Classical Conditioning: Watson & Rayner's Research (College Board AP® Psychology): Revision Note
Watson & Rayner: the 'Little Albert' study
Watson and Rayner (1920) aimed to demonstrate that emotional responses can be classically conditioned
They directly challenging the idea that fear is innate
They hypothesized that phobias and emotional reactions in humans could be acquired through the same associative mechanisms Pavlov identified in dogs
Procedure
'Little Albert' was an infant who initially showed no fear of small white animals or objects
In the baseline trial:
Albert was presented with a white rat (NS) and he showed no fear
Conditioning phase:
Each time Albert reached for the rat (NS), Watson struck a steel bar loudly behind Albert's head (UCS), causing Albert to cry and show distress (UCR)
Test phase:
After repeated pairings, Albert cried and showed fear (CR) when presented with the rat alone (CS), without the loud noise
Albert's fear generalized to other white, furry objects: a white rabbit, a white dog, a fur coat, and a Santa Claus mask
Findings and conclusions
Watson & Rayner's findings:
demonstrated that an emotional response (fear) can be conditioned in a human infant using classical conditioning principles
supported the claim that emotional responses are learned through experience, and are not innate
helped form a theoretical basis for explaining the development of phobias
provided evidence for stimulus generalization in human conditioning
Ethical evaluation of Watson & Rayner's study
Watson and Rayner's study produced valuable evidence for the conditioning of emotional responses
However, it raises several significant ethical concerns when evaluated against contemporary APA guidelines:
Ethical Issue | Analysis |
|---|---|
Lack of informed consent | Albert's mother may not have been fully informed about the nature or potential consequences of the study. By contemporary APA standards, full informed consent from a guardian is mandatory. |
Harm to participant | The researchers deliberately caused fear and distress to Little Albert through repeated exposure to a loud noise. Modern ethics require that participants are protected from psychological harm. |
No deconditioning | Watson & Rayner did not extinguish Albert's conditioned fear before the study ended, leaving him with a potentially lifelong fear response. |
Vulnerability of participant | Albert was an infant wholly unable to give assent or withdraw. Modern guidelines afford special protections to vulnerable populations, including children. |
Scientific value | Despite the ethical violations, the study produced significant knowledge about the conditioning of emotional responses, underpinning behavioral therapies such as systematic desensitization. |
Examiner Tips and Tricks
When evaluating ethics for Skill 2.D, don't just name the issue, but apply it to the specific study
E.g. don't write 'there was no informed consent'; write 'Albert's guardian may not have been fully informed that the study would deliberately induce a fear response in the child, meaning meaningful informed consent was not obtained'
Taste aversions and biological preparedness
Conditioned taste aversions
Conditioned taste aversion occurs when an organism eats or drinks something and then becomes ill
This leads to a learned avoidance of that food or drink:
The food/drink = CS
Illness = UCS
Nausea = UCR
Avoidance of the food = CR
One-trial learning is where a taste aversion can be acquired after a single pairing of the CS and UCS
This is unlike most classical conditioning, where repeated pairings are required
Taste aversions are highly resistant to extinction and can persist for years, even when the person knows rationally that the food was not responsible for their illness
E.g. if you eat a new food and then become unwell several hours later, you may develop an aversion to that food, even though the food itself did not make you sick
Biological preparedness
Biological preparedness refers to the idea that organisms are biologically predisposed to learn certain stimulus-response associations more easily and rapidly than others
Not all CS–UCS pairings are equally easy to acquire, as evolution has shaped organisms to form associations that are adaptive for survival
Garcia & Koelling's (1966) research demonstrated this:
Rats learned to associate nausea with taste, and pain with audio-visual stimuli, even when the CS–UCS pairings were experimentally reversed
This challenged the behaviorist assumption of equipotentiality - that any CS can be paired with any UCS with equal ease
Taste aversions demonstrate both one-trial learning and biological preparedness
They occur so rapidly because organisms are biologically prepared to associate illness with ingested substances
Habituation
Habituation is a form of non-associative learning where an organism stops responding to a stimulus after repeated exposure
This is because the organism grows accustomed to it
Habituation involves just one stimulus
This is unlike classical conditioning, which involves pairing two stimuli
The stimulus is still detected, but the organism chooses to ignore it, e.g.
when you first enter a room, you notice the sound of an air conditioner
after a while, you stop paying attention to it
the sound is still there, but your response has decreased, which is habituation
This is unlike sensory adaptation, where the sense receptors become less responsive and this cannot be controlled
E.g. you stop noticing a smell because your receptors are fatigued - this is sensory adaptation
Dishabituation
Dishabituation occurs when a change in a familiar (habituated) stimulus causes the organism to notice it again
An organism responds as if the stimulus is new, even though it has been experienced before
This shows that the stimulus was still being detected, but the reduced response during habituation was due to learning, not sensory failure, e.g.
you stop noticing the constant sound of an air conditioner (habituation)
suddenly, the sound changes slightly (e.g. the pitch changes), and you notice it again - this renewed response is dishabituation
Examiner Tips and Tricks
Ensure that you understand these key points:
The CR and UCR are different responses
They often look identical (both may be salivation or fear), but the difference is in how they are triggered
the UCR is unlearned and triggered by the UCS
the CR is learned and triggered by the CS
Extinction doesn't mean the CR is permanently erased
Spontaneous recovery shows the association from the original learning is retained even after extinction
Habituation is not the same as forgetting
Habituation is an active learned suppression of a response to a repeated stimulus, not a failure of memory or sensory detection
Biological preparedness does not mean that some things simply cannot be conditioned
It means certain associations are learned more easily than others; it does not mean conditioning is impossible outside prepared pairings
Unlock more, it's free!
Was this revision note helpful?