little albert case study strengths and weaknesses

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Best Family Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Verywell Mind Insights
2023 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

The Little Albert Experiment

A Closer Look at the Famous Case of Little Albert

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

little albert case study strengths and weaknesses

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk, "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

A Closer Look

Classical conditioning, stimulus generalization, criticism and ethical issues, what happened to little albert.

The Little Albert experiment was a famous psychology experiment conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and graduate student Rosalie Rayner. Previously, Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov had conducted experiments demonstrating the conditioning process in dogs . Watson took Pavlov's research a step further by showing that emotional reactions could be classically conditioned in people.

Verywell / Jessica Olah

The participant in the experiment was a child that Watson and Rayner called "Albert B." but is known popularly today as Little Albert. When Little Albert was 9 months old, Watson and Rayner exposed him to a series of stimuli including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks, and burning newspapers and observed the boy's reactions.

The boy initially showed no fear of any of the objects he was shown.

The next time Albert was exposed to the rat, Watson made a loud noise by hitting a metal pipe with a hammer. Naturally, the child began to cry after hearing the loud noise. After repeatedly pairing the white rat with the loud noise, Albert began to expect a frightening noise whenever he saw the white rate. Soon, Albert began to cry simply after seeing the rat.

Watson and Rayner wrote: "The instant the rat was shown, the baby began to cry. Almost instantly he turned sharply to the left, fell over on [his] left side, raised himself on all fours and began to crawl away so rapidly that he was caught with difficulty before reaching the edge of the table."

The Little Albert experiment presents an example of how classical conditioning can be used to condition an emotional response.

Neutral Stimulus : A stimulus that does not initially elicit a response (the white rat).
Unconditioned Stimulus : A stimulus that elicits a reflexive response (the loud noise).
Unconditioned Response : A natural reaction to a given stimulus (fear).
Conditioned Stimulus : A stimulus that elicits a response after repeatedly being paired with an unconditioned stimulus (the white rat).
Conditioned Response : The response caused by the conditioned stimulus (fear).

In addition to demonstrating that emotional responses could be conditioned in humans, Watson and Rayner also observed that stimulus generalization had occurred. After conditioning, Albert feared not just the white rat, but a wide variety of similar white objects as well. His fear included other furry objects including Raynor's fur coat and Watson wearing a Santa Claus beard.

While the experiment is one of psychology's most famous and is included in nearly every introductory psychology course , it is widely criticized for several reasons. First, the experimental design and process were not carefully constructed. Watson and Rayner did not develop an objective means to evaluate Albert's reactions, instead of relying on their own subjective interpretations.

The experiment also raises many ethical concerns. Little Albert was harmed during this experiment—he left the experiment with a previously nonexistent fear. By today's standards, the Little Albert experiment would not be allowed.

The question of what happened to Little Albert has long been one of psychology's mysteries. Before Watson and Rayner could attempt to "cure" Little Albert, he and his mother moved away. Some envisioned the boy growing into a man with a strange phobia of white, furry objects.

Recently, the true identity and fate of the boy known as Little Albert was discovered. As reported in American Psychologist , a seven-year search led by psychologist Hall P. Beck led to the discovery. After tracking down and locating the original experiments and the real identity of the boy's mother, it was suggested that Little Albert was actually a boy named Douglas Merritte.

The story does not have a happy ending, however. Douglas died at the age of six on May 10, 1925, of hydrocephalus (a build-up of fluid in his brain), which he had suffered from since birth. "Our search of seven years was longer than the little boy’s life," Beck wrote of the discovery.

In 2012, Beck and Alan J. Fridlund reported that Douglas was not the healthy, normal child Watson described in his 1920 experiment. They presented convincing evidence that Watson knew about and deliberately concealed the boy's neurological condition. These findings not only cast a shadow over Watson's legacy, but they also deepened the ethical and moral issues of this well-known experiment.

In 2014, doubt was cast over Beck and Fridlund's findings when researchers presented evidence that a boy by the name of William Barger was the real Little Albert. Barger was born on the same day as Merritte to a wet-nurse who worked at the same hospital as Merritte's mother. While his first name was William, he was known his entire life by his middle name, Albert.

While experts continue to debate the true identity of the boy at the center of Watson's experiment, there is little doubt that Little Albert left a lasting impression on the field of psychology.

Beck HP, Levinson S, Irons G. Finding Little Albert: a journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory . Am Psychol. 2009;64(7):605-14. doi:10.1037/a0017234

Van Meurs B. Maladaptive Behavioral Consequences of Conditioned Fear-Generalization: A Pronounced, Yet Sparsely Studied, Feature of Anxiety Pathology . Behav Res Ther. 2014;57:29–37.

Fridlund AJ, Beck HP, Goldie WD, Irons G. Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child . Hist Psychol. 2012;15(4):302-27. doi:10.1037/a0026720

Powell RA. Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as "psychology's lost boy" . Am Psychol. 2014;69(6):600-11.

Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 2009;64(7): 605-614.
Fridlund, A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0026720; 2012.
Watson, John B. & Rayner, Rosalie. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3 , 1-14.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

A Wealth of Free Psychology!

Watson and rayner (1920) little albert – behavioural, watson, j. b. and rayner, r. (1920) ‘conditioned emotional reaction’, journal of experimental psychology 3, 1–14.

This is the second study we will be looking at from the ‘Explanations of Dysfunctional Behaviour’ section of ‘Dysfunctional Behaviour’ , as part of your OCR A2 Health and Clinical Psychology course. It is further categorised into ‘ Behavioural . ‘

Watson and Rayner (1920) – successfully managed to condition fear into a toddler using classical conditioning.

Watson and Raynor had four aims:

To see if it is possible to induce a fear of a previously neutral stimulus through classical conditioning.
To see if the fear will be transferred to other similar objects.
To see what effect time has on the fear response.
To see how possible it is to remove the fear response in the laboratory.

Method and Design

A case study using classical conditioning undertaken on one boy: ‘Little Albert’.

Little Albert was a pseudonym given to protect the identity of the child.

Participants

One participant. Little Albert, prior to the study there was nothing abnormal about Little Albert, in fact he was quite normal and had no fears, which is why he was selected. He lived in the hospital in which the study was conducted. This was because his mother was a nurse at the hospital.

Albert’s baseline reactions to the stimuli were noted. He showed no fear when presented with a rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, a mask with hair, or cotton wool.

When Albert was 11 months old the experiments started.

Session One: Albert was presented with a rat. Just as he reached for it, a steel bar behind him was hit. This procedure was repeated.

After two presentations Albert was given a week off.

Session Two: The following week the rat alone was presented.

Then three presentations were made with the rat and the loud noise.

This was followed with one presentation of just the rat.

Then two more presentations with the rat and the noise were made.

Finally the rat alone was presented.

So far Albert had had 7 presentations of the rat with the noise.

Session Three:

Albert was brought back five days later and given toy blocks (a neutral stimulus) to play with.

Presentations were then made of:

A seal fur coat
Cotton wool
Watson’s hair
A Santa Claus mask.

Session Four: To see how time had affected the response, Albert was presented with the rat on its own five days later.

The dog and rabbit were also presented, and the steel bar was hit each time.

Albert was then taken to a well-lit lecture theatre to see if the response was the same as it was in the small room used up till now.

Session Five: One month later Albert was tested with various stimuli. These included the Santa Claus mask, the fur coat, the rat, the rabbit and the dog.

Session One: The first time the steel bar was struck when Albert touched the rat, he jumped and fell forward.

The second time he began to whimper.

Session Two: After five paired presentations in Session 2, Albert reacted to the rat alone by immediately crying, turning to the left and crawling quickly away from the rat.

Session Three: After each presentation of the blocks, Albert played with them happily.

The other stimuli produced negative responses of crying, moving away from the stimulus and crawling away.

Albert showed less negativity towards the cotton wool.

Session Four: The fear response to the dog, rat and rabbit were pronounced, with crying and crawling away from the objects.

In the different room the fear reaction was slight, until the bar was hit. Then the fear reaction increased .

Session Five: Albert continued to show fear reactions.

Unfortunately Albert was taken out of the hospital on the day of Session five. After session five Watson and Rayner had planned to attempt to decondition Little Albert’s fear.

Watson and Rayner were never able to carry out their aim of trying to find ways of removing a phobia in the laboratory.

Session One: A fear response had been conditioned.

Session Two: The conditioning of a fear response was evident and so it is possible to condition fear through classical conditioning.

Session Three: Transference of the fear had been made to other similar objects.

Session Four: At the start of the session, time had slightly weakened the fear response.

‘Freshening up’ the fear response by presenting the rat, dog and rabbit along with the noise, increased the fear reaction.

Session Five: Time had not removed the fear response.

Watson and Rayner (1920) Evaluation

– Ethics – the ethical considerations are one of the biggest issues for this study – Little Albert was not protected from harm, this is especially the case because Watson and Rayner did not have the opportunity to decondition Little Albert’s fears.

+ Validity as there was no control group, we cannot be sure that the conditioning caused the fear, for example it could merely have been repeated exposure to a strange animal and subsequent similar items.

– Reliability – because there was only a single participant we cannot say that the results are reliable.

+ Usefulness – this study is useful in understanding the development of fears, especially irrational fears. However, as the study did not decondition the fears as intended, we cannot know from this study if it is possible to decondition fears which would be more useful.

Watson, John B., and Rosalie Rayner. “Conditioned emotional reactions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 3.1 (1920): 1.

The Little Albert Experiment

The Little Albert Experiment is a world-famous study in the worlds of both behaviorism and general psychology. Its fame doesn’t just come from astounding findings. The story of the Little Albert experiment is mysterious, dramatic, dark, and controversial.

The Little Albert Experiment was a study conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920, where they conditioned a 9-month-old infant named "Albert" to fear a white rat by pairing it with a loud noise. Albert later showed fear responses to the rat and other similar stimuli.

