Search results
A controversial study of classical conditioning in humans by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920. The identity of the infant subject, Albert, is disputed and may have been Douglas Merritte or Albert Barger.
- Critical Evaluation
- Ethical Issues
- Learning Check
- References
- Further Information
Methodological Limitations
1. The study didn’t control for pseudoconditioning– the loud noise may have simply sensitized Albert to be fearful of any novel stimulus. 2. It didn’t control for maturation– Albert was 11 months old initially, but the final test was at 12 months. Fears emerge naturally over time in infants, so maturation could account for Albert’s reactions. 3. Albert’s reactions were inconsistent and the conditioned fear weak– he showed little distress to the rat in later tests, suggesting the conditioning...
Theoretical Limitations
The cognitive approach criticizes the behavioral model as it does not take mental processes into account. They argue that the thinking processes that occur between a stimulus and a response are responsible for the feeling component of the response. Ignoring the role of cognition is problematic, as irrational thinking appears to be a key feature of phobias. Tomarken et al. (1989) presented a series of slides of snakes and neutral images (e.g., trees) to phobic and non-phobic participants. The...
The Little Albert Film
1. With the rat, Albert was initially indifferent and tried to crawl over it. He only cried when the rat was placed on his hand, likely just startled. 2. With the rabbit, dog, fur coat, and mask, his reactions could be explained by being startled, innate wariness of looming objects, and other factors. Reactions were inconsistent and mild. Overall, Albert’s reactions seem well within the normal range for an infant and can be readily explained without conditioning. The footage provides little e...
The Little Albert Experiment was conducted in 1920 before ethical guidelines were established for human experiments in psychology. When judged by today’s standards, the study has several concerning ethical issues: 1. There was no informed consent obtained from Albert’s parents. They were misled about the true aims of the research and did not know t...
Summarise the process of classical conditioning in Watson and Raynor’s study.Explain how Watson and Raynor’s methodology is an improvement on Pavlov’s.What happened during the transfer sessions? What did this demonstrate?Why is Albert’s reaction to similar furry objects important for the interpretation of the study?Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64, 605–614. Digdon, N., Powell, R. A., & Harris, B. (2014). Little Albert’s alleged neurological persist impairment: Watson, Rayner, and historical revision. History of Psychology, 17, 312–324. Fridlund, A. ...
Jul 11, 2024 · The Little Albert experiment was a famous psychology experiment conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and graduate student Rosalie Rayner. Previously, Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov had conducted experiments demonstrating the conditioning process in dogs.
Douglas Merritte, the son of a wetnurse who worked at Johns Hopkins University, was the baby in John Watson's 1920 emotional conditioning experiment. A team of psychologists used historical materials and facial recognition to solve the mystery of Little Albert's fate.
Learn about the controversial study that conditioned a baby to fear a white rat and its impact on psychology. Find out who was John B. Watson, Little Albert, and Rosalie Rayner, and how the experiment was conducted and criticized.
Oct 13, 2022 · Psychologists John Watson and Rosalie Rayner conditioned a nine-month-old boy to fear harmless objects like animals and Santa Claus in 1920. The experiment was unethical, controversial, and may have traumatized the child for life.
5 days ago · The Little Albert experiment also opened the door to discussions about aversive conditioning, a controversial technique that uses unpleasant stimuli to modify behavior. While aversive conditioning has been used in various therapeutic contexts, it remains a subject of ethical debate, much like the original Little Albert study.
