Watson and Raynor's Little Albert Study

The Little Albert study by John B. Watson and Rosalie Raynor had both good and bad impacts on the history of psychology. The purpose of the study was to prove that emotional reactions and phobias can be formed through conditioning, much like the conditioning Pavlov accomplished with dogs (Goodwin, 2005) and in the process of doing so, Watson and Raynor left their mark on psychology with their study being found in just about every introductory psychology text book used today (Harris, 1979).

Watson believed that he was a true behaviorist and wanted to prove to his peers that behaviorism was a true branch of psychology and this study did so by showing that a human can be conditioned to fear something. Watson and Raynor used Albert B. as the only participant in their study. When they first started to run baseline tests on him he was nine months old but at the start of the actual experimental trials he was eleven months old. The basic idea of their experiment was to condition Albert to fear a white rat by introducing him to the rat and striking a metal bar behind his head simultaneously. Albert wasn't afraid of the rat until he was continuously shown it as the loud clanging from the metal sounded, at which point he was conditioned to fear the rat without the loud sound (Goodwin, 2005).

Besides proving to their peers that behaviorism was a true force in psychology, they also influenced other psychologists in the study of behavior therapy. One person they had an influence on was Mary Cover Jones who was able to accomplish systematic desensitization in 1924 by removing a fear of rabbits from a young boy (Goodwin, 2005).

Although there were several good impacts on psychology from the Little Albert study, there were also several negative ones. This study is a very famous one in psychology's history but there were several flaws; there was only one participant and although there have been similar studies, no one has been able to replicate it using the exact methods that Watson and Raynor used, showing a low reliability (Harris, 1979).

Another flaw in the scientific aspect of the study was the fact that the trials were irregular and not preformed on a regular basis, instead they were presented at what seems to be random intervals. Not only were the trials not evenly spaced, but during at least one of the trials the evoked response wasn't what Watson and Raynor wanted, so they reintroduced Albert to the loud striking sound to reinforce the fearful response again but presented the information as though Albert's fear hadn't decreased (Harris, 1979).

According to Cornwell, Hobbs, & Prytula (1980) the fearful crying exhibited by Albert during the studies may have been due to the fact that the researchers forced him to remove his thumb from his mouth prior to each trial. They believe that this caused the fearful reaction more than the white rat or the striking of the metal bar did. If this is the case Watson and Raynor's results may not be as accurate as they had believed.

An account by Goodwin (2005) states that when Watson and Raynor tried to use other objects (dog, rabbit, cotton wool, masks, etc.) to show generalization of the conditioned fear in Albert, that they didn't use enough different stimuli. When you read different textbooks, you will see that many authors have a different view of the study, making it confusing for the students. This is in part due to the fact that many text book authors use secondary sources themselves and some have a tendency to extend the list of stimuli used in order to make the study sound as though it was more scientific than it actually was since the Little Albert study is so highly respected in history (Harris, 1979).

The fact that the Little Albert study is reported in so many different views is also due to the fact that Watson himself gave several different reports of the same experiment. For example, in one report Watson gave, he didn't include the fact that they had conditioned Albert to a dog and rabbit but did include his fear of those animals so to the reader it seems like the conditioned fear of the rat had strongly generalized to them as well (Harris 1979).

The Little Albert study by Watson and Raynor in 1920 left a lasting impression on psychologists and psychology students well into today's studies. It had both beneficial and negative impacts and can be found in nearly every introductory psychology textbook used in schools today. Although it is very well known and considered one of the most famous experiments in the realm of behavioral psychology, there were several flaws that are occasionally omitted from the reports to give it a better reputation in the eyes of the public.

References

Cornwell, D., Hobbs, S. & Prytula, R. (1980). Little Albert rides again. American Psychologist, 35, 216-217.

Goodwin, C.J. (2005). A History of Modern Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34, 151-160.