In contrast to Freud\u2014who emphasized unconscious motives\u2014Watson believed that behavior could be understood entirely through stimulus\u2013response learning<\/b><\/span>.<\/p>\r\n Watson insisted that for psychology to become a rigorous science, it must rely on measurable events. Because thoughts and feelings cannot be directly observed, he believed they should not be the subject of scientific inquiry. Instead, he proposed that human behavior develops through conditioning<\/b><\/span>, just like animal behavior.<\/p>\r\n Watson famously (and dramatically) claimed that with enough control of a child\u2019s environment, he could train any infant to become anything\u2014from a doctor to a thief\u2014regardless of inborn traits. Although this quote is often repeated, his strict approach to childrearing has since been widely criticized and is not supported by modern developmental science.<\/p>\r\n Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select \u2013 doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years.<\/p>\r\n \u2014\u2009Behaviorism (2009) [1958], p. 82<\/p>\r\n<\/section>\r\n In 1920, Watson met a young hospital worker, Arvilla Merritte<\/span>, whose infant son Douglas (\u201cLittle Albert\u201d) became part of Watson\u2019s conditioning study (DeAngelis, 2010). Watson reportedly paid her one dollar for participation\u2014a reflection of the very different ethical standards of the era.<\/p>\r\n In 1920, Watson was the chair of the psychology department at Johns Hopkins University. Through his position at the university, he came to meet Little Albert\u2019s mother, Arvilla Merritte, who worked at a campus hospital (DeAngelis, 2010). Watson offered her a dollar to allow her son to be the subject of his experiments in classical conditioning. Through these experiments, Little Albert was exposed to and conditioned to fear certain things.<\/p>\r\n Initially, Albert was presented with various neutral stimuli, including a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, masks, cotton wool, and a white rat. He was not afraid of any of these things. Then Watson, with the help of Rayner, conditioned Little Albert to associate these stimuli with an emotion\u2014fear.<\/p>\r\n For example, Watson handed Little Albert the white rat, and Little Albert enjoyed playing with it. Then Watson made a loud sound, by striking a hammer against a metal bar hanging behind Little Albert\u2019s head, each time Little Albert touched the rat. Little Albert was frightened by the sound\u2014demonstrating a reflexive fear of sudden loud noises\u2014and began to cry. Watson repeatedly paired the loud sound with the white rat. Soon, Little Albert became frightened by the white rat alone.<\/p>\r\n Days later, Little Albert demonstrated stimulus generalization<\/strong>\u2014he became afraid of other furry things: a rabbit, a furry coat, and even a Santa Claus mask (Figure 3). W<\/p>\r\n atson had succeeded in conditioning a fear response in Little Albert, thus demonstrating that emotions could become conditioned responses. It had been Watson\u2019s intention to produce a phobia<\/strong>\u2014a persistent, excessive fear of a specific object or situation\u2014through conditioning alone, thus countering Freud\u2019s view that phobias are caused by deep, hidden conflicts in the mind. However, there is no evidence that Little Albert experienced phobias in later years, though no desensitization or follow-up care was ever provided.<\/p>\r\n Little Albert\u2019s mother moved away, ending the experiment, and \"Little Albert\" (whose real name was Douglas Merritte) died a few years later of unrelated causes. While Watson\u2019s research provided new insight into conditioning, it would be considered unethical by today\u2019s standards.<\/p>\r\n Although Watson\u2019s study was influential, it would be considered highly unethical<\/span> today. Modern research standards require:<\/p>\r\n <\/p>\r\n<\/section>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":" John B. Watson is considered the founder of behaviorism<\/b><\/span>, a school of thought that emerged in the early 20th century. Drawing heavily from Pavlov\u2019s work, Watson argued that psychology should focus on observable behavior<\/b><\/span>, not mental processes.