Was the little albert experiment ethical

Critical Thinking Activity

Critical Thinking Activity – Research Ethics

Your first and last names

Professor Theresa Wilson

Psychology 2314 – Lifespan Development

March 31, 2019

(or the date YOU turn yours in)

APA Ethical Guidelines
The first ½ to ¾ of a page will be your introduction, where you will tell what each of the five APA guidelines are (and each will need an in-text citation), Your in-text citations should look like (Ethical Principles, 2017), and this the ONLY SECTION where I should see these in-text citations, because you will NOT redefine them in your analyses sections. After each definition, tell me n your own words what you think each guideline means. Make sure you put the source citation on your reference list at the end.

Experiment #1 – The Little Albert Experiment (yours will be – The Milgram Experiment)
Based on the information presented in the Little Albert experiment video, it appears that all five APA ethical principles were violated (Johncheesy, 2010). This experiment broke the cardinal ethical rule for psychological research…. Principle A, which stipulates that psychologists should take care to do “no harm”. According to today’s ethical standards, the nature of the study itself would be considered unethical, since it did not protect Albert from psychological harm, because its purpose was to induce a state of fear (Alpin, 2018). Psychologists have to reduce or eliminate the potential that taking part in a study may cause harm to a participant during and afterwards. Little Albert was harmed during and would potentially have suffered life-long harm as a result.

Principle B contends that psychologists are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work. One may argue that Watson and Raynor’s research benefits society by providing the basis for educational campaigns to encourage parents and guardians to provide a calm and nurturing environment for developing children; however, it would be hard to argue that the benefit of this research to society outweighs any risks to the individual participant (Gossard, 2018).

Principle C states that psychologists have a serious obligation to correct any resulting mistrust or other harmful effects that arise from the use of their experimental techniques. Research indicates that Watson and Raynor made no attempt to desensitize the child or to eradicate his fears (Alpin, 2018). Albert was withdrawn from the hospital by his mother, which meant that there was no removal of negative effects caused by the study and Albert’s psychological wellbeing following this experience was never ascertained (Alpin, 2018).

Principle D contends that psychologists should take precautions to ensure that the boundaries of “their competence” and the limitations of their expertise do not lead to or condone unjust practices. The methods used in this study were not particularly good psychology. There was only one subject, the environment was not controlled, the animals changed, and several appeared themselves to be in distress (Burgemeester, n.d). As mentioned above, he could also have “cured” Albert of the phobia he had induced by using a process known as systematic desensitization”. The experiment also met with huge criticism simply because it only yielded Watson’s own interpretations of the experiment with no object means to evaluate the child’s reactions.

A couple of Principle E violations occurred. This principle says psychologists should be aware that special safeguards may be necessary to product persons or communities where vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. In conducting this experiment this would be difficult due to the inability of the infant to provided “informed consent” (Gossard, 2018). Given the emphasis on the importance of obtaining informed consent, the study would require informed consent from the subject’s guardian; many guardians would likely be unwilling to consent for their child to participate in this study. The participant’s right to make the decision to withdraw was also violated. Nowadays, if a person is involved as a participant in any psychological or medical study, he or she is given the right to withdraw at any stage during eh study without consequence (Burgemeester, n.d.). Albert and his mother were given no-such rights.

In my opinion, this unethically structured experiment could have had a deep impact on the functioning of the mind of Little Albert. Regardless of what people say about this experiment, the idea of carrying out mental conditioning to evoke a fear response in a 9-month old baby is something I would not support or give “informed consent” for. Conducting a similar experiment today would require careful attainment of guardian informed consent and likely also that the child be old enough to offer assent. A review of Watson’s experiments and its relevance today demonstrates the importance of psychological research involving children, as well as the ethical challenges of conducting research in children, especially those too young to offer assent (Gossard, 2018).

Experiment #2 –The Stanford Prison Experiment
References

Alpin, A. (2018). The “Little Albert experiment”, the most unethical experiment conducted in

psychological history. Troab. Retrieved from https://www.troab.com/little-albert-experiment/

Burgemeester, A. (n.d.). The Little Albert experiment. Psychologized. Retrieved

from https://www.psychologized.org/the-little-albert-experiment/

Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. (2017). America Psychological Association. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

Gossard, B. (2018). On the ethics of John Watson’s “Little Albert” experiments. Medium.

Retrieved from https://medium.com/@BlakeGossard/on-the-ethics-of-john-watsons-little-albert-experiments-e60f75dd4737

Johncheezy. (2010, Jun 1). The Little Albert Experiment (video file). Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hBfnXACsOI&t=6s