|
Advantages
- Method and Procedure: the study was under controlled conditions. It was a lab study. They checked to see whether he was a fearful child. Also, tested whether something else were triggering his fear response, e.g. his mood, by giving him wooden blocks. The film also confirms the findings.
- Ethics: They felt that "such attachments would arise anyway as soon as the child left the sheltered environment of the nursery for the rough and tumble of the home" In other words, they felt the harm that they could have done would have been no more serous than what he would have naturally had.:
|
Disadvantages
- Method and Procedure: The sample was small. Only one participant was used. Little Albert was also described as "an extremely phlegmatic type. It was PROBABLE that little Albert had a normal response that can be generalized. However, without comparison it is difficult to know whether the observed responses are unique or not.
- Alternative Evidence: Watson and Rayner were constantly "freshening up" the conditioned response. Without this, Albert's response would have reduced over time.
- Watson and Rayner cannot explain why phobias persist, and do not disappear. Mowrer 1947 did explain this through "two process theology". Phobias are acquired through classical conditioning, but they are sustained through operant conditioning. Once a fear is established, you will avoid the object. This is negative reinforcement, because anxiety is taken away when you avoid.
- Di Nardo et al. (1988) not everyone that has experienced a traumatic incident, e.g. being bitten by a dog, developed a phobia. Learning alone cannot explain all phobias.
- Ethics: Watson and Rayner were unsure about whether they had caused excessive fear in Albert. They said "We felt that we could do him relatively little harm in the studies", but later said "In order to not disturb the child too seriously no further tests were given for one week"
- They purposefully caused fear for Little Albert, and prevented him from comforting himself, when he sucked his thumb (because it lessened the effect of the conditioning)
- Watson and Rayner believe Little Albert's fear would continue, because they had been unable to be unconditioned because he was suddenly removed from the experiment. This suggests that the childs mother was also not fully informed. This issue should have been prevented in the beginning.
- Lack of valid consent: babies cannot give valid consent. Though his mother could have, she could have been pressured into it. She was a wet nurse that worked at the hospital, and Watson and Rayner were important psychologists. She may have felt she had no choice. She even later pulled Albert out of the study, suggesting she was not okay with the results in his behavior, or wasn't expecting it.
- Seligman (1970) said that animals and humans are biologically prepared to avoid danger. This means that we are genetically programmed to rapidly associate stimuli and fear. This is also called ancient fears. We have phobias of things that would have been dangerous for our ancestors.
|
Comments
Report