John Watson's Theory Of Classic Conditioning
John Watson, after learning Ivan Pavlov’s theory of Classic Conditioning, believed it was worth exploring further, but should be taken further. If the conditioning could be done with animals, then it should also pertain to human subjects as well. He believed that every person learned and perceived differently, which explained why there were differences in behavior. Watson and his assistant Rosalie Raynor conducted an experiment with a 9 month old infant known as Little Albert. According to Watson and Raynor, he was a healthy and well-adjusted boy with mild mannerisms. The experiment would attempt to condition fear of a white rat into Albert. First, Rosalie Raynor introduced Albert to multiple items, similar in sensation and texture; introduced
…show more content…
to the rat, a Santa Clause mask, a white fur coat, a monkey and burning newspaper, initially, Albert showed no fear. He was curious about the mouse and other items, but was not distressed. What did cause fear was the hammer hitting a metal bar behind Albert. Over the course of the next couple of months the stimuli (hammer hitting the metal bar) was used and each time Albert burst into tears. Around the age of 11 months the rat was reintroduced as the hammer hit the metal pole. This was done 7 times over a 7 week period, by this time, Albert only had to be shown the rat and he began to cry. Watson and Raynor learned that items with similar characteristics to the mouse instilled the same fear, known as stimulus generalization. In conclusion, a fear or phobia could be created by conditioning; in addition, fear could be extinguished after subjection to the stimuli is terminated, but could be regenerated with only a few sessions of reconditioning (Shultz, 2011).
Desensitization or unconditioning of negative reactions to stimuli was the focus of a study conducted by Mary Colvin Jones.
She was a psychology student of John Watson. While Watson believed as Pavlov, that an individual can be conditioned to stimulus, Jones believed that an individual could be unconditioned or desensitized. Peter was an almost 3 year old little boy with an outrageous fear of white rabbits and lab rats. Jones believed that she could teach Peter to overcome his fear of rabbits and rats with continued positive exposure. He was brought into a playroom with other children of the same age with no adverse reactions to the rat or rabbit what-so-ever. In the beginning, as soon as Peter saw the rat, he immediately began screaming in fear and fell over in his crib. Peter was removed and placed on a chair across the room, then another child was put in his place. This child picked up the rat and began to play with it while Peter watched from across the room. There was a set of beads in the crib and anytime the rat touched the beads he would cry and say “my beads”, although when the girl played with the beads he had no complaints. The process of introducing items continued comparable items he cried and unlike items he was fine, no interest and no fear. During this test, it was determined that Peter had a greater aversion to the white rabbit than the white rat. Peter was put in a playroom with three other children and always the white rabbit in the room. It was introduced while he was drinking milk and eating a snack of cookies (a positive experience for association). Discernible results of desensitization were noted and occasionally Peter was observed on his on with the lab rat to determine the progress. Over the course of days, the rabbit was brought closer and closer, presented in different ways and his tolerance increased until he was no longer fearful, but played happily with the rabbit. It was concluded that desensitization could be used to
eliminate fearful reactions to stimuli and the presence of others with no fear of the same stimuli could aid in the process (2011). Until the 50’s when the first ethical standards were published, research and experimental efforts were conducted as the psychologists and researchers saw fit. There were cases where findings were not transparent, were completely unavailable to anyone outside of the study group, and where human and animal subjects alike were abused, used without permission, taken advantage of and eventually tossed out when the experiments were complete. The inability of research to be recreated, harm suffered by individuals, discrimination, human law violations, the complete lack of a moral compass in some research would have made the need for a governing body imperative. As the zeitgeist of the century changed and people- patients became more aware of their own rights the need for ethical principles became greater. In the beginning, research was conducted by a precious few in the field. Cases of abuse and neglect were there but not as common as there was not as many people involved. As time progressed, more psychologists were trained; consequently more patients were created, causing the need for the ethical principles to be put in place.
to the rat, a Santa Clause mask, a white fur coat, a monkey and burning newspaper, initially, Albert showed no fear. He was curious about the mouse and other items, but was not distressed. What did cause fear was the hammer hitting a metal bar behind Albert. Over the course of the next couple of months the stimuli (hammer hitting the metal bar) was used and each time Albert burst into tears. Around the age of 11 months the rat was reintroduced as the hammer hit the metal pole. This was done 7 times over a 7 week period, by this time, Albert only had to be shown the rat and he began to cry. Watson and Raynor learned that items with similar characteristics to the mouse instilled the same fear, known as stimulus generalization. In conclusion, a fear or phobia could be created by conditioning; in addition, fear could be extinguished after subjection to the stimuli is terminated, but could be regenerated with only a few sessions of reconditioning (Shultz, 2011).
Desensitization or unconditioning of negative reactions to stimuli was the focus of a study conducted by Mary Colvin Jones.
She was a psychology student of John Watson. While Watson believed as Pavlov, that an individual can be conditioned to stimulus, Jones believed that an individual could be unconditioned or desensitized. Peter was an almost 3 year old little boy with an outrageous fear of white rabbits and lab rats. Jones believed that she could teach Peter to overcome his fear of rabbits and rats with continued positive exposure. He was brought into a playroom with other children of the same age with no adverse reactions to the rat or rabbit what-so-ever. In the beginning, as soon as Peter saw the rat, he immediately began screaming in fear and fell over in his crib. Peter was removed and placed on a chair across the room, then another child was put in his place. This child picked up the rat and began to play with it while Peter watched from across the room. There was a set of beads in the crib and anytime the rat touched the beads he would cry and say “my beads”, although when the girl played with the beads he had no complaints. The process of introducing items continued comparable items he cried and unlike items he was fine, no interest and no fear. During this test, it was determined that Peter had a greater aversion to the white rabbit than the white rat. Peter was put in a playroom with three other children and always the white rabbit in the room. It was introduced while he was drinking milk and eating a snack of cookies (a positive experience for association). Discernible results of desensitization were noted and occasionally Peter was observed on his on with the lab rat to determine the progress. Over the course of days, the rabbit was brought closer and closer, presented in different ways and his tolerance increased until he was no longer fearful, but played happily with the rabbit. It was concluded that desensitization could be used to
eliminate fearful reactions to stimuli and the presence of others with no fear of the same stimuli could aid in the process (2011). Until the 50’s when the first ethical standards were published, research and experimental efforts were conducted as the psychologists and researchers saw fit. There were cases where findings were not transparent, were completely unavailable to anyone outside of the study group, and where human and animal subjects alike were abused, used without permission, taken advantage of and eventually tossed out when the experiments were complete. The inability of research to be recreated, harm suffered by individuals, discrimination, human law violations, the complete lack of a moral compass in some research would have made the need for a governing body imperative. As the zeitgeist of the century changed and people- patients became more aware of their own rights the need for ethical principles became greater. In the beginning, research was conducted by a precious few in the field. Cases of abuse and neglect were there but not as common as there was not as many people involved. As time progressed, more psychologists were trained; consequently more patients were created, causing the need for the ethical principles to be put in place.