The Little Albert Experiment is one of the most well-known and controversial psychological experiments of the 20th century. In 1920, American psychologist John B. Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, carried out a study. Their goal was to explore the concept of classical conditioning. This theory proposes that individuals can learn to link an emotionless stimulus with an emotional reaction through repeated pairings.

For their experiment, Watson and Rayner selected a 9-month-old infant named "Albert" and exposed him to a series of stimuli, including a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, and various masks. Initially, Albert showed no fear of any of these objects. However, when the researchers presented the rat to him and simultaneously struck a steel bar with a hammer behind his head, Albert began to cry and show signs of fear. After several repetitions of this procedure, Albert began to show a fear response to the rat alone, even when the loud noise was not present.

The experiment was controversial because of its unethical nature. Albert could not provide informed consent, and his fear response was deliberately induced and not treated. Additionally, the experiment lacked scientific rigor regarding experimental design, sample size, and ethical considerations. Despite these criticisms, the Little Albert Experiment has had a significant impact on the field of psychology, particularly in the areas of behaviorism and classical conditioning. It has also raised important questions about the ethics of research involving human subjects and the need for informed consent and ethical guidelines in scientific studies.

Let's learn who was behind this experiment...

Who Was John B. Watson?

John B. Watson is pivotal in psychology's annals, marked by acclaim and controversy. Often hailed as the "Father of Behaviorism," his contributions extend beyond the well-known Little Albert study. At Johns Hopkins University, where much of his groundbreaking work was conducted, he delivered the seminal lecture "Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It."

This speech laid the foundation for behaviorism, emphasizing observable and measurable behavior over introspective methods, a paradigm shift in how psychological studies were approached. Watson's insistence on studying only observable behaviors positioned psychology more closely with the natural sciences, reshaping the discipline. Although he achieved significant milestones at Johns Hopkins, Watson's tenure there ended in 1920 under controversial circumstances, a story we'll delve into shortly.

Classical Conditioning

John B. Watson was certainly influential in classical conditioning, but many credit the genesis of this field to another notable psychologist: Ivan Pavlov. Pavlov's groundbreaking work with dogs laid the foundation for understanding classical conditioning, cementing his reputation in the annals of psychological research.

Classical conditioning is the process wherein an organism learns to associate one stimulus with another, leading to a specific response. Pavlov's experiment is a quintessential example of this. Initially, Pavlov observed that dogs would naturally salivate in response to food. During his experiment, he introduced a neutral stimulus, a bell, which did not produce any specific response from the dogs.

However, Pavlov began to ring the bell just before presenting the dogs with food. After several repetitions, the dogs began to associate the sound of the bell with the forthcoming food. Remarkably, even without food, ringing the bell alone led the dogs to salivate in anticipation. This involuntary response was not a behavior the dogs were intentionally trained to perform; instead, it was a reflexive reaction resulting from the association they had formed between the bell and the food.

Pavlov's research was not just about dogs and bells; its significance lies in the broader implications for understanding how associative learning works, influencing various fields from psychology to education and even marketing.

Who Was Little Albert?

John B. Watson took an idea from this theory. What if...

...all of our behaviors were the result of classical conditioning?
...we salivated only after connecting certain events with getting food?
...we only became afraid of touching a stove after we first put our hand on a hot stove and felt pain?
...fear was something we learned?

These are the questions that Watson attempted to answer with Little Albert.

Little Albert was a nine-month-old baby. His mother was a nurse at Johns Hopkins University, where the experiment was conducted. The baby’s name wasn’t really Albert - it was just a pseudonym that Watson used for the study. Due to the baby’s young age, Watson thought it would be a good idea to use him to test his hypothesis about developing fear.

Here’s how he conducted his experiment, now known as the “Little Albert Experiment.”

Watson exposed Little Albert to a handful of different stimuli. The stimuli included a white rat, a monkey, a hairy mask, a dog, and a seal-skin coat. When Watson first observed Little Albert, he did not fear any stimuli, including the white rat.

Then, Watson began the conditioning.

He would introduce the white rat back to Albert. Whenever Little Albert touched the rat, Watson would smash a hammer against a steel bar behind Albert’s head. Naturally, this stimulus scared Albert, and he would begin to cry. This was the “bell” of Pavlov’s experiment, but you can already see that this experiment is far more cruel.

Like Pavlov’s dogs, Little Albert became conditioned. Whenever he saw the rat, he would cry and try to move away from the rat. Throughout the study, he exhibited the same behaviors when exposed to “hairy” stimuli. This process is called stimulus generalization.

What Happened to Little Albert?

The Little Albert study was conducted in 1920. Shortly after the findings were published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, Johns Hopkins gave Watson a 50% raise . However, the rise (and Watson’s position at the University) did not last long. At the end of 1920, Watson was fired.

Why? At first, the University claimed it was due to an affair. Watson conducted the Little Albert experiment with his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner. They fell in love, despite Watson’s marriage to Mary Ickes. Ickes was a member of a prominent family in the area, upon the discovery of the affair, Watson and Rayner’s love letters were published in a newspaper. John Hopkins claimed to fire Watson for “indecency.”

Years later, rumors emerged that Watson wasn’t fired simply for his divorce. Watson and Rayner were allegedly conducting behaviorist experiments concerning sex. Those rumors included claims that Watson, a movie star handsome then, had even hooked devices up to him and Rayner while they engaged in intercourse. These claims seem false, but they appeared in psychology textbooks for years.

There is so much to this story that is wild and unusual! Upon hearing this story, one of the biggest questions people ask is, “What happened to Little Albert?”

The True Story of the Little Albert Experiment

Well, this element of the story isn’t without uncertainty and rumor. In 2012, researchers claimed to uncover the true story of Little Albert. The boy’s real name was apparently Douglas Merritte, who died at the age of seven. Merritt had a serious condition of built-up fluid in the brain. This story element was significant - Watson claimed Little Albert was a healthy and normal child. If Merritte were Little Albert, then Watson’s lies about the child’s health would ruin his legacy.

And it did until questions about Merritte began to arise. Further research puts another candidate into the ring: William Albert Barger. Barger was born on the same day in the same hospital as Merritte. His mother was a wet nurse in the same hospital where Watson worked. Barger’s story is much more hopeful than Merritte’s - he died at 87. Researchers met with his niece, who claimed that her uncle was particularly loving toward dogs but showed no evidence of fear that would have been developed through the famous study.

The mystery lives on.

Criticisms of the Little Albert Experiment

This story is fascinating, but psychologists note it is not the most ethical study.

The claims about Douglas Merritte are just one example of how the study could (and definitely did) cross the lines of ethics. If Little Albert was not the healthy boy that Watson claimed - well, there’s not much to say about the findings. Plus, the experiment was only conducted on one child. Follow-up research about the child and his conditioning never occurred (but this is partially due to the scandalous life of Watson and Rayner.)

Behaviorism, the school of psychology founded partly by this study, is not as “hot” as it was in the 1920s. But no one can deny the power and legacy of the Little Albert study. It is certainly one of the more important studies to know in psychology, both for its scandal and its place in studying learned behaviors.

Other Controversial Studies in Psychology

The Little Albert Experiment is one of the most notorious experiments in the history of psychology, but it's not the only one. Psychologists throughout the past few decades have used many unethical or questionable means to test out (or prove) their hypotheses. If you haven't heard about the following experiments, you can read about them on my page!

The Robbers Cave Experiment

Have you ever read Lord of the Flies? The book details the shocking and deadly story of boys stranded on a desert island. When the boys try to govern themselves, lines are drawn in the sand, and chaos ensues. Would that actually happen in real life?

Muzafer Sherif wanted to find out the answer. He put together the Robbers Cave Experiment, which is now one of the most controversial experiments in psychology history. The experiment involved putting together two teams of young men at a summer camp. Teams were put through trials to see how they would handle conflict within their groups and with "opposing" groups. The experiment's results led to the creation of the Realistic Conflict Theory.

The experiment did not turn out like Lord of the Flies, but the results are no longer valid. Why? Sherif highly manipulated the experiment. Gina Perry's The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment details where Sherif went wrong and how the legacy of this experiment doesn't reflect what actually happened.

Read more about the Robber's Cave Experiment .

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment looked similar to the Robbers Cave Experiment. Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo brought together groups of young men to see how they would interact with each other. These participants, however, weren't at summer camp. Zimbardo asked his participants to either be a "prison guard" or "prisoner." He intended to observe the groups for seven days, but the experiment was cut short.

Why? Violence ensued. The experiment got so out of hand that Zimbardo ended it early for the safety of the participants. Years later, sources question whether his involvement in the experiment encouraged some violence between prison guards and prisoners. You can learn more about the Stanford Prison Experiment on Netflix or by reading our article.

The Milgram Experiment

Why do people do terrible things? Are they evil people, or do they just do as they are told? Stanley Milgram wanted to answer these questions and created the Milgram experiment . In this experiment, he asked participants to "shock" another participant (who was really just an actor receiving no shocks at all.) The shocks ranged in intensity, with some said to be hurtful or even fatal to the actor.

The results were shocking - no pun intended! However, the experiment remains controversial due to the lasting impacts it could have had on the participants. Gina Perry also wrote a book about this experiment - Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments.

The Monster Study

In the 1930s, Dr. Wendell Johnson was keen on exploring the origins and potential treatments for stuttering in children. To this end, he turned to orphans in Iowa, unknowingly involving them in his experiment. Not all the participating children had a stutter. Those without speech impediments were treated and criticized as if they did have one, while some with actual stuttering were either praised or criticized. Johnson's aim was to observe if these varied treatments would either alleviate or induce stuttering based on the feedback given.

