Experiment in the Discipline of Psychology - Research Paper Example

? Psychology articles comparison: Significant research experiment in the discipline of psychology Grade (8th,May. 2013) Psychology articles comparison: Significant research experiment in the discipline of psychology Introduction Psychology is a discipline that entails the scientific study of mental functionalities and behavior (Harris, 1979). There are several branches of psychology, with each branch dealing with a different aspect of the behavioral study. Experimental psychology is a branch of psychology that entails the application of the experimental method, to study behavior, as well as the factors underlying the behavior (DeAngelis, 2010). Various experiments have been undertaken to study the behavior of human and even animals under the field of psychology, and results generated, which explained the occurrence of certain behaviors. One such significant research experiment in the discipline of psychology is the Little Albert experiment. The Little Albert experiment This was an experiment that was conducted at Johns Hopkins University, by John B. Watson with the help of Rosalie Rayner, who was his assistant in 1920, aimed at studying classical conditioning in humans (Harris, 1979; Beck, Levinson, & Irons, 2009). While observing children playing in the field, John B. Watson developed a notion that the way children reacted whenever they heard some noise was prompted by fear. Therefore, he wanted to study the relationship between the fearful behavior of children whenever they heard some noise, and the real causative agent. His reasoning was that the response to noise by children was as a result of a fear that is innate, which only required some forces to trigger the reaction (Surhone, Timpledon & Marseken, 2010). Having learnt from the previous classical conditioning experiment by Ivan Pavlov who had used dogs, John B. Watson sought to condition a child to fear a different stimulus other than noise, which could normally not be feared by the child. The methodology entailed the use of an emotionally stable child (Little Albert), who was 9 nine months old. He was first introduced to various fear stimuli for the first time, which included a white rabbit, a rat, a dog, a monkey, burning newspapers, and masks with and without hair (Surhone, Timpledon & Marseken, 2010). This being undertaken as a baseline emotional test, the child was observed to exhibit no fear reactions. After the baseline test, Albert was placed on a mattress on top of a table, which was then taken into a single room, where he was given a white rat from the laboratory to play with it (Surhone, Timpledon & Marseken, 2010). Initially, he did not exhibit any fear reactions, and he even played with the rat by reaching at it and touching it. The experiment was then set such that a steel bar was introduced and suspended behind Albert, and then Watson and Rosalie Rayner could strike the steel bar with a hammer, whenever Albert reached and touched the rat (DeAngelis, 2010). The child responded by crying and showing fear, whenever the steel bar was struck and the loud sound produced, when he touched the rat. After several pairing of the stimuli (touching of the rat by Albert with the loud bang sound on from the struck steel bar), the experiment was then re-organized such that the striking of the steel bar was removed, and Albert was introduced to the rat only in the closed empty room. This time, it was observed that he became very distressed whenever the rat appeared in the room, and instead of reaching to play with it like he was doing before, he started turning away and tried to move away from the rat (Surhone, Timpledon & Marseken, 2010). The results now found that the child had associated the initial neutral stimulus (white laboratory rat), with the unconditioned stimulus (loud banging sound of the steel bar), and was therefore exhibiting conditioned response (fearful emotional response such as crying and moving away). After 17 days another similar experiment was undertaken, with the introduction of a rabbit, dog, skin coat, human wearing masks, and the reaction given by Albert was similar to that given when the laboratory rat was introduced. Therefore, Albert had generalized the fear to any other kind of stimulus. The findings of the experiment were that the introduction of unconditioned stimulus in the form of loud sound triggered the unconditioned response in the form of fear, which was initially a natural response (Surhone, Timpledon & Marseken, 2010). Comparison and contrast of journal articles 'Little Albert' regains his identity by DeAngelis, T., and Whatever Happened to Little Albert by Harris, B., are two subsequent articles that have been published many years after the The Little Albert experiment was undertaken, and both of them feature the aftermath of Albert’s life (DeAngelis, 2010). The first aspect of comparison between the two articles is that; they discuss the significance of the The Little Albert experiment, and both concurs that the experiment was a major milestone in the field of experimental psychology, since it helped underline the concept of classical conditioning in humans, while it has also been applied as the precedence of many other classical conditioning experiments (Harris, 1979). The other comparison regarding the strengths of the experiment, as presented by the two articles is that, they concur regarding the authenticity and validity of the experiment, since both articles consider the methodology applied in the experiment to be scientific, and thus considers the findings to be plausible (Harris, 1979). The other comparison in the two articles, regarding the weakness of the experiment is that; the two articles agree on the fact that the experiment’s major weakness is that; its results are ambiguous and un-interpretable, since there is no sufficient evidence, to tell exactly whether the reactions by Albert were triggered by rat phobia, or by the evoking of fear by the other animals (DeAngelis, 2010). The contrast between the articles however, is the fact that; while 'Little Albert' regains his identity by DeAngelis, T., regards some of the tales about the experiment as fanciful myths, which are just interesting to hear, but cannot be fully substantiated (DeAngelis, 2010). This is in contrast with the view in the Whatever Happened to Little Albert by Harris, B., which considers the experiment as a significant milestone that has helped advance the experimental psychology from the initial conditioning of Ian Pavlov, to the current status, where a number of productive experiments have been undertaken and results verified (Harris, 1979). Another contrast is that, while the Whatever Happened to Little Albert by Harris, B., still doubts the discovery of the real identity of Albert, the 'Little Albert' regains his identity by DeAngelis, T., confirms that he has since been discovered and the identity confirmed (DeAngelis, 2010). References Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64, 7. pp. 605–614. DeAngelis, T. (2010). 'Little Albert' regains his identity. Monitor on Psychology, 41, 1. pp. 10. Harris, B. (1979). Whatever Happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34, 2, pp. 151–160. Surhone, L.M., Timpledon, M. T. & Marseken, S. F. (2010). Little Albert Experiment. Betascript Publishing. Read More