What ethical concern arises from Watson and Rayner's experiment?

What ethical concern arises from Watson and Rayner's experiment?

• A. It lacked positive reinforcement
• B. It may have psychologically harmed Albert
• C. It did not use scientific methods
• D. It used too many stimuli

Answer: (B)

The ethical concern surrounding Watson and Rayner's experiment primarily relates to the potential psychological harm inflicted on Little Albert, the child who was the subject of the study. The experiment was designed to condition a fear response in Albert by pairing a white rat with loud, frightening sounds. While this demonstrated principles of classical conditioning, it raised significant ethical questions about the well-being and welfare of a vulnerable participant - a child. The lack of informed consent, the absence of a debriefing, and the emotional distress caused to Albert are pivotal aspects of this ethical dilemma. Little Albert was never desensitized to the fears instilled during the experiment, and the long-term psychological impact on him is a critical concern. Ethically, researchers now prioritize the protection and welfare of participants, especially minors, which was not adequately observed in this case. The other options highlight less relevant issues. While positive reinforcement isn't necessarily a focus of the experiment, it does not specifically address ethical concerns. The assertion that it did not use scientific methods overlooks the research's methodological framework, which was structured around behavioral conditioning. Lastly, the suggestion that it used too many stimuli doesn't hone in on the core ethical considerations which fundamentally center on the impact on the subject's mental health, making psychological harm

The ethical concern surrounding Watson and Rayner's experiment primarily relates to the potential psychological harm inflicted on Little Albert, the child who was the subject of the study. The experiment was designed to condition a fear response in Albert by pairing a white rat with loud, frightening sounds. While this demonstrated principles of classical conditioning, it raised significant ethical questions about the well-being and welfare of a vulnerable participant - a child.

The lack of informed consent, the absence of a debriefing, and the emotional distress caused to Albert are pivotal aspects of this ethical dilemma. Little Albert was never desensitized to the fears instilled during the experiment, and the long-term psychological impact on him is a critical concern. Ethically, researchers now prioritize the protection and welfare of participants, especially minors, which was not adequately observed in this case.

The other options highlight less relevant issues. While positive reinforcement isn't necessarily a focus of the experiment, it does not specifically address ethical concerns. The assertion that it did not use scientific methods overlooks the research's methodological framework, which was structured around behavioral conditioning. Lastly, the suggestion that it used too many stimuli doesn't hone in on the core ethical considerations which fundamentally center on the impact on the subject's mental health, making psychological harm