The Little Albert Experiment

Session Four: To see how time had affected the response, Albert was presented with the rat on its own five days later. The dog and rabbit were also presented, and the steel bar was hit each time. Albert was then taken to a well-lit lecture theatre to see if the response was the same as it was in the small room used up till now.

In the following essay I will be looking into the study conducted by Watson and Rayner (1920) on a small child known as ‘Little Albert’. The experiment was an adaptation of earlier studies on classical conditioning of stimulus response, one most common by Ivan Pavlov, depicting the conditioning of stimulus response in dogs. Watson and Rayner aimed to teach Albert to become fearful of a placid white rat, via the use of stimulus associations, testing Pavlov’s earlier theory of classical conditioning.

Douglas Merritte, better known as Little Albert was 9 months when he participated in a study along with John Watson. Watson exposed Little Albert to a white rat and furry objects, who before not feared rats and furry objects. As he played with the rat, Watson made a loud noise with a hammer. After numerous of trials, Watson introduced the rat and the furry objects to Little Albert who began to cry in fear of the loud noise. When the rate and furry objects were placed in front of Albert he cried, although there was no noise. Something that was first enjoyment to him has become fear to him. The bad thing about this experiment is that Watson created a child with a previously nonexistent fear. It has been said that Douglas known as Little Albert

In an experiment called "Little Albert" by psychologist John B. Watson, an infant named Albert was conditioned to fear white rats. He was repeatedly exposed to white rats and was taught fear response to these furry animals which wouldn’t otherwise occur naturally. Although this wouldn’t have been what Albert wanted to perceive as part of his reality, he became extremely distressed whenever he saw a white rat and it was out of his control to

where they had a man under cover and asked him questions. If he got the answer wrong he was

Little Albert an 11 month old boy was chosen as the participant. Watson identified that a white rat did not provoke any fear response in Albert, so it was a neutral stimulus. Little Albert was then exposed to the white rat, but every time he reached out to touch it Watson would make a loud noise. Albert would get frightened and start to cry. After repeating this several times, Albert started getting frightened just by seeing the rat. Just like the bell in Pavlov's experiment, the white rat had become a conditioned stimulus to Albert. Watson therefore concluded that even complex behaviour such as fear was a learned response.

The little Albert experiment would not be accepted in modern day as an acceptable research experiment. The modern day codes of conduct in the Psychology world would not allow this type of experiment to take place. The psychological effects produced by the research in the little Albert experiment could have negative implications on a person for the rest of their lives. Creating a phobia at such a young age could program a brain to fear something that should not be feared according to Mother Nature. We naturally fear the things that can hurt us or even threaten our lives but learn to accept and expand our knowledge on the things that are not a threat. We learn this at a young age by experiencing with different things throughout our lives.

How were Watson and Rayner able to condition Albert to react to different stimuli such as masks, other animals, and a fur coat?

The baby Albert experiment was in 1920 where a psychologist named John B. Watson tested the idea of whether fear was

In 1920, John Watson and his student Rosalie Rayner performed the famous Little Albert experiment where they conditioned an infant to fear a white rat and other furry animals. This experiment helped to prove the theory of behaviorism, specifically in terms that fears could be taught or “conditioned” as opposed to inheritance from biology. However, if John Watson and Rosalie Rayner performed this experiment today, the experiment would violate multiple ethical standards set in place by the American Psychology Association including 8.07b and 8.08c. 8.07b means that any deception used in an experiment cannot inflict severe emotional or physical distress on participants. To relate this standard to the Little Albert experiment, Watson and Rayner

Little Albert’s was chosen because of his strong emotional stability and researches think his personality could be “relatively little harm by carrying out such experiments…” (Wastson & Rayner, 1920, p. 3). However, from psychologists’ point of view, his emotional reaction was far from mild and experimenters did not put effort to comfort him (Smith & Haslam, 2012). Although the principles of classical conditioning are useful in treatment of phobias and even medical implications, it is questioned whether its worth to cause harm to the subject in order to complete the study. The unethical research method of classic studies brings potential damages to the participants (Russell & Purcell, 2009). The ignorance of such damages overrates the experimental result and conclusion. Studies should be morally and ethically grounded.

Stanley Milgram: 'electric shock' experiments (1963) - also showed the power of the situation in influencing behaviour. 65% of people could be easily induced into giving a stranger an electric shock of 450V (enough to kill someone). 100% of people could be influenced into giving a 275V shock.

For the second stage, a white rat was used as Watson’s CS, the CS must be a neutral stimulus that initially has no effect on the UR. Little Albert showed no phobia towards the rat before conditioning occurred. By pairing the US with the CS, the infant learned to associate the loud noise of the hammer and metal bar with the white rat. After strengthening the association between the US and the CS by repetition, Little Albert eventually became fearful and upset when only presented with the once neutral stimulus, the white rat. This response was the CR which marked the completion of step three. Little Albert was now afraid of the white rat because it triggered his fear of the loud noise. Classical conditioning can be used to prove many forms of behavior between subjects when looking at the the right unconditioned/ conditioned stimuli and unconditioned/ conditioned responses. The theory of classical conditioning can be used to explain the development of distrust and trust issues in the relationships between people.

Classical Conditioning. Due to Pavlov’s success, Watson was inclined to do his own experimentation. His most famous, yet controversial, being on “Little Albert.” “Albert” was a child conditioned by Watson to be afraid of rats. Essentially, Watson would create a loud, banging noise. This would eventually lead to the fear of not just rats, but all fuzzy animals (John Watson - Little Albert, 2008).

Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov had done experiments on dogs showing the conditioning process, but Watson was interested in taking Pavlov’s research to the next level and show that emotional reactions can be classically conditioned in people (Cherry, 2016). They used a nine-month-old baby boy and exposed him to a series of stimuli including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks and burning newspapers and watched the boys reaction, initially he showed no fear of the objects he was shown (Cherry, 2016). He then decided that he