Introductory Psychology: Social, Clinical, Cultural, and Developmental Bases of Psychology

PSY 121
Fall Semester, 2023
Critical Thinking Assignment
Acacia Hartnett-Passley
Question #2
It has been more than 100 years since the famously known study of “Little Albert” was
conducted. John B. Watson was known for establishing the behavior school of psychology and
carried out one of the most influential psychology studies in the 1920s that would later be
something that would never be forgotten. Classical conditioning first experimented by Ivan
Pavlov was used on a dog when an unconditional stimulus was used to produce an unconditional
response and a conditioned stimulus was used to produce a conditioned response. This was later
extended by Watson in his demonstration of the “Little Albert” experiment. This experiment was
beyond unethical, the study is often used as an example of the need for strong ethical guidelines
in psychological research and experiments. It represents the requirements that are put in place to
protect the research subject’s welfare.
The subject “Little Albert” was a 9-month-old boy, this study focused on his interaction
with different animals being placed in front of him, such as white rabbits and mice. Initially,
Albert displayed a sense of curiosity with the animals. To instill a fear response in the child,
Watson exposed Albert to each animal while simultaneously creating a startling and loud noise
by striking a hammer against a metal pipe. In the beginning, Albert's reaction involved moving
away from the animals. In the original study records of John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner
(1920) state:
One of the two experimenters caused the child to turn its head and fixate her moving hand; the
other stationed back of the child, struck the steel bar a sharp blow. The child started violently, his
breathing was checked, and the arms were raised in a characteristic manner. On the second
stimulation the same thing occurred, and in addition the lips began to pucker and tremble. On the
third stimulation the child broke into a sudden crying fit. This is the first time an emotional
situation in the laboratory has produced any fear or even crying in Albert.
Any experiment in which the participant can’t give consent and are being physically or
mentally effected is unethical in my opinion. John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner (1920) claim
“Albert's life was normal: he was healthy from birth and one of the best developed youngsters
ever brought to the hospital, weighing twenty-one pounds at nine months of age. He was on the
whole stolid and unemotional. His stability was one of the principal reasons for using him as a
subject in this test. We [p.2] felt that we could do him relatively little harm by carrying out such
experiments.” A baby having a normal life or not should not matter when this experiment was
done, being a child, we are in one of our most developmental phases and learning about the
world around us; Albert feared things “he initially loved, through interaction and classical
conditioning” (Sehar Bokhari, Micaela Bartunek 2015). Its challenging to accept that John B.
Watson and Rosalie Rayner could believe this would do him little harm, being so young his brain
could associate almost anything that resembles animals or masks from the experiment with fear
leading albert to live a difficult life.
Preforming an experiment like this today would look entirely different, initially I believe
psychological research preformed on children should only be done if they are able to understand
and consent along with their guardian. Researchers must work hard to prevent all risks involved.
Fear conditioning is harming and is unethical in the cases of children. Sehar Bokhari and Micaela
Bartunek (2015) claim that Many suggest that experimenters should find a strict balance between
the importance of protecting those who participate in experiments, especially infants, and
scientific advancement.
In a world of constant change scientific advancement will be forever important to evolve
our understanding of the world around us, but protecting what we research is just as important. If
I were to perform this study, I would use a different type of emotion conditioning such as
positive conditioning; Positive conditioning involves pairing a neutral stimulus with a pleasant or
rewarding experience to create a positive association. So rather than scaring Albert they could
have shown him positive actions reward positively back. Something along the lines of positive
reinforcement or just less scary for Albert overall.
This study will remain a bookmark intime showing how one should not preform
psychological experiments, and the importance of weighing the risks and benefits before any
experiment.
