Language
Country/Area
No result found
The dark secret behind Little Albert's experiment: Why this psychology study is considered the most unethical of all.
In the history of psychology, some experiments are famous for their ethical controversy. The Little Albert experiment was one of them. The purpose of this experiment was to verify behaviorist beliefs, but the ethical issues it involved were disturbing. This case, in which an infant was used as an experimental subject and deliberately induced to have a fear response, has sparked many discussions about the ethics of psychological research.
Little Albert's experiment is a classic example of behaviorism, but it was conducted in an inhumane way that makes people question the limits of scientific inquiry.
Albert Jr. was the subject of research by John B. Watson, a psychology professor at Johns Hopkins University, and his assistant and later wife, Rosalie Alberta Reyer. In the 1920s, they conducted a famous experiment on Little Albert to prove that fear was conditioned rather than innate.
According to Watson, behavior is not innate but learned through stimuli and responses in the environment.
In the experiment, 9-month-old Albert initially had no fear of a white mouse. Watson and Reyer intentionally created fear by using loud metallic sounds to startle him, and repeatedly paired these sounds with white mice. As a result, little Albert developed a fear response to white mice and some other white furry objects (such as rabbits, fur coats, etc.).
This experiment demonstrates the relationship between stimulus and response emphasized by behaviorism, but under today's ethical standards, this experiment is undoubtedly extremely unethical. The lack of protection and subsequent psychological adjustment for little Albert shows how little attention the scientific community paid to human experimental subjects at the time.
Progress in psychology should not come at the expense of human dignity.
As time went on, the experiment faced increasing criticism. Many psychologists pointed out that little Albert's fear was not properly relieved, which not only posed a threat to the psychological health of an infant, but also questioned Watson and Reyer's understanding of human behavior.
In their research, Watson and Reyer went a step further and suggested that more forms of emotional expression could be taught if the relationship between stimulus and response could be clearly observed. This was undoubtedly a novel and radical insight in the context of their time, but it also exposed the blind spots of scientific exploration.
The son of a renowned psychologist says his father's behaviourist approach to parenting limited his and his brother's ability to deal with human emotions.
Rosalie Reye's personal life was equally eventful, and her career was intertwined with John Watson, which also attracted social attention. She was originally a psychology student, and later began a controversial relationship with Watson and eventually married him. The couple had two sons, but both later suffered from mental health issues and severe depression as adults.
In the history of scientific exploration, the story of Little Albert is both a mirror that reflects the ignorance and indifference of the early psychology community and a warning to modern scientific ethics. Today's psychological research emphasizes respect and protection for individuals, and has established stricter ethical standards to prevent similar incidents from happening again.
Such experiments make us reflect on whether scientific inquiry should be based on the suffering of others.
The impact of Little Albert's experiment continued to ferment, prompting later scholars to explore emotions, behaviors and the ethical issues behind them. Scientific progress is inevitable, but the dignity and rights of experimental subjects should be given top priority and become the fundamental principle for future research. Perhaps this is exactly what we should think about now: In the pursuit of knowledge, how do we balance the boundaries between scientific exploration and ethics?
