Little Emotional Albert 1

Running head: LITTLE ALBERT

Little Emotional Albert

Jennifer Sweeney and Andrew Pirrone Coastal Carolina University

Little Emotional Albert 2 AbstractJohn Watson claimed that behavior and emotional-responses, such as fear, could be conditioned and generalized. In 1920, a study was conducted by Watson and Rosalie Rayner. Experiments were carried out on an infant, referred to as Little Albert. Albert was presented with neutral stimuli, such as a white rat and various similar objects. Initially, he did not exhibit fear of any of the objects. Responses to the white rat were monitored after being paired with a loud sound. Albert reacted to the rat with a conditioned response of fear after it had been paired with the loud sound. He was presented with similar objects again, to see if the fear of the rat had transferred to like objects. Albert did produce a conditioned response of fear to objects similar to the rat, proving that emotional responses could be generalized. These results supported Watsons theories on conditioning and generalization, but the experiment is widely believed to be unethical.

Little Emotional Albert 3 Little Emotional Albert Behavioral theories largely emerged in an effort to reform other psychodynamic theories that were far more complex. Behaviorism began as a simple branch of psychology (Franks, 1994, p.31). Early theorists, such as John Broadus Watson, would define psychology as the study of behavior, rather than the study of the mind (Boakes, 1984, p.136). Watson strongly sided with the nurture side of the nature-nurture debate, because he believed that our mental processes are shaped solely in accordance to the environment. He felt that far too much emphasis was placed on consciousness and wanted to instead focus on observable behavior, which came to be defined as behaviorism. He is often referred to as the father of behaviorism or is sometimes labeled a radical behaviorist, and he wrote several books and articles on conditioning and behaviorism. In Watsons book, Behaviorism, he went so far as to state that consciousness was an unscientific and improvable concept, because one cannot possibly know what consciousness consists of; it is not tangible and therefore, he claimed, we may not actually have a consciousness. (Watson, 1924, p.5) He expanded upon his ideologies, promoting the idea that our behavior can easily be manipulated and stated that the principles of free thinking may be fictitious. (Watson, 1924, p.180) The well-known quote that illustrates his position on the nature-nurture debate, and is often cited in psychology classrooms is stated in his book:Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestor. (Watson, 1924, p.82) Most psychology textbooks omit the rest of the quote, perhaps causing Watson to appear more extreme in his beliefs. The latter part of this quote states an acknowledgement that he is making a leaping assumption, but he also claims that other psychologists of the opposite opinion have done the same. He has written books on child-rearing, such as Psychological Care of Infant and Child (1928) based on the above quote and his studies on behaviorism. Another important viewpoint presented in Behaviorism is that, according to Watson, the word instinct is of little or no value, because virtually all of our habits are acquired over time, we learn them from training. One example he comments on is the fact that different fears exist in different people; although some would claim that we are born to fear the dark; that it is instinct, Watson, points out the fact that some people only fear darkness because of its symbolism, which is often religious. (Watson, 1924, p. 112)In 1912, John Watson asserted that he would no longer study the popularly accepted introspective psychology, but instead wanted to focus on behaviorism. Behaviorists began striving for recognition of behaviorism as the official field of psychology. Watson became the president of the American Psychological Association in 1915 (Magoun, 1981, p.368).Watson hypothesized that all human behavior stems from conditioning and not unconscious processes, which Freud had previously concluded, and whose ideas had been generally accepted by the academic community. Ivan Pavlov may have provided the framework for Watsons studies. Pavlov originally set out to perform studies on digestion, but happened to stumble upon what he termed psychic reflexes, he measured the salivation of dogs, and incidentally noticed that the dogs were beginning to salivate before offered meat powder. He applied these findings to an experiment on classical conditioning, in which he trained his dogs to salivate. He rang a bell while simultaneously feeding his dogs for several trials, until eventually the dogs would salivate even when the auditory stimulus was presented alone. Watsons study similarly used the same notions of Pavlovs, but was applied to human (Liddell, 1936).Watson felt that most research up to that point could not provide any means of reliable data, and that this justified the reformation of psychology to the study of observable behavior. He thought it seemed unempirical and thus futile to philosophize about psychology and felt that a well-constructed theory was in call and would lead to a better understanding of humanity. He felt that psychology would greatly benefit from implementing a behavioral point of view. (Boakes, 