‘Even though Little Albert was just one child, the behavioural explanation
of anxiety disorders can be generalised to everyone.’
To what extent do you agree with this statement? Use examples of research you have
studied to support your answer. 9990/42/M/J/18
Little Alberts study was a case study, case studies are in depth studies about a particular unique
individual. Albert is unique, not everyone has the same phobia or has the same symptoms he has. As
case studies are based on unique individuals there is low generalizability as it can not be applied to
everyone. Not everyone would have the same symptoms as Albert, and the behavioral explanation
would not be applicable for everyone with the same phobia. Some people may have the phobia due
genetics, they may have inherited the phobia as proved by Ost, who stated that 62% of his phobic
patients had a first degree relative with the same phobia. Some may have developed a phobia due to
distorted cognitions, as mentioned by Dianardo et al, who stated that most who have a fear of choking
have had a choking experience. There are many other explanations (such as?) that explain phobias, Little
Alberts study only explains the phobia suing the behavioral explanation, therefore this reduces the
generalizability.
The sample of the study is just one child. The study uses a child, therefore it can be stated that the
results of the study may not be applicable to adults. Additionally, the sample only involves one child. As
the sample number is very low this also reduces the applicability of the study as we aren’t aware if the
behavioral explanation is applicable to more people other than Albert. Overall, the ability to apply the
findings of Little Alberts study to the public reduces due to the small sample size and the use of a child.
Nevertheless, Little Alberts study explains the behavioral explanation. Albert learned his phobia through
association, classical conditioning and maintained his phobia through operant conditioning. The
explanation in this study is generalizable due to it referring to the steel bar and the white mouse and the
neutral stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus. This is useful as it could be used to help explain other
phobias, helps identify the neutral and the unconditioned stimulus as well as the conditioned response.
The layout of the behavioral explanation in Little Alberts study can be used to explain other phobias,
hence making it useful and increasing the generalizability. Additionally, Albert maintains his Phobia by
operant conditioning, through negative and positive reinforcement, this again is generalizable to the
public as it could be used to explain how other phobias such as arachnophobia is maintained. In Little
Alberts study, negative reinforcement in Albert avoiding rats and positive reinforcement is his anxiety
levels decreasing by being away from the rat. This operant conditioning can be used to explain why the
phobia is maintained in the study Charles by Rapport; the boy washes his hands to bet rid of germs and
any uncleanliness which is the negative reinforcement, the positive reinforcement is that he is being
rewarded with clean hands. Little Alberts study is generalizable as it shows how the behavioral
explanation can be used to explain other phobias.
Little Alberts study has low validity. This study was conducted by Watson in the 1900’s and the
experimental design did not have a proper construct. The results and the information provided by the
study is a subjective interpretation Watson. Therefore, the case study can be biased to suit what Watson
had in mind, hence this reduces the validity of Little Alberts study. As the results obtained lacks validity
and isn’t accurate, the extent to which the study is applicable tot the general public reduces.
Overall, despite the study using a broad behavioral explanation which can be adapted by other
individuals to explain their phobia, the extent to which the study is applicable to the public is very low.
of anxiety disorders can be generalised to everyone.’
To what extent do you agree with this statement? Use examples of research you have
studied to support your answer. 9990/42/M/J/18
Little Alberts study was a case study, case studies are in depth studies about a particular unique
individual. Albert is unique, not everyone has the same phobia or has the same symptoms he has. As
case studies are based on unique individuals there is low generalizability as it can not be applied to
everyone. Not everyone would have the same symptoms as Albert, and the behavioral explanation
would not be applicable for everyone with the same phobia. Some people may have the phobia due
genetics, they may have inherited the phobia as proved by Ost, who stated that 62% of his phobic
patients had a first degree relative with the same phobia. Some may have developed a phobia due to
distorted cognitions, as mentioned by Dianardo et al, who stated that most who have a fear of choking
have had a choking experience. There are many other explanations (such as?) that explain phobias, Little
Alberts study only explains the phobia suing the behavioral explanation, therefore this reduces the
generalizability.
The sample of the study is just one child. The study uses a child, therefore it can be stated that the
results of the study may not be applicable to adults. Additionally, the sample only involves one child. As
the sample number is very low this also reduces the applicability of the study as we aren’t aware if the
behavioral explanation is applicable to more people other than Albert. Overall, the ability to apply the
findings of Little Alberts study to the public reduces due to the small sample size and the use of a child.
Nevertheless, Little Alberts study explains the behavioral explanation. Albert learned his phobia through
association, classical conditioning and maintained his phobia through operant conditioning. The
explanation in this study is generalizable due to it referring to the steel bar and the white mouse and the
neutral stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus. This is useful as it could be used to help explain other
phobias, helps identify the neutral and the unconditioned stimulus as well as the conditioned response.
The layout of the behavioral explanation in Little Alberts study can be used to explain other phobias,
hence making it useful and increasing the generalizability. Additionally, Albert maintains his Phobia by
operant conditioning, through negative and positive reinforcement, this again is generalizable to the
public as it could be used to explain how other phobias such as arachnophobia is maintained. In Little
Alberts study, negative reinforcement in Albert avoiding rats and positive reinforcement is his anxiety
levels decreasing by being away from the rat. This operant conditioning can be used to explain why the
phobia is maintained in the study Charles by Rapport; the boy washes his hands to bet rid of germs and
any uncleanliness which is the negative reinforcement, the positive reinforcement is that he is being
rewarded with clean hands. Little Alberts study is generalizable as it shows how the behavioral
explanation can be used to explain other phobias.
Little Alberts study has low validity. This study was conducted by Watson in the 1900’s and the
experimental design did not have a proper construct. The results and the information provided by the
study is a subjective interpretation Watson. Therefore, the case study can be biased to suit what Watson
had in mind, hence this reduces the validity of Little Alberts study. As the results obtained lacks validity
and isn’t accurate, the extent to which the study is applicable tot the general public reduces.
Overall, despite the study using a broad behavioral explanation which can be adapted by other
individuals to explain their phobia, the extent to which the study is applicable to the public is very low.
