On This Page:ToggleAimProcedureFindingsConclusionCritical EvaluationQuestions
On This Page:Toggle
On This Page:
Jones, M. C. (1924). A laboratory study of fear: The case of Peter.Pedagogical Seminary, 31, 308-315.
The Little Peter, Cover-Jones (1924) experiment aimed to reduce a child’s fear of rabbits by gradually exposing him to them while simultaneously providing a positive association through the presence of enjoyable activities, leading to successful desensitization.
Aim
Mary Cover-Jones studied several children to investigate the best way to remove fear responses in children.
This was important asWatson & Rayner (1920)had demonstrated that fear could be produced experimentally in a child (little Albert) but although they had planned to remove his phobia of rats using classical conditioning, he was taken away before this could happen.
Procedure
The case described was of ‘Little Peter,’ an active, easily interested, intelligent boy (with an IQ of 102). He was 2 years 10 months when Jones began observing him and his general behavior was typical of a child of his age.
On the first day with Peter, Jones watched him playing with toys, including some beads. An experimenter (who was out of sight) put a white rat into Peter’s cot. Peter screamed and fell over.
He was moved away, leaving his beads behind. Another child, Barbara, was put in his cot.
When the rat appeared, she was unafraid and picked the rat up. When the rat touched Peter’s beads, he protested, saying, “My beads,” but he didn’t object when Barbara touched them.
The next day Peter’s reactions to different situations and objects were observed.
Object(s)Peter’s Reactionwhite ball, rolled inpicked it up and held itfur rug over cotcried until it was removedfur coat over cotcried until it was removedcottencriedwithdrew hat with featherscriedblue woolly jumperlooked, turned away, no fearwhite cloth rabbitno interest, no fearwooden dollno interest, no fear
Peter was also shown a live rabbit and he was more afraid of this than of the rat, so a rabbit was chosen for counter-conditioning.
Peter had daily play sessions with three other children and the rabbit.
The other children (Laurel, Arthur, and Mary) were unafraid of the rabbit. Peter was sometimes observedalone to observe his progress. New situations were used to get Peter closer to the rabbit
Six people (psychology students and instructors) were given the descriptions A-Q in a random order and asked to put them in order of improvement. The resulting list is called a tolerance series.
Peter’s different reactions to the rabbit (the tolerance series)
Findings
However, the changes were not continuous or equally spaced in time.
In the figure below the scale along the x-axis is the session number.
Sometimes Peter was observed frequently (e.g., twice a day in sessions 11 and 12), at other times less frequently (e.g., two months between 7 and 8).
Peter was then ill in hospital. When he came back after this long break, a big dog jumped at him and his carer, scaring both of them.
This pairing of nice food and the rabbit was repeated, moving that rabbit closer but only as close as Peter would allow and still carrying on eating.
Other children also acted as role models. In session 9, the rabbit made Peter cry. Another child ran over, saying, “Oh, rabbit.” Peter followed and watched, so the child acted as a role model to help Peter to move closer to the rabbit.
Peter was sometimes asked about what he did at the laboratory. At the start, he didn’t mention the rabbit but later, he would say, “I like the rabbit”. He also lost his fear of cotton, fur coat, and feathers.
His reaction to rats and the fur rug with a stuffed head improved, but he didn’t like them as much as the rabbit. He also accepted new animals, such as frogs, worms, and a mouse.
Conclusion
Classical conditioning and social learning both helped to decondition Peter. This deconditioning also reduced the fear which had generalized to other objects, so it helped Peter to cope with new animals.
Critical Evaluation
Jones studied Peter over a long period of time, so he was able to track his progress showing the changes clearly. She made detailed observations, so the data was very thorough.
In designing the tolerance series, Jones asked other people to put the items in order. This meant that she avoided introducing bias herself.
However, the gaps between Jones’ sessions with Peter were variable, so progress could be due to changes over time rather than the deconditioning process.
Also, Jones used two different techniques (classical conditioning and social learning) as well as other people who made Peter feel confident. This makes it difficult to tell which factor was most effective in his recovery.
Questions
References
Watson JB & Rayner R (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1): 1-14.
Wolpe J (1990).The Practice of Behavior Therapy. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Julia RusselHead of PsychologyBSc (Hons), PsychologyJulia Russell has over 25 years experience as a Psychology teacher. She is currently Head of Psychology at The Queen’s School, Chester. She is Principal Examiner for two major awarding bodies, visiting tutor at Wrexham Glyndŵr University and an established author.
Julia RusselHead of PsychologyBSc (Hons), Psychology
Julia Russel
Head of Psychology
BSc (Hons), Psychology
Julia Russell has over 25 years experience as a Psychology teacher. She is currently Head of Psychology at The Queen’s School, Chester. She is Principal Examiner for two major awarding bodies, visiting tutor at Wrexham Glyndŵr University and an established author.
