All of the fears which were "unconditioned" were transferred fears, and it has not yet been learned whether or not the primary fear can be eliminated by training the transfers.
This is an interesting point, would unconditioned fears affect the original fears? Addressing the fear with the rabbit had affects on other fears, but whether or not the rabbit transferred to the original fear of the rat. Do conditioned behaviors transfer to other similar fears? Do they affect the source issue?
He showed in the last interview, as on the later portions of the chart, a genuine fondness for the rabbit.
Peter is cured. The fact that he is able to show no fear of the rabbit, fur, feathers, etc. demonstrates what Watson believed, the fear can be conditioned and behavior can be reconditioned to remove the fear. The question now answered here is whether Peter ever experienced a relapse when approached by a different animal and in a different environment. Did the learned fear really get conditioned out, or is it still there? Even though this study was longer than the Albert study that Watson did, it does not follow up on Peters mental health after all of the conditioning that happened.
The decided drop at (g) was caused by a slight scratch when Peter was helping to carry the rabbit to his cage. The rapid ascent following shows how quickly he regained lost ground.
Peters up and downs are nicely documented which is inline with Watson's belief that behaviorism is an experimental approach to psychology. The fact that Peter had set backs based on observable stimulus and then returned to the previous or grater level of comfort with the rabbit confirmed that behaviors can be modified.
Lawrence and Peter sitting near together in their high chairs eating candy. Rabbit in cage put down 12 feet away. Peter began to cry. Lawrence said, "Oh, rabbit." Clambered down, ran over and looked in the cage at him. Peter followed close and watched.
Using a positive reinforcement that Peter enjoyed, the food, plus having a social associate who is not afraid of the rabbit helped Peter get over his returned fear of the rabbit. The use of positive and social reinforcement helped reestablish the fact that the rabbit was not terrifying. Positive reinforcements are still used in conjunction with social reinforcements to modify behaviors.
These "degrees of toleration" merely represented the stages in which improvement occurred.
This sounds like they were modifying Peters behavior/fear by desensitizing him by slowing introducing/reintroducing the same stimuli slowly and consistently. This approach in facing a fear is used today, small introductory steps lead to larger steps to work through the fear.
By referring to the chart at (b), it will be noted that the line shows a decided drop to the early level of fear reaction when he returned.
I find this interesting that Peter had a reversal in his behavioral modification after being away from the nurses and the positive reinforcement of the laboratory. The fear came back completely and took much longer to get back to the comfort level experienced when at position a. The nurses reaction confirmed Peters fear of the dog, so again the social connection to the behavior had a deeper impact to Peters level of fear and length of time to return to being comfortable with the rabbit.
From the test situations which were used to reveal fears, it was found that Peter showed even more marked fear responses to the rabbit than to the rat. It was decided to use the rabbit for unconditioning and to proceed as follows: Each day Peter and three other children were brought to the laboratory for a play period. The other children were selected carefully because of their entirely fearless attitude toward the rabbit and because of their satisfactory adjustments in general. The rabbit was always present during a part of the play period. From to time Peter was brought in alone so that his reactions could be observed and progress noted.
I find several things interesting about this approach. First that they used children of the same age that had no fear of the rabbit showed Peter that socially it was acceptable by others and that perhaps his fear was the outside opinion. Second, the fact that they changed up the rat for the rabbit did not fully address the original fear but rather a generalized fear for fuzzy things. There are not a lot of details on Peters original reaction to the group playing with the rabbit. How long did it take for Peter to get comfortable? Did he ever interact with the rabbit, or just watch?
Barbara was brought to the crib and the white rat introduced as before. She exhibited no fear but picked the rat up in her hand. Peter sat quietly watching Barbara and the rat. A string of beads belonging to Peter had been left in the crib. Whenever the rat touched a part of the string he would say "my beads" in a complaining voice, although he made no objections when Barbara touched them. Invited to get down from the chair, he shook his head, fear not yet subsided. Twenty-five minutes elapsed before he was ready to play about freely.
Barbara adds a new element to the conditioning. It shows Peter that others do not find the fuzzy creature scary, which starts the process of reversing the fear. Social conditioning and learning is a powerful component and shows Peter that perhaps his response is not "normal" and that others do not find the rat as a problem. It is also interesting that he is possessive of the beads and does not want them violated by the scary creature. The fear is eventually forgotten with time and Peter is free to move about as normal as the conditioning wears off.
He was afraid of a white rat, and this fear extended to a rabbit, a fur coat, a feather, cotton wool, etc., but not to wooden bloc
Peter has been conditioned to have the same fears as Albert from Watson's famous experiment. The approach of conditioning is slightly more ethical than preying on an existing fear of loud noises.
In referring to this case, Dr. Watson says, "We have shown experimentally that when you condition a child to show fear of an animal, this fear transfers or spreads in such a way that without separate conditioning he becomes afraid of many animals. If you take any one of these objects producing fear and uncondition, will fear of the other objects in the series disappear at the same time? That is, will the unconditioning spread without further training
Alberts fear of all things fuzzy, rabbits, hair, fur, rats, etc. was of particular interest because the fear was not specific to the actual rat, but rather spread further. Watson's questions about the ability to undo the created fear is the impetus for this experiment. This is of interest to behaviorist. Can you condition and response and then remove the conditioning? Does the conditioning fade with time, or is it permanent?
A brief review follows: Albert, eleven months [p. 309] of age, was an infant with a phlegmatic disposition, afraid of nothing "under the sun" except a loud sound made by striking a steel bar. This made him cry. By striking the bar at the same time that Albert touched a white rat, the fear was transferred to the white rat. After seven combined stimulations, rat and sound, Albert not only became greatly disturbed at the sight of a rat, but this fear had spread to include a white rabbit, cotton wool, a fur coat, and the experimenter's hair. It did not transfer to his wooden blocks and other objects very dissimilar to the rat.
Watson's classic experiment of creating fear in a child, however, it was never clear what the fear was for. The conditioning of creating a loud noise, the true fear, transferred to something fuzzy...hair, rabbits, fur, etc. whereas hard surfaced items carried no fear as blocks were used as a source of fun and entertainment. This is an ethically questionable experiment and would not be approved today, I'm sure. Watson did not have the time to "uncondition" Albert before he had to leave the hospital, so he carried that fear forward into his life.
Peter's I.Q. at the age of 2 years and 10 months was 102 on the Kuhlmann Revision of the Binet. At the same time he passed 5 of the 3 year tests on the Stanford Revision.
I find it interesting that Peters IQ was tested multiple times and with different tests to ascertain his intelligence. Psychology, at the time, had a keen interest in determining intelligence, but the methods and approaches were different. The Kuhlman Revision came after the Stanford Revision of Binet's classic test, however there were no standards at the time to get to the "mental age" or "intelligence quotient" and results could vary vastly between tests.
It was possible to continue the study over a period of more than three months.
This is a direct reference to the Albert study that Watson conducted. He was successful in creating fear in Albert, but did not have the time to follow up as Albert was removed from the hospital earlier than expected and the experiment was cut short. Calling out that the experiment will have longevity is interesting, and makes me wonder if Watson had spoken with regret about the length of time he had with Albert.
This looks to be a study that involves "genetics" vs "effective methods" to modify behaviors. A classic study of nature vs nurture using experimental behaviorism methodologies.
Peter's home environment appears to be a contributing factor in his psychological make up and may make him more vulnerable to the conditioning of fear, as his mother seems to be conditioning him in his home environment. He appears to already be susceptible to behavioral conditioning.