The Little Albert experiment was a famous psychology experiment conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and graduate student Rosalie Rayner.
The outcome of John Watson's Little Albert experiment was that classical conditioning is possible in humans, since the boy learned to associate a neutral stimulus (white rat) with a fearful stimulus (loud bang) to be scared of the white rat.
The Little Albert Experiment
According to what Watson said in his notes, the boy was the son of an orphanage's nurse. He was chosen for the experiment due to his calm and somewhat indifferent character and response to external stimuli.
This experiment is considered very unethical. The researchers failed to decondition Albert to the stimuli he was afraid of, which should have been done after the experiment. Albert ended up passing away at the age of six due to hydrocephalus, a condition that can lead to brain damage.
Little Albert was conditioned by John B. Watson to fear a white rat. Eventually, however, Albert became fearful of any stimulus that looked white and furry. He became scared not only of rats, but also of rabbits, and even Santa Claus's beard.
After gaining permission from Albert's mother, the researchers decided to test the process of classical conditioning on a human subject – by inducing a further phobia in the child! Little Albert was a 9-month-old baby who was tested on his reactions to various neutral stimuli.
Identify the major flaw with John B. Watson's Little Albert experiment. ANSWER : It is unethical for a researcher to induce fear in a child, since it is harmful to induce fear.
Known as the Little Albert study, it is typically presented as evidence for the role of classical conditioning in fear development. Some critics, however, have noted deficiencies in the study that suggest that little or no fear conditioning actually occurred.
His real name was Douglas Merritte, and he was the son of Arvilla Merritte, who worked as a wet nurse at a campus hospital. After the experiment, Douglas was not deconditioned and it is unknown whether he ever overcame his fears. He died at age six from hydrocephalus, or water in the brain.
After several repetitions of this procedure, Albert began to show a fear response to the rat alone, even when the loud noise was not present. The experiment was controversial because of its unethical nature. Albert was not able to provide informed consent, and his fear response was deliberately induced and not treated.
This Albert was not brain-damaged and was easy-going, though (likely coincidentally, given how Albert's fears would diminish between sessions) he had an aversion to dogs! Albert died in 2007, without ever knowing of his early life in a hospital residence, or of his apparent part in psychology's history.
“Little Albert,” the baby behind John Watson's famous 1920 emotional conditioning experiment at Johns Hopkins University, has been identified as Douglas Merritte, the son of a wetnurse named Arvilla Merritte who lived and worked at a campus hospital at the time of the experiment — receiving $1 for her baby's ...
Another controversy involved Watson's failure to reverse the conditioning in which he had performed on Little Albert. The experiment apparently inflicted the fear of white rats into the child, as evident in the observations from the experiment. Watson did not take any measures to reverse the process.
Answer and Explanation: Methodologically, the Little Albert experiment can be improved by incorporating various elements that by today's standards must exist in a scientific experiment. These elements include a control group, variable manipulation, and a randomization procedure.
An extinction procedure can be done by repeatedly presenting a conditioned stimulus alone, without the unconditioned stimulus. In the context of the Little Albert study, extinction can be done by repeatedly expose him to a white rat (the conditioned stimulus) without the loud noise (the unconditioned stimulus).
Answer and Explanation: The Little Albert Experiment demonstrates a violation of the principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence in American Psychological Association Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct. This principle states that psychologists strive to benefit others in their work, and to do no harm.
Haslam is, for now, convinced by Powell's interpretation: “The important point is not that Beck was probably wrong,” he says, “but that we were rushing in to confer pariah status on the already unfashionable Watson.” But what of Albert Barger? He died in 2007 after a long, happy life, says his niece.
The Little Albert Experiment demonstrated that classical conditioning—the association of a particular stimulus or behavior with an unrelated stimulus or behavior—works in human beings. In this experiment, a previously unafraid baby was conditioned to become afraid of a rat.
In the “Little Albert” experiment, filmed in 1920, Watson and his assistant, Rosalie Rayner, showed how a baby who was unafraid of a white rat could be conditioned to fear it; they showed “Albert” the rat several times while clanging an iron bar behind his head.
Gibson and Richard D. Walk (1960) investigated the ability of newborn animals and human infants to detect depth. Gibson and Walk tested whether youngsters would crawl over an apparent cliff – if the neonates did it could be assumed that the ability to see depth was not inborn.
Fear conditioning refers to learning a certain environmental stimulus (conditioned stimulus) can predict the occurrence of an aversive stimulus (neutral stimulus)2. The fear that results from this association is a conditioned response. Fear conditioning is a form of classical conditioning.
Arvilla Merritte was a 22-year-old Caucasian. On 9 March 1919, she delivered a boy ('Baby Merritte') on the Hopkins campus (Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 1919). The father was listed as William Merritte.
Answer and Explanation: While the Little Albert experiment did fail to meet various standards of the current ethical standards of scientific study, it did not involve any deception, as far as the study's report suggests. The most unethical part of the study is the fear conditioning procedure.
Another important consideration is debriefing. As Albert was a baby it was not possible to debrief him at the conclusion of the experiment. If extinction did not occur, the experimenters should have desensitized him to white furry objects at the conclusion of their research.
First, the experimental design and process were not carefully constructed. Watson and Rayner did not develop an objective means to evaluate Albert's reactions, instead of relying on their own subjective interpretations. The experiment also raises many ethical concerns.