little peter experiment

Little Peter, Cover-Jones (1924)

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.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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.

On This Page:

Jones, M. C. (1924). A laboratory study of fear: The case of Peter. Pedagogical Seminary, 31 , 308-315.

Mary Cover-Jones studied several children to investigate the best way to remove fear responses in children.

This was important as Watson & 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.

• To investigate whether a phobia in a child could be counter-conditioned .
• To demonstrate whether counter-conditioning would generalize to other objects.

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.

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 observed alone 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)

• Rabbit in cage anywhere in room causes fear
• Accepts rabbit in cage 12 feet (4 meters) away
• Accepts rabbit in cage 4 feet (1.3 meters) away
• Accepts rabbit in cage 3 feet (1 meter) away
• Accepts rabbit in cage close by
• Rabbit accepted free in room
• Rabbit touched when experimenter held it
• Rabbit touched when free in room
• Peter reacted badly to rabbit e.g., throwing things at it but also imitated it
• Rabbit allowed on tray of high-chair
• Squats beside rabbit
• Helps experimenter to carry rabbit to cage
• Holds rabbit on lap
• Alone in room with rabbit
• In playpen with rabbit
• Fondles rabbit
• Lets rabbit nibble fingers

Sometimes Peter’s behavior improved (e.g., between sessions 11 and 22, from b to m), and sometimes it worsened – e.g., in session 33 when he was scratched by the rabbit (so it fell from n to f).

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).

Just before this long break, Peter had touched the rabbit following positive comments from the other children, such as “Arthur saying “Peter doesn’t cry when he sees the rabbit come out.”

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.

Following this event, from session 8 onwards, classical conditioning was used to help Peter. He was given food he liked at the same time as the rabbit was brought within sight in its cage.

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.

In session 21, an experimenter sat the rabbit in front of Peter while he was eating but he cried out, “I don’t want him,” and pulled away. Another child sitting nearby held the rabbit. Peter then wanted the rabbit on his lap and held it briefly.

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.

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.

Jones developed two techniques to help to reduce Peter’s phobia (classical conditioning by pairing the rabbit with food and social learning using the other children as models).

These techniques were effective in counter-conditioning him and have been followed up by other researchers. Wolpe (1990, p 7), who is responsible for the development of modern systematic desensitization , described Jones as “a pioneer in behavior therapy.”

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.

• Explain why it was important that the other children were not afraid of the rabbit.
• In general, food is only effective in reconditioning children (rather than adults). Why might this be the case?
• Why did the response of his carer to the big dog make such a difference to Peter’s fear?
• Suggest two other objects that Peter’s fear might have generalized to.

Watson JB & Rayner R (1920). Conditioned emotional reaction s. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3 (1): 1-14.

Wolpe J (1990). The Practice of Behavior Therapy . Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

19 Mary Cover Jones

Claire Bailly; Cal Fishel-Stephenson; Michelle Morrison; Erin Runningen; Grant Anton; Michelle Mudriyan; and Myah Shaikh

*Note: There are 2 versions of this chapter, written by 2 different groups of students.

Group 1: Claire Bailly, Cal Fishel-Stephenson, Michelle Morrison, and Erin Runningen

General Biography

One of the most remarkable people in the history of Psychology is Mary Cover Jones. She was born on September 1, 1896, in Jamestown, Pennsylvania, and died on July 22, 1987 (Krasner, 1988). One of her most famous experiments, “The Case of Peter,” earned her the name “the mother of behavior therapy,” bestowed upon her by her friend and colleague, Joseph Wolpe, in 1974 (Rutherford, 2010). However, she did not receive proper recognition until long after she completed this experiment. A passionate figure throughout her career, she would contribute numerous academic findings that even today help shape the field of psychology.

Even in childhood, Jones excelled in her studies. In 1915 she would find acceptance into Vassar College and would have her first introduction to psychology by Margaret Floy Washburn (Logan, 1980). Under Washburn’s guidance, Jones’ curiosity towards psychology grew. While at Vassar, Jones would also happen to befriend Rosalie Rayner, one of her classmates. This friendship proved to be quite beneficial for Jones. When Rayner graduated, she attended John Hopkins University for graduate studies, and while there she would eventually become John B. Watson’s assistant (Krasner, 1988). When Jones went to visit Rayner after graduating from Vassar, she had the opportunity to attend one of Watson’s lectures. She was intrigued by Watson’s current experiment (famously known as the “Little Albert” experiment), which used classical conditioning to cause a toddler (Little Albert) to fear rats. The experiment was conducted by presenting a rat to the child, while simultaneously hitting a gong to produce a loud bang. Over time, Little Albert associated the rat with the scary noise and would cry whenever he saw the rat or stimuli that closely resembled the animal, such as fur and cotton wool (Mcleod, 2018). This led Jones to wonder if classical conditioning could also be used to remove fears.

Jones attended Columbia University in 1919 where she met her future husband, Harold Jones. Within the year they were married, and it was at Columbia that Jones would go on to perform one of her most well-known experiments (Krasner, 1988). With Watson acting as her supervisor (in name only, Watson was involved in a well-known divorce scandal which sullied his name and career. He was able to supervise with permission of the Department Head, but his name never appeared in the Columbia University Catalog), Jones conducted the case study on Little Peter (Krasner, 1988). Although the results of her experiment challenged the existing beliefs about treating underlying conditions, her work was not appreciated until long after the experiment was conducted. Still, Jones would push forward with her career, with much of her research focused on the early behavior patterns in babies and young children (Rutherford, 2010).

After her husband was offered a position as Director of Research at the Institute for Child Welfare at the University of California, Jones and her family packed their bags and moved to Berkeley, CA (Logan, 1980). Jones herself took a position as Research Associate and soon became involved in three longitudinal studies, although she herself is most associated with the Oakland Growth Study. The results of which led Jones to research the effects of puberty, drinking, and behavioral characteristics in adolescents (Krasner, 1988).

In 1960, after 33 years at the Institute, Jones and her husband retired, not long after which, her husband would pass away from a fatal heart attack. After the passing of her husband, Jones would continue to work throughout the end of her career. Jones herself passed away in 1987, leaving her sister with her final words, “I am still learning about what is important in life” (Rutherford, 2010, para. 11).

Important Achievements

Jones is a notable developmental psychologist because of her contributions to several areas of study on childhood and adolescent development. Some of her most important works included examining drinking behaviors, early or late puberty, and the deconditioning of phobias (Mussen & Eichorn, 1988). Her graduate work exploring therapies to reduce phobias in children included one of her most famous studies, “A Laboratory Study of Fear: The Case of Peter” (Pomerleau, 1984). In this experiment, Jones used classical conditioning to help 3-year-old Peter overcome his fear of rabbits and other similar white, fluffy objects. Peter grew more comfortable with the rabbit with successive trials through a process of deconditioning, or the unlearning of a conditioned response, eventually touching the rabbit without fear (Jones, 1924). Jones deconditioned Peter by pairing his favorite food, candy, with the conditioned stimulus, a rabbit. Jones referred to this procedure as “direct conditioning,” but it would serve as the foundation for a phobia treatment that is today known as systematic desensitization, a process which utilizes relaxation techniques while slowly increasing the exposure to a fear-inducing stimulus (Rutherford, 2017).

