A landmark discovery was made in 1920 about behavior modification but a major atrocity was undertaken in the process. Reading through the notes relating to the Little Albert experiment, the thrill of the discovery is lost in the loathing what the infant Albert went through as a consequence of the experiment (Griggs, 2015). One also cannot help but wonder if the damage done could have been reversed and if not what kind of an impact it had on the rest of Albert’s life. The experiment was a remarkable success and was able to reveal how nature and nurture operate contemporaneously in shaping human behavior. Using the nurture aspect, the nature of a human being can be modified and even changed but the human toll for the experimentation that can make this a reality might be too high.
The Hypothesis
The principal hypothesis of the study was that stimulus generalization as reflected conditioned taste aversion was possible on human beings. The concept of fear and aversion had erstwhile been purely consigned to nature and considered as a form of genetic configuration in humans and animals (Digdon et al, 2014). This meant that a human being or animal would fear what it was genetically predisposed to fear and be comfortable with what it was genetically predisposed to be comfortable with. This, for example, was what made the behavior of the male lions to kill their cubs extremely dangerous because, by their very nature, cubs did not fear grown up lions. This traditional notion was purely based on nature. However, as the study of psychology progressed, concepts such as conditional reflexes came up leading to the understanding that fear can be developed based on the object that is presented to the animal or individual. The next stage from this was whether or not artificial behavior can be developed through the conditioning of how an individual perceives the world (Digdon et al, 2014). This is the hypothesis that the Little Albert experiment was meant to test.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Procedure for the Study
The study process was as simple as it was eerie. For a start, the experimenters who included John Hopkins University’s John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner found a very brave boy, whom they called Albert B. Albert be was tested using a fluffy rabbit, rat, dog, monkey and even masks and was found to be absolutely unafraid. This marked him as perfect for the experiment. Next, Albert was exposed to a white rabbit which was very fluffy. As the brave boy he was, it was expected he would try to play with it (Griggs, 2015). Every time he reached out to touch the rabbit, a gong would be sounded behind his head just as he was making this contact. The loud bang would scare the child who would get upset and scream in flight then sob for a long time. After the experiment was repeated for a number of times and over a several days, Albert begun behaving towards the rabbit just as he had behaved towards the sound of the gong. He would get tense at the sight of the rabbit and scream if it was ever brought near him (Griggs, 2015).
This led to the second phase of the experiment where the animals that Albert had been so comfortable with before were brought to him. Any animal that was fluffy or had a close resemblance to the rabbit's coat was received in the same scary manner by Albert. It did not matter whether the animals were friendly or aggressive, whenever they appeared, Albert would get tense and this would get worse as they came close. Eventually, he would scream and try to move away if they came too close (Griggs, 2015). Finally, masks were used on Little Albert to test the stimulus generalization as reflected conditioned taste aversion hypothesis. Albert reacted the in the same manner to a scary demon mask and a Santa mask as long as they were made to look fluffy. Stimulus generalization had to some extent, therefore, been achieved.
Type of Learning Demonstrated
Fear was the only thing that Albert was meant to learn within the course of the study and experiment. The experiment had begun with a brave boy who was unafraid of anything that he did not have a reason to fear. The research process was, however, designed to make him fear and it succeeded. It did not teach him what to do, just how to feel. The same can, therefore, is considered to fall under the Grasha-Reichmann Learning Style Scale specifically under the avoidant classification. This is because the main thing being taught to Albert in the cause of the study was what to avoid with fear being the reason to avoid it (Digdon et al, 2014).
The Important Information Learned
This experiment revealed how easy it would be to undertake behavior modification on human beings, more so when they are in a hapless state. Albert was a normal kid who had been leading a normal life until the age of 10 months when the experiment was begun (Digdon et al, 2014). Further, even after the experiment begun, Albert was still leading a normal life, safe for when the experiments were taking place. He must, therefore, have been undergoing normal cognitive and empirical development just as other children did. However, during the experiment, he would be absolutely under the control of the experimenters and reality became what the experimenters determined it to be (Digdon et al, 2014). This introduced a false reality to Albert who had no way of knowing that it was not the actual reality. His behavior was, therefore, modified to align with the new fake reality causing a behavioral transformation. The experiment not only revealed that this was possible but also showed how this could be done.
Contribution to the Field of Behavioral Psychology
One of the unique things about this critical experiment is that it cannot be repeated today due to ethical and legal issues. In the 1970s, many complaints came about due to the use of human samples for psychological experiments due to the inability to know for a fact the actual and long-term effects of such experiments. This led to the formation of The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (NCPHS) which eventually placed many caveats of human experimentation (Elliot & Lamkin, 2016). The caveats exponentially added value to the experiments such as the Little Albert experiment that has already been undertaken by qualified professionals who also kept a careful record of the same. They become an invaluable source of insight into the area of behavioral psychology, even as the field continues to grow and expand.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that in the modern age, an Experiment such as the Little Albert would result in a massive uproar, litigation, and even indictments. Yet, there are invaluable lessons that emanated from the said experiment that are still useful to researchers today. The said study can be said to have been geared towards ensuring that a child reacts the same way to a scary thing as it reacts to a benevolent thing. By the end of the experiments, Albert could not differentiate between Santa and a demon. All he saw was the fluffy skin which he related to a memory, leading him to scream. The hypothesis about conditioned taste aversion and stimulus generalization had been achieved. This, unfortunately, happened at the cost of potentially ruining the entire life of an innocent infant which is a price too high to pay for any research.
References
Digdon, N., Powell, R. A., & Smithson, C. (2014). Watson’s alleged Little Albert scandal: Historical breakthrough or new Watson myth. Revista de Historia de la Psicología , 35 (1), 47-60
Elliott, C., & Lamkin, M. (2016). Restrict the recruitment of involuntarily committed patients for psychiatric research. JAMA Psychiatry , 73 (4), 317-318
Griggs, R. A. (2015). Psychology’s lost boy: Will the real Little Albert please stand up? Teaching of Psychology , 42 (1), 14-18
