One of the most famous studies of psychology is the “Little Albert” experiment. This experiment was done by John B. Watson and his assistant Rosalie Rayner, to show that people can be classically conditioned just like animals. Their research question was the following: What is the source of our emotions? The reason this study was done is because behaviorism started to come about in the 1920s—a time in which Freud’s psychodynamic perspective wasn’t being agreed upon by all psychologists, for instance Watson. In Freud’s psychodynamic theory, he stated that our behavior is a result of our unconscious mind. On the other hand, behaviorists believe that emotion and behavior are formed from their environment. From this behavioristic perspective Watson and Rayner could form their hypothesis. The hypothesis was that if a person has a fear of something, and another stimulus is paired with that fear, then that person will become conditioned to fear the second stimulus as well (Hock 73).
Their method of data collection was through an experiment of classical conditioning. The subject was a nine month old baby whose code name, for the sake of confidentiality, was Little Albert. There was an unconditioned stimulus, which was the loud noise, and then the unconditioned response was Little Albert’s fear and crying. His reasoning for using a loud noise as the UCS was because it is something that would naturally scare such a young child. In classical conditioning there must also be a neutral stimulus—in this case it was a white rat. During the experiment, the conditioned stimulus became the white rat because it was paired with the unconditioned stimulus—the loud noise. The NS has to be paired with the UCS so that the subject will come to associate those two things together, thus providing a similar response to the new stimulus. Therefore, the conditioned response became fear and crying because Little Albert came to be afraid of the rat after associating it with the loud noise.
To begin the experiment, Watson observed how Little Albert would react towards small, furry animals, or basically anything that resembled the white rat in some way. Before pairing any of these things with a loud noise (the UCS), the baby didn’t seem to have any signs of fear toward them; this is how Watson knew he could use the white rat as a neutral stimulus for conditioning (Hock 73). After observing these things in Albert, it was time for him to bring in the unconditioned stimulus, but this wasn’t done until two months later, when he was a little older—the ethical standpoint of this research was already questionable due to intentionally arousing fear in a baby. Once Albert was reaching out to touch the white rat, Watson hit a metal pole; naturally Albert was frightened. Although, in order to condition him to a fear they had to pair this sound with the rat several times, so after these pairings they put the rat back in front of Little Albert, without any presence of the terrifying sound. He still reacted with great fear to the creature (Hock 74).Then they began to present Albert with things that looked like the white rat, such as a rabbit, Watson’s own white hair, a dog, as well as a Santa Clause mask, all of which Albert cried in response to; this is generalization—the subject was afraid of not only the stimulus that he learned to fear, but also things that were similar (Hock 74).
Five days later they tested Little Albert’s fear with the same stimuli, which was presented in a table in Forty Studies That Changed Psychology on page 75. The table pointed out that when the rat was put in front of him he began to cry. However, when the rabbit was presented to him, he was still fearful, but not as much as he was initially after conditioning. When the researchers gave him blocks he simply played with them as usual (Hock 75). Furthermore, Watson took Albert to a room with better lighting and more people in it to see if this would affect his response; this was also shown in the table. When given the rabbit, although fearful, he also became curious of it (Hock 75). These findings seemed to show that the environment also seems to have an effect on how people might react to their fears. Thirty-one days later they tested Albert again to see if his emotional reactions would remain after longer periods of time; they found that his reactions were in fact the same. Moreover, due to the fact that Little Albert being adopted, they were never able to recondition the child (Hock 75).
Once they collected this data, Watson and Rayner could draw conclusions about what their findings meant. Based on Little Albert’s reactions it became clear that we can learn to have certain emotions towards situations and things based on associations made with stimuli in the environment; for Little Albert this was mostly the white rat, but also similar furry, white objects all because the rat was paired with a naturally feared loud sound from a metal pole being hit behind him. In addition, this showed that Freud’s idea of behavior coming from the unconscious was incorrect (Hock 75). An example of this is given through the following statement, “… a Freudian would explain thumb sucking as an expression of the original pleasure-seeking instinct. Albert, however, would suck his thumb when he felt afraid. As soon as the thumb entered his mouth, his fear lessened. Therefore, Watson interpreted thumb sucking as a conditioned device for blocking fear-producing stimuli” (Hock 76). From this Watson could point out that sexual traumas aren’t necessarily the cause of dysfunctional emotions (Hock 76). Additionally, extinction could also be learned from this research. As pointed out by many other researchers, because the stimuli, such as the rabbit won’t always be paired with the loud noise, over time the child would learn that he doesn’t need to be afraid of the animal, and thus extinction would occur. However, even though the fear response may not be present, it will always be in his mind somewhere, in which spontaneous recovery could also occur. In conclusion, even though this experiment was deemed unethical, its findings have helped psychologists to learn more about how learning works in the human mind.
