Introduction to Albert Jr.' s experiment

The little Albert experiment is an experiment to show the empirical evidence of human classical conditioned reflex. This study is also an example of stimulus generalization. It was conducted by John Broadus Watson of Johns Hopkins University and his assistant Rosalie Lai Na on 1920.

After observing children on the spot, John Broadus Watson was interested in seeking support for his concept of children's response. In addition, he concluded that this fear is innate or due to an unconditional response. He believes that according to the classical conditioned reflex principle, he can limit children's fear of another unique stimulus that children usually don't fear.

The process of little Albert's experiment

John Watson and Rosalie Lai Na chose 9-month-old Albert from the hospital to do this research. Albert's mother is the wet nurse of Harriet Lane's disabled children. Albert is the son of an employee at Fermat Clinic of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, where Watson and Reina conducted experiments.

Before the experiment began, Albert Jr. underwent a series of basic emotional tests: for the first time, he was briefly exposed to the following items: mice, rabbits, dogs, monkeys, masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers and so on. It turned out that at this starting point, little Albert was not afraid of these items.

About two months later, when Albert Jr. just turned 1 1 month, Watson and his colleagues started the experiment. First, put Albert on the mattress on the table in the middle of the room. The mouse in the laboratory was placed near Albert so that he could play with it. At this time, children are not afraid of mice. Mice around him, he began to stretch out his hand to touch.

In the later test, when Albert touched the mouse, Watson and Reina hit the hanging iron bar with a hammer behind Albert, making a loud noise. Not surprisingly, in this case, little Albert burst into tears after hearing the loud noise, showing fear. After matching the two stimuli several times, the mouse appeared in front of Albert again. At this time, he felt very painful about the mice that appeared in the room.

He turned his back on the mouse in tears and tried to leave. Obviously, this baby boy has connected the white mouse (original neutral stimulus, now conditional stimulus) with loud noise (unconditional stimulus), resulting in an emotional response of fear or crying (original unconditional response to loud noise, now conditional response to white mouse).

This experiment led to the following series of consequences:

There is a loud noise (unconditional stimulus), which causes fear (unconditional reflex).

Mice (neutral stimulation) and loud noise (unconditional stimulation) appear at the same time, causing fear (unconditional reflex).

Mice (conditioned stimulus) appear, causing fear (conditioned reflex). Here, learning takes place.

What is puzzling about this experiment is that little Albert seems to have popularized his reaction. After 17 days of experiment, when Watson brought a (non-white) rabbit to the room, Albert became uneasy. He showed the same reaction to furry dogs and fur seals. Even Watson appeared in front of him wearing a Santa Claus mask and a white cotton beard, but Albert was not afraid of anything hairy.

Evaluation of little Albert's experiment

The reliability and accuracy of the experimental conclusions are controversial. The video shows that the baby has signs of dementia and developmental disability. So little Albert is not a normal child, which will affect the conclusion of the experiment. There is also controversy about experimental ethics, because after the experiment is completed, the experimenter did not remove the baby's conditioned reflex, which distorted the baby's psychology and was considered by later generations as violating academic ethics.

Little Albert ends

In 2009, Baker, levinson and irons wanted to investigate the influence of this experiment on Albert's later life. They found that the baby had died of brain edema at the age of 6, so the influence of the experiment on his later development was unknown.