Jones’ second most famous study was the Oakland Growth Study (OGS). The purpose of this longitudinal study was to examine adolescent development, and it included about 200 participants around 11 years of age from several elementary schools in California. Jones continued this study with some of the participants into their late adulthoods (Rutherford, 2017). During this time, Jones published over 100 papers from the Oakland Growth Study alone, of which she became a pioneer in several areas of research. Her papers addressed topics such as the psychological and behavioral implications of early or late physical maturation in adolescent boys and girls (Mussen & Eichorn, 1988). As the study progressed, her papers later examined antecedent personality factors that were associated with later drinking behavior (Pomerleau, 1984). Her incredible effort towards maintaining contact and forming connections with the study’s participants is considered one of the major reasons why the Oakland Growth Study did not suffer major attrition despite running for over 60 years, with Jones in her 80s for the final interview (Logan, 1980). The personal relationships that Jones developed with her participants would also shape her work. Jones’ outlook on her study participants grew to be more holistic, and she reflected on this point at the Temple University conference in Behavior Therapy and Behavior Modification in 1974, stating:

“My last 45 years have been spent in longitudinal research in which I have watched the psychobiological development of our study members as they grew from children to adults now in their fifties… My association with this study has broadened my conception of the human experience. Now, I would be less satisfied to treat the fears of a 3-year-old, or of anyone else, without a later follow-up and in isolation from an appreciation of him as a tantalizingly complex person with unique potential for stability and change.” (Rutherford, 2010, para. 10)

Her view of her participants as full people, even viewing children in this light, was not the only progressive perspective that she held that was unconventional for the time. She outwardly vocalized her belief that the problematization of the education of women was not due to a fault of the character of women, but rather due to the cultural expectations of domestic labor that frequently forced women to return home from college (Rutherford, 2017).

As a woman with intellectual pursuits, Jones faced sexism within her professional career. Even with these barriers, Jones was passionate to continue her work and would go on to produce the first television course educating about the psychology of child development together with her husband in 1952 (Mussen & Eichorn, 1988). She was particularly interested in how this television series could give women who were confined to their homes as a result of domestic duties an education that had previously been reserved for college campuses (Rutherford, 2017).

To add to her successes, Jones would eventually be appointed as Assistant Professor at the University of California Berkeley, earning a full professorship in 1959, one year before her retirement. After retirement, she served as the President of the American Psychology Association’s Division of Developmental Psychology, and in 1968, she was awarded the G. Stanley Hall Award by the APA for her lifetime work in developmental psychology (Mussen & Eichorn, 1988). Jones was not just a pioneer for her research, but also as a woman in a male-dominated field, supporting other women’s rights to receive an education, and viewing participants as full, complex, nuanced beings who were not reducible to mere data points or stereotypes.

Historical Context

The 20th century was a foundational period in the growth of psychology as a discipline, navigating away from a much older way of thought about human physiology and diving deeper into the mind. Behaviorism, in its early stages, began with Ivan Pavlov’s work with classical conditioning, and was thereafter built upon by Watson (Jhangiani, 2023). Further impacting Jones’ work, behaviorism dominated experimental psychology for several decades, becoming largely responsible for establishing psychology as a scientific discipline. Building from Pavlov’s work with salivating dogs, Watson found similar evidence showing that given a neutral stimulus, it is possible to make the stimulus conditioned through behavior and learning, although rather than with animals, Watson began his work with children. John A. Mills, an American psychologist and historian, noted that “we know enough to say with confidence that psychological behaviorism arose not within psychology itself but within American society, from about the 1880s onwards,” (Mills, 1998, p. 2) suggesting just how ingrained the discipline was becoming in everyday lives and how it reached far beyond the laboratory (Watson, 1913).

Even with psychology’s advances, as a woman in developmental psychology, Jones lacked recognition from the scientific community for being a woman. Getting her work recognized was further complicated by the reality that developmental psychology was considered a disreputable field during that period (Pomerleau, 1984). Despite having great success in her research and making important headway in the field of developmental psychology, Jones struggled to find university positions that would accept her because of sexist views that kept women out of university research at the time (Pomerleau, 1984). Anti-nepotism rules added another barrier to women pursuing professorship within university settings. Since Jones’ husband was a professor, Jones was denied the opportunity to earn such a position herself, and instead accepted a position as a research associate at the University of California Berkeley. She would receive a tenure track as a professor decades later (Pomerleau, 1984). Additionally, during such a time where women were shunned from such academic vigor, Jones argued that “the problems of women are related to and frequently stem from the attitudes of men toward women,” and it was about time this dated, sexist view began to disintegrate (Rutherford, 2017, p. 237).

As it is for so many influential figures in history, Jones did not embark on this journey alone, and even given the zeitgeist of the period and ever-changing climate, Jones wholeheartedly believed in the work she was pursuing. As an undergraduate student at Vassar College, Jones took “every psychology course offered” to her…except for one (Rutherford, 2017). The only psychology class she missed out on was due to a mediocre grade in an earlier lab course. After bumping into Rayner at Vassar, a figure who later became Watson’s assistant with the Little Albert experiment, Jones’ world expanded and changed indefinitely. After attending one of his weekend lectures, simply amazed and intrigued by his work, Jones’ future research and findings came to be heavily inspired by Watson’s behavioral view as her admiration grew. (Krasner, 1988). Once at Columbia University, Watson became Jones’ doctoral research advisor, supporting her work in the elimination of fear within children, treating underlying psychodynamic states rather than overt behavior. In addition to Watson as a role model, Jones became Robert Woodworth’s assistant, who later became known for his functionalist approach to psychology.

As Jones was paving her own path to call attention to the importance of developmental psychology and behavior therapy, the historical turmoil of the 1900s ended up being a major catalyst for the timeliness and content of her research. As The Great Depression swept through the United States, adults were not the only ones facing economic, societal, and familial stress; children were being forced to grow up faster during the crisis, forcibly forgoing formal schooling, obtaining a job at an early age, and all while attempting to reconcile the muddled family roles at home (“Psychological Impact of the Great Depression,” 2023). Just a few years after the official beginning of The Great Depression, Jones began one of her most influential studies, the OGS. To better understand typical adolescence, the turmoil of this period made it that much more imperative when the important findings from the study were released. Jones and colleagues revealed the long-term emotional and behavioral effects of individuals going through puberty, or being forced to grow up, at an older age, and how this would impact their psychological well-being and behavior later in life (Elder, 1998).

Further findings from this study pointed at the developmental impacts economic status had on adolescence during this crucial period of life; Beginning with the stock market crash of 1929, President Hoover’s lack of responsibility in the economy (leading to some 15 million people unemployed in 1932), and Roosevelt’s eventual inauguration, the country was arguably on less solid ground than ever before. Although such a crisis negatively impacted the United States, there was the ironic contradiction gained during this time: women (History.com Editors, 2009). Considering Jones’ work with the OGS, it is apparent how strongly the outside world impacted her work on behavior therapy.

In an effort to contribute knowledge that would eventually better the human condition, Jones remained an active researcher and advocate until just a few months before her death, where she continues to inspire and impact the world of psychology today (Rutherford, 2000).  Jones learned from the great researchers before her, and rather than considering her scientific work to include the vulnerable, valuable human beings, she considered each person a confidant and friend who happened to participate in her research, humanizing the experience.

Historical Impact

While Jones is now best known for her work involving the deconditioning of fear in a young child, at the time of its publishing her study “The Case of Peter” received little to no attention. In fact, it was considered unsuitable for her dissertation as it was merely a case study with a single participant (Pomerleau, 1984). Though she may not have been recognized for it at the time, the influence Jones’ work had on other behavioral psychologists is apparent. In fact, Wolpe described “The Case of Peter” study as “the first known example of the deliberate use of counteracting responses to overcome neurotic anxieties by gradually approaching peak stimulus.” (Wolpe, 1973, p. 96). In this quote Wolpe is explaining the process of counterconditioning, a therapeutic technique designed by Jones and inspired by the “Little Albert” experiment. Her work in establishing counterconditioning was central to the development of Wolpe’s theory of systematic desensitization, a therapeutic technique still frequently utilized today (Keller et al., 2020). It is typically used to treat a patient’s specific phobia or anxiety and involves keeping the patient in a relaxed state while they imagine a series of increasingly fearsome situations involving their specific phobias (McGlynn, 2002). Both counterconditioning and the therapeutic techniques that were inspired by it have provided individuals with coping strategies that can be used to manage various stressors more effectively.

