Classical Conditioning: John B. Watson And Rosalie Rayner

925 Words4 Pages

Little Albert was the fabricated name given to an unknown 9-month-old infant who was subjected to an experiment in classical conditioning by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner at John Hopkins University, in 1920. The objective of the experiment conducted by Watson was to induce phobias in an emotionally stable child, through the process of conditioning. The experiment could not be conducted by today’s standards in psychology because it broke the ethical rules for psychological research those being the lack of informed consent from the subject or his mother and the prime principle of “do no harm”. According to the American Psychological Association (APA) code of conduct, subjects have to be given as much information about the study as possible …show more content…

The experiment uses basic research for the simple fact that it doesn’t do anything with the real world; you can’t conduct such an experiment in real life. Also, one of the definitions of basic research is that it aims to explain, predict, and describe fundamental bases of behavior, which is exactly what Watson wanted to do. Surely Watson and Rayner knew of the risks they were taking, conducting an experiment on such an infant. They knew it would have future, negative consequences, but still they went on with it just for the sake of proving a point of view. However, was proving a hypothesis worth hurting the psychological well-being of an innocent child, one that had absolutely no choice on what was conducted on him? I don’t think so! The American Psychological Association (APA) has well developed codes of ethics which any practicing psychologists have to adhere to. The core concern is to focus on the quality of research, the professional competence of the researcher and of the greatest importance, the welfare of human and animal subjects. At the time of Watson and Rayner’s experiment, there were no such guidelines or