Have you experienced being scared and panicked as you narrowly dodge a speeding car while driving, and a similar reaction to something as “irrational” as a dog or a spider? To our nervous system, both events are identical; it senses a threat, and immediately our fight-or-flight-freeze responses activate. The brain does not stop to check if the danger is a genuine near-death experience or an irrational fear; it just reacts and responds to the threat. We all have these experiences. Nearly a hundred years ago, two psychologists worked with children to understand how fear can be learned and unlearned. Since then, we have come a long way in understanding and modifying fear responses.
Conditioning Fear in Little Albert
Before understanding how Jones helped Peter unlearn his fear, let’s look at why this particular step intrigued her. A few years prior, John Watson conducted the infamous “Little Albert” experiment, showing that a baby could be conditioned to fear a white rat by pairing it with a loud, frightening noise. This was an excellent example of Classical Conditioning. He paired the loud noise with the presence of the white rat and, what previously was the response for the loud noise, crying and screaming, in a way ‘transformed’ to that of the presence of the white rat; Albert then developed a fear of white rats and other similar furry animals and/or objects (Watson & Rayner, 1920). While Watson proved that emotional responses (like fear in this example) could be learned, he never demonstrated whether unlearning could occur.
Mary Cover Jones wanted to study exactly that: if unlearning can happen and, if possible, which method is the best for it to work healthily? In those years, Jones studied many children and tried varied methods to unlearn their fear, like eliminating it through disuse, building positive and appealing experiences verbally, and making them so familiar with the fear object that they become used to it and no longer respond to it with fear. She even tried to go with the age-old method of repression and distraction to no avail. During these, the methods of direct conditioning and social imitation were the ones to show signs of yielding results (Jones, 1924a).
The Start of Unlearning
Peter was a 2-year-old boy who was afraid of white rats and rabbits, which extended to some other furry things like fur coats, feathers, cotton wool, etc. Jones (1924b) noted that when he encountered these, Peter reacted by either screaming or crying or falling on his back in fear. To help him unlearn these, Jones first tried social imitation—Peter and three other children (who were unafraid of rabbits) were brought in for a play period; the rabbit was always a part of it. During this, Peter went from “almost complete terror” of the rabbit to “nearly positive response” with no signs of disturbance, even so far as to pet the rabbit.
When observing the other kids playing with the rabbit, Peter realised that the rabbit was not a direct threat; this highlights the importance of the social environment in shaping emotional responses.
However, near this period, Peter was taken to the hospital with a fever, and he did not return for two months. While returning from the hospital, Peter and the nurse accompanying him encountered a large dog who jumped at them. Both of them were frightened, rightfully so, but this incident added quite a setback in Peter’s unlearning curve—personally experiencing a threatening situation paired with being with an adult who also showed fear (Jones, 1924b).
Unconditioning Fear in Little Peter
From here on, Jones decided to use the method of direct conditioning, which today is called as counterconditioning or systematic desensitisation (Wolpe, 1958). The method was simple yet brilliant, pairing the fear-object (the rabbit) with a pleasant stimulus (food). This was the exact reverse of what Watson had attempted to induce fear in Albert; Jones tried to pair a pleasant stimulus, rather than an unpleasant one (like the loud noise used by Watson), to help Peter associate the fear-object with something pleasant, something that arouses pleasant emotions rather than negative ones (Jones, 1924b).
Through the presence of the pleasant stimulus (food, whenever the rabbit was led in front of Peter, his fear was eliminated gradually in favour of the positive response to food. Sometimes, other children were also brought in to help in the “unconditioning”. This pairing was done every day with the gradual decrease in the distance between the rabbit and Peter; that is to say that the experimenter would bring the rabbit close enough that Peter was not distressed. During these sessions, the rabbit was kept in a wire cage, and eventually Peter learned to tolerate the rabbit closer and closer until he could hold the animal in his lap while eating. The progress extended to a point where Peter showed a genuine fondness for the rabbit, petting him and playing with him for minutes; the reaction to rats and other furry objects also improved considerably (Jones, 1924a, 1924b).
The Legacy of the Fear Experiments
From the above experiments, it can be seen how associations with different situations and circumstances and the emotions they evoke shape the associations with negative experiences and fear and phobias. This also suggests how adaptive human emotions are. There is something ironic about the two experiments- Albert’s and Peter’s- how the same methods with two different agendas yielded two different results, but now hold the foundational pillar of the same agenda- behavioural modification- one explaining how a behaviour may have been formed and another demonstrating how the said behaviour can be unlearned. Humans are not permanently trapped with the negative conditioning and the right cards to play; they can actively try to replace the negative emotions with a sense of security and resilience.
References +
- Jones, M. C. (1924a). The Elimination of Children’s Fears. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7(5), 382–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072283
- Jones, M. C. (1924b). A Laboratory Study of Fear: The Case Of Peter. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 31(4), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856559.1924.9944851
- Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0069608
- Wolpe, J. (1968). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Conditional Reflex: A Pavlovian Journal of Research & Therapy, 3(4), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03000093