Subsequent research has been based around Watson’s original experiment, but by using different approaches. Effective parenting theories, as well as psychotherapy are two such examples. Facial expressions have been studied for parenting theories, as well as how they begin, how they are similar in all parts of the world, etc. This has also been shown to assist parents in communication with babies; certain expressions can show a parent that their baby is uncomfortable, or possibly hungry. Moreover, information about phobias has been a popular topic for psychologists in response to Watson’s research. For instance, “One such article discussed phobias from the nature-nurture perspective and found some remarkable results. Watson’s approach, of course, is rooted completely in the environmental or nurture side of the argument, and most people would view phobias as learned” (Hock 78). Three researchers actually found that much of phobias are actually a result of inheritance (Hock 78). Even though this is true, familial environment can also play a role. This is a brief outline of research that has come about after Watson’s Little Albert experiment.
This research has been extremely important to psychology, and thus our world. The classical conditioning experiment on Little Albert is one of the things that helped to kick start that behavioristic perspective; it helped many to realize that the first perspective of psychology—psychodynamic—didn’t have all of our questions answered after all. Due to its contribution to behaviorism, the world has been able to learn about one of the ways in which we do just that—learn, as well as how some of our emotions and fears are developed. One example of how this can be used in order to create a better understanding of the world around us is by thinking of the emotions people feel in certain situations, such as when one listens to a song and feels joy or sadness over it. The reasoning for this is that that person may have gone through something that made them feel joy while that song happened to be playing, or the latter. Emotions are part of everyday life, and this research has helped the world to understand them better.
Besides the fact that this experiment relates back to the behavioristic perspective, it can also be linked to other experiments, such as Pavlov’s dogs. In fact, the physiologist, Ivan Pavlov doing his experiment is part of what led to Watson’s idea for the Little Albert experiment in the first place. A short summary of Pavlov’s dogs research is that classical conditioning was used to get the dogs to salivate not to food being in their mouth, but to the sound of a metronome that was presented to them just before getting to eat (Cicarelli 172-173). Just as Little Albert came to associate rats, and other furry stimuli with a loud noise, the dogs associated the sound of the metronome with getting to eat. Therefore, after several pairings, the dogs did in fact salivate to the sound whether or not they were presented with food. This leads to another connection that is outlined by famous approaches in psychology, which is of course, classical conditioning itself. The book states that “Classical conditioning is actually one of the simplest forms of learning. It’s so simple that it happens to people all the time without them even being aware of it” (Cicarelli 172). Classical conditioning has been explained throughout this summary, but one more example to make things more clear and relatable to say, Pavlov’s dogs would be a person salivating when they see a commercial for their favourite restaurant. So as one can see, classical conditioning is part of everyday life, people just don’t necessarily notice it.
For a final point, this information can be used in my own life because I can now understand where my fears and other emotions may come from. This knowledge will make me think back to the roots of my joy when I hear a certain song, or even my fear of elevators. In fact, I could possibly counteract some of my fears by making a new, and more pleasant association with them. Of course not all emotions are classically conditioned; as covered in subsequent research, some phobias are actually a result of genetics. All in all, I feel that knowledge of our own behavior and emotions is a great way to get to know ourselves better.
Their method of data collection was through an experiment of classical conditioning. The subject was a nine month old baby whose code name, for the sake of confidentiality, was Little Albert. There was an unconditioned stimulus, which was the loud noise, and then the unconditioned response was Little Albert’s fear and crying. His reasoning for using a loud noise as the UCS was because it is something that would naturally scare such a young child. In classical conditioning there must also be a neutral stimulus—in this case it was a white rat. During the experiment, the conditioned stimulus became the white rat because it was paired with the unconditioned stimulus—the loud noise. The NS has to be paired with the UCS so that the subject will come to associate those two things together, thus providing a similar response to the new stimulus. Therefore, the conditioned response became fear and crying because Little Albert came to be afraid of the rat after associating it with the loud noise.
To begin the experiment, Watson observed how Little Albert would react towards small, furry animals, or basically anything that resembled the white rat in some way. Before pairing any of these things with a loud noise (the UCS), the baby didn’t seem to have any signs of fear toward them; this is how Watson knew he could use the white rat as a neutral stimulus for conditioning (Hock 73). After observing these things in Albert, it was time for him to bring in the unconditioned stimulus, but this wasn’t done until two months later, when he was a little older—the ethical standpoint of this research was already questionable due to intentionally arousing fear in a baby. Once Albert was reaching out to touch the white rat, Watson hit a metal pole; naturally Albert was frightened. Although, in order to condition him to a fear they had to pair this sound with the rat several times, so after these pairings they put the rat back in front of Little Albert, without any presence of the terrifying sound. He still reacted with great fear to the creature (Hock 74).Then they began to present Albert with things that looked like the white rat, such as a rabbit, Watson’s own white hair, a dog, as well as a Santa Clause mask, all of which Albert cried in response to; this is generalization—the subject was afraid of not only the stimulus that he learned to fear, but also things that were similar (Hock 74).
