The Theory Of Classical Conditioning

In the following essay I will be looking into the study conducted by Watson and Rayner (1920) on a small child known as ‘Little Albert’. The experiment was an adaptation of earlier studies on classical conditioning of stimulus response, one most common by Ivan Pavlov, depicting the conditioning of stimulus response in dogs. Watson and Rayner aimed to teach Albert to become fearful of a placid white rat, via the use of stimulus associations, testing Pavlov’s earlier theory of classical conditioning.

Classical Conditioning. Due to Pavlov’s success, Watson was inclined to do his own experimentation. His most famous, yet controversial, being on “Little Albert.” “Albert” was a child conditioned by Watson to be afraid of rats. Essentially, Watson would create a loud, banging noise. This would eventually lead to the fear of not just rats, but all fuzzy animals (John Watson - Little Albert, 2008).

Our understanding of classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and observational learning has allowed us to unlock many of the answers we sought to learn about human behavior. Classical conditioning is a technique of behavioral training, coined by Ivan Pavlov, which basically states that an organism learns through establishing associations between different events and stimuli. This helps us understand human behavior in an assortment of ways. It makes it clear that almost everything we do is based on patterns of stimulus and response. For example, if you were bitten aggressively by a dog as a child, you may be still scared of dogs today. That is because the dog caused you pain, which in turn caused you have anxiety towards dogs.

|the fence as Sinbad walked by. The next day, when | | | |trembling |

Classical conditioning is a type of associative learning which occurs when two stimuli are paired together repetitively and therefore become associated with each other eventually producing the same response. Classical conditioning was developed from the findings of Ivan Pavlov to account for associations between neutral stimuli and reflexive behavior such as salivation. Pavlov (1927) accidently discovered that dogs began to salivate before they had tasted their food. To support his theory, he carried out experiments using dogs which involved measuring the amount of saliva they produced. In his experiments, food started off as an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) which produced salivation, an unconditioned response (UCR). They are both unconditioned as they occur naturally without being learned. The dogs were presented with a bell (NS), this provided no salivation. The bell and food were presented together and after many trails an

Little Albert an 11 month old boy was chosen as the participant. Watson identified that a white rat did not provoke any fear response in Albert, so it was a neutral stimulus. Little Albert was then exposed to the white rat, but every time he reached out to touch it Watson would make a loud noise. Albert would get frightened and start to cry. After repeating this several times, Albert started getting frightened just by seeing the rat. Just like the bell in Pavlov's experiment, the white rat had become a conditioned stimulus to Albert. Watson therefore concluded that even complex behaviour such as fear was a learned response.

Classical conditioning is a form of learning that is taught to us through experiences we encounter in our lives. It involves outside stimuli to trigger the condition we have learned to expect. For example, the sound of a lunch bell would trigger our stomach to start growling soon after hearing the bell ring. The expectation of food to come soon after hearing the bell and satisfy our hunger is what makes our stomach growl. This is something learned over time. Expectations can be both good and bad. Sometimes these negative experiences cause us to have certain behaviors when we are reminded of such an event.

In an experiment called "Little Albert" by psychologist John B. Watson, an infant named Albert was conditioned to fear white rats. He was repeatedly exposed to white rats and was taught fear response to these furry animals which wouldn’t otherwise occur naturally. Although this wouldn’t have been what Albert wanted to perceive as part of his reality, he became extremely distressed whenever he saw a white rat and it was out of his control to

Dog: Once the test began with the dog approaching the child he did not react violently as he did with the rabbit. He did not start crying until the dog walked away. When the dog approached the child the second time he leaned to one side and started crying (Watson J. B., & Rayner, R.,

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.

