began to push the rabbit away with his feet. Albert cried after a few second of the dog being presented to him.
It was concluded that emotional transfer does take place. It was also concluded that conditioned emotional responses last for at least a week, and that conditioned fears can generalise to other similar objects. Watson and Rayner also concluded that emotional disturbances in adults can be traced back to conditioning.
Watson and Rayner only used one boy age 9 to 11 months so the study may not be generalisable. Albert had been reared in a hospital environment from birth and he was unusual as he had never been seen to show fear or rage by staff. Therefore Little Albert may have responded differently in this experiment to how other young children may have, these findings will therefore be unique to him.
There were strict controls such as the timing of hitting the metal bar so the study is replicable.
The study has high reliability as the use of standardised procedures, such as the pre conditioning phase, allows for high control over all extraneous variables, this means that it is possible to replicate the study and check that the results are consistent.
There is some debate about whether Albert was a fully healthy baby so the results may not be valid.
The findings can be used to help cure phobias by pairing the phobic object with relaxation.
The study can be deemed unethical as they caused distress. Albert was conditioned to fear numerous white furry stimuli. This could considered to break the guideline protection from harm. His mother removed him from the experiment before the researchers were able to remove this fear.
However, Watson and Rayner argued they did intend to decondition his fear.
This research lacks ecological validity, so the findings cannot be generalised to other settings outside the laboratory situation as the method used created an unnatural situation of deliberately hitting a bar while Albert was holding the rat, which may not reflect learning in everyday life.
Identify the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) in Watson and Rayner’s (1920) study. (1) January 2018
Explain one improvement that could be made to the sample used in Watson and Rayner’s (1920) study. (2) January 2018
Describe the results of the classic study by Watson and Rayner (1920). (2) October 2019
Explain two ethical weaknesses of Watson and Rayner’s (1920) study. (4) January 2018
Explain two strengths of the classic study carried out by Watson and Rayner (1920). (4) October 2019
Evaluate the classic study by Watson and Rayner (1920). (12)