Answer to Question #308248 in Psychology for Sheza

Question

The Little Albert series of experiments is one of the first studies that comes to mind for many people when we talk about ethics in psychological research (along with Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment and Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience to authority). Obviously, the ethical criteria for conducting psychological research are much more stringent today. However, we have also learned a lot about human behaviour from classic studies such as this one. I would like you to discuss the Little Albert experiments and ethics in psychological research (then and now).

• What are your thoughts about the Little Albert experiments that Watson and Rayner conducted?
  
• What did this series of experiments teach us about personality? Could the researchers have learned the same lessons another way?
  
• Do you think that it was necessary for psychology to go through a period in which ethically questionable research was conducted in order to learn what we did about human behaviour? Why or why not?

Answer 1

The Little Albert Experiment demonstrated that classical conditioning could be used to create a phobia. A phobia is an irrational fear that is out of proportion to danger. In this experiment, a previously unafraid baby was conditioned to become afraid of a rat. The lesson was that personality can be nurtured. They promote the aims of the research, such as expanding knowledge. They support the values required for collaborative work, such as mutual respect and fairness. This is essential because scientific research depends on collaboration between researchers and groups.