(10) Unit 1 - Classic Research: Watson, J.B and Rayner, R (1920) 'Conditioned Emotional Reactions' (evaluation of methodology and procedures)

Why is Watson and Rayner’s high level of control a strength?

They were able to control for extraneous variables due to the degree of control they had.

What are some examples of factors controlled during this research?

The presentation of ‘furry objects’ which was done in a controlled manner several times to establish an emotional response and later transfer a conditioned response to other stimuli, as well as observing the effect on time on conditioned emotional responses. Watson and Rayner used a controlled amount of joint stimulations and single stimulations to ensure that the conditioning had been effective. They also did preliminary tests to ensure that Albert did not have any fears of the furry objects prior to the experiment.

Why was this level of control a strength?

This level of control meant that Watson and Rayner could ensure the internal validity of the research, meaning that the dependent variable was measuring the impact of the independent variable.

Therefore, why is Watson and Rayner’s high level of control a strength?

With such scientific methodology being used, Watson and Rayner’s research has scientific status and can be trusted over less scientific methods where results cannot be quantified, such as an open interview.

Why is questions regarding representativeness a methodological flaw?

There are questions regarding the representativeness of the sample used meaning that generalisations may not be able to be made.

What was the issue with Watson and Rayner’s sample?

It consisted of one participant, Albert, a calm, even-tempered child. One of the main reasons he was selected was due to his emotional stability and his availability as his mum was an employee at the hospital in which Watson and Rayner worked. Hospital attendants said they had never seen him in a state of fear and that he almost never cried. Watson and Rayner reinforced this by saying “his stability was one of the principal reasons for using him as a subject in this test”.

Why was Albert being stable a possible weakness of their methodology?

Them purposefully selected Albert due to his stability, although they had good intentions to do him relatively little harm, meant their study cannot be generalised to other children who would likely have a very different behavioural response, or to phobias in general as Little Albert’s phobia was intentionally conditioned whereas other phobias, although learnt are not intentional.

Therefore, why is Watson and Rayner’s sample size a methodological flaw?

Findings cannot be generalised to people who suffer with severe phobias or used as a basis for continued research into the subject area of phobias.

Why is Watson and Rayner having baseline measurements a procedural strength?

They could compare their results with them.

Why did they preform baseline tests?

Albert’s ‘pre manipulation behaviour’ could be judged to establish whether he was a fearful child before the study. The trial where Albert played with the wooden blocks provided a control condition, which showed his fear was exclusively for furry objects.

Why were these baseline measurements beneficial?

It means that the findings are scientific and can be attributed to the conditioning techniques used by Watson and Rayner.

Therefore, why is having baseline measurements a procedural strength?

This makes the findings of the research more credible within the scientific community.

Why is Watson and Rayner’s research lacking ecological validity a procedural weakness?

It may mean that findings cannot be generalised.

Why may the research lack ecological validity?

Albert was a very calm child who had spent most of his life in hospital as his mother worked there as a wet nurse. Although he was viewed as stable, he would not have had any exposure to furry objects and certainly not animals due to the sanitary conditions.

Why is it an issue that Albert was brought up in a hospital?

Although they purposefully selected a stable infant, his response may have been more extreme than other infants who lived in alternative conditions, perhaps having been exposed to furry objects, however, he may have reacted in a calmer manner due to his stolid nature that he was selected for which would suggest that their procedures were not ecologically valid.

Therefore, is Albert’s upbringing a procedural flaw?

Findings cannot be generalised to the development of phobias for all as Albert’s response will have been impacted by his upbringing.