Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
Allison Campbells Career Portfolio
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

0

Share

Download to read offline

D2 e1 jones 1924

Download to read offline

afvfvfv

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this

D2 e1 jones 1924

  1. 1. Jones 1924: Curing a boys phobia D2e1
  2. 2. Can researchers cause and cure phobias?  If Watson and Raynor had been given the opportunity, do you think they could have cued Little Albert’s phobia?  How would they have done this?
  3. 3. Aim of Jones  To investigate whether a phobia in a little boy could be discontinued and whether this would generalise to other objects.
  4. 4. Procedure  Peter 2 years and 10 months old.  They watched him play with beads in his cot whilst the experimenter showed him a white Rat.  Peter Screamed. He was moved away leaving his beads behind.  When the Rat touched the beads Peter protested, BUT not when another child touched them.
  5. 5. Peter reactions observed.  His fear of the Rat generalised to other objects. Object(s) Peter’s Reaction Playroom and cot Chose toys, got into the cot White ball, rolled in Picked it up and held it Fur coat over cot Cried until it was removed Cotton Balls Whimpered, Cried, Withdrew Hat with feathers Cried Blue woolly jumper Looked, turned away, no fear White cloth rabbit No Fear Wooden Doll No Fear Peter was also show a Rabbit, he was more afraid of this than the rat So this was used in the deconditioning
  6. 6.  Peter had daily sessions with the rabbit and 3 other children.  (The children did not fear the rabbit, why is this important?)  Note down the reactions listed a to q on page 146.
  7. 7. Results  Peters behaviour improved and worsened.  For example on session 33 Peter was scratched by the rabbit so this was a setback.  Look at the side of the graph, it relates to the reactions from a to q. 6 people were asked to put that list iin order of improvement, this list was then called the Tolerance Series.  Sometimes Peter was observed twice a day sometimes not so often 2 months between 7 and 8( At this point a big dogged jumped at peter scaring both him and his carer.
  8. 8. Results Cont  Session 8 onwards Classical conditioning used to help Peter.  Food was given to Peter that he liked when presented with the Rabbit.  The other children acted as Role Models  Session 9 the Rabbit made Peter cry. A child ran over and said ‘oh rabbit’ and helped Peter move closer.  Session 21 Peter cried so another child held it. Peter then wanted the Rabbit and then held it briefly.
  9. 9.  At first when asked about the sessions, Peter would not mention the Rabbit but would later say “I like that rabbit”  He lost his fear of Cotton, the coat and Feathers.  Reaction Rats and fur improved.  He also accepted new animals
  10. 10. Conclusion  Both Classical Conditioning and Social Learning helped with deconditioning.  The deconditioning also helped with generalsied fears and cope with new animals.
  11. 11. Strengths  Detailed observations over a long period. Showing progress and changes clearly.  Other people asked to rank tolerance, so avioded bias.  Used different ways to help Peter. These have sinse been built on.
  12. 12. Weaknesses  The gaps between the sessions were variable. So progress could be to do with time rather than deconditioning.  Used Classical Conditioning and SLT as well as other people to help Peter, so hard to say which method was more effective.

afvfvfv

Views

Total views

307

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

7

Actions

Downloads

5

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×