Unfortunately, the experiment's outcomes painted a bleak picture. Not only did the genuine stutterers fail to overcome their speech issues, but some of the previously fluent-speaking orphans began to stutter after experiencing the negative treatment. Even by the standards of the 1930s, before the world was fully aware of the inhumane experiments conducted by groups like the Nazis, Johnson's methods were deemed excessively harsh and unethical.

Read more about the Monster Study here .

How Do Psychologists Conduct Ethical Experiments?

To ensure participants' well-being and prevent causing trauma, the field of psychology has undergone a significant evolution in its approach to research ethics. Historically, some early psychological experiments lacked adequate consideration for participants' rights or well-being, leading to trauma and ethical dilemmas. Notable events, such as the revelations of the Milgram obedience experiments and the Stanford prison experiment, brought to light the pressing need for ethical guidelines in research.

As a result, strict rules and guidelines for ethical experimentation were established. One fundamental principle is informed consent: participants must know that they are part of an experiment and should understand its nature. This means they must be informed about the procedures, potential risks, and their rights to withdraw without penalty. Participants consent to participate only after this detailed disclosure, which must be documented.

Moreover, creating ethics review boards became commonplace in research institutions, ensuring research proposals uphold ethical standards and protect participants' rights. If you are ever invited to participate in a research study, it's crucial to thoroughly understand its scope, ask questions, and ensure your rights are protected before giving consent. The journey to establish these ethical norms reflects the discipline's commitment to balancing scientific advancement with the dignity and well-being of its study subjects.

John B. Watson (Psychologist Biography)
The Psychology of Long Distance Relationships
Behavioral Psychology
Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI Test)
Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Operant Conditioning

Observational Learning

Latent Learning

Experiential Learning

The Little Albert Study

Bobo Doll Experiment

Spacing Effect

Von Restorff Effect

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

Psychologized

Psychology is Everywhere...

The Little Albert Experiment

Little Albert was the fictitious name given to an unknown child who was subjected to an experiment in classical conditioning by John Watson and Rosalie Raynor at John Hopkins University in the USA, in 1919. By today’s standards in psychology, the experiment would not be allowed because of ethical violations, namely the lack of informed consent from the subject or his parents and the prime principle of “do no harm”. The experimental method contained significant weaknesses including failure to develop adequate control conditions and the fact that there was only one subject. Despite the many short comings of the work, the results of the experiment are widely quoted in a range of psychology texts and also were a starting point for understanding phobias and the development of treatments for them.

What happened to Little Albert as he was known is unknown and several psychologists have tried in vain to definitively answer the question of: “what happened to Little Albert?”

What is classical conditioning?

Classical Conditioning Explained

Classical conditioning is a type of behaviourism first demonstrated by Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov in the 1890s.Through a series of experiments he demonstrated that dogs which normally salivated when presented with food could be conditioned to salivate in response to any stimulus in the absence of the original stimulus, food. He rang a bell every time a dog was about to be fed, and after a period of time the dog would salivate to the sound of the bell irrespective of food being presented.

What did Watson do to Little Albert?

Many people have illogical fears of animals. While it is logical to be frightened of a predator with the power to kill you, being afraid of a spider, a mouse or even cats and most dogs is not. To those of us who don’t suffer from phobias it is the funniest thing in the world to see a person standing on a stool, screaming because of a mouse. Phobias however are real, and for some people quite limiting and potentially damaging. Imagine suffering from agoraphobia – fear of open spaces or even being afraid of going to the dentist to the extent that your health suffered.

Now, while we know now that phobias can be learned from watching others who have a fear, for example our mother being afraid of spiders, known as social learning, Watson used the tools and knowledge he had available to him to investigate the potential causes of them ultimately, one supposes, to develop treatments for phobias.

John Watson endeavoured to repeat classical conditioning on a young emotionally stable child, with the objective of inducing phobias in the child. He was interested in trying to understand how children become afraid of animals.

Harris (1979) suggested: ‘Watson hypothesized that although infants do not naturally fear animals, if “one animal succeeds in arousing fear, any moving furry animal thereafter may arouse it”

Albert was 9 months old and taken from a hospital, subjected to a series of baseline tests and then a series of experiences to ‘condition’ him. Watson filmed his study on Little Albert and the recordings are accessible on Youtube.com.

A series of unethical experiments was conducted with Little Albert

Watson started by introducing Albert to a number of furry animals, including a dog, a rabbit and most importantly a white rat. Watson then made loud, unpleasant noises by clanging a metal bar with a hammer. The noise distressed Albert. Watson then paired the loud noise with the presentation of the rat to Albert. He repeated this many times. Very quickly Albert was conditioned to expect the frightening noise whenever the white rat was presented to him. Very soon the white rate alone could induce a fear response in Albert. What was interesting was that without need for further conditioning the fear was generalised to other animals and situations including a dog, rabbit and a white furry mask worn by Watson himself.

Watson and Raynor who knew all along the timescale by when Albert had to be returned to his mother, gave him back without informing her of the activities and conditioning that they had inflicted on Albert, and most worryingly not taking the time to counter condition or ‘curing’ him of the phobia they had induced.

What were the problems with this the way this study was done?

Both the American Psychological Association (APA) and the British Psychological Society (BPS) have well developed codes of ethics which any practicing psychologists have to adhere to. In addition, all places of higher learning and research have ethical committees to which research proposals have to be submitted for consideration. The core concern is to focus on the quality of research, the professional competence of the researchers and of greatest importance, the welfare of human and animal subjects. At the time of Watson and Raynor’s work, there were no such guidelines and committee. While to some extent, it is wrong to measure historical research by modern-day standards, this experiment is almost a case study in unethical research. The experiment broke the cardinal ethical rules for psychological research. Those being:

Do no harm . Psychologists have to reduce or eliminate the potential that taking part in a study may cause harm to a participant during and afterwards. Little Albert was harmed during and would potentially have suffered life-long harm as a result.
The participants’ right to withdraw. Nowadays, if you are involved as participant in any psychological or medical study you are given the right that you can withdraw at any stage during the study without consequence to you. Albert and his mother were given no-such rights.
The principle of informed consent. Subjects have to be given as much information about the study as possible before the study begins so that they can make a decision about participating based on knowledge. If the research is such that giving information before the study may affect the outcome then an alternative is a thorough debrief at its conclusion. Neither of these conditions was satisfied by Watson’s treatment of Albert.
Professional competence of the researcher. While it may seem presumptive to question the behaviour of the father of “behavioural psychology”, the method used in this study was not particularly good psychology. There was only one subject and the experiment lacks any form of control. Such criticism however, is a little post hoc since research in psychology at that time was in its infancy.

Besides the ethical issues with the experiment, as can be seen from the recordings, the environment was not controlled, the animals changed, and several appeared themselves to be in distress. The final act of Watson applying a mask was presented very closely to Albert, something that potentially would cause any child distress.

Watson could have ‘cured’ Albert of the phobia he had induced using a process known as systematic desensitisation but chose not to as he and Raynor wanted to continue with the experiment until the Albert’s mother came to collect him.

Watch a Recap of this experiment in this video:

Harris B (1979): Whatever happened to Little Albert ? American Psychologist, February 1979, pp 151-160

Code of Ethics:

http://www.bps.org.uk/what-we-do/ethics-standards/ethics-standards

About Alexander Burgemeester

2 Responses to “The Little Albert Experiment”

Read below or add a comment...

what are the laws of classical conditioning in this experiment

Wow, this entire article is full of inaccuracies. Firstly, they didn’t begin the conditioning experiments on Albert until he was 11 months and 3 days old. While the first few original reactions with the different animals did not need further conditioning, the steel rod was struck several times throughout the experiment to reinstate the fear response with the stimuli. Also, it is only speculated that Albert’s mother was unaware that these experiments were going on. You mention that the mask in which Watson wears at the ending of the video would distress any child, but before beginning the experiments, Watson and his crew tested several different stimuli on Albert and marked any emotional responses. The masks were part of this test and did not originally trigger a response. A fear response was present after Albert was conditioned to fear the white rat and things that were visually similar. The mask had white hair attached at the top. He had a similiar response to a paper bag of white cotton wool. Lastly, the fact that your entire article is written with a secondary source (written in 1979 no less) as your only source beside the video, and never even refers to Watson’s original journal publication (which is available for free online at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm ) is even more of a reason to find this article flawed.

image/svg+xml

The undergraduate neuroscience journal, ethical history: a contemporary examination of the little albert experiment, sehar bokhari.

Micaela Bartunek

Sehar bokhari , micaela bartunek.

In 1917, two curious researchers looking to examine the effects of fear conditioning began a study at Johns Hopkins University that would later become one of the most controversial experiments in the field. John Watson and Rosalie Rayner sought to test the limits of fear conditioning by recruiting a small child to partake in their study. The nine month old infant, known simply as "Little Albert B," was selected for his developmental and emotional stability at such a young age [1]. Watson's Little Albert study, taught in countless Introduction to Psychology courses, helps to further illustrate the idea of classical conditioning most notably explained by Ivan Pavlov. However, what many courses fail to explore is the issue of ethics behind experiments like Watson's, and the effects studies like it have on the subsequent behavior and development of their participants. As a result of studies such as Watson's, universities have created Institutional Review Boards, ethical boards that seek to ensure humane practices and protect human life while concurrently advancing knowledge in research. Understanding Watson's Little Albert study not only illuminates an interesting aspect of behavioral psychology, but also brings up interesting questions about research ethics in studies involving human participants.

The Mechanics of Fear Conditioning

Watson's research centered around Albert's interactions with a variety of animals including white rabbits and mice. Watson and Rayner noted that initially, Albert's behavior towards these animals was curious and playful. To condition a fearful response in the child, Watson exposed Albert to each animal while simultaneously producing a loud, frightening noise by slamming a large hammer into a long metal pipe. At first, Albert reacted by withdrawing from the animal. Then his lips began to tremble. Upon the third blow, Albert began to cry and shake violently. It was the first time Albert exhibited any sort of fear repsonse within the study. It certainly wouldn't be the last [1].