Jones’ contributions to psychology extend far beyond the now famous “Case of Peter”, with her work with the OGS spanning the majority of her career. In fact, two series of studies that she published based on the data acquired from the OGS received widespread acclaim, specifically her work with the participants in understanding the problems of early and late maturing, and in personality antecedents of drinking problems (Logan 1980). The early study of differences in adolescent development paved the way for future researchers to explore the potential causes of these differences in development and how to treat the psychological problems that might arise within individuals who may be maturing at a rate different than that of their peers. Additionally, they can examine a wider sample of adolescents, as the sample within the OGS was narrow. Her work towards understanding the antecedents of drinking problems in particular was especially novel, as it was among the first of its kind to attempt to identify traits in adolescence that led to future alcoholism. While this was not the first study aimed at understanding the origins of alcoholism, it was the first to have empirical backing as such it built a strong framework that future researchers could employ towards their understanding of its origins. Additionally, though the sample Jones used was small, her immediate research did provide valuable information about possible adolescent interventions to prevent the future development of alcoholic personalities (Logan, 1980).

Jones’ influence on the work of Wolpe should be considered a huge step forward for behavioral therapy, especially considering the widespread use of desensitization as a therapy technique. Additionally, if one were to look at Jones’ direct work, they would find that her nurturing attitude towards the participants of the OGS established a strong precedent for how to properly treat the individuals’ scientists conduct their studies on, particularly when juxtaposed to some of the other longitudinal studies of the time. As one such infamous example, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, which ran from 1932 to 1972, did not obtain informed consent from its participants. Scientists from the United States Public Health Service and Centers for Disease Control observed the effects of untreated syphilis on African American patients, while actively preventing them from receiving treatment for the disease, including the penicillin shot which would have cured them when over 250 participants registered for the WWII draft.

While the vile treatment of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study’s participants stands out amongst the various unethical experiments of the 1900s, lack of regulation in human experimentation led to numerous other ethical violations during this period such as the Willowbrook State School Hepatitis Study, the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Milgram Obedience Studies, to name a few. Even Watson’s study of Little Albert, from where Jones drew inspiration for the study of Little Peter, would be considered unethical today. Jones’ care and attention to the participants of the OGS were unusual for the time, and she would later reflect on this point, stating “It has always been of the greatest satisfaction to me that I could be associated with the removal of a fear… I could not have played the role of creating fear in a child, no matter how important the theoretical implications” (Pomerleau, 1984, p. 3). This consideration of her participants and the special relationships she formed with them cannot be overstated. In fact, when she passed away over 150 members of the OGS came to her memorial service, saddened to have lost a warm and devoted friend (Krasner, 1988).

Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). The Life Course as Developmental Theory. Child Development, 69: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06128.x

Encyclopedia.com (n.d.). Psychological impact of the great depression. https://www.encyclopedia.com/economics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/psychological-impact-great-depression

History.com Editors. (2009). Great Depression History. A&E Television Networks. https://www.history.com/topics/great-depression/great-depression-history

Jhangiani, R. (2023). Introduction to Psychology: History of Psychology. Pressbooks. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/kpupsyc1100/chapter/history-of-psychology/

Jones, M. C. (1924). A laboratory study of fear: the case of Peter. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152(4), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1991.9914707

Keller, N. E., Hennings, A. C., & Dunsmoor, J. E. (2020). Behavioral and neural processes in counterconditioning: Past and future directions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 125, 103532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103532

Krasner, L. (1988). Mary Cover Jones. The Behavior Analyst, 11(1), 91–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392461

Logan, D. D. (1980). Mary Cover Jones: Feminine as asset. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5(1), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1980.tb01037.x

McGlynn, F. D. (2002). Systematic desensitization. Encyclopedia of Psychotherapy, 755–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-12-343010-0/00216-6

McLeod, S. (2018, October 18). The Little Albert Experiment. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/little-albert.html

Mills, J. A. (1998). Control: A History of Behavioral Psychology. New York University Press.

Mussen, P., & Eichorn, D. (1988). Mary Cover Jones (1896-1987). The American Psychologist, 43(10), 818–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091933

Pomerleau, C. S. (1984). In recognition of… Mary Cover Jones, PhD. Women & Health, 9(4), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1300/j013v09n04_01

Rutherford, A. (2000). Heritage: Mary Cover Jones (1896-1987). PsycEXTRA Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/e403942005-026

Rutherford, A. (2010). Biography of Mary Cover Jones. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/mary-jones-biography

Rutherford. (2017). “Making better use of U.S. women” Psychology, sex roles, and womanpower in post‐WWII America. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 53(3), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.21861

Watson, J., (1913). Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-177.

Wolpe, J. (1973). The practice of behavior therapy. Pergamon Press.

Group 2: Grant Anton, Michelle Mudriyan, and Myah Shaikh

Mary Cover Jones was born in 1897 in Johnstown, Pennsylvania on September 1st (Rutherford, 2010). She attended Vassar College in 1915 as an undergraduate student where she chased her desire for learning and education. While attending Vassar College she enrolled herself in every psychology course she could find and then went on to graduate in the year of 1919 (Rutherford, 2010). Within the same year, she went to a weekend lecture by John B. Watson where he discussed his study about Little Albert; this is where and when Mary Cover Jones decided she would take steps towards graduate work in psychology due to an interest in developmental psychology.

Jones started this work in 1919 at Columbia University where she quickly graduated with her master’s degree in psychology in the summer of 1920 (Rutherford, 2010). A few years later, in 1923, she was assigned to be an Associate in Psychology Research at the Institute of Educational Research, Columbia University Teachers’ College where she began her research study centered around direct conditioning with pleasant stimuli (Rutherford, 2010). In this study she used a boy named Peter who was afraid of rabbits. She would present his favorite food at the same time as the rabbit and over time Peter was able to touch the rabbit without being afraid of it (Rutherford 2010). This experiment became Jones’s most well-known study since exposure to the rabbit allowed Peter to decrease his fear.

In 1923, Jones married Harrold Jones, who was a part of her graduating class from Columbia University. In 1924, Jones published the results of her Little Peter study, and in 1926, she finished her dissertation work, where she focused on behavior patterns in young children in their early years. Within this research, she used 365 babies from three separate Baby Welfare stations located in New York City (Rutherford 2010). By the summer of 1927, she had two young children with her husband, and they decided to move to California. In California, Jones accepted a position as a Research Associate where she became a part of a study conducted by her institute, which went on for an extended period. Due to her devotion to the Oakland Growth Study (or OGS), the rest of her career was set in stone. Jones went on to publish over 100 studies from the data provided by the OGS, many of which were centered around the long-term behavioral effects through childhood and into adolescence (Rutherford, 2010).

Mary Cover Jones was then designated as an Assistant Professor of Education at Berkeley in 1952, although she had previously dedicated many years of lecturing in the department of psychology (Rutherford, 2010). In 1952, Jones and her husband also developed the very first educational course in child psychology, which was aired on television. In the year of 1959, she became a full-time Professor and in 1960 she functioned as the Division of Developmental Psychology of the APA (Rutherford, 2010). Within that same year, her husband Harold died of a heart attack during their retirement. Following her husband’s death, she continued her work and went on to win the G. Stanley Hall Award from the APA in 1968.

Mary Cover Jones died in the city of Santa Barbara, California in the year of 1987 on July 22nd (Rutherford 2010). Within the last minute she said to her sister, “I am still learning about what is important in life.” (Reiss, 1990). Because of her established work and long-term commitment to the field of behavior therapy, she was coined as the “mother of behavior therapy” and she is thought of as a pioneer within her discipline (Rutherford, 2010).

Mary Cover Jones is well known for her graduate work of developing and testing techniques to reduce or eliminate phobias in children. Jones’s best-known case was of a three-year-old boy named Peter, an active, courier, and an intelligent child (Jones, 1924). To begin, Jones placed Peter in a playpen with some toys, such as beads. After some time, another experimenter placed a white rat into Peter’s playpen and Peter was frightened, he ended up screaming and fell over. Over the next few days, Peter’s reactions to different situations and objects were observed. For example, if a white ball was rolled into his playpen, he would pick it up and hold onto it. Peter showed no fear or interest in other fur-like objects such as a sweater, white cloth rabbit, and wooden doll, but Peter would cry and show immense fear with a fur rug, fur coat, a hat with feathers, and cotton. Peter was also shown a live rabbit and was more afraid of the rabbit than the rat, so the rabbit was chosen for counterconditioning (Jones, 1924).

