2Over all AimTo demonstrate that the principles of classical conditioning can be used to explain how humans acquire phobic behaviours and to show that a fear response can be created within a young child to a stimulus which does not naturally produce this response.
3aimsTo investigate whether it is possible to condition a fear of an animal in a babyTo see whether that fear would be transferred to other animals and objects?
4Aims?To investigate the effect of time on such conditioned emotional responsesIf the responses do not extinguish themselves, then to investigate what laboratory methods can be devised for their removal
5Participant Little Albert aged 9 months - 1 year 21 days Mother a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid ChildrenThis was where Albert had been raisedAlbert ‘normal’Stolid and unemotionalStolid = not easily stirred or moved mentally; unemotional; impassive
6“The infant practically never cried.” “No one had ever seen him in a state of fear or rage.”“The infant practically never cried.”Direct quotes from the original paper – giving reasons for why he would make a good test subject
7“We felt we could do him relatively little harm by carrying out experiments such as those outlined below...”
8ProcedureMethodSingle case study conducted under laboratory conditionsUsing observational techniques to record dataThey recorded his physical reactions such as lips trembling, crying, starting violently, crawling away
9ProcedureAlthough only carried out on one participant (a healthy, 9 month old male infant called ‘Albert B’ or little Albert) this is an example of a laboratory experiment.The procedure involved 3 phases: pre conditioning testing, conditioning trials and a post conditioning test.
10Procedure Approx 9 months Little Albert was shown a series of stimuli White ratRabbitDogMonkeyMasksCotton woolBurning newspapersAt NO time did Little Albert show any fearNeutral stimuli
11Procedure 8 months & 26 days A steel bar was struck with a sharp blow Unconditioned stimulus8 months & 26 daysA steel bar was struck with a sharp blowbehind Albert’s headAlbert showed ‘startled reaction’The steel bar was struck againAlbert again showed a ‘startled reaction & his lips puckered and trembledThe steel bar was struck for the third timeAlbert started cryingA hammer was struck upon a suspended steel bar four feet in length whilst Albert’s attention was fixated on Rosalie Raynor’s moving handAlbert’s startled reaction consisted of him starting violently, his breathing checked and arms raisedThey also tried jerking and dropping the blanket that Albert was lying on but it failed to produce a fear response!!!!Unconditioned response
12Procedure Establishment of conditioned emotional responses 11 months and three daysA white rat was taken from a basketand presented to AlbertJust as he reached for the rat the steelbar was struck behind his headLittle Albert showed a fear reaction by jumping violently and falling forwardThe procedure was then repeated and Albert jumped again and began to whimperso not to disturb him ‘too seriously’ they gave no further test for one week
13Procedure11 months 10 days1. The rat was presented without the steel bar and Albert was hesitant to touch the animalThis shows the procedure that was performed the previous week had had some effect...Then the experimental procedure began again...2. The rat and steel bar were presented togetherLittle Albert ‘started’ and fell over
14Procedure3. Joint stimulation again. Albert fell over again and turn away from the rat4. Joint stimulation – same reaction5. Rat presented alone – Albert whimpers and withdraws his body6. Joint stimulation. Albert fell over again and started to whimper7. Joint stimulation. Albert started violently and cried!
15ProcedureConditioned emotional responseConditioned stimulus8. Rat presented alone – Albert cries and crawls away so quickly that he almost falls off the table
16It takes seven joint stimulation trials in all to make Little Albert cry and establish the fear response!
17Procedure testing aim 2 – Will Albert's fear response generalise to other objects? 11 months 15 days1. Albert is shown the rat again and shows a fear response2. Albert is then shown a rabbit. He show a fear response by whimpering then bursting into tears and buried his head in the mattress then crawled off crying
18procedure Little Albert shows a similar fear response to: Fur coat Cotton woolSanta maskA dogJust in ‘play’ Watson put his head down to see if Albert would play with his hair. Albert was completely negative!!!When two other observers did the same thing Albert immediately began to play with their hair (says a lot)
19Procedure testing aim 3 – the effect of time on conditioned emotional responses No further conditioning experimentation was conducted on Little Albert for 31 daysOne Year 21 daysLittle Albert was presented withThe Santa maskThe Fur CoatThe RatThe DogHe showed a fear response to all of themAs Little Albert’s mum was leaving the hospital in a month to go to new employment, Watson was faced with a choice – try to extinguish the phobia using psychological techniques or see if it persisted...he chose the second
20“These experiments seem to show conclusively that directly conditioned emotional responses as well as those conditioned by transfer, persist”
21“Our view is that these responses in the home environment are likely to persist indefinitely”
22After the study…….. What happened to Little Albert? Watson wanted to desensitize him to see if a conditioned stimulus could be removed, but knew from the beginning of the study that there would not be time.Albert left the hospital on the day these last tests were made, and no desensitizing ever took place, hence the opportunity of developing an experimental technique for removing the Conditioned Emotional Response was then discontinued."Albert B." was a pseudonym for Douglas Merritte. The boy died on May 10, 1925 of hydrocephalus.
23EvaluationValidityThis 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 which may not reflect learning in everyday life.However, this artificiality did increase the experimental validity of the study due to the strict controls, e.g. Albert had no prior learning due to his age that could have influenced the fear response to rats.
24Evaluation Reliability The study is high in reliability as the use of standardised procedures 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.
25Evaluation Generalisability However, as this was a study of one young child the findings cannot be generalised to others. 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.
26Evaluation Application to everyday life This research has demonstrated that phobias can be learnt through the process of classical conditioning. Therefore, if we can understand how phobias do develop we can incorporate this into treatment of this form of behaviour through the use of systematic desensitisation.
27Evaluation Ethical issues There are ethical concerns with this study as Albert was conditioned to fear numerous white furry stimuli. His mother removed him from the experiment before the researchers were able to remove this fear. This goes against the present day guideline of protection which govern psychological research. However, you could argue that the benefits to others through the development of therapy outweigh the costs to Albert.
28Extra – credibility issue A recent (2012) research paper suggests that Merritte had hydrocephalus from birth. The article also included assessments of the boy in the "Albert B." film by a clinical psychologist and a pediatric neurologist indicating that his responses were indicative of a neurologically compromised child.If true, this would undermine Watson & Rayner's claim that "Albert B." was a "normal" and "healthy" baby and possibly call into question the credibility of a highly influential study.