Days later, Albert was presented with the same animals as previously described, only this time without any noise. Albert immediately withdrew from them, now fearing the animals themselves. Watson and Rayner had successfully taught a nine-month old child to fear something he initially loved, through interaction and classical conditioning [1].

Fear Generalization

As the study progressed, Watson questioned whether Albert's fear conditioning could be applied to other objects and animals similar in nature to a white rabbit. Albert was presented with a wool coat, a small dog, and even a Santa Claus mask with a beard fashioned out of cotton balls. Albert now exhibited signs of generalization–a phenomenon in which the original stimulus is not the only stimulus that elicits fear from the participant. In Albert's case, objects that looked visually similar to the objects he was originally conditioned to fear also elicited the same response–despite the fact that these objects were not conditioned in the first phase of the study.

Watson and Rayner concluded that Albert's conditioned fear response persisted for approximately one month. As Albert's fears spread, however, his mother abruptly removed him from the study. Because of his immediate and sudden departure, Watson and Rayner were never able to reverse the effects of Albert's fear conditioning through a process known as desensitization [1].

Desensitization utilizes a series of relaxation and imagination techniques in order to reverse the effects of fear conditioning [2]. If properly performed, extinction occurs when the subject is repeatedly exposed to the conditioned stimulus without the fear-conditioning stimulus--in Albert's case, the loud sound. Over time, the participant's fear fades due to repeated exposure to the conditioned stimulus without the negative consequence. The participant then substitutes the initial fear with that of a normal response [3]. However, new research on desensitization raises questions as to whether it fully reverses the effects of fear conditioning. Research suggests that even if desensitization works, it may not necessarily last, so the participant runs the risk of relapse [9]. Unfortunately, Albert was never even exposed to these methods, and as such, many have wondered what effects this study and lack of desensitization may have had throughout Albert's lifetime.

The Mystery of a Lifetime

Johns Hopkins University became the focus of the search for Albert. Watson left behind little evidence to suggest Little Albert's whereabouts following the study, though he did leave Albert's estimated date of birth, age at the same time of their research, and a grain film that documented the entirety of the study. One researcher, Hall Beck from Appalachian State University in North Carolina, was the first to provide an answer.

Beck used Albert's history to track down, a nurse at Johns Hopkins University's Hospital that he suspected to be Albert's mother. Beck discovered that the nurse had a son named Douglas Merrite who fit the proper description of Albert during the time of the study [4]. Merritte pased away at age six due to hydrocephamus that initiate the fear response. These responses are regulated by the nervous system which creates a startle response and simultaneously increase a person's heart rate, respiration rate, or blood pressure [6].

The human brain is a complicated system of neural structures and pathways, some of the which serve as conduits to fear and learning. These intricate systems in the brain can cause even nine month old children to fear for their lives. Even with desensitization techniques, it is still uncertain just how these sorts of experiments affect human beings. Today, Institutional Review Boards closely monitor modern studies to avoid repeating what happened to Little Albert and ensure that subjects are protected both mentally and physically.

IRBS & Ethics

As with many controversial experiments like Watson's, the question of the ethical boundaries in research is brought to the forefront. Is it morally acceptable to conduct an experiment on an infant? Many suggest that experimenters should find a strict balance between the importance of protecting those who participate in experiments, especially infants, and scientific advancement [7]. Regulations boards, known as Institutional Review Boards (or IRBs) now exist within federally funded research universities in order to protect such balances within proposed research studies [8]. Research proposals must explicitly state and explain the risk and benefits to participants within the study, as well as give participants the right to withdraw at any time if they wish to do so. Proper debriefing following experiments must also take place, ensuring that subjects are fully aware of the purpose of the study and how the experiments will be obtaining their results [2].

Perhaps as time goes on and new findings emerge, IRBs and researchers alike can learn to identify the line beyond which an experiment goes too far. Even if a study is considered ethical and approved by an IRB, it may still be controversial. Examining studies such as Little Albert's allow IRBs to recognize moral dilemmas and adapt their procedures regarding experimental proposals in order to ensure that these ethical complications do not reoccur. It may not be easy, but when an experiment builds itself around a strong ethical foundation, the results of the study, as well as the study itself, are preserved in honesty and integrity. As Dan McArthur, a Professor of Philosophy at York University, puts it, when we protect scientific integrity and respect our participants, "good ethics can sometimes mean better results" [10].

Classics in the History of Psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm
Systematic Desensitization | Simply Psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/Systematic-Desensitisation.html
Hermans, D., Graske, M., Mineka, S., & Lovibond, P. (2006). Extinction in Human Fear Conditioning. Retrieved November 19, 2015, from https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/125886/1/24.pdf
The Search for Psychology's Lost Boy. (2014, June 1). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://chronicle.com/interactives/littlealbert
Limbic System: Amygdala (Section 4, Chapter 6) Neuroscience Online: An Electronic Textbook for the Neurosciences | Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy - The University of Texas Medical School at Houston. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/S4/chapter06.html
Maren, S. (n.d.). Neurobiology of Pavlovian Fear Conditioning - Annual Review of Neuroscience. Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://www.annualreviews.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.897
Diekema, D. (n.d.). Ethical Issues In Research Involving Infants. Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://www.seminperinat.com/article/S0146-0005(09)00060-3/fulltext
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, A. (1995). Ethics in Psychological Research. In Research in psychology: Methods and design (7th ed., pp. 41-44). New York: Wiley.
Vervliet, B., Craske, M. & Hermans, D. (n.d.). Fear Extinction and Relapse: State of the Art. Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://www.annualreviews.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-clinp-sy-050212-185542
Mcarthur, D. (2009). Good ethics can sometimes mean between science: Research ethics and the milgram experiments. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 69-79. doi: http://dx.doi.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/10.1007/S11948-008-9083-4

Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences pp 1–3 Cite as

Little Albert

Nancy Digdon 3
Living reference work entry
First Online: 20 December 2016

134 Accesses

Little Albert refers to the baby used in a classic psychology study by Watson and Rayner ( 1920 ). This study demonstrated how Albert developed a new fear through learning.

Introduction

The Little Albert study has been widely cited in psychology textbooks to the present day. Moreover, because Watson filmed it (see Watson 1923 ), many people have seen images of Albert being afraid of animals and have wondered whether he suffered any long-term harm from the study. Albert’s fate has been a mystery, however, because Watson and Rayner never published follow-up accounts or disclosed Albert’s last name so that others could track him down. This encyclopedia entry will first summarize the original study – why it was done, the procedure used to create fear, and why Albert was chosen for the study. Next, it will highlight recent claims about solving the mystery of Little Albert’s real identity and his fate after the study ended.

Watson and Rayner’s Little Albert Study

Conditioned Fear
Recent Claim
Behavioral Psychology
Airline Company

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64 , 605–614. doi:10.1037/a0017234.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Fridlund, A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology, 15 , 302–327. doi:10.1037/a0026720.

Powell, R. A., Digdon, N., Harris, B., & Smithson, C. (2014). Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner and Little Albert: Albert Barger as “psychology’s lost boy”. American Psychologist, 69 , 600–611. doi:10.1037/a0036854.

Watson, J. B. (1923). Experimental investigation of babies. [Motion picture]. United States: c. H. Stoeling Co.

Google Scholar

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3 , 1–14. doi:10.1037/h0069608.

Article Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Grant MacEwan University, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Nancy Digdon

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy Digdon .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Oakland University, Rochester, USA

Virgil Zeigler-Hill

Todd K. Shackelford

Section Editor information

University of North Carolina-Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, USA

Charlie Reeve

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Digdon, N. (2016). Little Albert. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_960-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_960-1

Received : 17 August 2016

Accepted : 08 December 2016

Published : 20 December 2016

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-28099-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-28099-8

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

What Is Classical Conditioning Theory? 6 Real-Life Examples

It attempted to explain behavior based on the effects of the environment and learning rather than innate or inherited factors (Gross, 2020).

Classical conditioning theory , discovered by Russian physiologist and Nobel prize winner Ivan Pavlov, was central to behaviorism’s success.

Pavlovian conditioning, as it was sometimes known, focused on the role of unconscious learning and the process of pairing an automatic, previously unconditioned response with a new, neutral stimulus (Rehman, Mahabadi, Sanvictores, & Rehman, 2020).

This article introduces the theory, along with real-life examples, before discussing its strengths and weaknesses.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free . These science-based exercises explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology, including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance the wellbeing of your clients, students, or employees.

This Article Contains:

What is the classical conditioning theory, how does it work a model & diagram, key concepts of classical conditioning, 6 real-life examples of the theory, classical conditioning vs operant conditioning, 9 strengths & weaknesses of pavlov’s theory, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

Behaviorists focus on the effect of the environment on human and non-human behavior. Their focus is on learning, particularly conditioning, to the exclusion of inherited, innate factors (Gross, 2020).

To the behaviorist, observable behavior is considered a response to stimuli (environmental events). In classical conditioning , as opposed to operant conditioning, “the stimulus is seen as triggering a response in a predictable, automatic way” (Gross, 2020). It is often referred to as stimulus and response psychology.

Conditioning forms an association between the stimulus and the response.

Who was Ivan Pavlov?

In 1904, Ivan Pavlov was awarded the prestigious Nobel prize for his work on digestion in dogs. Despite his focus on animal physiology, his research had a profound effect on the study of human psychology.

By stumbling across classical conditioning (sometimes referred to as Pavlovian conditioning) by accident, he significantly influenced the field of behaviorism (Gross, 2020; Rehman et al., 2020).

Even though Edwin Twitmyer had published related work a year earlier, Pavlov is widely recognized and best known for his thorough work on classical conditioning.

