Pavlov’s experiments on conditioning brought a lot of knowledge and
understanding into a process that was once mysterious. Through Pavlov’s experiments with his dogs,
knowledge about unconditioned responses through unconditioned stimulus was
brought to light. Pavlov showed that the
dogs who do not learn to salivate to the presence of food could learn to
salivate at something neutral, the sound of a bell. This brought a wealth of
information about learning and conditioning, to which Pavlov wanted to branch
over and apply to humans. Pavlov set up experiments with children in which he
would present the children with food.
One child was strapped to a chair and force fed cookies, while another
was surgically implanted with a device to collect his saliva. The experiments
if done today would violate ethical standards.
This paper is going to review the experiment done on children, cover
what violation of ethical standards would have occurred, and provide an
alternative method to avoid the ethical violation.
Overview of Experiment
Pavlov’s idea of conditioned reflex came from his
experiment with his dogs in which some dogs did not learn. Pavlov observed that
children did not salivate whenever they saw food. This was extremely difficult
for him to understand because this reflex was hard wired into children. Pavlov
provided the child with a bowl of food and then measured the child’s salivary
secretions (McLeod, 2007). From this point forward Pavlov discovered that an
object or event in which a child learned to associate food would trigger the
same response. Pavlov later learned that the children associated food with his
lab assistant which was a learned behavior (McLeod, 2007). This was measured by
the children at the beginning of the experiment not knowing the lab assistant
would bring food, and at one point they began associating the assistant with
food after repetition. With this being said, their behavior changed
significantly which is a result of learning.
Ethical Violation
Pavlov's experiment on conditioning
children was a way to show that not just dogs could have conditioned reflexes.
During these experiments some children had been operated on to place a device
in their cheek to collect their saliva as they ate. In another experiment a
child was strapped into a contraption that restricted his movement that only
allowed him to move his mouth. These experiments have the same ethical issue
that today would prohibit these experiments which is principle E of the ethical
code of psychologists (2015). This states that any psychiatrist or psychologist
conducting research should respect the person's dignity and privacy (Ethical
principles of psychologist and code of conduct, 2015). Pavlov's experiment did
not comply with is principle in either experiment, because the children were
faced with undignified testing procedures. The fact that one child had a
contraption surgically implanted on the side of his face was completely
degrading. While the other child was forced to eat cookies while strapped onto
a table and while another machine squeezed his hand. This would not be
tolerated in research today as a result of the code of conduct that the
American Psychological Association has put in place.
Alternative Approach
When dealing with ethical concerns,
one must think of the person’s dignity and privacy. In this case not respecting the dignity and
privacy of the participant is a violation in which one must find an alternative
way to meet the ethical code of conduct in today’s standards. It may have been best if Pavlov just stuck
with experiments on animals rather than human subjects at the time. Pavlov did his best when it came down to the
ethical concerns and approaches of dealing with his experiments. In today’s world however, there are ethical
ways in which could become an alternative approach to Pavlov’s experiment. One alternative could have been that Pavlov
uses other means of understanding classical conditioning through the use of models,
rats, mice, or other easily available organisms rather than continuing on to
the use of humans. Another alternative
is the approach of not altering through surgical or physical means the
participant or organism to which would cause physical altercations, thus
allowing him to perhaps examine and research without the need to surgery or
force. Pavlov seemed to use ethical
standards that would meet current standards in the well-being and aspect of pain
and suffering of the animals. In
present-day research attention is brought to mind alternative methods on animal
research, thus Russell et al. (1959) describes when possible, living animals
are replaced by nonsentient material such as tissue cultures and computer
models; mammals are replaced by animals of less well-developed nervous systems;
whole animals by decerebrate ones, or by isolated organ systems (Kopaladze,
2000).
Conclusion
Through experiments done on children
in which Pavlov attempted to measure the children’s salivation when presented
with food in the same manner that he worked with his dogs. In the experiments
done on children ethical violations occurred such as conducting research that
did not respect the person's dignity and privacy. Pavlov could have avoided the ethical
violations by conducting experiments on non-humans through using standards that
would meet current standards in the well-being and aspect of pain and suffering
of the animals. Additionally Pavlov
could have done another alternative approach of not altering through surgical
or physical means the participant or organism to which would cause physical
altercations, thus allowing him to perhaps examine and research without the
need to surgery or force.
No comments:
Post a Comment