1984, p. 171-173)In an article published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology (1920), Watson explained his study on Little Albert. In the first sentence of this article he explicitly states the purpose of his study, that he intended to find direct experimental evidence concerning conditioning various types of emotional responses. MethodParticipantsIn John Watsons study, Watson and his assistant Rosalie Alberta Rayner, conducted their experiment using only Albert B., also known as Little Albert, as their participant. Albert, the son of a wet nurse in the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children, located on the Johns Hopkins campus, was chosen for the experiment. Albert was raised as an orphan on John Hopkins University campus in the same hospital that Watson and Rayner were conducting their studies. Albert was the perfect participant because he was a healthy, unemotional child who rarely cried (Beck, Levinson, & Irons, 2009). Little Albert was chosen for John Watsons study when he was 8 months and 26 days old. According to Watson and Reyner, Albert was chosen for their experiment because of his stolid and unemotional disposition (Watson and Rayner, 1921, p.50)Materials In this experiment Little Albert is supplied with a mattress on top of a table, in a small well-lighted dark room. Albert is paired with a white rat to see if Albert could be conditioned to fear the rat. Along with the rat, Watson used a rabbit, a monkey, a dog, masks with and without hair, and white cotton wool. Watson and Rayner then used a hammer to strike a 4-foot steel pipe to see if Albert would produce fear. Next, to determine whether the fear could become generalized, Watson paired the noise with a dog, a white fur coat, a package of cotton, Watsons grey hair, and also a Santa Clause mask.Procedure Before John Watson began his study, he successfully was granted a $450 advance from John Hopkins University, to buy film to create a movie displaying Alberts development. When Albert was 11 months and 3 days old, Watson began the actual conditioning part of the experiment. Although Watson & Rayner documented Alberts age throughout the test date, the actual dates of the procedures were never recorded. According to most researchers, the Little Albert study was conducted during the winter of 1912-1920(Beck, Levinson, & Irons, 2009).The first step of Watson and Rayners study was done when Albert was 8 months, 26 days old. This study was to see if Albert was naturally afraid of several stimuli. They first introduced Albert with a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, a dog, and masks with and without hair and white cotton wool. When presented with these objects, Albert showed curiosity and interest in the animals and objects, and would reach out and sometimes touch them. These objects and animals were identified as the neutral stimuli because Albert was initially not afraid of them. The next step of the study was to see if Albert would produce a fear response when a loud noise was unveiled. To see if his theory was correct, Watson struck a 4 foot steel bar with a hammer just behind where Albert was sitting. Watson and Rayner concluded that since there was no learning involved, the loud noise was the unconditioned stimulus.When Albert was 11 months and 3 days old, the conditioning part of the experiment began. Watson first exposed the white rat by itself to Little Albert. Similar to the first time the rat was exposed, Albert reached out to touch the rat. As soon as Albert did this, Watson struck the 4-foot steel bar with the hammer. Watson repeated this procedure a second time. Watson and Rayner stated that no test were given for a week, so they wouldnt disturb the child (Watson and Rayner,1921, p. 511). A week later Albert was exposed to the rat alone. Watson and Rayner used blocks to see if those objects were conditioned, but Albert played with the blocks as usual. Watson and Rayner said the blocks were used to calm Little Albert, so they could focus on his main emotional responses (Watson and Rayner, 1921, p512). The study continued, and after seven pairings of the rat and the noise, he was exposed to the rat alone, to see if this would provoke fear. Watson and Rayner wanted to determine if emotional responses, such as fear towards one object, could be transferred to other, similar objects (Watson and Rayner, 1920). This transfer is also known as generalization. After 5 days without testing, 11 month and 15 day old Albert was brought back and tested with the rat alone. Watson and Rayner then did several tests with other objects such as: the rabbit alone, the dog alone, a fur coat, cotton wool, Watsons own hair, and even a Santa Clause mask. Five days later, when Albert was 11 months and 20 days old, he was tested again; see Figure 1.1 for the summarized data.Watson moved the study into a well-lighted lecture room with four more people present. The purpose of this was to see if Alberts fear response could transfer from one setting to another. Albert was presented with the rat alone, the rat and noise, the dog alone, and then toy blocks. Since Albert had been adopted, and was preparing to leave the hospital, there was no testing for 31 days. When Albert was 1 year and 21 days old, he was tested for the last time. He was presented with the Santa Clause mask, the white fur coat, the rabbit, the dog, and the rat.

Results