While it seems unlikely that experiments on dogs could have such a far-reaching and long-lasting impact on psychology, that changed when Pavlov (1927) noticed he could change how dogs behaved and reacted to food (Rehman et al., 2020).

Pavlov’s dog experiment

During Pavlov’s (1927) experiments into digestion in dogs, he noticed that they typically started to salivate before being given food. Not only that, even seeing the feeding bucket or hearing the lab assistant’s footsteps was enough to initiate a response (Gross, 2020).

Such observations led to the study of what we now call classical conditioning and the recognition that a stimulus such as a sound or an image with no particular meaning could pair with another stimulus to produce a response – in this case, salivating (Gross, 2020).

3 Stages of classical conditioning

Based on his observations, Pavlov learned that new, neutral stimuli could be paired with existing stimuli to produce a response, as follows (modified from Gross, 2020):

Before conditioning (or learning) – The sound of a bell does not make a dog salivate, but food does.

The food is an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) that results in an automatic, biologically built-in unconditioned response (UCR) – in this case, salivating.

Unconditioned refers to the fact that it is not conditional on being paired with anything.

During conditioning – The bell and the food are paired.

The bell is a conditioned stimulus (CS).

Until it is paired, the bell has no effect on the UCR (salivating). It is neutral.

“It only produces a response on the condition that it is paired with the [food]” (Gross, 2020, p. 173).

After conditioning – When the bell (CS) has been paired with the food (UCS) enough times, it makes the dog salivate (now a CR).

The conditioned stimulus leads to a conditioned response .

And it works, not only with bells but also lights, metronomes, and even geometric shapes.

The degree of response can also be varied depending on how the CS is presented. The timing involved in classical conditioning is crucial and typically involves one of the following (Gross, 2020):

The CS occurs with differing delays before the UCS.
The CS is presented after the UCS.
The CS and UCS are presented together.
The CS is presented and removed before the UCS arrives.

The first option, where the CS is presented a half-second before the UCS, usually results in the strongest learning (Gross, 2020).

The following diagram represents the three steps involved in classical conditioning: before, during, and after conditioning (modified from Gross, 2020):

Stage 1. Before conditioning (or learning) – The bell does not produce salivation.

Stage 2. During conditioning – CS (bell) and UCS (food) are paired.

Stage 3. After learning – Bell produces salivation.

Classical conditioning includes other factors worthy of consideration. The following concepts help clarify some of the additional subtleties in Pavlov’s research and the classical conditioning theory.

First and second-order conditioning

While Pavlov proved it was possible to pair a conditioned stimulus (a bell) with an unconditioned stimulus (food), known as first-order conditioning , he also found that he could go one stage further (Gross, 2020).

Pavlov could subsequently pair the bell or any other stimulus with something unique and previously unseen, such as a black square. After 10 pairings, the dog would begin salivating at the sight of the square even though it had never been paired directly with the food. This indirect association is known as second-order conditioning .

Conditioning was beginning to look increasingly complex. However, there were limits. Pavlov (1927) found that dogs could not go beyond third or fourth-order conditioning (Gross, 2020).

Generalization and discrimination

Pavlov also found that even though a researcher may have trained a dog with one particular bell, other bells could still produce the same effect even if they differed in pitch. The spontaneous transfer of conditioned response is known as generalization (Pavlov, 1927).

However, the further away the new stimulus got from the original, the weaker the conditioned response; eventually, it stopped altogether. The limit to generalization is known as discrimination (Gross, 2020).

Pavlov subsequently used discrimination training to teach dogs to differentiate between stimuli of the same type that differed by a single factor, such as pitch (Gross, 2020).

Once conditioned, if the conditioned stimulus continued to sound, but no food appeared, the conditioned response (salivating) reduced until it stopped (Gross, 2020).

However, after a short break, the dog’s response spontaneously recovered with no further pairing.

Therefore, extinction as it is known, does not remove the original learning; it temporarily suppresses it.

Reinforcement

Though more relevant to operant conditioning than classical conditioning, reinforcement is an essential aspect of behaviorism and can come in two flavors.

Positive reinforcement involves presenting something favorable to encourage or reward behavior, and negative reinforcement “involves the removal or avoidance of some ‘aversive’ (literally ‘painful’) state of affairs” such as an electric shock (Gross, 2020, p. 177).

Several such studies provide interesting and insightful findings and are regularly discussed within the literature on the classical conditioning theory, but we do not suggest that they are appropriate or ethical.

Early examples of classical conditioning research

Experimental neurosis : Taking discrimination training one stage further, Pavlov (1927) trained dogs to salivate when a circle was presented, but not an ellipse (Gross, 2020).

In subsequent tests, he presented the dogs with a series of shapes that morphed from an ellipse until almost becoming circular. He found that dogs began to act neurotic, trembling, whining, and defecating.

It appears that the dogs did not know how to react, facing an increasingly difficult balance between generalization and discrimination.

Masks (with and without hair)
Cotton wool
Burning newspapers
A hammer striking a steel bar behind his head

Only the last four stimuli scared Albert and were labeled UCS. The others, having no response, were considered neutral or CS. Fear was designated as the UCR.

When Albert was 11 months old, the rat (neutral or CS) and the hammer sound (UCS) were presented simultaneously seven times.

Because of the new pairing, the previously neutral rat now produced fear in the unfortunate Albert.

The deliberately produced phobia also extended to other stimuli, including the rabbit, the dog, and even cotton wool. And while over time, the effect reduced, it was still present to a small degree a month later (Gross, 2020).

Little Peter : For no apparent reason, a two-year-old known as Little Peter exhibited an extreme phobia of animals including rabbits, rats, and frogs; cotton wool; fur coats; and feathers (Jones, 1924).

However, when Peter ate his lunch, a wire cage containing a rabbit was placed in front of him and brought closer to where he sat each day.

After 40 sessions and a series of 17 steps, he could ultimately eat his lunch while stroking the rabbit or have it running free in the room with him.

The study provides a possible early research example of systematic desensitization (Gross, 2020).

3 Examples in the classroom

Teachers can apply the lessons learned from classical conditioning in the classroom (Cherry, 2019; Shrestha, 2017):

Positive educational environments : A positive and supportive environment can reduce students’ anxiety and fear.

When paired with more challenging activities such as presenting in front of the class, a supportive environment can cause valuable and helpful associations that lead to increased confidence (Cherry, 2019).

Bullying : When a child experiences bullying in the class or on the playground, they may form associations that lead to fear and dread at the very mention or thought of school. It may continue throughout education.
Recognition of performance : Drawing attention to student performance in class can have a positive or negative association. A child who is ridiculed or embarrassed because of poor test results may begin to fear failure.

Such feelings could also lead to a positive outcome such as motivation for extra studying.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Exercises (PDF)

Enhance wellbeing with these free, science-based exercises that draw on the latest insights from positive psychology.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

While both classical conditioning and operant conditioning are vital concepts in behavioral psychology, they are quite different learning processes (Gross, 2020).

Under classical conditioning, Pavlov showed the importance of involuntary, automatic behaviors. A previously neutral stimulus, such as a bell, can be paired with an unconditioned stimulus, such as food, that automatically produces an unconditioned response (salivating).

Once the dog is trained, the bell creates the unconditioned response.

On the other hand, operant conditioning uses either reinforcement or punishment to increase or decrease behavior, respectively (Skinner, 1957).

Rewarding hard work in class regardless of the results can lead to extra effort and recognition that tests are an opportunity to validate understanding.

Similarly, when students are punished for talking in class, the problematic behavior decreases. Operant conditioning, therefore, strengthens or weakens behavior (Skinner, 1957; Gross, 2020).

The difference between classical and operant conditioning

Results can be reliably reproduced.
The theory explains automatic responses, though not the influence of other factors such as personality and genetic factors .
The theory is highly relevant for animal conditioning (less so for humans, as the theory ignores an individual’s choice or agency).
Classical conditioning and behaviorism do not consider human agency including conscious self-awareness, intentionality, etc.
The theory ignores innate and inherited factors.
It does not explain how people make procedural decisions, such as choosing between more than one option or goal and how to overcome an obstacle.
It does not explain individual differences or variations in learning.
There is a host of ethical concerns regarding testing behavioral modifications.
Animal studies may not represent human response and behavior.

While both a strength and a weakness, depending on your motives and ethical stance, “people can use classical conditioning to exploit others for their gain” (Rehman et al., 2020).

17 Top-Rated Positive Psychology Exercises for Practitioners

Expand your arsenal and impact with these 17 Positive Psychology Exercises [PDF] , scientifically designed to promote human flourishing, meaning, and wellbeing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

We have many resources that therapists can use with their clients to gain additional insight into their behavior and regain control when it is damaging or unhelpful.

Take a look at the following tools below:

Behavioral Experiments to Test Beliefs Worksheet This worksheet guides clients through a series of six steps to help them test and re-evaluate the beliefs underlying negative automatic thoughts.
Graded Exposure Worksheet This worksheet invites clients to rank their phobias from least to most feared as a first step toward conducting an exposure intervention.
Building New Habits This worksheet succinctly explains how habits are formed and includes a space for clients to craft a plan to develop a new positive habit.
Action Brainstorming This exercise helps clients identify, evaluate, and then break or change habits that may be getting in the way of making desired changes or moving closer to goals.
Changing Physical Habits This worksheet helps clients reflect on their vulnerabilities and habits surrounding aspects of their physical health and consider steps to develop healthier habits.
Reward Replacement Worksheet This worksheet helps clients identify the negative consequences of behaviors they use to reward themselves and select different reward behaviors with positive consequences to replace them.

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others enhance their wellbeing, this signature collection contains 17 validated positive psychology tools for practitioners. Use them to help others flourish and thrive.

Discovering classical conditioning was a fortunate accident. After all, Pavlov was a physiologist researching digestion in dogs (Rehman et al., 2020).