Watson’s most infamous work was the Little Albert study he conducted with Rosalie Rayner. The study illustrated that humans can be taught to fear objects through classical conditioning, ultimately providing a foundation for phobias. Watson and Rayner were looking to answer several questions: (1) Is it possible to teach an infant to pair a sound made by striking a steel bar with an animal, and if so will the sight of the animal then make the infant fret? (2) Can the feared response transfer to other animals or objects? (3) After some time, will the infant stop associating the noise with the animal? (4) What can be done to extinguish the fear, given that it doesn’t disappear on its own (Watson & Rayner, 1920)?

Arguably, an organism is better described as an information seeker, forming relations amongst events from information provided by a stimulus. For example, Rescorla suggests that contiguity is an insufficient example of Pavlovian Conditioning. As shown in simple CS/US parings, learning was determined by how the two stimuli differ, not in what they share, showing that contiguity is not a necessity, (Rescorla, 1988). Furthermore, systematic fear conditioning scenarios imply the base rate of US occurrence against a CS/US contiguity is also sensitive to conditioning. Evidence for this can be found in previous work that validates the current conclusion. Rescorla (1968, p. 1), argues that contingency over contiguity is an important determinant of fear conditioning, and refers to contingency as the “relative probability of occurrence of US in the presence of a CS as contrasted with its probability in the absence of CS.” Rescorla’s (1988) adaptation of these results measures asymptotic fear levels, (where each curve shows conditioning as an increasing function of the likelihood of receiving a shock during the tone), supporting the continued importance of perceived fear in associations. Furthermore, results from studies on Blocking, Conditioned Inhibition and Auto-shaping in pigeons suggest that the simplistic notion of previous theory

The Little Albert experiment has become a famous case study that has been discussed by a plethora of professionals in the psychology industry. In 1920, behaviorist John Watson and his assistant Rosalie Rayner began to conduct the first experiment that had been done with a child. Watson and Rayner chose Albert because they thought he was stable; he was accustomed to a hospital environment due to his mother’s career as a wet nurse, he was healthy and showed little emotion. Stability played a major factor in choosing Albert for this case study because Watson wanted to ensure that they would do as little harm as possible with the experiment. The conditioning of Albert began with a series of emotional tests that became part of a routine in which Watson and Rayner were “determining whether fear reactions could be called out by other stimuli than sharp noises and the sudden removal of support” (-----). Watson’s method of choice for this experiment was using principles of classic conditioning to create a stimulus in children that would result in fear. Since Watson wanted to condition Albert, he used a variety of objects that would otherwise not scare him. These objects included white rat, dog, blocks, rabbit, fur coat, wool and a Santa Claus mask.

For the second stage, a white rat was used as Watson’s CS, the CS must be a neutral stimulus that initially has no effect on the UR. Little Albert showed no phobia towards the rat before conditioning occurred. By pairing the US with the CS, the infant learned to associate the loud noise of the hammer and metal bar with the white rat. After strengthening the association between the US and the CS by repetition, Little Albert eventually became fearful and upset when only presented with the once neutral stimulus, the white rat. This response was the CR which marked the completion of step three. Little Albert was now afraid of the white rat because it triggered his fear of the loud noise. Classical conditioning can be used to prove many forms of behavior between subjects when looking at the the right unconditioned/ conditioned stimuli and unconditioned/ conditioned responses. The theory of classical conditioning can be used to explain the development of distrust and trust issues in the relationships between people.

These stimuli included a monkey, dog, rabbit, various masks, fire, and a white rat. However, Watson and Rayner took special notice to Alberts interaction with the white rat. Out of all the animals presented Albert seemed to actively reach and pet the white rat. Therefore, in order to test their hypothesis on conditioning, Watson and Rayner paired each interaction with a loud noised produced from a hammer hitting a metal bar. Thus, each time Albert attempted to reach and touch the rat, the hammer would strike on the bar. When the loud noise was produced, Albert would jump violently and fall forward or whimper. (Goodwin, p.292) Eventually a fear response was conditioned in Albert after a few trials. Fortunately, in order to not traumatize Albert Watson and Rayner stopped the trails and continued a week