Evaluation of Little Albert study

• The generalisability of the study is low.
• This is because only one participant (Little Albert) was involved. He was 11 months old and it was later revealed that he had an illness which may have influenced his behaviour.
• This makes it harder for us to generalise the results of the experiment onto people of other ages, genders, and people without the same illness as the infant.

• The study has high reliability.
• It was conducted in laboratory conditions which had strict controls (such as conducting the conditioning in the same room, using the same loud bang for conditioning etc).
• Such controls would make it easier to replicate the study and test that the results are reproducible.

+ HOWEVER it would be unethical to repeat such a study in accordance to the new BPS guidelines, so this could be uncertain.

• The study has some applications.
• By helping to outline the relationship between conditioned/unconditioned stimulus and responses, it can help us to identify why and how people develop phobias, and can provide help in treating phobias.
• Eg. Flooding and systematic desensitisation treat phobias by helping people to unlearn their phobic response.

• The study has low validity.
• It was conducted in laboratory conditions which had high degrees of control in place. In a real life situation, little albert would have fear conditioned in different environments without the exact same conditions.
• The artificial conditions may have caused Little Albert to respond differently than he would have if the experiment was conducted in a natural environment like his home. So it can be said that the study has low ecological validity.

• The ethics of the study are questionable.
• Distress was intentionally caused to the baby which may conflict with the new BPS guidelines. Also, informed consent wasn't gained from Little Alberts mother.
• This causes us to question whether the experiment should've taken place in the first place.