In summary, this particular case study provided evidence or provided information that would fall under various fields and subfields of psychology today. Various aspects in life were mentioned and referred to such as environmental experiences (physical environment and home environment), social experiences, physiological experiences, and emotional experiences. It was an amazing read and interesting to see how many different areas of psychology were present in a study that seemed very behaviorism-based at first.

This reminds me of systematic desensitization, wherein, an individual is presented with and exposed to different levels of anxiety-/fear-eliciting stimuli, all while being taught relaxation techniques. The procedures and steps taken to get Peter to accept the rabbit is through gradual exposure. This definitely contributed to the literature of clinical psychology in the treatment of phobias.

The fact that they had three children who had not feared the rabbit in the same room with Peter, all while the rabbit is present as well, makes me think even more about social learning theory. Although it does make me pose the questions: "was Albert distracted by playing with others?" "Did he find comfort in outnumbering the 'threat?'" "How were his initial reactions? Did he have to warm up to playing after observing the other children not showing signs of fear when near the rabbit?"

The similarity to Albert is uncanny here it seems, although I do wonder, and I am not sure if I remember whether the intensity of Albert's fearful reactions to the bunny were the same as those elicited when in the presence of a similar animal.

The coincidence and convenience provided by it, allow for further questions to be provided some answers, and to continue off Watson's particular case. It is interesting, to me, because this is the first time I have heard of this experiment, which is a continuation of sorts of the work made by Watson. Anyways, it gave the opportunity to demonstrate whether conditioning could be used to get rid of a maladaptive response to a given and/or similar stimuli.

It could not have been helped that Peter developed fear again due to this unique situation with contributing factors. He was exposed to an abrupt fear-eliciting stimuli, which in comparison to his gradual exposure stages, was a huge jump from where he at in the lab. Along with his negative physiological experiences and observation of an adult being afraid reinforced his fear again. Also the strange environment provided no solace either. This particular circumstance gives an early example of converging factors providing explanation to a particular outcome. Real life is multivariate and this is an example of it.

Yet another example demonstrating the collaborative work between social factors and the positive conditioned response Peter has.

This reminds me of Albert Bandura's Social Learning Theory, he is watching another person interact with the object that terrifies him, and yet the other person does not seem to share the same fear response as him. He watched Barbara pick up the rat, which conveys the message that others don't fear it, and it does not seem to do any harm. Although the observation of this, I do not believe, would be enough to provide change in his conditioned response, as it had most likely been with him for a while. One thing I am wondering based on this certain situation is if he felt less afraid due to the distance between him and the rat or because another person is holding the rat, which in turn might provide a sense of security that the threat has been detained.

I wonder why Peter was very fond of Dr. S? What did Dr. S do in order for Peter to be very fond of him, did he resemble his father? The suggestion that Dr. S's presence in the room alone contributed to Peter's well-being reminds me of Applied Behavior Analysis. ABA operates off the principles of operant conditioning which is usually taught along with classical conditioning in today's intro to psychology courses. Anyways, when ABA is used to help children who have autism in learning adaptive behavior, a good relationship between the provider and the child must be established before direct intervention can take place. The child and the provider gain their relationship through unstructured and eventually structured play. The child then associates the provider with good things and in turn allows for easier reception of a given intervention. If Dr. S did something similar with Peter, then it provides some early evidence of reinforcement pairing (i.e., when the provider themselves have become a reinforcing factor for the child).

How odd and quite coincidental that Dr. Jones would have encountered a case almost the same to that of little Albert. It makes me wonder and poser the question, "How did Peter develop his phobia?"

These results from their interview answers their initial question on whether further conditioning measures would need to be taken on the fear that he experienced with other similar objects. Due to him not demonstrating signs of fear, the researchers can be confident that Peter does not need further conditioning measures for the other similar stimuli. It also showed that Peter's feelings of positive affect for the rabbit was not generalized to the other similar objects, which had been the initial case with his fear. This case was able to expand on Watson's and answer questions that Watson was unable to due to Albert not being involved in his study any longer.

Watson also demonstrated how their conditioned behavior could be generalized to other similar stimuli, further contributing to the body of literature of behavioral psychology.

The last sentences describing how his tolerance to strange animals and unfamiliar situations have seemed to increase make me think of resilience. Peter was in a good environment that helped him foster his resilience toward fear-eliciting stimuli. Each slight exposure challenged his resilience and with the help of others, he was able to overcome them. Although I may be overstretching things here a little bit by suggesting this.

The issue that distinguishes him from Albert is that it is not known exactly how Peter developed his fear. Albert was conditioned to have his fear, and there might be other explanations for Peter's fear. Also the investigator posed a really important question, which undoubtedly led to its investigation later one, the question was in regard to whether intervention taken against other similar fear-eliciting stimuli would end up transferring to the primary fear.

The experiment on little Albert, one of the most memorable that I have learned throughout the course of my academic career in psychology. I remember how in awe I was when first learning about it and how incredible it seemed and yet so cruel at the same time. This along with Pavlov's study on dogs demonstrated the capabilities of classical conditioning, as well as how living things can be conditioned to elicit responses when in the presence of a given stimuli. Although, Watson's experiment on little Albert showed how humans could also be classically conditioned. Today it is also, among various other studies in the past, used as an example when discussing the ethics of psychology. Obviously in today's era this study would not be granted the approval by the Institutional Review Board.

The fact that Peter's IQ was tested using more than one psychometric measuring intelligence, reflects the desire for the application of psychology at the time. It also provided the comparability to others sharing a similar age to Peter's which helps rule out that his fear may be due to lower intelligence.

This opening sentence suggests that the work contributes to "nature vs. nurture" debate. A debate that has been posed by many psychologists in the past and is still brought up to this day.

His familial experiences seem to suggest that they played a role in him developing his fear, although it is hard to discern whether this was a direct cause. I would say that it is indirect. I feel like his experiences in the home made him psychologically vulnerable to experiencing fear, since his was given the impression that danger was all around. This illustrates that the home-environment might have been one factor of many that contributed to Peter's fear.