John Watson and Rosalie Rayner conducted the Little Albert Experiment at Johns Hopkins University in 1920, and the study raised notable ethical issues. The primary reason for the critical issue is that the 9-month-old infant Albert B. was treated immorally when he underwent classical conditioning with a white rat. Striking a steel bar and producing a loud noise with the help of a hammer to induce fear in the child is a blatant disregard for moral principles. The principles of the APA Code of Conduct are to ensure the well-being of the participants. If an innocent child is subjected to irritating stimuli without permission or considered long-term repercussions, such experimentation violates this concept. In addition, the experiment did not have informed consent from Albert’s parents, which means that the lack of informed consent is another ethical issue that should have been avoided during the clinical trial.
Analyzing and Interpreting Ethical Issues
To adhere to the ethical guidelines in the APA Code of Conduct, several changes would be needed in the Albert Experiment (Van der Steen, 2011). First, the parents should have consented to Albert’s participation in the experiment after being informed that the study did not cause any harm to him or at least permanent adverse effects. Secondly, the other ways of non-threat-based aversive methodologies were left unexplored, whereby less-distressing stimuli would have been ideal (Polyxeni Georgiadou, 2018). Although ethical review of the experiment and debriefing after the experiment are hallmarks of ethical research, these elements were missing and potentially adversely impacted the research subjects. If the study had directly tackled these challenges, it would likely have been more ethical.
Additionally, the Little Albert Experiment did not consider the participant’s long-term well-being. Priority was supposed to be continuous assessment of Albert’s psychological health not only during the experiment but especially after it. Establishing individuals or groups hailing the signs of distress that should pull the child out of the study is essential in ensuring such research is ethical (Bokhari & Bartunek, 2015). By introducing these supplementary defences, moral support would have lent solidity to the study, thus making a more rigorous and accountable approach to participant protection.
Evaluating the Study’s Benefits and Harms
However, evaluation of the pros and cons of the Little Albert Experiment reveals that the possible damage inflicted on the child is far too much more than any plausible benefits. Although the study was intended to disclose classical conditioning, the amount of severe emotional discontent ’ experienced by’ Albert seems to raise the historiography of a moral justification of the study. The long-term psychological consequence on Albert, who has a generalized phobia of animals and fuzzy things, is indisputable harm (Digdon, 2017). This cannot be done in this instance because the damage caused to the participant due to the research is not justifiable by the minute scientific facts they provided through the study.
In addition, the ethical issues are not confined to the short-term distress endured during the experiments. The psychological state of little Albert was not safe, and the effects became permanent, which were not appropriately intervened. There was no comprehensive follow-up in evaluating the continuum of mental health effects that Albert may have endured, which left an ethical void of not acknowledging and teaching a way to mitigate possible harm. The lack of substantive post-experimental support and the insignificant scientific benefits that the experiment yielded only demonstrate that the cost of harm far outweighed any damage done (Cherry, 2022). The validity of the ethics for the Little Albert Experiment is further debilitated by the failure to address efforts to mitigate the enduring harm inflicted upon the participant.
Conclusion
The Little Albert Experiment is one of the most conspicuous cases of unethical research standards. The inadequacy of informed consent, the use of highly distressing stimuli, poor post-experimental debriefing, and the absence of correct ethical control demonstrate the drawbacks of this study. For ethical research studies, the researchers must make people benefit or do the right thing in their research, get their consent, and minimize the damage or harm they cause the participants. The Little Albert Experiment teaches caution, reminding of the ethical aspects of research in which the standards of how much weight to give to the dignity and rights of participants are discussed. Ethical experimentation requires a balance of scientific inquiry and the human subject in the sense that the aims of scientific investigation and the sanctity of humans should be considered. Still, the Little Albert Experiment needs to achieve these standards.
References
Digdon, N. (2017). The Little Albert controversy: Intuition, confirmation bias, and logic. History of Psychology, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000055
Van der Steen, J. (2011). Baby Albert Experiments. In YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMnhyGozLyE
Bokhari, S., & Bartunek, M. (2015, December 16). Ethical History: A Contemporary Examination of the Little Albert Experiment. Grey Matters. https://greymattersjournal.org/ethical-history-a-contemporary-examination-of-the-little-albert-experiment/
Cherry, K. (2022, December 2). The Little Albert Experiment. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/the-little-albert-experiment-2794994
Polyxeni Georgiadou. (2018). Little Albert. Springer EBooks, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1046-1
write