And yet his discovery, sometimes referred to as Pavlov conditioning, significantly affected behaviorism and the broader field of psychology.

He recognized that by repeatedly pairing a neutral stimulus (bell) with an unconditioned stimulus (food), he was ultimately able to trigger a conditioned response (salivating).

By varying the pairing of the neutral (conditioned) stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus, he could even affect the size of the reaction (conditioned response). And when the conditioned stimulus continued in the absence of the unconditioned stimulus, the conditioned response ultimately disappeared.

Behaviorism assumes that all learning results from interactions with the environment, and therefore, that the environment shapes our behavior. As a theory, it contrasts with modern psychological theory, which recognizes the importance of innate and inherited factors and human agency (Buss, 2016).

Classical conditioning undoubtedly has its limitations, but it had a significant effect on psychology in the first half of the 20th century and provided a valuable lens to look at animal and (to a restricted degree) human behavior.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free .

Buss, D. M. (2016). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind . Routledge.
Cherry, K. (2019, September 5). How classical conditioning works: An overview with examples. Verywell Mind . Retrieved April 28, 2021, from https://www.verywellmind.com/classical-conditioning-2794859
Gross, R. D. (2020). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour . Hodder and Stoughton.
Jones, M. C. (1924). The elimination of children’s fears. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 7, 382–390.
Kompa, J. S. (2020). Strengths and limitations of behaviorism for human learning [Web log]. Retrieved April 28, 2021, from https://joanakompa.com/2015/05/02/strengths-and-limitations-of-behaviorism-for-learning/
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes . Oxford University Press.
Rehman, I., Mahabadi, N., Sanvictores, T., & Rehman, C. (2020). Classical conditioning . StatPearls. Retrieved April 27, 2021, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470326/
Shrestha, P. (2017, November 17). Classical conditioning examples. Psychestudy . Retrieved April 28, 2021, from https://www.psychestudy.com/behavioral/learning-memory/classical-conditioning/classical-examples
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior . Century-Crofts.
Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 3 , 1–14

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

A fabulous article that is easy to read, thank you!

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Hierarchy of Needs: A 2024 Take on Maslow’s Findings

One of the most influential theories in human psychology that addresses our quest for wellbeing is Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. While Maslow’s theory of [...]

Emotional Development in Childhood: 3 Theories Explained

We have all witnessed a sweet smile from a baby. That cute little gummy grin that makes us smile in return. Are babies born with [...]

Using Classical Conditioning for Treating Phobias & Disorders

Does the name Pavlov ring a bell? Classical conditioning, a psychological phenomenon first discovered by Ivan Pavlov in the late 19th century, has proven to [...]

3 Positive Psychology Tools (PDF)

Case Study Research Method in Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. Typically, data is gathered from various sources using several methods (e.g., observations & interviews).

The case study research method originated in clinical medicine (the case history, i.e., the patient’s personal history). In psychology, case studies are often confined to the study of a particular individual.

The information is mainly biographical and relates to events in the individual’s past (i.e., retrospective), as well as to significant events that are currently occurring in his or her everyday life.

The case study is not a research method, but researchers select methods of data collection and analysis that will generate material suitable for case studies.

Freud (1909a, 1909b) conducted very detailed investigations into the private lives of his patients in an attempt to both understand and help them overcome their illnesses.

This makes it clear that the case study is a method that should only be used by a psychologist, therapist, or psychiatrist, i.e., someone with a professional qualification.

There is an ethical issue of competence. Only someone qualified to diagnose and treat a person can conduct a formal case study relating to atypical (i.e., abnormal) behavior or atypical development.

Famous Case Studies

Anna O – One of the most famous case studies, documenting psychoanalyst Josef Breuer’s treatment of “Anna O” (real name Bertha Pappenheim) for hysteria in the late 1800s using early psychoanalytic theory.
Little Hans – A child psychoanalysis case study published by Sigmund Freud in 1909 analyzing his five-year-old patient Herbert Graf’s house phobia as related to the Oedipus complex.
Bruce/Brenda – Gender identity case of the boy (Bruce) whose botched circumcision led psychologist John Money to advise gender reassignment and raise him as a girl (Brenda) in the 1960s.
Genie Wiley – Linguistics/psychological development case of the victim of extreme isolation abuse who was studied in 1970s California for effects of early language deprivation on acquiring speech later in life.
Phineas Gage – One of the most famous neuropsychology case studies analyzes personality changes in railroad worker Phineas Gage after an 1848 brain injury involving a tamping iron piercing his skull.

Clinical Case Studies

Studying the effectiveness of psychotherapy approaches with an individual patient
Assessing and treating mental illnesses like depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD
Neuropsychological cases investigating brain injuries or disorders

Child Psychology Case Studies

Studying psychological development from birth through adolescence
Cases of learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD
Effects of trauma, abuse, deprivation on development

Types of Case Studies

Explanatory case studies : Used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles. Helpful for doing qualitative analysis to explain presumed causal links.
Exploratory case studies : Used to explore situations where an intervention being evaluated has no clear set of outcomes. It helps define questions and hypotheses for future research.
Descriptive case studies : Describe an intervention or phenomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred. It is helpful for illustrating certain topics within an evaluation.
Multiple-case studies : Used to explore differences between cases and replicate findings across cases. Helpful for comparing and contrasting specific cases.
Intrinsic : Used to gain a better understanding of a particular case. Helpful for capturing the complexity of a single case.
Collective : Used to explore a general phenomenon using multiple case studies. Helpful for jointly studying a group of cases in order to inquire into the phenomenon.

Where Do You Find Data for a Case Study?

There are several places to find data for a case study. The key is to gather data from multiple sources to get a complete picture of the case and corroborate facts or findings through triangulation of evidence. Most of this information is likely qualitative (i.e., verbal description rather than measurement), but the psychologist might also collect numerical data.

1. Primary sources

Interviews – Interviewing key people related to the case to get their perspectives and insights. The interview is an extremely effective procedure for obtaining information about an individual, and it may be used to collect comments from the person’s friends, parents, employer, workmates, and others who have a good knowledge of the person, as well as to obtain facts from the person him or herself.
Observations – Observing behaviors, interactions, processes, etc., related to the case as they unfold in real-time.
Documents & Records – Reviewing private documents, diaries, public records, correspondence, meeting minutes, etc., relevant to the case.

2. Secondary sources

News/Media – News coverage of events related to the case study.
Academic articles – Journal articles, dissertations etc. that discuss the case.
Government reports – Official data and records related to the case context.
Books/films – Books, documentaries or films discussing the case.

3. Archival records

Searching historical archives, museum collections and databases to find relevant documents, visual/audio records related to the case history and context.

Public archives like newspapers, organizational records, photographic collections could all include potentially relevant pieces of information to shed light on attitudes, cultural perspectives, common practices and historical contexts related to psychology.

4. Organizational records

Organizational records offer the advantage of often having large datasets collected over time that can reveal or confirm psychological insights.

Of course, privacy and ethical concerns regarding confidential data must be navigated carefully.

However, with proper protocols, organizational records can provide invaluable context and empirical depth to qualitative case studies exploring the intersection of psychology and organizations.

Organizational/industrial psychology research : Organizational records like employee surveys, turnover/retention data, policies, incident reports etc. may provide insight into topics like job satisfaction, workplace culture and dynamics, leadership issues, employee behaviors etc.
Clinical psychology : Therapists/hospitals may grant access to anonymized medical records to study aspects like assessments, diagnoses, treatment plans etc. This could shed light on clinical practices.
School psychology : Studies could utilize anonymized student records like test scores, grades, disciplinary issues, and counseling referrals to study child development, learning barriers, effectiveness of support programs, and more.

How do I Write a Case Study in Psychology?

Follow specified case study guidelines provided by a journal or your psychology tutor. General components of clinical case studies include: background, symptoms, assessments, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Interpreting the information means the researcher decides what to include or leave out. A good case study should always clarify which information is the factual description and which is an inference or the researcher’s opinion.

1. Introduction

Provide background on the case context and why it is of interest, presenting background information like demographics, relevant history, and presenting problem.
Compare briefly to similar published cases if applicable. Clearly state the focus/importance of the case.

2. Case Presentation

Describe the presenting problem in detail, including symptoms, duration,and impact on daily life.
Include client demographics like age and gender, information about social relationships, and mental health history.
Describe all physical, emotional, and/or sensory symptoms reported by the client.
Use patient quotes to describe the initial complaint verbatim. Follow with full-sentence summaries of relevant history details gathered, including key components that led to a working diagnosis.
Summarize clinical exam results, namely orthopedic/neurological tests, imaging, lab tests, etc. Note actual results rather than subjective conclusions. Provide images if clearly reproducible/anonymized.
Clearly state the working diagnosis or clinical impression before transitioning to management.

3. Management and Outcome

Indicate the total duration of care and number of treatments given over what timeframe. Use specific names/descriptions for any therapies/interventions applied.
Present the results of the intervention,including any quantitative or qualitative data collected.
For outcomes, utilize visual analog scales for pain, medication usage logs, etc., if possible. Include patient self-reports of improvement/worsening of symptoms. Note the reason for discharge/end of care.

4. Discussion

Analyze the case, exploring contributing factors, limitations of the study, and connections to existing research.
Analyze the effectiveness of the intervention,considering factors like participant adherence, limitations of the study, and potential alternative explanations for the results.
Identify any questions raised in the case analysis and relate insights to established theories and current research if applicable. Avoid definitive claims about physiological explanations.
Offer clinical implications, and suggest future research directions.

5. Additional Items

Thank specific assistants for writing support only. No patient acknowledgments.
References should directly support any key claims or quotes included.
Use tables/figures/images only if substantially informative. Include permissions and legends/explanatory notes.
Provides detailed (rich qualitative) information.
Provides insight for further research.
Permitting investigation of otherwise impractical (or unethical) situations.