Peter had daily play sessions with the rabbit and Jones observed his progress and tolerance with the rabbit. Certain times Peter’s behavior would improve but in moments it would also worsen, none of the changes were continuous or spaced out equally. Classical conditioning was used to help Peter’s fear; Peter would be given food he liked (unconditioned stimulus) and while the rabbit (conditioned stimulus) was brought into his playpen, this was repeated and slowly Peter would ignore the rabbit to carry on eating (Jones, 1924). Jones was putting Peter through exposure therapy so that he would lose his fear of rabbits and rats due to seeing them every day and slowly getting used to the animals around him. Over time Peter’s reaction to rats or anything with fur improved. And he began to accept new animals such as frogs, worms, and mice (Jones, 1924). Classical conditioning and social learning helped decondition Peter’s fear, and it allowed him to reduce his fear of general objects and animals. The Little Peter experiment allowed for exposure therapy to grow so that children could reduce their fears or phobias.

The Little Peter Experiment is what Jones is most known for, but she did not stop her career there. Jones took a research associate position at the University of California, Berkeley and this is where she got involved in a longitudinal study–the Oakland Growth Study (OGS). The OGS began in 1932 and was designed to follow a group of approximately 200 fifth and sixth-grade students from puberty through adolescence (Rutherford, 2010). Jones’s most notable studies using the OGS were the long-term psychological and behavioral effects of early and late physical maturation in adolescence, examining the developmental antecedents of drinking problems, and the development of early behavioral patterns in young children.

Specifically, Jones conducted a study comparing two groups of boys who had been classified as physically accelerated or delayed during adolescence. As adolescents, early maturers were more attractive physically, more relaxed, and more poised. Late maturers were described as more expressive, active, talkative, eager, and attention-seeking (Jones, 1957). The two groups of boys were compared until the age of 33, to determine the long-term effects of the rate of maturing upon personality. There were no differences found between the two groups regarding marital status, family size, or education level. The early-maturing boys made exceptional progress as junior executives and the late-maturing boys were more unsettled, showing more hyper or aimless behavior (Jones, 1957). Jones did this study to detail the competitive status between early and late-maturing adolescent boys.

Jones also used the OGS to study early behavioral patterns in young children. Jones conducted an observational study of 365 babies that were put under experimentally controlled conditions. Jones was studying the age norms and periods of development for several early behavioral patterns (Jones, 1926). Jones noted that smiling would happen earliest at around 36 days of age, but by 90 days of age, the response appeared in all 100% of children. Jones studied three types of eye coordination in babies, horizontal would appear first, followed by vertical and circular within the age groups of 33 to 130 days. Blinking was present earliest on the 46th day but in all children by the 124th day. The use of thumbs and reaching appeared around the 108th-116th day, and boys were showing early development in reaching and the use of thumbs. Head support and sitting would occur earliest at 104 days, with 100% of children on the 280th day (Jones, 1926). Jones created this study to see if racial or sex differences played a role in development patterns which showed slight differences, but Jones created a timeframe of when young children began showing signs of behavioral patterns.

The OGS was also used to explore the personality correlates and antecedents of adult male alcohol-related behavior. Cover found results that problem drinkers when compared to moderate and non-drinkers had more uncontrolled and extroverted behavior, they are disorganized under stress, and their mood fluctuates often (Jones, 1968). Problem drinkers had significantly high ratings of interest in the opposite sex, enjoyment of sensuality, higher ratings of rebellion, hostility, unconventional thought processes, and acting out (Jones, 1968). Cover’s study answered the question that the amount of alcohol intake can decipher the personality of a person and that alcohol can control behavior. The OGS influenced the rest of her growing career, but Cover’s biggest contribution to psychology today is her work on developing and testing techniques to reduce or eliminate fears/phobias in children.

Before Jones made her mark in behavioral and developmental psychology, several events took place and possibly influenced her achievements. The occasions occurred both in her early childhood development and during her career development. One event that would have influenced her to have an interest in Psychology was growing up seeing her mother working with the local community as a homemaker (Mussen, 1988). Also, her father, who regretted not attending higher education, encouraged her to study up to university and even ensured Jones and her siblings took a yearly summer trip to Chautauqua Institute on Lake Erie, Ohio.

One profound figure that inspired Cover Jones’s interest in human behavior was John Watson, a decorated behaviorist. While Cover completed her undergraduate degree at Vassar College, she attended Watson’s lecture on conditioning in New York. Cover wondered if, indeed, conditioning could eliminate fears and phobias. Watson’s speech inspired her to conduct the Little Peter Experiment and the concept of direct conditioning (Jones, 1924). This study would later define behavioral psychology and influence many behaviorists. Cover Jones was coined as “the mother of behavior therapy” by one of her colleagues, Joseph Wolpe, and other colleagues due to her multitude of contributions to the psychology of behavior and behavior therapy.

The zeitgeist of the period during which Cover Jones was prominent was the need to understand the behavior of humans and animals, Behaviorism (Logan, 1980). Behaviorists such as Watson believed that either heredity or environmental events influenced human behavior. Behaviorism emerged in the early 1900s, and by the time Cover was prominent, several behaviorists had tried learning how humans and animals behaved in different environments. During the rise of behaviorism, there was a rising need to eradicate human fears and phobias, especially with the rising human conflicts experienced during the First and Second World Wars as well as during the Cold War. Throughout the world, people have witnessed massive destruction of property and loss of lives and lived in fear of the recurrence of the experiences. Through such events, Cover would be inspired to devise different treatments to eliminate the fear responses.

Among many historical impacts, Mary Cover Jones’s biggest impact on the field of behavior therapy was through her work focused on direct conditioning in minimizing the fears of children. This impact strengthened the way that the field of behavior analysis views the minimization of fears under specific conditions. Jones had a very positive impact on the subfield of behavior therapy and psychology, not only did she pave the way for her research, but she also did for women everywhere who aspired to work and publish in the scientific field as well. In the Little Peter experiment that was conducted by Jones, she created a new response of conditioning which she called direct conditioning. The idea of simultaneously presenting the boy with his favorite food and an animal he feared, was the most successful procedure of direct conditioning because Peter became more tolerant of the animal and slowly lost his fear. The method of direct conditioning used by Jones is known in behavioral therapy as systematic desensitization. Systematic desensitization is a therapy that aims to remove the fear response of a phobia and substitute a relaxation response to the conditional stimulus gradually using counterconditioning (McLeod, 2021). If Jones did not develop and conduct the Little Peter experiment, exposure therapy would have never grown into what it is today. Nowadays, to eliminate a phobia direct conditioning is used.

Jones, M. C. (1924). A laboratory study of Fear: The case of peter. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 152(4), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1991.9914707

Jones, M. C. (1926). The development of early behavior patterns in young children. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 33(4), 537–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856559.1926.10533050

Jones, M. C. (1957). The later careers of boys who were early- or late-maturing. Child Development, 28(1), 113. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126006

Jones, M. C. (1968). Personality correlates and antecedents of drinking patterns in adult males. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32(1), 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025447

McLeod], [S. (1970, January 1). Systematic desensitization as a counter-conditioning process. Simply Psychology. Retrieved November 26, 2022, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/Systematic-Desensitisation.html#:~:text=Systematic%20desensitization%20is%20a%20type,stimulus%20gradually%20using%20counter%2Dconditioning.

