STOP!! Psychology Of Learning Discussion Board Post & TWO Responses- READ ENTIRELY BEFORE YOU CONTACT ME!

https://youtu.be/9hBfnXACsOI

1. Please take a moment to watch the video posted above. What was the significance of the experiment? What are the ethical implications concerning Watson’s statement about the claim that he could make anything he wished out of healthy infants providing he had control of their environment?

Now write a response to the questions of this video discussion (approx. 500 words) Your responses should be more than merely agreeing/disagreeing and clarification. These need to be in DEPTH discussions in which you support your work with sources (outside resources are required for most posts). The discussions require thorough explanations and thought.

2. Next you will write responses to someone’s point and/or question, you need to include why you agree/disagree and add something beyond that. (approx. 150 words for each). You are always welcome to use your personal experiences to provide an understanding of the material. Attached at the end of these instructions you will find the two responses from classmates to read and respond to.

Every posting needs outside resources that will be used inside the posting and at the bottom of the posting (to give credit to your sources). Example of outside resources could be a news excerpt, an article, or a textbook.

Other Classmates posts:

Shannon’s

The significance of the experiment is the probable explanation of why people respond emotionally to stimuli which hasn't previously provoked an emotional response thus resulting in phobias or strong passions. Watson was able to verify how conditioned emotional reactions are the result of classical conditioning which elicits an emotional response in the presence of a conditioned stimuli.  For example, I can no longer listen to the song played at my grandmother's funeral without crying which stems from being conditioned by the grief I experienced at her funeral.  The experiment further demonstrated how a conditioned emotional response can be elicited from stimuli with similar traits to that of the original stimulus which is called transfer.  After Albert became fearful of the white rat, he demonstrated the same conditioned fear of the rabbit, dog, and other items he previously enjoyed.  Another example of transfer, or stimulus generalization, is when my husband was in the hospital as a child and explosively vomited red, Hawaiian Punch all over the floor.  His mother was with him when he vomited the Hawaiian Punch, and to this day she is utterly disgusted at the mere sight of any red drink like Big Red, Gatorade, and fruit juice.  She has transferred her disgust to all red drinks as a result of seeing my her son vomit red, Hawaiian Punch.

Some researchers suggest that it isn't feasible to assume Albert's fear response was to the stimulus instead of his inability to suck his thumb which provides further significance to the experiment by paving the way for further developmental research. According to Eisenberg, Spinrad, and Eggum (2010), thumb sucking is used by infants to regain emotional stability when they experience situations that cause them to be upset, fearful, or anxious.  Given that Little Albert demonstrated thumb sucking behavior, he obviously was provoked to suck his thumb by some form of distress.  Further controversy implies thumb sucking itself could be a conditioned response, but research claims thumb sucking is a reflexive response that occurs as early as the womb. (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Eggum, 2010)  Given that thumb sucking is reflexive, it is highly unlikely to be a conditioned response which would indicate Little Albert's thumb sucking was used to regulate his fear response to the stimulus.  This contributes to the significance of Watson's experiment because it emphasizes how infants cope with fear as thumb sucking could be considered a fear response.  The Little Albert study resulted in the development of child psychology, education, and policy formation.

Watson's statement concerning the conditioning of healthy infants by controlling their environment brings up numerous ethical implications.  Recall how our textbook states learning requires a change in disposition, or the drive to perform/not perform a particular behavior, that is driven by motivation.  Our dispositions are shaped by environmental influences that drive us to fulfill our needs which includes safety, acceptance, and belonging.  The implications of Watson’s statement could promote harm by promoting an environment that could interfere with developing safety, acceptance, and belonging needs which is prohibited by the APA code of ethics.  Adult motivations and behaviors correspond with the level of success obtained while transcending through developmental stages.  Conditioning children to become “a beggar-man and thief” would be indicative of significant childhood abuse and lack of life sustaining provisions.  Another negative implication of Watson’s statement is the assumption that human beings are solely shaped by environment which simply isn’t true.  According to the text, genetics and environment collaborate to produce the outcome of humanity.  Watson’s claim to create a “doctor, lawyer, or artist” may not be genetically possible for that particular human being.  Law school and medical school are composed of vigorous studies that may not be possible for a person who’s IQ ranges from 101-115.  Granted, people are capable of learning, but IQ stays relatively consistent throughout a person’s lifespan.  Watson’s statement doesn’t consider that everyone is different, and law or medical school may not be achievable for every healthy infant. 

 

Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T., Eggum, N., (2010). Emotion-regulated self regulation and it's relation to children's maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495-525. Doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208

Eddie’s:

The little Albert experiment was wrong in so many ways. The very beginning, doomed it from the start and if it were to be implemented today it would be punishable by law. The ethical standards of the day were so much more relaxed than they are now and I feel that what Albert was subjected to was nothing short of torture (Harris, B. 1979). While many may argue that the affects were not long lasting or permanent, I tend to disagree.

   In an effort to prove that response is a reaction to stimuli or a learned condition more so than a natural or inborn reaction Dr. Watson began experimenting with an infant. Nine-month-old Albert was subjected to various objects and noises in an effort to prove or disprove Watson’s theory. These objects ranged from rats to fur covered objects to burning newspapers and masks. (Watson, et el. 1920)

   While Watson wanted to prove that behavior could be learned, he also proved that people are conditioned to fear someone or something simply because of noise or texture. Albert was never left alone for any of the testing, but the mental and emotional trauma must have been unbearable. Watson seemed to validate his hypothesis, but he may have also permanently damaged a precious human being (Harris, B. 1979). Conditioning allows a person to react to stimuli in the environment, whether the stimuli is created by someone or occurs naturally. Watson theorized that any person could be taught to react to certain stimuli simply by repetition. This theory was proven by Pavlov through the manipulation of dogs (McLeod, S.A 2013).  So, it would only be fitting that it would work on humans as well.

   Phobia of any sort could in theory be implemented from external stimuli, it may also be argued that many fears are innate or inborn. It has been noted that the only true fear an infant may have is the fear of falling (Gibson E.J.1960). These experiments were conducted under controlled conditions, unlike those conducted by Watson.

The other fact about little Albert is that there were no other infants involved in the study, or no other persons used as a control group. There were no other studies of this kind so there were no comparisons available. The experiment, although interesting really proved little that was not known. It was trend setting in that time period, but probably not something that would be done today.

  Gibson, E.J.; Walk, R. D. "The "visual cliff"". Scientific American. 202:67-71         doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0460-64 .

McLeod, S. A. (2013). Pavlov's Dogs. Retrieved from  www.simplypsychology.org/pavlov.html

Pavlov, I. P. (1928). Lectures on conditioned reflexes. (Translated by W.H. Gantt) London: Allen and      Unwin

Watson, John B. & Rayner, Rosalie. (1920). “ Conditioned emotional reactions “. Journal of Experimental        Psychology, 3, 1-14

Whatever Happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34 (2), 151-160.