Modern Perspectives on John Watson and Classical Behaviorism - Coursework Example

Ethically Controversial Case of Little Albert Watson's experiment conducted on little Albert certainly warrants the level of criticism it receives though it provided a groundbreaking understanding of the role of experience encounter in determining individual’s personality. More so the number of flaws ethically and scientifically that characterized the experiment categorically emphasizes the level of attention it deserves. The first scientific issue it raises revolves in it being an experimental case study, implying that it employs qualitative data on a single participant to draw conclusions about the general population characteristics. The notion creates a wide error margin leading to misrepresentation and misinterpretation of the overall population of babies falling under Albert's age bracket. The existence of a possibility that Albert's exceptional tolerant personality was a result of some developmental or mental deficit(Kreshel, 1990). Additionally, the element that Watson selected baby Albert to be his ideal subject for the study and conducted all of the demonstrations himself raises the question of biases with the experiment results. The Watson’s study of little Albert was also controversial for many ethical reasons, and it is arguable it was amongst the experimentation practices that contributed significantly to formulation of modern ethical guiding principles and enforcement etiquette organs such as Internal Review Boards. Evidently, Albert had not attained an age allowing him to consent to partake in the experiment, and this was very unethical of Watson to use Albert as a subject in the experiment. It is also unclear whether Albert’s mother completely comprehended the procedure to consent on his behalf(Harris 1979). The exact nature of the study also bared unethical basing, since it definitely exposed little Albert to a considerable level of discomfort, and possibly causing him long-term damages psychologically. Ethically, the modern ethics code governing psychology denounces the process of evoking fear reactions from human subjects, except if the participant subject has been informed before the procedure and they have consented beforehand. As a child, little Albert was clearly not able to consent and to realize that he was participating as a subject in a controlled experimental research. Scaring an infant to the point where the child visibly expresses physical reactions of being terrified and crying gives the impression unequivocally wickedness. Different aspects of the experiment indeed justify the public uproar and criticism associated with the Watson’s study of Albert. Going by this Watson did not fulfill his promise to extinguish the potential fear damages that he conditioned in infant Albert, the practice would be reflected as highly unethical by the psychological standards set forth. The influence of the experimental study may justify ethical misdeeds it perpetuated on Albert(Harris 1979). The justification may be based on the notion that it is amongst the most influential studies of all times to shade light on phobias. Thus, it paved the way for counterconditioning process and other psychotherapies process that have helped millions of persons to overcome devastating and incapacitating fears and other emotional concerns. As much as there are positive benefits that resulted from Watson’s actions, the public criticism accorded to the case is rationalized by the fact that the ends do not justify the means, especially to an infant. The current principles of ethics in psychology bases its policies on psychologist ability to evaluate benefits and risks involved in research. The principles rely on universal rules and specific subjective (best judgment) of for each distinctive research study. The rules are more stringent especially when participants may be harmed psychologically or traumatized, or if the study would deter participants from partaking in future studies. Present principles would advocate for adherence to the guidelines defined by the psychology governing bodies. The significant difference in approach that modern principles may have implemented in studying Albert would have been in the conclusion stages of the research and parental consent. A clear consent must be obtained before the study and extinguishing of the damages that resulted from the study. Though basic ethical concepts of these principles have changed insignificantly since their inception, much information has been incorporated in them because they are technically guidelines that are not strict rules. Modern psychology principles may have required Watson to exercise his judgment in determining the ethical basis of his study properly. Modern principles may even approve potentially unethical studies if they satisfy the review parameters. Justification parameters vary for such designs (Albert’s case) but involve the potentiality of gaining valuable knowledge to benefit a large group of people in the populace or produce groundbreaking material that could be beneficial to future studies. The modern principles advocates for extreme caution when special populations are involved in the study, such as infants since the group may be sensitive to some treatments. The guidelines encourage participants to be treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Certainly Watson would have been obligated by modern psychology principles to justify his study’s potential benefits to a wider general population and any future benefits to other studies relating to the subject. One of the ethical controversies that surrounded Watson’s life was his affair and marriage to Rosaline Rayner(Buckley and Kerry, 1994). Watson married Rayner, who at the time was a graduate scholar working under him, and this is practice would be considered as unethical by the standards of America psychology Association today. Watson was requested to resign from his position at Johns Hopkins University because of the affair with his research assistant. Both Watson’s wife and Rayner had family affiliations to prominent members of Baltimore politics. Not only did his divorce picture in prominent newspaper headlines but the papers also printed excerpts from some of his love letters addressed to Rosaline Rayner. Johns Hopkins University president, Frank Goodnow, supposedly gave him a choice to either continue his relationship with Rayner or maintain his position at Hopkins University. Because of Watson's strong intimate relationship with his research assistant, he resigned from his position at Johns Hopkins and later married Rayner. This affair that resulted in his divorce, a big scandal was tainted on Hopkins University. Modern day Zeitgeist perceptions of this deed would compel Watson to relinquish his position at the university just as he did(Buckley and Kerry, 1994). The consequences could even go as far as losing his practicing license. Controversially, Watson based most of his studies on his children, straining relationships within his family. In the long run, Watson's exit from professional psychology and entry into advertising contributed substantial momentum to the acceptance and recognition of psychology, which by meaning inferred to the practical application of psychology. His rise to a visible position at J. Walter Thompson legitimized efforts to applying psychological concepts and principles to business in a more practical atmosphere. It enhanced the reception of psychologist and other social sciences as assistive to the business community(Kreshel, 1990).In his advertising career, he relied on assuring a reaction from product consumers, Watson trained advertisers to tell consumers something that will tie consumers up with fear, or something invoking love/affectionate response or stir up rage. Watson placed key highlights on empirical research as a way of marketing by stressing the significance of understanding the consumers and their needs through scientific study. Watson’s analogy of the customer and product illustrates how he viewed the market as a laboratory for the advertising industry sector and how the customer was similar to the experimental subjects whose conduct was purposely controllable by the advertiser(Watson, 1913). He was convinced that in order understand the consumer, dissecting them to know their needs was the only way of properly providing satisfying products. These aspects of Watson’s advertisement entry changed significantly marketing strategies employed by businesses including the inception of market research, consumer segmentation and consumer behavior as a way of marketing. References Buckley, Kerry W. 1994. "Misbehaviorism: The Case of John B. Watson's Dismissal from Johns Hopkins University." Modern Perspectives on John B. Watson and Classical Behaviorism. Greenwood Press. Harris, Ben. 1979. "Whatever Happened to Little Albert?" American Psychologist 34(2): 151–160. Watson, John B. 1913. "Psychology as the behaviorist views it." Psychological Review 20: 158–177. Watson, John B., and Rosalie Rayner. 1920. "Conditioned emotional reactions (The Little Albert study)." Journal of Experimental Psychology 3(1): 1–14. Kreshel, Peggy J. (1990). John B. Watson at J. Walter Thompson: the legitimation of 'science' in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 19(2), 49. Retrieved May 4 2011 from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?&id=GALE%7CA8596520&v=2.1&u=txshracd2633&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w. Read More