Notes about enlightenment period of Psychology History
Writing Assignment Week 1
1. The Little Albert Study
A. Presentist – The study of Little Albert had huge potential to teach us see all something about conditioning and fears. However, we now know that children do learn from their environment. The fact that the baby was not afraid of any of the subjects until the loud noise was added does not mean the child feared the object so much as the noise itself. Furthermore, to truly see if the fear was real, a study of the child in his natural setting (i.e. his home) should have been done. Someone may fear a situation or location rather than the objects in it. Once the initial scare was made, the baby became nervous of his environment or the in lab in this case. I would be interested to know if the child was scared of those objects when presented with them in a different manner in his own home.
B. Historicist – With the great Pavlov study on conditioning of dogs, it would seem only natural to make the leap to human conditioning. The problem is adult humans would be hard studies as their actions might be influenced by common sense so one must assume a baby would be the human equivalent of Pavlov’s dogs. The study seems solid. If the child had no fear of the objects beforehand but develops a fear when given a reason to fear it, then it is assumed, the child was “conditioned” or made to do so. It could lead to development of a means of eliminating fears and phobias in humans for the future.
Stanford Prison Study
A. Presentist – This study, while having good intentions, could have, and likely did, result in damage to the participants lifelong psyche. It crosses many ethical lines. Though the participants were volunteers, our laws now say participants must be informed of actions that will be taken before participating. The fact that the roles were a surprise tells me that this law was not implemented. It is true that these participants were conditioned due to the roles given to them, but the way it was
1. The Little Albert Study
A. Presentist – The study of Little Albert had huge potential to teach us see all something about conditioning and fears. However, we now know that children do learn from their environment. The fact that the baby was not afraid of any of the subjects until the loud noise was added does not mean the child feared the object so much as the noise itself. Furthermore, to truly see if the fear was real, a study of the child in his natural setting (i.e. his home) should have been done. Someone may fear a situation or location rather than the objects in it. Once the initial scare was made, the baby became nervous of his environment or the in lab in this case. I would be interested to know if the child was scared of those objects when presented with them in a different manner in his own home.
B. Historicist – With the great Pavlov study on conditioning of dogs, it would seem only natural to make the leap to human conditioning. The problem is adult humans would be hard studies as their actions might be influenced by common sense so one must assume a baby would be the human equivalent of Pavlov’s dogs. The study seems solid. If the child had no fear of the objects beforehand but develops a fear when given a reason to fear it, then it is assumed, the child was “conditioned” or made to do so. It could lead to development of a means of eliminating fears and phobias in humans for the future.
Stanford Prison Study
A. Presentist – This study, while having good intentions, could have, and likely did, result in damage to the participants lifelong psyche. It crosses many ethical lines. Though the participants were volunteers, our laws now say participants must be informed of actions that will be taken before participating. The fact that the roles were a surprise tells me that this law was not implemented. It is true that these participants were conditioned due to the roles given to them, but the way it was