PGCC The Little Albert Experiment & Monster Study Discussion

Description Please provide an aside or constructive feedback to the following two Topics. Do you agree with the analysis presented? Why? Do you have some additional thoughts on the topic? Share them. When providing your feedback present the logic behind it. Topic 1 The Little Albert Experiment John B Watson was an American psychologist and a professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins University. In the early 20th century John B. Watson studied behaviorism and conditioning. He became the creator of Behaviorism, or could be referred to as behavioral psychology which is defined as theory of learning which identifies that all behaviors are learned through interaction with the environment through a process called conditioning. Watson will be remembered for his intense research on the conditioning process especially in the Little Albert experiment. Watson conducted a study to show that humans could be classically conditioned for certain emotional responses. In this experiment, Watson and graduate student Rosalie Rayner demonstrated that a child could be conditioned to fear. Little Albert was nine months old when he was selected to be the participant for the study. During the study Little Albert was observed for his reaction when exposed different stimuli. When the experiment first began the infant did not show any sign of fear of white rats (conditioned stimulus). When the infant was eleven months old he was exposed to a white rat, and other similar animals with fur. Albert showed no signs of fear but reacted curious. Continuing with the study Watson exposed Albert to a loud sound of a hammer striking (unconditioned stimulus) on a steel bar, the infant cried. On multiple occasions Watson while making the loud noise of the hammer striking the steel bar he showed him the white rat. Over some time the child cried just in the presence of the rat being showed without the noise. When being exposed to other animals Little Albert responded with fear even when there wasn’t any noise. Ethical guidelines were implemented in psychology long after the Little Albert experiment was conducted. There were no code of ethics that had to be followed during the time that Watson and Rayner conducted the Little Albert experiment. If we were to judge the experiment with the ethical guidelines, there are several unethical violations that were used. The ethics code standards that I believe were violated within today’s standards are the following: avoiding harm, principle of informed consent, participant’s right to withdraw, and competency of the researcher. Psychologist must use practices and all possible measures to ensure that no harm be inflicted to participants during research. At no time can researchers engage or take part of activities that may result in the infliction of physical, or mental suffering to the participant intentionally. During the Little Albert experiment the infant was harmed when he was classically conditioned to fear white rats. Prior to the experiment the child did not have such fear. Such exposure could have resulted in Little Albert facing a lifetime of suffering. The Principle of informed consent specifies that researchers need to obtain consent from the participants of their study of research. If the individual is not able to give consent then the informed consent must be given from a authorized person on their behalf. In regards to the Little Albert experiment, his mother was not aware or was asked for consent to partake in the experiment. The other ethical issue in the Little Albert experiment was that participants should receive the most professional work from competent researchers. The researchers must maintain and practice based on their knowledge, skill, and expertise. Researchers may not violate or go outside of their scope of skill or training. There were a numerous of other methods that were used by Watson and Rayner that in today’s standards would be considered unprofessional. The experiment was also not conducted in a controlled environment, and also there was only one participant in the entire study. According to today’s ethics codes of research in psychology the Institutional Review Board (IRB) would not approve the Little Albert experiment. In the 1920’s, there were no guidance or ethic regulations in place for researchers to follow when using humans for research. The purpose of IRB review is to assure, both in advance and by periodic review, that appropriate steps are taken to protect the rights and welfare of humans participating as subjects in the research (Commissioner). The IRB reviews and monitors research to ensure that researchers are in compliance of the ethical guidelines and standards. References American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.html Commissioner, O. of the. (n.d.). IRB-faqs. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved October 31, 2021, from https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/institutional-review-boards-frequently-asked-questions. Mcleod, S. (1970, January 1). Psychology research ethics. Psychology Research Ethics | Simply Psychology. Retrieved October 31, 2021, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/Ethics.html. Topic 2 Monster Study In 1939, 22 orphans from the Iowa Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home were used in a speech study. The study was overseen by Wendell Johnson wo was a University of Iowa specialist in speech. A graduate student by the name of Mary Tudor Jacobs was the lead on the study. The group of children were split into two. Over a six month period one half of the students were given positive feedback about their speech and the other group was challenged, yelled at, and aggressively demeaned for their speech. The study hypothesized that stuttering was caused by parents who would overcorrect and attack their children about their speech. The harassing behavior conducted against the orphans was to attempt to induce stuttering. If conducted today, this study would be viewed as widely inappropriate. “Many speech experts and therapists agree the experiment was highly unethical by today’s standards, but not necessarily by the standards of the day” (Reynolds 2003). The six months of research caused a lifetime of trauma and pain to the study’s recipients. The biggest heartbreak is that no one who was tormented began to stutter as a result of this process. All of this anguish and the hypothesis was incorrect causing damaging effects to children for the rest of their lives. In those times, research was conducted that would not be allowed today, at the very least, some knowledge that has shaped today’s world was gained. Studies were conducted on individuals who were not deemed to be of the same status as the majority,“60 years ago, ethical rules did not exist, and experiments were done using minorities, disabled children or prisoners” (Reynolds 2003). A study about why a child develops a stutter does not seem to have a remote level of importance to impede such harm. I think it was allowed to happen in the time that it did because it was normal business for people of greater influence, to decide who they thought were “human” enough to be respected. This would not be able to be approved by an IRB today for the matter of basic human rights amongst an array of other reasons. In my opinion, this was a selfish study put on by Johnson who had personal experience. “Johnson, who grew up a stutterer himself, was one of the nation’s foremost experts in speech disorders when the field was in its infancy” (Reynolds 2003). It appears that he wanted to assess some blame to his own parents but in turned ruined the lives of some parentless children. General principle A was violated because there was clearly harm that came to these children as they became adults. Some reported developing self-esteem issues, some became sheltered into their homes with little interaction, and some developed other disorders because if it. “Nothing in the study indicated any of the subjects became stutterers. But researchers concluded that those in the negative therapy group showed a loss of self-esteem and other detrimental effects seen in adult stutterers” (Reynolds 2003). General principle B was violated because neither the test subjects nor the orphanage were told what the study was. They did not seek cooperation and build trust. Instead, they manipulated a group of underrepresented children. Some of the surviving test subjects decided to sue the University of Iowa. “The Iowa lawsuit accuses researchers and the university of hiding their findings, lying about the experiment to the orphanage and doing nothing to reverse the damage” (Reynolds 2003). General principles C, D, and E were all also violated. The aforementioned conducted cruelties establish how the researchers did not show any integrity because they lied to an orphanage and children and used them in a damaging way. It shows that there was no fairness or justice that would benefit the orphanage or children for this study. The study would have been different if these were children who had a stuttering issue and they were evaluated and asked questions about their upbringings. Instead, these were children who the researches attempted to inflict a problem on. It also shows that there was absolutely no respect for the rights and dignity of the children. No person, adult or child, should be treated this way. The fact that these children were orphans only intensifies the issue. The researches knew that there was no direct person, such as a parent, overseeing the wellbeing of these children. They used that knowledge to abuse and disrespect these children. This was truly a monster study. Reference: American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017). http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.html Reynolds, G. (2003, March 16). The stuttering doctor’s” monster study. New York Times Magazine. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/magazine/the-stuttering-doctor-s-monster-study.html?pagewanted=all