The Ethics of Classical Conditioning in Modern Times: A Study on the Dark Side of Conditioning
Most people try to avoid making babies cry. However, the scientists in John Watson‘s infant laboratory had no such qualms.
Where Does Fear Come From?
American psychologist John Watson wanted to find out where fear originates from. He conducted a study, now known as the Little Albert experiment, which aimed to instill specific new fears into a baby boy he called Albert.
Classical Conditioning and Fear
Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov discovered that if he rang a bell each time he fed a dog, the pup would eventually start salivating at the mere sound of a bell. This led to the concept of classical conditioning. ‘Watson was curious about whether humans could also be conditioned’ and launched his own study with research assistant Rosalie Rayner.
The Experiment
Watson and Rosalie Rayner used successive rounds of Pavlovian conditioning to invoke a fear response in Albert, who was 9 months old at the time. Initially, Albert was curious about furry animals like a white laboratory rat and a rabbit. However, after pairing these animals with a loud noise, Albert began withdrawing from them.
In 1920, John B. Watson conducted the Little Albert experiment to demonstrate classical conditioning.
A 9-month-old infant, known as 'Little Albert,' was exposed to a loud noise while shown a white rat.
The child developed a conditioned response of fear to the 'white rat'.
Watson's findings challenged traditional views on human behavior and supported Ivan Pavlov's concept of associative learning.
The study has had significant implications for fields like psychology, education, and marketing, highlighting the power of classical conditioning in shaping human responses.
Ethical Issues
In recent decades, the Little Albert experiment has been criticized as cruel and ethically dubious. Instilling a previously unafraid baby with fears of bunny rabbits and Santa Claus would certainly violate current ethical standards. Today, human test subjects are told about the risks of any research they participate in.
The Legacy of the Study
The Little Albert experiment made the case that fears and phobias are conditioned emotional reactions. It had a profound influence on developmental psychology and was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. The study’s findings have been influential in shaping our understanding of how mental disorders such as phobias, generalized anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder develop.
Flaws in the Research
Beyond ethical concerns, some critics say the Little Albert study has little value due to its poor design and questionable results. A review published in the journal History of Psychology deemed Watson and Rosalie Rayner‘s conditioning procedure ‘largely ineffective.’ Additionally, there has been no subsequent research of the same kind.
The Mystery of Little Albert
John Watson never divulged his young test subject’s real name, leaving many psychologists curious about his identity. In 2009, researchers discovered that Little Albert was likely Douglas Merritte, who died as a young child from hydrocephalus. However, another group of researchers found an infant named ‘William Albert Barger’ whose mother was also a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home.
In 1920, psychologist John B. Watson conducted the 'Little Albert' experiment to demonstrate classical conditioning.
An infant, known as Little Albert, was conditioned to fear a white rat by associating it with a loud noise.
The study aimed to show that emotions and behaviors can be learned through environmental interactions.
However, critics argue that the experiment was inhumane and exploited the child's vulnerability.
The study has been widely criticized for its ethics, leading to changes in psychological research protocols.
John B. Watson's 1920 study, 'Conditioned Emotional Reactions,' involved a young boy known as Little Albert.
The child was conditioned to fear a neutral stimulus, a white rat, by associating it with a loud noise.
Over time, the presence of the 'rat' alone elicited an intense fear response.
This groundbreaking experiment demonstrated classical conditioning and its role in shaping emotional responses related to Watson's study, 'Conditioned Emotional Reactions,'.
Reflecting on the Study Today
More than a century after the Albert study, it continues to generate discussion. Its influence lives on, despite its flaws and ethical concerns. As Dr. Fridlund says, ‘The Albert study was a terribly flawed ‘proof of concept’ that nonetheless fueled research on how fears develop.’
- howstuffworks.com | Why the Little Albert Experiment Could Never Happen Today
