Watson and Rayners Study with Little Albert - Essay Example

WATSON AND RAYNER’S STUDY WITH LITTLE ALBERT Watson and Rayner’s study with little Albert This paper is an analysisof Watson and Rayner’s study with little Albert. Under the introduction part the paper introduces the Watson and Rayner’s study with little Albert, and explains the main reason as to why Watson and Rayner undertook the study which is to prove the existence of conditioned stimuli in human beings. The introduction then goes ahead and describes the study process and the outcomes. The paper also describes three types of stimuli in human beings which are: natural stimuli; unconditioned stimuli, and conditioned stimuli. The paper then describes how natural and unconditioned stimuli can be used to produce conditioned stimuli with reference to this experiment. It does not leave out the fact that conditioned stimuli can lead to generalization of stimuli. The paper further points out the fact that the assertions of the paper are scientific since they have experimented proof. The weakness part shows those aspects of human behaviour and stimulus that are not put into consideration during this experiment. The final part concludes that the experiment was important in the understanding of human behaviour and stimuli, though further studies should be carried out to clear out the many uncertainties pointed out in the weakest part. Introduction Watson and Rayner’s study with little Albert commonly referred to as “the little Albert experiment” was a case study which was aimed at proving the existence of classical conditioning in human beings. The experiment involved a male child of about nine months of age who was exposed to a number of stimuli which included a monkey, a white rat, a rabbit, burning newspapers, and masks. The two psychologists then went ahead and observed the young boy’s reaction to the stimuli. The observation was that there was no sign of fear to any of the objects during the first observation. Watson and Rayner repeated the same process though this time pairing the appearance of the white rat with a loud sound produced by hitting a metal object with a hammer. This time round the child cried as a result of the introduction of the loud noise. The pairing was repeated severally. Eventually the child would cry when he was exposed to the white rat without the loud sound. At this moment the child’s response to the white rat had been conditioned through the described process. This paper aims at critically evaluating “the little Albert experiment”. Types of stimuli There are generally three types of stimuli. The first type of stimuli is a natural stimulus which was being tested for in the first part of the experiment where there was not loud noise but just the objects. The second type is the unconditioned stimuli that are caused by the loud sound produced by the harmer. The third type of stimuli is the final result of repeated exposure to the pair including the white rat and the loud sound. The child learned to react to the white rat even without the loud sound due to its previous association to the loud sound (Nevid, 2012). Pairing natural stimuli and unconditioned stimuli Classical conditioning has its emphasis on the influence that the environment has on human behaviour. This is basically associated to the memories that negative experiences might have on the way people view certain things. For example, in the case of little Albert it is observed that during the first part of the experiment he does not fear any of the objects that he is exposed to (Nevid, 2012). However, with the introduction of the loud noise things change. At first the reaction is purely to the loud noise. Were it that the pairing of the white rat and the loud noise was done only once, then conditioned stimuli would not have developed for the experiment. Every time the pairing was repeated the experience was recorded in Albert’s brain. The more he was exposed to the pairing the more he associated the white rat with the loud noise. Soon it becomes evident that the child does not know how to differentiate between the loud noise and the white rat even in the absence of the loud noise. Generalization of stimuli Through the experiment, it can also be deduced that stimuli also be generalized after being conditioned. After a series of exposure to the pairing of loud noise and white rat, Watson and Rayner noticed that the child did not only show fear for the white rat, but also to s variety of small objects which happen to be white. It was observed that the child showed fear for other objects such as a man putting on a Santa Claus beard or someone putting on a white fur coat (Nevid, 2012). Scientific evidence One positive thing about the classical theory is that it is scientific. In essence, this has its basis on the experiment that is properly explained with every aspect of the procedure having its own purpose and every result having an explanation. Like in the “Little Albert experiment” it can be seen that at first there was no fear at all but after being exposed to the pairing of white rat and loud noise Albert appear to develop a fear of the white rat and things that have a visual relationship to it. It is not just another theory where a philologist comes with convincing explanations of certain behaviour in human beings and since the reasons given are deemed viable they are accepted. Weaknesses However, one thing that is not certain about this experiment is if the experiment would have yielded the same result were three different subjects used. Despite the fact that Watson and Rayner give assurance that the baby used in this case is a normal child with no mental complications, it does not tell if the reactions would have been the same if there were a variety of subjects beings used. Even normal people with no health complications can have differences in reaction to such situations. For instance, the experiment does not take into consideration the fact that the reaction might have been different if the child was a female one. There is also a possibility that the reaction would have been different with dependence of residential environment, age, and race. These are aspects that many people would have wanted to know. It is not a guarantee that since the child used in this experiment reacted in this manner, then all children would react to the experience in the same manner in which the child in the case did. Another thing that the experiment does not specifically bring to light is the extent to which this experiment influences relation that the subject has with white rats after the experiment. It would have been interesting to see the reaction that the subject would have had to being exposed to the white rat ten years after the experiment. There are a number of things that many people would like to know. For example, it would be interesting to find out if the boy’s relation will be the same while at his teenage. It will also be interesting to know if the reaction will be the same even after being informed and given proof that the white rat is harmless. These are things that would help in understanding the extent to which conditioned stimuli has an effect in the lives of human beings. Another thing that can be said to be incomplete about this experiment is the fact that it does not give details on whether or not the stimulus conditioning process is reversible. It would have been interesting if the experiment entailed information on whether there is some process through which the boy’s fear of the white rats could be reversed. This is maybe because of the experiment’s time allocation. However, human behaviour is not something that can be shaped in such a short duration of time. Therefore, it is still not certain whether the experiment depicts what really happened for the rest of the boy’s life. You will not even be able to know if the reaction to a white rat would be the same a month after the experiment was carried out. Conclusion As shown through this paper, it is true that Watson and Rayner’s studies with little Albert shows how stimuli can be conditioned in human beings. The good thing about the experiment is that it involves proof. There is sufficient proof that unconditioned stimuli can be used in changing natural stimuli into conditioned stimuli. In accordance to the experiment there is nothing that can bring doubt to this assertion. However, due to the number of weaknesses that the experiment has, it is clearly evident that there are further studies that need to be carried out on the same. For instance, there should be an assurance from the use of various subjects with different characteristics that their reaction of Albert will be the reaction of a typical human being. There should also be evidence on the duration which the effect of conditioned stimuli can be effective. Reference Nevid, J. S. (2012). Essentials of psychology: Concepts and applications. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Read More