References:
1. John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner (1920) http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm
2. Sehar Bokhari, Micaela Bartunek (2015)- https://greymattersjournal.org/ethical-history-a-
contemporary-examination-of-the-little-albert-experiment/
Introductory Psychology: Social, Clinical, Cultural, and Developmental Bases of Psychology
PSY 121
Fall Semester, 2023
Critical Thinking Assignment
Acacia Hartnett-Passley
Question #3
The question of whether witnessing aggressive behavior in media like video games,
movies, or tv is a complex one that is an ongoing debate. While some are able to show a
connection between violent behavior and media exposer it’s important to note that establishing a
connection between the two is difficult. There are many factors that could result in a person
behaving violently, such as family dynamics, peer interactions, personal disposition, and the
surrounding social environment, can all exert an influence on an individual's behavior. It’s also
important to note that the impact of media violence differs person to person, some may be more
vulnerable to the influence of violence while it won’t affect others at all. It would be misleading
to say that aggressive behaviors in media inevitably leads to aggressive behavior in every
individual. This assessment will aim to decipher whether there is a true connection between
aggressive behavior and violent media consumption.
Jonathan L. Freedman (2002, p.4) suggests that:
Another reason some people worry about the effects of media violence is that television
became available in the United States and Canada in the 1950s and violent crime increased
dramatically in both countries between 1960 and 1990. Many people see a connection. They
think that watching violence on television makes children more aggressive and causes them to
grow into adults who are more likely to commit violent crimes.
There were many other things going on between 1960 and 1990 that could have led to
violent behavior and increased crime such as the civil rights movements in both Canada and
America, in which violent acts were committed in an effort to discriminate against marginalized
communities; yet I’d imagine most of these cases went unreported but it’s something that could
explain the spike in violence. Things like the Cuban missile crisis or the cold war could explain
violent behavior, the world overall was a shaky place where violence and crime wasn’t as
regulated and moderated as it is today. Children had the opportunities to witness terrible things
not just on tv but in the real world as well, so it’s difficult and misleading to claim that media is a
main causation of violent behavior.
This is not to say that watching violent media isn’t a causation of violent behavior, it’s
just not the main and only one. We watch movies with super hero’s and want to be just like them,
a child will see a dog on tv and start to act like a dog. I believe that if the intake of violent media
results in someone acting out a violent crime it means something else was initially going on and
watching this media furthered the aggressive behaviors. From someone I know that does display
aggressive behavior and mood swings, this stands true; he plays a lot of violent games, but he
also had a difficult childhood. So, what is the true causation of his aggressive behavior? I can
confidently say he didn’t display these behaviors before getting access to violent video games,
but at the time he gained access he also moved to a different school environment and made
friends that were interested in more violent gameplay. And along with this, children now have
the ability to speak to people they play with from all over the world, and many are able to use a
lot more aggressive language when they are not face to face with the people they are being rude
towards. N. L. Carnagey and C. A. Anderson (2004, p.4) claim:
Another media violence effect besides increasing aggressive behavior is desensitization
to violence. There is an empirical basis as well as a theoretical basis for the desensitizing effect
of violent media. Research has shown that participants exposed violent media (slasher films,
police television programs, violent boxing matches) are less physiologically aroused by real
world violence than are those exposed to nonviolent media.
This proves that watching violent media leads to being desensitized to violence and
therefore could lead to violent behavior; I have no problem with this suggestion it just needs to
be stated that it’s not the only causation. Was the question of why do these children like to watch
these types of media asked? If a child had a violent childhood, they could be more inclined to
consume to the same type of media, it’s what is normal to them. To be able to find out if there is
a connection, closely monitored studies over a long period of time would provide us with the
best answer.
References:
1. Jonathan L. Freedman (2002) https://books.google.ca/books?
hl=en&lr=&id=nXG1AAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=Does+observing+aggressive+
behaviors+in+movies,+TV,+or+video+games+cause+a+person+to+behave+aggressively
%3F&ots=XhDfzsU2qr&sig=xTEGus9JsNUyN3RXXJSjkqIEBLo#v=onepage&q&f=fal
se
2. N. L. Carnagey and C. A. Anderson (2004) https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?
repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=8cecafee67f08dfa5bffbf2bd677c692a59710a1