Case studies allow a researcher to investigate a topic in far more detail than might be possible if they were trying to deal with a large number of research participants (nomothetic approach) with the aim of ‘averaging’.

Because of their in-depth, multi-sided approach, case studies often shed light on aspects of human thinking and behavior that would be unethical or impractical to study in other ways.

Research that only looks into the measurable aspects of human behavior is not likely to give us insights into the subjective dimension of experience, which is important to psychoanalytic and humanistic psychologists.

Case studies are often used in exploratory research. They can help us generate new ideas (that might be tested by other methods). They are an important way of illustrating theories and can help show how different aspects of a person’s life are related to each other.

The method is, therefore, important for psychologists who adopt a holistic point of view (i.e., humanistic psychologists ).

Limitations

Lacking scientific rigor and providing little basis for generalization of results to the wider population.
Researchers’ own subjective feelings may influence the case study (researcher bias).
Difficult to replicate.
Time-consuming and expensive.
The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources.

Because a case study deals with only one person/event/group, we can never be sure if the case study investigated is representative of the wider body of “similar” instances. This means the conclusions drawn from a particular case may not be transferable to other settings.

Because case studies are based on the analysis of qualitative (i.e., descriptive) data , a lot depends on the psychologist’s interpretation of the information she has acquired.

This means that there is a lot of scope for Anna O , and it could be that the subjective opinions of the psychologist intrude in the assessment of what the data means.

For example, Freud has been criticized for producing case studies in which the information was sometimes distorted to fit particular behavioral theories (e.g., Little Hans ).

This is also true of Money’s interpretation of the Bruce/Brenda case study (Diamond, 1997) when he ignored evidence that went against his theory.

Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1895). Studies on hysteria . Standard Edition 2: London.

Curtiss, S. (1981). Genie: The case of a modern wild child .

Diamond, M., & Sigmundson, K. (1997). Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-term Review and Clinical Implications. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 151(3), 298-304

Freud, S. (1909a). Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy. In The Pelican Freud Library (1977), Vol 8, Case Histories 1, pages 169-306

Freud, S. (1909b). Bemerkungen über einen Fall von Zwangsneurose (Der “Rattenmann”). Jb. psychoanal. psychopathol. Forsch ., I, p. 357-421; GW, VII, p. 379-463; Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis, SE , 10: 151-318.

Harlow J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron rod through the head. Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 39 , 389–393.

Harlow, J. M. (1868). Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head . Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society. 2 (3), 327-347.

Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972). Man & Woman, Boy & Girl : The Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Money, J., & Tucker, P. (1975). Sexual signatures: On being a man or a woman.

Further Information

Case Study Approach
Case Study Method
Enhancing the Quality of Case Studies in Health Services Research
“We do things together” A case study of “couplehood” in dementia
Using mixed methods for evaluating an integrative approach to cancer care: a case study

Providing a study guide and revision resources for students and psychology teaching resources for teachers.

The Behavioural Approach To Explaining And Treating Phobias: The Two-Process Model Including Classical And Operant Conditioning

March 5, 2021 - paper 1 introductory topics in psychology | psychopathology.

Back to Paper 1 - Psychopathology

AO1, Description:

Recap the key principles of the Behavioural Approach before learning how it specifically relates to explaining phobias.

The Behavioural Approach to Explaining Phobias

The Two-Process Model

As part of the two-process model, Classical Conditioning is used to explain the acquisition ( beginning ) of the phobia, whereas Operant Conditioning is used to explaining how the phobic behaviour is maintained .

Classical Conditioning (Initiation/Acquisition of the Phobia):

A phobia is acquired through association between a neutral stimulus (e.g. a white rat) and an unconditioned stimulus (e.g. a loud noise) which results in a new stimulus response being learned. See the example of Little Albert below who (through the work of Watson and Rayner, 1920) developed a phobia of white fluffy animals.

Operant Conditioning (Maintenance of the Phobia):

Operant conditioning involves learning through the consequences (outcomes of behaviour). A behaviour that is rewarding reinforces the chances of that behaviour being repeated in future situations. An outcome of a behaviour that is pleasant is known as positive reinforcement, while the outcome of a behaviour that results in escaping something unpleasant is known as negative reinforcement. Operant conditioning explains how phobias are maintained as, once the phobia has been acquired (through classical conditioning) individuals then exhibited avoidance responses (behaviours that lessen the chances of contact with the feared object/situation) which reduce the fear response, reinforcing the avoidance responses, making them more likely to occur again in the future. For example, if a person has a phobia of the dark due to the fact that they were mugged at night time, this individual might chose to sleep with the lights on (negative reinforcement) because it reduces the fear response associated with being in the dark.

The Little Albert case study can be seen as an example of how a phobia can develop as a result of Classical Conditioning:

Evaluation, AO3 of the Behavioural Approach (Two-Process Model) as an Explanation of Phobias

(1) POINT: The behavioural approach to psychopathology is scientific and its key principals can be measured in an objective way. EVIDENCE: For example, the phobia developed by Little Albert was clear for all to see and measure, variables could be manipulated and controlled to ensure that Little Albert’s phobia development was as a result of a neutral stimulus being associated with an unconditioned response. EVALUATION: This is positive because it allows concepts such as classical conditioning to be demonstrated scientifically and has resulted in a large amount of empirical support for behavioural therapies.

Weaknesses:

(1) POINT: The behavioural approach/two-process model of phobias can be criticised for being deterministic. EVIDENCE: For example, the Two-Process model suggests that when an individual experiences a traumatic event and uses this event to draw an association between a neutral stimulus and an unconditioned response they will go on and develop a phobia. EVALUATION: This is a weakness because this theory of phobias suggests that we are programmed by our environmental experiences and ignores individual free will (for example, if a person is bitten by a dog this negative experience may not cause them to develop a phobia of dogs.

(2) POINT: The behavioural approach/two-process model of phobias can be criticised for being reductionist. EVIDENCE: For example, the two-process model suggests that complex mental disorders such as phobias are caused solely by our experience of association, rewards and punishment (we learn all abnormalities including phobias). EVALUATION: This is a problem because the behavioural approach to explaining phobias can be seen to be too simplistic as it ignores the role of other factors such as our childhood experiences, everyday stressors and the role of biology (e.g. genes, neurotransmitters) in the development of abnormality.

Click here to learn about the behavioural, emotional and cognitive characteristics of depression.

Psychopathology
Social Psychology
Approaches To Human Behaviour
Biopsychology
Research Methods
Issues & Debates
Teacher Hub
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
[email protected]
www.psychologyhub.co.uk

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search

Cookie Policy - Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy

Get Revising

Join get revising, already a member, strength and weaknesses of little hans - freud 1909.

Created by: Emiliaaaaaaaaaaa.x
Created on: 02-06-19 10:58
sleep and dreaming

Report Wed 23rd August, 2023 @ 08:57

Sociology is indeed a fascinating and broad field that offers a multitude of topics for exploration and analysis. Writing an essay on sociology can be navigate here both intellectually stimulating and rewarding. Whether you're a student looking for guidance or someone interested in learning more, here are some tips and insights to consider for sociology essay writing.

Similar Psychology resources:

Unit 1 Case Studies 0.0 / 5

GCSE Psychology Topic B 4.5 / 5 based on 7 ratings

Freud 0.0 / 5

Little hans case study 0.0 / 5

Psychology - Is dreaming meaningful? 0.0 / 5

Strengths and weakness 4.0 / 5 based on 2 ratings

Freud (1909): Little Hans, analysis of a phobia in a five-year-old boy 0.0 / 5

GCSE PSYCHOLOGY Case Studies 2.5 / 5 based on 3 ratings

Psychology 0.0 / 5

Little Hans Case Study 0.0 / 5

Related discussions on The Student Room

OCR Psychology Section B Core »
EPQ on dreaming (psychology) »
A-Level Psychology AQA »
Edexcel A-level Psychology Paper 1 (9PS0 01) - 19th May 2023 [Exam Chat] »
Edexcel A-Level Religious Studies June 12,19,26th »
Epq anaylysis help? »
Edexcel GCSE Psychology Papers 1 & 2 - 19th & 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat] »
Losing all strength in my chest after a workout. »
Learn Direct Access to HE - unit 2 help! »
gcse 2024 »

Bennie Hawra

Fill up the form and submit

On the order page of our write essay service website, you will be given a form that includes requirements. You will have to fill it up and submit.

Sharing Educational Goals

Our cheap essay service is a helping hand for those who want to reach academic success and have the perfect 4.0 GPA. Whatever kind of help you need, we will give it to you.

Dissertations
Business Plans
PowerPoint Presentations
Editing and Proofreading
Annotated Bibliography
Book Review/Movie Review
Reflective Paper
Company/Industry Analysis
Article Analysis
Custom Writing Service
Assignment Help
Write My Essay
Paper Writing Help
Write Papers For Me
College Paper Writing Service

Can I speak with my essay writer directly?

Finished Papers

Original Drafts

Customer Reviews

DRE #01103083

Write my essay for me frequently asked questions

1035 natoma street, san francisco.

This exquisite Edwardian single-family house has a 1344 Sqft main…

Customer Reviews

Finished Papers

Courtney Lees

Jalan Zamrud Raya Ruko Permata Puri 1 Blok L1 No. 10, Kecamatan Cimanggis, Kota Depok, Jawa Barat 16452

Know Us Better

Knowledge Base
Referencing Styles
Know Our Consultance
Revision and Refund Policy
Terms Of Use

Earl M. Kinkade

Emery Evans

Jam Operasional (09.00-17.00)

+62 813-1717-0136 (Corporate) +62 812-4458-4482 (Recruitment)

Our team of paper writers consists only of native speakers coming from countries such as the US or Canada. But being proficient in English isn't the only requirement we have for an essay writer. All professionals working for us have a higher degree from a top institution or are current university professors. They go through a challenging hiring process which includes a diploma check, a successful mock-task completion, and two interviews. Once the writer passes all of the above, they begin their training, and only after its successful completion do they begin taking "write an essay for me" orders.

