Introduction
The behavior psychologist John B. Watson conducted the Little Albert experiment in 1919 to study human conditioning at Johns Hopkins University. The study’s main participant, 9-months old Albert, was tested on reaction to neutral stimuli and identified as a child who fears nothing but the loud hammer noise that suddenly occurs (Mertens et al., 2020).
In two months, the combination of a rat and the sound was presented to the boy seven times, sufficient to pair these factors in the mind. As a result, once a rat occurred next to Albert, he started crying and trying to leave regardless of the hammer’s noise presence. The infant later displayed phobias of other objects similar to rats, such as dogs and fur coats, and no noise was necessary to stimulate the fear – this outcome demonstrated human generalization (Digdon, 2020). Albert was withdrawn from the experiment after the tests were completed and died at age six due to hydrocephalus with a risk of brain damage.
Participant’s Developmental Stage Discussion
The experiment was conducted with one participant who was in their infancy when human consciousness was not well-developed, and the mind is especially flexible. This period complies with Erikson’s Psychosocial stage, according to which individuals aged 0-18 months face the trust versus mistrust conflict resolution, leading to their development (Maree, 2021). Infants need constant care and safety to avoid becoming anxious, and such experiments as the Little Albert threaten their ability to acquire hope essential for growing up without deviations. The study began when the participant was in the middle of their first development stage, and as it ended, the child had the unconscious recognition of fear that generalized to multiple objects.
Erikson’s developmental stages theory applies to the discussion of the Little Albert experiment because the participant’s reaction occurred following the behaviorist’s description. The child of this age is fully dependent on their caregivers; therefore, they cannot consciously separate objects they feared from ones they previously perceived as safe (Maree, 2021). During infancy, humans acquire basic skills, and some essential aspects, such as being afraid of specific noises, may be formed deep in their minds. The intervention Albert experienced is influential on his perception of the world as non-trustworthy and generalized fears of entire categories.
Research Ethics
The Little Albert experiment was conducted a century ago when the ethical considerations were different than the recent regulations. Consequently, research with an infant child exposed to experience fears multiple times may be perceived as seriously unethical by modern scientists. Algahtani et al. (2018) claim that “the interest of the patient must always prevail over the interest of science or society” (p. 830). That critical statement was developed after the Little Albert experiment, and Watson did not include any tests or evaluations to ensure the child received no instant or long-term harm. Furthermore, as the infant was withdrawn from the research, the scientist did not perform deconditioning from the stimuli that triggered Albert. In modern psychology, conditioning children to fear of any kind is unethical; therefore, similar experiments have never been officially repealed on humans.
Conclusion
Watson’s experiment implications are the expanse of knowledge about human conditioning, fear development, and generalization. Indeed, the study demonstrated how infants adapt as stimuli force them to change their perception of safe objects, the dangerous ones (Meulders, 2020). People tend to experience fears, the origins of which they struggle to explain, and the experiment proved that they could have been developed in the unconscious stage. Watson’s study identified how individuals generalize categories of objects on an association level recalled by their basic instincts to stay safe. The Little Albert experiment gave behaviorists, psychologists, and neuroscientists valuable insights.
References
Algahtani, H., Bajunaid, M., & Shirah, B. (2018). Unethical human research in the field of neuroscience: A historical review.Neurological Sciences, 39(5), 829-834.
Digdon, N. (2020). The Little Albert controversy: Intuition, confirmation bias, and logic. History of Psychology, 23(2), 122. Web.
Maree, J. G. (2021). The psychosocial development theory of Erik Erikson: Critical overview.Early Child Development and Care, 191(7-8), 1107-1121.
Mertens, G., Krypotos, A. M., & Engelhard, I. M. (2020). A review on mental imagery in fear conditioning research 100 years since the ‘Little Albert’study.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 126, 103556.
Meulders, A. (2020). Fear in the context of pain: Lessons learned from 100 years of fear conditioning research. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 131, 103635.