Conditioning Process and Results

The conditioning phase of the Little Albert experiment began when Albert was 11 months old. The researchers presented him with a white rat simultaneously with a loud sound produced by striking a steel bar. This pairing was repeated multiple times over several weeks to establish the conditioned response.

Highlight: The pairing of the rat (neutral stimulus) with the loud noise (unconditioned stimulus) was crucial in creating the conditioned fear response.

The results of the conditioning process were significant. By the seventh pairing, Albert would cry as soon as the rat was presented, even without the accompanying noise. He would also exhibit violent jumping reactions, demonstrating a clear conditioned fear response.

To test for generalization, Albert was exposed to various stimuli over the next 10 days, including a rabbit, dog, fur coat, cotton wool, and a Santa mask. The researchers also changed the setting to ensure that the fear response was not specific to the original experimental environment.

Example: When presented with a rabbit, Albert would cry and cover his face, demonstrating that the conditioned fear had generalized to other furry objects.

The generalization results showed varying degrees of fear responses to different stimuli. Albert's reactions ranged from crying and falling backwards when exposed to the rabbit, to attempting to crawl away from the dog, and becoming upset when a fur coat was brought closer to him.

Quote: "When transferred to a lecture theatre with 4 other people, Albert's reaction to the rat were the same."

This quote highlights the consistency of Albert's conditioned response across different settings, supporting the robustness of the conditioning effect.

Unfortunately, the long-term effects of the conditioning could not be fully assessed as Albert was removed from the hospital by his mother at the age of one year. Consequently, the researchers were unable to remove the phobia or determine its exact duration.

Highlight: The inability to follow up on Albert's condition raises ethical concerns about the lasting impact of the experiment on the child's well-being.

Conclusions and Critical Evaluation

The Little Albert experiment led to several important conclusions in the field of psychology. Primarily, it demonstrated that it is possible to artificially induce emotional responses through classical conditioning. This finding had significant implications for understanding the development of phobias and other emotional reactions.

Definition: Phobia - An intense, irrational fear of a specific object or situation.

However, the study also noted that conditioned responses tend to decline over time, a phenomenon known as extinction. This observation is crucial for understanding the potential reversibility of conditioned fears.

When evaluating the study, several critical points emerge:

1. Generalizability: The study has low generalizability due to its sample size of one unique individual. Albert's emotional stability may not be representative of how other children would respond to similar conditioning.

2. Reliability: The experiment demonstrates high reliability due to its standardized procedures and careful documentation. The use of film to record Albert's reactions enhances the study's replicability.

Highlight: The high inter-rater reliability, with both Watson and Rayner observing Albert's reactions, strengthens the credibility of the results.

3. Application: The study provides valuable insights into how phobias can be learned and potentially unlearned, offering a foundation for understanding and treating certain behavioral issues.

4. Validity: While the study has high construct validity, aligning with the principles of classical conditioning, it suffers from low ecological validity due to the unnatural experimental setting.

Example: The use of controls, such as Watson hiding behind a curtain to produce the sound, enhances the internal validity of the experiment.

5. Ethics: The Little Albert experiment raises significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding the protection from harm guideline. The study continued despite Albert's distress, and the long-term effects on his well-being were not addressed.

Quote: "Watson and Rayner argue that Albert would have these distressing experiences once he started nursery and that there was nothing unusual about what they had put the child through."

This justification by the researchers highlights the different ethical standards of the time and the ongoing debate about the experiment's ethics.

In conclusion, while the Little Albert experiment provided groundbreaking insights into fear conditioning and the principles of classical conditioning, it remains a controversial study due to its ethical implications and methodological limitations. Its legacy continues to influence discussions on research ethics and the development of emotional responses in psychology.