Watson and Rayner’s Classical Study with Llittle Albert Essay

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

Classical Conditioning is one of the indicators of the story’s driving plot. Humans have been conditioned to harm out of fear throughout history, seen when Mr. Morgan mutilates and murders an ant with a golf club (3). This theory was discovered by Ivan Pavlov, as a learning procedure through pairing a biologically potent stimulus (e.g.

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.

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

Albert’s baseline reactions to the stimuli were noted. He showed no fear when presented with a rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, a mask with hair, or cotton wool. When Albert was 11 months old the experiments started.

This study sought to answer three research questions. Although the questions have been presented in previous chapters, they are worth presenting again.

After several combined events of the white rat and the loud noise, Watson and Rayner also tested if other furry animals such as a rabbit and a dog also elicited a fear response. They discovered that in fact, they did. Even a fur coat, cotton, and a Santa Claus mask caused “Little Albert” distress. This study revealed that if a child is conditioned to be afraid of an animal, this fear can shift to other animals without the distinct conditioning for each animal (Jones, 1960). This concept is known as generalization, which is the

Another behavioural psychologist, Watson (1915) was influenced by Pavlov’s dogs’ (1902). Watson suggested that if reflexes can be conditioned in dogs, then they can be conditioned in human behaviour too (Gross 2010). Watson used Pavlov’s idea of classical conditioning to influence his experiment with Little Albert, where Watson successfully conditioned fear into an 8-month-old boy using a range of different stimuli.

Almost all psychology students learn at some point that a Watson and Rayner tried to condition an infant (11 months) called “Albert B” to fear a white lab rat. They realized that the infants fear was transferred to other furry like objects like rabbits and dogs, and even a Santa Claus mask. (Fridlund, Alan J)

Arguably, an organism is better described as an information seeker, forming relations amongst events from information provided by a stimulus. For example, Rescorla suggests that contiguity is an insufficient example of Pavlovian Conditioning. As shown in simple CS/US parings, learning was determined by how the two stimuli differ, not in what they share, showing that contiguity is not a necessity, (Rescorla, 1988). Furthermore, systematic fear conditioning scenarios imply the base rate of US occurrence against a CS/US contiguity is also sensitive to conditioning. Evidence for this can be found in previous work that validates the current conclusion. Rescorla (1968, p. 1), argues that contingency over contiguity is an important determinant of fear conditioning, and refers to contingency as the “relative probability of occurrence of US in the presence of a CS as contrasted with its probability in the absence of CS.” Rescorla’s (1988) adaptation of these results measures asymptotic fear levels, (where each curve shows conditioning as an increasing function of the likelihood of receiving a shock during the tone), supporting the continued importance of perceived fear in associations. Furthermore, results from studies on Blocking, Conditioned Inhibition and Auto-shaping in pigeons suggest that the simplistic notion of previous theory

The Little Albert experiment has become a famous case study that has been discussed by a plethora of professionals in the psychology industry. In 1920, behaviorist John Watson and his assistant Rosalie Rayner began to conduct the first experiment that had been done with a child. Watson and Rayner chose Albert because they thought he was stable; he was accustomed to a hospital environment due to his mother’s career as a wet nurse, he was healthy and showed little emotion. Stability played a major factor in choosing Albert for this case study because Watson wanted to ensure that they would do as little harm as possible with the experiment. The conditioning of Albert began with a series of emotional tests that became part of a routine in which Watson and Rayner were “determining whether fear reactions could be called out by other stimuli than sharp noises and the sudden removal of support” (-----). Watson’s method of choice for this experiment was using principles of classic conditioning to create a stimulus in children that would result in fear. Since Watson wanted to condition Albert, he used a variety of objects that would otherwise not scare him. These objects included white rat, dog, blocks, rabbit, fur coat, wool and a Santa Claus mask.

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.

What were the research questions that guided this study? Why is it important to study this topic? What prior research did the authors review to provide context for their study?

The objective of this chapter is to describe the procedures used in the analysis of the data and present the main findings. It also presents the different tests performed to help choose the appropriate model for the study. The chapter concludes by providing thorough statistical interpretation of the findings.