Mussen, P., & Eichorn, D. (1988). Mary Cover Jones (1896–1987). American Psychologist, 43(10), 818–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091933

Reiss, B. K. (1990). A biography of Mary Cover Jones. Scribd. Retrieved November 26, 2022, from https://www.scribd.com/document/17615966/A-Biography-of-Mary-Cover-Jones

Rutherford, A. (2010). Biography of mary cover jones. https://www.apadivisions.org. Retrieved November 26, 2022, from https://www.apadivisions.org/division-35/about/heritage/mary-jones-biography

Open History of Psychology: The Lives and Contributions of Marginalized Psychology Pioneers Copyright © 2023 by Claire Bailly; Cal Fishel-Stephenson; Michelle Morrison; Erin Runningen; Grant Anton; Michelle Mudriyan; and Myah Shaikh is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Little Peter, Cover Jones (1924)

• 2 Procedure
• 3 Findings/Results
• 4 Conclusion
• 5 Evaluation

To investigate whether a phobia in a little boy could be deconditioned and whether this would generalize to other objects.

Procedure [ ]

Peter was 2 years old when Jones began observing him. He had a phobia of white rats. His reaction to different objects was observed. His fear of the white rat was generalized to other objects. Peter was also shown a rabbit and he was more afraid of the rabbit than the white rat, so a rabbit was used for deconditioning. Peter had daily play sessions with three other children and the rabbit, which the other children did not fear. Other children were role models(Social learning theory was used), classical conditioning was used. New situations were used to get Peter closer to the rabbit. Eventually, he manages to associate the rabbit with relaxation and is deconditioned.

Findings/Results [ ]

Peter’s behaviour improved and worsened, eg. when he was scratched by the rabbit

Six people were given the descriptions of his reactions in a random order and asked to put them in order of improvement (tolerance series). He sometimes got better and he sometimes got worse.

Conclusion [ ]

Both classical conditioning and social learning theory helped to decondition Peter. The deconditioning also reduced generalised fears and helped Peter to cope with new animals.

Evaluation [ ]

• 1 Sigmund Freud's Theory of Dreaming (1900)
• 3 Hobson and McCarley's Theory of Dreaming (1977)

The Neuroscientific Case for Facing Your Fears

A new study shows that mice have to remember their phobias if they are to lose them effectively.

Peter, aged 3, was scared of rabbits. So Mary Cover Jones kept bringing him rabbits.

At first, she’d take a caged rabbit up to Peter, while he ate some candy and played with other children. At first, Peter was terrified by the mere presence of a rabbit in the same room. But soon, he allowed the animal to get closer—12 feet, then four, then three. Eventually, Peter was happy for rabbits to nibble his fingers. “The case of Peter illustrates how a fear may be removed under laboratory conditions,” Cover Jones wrote in 1924 .

Cover Jones is now recognized as the "mother of behavioral therapy." Her observations laid the groundwork for what would become known as exposure therapy—the practice of getting people to overcome their fears by facing them in controlled settings.

A century later, neuroscientists can watch how the act of facing one’s fears actually plays out inside the brain. Using gene-engineering tools, they can label the exact neurons in a mouse’s brain that store a specific fearful memory. Then, they can watch what happens when the rodent recalls those experiences.

By doing this , Ossama Khalaf from the EPFL in Lausanne showed that the extinction of fear depends on reactivating the neurons that encode it. A mouse has to re-experience a deep-rooted fear if it is to lose it.

When someone encounters a new experience—say, a terrifying rabbit—groups of neurons in their brain fire together, the connections between them become stronger, and molecules accumulate at the places where neurons meet. Many scientists believe that these preserved patterns of strengthened connections are the literal stuff of memories—the physical representations of the things we remember. These connected neuron groups are called engrams.

When people bring up old memories, the engram neurons fire up again. They also enter a brief period of instability, when the molecules that preserved the connections between them disappear and must be remade. This process, known as reconsolidation, means that humans are partly reconstructing our memories every time they bring them to mind. And it means that the act of recollection creates a window of time in which memories can be updated, and  fears can be unlearned.

“That was the theory,” says Daniella Schiller from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. “It’s been speculated, but [this new study] is one of the most direct demonstrations so far.”

Khalaf and his team, led by Johannes Gräff, worked with a special strain of engineered mice that are completely normal as long as they can eat a drug called doxycycline. If you remove the drug from their meals, a series of genes kicks into action, and drops a distinctive molecule into any active neuron. In this way, the rodents automatically label their own engrams. Whenever they learn something new, or recall an old memory, the buzzing networks of neurons in their heads get tagged.

The team made good use of this feature in a simple experiment. They trained the mice to fear a small box, by putting them inside and giving them some mild electric shocks. A month later, the team took the rodents off doxycycline and put them back in the same box. They froze—a clear sign that they were remembering their old distress. Meanwhile, they were labeling all the neurons that fired during this moment of recollection—the fear engram.

Later, Khalaf put the mice through exposure therapy, repeatedly returning them to the scary box without any accompanying shocks. As these sessions continued, their fear started to subside. But here’s the crucial bit: The more closely they reactivated the neurons from their original fear engram, the more thoroughly they shook off their fear.

Without the former, the latter doesn’t happen. Khalaf showed this by chemically silencing the rodents’ labeled neurons, and preventing them from reactivating their fear engrams. When he did this, the mice responded less well to their rounds of exposure therapy. But if Khalaf instead boosted the activity of the engram neurons during the rodents’ therapy sessions, they lost their fears faster than before.

“It’s an important advance, in that it suggests, for the first time, that extinction of fear involves the modification of the original fear-inducing memory,” says Jelena Radulovic from Northwestern University.

But memory-labeling techniques are still new, and as with all leading-edge methods, it can be tricky to interpret their results. For example, these techniques often show that the neurons that are reactivated when memories are recalled only partly overlap with those that encoded the original memory. “The observed effects [in Khalaf’s study] could be attributed to a novel neuronal population that is not necessarily involved in processing of the original memory,” Radulovic says.

Still, “in many respects, these findings confirm what any accomplished therapist already knows—that, to a large degree, patients with anxiety disorders must relive their trauma to overcome it,” write Paul Frankland and Sheena Josselyn from The Hospital for Sick Children in a related commentary . “Exposure therapy is the only known successful treatment for traumatic memories,” says Khalaf.

But it isn’t always successful, and “sometimes, the fears resurface, forcing the patient to return to their psychiatrist.” Perhaps that’s because instead of changing how they remember the original fearful memory, patients are simply papering over it with new ones. An accumulation of safe and reassuring memories could blot out the original fear, but it’s still under there. “Re-engaging the original fear could be more useful than suppressing it,” Khalaf adds.

That’s still hypothetical, though. The team showed that reactivating fear engrams is important for quelling those fears, but does it stop them from returning later? The team also focused only on the neurons in one part of the brain—the dentate gyrus, which is involved in the creation of new memories. What about other regions, like the amygdala, which influences emotions, and the prefrontal cortex, which governs decision-making and other complex behaviors?

By answering these questions, the team hopes to find ways of working out when exposure therapies are most likely to succeed, and perhaps developing more effective ways of helping people to face their fears.

About the Author

More Stories

Fatigue Can Shatter a Person

Who’s the Cutest Little Dolphin? Is It You?

Contact Division 35

Mary cover jones (1896-1987).

by Alexandra Rutherford, York University*

Biography of Mary Cover Jones

Mary Cover Jones was christened “the mother of behavior therapy” by colleague and friend Joseph Wolpe, and has been portrayed throughout the psychological literature as a pioneer of behavior therapy because of her seminal work on the unconditioning of the fear reaction in infants.  Her study of the three-year-old named Peter has probably been cited more extensively than any other aspect of her work.  Closer examination of Jones’ career, however, reveals a rich and personologically-oriented approach to the study of personality across the lifespan that is overshadowed by the now mythic status of the Peter study.          

Mary Cover was born on September 1, 1897, in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.   She pursued her love of learning at Vassar College, where she enrolled as an undergraduate in 1915.  At Vassar she took “every psychology course offered” (Reiss, 1990, p. 205) – except one.  She could not attend Margaret Floy Washburn’s senior seminar in psychology because of a mediocre grade in an earlier laboratory course.  When pressed, Washburn declared, “You wouldn’t enjoy the Senior Seminar, it’s just like that sophomore lab course that you didn’t like!” (Jones, as reported in Reiss, 1990, p. 206).

