|
- 1 participant - normal male infant, 9 months. Albert B/Little Albert.
- Not case study, focus only on response to conditioning, case study - in depth analysis of aspects in life.
- Not experiment - only 1 condition. Investigation to determine effects of certain stimuli. Use of experiment restricted as conducted in controlled conditions in well lit dark room. Albert placed on mattress on top of table.
- Study could be described as controlled observation.
|
- Responses recorded with motion picture camera.
- Emotional tests - to test emotional responses to certain objects, confronted suddenly with white rabbit, dog, monkey, masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers etc. Each instance first time seen objects.
- Albert then tested with loud sound, strike hammer upon suspended steel bar. Bar 1 metre long, 2cm diameter. 1 experimenter got Albert's attention, other used hammer to strike bar behind head.
- Session 1 - Establishing a conditioned emotional response - 11months, 3 days old, brought to lab. white rabbit presented, Albert reached for it, bar struck.
- Session 2 - Testing the conditioned emotional response - 1 week later, Albert returned, 11 months 10 days, shown rat with no sound, Albert exposed to 5x after with joint simulation, shown rat and noise made.
- Session 3 - Generalisation - 11 months, 15 days, returned for more testing, research question - whether learned link between rat and noise generalisable. Albert presented with rat, wooden blocks, rabbit, dog, seal fur coat, cotton wool, Watson's hair.
- Session 4 - Changing the environment - 11 months, 20 days, conditioned emotional response 'freshened' up, using 'joint simulation'. Taken to new environment - large well lit room with 4 people present. Placed on centre of table.
- Session 5 - Effect of time - 12 months, 21 days, tested last time. Been to lab in interim, no emotional tests conducted. Final tests - Santa Claus mask, fur coat, rat, rabbit, dog and blocks.
|
|
- Emotional tests - no fear response to objects before conditioning. Hospital attendants and mother - never seen him in state of fear or rage, never cried. First time bar struck behind head - child started violently, arms raised. Second simulation - same occured, lips puckered and trembled. Third simulation - child sudden crying fit, first time emotional situation in lab produced any fear or even crying.
- Session 1 - When bar struck, jumped and fell forward, burying head on table where sat, did not cry. When bar struck second time fell forward, whimpered.
- Session 2 - New response - did not reach just stared. When rat placed nearer reached carefully to it but withdrew hand when rat nuzzled. Cautious behaviour tested by giving blocks to play with, did happily. Cautious response to just the rat, general emotional state normal. After further joint simulations - Albert more distressed, when shown the rat again cried and crawled away, caught with difficulty before reaching edge of table.
- Session 3 - Played happily with blocks, shown rat immediately responded with fear, retained conditioned emotional response. Response to rabbit as extreme. Burst into tears, crawled away, neither dog or fur coat, produced violent reaction to rabbit. Cotton wool was in paper package, Albert played with, not touching wool at first. Watson's hair - no fear response.
- Session 4 - Responses to rat, rabbit and dog less extreme than before. After 'freshening up' conditioned response stronger. Even when response weak, noticeably different from reaction to blocks, always happily played with blocks. Distinct learned response persisted to furry objects.
- Session 5 - Reaction to furry objects not as extreme as before but clearly avoided and whimpered.
|
- Ease of creation of fear response.
- 2 joint simulations in first week sufficient enough to create conditioned emotional response.
- 7 joint simulations given to bring about complete reaction.
- Learned responses generalisable to similar stimuli, maintained fearful response to many different furry objects over time studied.
- Watson and Rayner suggested it probable that many phobias acquired. Suspected that persistence of early conditioned responses only found in persons who are 'constitutionally inferior'.
- Freudian position - time of study (1920) Freudian explanations favoured in psychology, addressed specifically. Noted Albert often started sucking thumb when scared, possibly form of sexual stimulation. Suggest Freud may have been wrong in presuming such stimulation is pleasure seeking. Form of compensation to block fear.
- Proposed that in Albert's future he may seek help from a Freudian therapist who may conclude that his fear of seal coats meant he tried to play with the pubic hair of his mother and scolded violently for it. Pushed memory into unconscious where continue to exert effect, leading to phobia of furry objects. Supposed fear could actually be conditioned by experience with mother's pubic hair rather than mistaken Freudian interpretation of what happened.
|
Comments
No comments have yet been made