Please Take A Moment To Watch The Video. Next, You Will Writ ✓ Solved

Please take a moment to watch the video. Next, you will writ

Please take a moment to watch the video. Next, you will write a response to Beth's post below, explaining why you agree or disagree and add further analysis (approx. 150 words). Include outside resources cited in-text and listed at the end.

Beth's post:

In today's view this experiment is ethically wrong.

There is no way that this experiment could be conducted today. It is wrong and you can not treat a baby or toddler in this way. A baby should not be scared by anyone on purpose. I mean think of how this little guy ended up when he got older. I understand that the experiment helped psychology in understanding conditioned responses, but it doesn't make what Watson or Pavlov did right.

Albert became terrified of things that he once was not afraid of at all. He had a positive reaction to the white rat at first, so scaring him with the loud noise is the outcome that Watson wanted from this test. He also wasn't afraid of the fire, monkey, dog, and rabbit at first, but addingg the loud noise was scary to this poor child. Infants are too young to mentally process the fact that its just a terribly loud noise. They also don't know how to react other than crying when they are frightened by something.

It is sad to think that this child was not even the slightest bit afraid of animals and at the end of the experiment he was more than terrified of them. He was even hesitant when it came to the fur coat. The study on little Albertt was done a total of seven times, and there was never an attempt made to take the fear away. The least they could have done was try to decondition the fear response. Little Albert at one time enjoyed the things that he was now frightened of.

After doing the experiment seven times Little Albert was now afraid of the white rat on its own (Hobbes, 2010). Maybe Little Albert was scared of Watson. Babies know who people are, maybe Albert thought "this is a scary man so I'm just going to cry and be upset when I am around him". I can't really find any information on Little Albert's adult life and would be interested to see how he turned out as a person. He was probably afraid of everything that he came into contact with if there was a loud noise present.

It is still very difficult to determine if Little Albert was actually diagnosed with any phobias, because this study was never ran again. In science an experiment needs to be done over and over and the same results need to be concluded, since this experiment was ethnically wrong it can not be done again. So Watson could have given Little Albert a rat phobia, because of a loud sound that he heard, but we will never really know, because we were not there and the study has never been replicated (Dilion, 2016).

Paper For Above Instructions

Response to Beth: Agreement, Extension, and Ethical Context

I agree with Beth’s central claim that the Little Albert experiment is ethically wrong by today’s standards. Watson and Rayner’s 1920 demonstration of conditioned emotional responses produced important findings about how fear can be acquired (Watson & Rayner, 1920), but the methods—exposing an infant to repeated fright without informed consent, follow-up care, or debriefing—are unacceptable now (APA, 2017). Beth rightly notes that the subject (Little Albert) was not only conditioned to fear the white rat but generalized that fear to other furry objects; such generalization demonstrates classical conditioning’s broad psychological impact and also the real harm inflicted on the child (Pavlov, 1927; Myers, 2014).

Why the ethical critique holds

Three core ethical failures stand out. First, there was no documented informed consent from a guardian and no institutional review that prioritized the infant’s welfare (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009; APA, 2017). Second, potential for lasting harm was not mitigated: the researchers did not attempt to extinguish or countercondition the fear response after conditioning trials—an omission Beth correctly condemns (Hobbs, 2010). Extinction and counterconditioning are standard behavioral techniques for reducing conditioned fear (Pavlov, 1927; LeDoux, 2012), and their absence suggests neglect of the participant’s wellbeing. Third, the subject’s identity and long-term outcome remain uncertain, which complicates any ethical defense and supports the conclusion that harms were neither tracked nor remedied (Dillon & Dillon, 2016; McLeod, 2018).

Beyond agreement: methodological and historical nuance

While agreeing with Beth’s ethical position, it is useful to add nuance about the study’s scientific contributions and the ways contemporary research addresses similar questions ethically. Watson’s work helped clarify associative learning processes that underlie certain phobias and informed later therapeutic approaches such as exposure therapy and systematic desensitization (Myers, 2014; Schacter, Gilbert, & Wegner, 2011). Today, those same principles are tested using adult volunteers, nonharmful stimuli, clear consent procedures, and mandatory debriefing and follow-up; where children are involved, parental consent, minimal risk thresholds, and oversight by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are required (APA, 2017; Shamoo & Resnik, 2009).

What could have been done differently

At minimum, Watson and Rayner should have: secured informed consent, limited the intensity and number of aversive pairings, measured and minimized distress during sessions, and implemented immediate deconditioning (extinction or counterconditioning) once the experimental objective was met (Pavlov, 1927; LeDoux, 2012). From an ethical-research perspective, researchers now balance scientific inquiry with nonmaleficence; studies that risk lasting emotional harm are either redesigned or not conducted, and alternatives (animal models, adult participants, computer simulations) are used instead (Shamoo & Resnik, 2009).

Implications for teaching and ethical reflection

The Little Albert case remains pedagogically valuable: it illustrates the power of classical conditioning, the phenomenon of stimulus generalization, and why formal ethical safeguards are necessary. Beth’s call to recognize the experiment’s wrongness aligns with modern professional standards and public expectations (APA, 2017). At the same time, it is important for students to learn both the scientific legacy and the ethical failures so that the field does not repeat harmful practices (Hobbs, 2010; Dillon & Dillon, 2016).

Conclusion

In sum, I concur with Beth that Watson and Rayner’s procedures were unethical and that the study would not be permitted today. Expanding on her post, I emphasize the methodological remedies that were absent (consent, deconditioning, follow-up), and I note how modern psychology preserves the theoretical lessons of Little Albert while rejecting its ethical costs. This dual recognition—acknowledging scientific contribution but not excusing ethical harm—supports responsible teaching and future research design (Myers, 2014; APA, 2017).

References

• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. APA.
• Dillon, R. F., & Dillon, A. (2016). Little Albert study. Salem Press Encyclopedia of Health.
• Hobbs, S. (2010). Little Albert: Gone But Not Forgotten. History & Philosophy of Psychology, 12(2), 79–83.
• LeDoux, J. (2012). Rethinking the emotional brain. Neuron, 73(4), 653–676.
• McLeod, S. (2018). Little Albert experiment. SimplyPsychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/little-albert.html
• Myers, D. G. (2014). Psychology (10th ed.). Worth Publishers.
• Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned Reflexes. Oxford University Press.
• Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Psychology (2nd ed.). Worth Publishers.
• Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible Conduct of Research (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1–14.