Despite Washburn’s rejection, Mary Cover graduated from Vassar in 1919.  In that year, she also attended a weekend lecture given by J. B. Watson in New York City.  This lecture, in which he described the Little Albert study undertaken with Rosalie Rayner (a Vassar graduate and friend of Mary’s), cemented her desire to pursue graduate work in psychology.     

Mary Cover began graduate work at Columbia University in 1919, and completed her Master’s degree by the summer of 1920.  That same summer she married fellow graduate student, Harold Jones.  In 1923, she was appointed Associate in Psychological Research at the Institute of Educational Research, Columbia University Teachers’ College.  During this time, Jones conducted her study of Peter.  Briefly, Jones treated Peter’s fear of a white rabbit with a variety of fear-reducing procedures.  The most successful procedure was that of “direct conditioning,” in which a pleasant stimulus (food) was presented simultaneously with the rabbit.  As the rabbit was gradually brought closer to him in the presence of his favorite food, Peter grew more tolerant, and was able to touch it without fear.

After publishing these results (1924), Jones completed her dissertation work on the development of early behavior patterns in young children (Jones, 1926).  This work was supported by a fellowship from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, and was conducted using a sample of 365 infants from three Baby Welfare Stations in New York City. 

In the summer of 1927, the Jones family (she now had two young daughters) packed their bags and headed west.  Harold had been offered a position as Director of Research at the recently established Institute for Child Welfare at the University of California, Berkeley.  Mary took a position as Research Associate and soon became involved in one of three longitudinal studies conducted through the Institute.  Her involvement with and commitment to the Oakland Growth Study (OGS) colored the rest of career. 

The OGS began in 1932 and was designed to follow a group of approximately 200 fifth- and sixth-grade students from puberty through adolescence.  In fact, several follow-up studies were undertaken as members of this group moved well into middle and older adulthood, a feat largely attributable to Jones’ conscientiousness and personal relationships with the project’s members.  Many of the study members became her friends and benefited from her support and generosity of spirit.

Jones published over 100 studies using data from the OGS.  Among these was a series of studies on the long-term psychological and behavioral effects of early- and late-physical maturing in adolescence (e.g., Jones, 1957).  Another series of papers examined the developmental antecedents of problem drinking (e.g., Jones, 1968).  Throughout her published work, MCJ was extremely careful to relay a sense of the uniqueness of individual participants, and often used case studies and idiographic analysis to qualify her statistical results.  Despite her behaviorist beginnings, Jones’ work reflected an eclectic theoretical outlook and an emphasis on the whole person in his or her developmental, environmental, and social context.    

In 1952, at age 56, Jones was appointed Assistant Professor of Education at Berkeley, despite having lectured in the department of psychology for several years.  Strict anti-nepotism rules precluded her appointment to the psychology department because of her husband’s position there.  In that year, she and Harold produced the first educational television course in child psychology.  In 1959, one year before her retirement, she became full professor.   In 1960, she served as president of the Division of Developmental Psychology of the APA.  Tragically, in that same year, just months into their retirement, Harold suffered a fatal heart attack.   

Jones continued to work productively after Harold’s death, and received the G. Stanley Hall Award from the APA in 1968.  In a keynote address at the first Temple University Conference in Behavior Therapy and Behavior Modification in 1974, she offered this assessment of her career and her personal and theoretical outlook:

[M]y last 45 years have been spent in longitudinal research in which I have watched the psychobiological development of our study members as they grew from children to adults now in their fifties… My association with this study has broadened my conception of the human experience.  Now I would be less satisfied to treat the fears of a 3-year-old, or of anyone else, without a later follow-up and in isolation from an appreciation of him as a tantalizingly complex person with unique potentials for stability and change. (Jones, 1974, p. 186).

Mary Cover Jones died in Santa Barbara, California on July 22, 1987.  She was almost ninety-one years old.  Minutes before she passed away, she said to her sister, “I am still learning about what is important in life” (as cited in Reiss, 1990).  As a result of her lifelong commitment to learning, Jones was a pioneer in the field of behavior therapy, and made a rich contribution to the understanding of development across the lifespan. 

Jones, M.C. (1924). A laboratory study of fear: The case of Peter. Pedagogical Seminary, 31, 308-315.

Jones, M.C. (1926). The development of early behavior patterns in young children. Pedagogical Seminary, 33, 537-585.

Jones, M.C. (1957). The later careers of boys who were early- or late- maturing. Child Development, 28, 113-128.

Jones, M.C. (1968). Personality correlates and antecedents of drinking patterns in adult males. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 31, 2-12.

Jones, M.C. (1974). Albert, Peter, and John B. Watson. American Psychologist, 29, 581-583.

Reiss, B. K. (1990). A biography of Mary Cover Jones. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.  The Wright Institute, Los Angeles, CA.*

*Many thanks to Bettyjane Reiss for donating a copy of her dissertation to the Arthur W. Melton Library at the American Psychological Association. 

** Originally published in The Feminist Psychologist, Newsletter of the Society for the Psychology of Women, Division 35 of the American Psychological Association, Volume 27, Number 3, Summer, 2000. Appearing with permission of the author.

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Two little boys

DOI link for Two little boys

Click here to navigate to parent product.

The history of psychology is littered with academics contesting the merits of their respective theories with which they seek to fully explain all facets of human behavior. One such academic, called J. B. Watson, proposed a scientific, objective psychology of behaviour called 'behaviourism'. The case of 'Little Peter' is widely recognised as the sequel to the Little Albert case study and gave Watson and Jones the chance to test the principles of reconditioning, which they did not implement with Albert. Albert was described as a normal child, well developed for his age with a phlegmatic character described as stolid and unemotional. He had been chosen by Watson and Rayner for the study because he was readily available for study and because being such a strong and stable character, they felt he would come to relatively little harm as a result of the study. Watson pioneered the use of classical conditioning techniques in advertsing campaigns.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Using Classical Conditioning for Treating Phobias & Disorders

Classical conditioning, a psychological phenomenon first discovered by Ivan Pavlov in the late 19th century, has proven to be a useful tool that has withstood the test of time (Rachman, 2009).

By using classical conditioning for phobias and anxiety disorders in modern-day treatments, individuals with intense and irrational fears may be able to find some relief.

Built upon Pavlov’s groundbreaking work, contemporary research has harnessed the power of conditioned fear extinction and reconsolidation to ease these phobic responses.

This article explores the application of classical conditioning for phobias, with techniques such as exposure therapy and systematic desensitization, in treating disorders.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free . These science-based exercises explore fundamental aspects of positive psychology, including strengths, values, and self-compassion, and will give you the tools to enhance the wellbeing of your clients, students, or employees.

This Article Contains

Classical conditioning role in clinical treatment, phobias, fear, and classical conditioning, treating and understanding anxiety, changing behavior through conditioning, does conditioning play a role in depression, 5 worksheets and games for therapists, resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

The history of classical conditioning can be traced back to the pioneering work of physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1904) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Pavlov conducted a series of experiments on dogs, initially intending to study the digestive processes. However, he noticed the dogs began salivating not just in response to food but also in anticipation of the food, such as when they heard footsteps approaching or saw the experimenter.

Pavlov recognized that this salivary response was a reflexive behavior that had been conditioned through repeated pairings of neutral stimuli (such as the sound of a bell) with the presentation of food. He referred to the neutral stimulus as the conditioned stimulus and the salivation as the conditioned response (Pavlov, 1904).

Pavlov’s experiments led to the development of the concept of classical conditioning . He proposed that through repeated pairings of a neutral stimulus with a biologically significant stimulus (such as food), the neutral stimulus acquires the ability to elicit a response similar to the one elicited by the biologically significant stimulus (Pavlov, 1904).

Pavlov’s work was significant because it highlighted the role of learning in shaping behavior. He demonstrated that organisms could learn to associate stimuli in their environment and that these associations could lead to predictable behavioral responses.