Finished Papers

Terms & conditions
Privacy policy
Referral program

1(888)499-5521

1(888)814-4206

Finished Papers

Order Number

1035 natoma street, san francisco.

This exquisite Edwardian single-family house has a 1344 Sqft main…

Customer Reviews

How does this work

IMAGES

The Little Albert Experiment
The Little Albert Experiment
The Little Albert Experiment And The Chilling Story Behind It
'Little Albert'
Strengths And Weaknesses Of Case Study
💐 Watson and rayners study of little albert. The Little Albert

VIDEO

#30 The Little Albert experiment is a psychological experiment. #experiment #albert deaf #news #ai
Eksperimen ‘Little Albert ’1920,menunjukkan rasa takut bisa berubah dengan pengkondisian#shorts #fyp
814: "The Little Albert Experiment"

COMMENTS

Little Albert Experiment (Watson & Rayner)
The Little Albert experiment was a controversial psychology experiment by John B. Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, at Johns Hopkins University. The experiment was performed in 1920 and was a case study aimed at testing the principles of classical conditioning. Watson and Raynor presented Little Albert (a nine-month-old boy) with ...
The Little Albert Experiment
The participant in the experiment was a child that Watson and Rayner called "Albert B." but is known popularly today as Little Albert. When Little Albert was 9 months old, Watson and Rayner exposed him to a series of stimuli including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks, and burning newspapers and observed the boy's reactions.
Watson and Rayner (1920) Little Albert
A case study using classical conditioning undertaken on one boy: 'Little Albert'. Little Albert was a pseudonym given to protect the identity of the child. Participants. One participant. Little Albert, prior to the study there was nothing abnormal about Little Albert, in fact he was quite normal and had no fears, which is why he was selected.
Watson and Rayner (1920)
Advantages. The case of Little Albert was carefully documented. Witnesses helped record the data and there were strict controls. Only one variable was changed at a time. If it was ethical to be repeated, replicability and reliability could have been shown. It is evidence that classical conditioning can occur in humans.
Watson & Rayner AO1 AO3
The experiment was done on a single child - Albert. Usually a sample of one would be considered very unrepresentative, because the baby might be unusual in all sorts of ways. However, this isn't a case study of an odd individual. Albert was deliberately selected for his normalcy. He seemed fearless and emotionally stable.
The Little Albert Experiment
Little Albert was a nine-month-old baby. His mother was a nurse at Johns Hopkins University, where the experiment was conducted. The baby's name wasn't really Albert - it was just a pseudonym that Watson used for the study.Due to the baby's young age, Watson thought it would be a good idea to use him to test his hypothesis about developing fear.
The Little Albert Experiment
The Little Albert Experiment. Little Albert was the fictitious name given to an unknown child who was subjected to an experiment in classical conditioning by John Watson and Rosalie Raynor at John Hopkins University in the USA, in 1919. By today's standards in psychology, the experiment would not be allowed because of ethical violations ...
GoodTherapy
Psychologist John Watson conducted the Little Albert experiment. Watson is known for his seminal research on behaviorism, or the idea that behavior occurs primarily in the context of conditioning ...
Ethical History: A Contemporary Examination of the Little Albert Experiment
The nine month old infant, known simply as "Little Albert B," was selected for his developmental and emotional stability at such a young age [1]. Watson's Little Albert study, taught in countless Introduction to Psychology courses, helps to further illustrate the idea of classical conditioning most notably explained by Ivan Pavlov.
Looking back: Finding Little Albert
The 'Little Albert' investigation was the last published study of Watson's academic career. Watson and Rayner became embroiled in a scandalous affair, culminating in his divorce and dismissal from Johns Hopkins. ... Jones, M.C. (1924). A laboratory study of fear: The case of Peter. Pedagogical Seminary, 31, 308-315. Park, E.A. (1957 ...
Watson & Rayner Little Albert
Watson and Rayner: Little Albert. Aim: To see if emotional responses such as fear could be conditioned. To see whether phobias can be conditioned. Procedure: Pre conditioning testing: Whilst Little Albert was 9 months old his response to numerous stimuli were recorded, these included exposure to a white rat and the noise of a steel bar being ...
Little Albert
The Little Albert study has been widely cited in psychology textbooks to the present day. Moreover, because Watson filmed it (see Watson 1923), many people have seen images of Albert being afraid of animals and have wondered whether he suffered any long-term harm from the study.Albert's fate has been a mystery, however, because Watson and Rayner never published follow-up accounts or ...
PDF Behaviourist therapy knowledge organiser: Behaviourist classic ...
involving a single participant, known as Little Albert, it is not a case study as this would involve deeper analysis of various aspects of his life. This investigation only explores emotional reactions. Little Albert was eleven months old when the research began and was the son of a hospital employee where Watson and Raynor worked.
What Is Classical Conditioning Theory? 6 Real-Life Examples
The following strengths and weaknesses apply to the classical conditioning theory and behaviorism as a whole (Kompa, 2020). Strengths. Results can be reliably reproduced. The theory explains automatic responses, though not the influence of other factors such as personality and genetic factors.
Case Study Research Method in Psychology
Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. Typically, data is gathered from various sources using several methods (e.g., observations & interviews). The case study research method originated in clinical medicine (the case history, i.e., the patient's personal history). In psychology, case studies are ...
The Behavioural Approach To Explaining And Treating ...
Evaluation, AO3 of the Behavioural Approach (Two-Process Model) as an Explanation of Phobias. Strengths: (1) POINT: The behavioural approach to psychopathology is scientific and its key principals can be measured in an objective way. EVIDENCE: For example, the phobia developed by Little Albert was clear for all to see and measure, variables could be manipulated and controlled to ensure that ...
Strength and Weaknesses of Little Hans
The Little Albert study by Watson and Raynor (1920) suggests that phobias can be learned responses developed through the process of classical conditioning Evaluation Overall, in this study by Freud he has collected lots of information in great amounts of detail however it was Hans' father who collected mean that it could be unreliable and not ...
Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses
Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses. Nursing Management Psychology Healthcare +85. 4.8/5. User ID: 108253. Posted on 12 Juli 2022 by harriz 481. Total orders: 9156. Order now Login.
Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses
Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses - 2646 . Customer Reviews. User ID: 108253. Rebecca Geach #15 in Global Rating ... Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses, Top Masters Creative Essay Examples, Case Study Of Amway Company Pdf, What Schools Require Essay Propmts, Good Start Sentences Essay, Best Blog Post Editing For ...
Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses
Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses. Nursing Management Business and Economics Communications and Media +96. 100% Success rate. Rebecca Geach. #15 in Global Rating. 964. Customer Reviews.
Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses
Apart from that, we can give you 4 significant reasons to be a part of our customer base: Only professional 'my essay writer', who are highly qualified and a master in their academic field, will write for you. Quality control is rigorously maintained by us and is thoroughly aligned with the given question brief and instructions.
Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses
Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses - 1800 . Finished Papers. 599 Orders prepared. Sophia Melo Gomes ... Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses, Agile Coach Cover Letter Example, How To List Computer Skills On A Resume Sample, Money Worksheets For 7th Grade, Racism In The Heart Of Darkness Essay, Reapply Cover Letter ...
Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses
Max Price. Any. Little Albert Case Study Strengths And Weaknesses, Urban Sociology Essay Examples Apa Format, Handwriting For Dysgraphia, Goals In Workplace Hospital Setting, Religion College Essays, Personal Statement Ghostwriters Sites Us, Athletic Director Cover Letter Example. ID 478096748. Finished paper. beneman. 4.8 stars - 1350 reviews.

The Little Albert Experiment

A Closer Look

A Wealth of Free Psychology!

Method and Design

Participants

Watson and Rayner (1920) Evaluation

Further Reading

The Little Albert Experiment

Who Was John B. Watson?

Who Was Little Albert?

What Happened to Little Albert?

The True Story of the Little Albert Experiment

Criticisms of the Little Albert Experiment

Other Controversial Studies in Psychology

The Robbers Cave Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Milgram Experiment

The Monster Study

How Do Psychologists Conduct Ethical Experiments?

Related posts:

About The Author

Psychology Resources

Psychology Tests

The Little Albert Experiment

What is classical conditioning?

What did Watson do to Little Albert?

What were the problems with this the way this study was done?

2 Responses to “The Little Albert Experiment”

Leave A Comment... Cancel reply

image/svg+xml

Micaela Bartunek

The Mechanics of Fear Conditioning

Fear Generalization

The Mystery of a Lifetime

IRBS & Ethics

Little Albert

Introduction

Watson and Rayner’s Little Albert Study

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Download citation

What Is Classical Conditioning Theory? 6 Real-Life Examples

This Article Contains:

Who was Ivan Pavlov?

Pavlov’s dog experiment

3 Stages of classical conditioning

First and second-order conditioning

Generalization and discrimination

Reinforcement

Early examples of classical conditioning research

3 Examples in the classroom

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Exercises (PDF)

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Tools Pack (PDF)

The difference between classical and operant conditioning

17 Top-Rated Positive Psychology Exercises for Practitioners

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Related articles

Hierarchy of Needs: A 2024 Take on Maslow’s Findings

Emotional Development in Childhood: 3 Theories Explained

Using Classical Conditioning for Treating Phobias & Disorders

Read other articles by their category

Case Study Research Method in Psychology

Famous Case Studies

Clinical Case Studies

Child Psychology Case Studies

Types of Case Studies

Where Do You Find Data for a Case Study?

1. Primary sources

2. Secondary sources

3. Archival records

4. Organizational records

How do I Write a Case Study in Psychology?

1. Introduction

2. Case Presentation