<\/p>\n In contrast to Freud\u2014who emphasized unconscious motives\u2014Watson believed that behavior could be understood entirely through stimulus\u2013response learning<\/b><\/span>.<\/p>\n Watson insisted that for psychology to become a rigorous science, it must rely on measurable events. Because thoughts and feelings cannot be directly observed, he believed they should not be the subject of scientific inquiry. Instead, he proposed that human behavior develops through conditioning<\/b><\/span>, just like animal behavior.<\/p>\n Watson famously (and dramatically) claimed that with enough control of a child\u2019s environment, he could train any infant to become anything\u2014from a doctor to a thief\u2014regardless of inborn traits. Although this quote is often repeated, his strict approach to childrearing has since been widely criticized and is not supported by modern developmental science.<\/p>\n Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select \u2013 doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2009Behaviorism (2009) [1958], p. 82<\/p>\n<\/section>\n In 1920, Watson met a young hospital worker, Arvilla Merritte<\/span>, whose infant son Douglas (\u201cLittle Albert\u201d) became part of Watson\u2019s conditioning study (DeAngelis, 2010). Watson reportedly paid her one dollar for participation\u2014a reflection of the very different ethical standards of the era.<\/p>\n In 1920, Watson was the chair of the psychology department at Johns Hopkins University. Through his position at the university, he came to meet Little Albert\u2019s mother, Arvilla Merritte, who worked at a campus hospital (DeAngelis, 2010). Watson offered her a dollar to allow her son to be the subject of his experiments in classical conditioning. Through these experiments, Little Albert was exposed to and conditioned to fear certain things.<\/p>\n Initially, Albert was presented with various neutral stimuli, including a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, masks, cotton wool, and a white rat. He was not afraid of any of these things. Then Watson, with the help of Rayner, conditioned Little Albert to associate these stimuli with an emotion\u2014fear.<\/p>\n For example, Watson handed Little Albert the white rat, and Little Albert enjoyed playing with it. Then Watson made a loud sound, by striking a hammer against a metal bar hanging behind Little Albert\u2019s head, each time Little Albert touched the rat. Little Albert was frightened by the sound\u2014demonstrating a reflexive fear of sudden loud noises\u2014and began to cry. Watson repeatedly paired the loud sound with the white rat. Soon, Little Albert became frightened by the white rat alone.<\/p>\n UCS: <\/p>\nExtending Conditioning to Human Emotion: <\/b>The Little Albert Experiment<\/b><\/h2>\r\n
\r\n
\r\nUCS: [reveal-answer q=\"435562\"]Show Answer[\/reveal-answer]
\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"435562\"]The loud sound[\/hidden-answer]CS: [reveal-answer q=\"435563\"]Show Answer[\/reveal-answer]
\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"435563\"]The white rat or rabbit[\/hidden-answer]
\r\nUCR: [reveal-answer q=\"435564\"]Show Answer[\/reveal-answer]
\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"435564\"]Fear\/being startled by the loud sound[\/hidden-answer]CR: [reveal-answer q=\"435565\"]Show Answer[\/reveal-answer]
\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"435565\"]Fear\/being startled by the rat or rabbit[\/hidden-answer]<\/section>\r\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/902\/2015\/02\/23224803\/CNX_Psych_06_02_Santaclaus.jpg\")
Figure 3<\/strong>. Through stimulus generalization, Little Albert came to fear furry things, including Watson in a Santa Claus mask.[\/caption]\r\n<\/figure>\r\n
\r\n
\r\nAs you watch the video, look closely at Little Albert\u2019s reactions and the manner in which Watson and Rayner present the stimuli before and after conditioning. Based on what you see, would you come to the same conclusions as the researchers?<\/section>\r\n\r\n\t
![\"A](\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/902\/2015\/02\/23224801\/CNX_Psych_06_02_Watson.jpg\")
Classical Conditioning and Behaviorism<\/h2>\n
Extending Conditioning to Human Emotion: <\/b>The Little Albert Experiment<\/b><\/h2>\n