Classical conditioning gained further recognition and influence through the work of psychologist John B. Watson, often considered the founder of behaviorism . Watson applied classical conditioning principles to human behavior, emphasizing the importance of environmental stimuli in shaping and modifying behaviors (Rachman, 2009).

In the early 20th century, Watson conducted the infamous “Little Albert” experiment, demonstrating that fear responses could be conditioned in a young child (Watson & Rayner, 1920).

By pairing a neutral stimulus (a white rat) with a loud, sudden noise, Watson and his collaborator Rosalie Rayner successfully elicited a fear response in Little Albert whenever he encountered the rat alone.

This now-controversial experiment provided empirical evidence for the role of classical conditioning in the development of phobias. It contributed to understanding the relationship between learned associations and fear responses (Watson & Rayner, 1920).

Eventually, classical conditioning was incorporated into many therapeutic techniques. Often referred to as the “mother of behavior therapy,” Mary Cover Jones conducted groundbreaking work in the 1920s and 1930s on treating phobias using classical conditioning techniques.

Jones’s famous “Little Peter” experiment showed that fear responses could be gradually extinguished by pairing the feared object or situation with a pleasant stimulus, such as a treat or toy (Jones, 1991).

Joseph Wolpe (1961), a psychiatrist, developed systematic desensitization as a therapeutic technique for treating anxiety disorders. Systematic desensitization involves creating a hierarchy of feared stimuli and gradually exposing individuals to these stimuli while they engage in relaxation techniques. By repeatedly pairing relaxation with the feared stimuli, the conditioned fear response is weakened and replaced with relaxation.

Later, psychologist B. F. Skinner (1963) expanded on classical conditioning with his work on operant conditioning , which focused on the consequences of behavior rather than the association between stimuli.

In the mid-20th century, behavior therapy emerged as a distinct therapeutic approach incorporating classical conditioning principles. Prominent behavior therapists such as Joseph Wolpe (1961), Hans Eysenck (1960), and Arnold Lazarus (1974) developed and expanded upon classical conditioning techniques to treat a wide range of psychological disorders.

Over time, classical conditioning techniques found application in various therapeutic modalities, including Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT), exposure therapy, and eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (De Jongh et al., 1999).

These therapies draw on classical conditioning principles to help individuals modify their conditioned responses, reduce anxiety, alleviate phobias, treat trauma-related symptoms, and address other behavioral and emotional issues.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Exercises (PDF)

Enhance wellbeing with these free, science-based exercises that draw on the latest insights from positive psychology.

Download 3 Free Positive Psychology Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Conditioning can provide insights into how anxiety develops and is maintained. Anxiety can be understood as a conditioned response to certain stimuli or situations. Through classical conditioning, individuals may associate neutral or initially nonthreatening stimuli with fear or negative experiences.

Once a conditioned fear response is established, it can generalize to similar stimuli or situations. For example, if someone has a negative experience with a specific dog, they may start feeling anxious around all dogs, even if they haven’t had negative encounters with them before. The fear response generalizes from the conditioned stimulus (specific dog) to similar stimuli (other dogs).

Anxiety can also be reinforced through operant conditioning. If individuals engage in avoidance behaviors or escape responses to avoid anxiety-provoking situations, their anxiety may temporarily decrease. However, this avoidance behavior maintains and strengthens the anxiety over the long term.

By avoiding anxiety-provoking situations, individuals miss opportunities to experience corrective information and learn that their fears are unwarranted.

By understanding these processes, psychologists have developed therapeutic techniques that address and heal anxiety symptoms. One technique is systematic desensitization . This technique is often used to treat phobias, anxiety disorders, and post-traumatic stress disorder (McGlynn et al., 2004).

By gradually exposing individuals to feared stimuli or situations while pairing them with relaxation techniques, therapists aim to replace the fear or anxiety response with a relaxation response. Over time, the individual becomes desensitized to the previously feared stimuli.

Like systematic desensitization, exposure therapy exposes individuals to anxiety-provoking stimuli or situations. However, exposure therapy focuses on directly confronting the feared stimuli without relaxation techniques. Through repeated exposures, individuals learn that the feared stimuli are not as threatening as initially believed, and their conditioned fear response diminishes (Rauch et al., 2012).

Counterconditioning involves pairing the anxiety-provoking stimulus with a new, positive, or neutral response to counteract the fear response. This technique aims to establish a new conditioned response that is incompatible with anxiety. For example, a person who fears public speaking may engage in positive self-talk or visualization techniques while imagining speaking in front of an audience (Keller et al., 2020).

One fascinating way that technology has helped to assist in these processes is by using virtual reality (VR) simulations to create realistic and controlled environments to expose individuals to feared situations. By using VR, individuals can experience anxiety-provoking scenarios in a safe and controlled manner. This approach enables repeated exposure and facilitates the process of unlearning conditioned fear responses (Powers & Emmelkamp, 2008).

Obsessive-compulsive disorder

Classical and operant conditioning has also been incorporated into therapies made to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which is a complex set of behaviors and thoughts that can be especially debilitating to the individual.

Exposure and response prevention is a form of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy widely considered the gold standard for treating OCD (Hezel & Simpson, 2019). It involves exposing individuals to anxiety-provoking situations or triggers (exposure) and preventing the accompanying compulsive behaviors or rituals (response prevention).

The exposure component aims to evoke anxiety or distress while allowing habituation and disconfirmation of feared consequences. Over time, this can lead to the extinction of conditioned fear responses associated with obsessive thoughts.

OCD is a complex condition, and treatment often involves a comprehensive approach. Conditioning principles, such as exposure, response prevention, ritual reversal, and aversion therapy, are integrated into a treatment protocol that may also include other evidence-based tools, counseling, and medication.

Especially when considering substance and process addictions, these techniques are currently being used to help individuals reduce harmful behaviors.

How to stop smoking

Behavior therapies are very beneficial in helping individuals quit smoking and have been shown to have long-term efficacy (Vinci, 2020). These interventions are often combined with medication treatments for the highest efficacy.

The most commonly used and most successful type of psychological therapy for smoking cessation is Cognitive-Behavior Therapy (Vinci, 2020). CBT for smoking cessation usually involves cognitive restructuring beliefs about smoking, identifying triggers, and preventing relapse.

Contingency management is a behavioral intervention that provides tangible rewards or incentives for abstaining from substance use or engaging in healthy behaviors. By associating the desired behaviors with positive reinforcement , individuals are motivated to continue their recovery efforts and reduce engagement in addictive behaviors.

Contingency management has been shown to be effective in quitting smoking, drinking, and abstaining from other substances (Lamb et al., 2004).

Gambling addiction

Behavioral therapy has also been used to treat process addictions such as gambling. Gambling disorder is recognized as persistent and problematic gambling behavior that leads to increased distress and difficulties in the individual’s life.

While exposure therapy has mixed results as a treatment for substance use, it has been shown to be a good treatment for gambling (Bergeron et al., 2022).

Individuals may develop conditioned responses to gambling-related cues, like slot machine sounds or casino environments, which can elicit cravings and increase the likelihood of engaging in gambling behaviors. Treatment includes gradual exposure to either real or imagined cues, paired with response-prevention and calming techniques. Research shows a decrease in cravings and time spent gambling (Bergeron et al., 2022).

Combining conditioning approaches with other evidence-based therapies helps address the complex nature of addiction and increases the likelihood of successful recovery outcomes.

These conditioning-based techniques are often integrated into comprehensive treatment programs, including Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy, motivational interviewing , support groups, and medication management.

World’s Largest Positive Psychology Resource

The Positive Psychology Toolkit© is a groundbreaking practitioner resource containing over 500 science-based exercises , activities, interventions, questionnaires, and assessments created by experts using the latest positive psychology research.

Updated monthly. 100% Science-based.

“The best positive psychology resource out there!” — Emiliya Zhivotovskaya , Flourishing Center CEO

Depression is a complex mental health condition that arises from a combination of genetic, biological, environmental, and psychological factors. Conditioning is not typically considered a direct cause of depression. But conditioning processes can influence the development and maintenance of certain behavior and thought patterns contributing to depressive symptoms.

