Watson and Rayner conducted what has been regarded an infamous experiment on classical conditioning
Watson and Rayner conducted what has been regarded an infamous experiment on classical conditioning, where a little boy called Albert was conditioned to fear a white rat. The researchers in their experiment documented success in their findings. However, the experiment has been at the center of criticism for the violation of ethics of research. In their study, the researchers ought to have done research on the type of research they were performing, seek consent from the parents of the kid and ensure they protected the kid during and after the experiment.
Experimental researches that involve minors must be researched extensively to determine its impacts. Such extensive research is critical in determining the ethics which govern them, in addition to ensuring all the aspects of such ethics are followed. Moreover, the American Psychological Association demands that such experiments must be subject of the consent of the parents of the minors (American Psychological Association, 2018). The “Little Albert” failed in this respect as it involved a minor. The researchers should have sought for the consent from Albert’s parents.
Moreover, experiments that involve minors can have negative impacts on the young kid. Researchers who conduct experiments involving minors must endeavor to protect the kid during and after the experiment. Pierce ; Cheney (2017) in their book concede that Albert was not protected from harm during the experiment. This is against section 3 outlined by American Psychological Association that governs the code of conduct of psychologists. In order to improve such an experiment, Watson and Rayner should have protected the little Albert by informing him that the experiment was not harmful and then de-conditioning him after the conclusion of the experiment.
