Two Key Studies of Sociocultural Explanations of Phobias (DP IB Psychology)

Key study one: Watson & Rayner (1920)

Aim: 

• To induce a specific phobia in a child via the mechanisms of classical conditioning

• To investigate the extent to which the specific phobia could be generalised to similar phobic stimuli

Participant: 

• An 8-month-old child who was the son of a nurse that worked in the campus hospital of John Hopkins University where John Watson worked as a professor (Rosalie Rayner was his graduate student)

• Albert appeared to be a contented, unemotional child (according to Watson prior to the research process) who showed little fear generally and no specific fear of rats

• Watson tested Albert’s reactions to loud, unpleasant noises before the research officially began by hitting a steel bar with a hammer in Albert’s presence (to which Albert, unsurprisingly, reacted to with fear and distress)

• The baseline for Albert’s fear response was thus established prior to the onset of the procedure: the unconditioned stimulus was the loud, unpleasant noise and Albert’s distress/fear was the unconditioned response

Procedure: 

• The procedure (which began when Albert was 11 months old) involved the use of controlled conditions in a lab setting and was conducted as follows:

1. A white rat was introduced into the experimental space and when Albert reached out to touch it the steel bar was struck behind his head, making a loud, jarring noise

2. Albert fell forward but did not cry; the next time he reached out for the rat the bar was struck again; Albert whimpered but did not cry

3. A week later the same procedure was carried out and repeated several times until Albert started to show more signs of fear

4. The next few times the rat was presented to Albert he cried and tried to crawl away

5. The next week, when the rat was presented to him, Albert whimpered and turned away;  he also did this when a rabbit was introduced into the space

6. Varying degrees of fear and aversion were shown by Albert when the researchers brought a dog, a seal-skin coat, human hair and a Santa Claus mask into the space

7. Five days later, Albert was showing signs that his fear of the rat was abating so the researchers hit the steel bar again which then produced the same fear response

8. The testing of the fear response (hitting the bar behind Albert’s head) was repeated on and off over the next five days

Results: The results are as outlined in the above procedure: Albert’s continued fear response to the phobic stimuli.

Conclusion: 

• It is possible to turn a neutral stimulus (e.g. a rat) into a conditioned stimulus (e.g. rat plus steel bar) which produces a conditioned response (e.g. fear) via the process of classical conditioning

• A specific conditioned phobic response (the rat) can become generalised to include phobia of fur-covered creatures or objects in general

Evaluation: Watson and Rayner (1920)

Strengths

• The use of controlled conditions and a standardised procedure within a lab setting mean that this study could be replicated to test for reliability

• The study provides insight into how a specific phobia may become generalised to include a range of phobic stimuli which could be useful information for deconditioning a phobia

Weaknesses

• The (horrendous) treatment of Albert means that this study could never (and should never!) be replicated e.g. the harm inflicted on Albert (which was not undone via deconditioning); no right to withdraw; no anonymity (Albert became one of the most famous - or infamous - people in the history of psychological research)

• The use of only one participant means that this case study cannot be generalised beyond its lone subject

The Little Albert study reads more like a horror film than a piece of research.

Key study two: DiNardo et al. (1988)

Aim: To investigate whether phobia of dogs (cynophobia) was maintained via the mechanisms of operant conditioning.

Participants: 

• 14 participants who had a phobia of dogs and a control group of 21 participants with no dog phobia

• The participants were students at the State University of New York, USA

Procedure:

• The researchers conducted structured interviews with participants to establish the following:

  • If the participants had experienced any frightening events or situations involving a dog

  • If the participants had ever been bitten by a dog

  • If the participants had been bitten by a dog, was the bite painful?

  • If the participants had been bitten by a dog, was the experience frightening?

  • What were the participants' feelings about the possible consequences of encountering a dog at any given time in the future?

Results: 

• 56% of the dog-phobic participants and 66% of the non-phobic participants reported having experienced at least one frightening event/situation involving a dog

• More than 50% of the dog-related frightening events included the participant receiving a painful dog bite

• 100% of the dog-phobic participants believed that any future encounter with a dog would result in fear and physical harm (to themselves)

• Very few of the non-phobic participants believed that any future encounter with a dog would result in fear and physical harm (to themselves)

• The dog-phobic participants expressed an exaggerated fear of physical harm linked to possible future encounters with a dog

Conclusion: 

• An exaggerated fear of physical harm may be a key factor in the maintenance of a dog phobia

• This exaggerated fear is likely to result in dog-phobic people avoiding future encounters with dogs

Evaluation of DiNardo et al. (1988)

Strengths

• Structured interviews are replicable as they use standardised questions which means that this procedure could be conducted with other populations affected by phobias e.g. people with agoraphobia, claustrophobia, social phobia etc.

• The findings support the TPM as they suggest that it is the anticipation of physical harm that maintain the fear response (which is an example of negative reinforcement)

Weaknesses

• 66% of the non-phobic participants reported having experienced at least one frightening event/situation involving a dog yet this did not result in them developing a dog phobia which refutes one of the central claims of the TPM

• This study relies purely on the participants providing accurate recall of events from the past which cannot be checked for consistency which means that the research may lack reliability