Five days later they tested Little Albert’s fear with the same stimuli, which was presented in a table in Forty Studies That Changed Psychology on page 75. The table pointed out that when the rat was put in front of him he began to cry. However, when the rabbit was presented to him, he was still fearful, but not as much as he was initially after conditioning. When the researchers gave him blocks he simply played with them as usual (Hock 75). Furthermore, Watson took Albert to a room with better lighting and more people in it to see if this would affect his response; this was also shown in the table. When given the rabbit, although fearful, he also became curious of it (Hock 75). These findings seemed to show that the environment also seems to have an effect on how people might react to their fears. Thirty-one days later they tested Albert again to see if his emotional reactions would remain after longer periods of time; they found that his reactions were in fact the same. Moreover, due to the fact that Little Albert being adopted, they were never able to recondition the child (Hock 75).
Once they collected this data, Watson and Rayner could draw conclusions about what their findings meant. Based on Little Albert’s reactions it became clear that we can learn to have certain emotions towards situations and things based on associations made with stimuli in the environment; for Little Albert this was mostly the white rat, but also similar furry, white objects all because the rat was paired with a naturally feared loud sound from a metal pole being hit behind him. In addition, this showed that Freud’s idea of behavior coming from the unconscious was incorrect (Hock 75). An example of this is given through the following statement, “… a Freudian would explain thumb sucking as an expression of the original pleasure-seeking instinct. Albert, however, would suck his thumb when he felt afraid. As soon as the thumb entered his mouth, his fear lessened. Therefore, Watson interpreted thumb sucking as a conditioned device for blocking fear-producing stimuli” (Hock 76). From this Watson could point out that sexual traumas aren’t necessarily the cause of dysfunctional emotions (Hock 76). Additionally, extinction could also be learned from this research. As pointed out by many other researchers, because the stimuli, such as the rabbit won’t always be paired with the loud noise, over time the child would learn that he doesn’t need to be afraid of the animal, and thus extinction would occur. However, even though the fear response may not be present, it will always be in his mind somewhere, in which spontaneous recovery could also occur. In conclusion, even though this experiment was deemed unethical, its findings have helped psychologists to learn more about how learning works in the human mind.
Subsequent research has been based around Watson’s original experiment, but by using different approaches. Effective parenting theories, as well as psychotherapy are two such examples. Facial expressions have been studied for parenting theories, as well as how they begin, how they are similar in all parts of the world, etc. This has also been shown to assist parents in communication with babies; certain expressions can show a parent that their baby is uncomfortable, or possibly hungry. Moreover, information about phobias has been a popular topic for psychologists in response to Watson’s research. For instance, “One such article discussed phobias from the nature-nurture perspective and found some remarkable results. Watson’s approach, of course, is rooted completely in the environmental or nurture side of the argument, and most people would view phobias as learned” (Hock 78). Three researchers actually found that much of phobias are actually a result of inheritance (Hock 78). Even though this is true, familial environment can also play a role. This is a brief outline of research that has come about after Watson’s Little Albert experiment.
This research has been extremely important to psychology, and thus our world. The classical conditioning experiment on Little Albert is one of the things that helped to kick start that behavioristic perspective; it helped many to realize that the first perspective of psychology—psychodynamic—didn’t have all of our questions answered after all. Due to its contribution to behaviorism, the world has been able to learn about one of the ways in which we do just that—learn, as well as how some of our emotions and fears are developed. One example of how this can be used in order to create a better understanding of the world around us is by thinking of the emotions people feel in certain situations, such as when one listens to a song and feels joy or sadness over it. The reasoning for this is that that person may have gone through something that made them feel joy while that song happened to be playing, or the latter. Emotions are part of everyday life, and this research has helped the world to understand them better.
Besides the fact that this experiment relates back to the behavioristic perspective, it can also be linked to other experiments, such as Pavlov’s dogs. In fact, the physiologist, Ivan Pavlov doing his experiment is part of what led to Watson’s idea for the Little Albert experiment in the first place. A short summary of Pavlov’s dogs research is that classical conditioning was used to get the dogs to salivate not to food being in their mouth, but to the sound of a metronome that was presented to them just before getting to eat (Cicarelli 172-173). Just as Little Albert came to associate rats, and other furry stimuli with a loud noise, the dogs associated the sound of the metronome with getting to eat. Therefore, after several pairings, the dogs did in fact salivate to the sound whether or not they were presented with food. This leads to another connection that is outlined by famous approaches in psychology, which is of course, classical conditioning itself. The book states that “Classical conditioning is actually one of the simplest forms of learning. It’s so simple that it happens to people all the time without them even being aware of it” (Cicarelli 172). Classical conditioning has been explained throughout this summary, but one more example to make things more clear and relatable to say, Pavlov’s dogs would be a person salivating when they see a commercial for their favourite restaurant. So as one can see, classical conditioning is part of everyday life, people just don’t necessarily notice it.
For a final point, this information can be used in my own life because I can now understand where my fears and other emotions may come from. This knowledge will make me think back to the roots of my joy when I hear a certain song, or even my fear of elevators. In fact, I could possibly counteract some of my fears by making a new, and more pleasant association with them. Of course not all emotions are classically conditioned; as covered in subsequent research, some phobias are actually a result of genetics. All in all, I feel that knowledge of our own behavior and emotions is a great way to get to know ourselves better.