Evaluate Sherif et al. (1954/1961) + Watson and Rayner (1920) with
reference to the use of psych knowledge in society (16)
One strength of using psychological knowledge linked to the findings of Sherif
et al. and Watson and Rayner is the use of controls in these studies. Sherif et al.
carefully screened the 12 boys and matched them in terms of IQ, social class and
religion. This ensured that individual differences in character did not significantly
affect the boys’ behaviour. Similarly, Watson and Rayner ensured that Little Albert
associated the sound of the striking bar only with the white rate and not with the
researcher. This allowed Watson and Rayner to ascertain that Albert would have
gained the phobia of rats. This is a strength as this would ensure that the findings
are credible and reliable and can be used in the real world to help improve people’s
quality of life. For example, Watson and Rayner’s study can be used to apply
classical conditioning to the treatment of phobias and other mental illnesses, such
as eating and anxiety disorders. Sherif et al. can be used to apply realistic conflict
theory to reduce prejudice in society, by employing superordinate goals in order to
remove competition from 2 groups. However, both of these studies have culturally
biased findings since they were investigated in America, therefore findings may not
be generalised to other cultures.
One weakness of using psychological knowledge linked to these classic
studies is the low ecological validity of the findings. In Sherif et al., the boys were by
themselves in a summer camp and not near adults they knew. This implies that they
were not in a natural situation, therefore they might have behaved unnaturally. In real
life, if they were accompanied by adults they knew, then they might have behaved
less aggressively towards each other. Similarly, in Watson and Rayner, Little Albert
was not in his natural setting which was the nursery, hence it is not certain whether
he may have behaved differently when near other children and nursery staff. This
suggests that the findings may not have been ecologically valid as the boys were
studied in an unnatural environment. On the other hand, the boys believed they were
in a real summer camp and Albert was near his mother the whole time, which implies
that they might have behaved still naturally. Therefore, the results can be applied in
the real world to prevent prejudice through sharing resources equally.
One strength of using psychological knowledge linked to these classic studies
is the controlled context effects. Watson and Rayner tested Little Albert in a lecture
theatre to see whether he would react the same way to the white rat and hence
eliminate context effects. Even the behaviour of the boys could be applied to real life
to demonstrate that competition over scarce resources can lead to prejudice in
society. This implies that the findings can be confidently applied to real life settings
reference to the use of psych knowledge in society (16)
One strength of using psychological knowledge linked to the findings of Sherif
et al. and Watson and Rayner is the use of controls in these studies. Sherif et al.
carefully screened the 12 boys and matched them in terms of IQ, social class and
religion. This ensured that individual differences in character did not significantly
affect the boys’ behaviour. Similarly, Watson and Rayner ensured that Little Albert
associated the sound of the striking bar only with the white rate and not with the
researcher. This allowed Watson and Rayner to ascertain that Albert would have
gained the phobia of rats. This is a strength as this would ensure that the findings
are credible and reliable and can be used in the real world to help improve people’s
quality of life. For example, Watson and Rayner’s study can be used to apply
classical conditioning to the treatment of phobias and other mental illnesses, such
as eating and anxiety disorders. Sherif et al. can be used to apply realistic conflict
theory to reduce prejudice in society, by employing superordinate goals in order to
remove competition from 2 groups. However, both of these studies have culturally
biased findings since they were investigated in America, therefore findings may not
be generalised to other cultures.
One weakness of using psychological knowledge linked to these classic
studies is the low ecological validity of the findings. In Sherif et al., the boys were by
themselves in a summer camp and not near adults they knew. This implies that they
were not in a natural situation, therefore they might have behaved unnaturally. In real
life, if they were accompanied by adults they knew, then they might have behaved
less aggressively towards each other. Similarly, in Watson and Rayner, Little Albert
was not in his natural setting which was the nursery, hence it is not certain whether
he may have behaved differently when near other children and nursery staff. This
suggests that the findings may not have been ecologically valid as the boys were
studied in an unnatural environment. On the other hand, the boys believed they were
in a real summer camp and Albert was near his mother the whole time, which implies
that they might have behaved still naturally. Therefore, the results can be applied in
the real world to prevent prejudice through sharing resources equally.
One strength of using psychological knowledge linked to these classic studies
is the controlled context effects. Watson and Rayner tested Little Albert in a lecture
theatre to see whether he would react the same way to the white rat and hence
eliminate context effects. Even the behaviour of the boys could be applied to real life
to demonstrate that competition over scarce resources can lead to prejudice in
society. This implies that the findings can be confidently applied to real life settings