Research conducted by Martin Seligman (1972) introduced the concept of learned helplessness , which is a form of conditioning. When individuals repeatedly experience situations where they have no control over aversive events, they may develop a belief that they are helpless and unable to change their circumstances. This learned helplessness can contribute to feelings of hopelessness and helplessness that are characteristic of depression.

Individuals with depression may experience negative conditioning, where negative or aversive experiences become associated with certain stimuli, situations, or behaviors.

For example, if someone consistently receives criticism or rejection in social situations, they may develop a conditioned response of anxiety or sadness in similar situations, leading to avoidance behaviors and isolation. This negative conditioning can contribute to the maintenance of depressive symptoms.

And finally, in some cases, individuals with depression may inadvertently reinforce their depressive behaviors through negative reinforcement (Lewinsohn, 1974). For instance, withdrawal and social isolation may temporarily relieve feelings of social anxiety or stress. By engaging in these behaviors, individuals may unintentionally reinforce the cycle of depression, as avoidance and withdrawal can perpetuate negative mood states.

While conditioning processes can influence depressive symptoms, it’s clear that depression is multifaceted and caused by many underlying factors. Genetic predisposition, brain chemistry imbalances, life events, social factors, and cognitive factors all contribute to the development and experience of depression. Understanding and addressing these factors within a comprehensive treatment approach is crucial for effectively managing depression.

The following worksheets are useful tools.

1. Anxiety Hierarchy

This worksheet aids a client in creating a hierarchy of anxiety-provoking situations. It is a useful tool for beginning exposure therapy with a client that has an intense fear or phobia.

2. Anxiety Record

The Anxiety Record worksheet provides prompts for a client to process specific anxiety and investigate associated thoughts. This is a good worksheet to help a client reframe an unrealistic fear.

3. Imaginal Exposure

Imaginal Exposure helps the client rate their anxiety on the Subjective Units of Distress Scale before, during, and after the process.

4. Managing Panic

Sometimes clients need help identifying what behaviors, feelings, or thoughts may trigger a panic attack. Understanding their triggers may lead them to better insight and the development of coping skills to aid in treatment.

5. Fear in a Hat

Fear in a Hat is a group activity that can be used to confront fears and anxieties. Instruct every group member to write their fear or “the worst that could happen” about a particular topic on a piece of paper. Each member then places their papers into a hat or other container.

The container is passed around and group members pull out and read the fears to the group, explaining how they may feel if it were to happen. This game can help clients see that their fears may be shared by others, and they may seem less intimidating after sharing.

17 Top-Rated Positive Psychology Exercises for Practitioners

Expand your arsenal and impact with these 17 Positive Psychology Exercises [PDF] , scientifically designed to promote human flourishing, meaning, and wellbeing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

Behavior therapy is a foundational tool for clinicians to aid in relief from anxiety and related disorders, using classical conditioning for phobias.

At PositivePsychology.com, we have a range of related behavior therapy resources that you may find quite interesting.

Behavior change tools

For additional support, our tools can help incorporate behavioral techniques in other ways. Try some of these worksheets:

For behavior change in the classroom, try the classroom classical conditioning worksheet.

Here is a behavior change tool that helps clients replace maladaptive behaviors with rewarding and healthy new habits.

Graded exposure is a behavioral technique that will help clients face their fears safely. This graded exposure worksheet provides an outline and structure for the session.

Recommended reading

For additional learning, check out these other articles from our blog:

• A unique form of therapy, Interoceptive Exposure uses somatic work to aid the client in working through panic and anxiety.
• This valuable article contains a comprehensive list of techniques for anxiety therapy .
• For more quick and easy tools to use inside or outside a session with anxious clients, this anxiety tools article offers many new and useful ideas.

Free CBT Resources

We have wonderful free resources to support your CBT practice. Why not download our three free Positive CBT exercises ?

In this set, you will find:

• An exercise to help you rewrite rigid beliefs that may be keeping you from growth
• A tool that will help you identify what doesn’t need to change in order to appreciate the positives in life
• A writing prompt for a “wisdom letter,” written to give advice to someone who may be overcoming the same hardships that you have

17 Positive Psychology Exercises

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others enhance their wellbeing, check out this signature collection of 17 validated positive psychology tools for practitioners. Use them to help others flourish and thrive.

Classical conditioning for phobias has proven to be a valuable tool in treating anxiety disorders. Through the principles of conditioning, therapists can address the learned associations that contribute to anxiety and fear responses.

Techniques such as systematic desensitization, counterconditioning, and virtual reality exposure therapy have demonstrated effectiveness in helping individuals unlearn maladaptive fear responses and regain control over their anxiety.

Incorporating classical conditioning principles within comprehensive treatment approaches offers hope for individuals seeking relief from the burden of anxiety.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Psychology Exercises for free .

• Bergeron, P. Y., Giroux, I., Chrétien, M., & Bouchard, S. (2022). Exposure therapy for gambling disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Current Addiction Reports , 9 (3), 179–194.
• De Jongh, A., Ten Broeke, E., & Renssen, M. R. (1999). Treatment of specific phobias with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): Protocol, empirical status, and conceptual issues. Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 13 (1–2), 69–85.
• Eysenck, H. J. (1960). Personality and behaviour therapy. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine , 53 (7), 504–508.
• Hezel, D. M., & Simpson, H. B. (2019). Exposure and response prevention for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A review and new directions. Indian Journal of Psychiatry , 61 (suppl. 1), S85.
• Jones, M. C. (1991). A laboratory study of fear: The case of Peter. The Journal of Genetic Psychology , 152 (4), 462–469.
• Keller, N. E., Hennings, A. C., & Dunsmoor, J. E. (2020). Behavioral and neural processes in counterconditioning: Past and future directions. Behaviour Research and Therapy , 125 .
• Lamb, R. J., Kirby, K. C., Morral, A. R., Galbicka, G., & Iguchi, M. Y. (2004). Improving contingency management programs for addiction. Addictive Behaviors , 29 (3), 507–523.
• Lazarus, A. A. (1974). Desensitization and cognitive restructuring. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice , 11 (2), 98–102.
• Lewinsohn, P. M. (1974). A behavioral approach to depression. In R. J. Freedman & M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression (pp. 157–174). Wiley.
• McGlynn, F. D., Smitherman, T. A., & Gothard, K. D. (2004). Comment on the status of systematic desensitization. Behavior Modification , 28 (2), 194–205.
• Pavlov, I. (1904). Physiology of digestion. In F. Nobel (Ed.), Nobel lectures : Physiology or medicine (pp. 141–155). Elsevier.
• Powers, M. B., & Emmelkamp, P. M. (2008). Virtual reality exposure therapy for anxiety disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders , 22 (3), 561–569.
• Rachman, S. (2009). Psychological treatment of anxiety: The evolution of behavior therapy and cognitive behavior therapy. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 5 (1), 97–119.
• Rauch, S. A., Eftekhari, A., & Ruzek, J. I. (2012). Review of exposure therapy: A gold standard for PTSD treatment. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development , 49 (5), 679–687.
• Seligman, M. E. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual Review of Medicine , 23 (1), 407–412.
• Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist , 18 (8), 503–515.
• Vinci, C. (2020). Cognitive behavioral and mindfulness-based interventions for smoking cessation: A review of the recent literature. Current Oncology Reports , 22 .
• Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology , 3 (1), 1–14.
• Wolpe, J. (1961). The systematic desensitization treatment of neuroses. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 132 (3), 189–203.

Share this article:

Article feedback

Let us know your thoughts cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Hierarchy of Needs: A 2024 Take on Maslow’s Findings

One of the most influential theories in human psychology that addresses our quest for wellbeing is Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. While Maslow’s theory of [...]

Emotional Development in Childhood: 3 Theories Explained

We have all witnessed a sweet smile from a baby. That cute little gummy grin that makes us smile in return. Are babies born with [...]

What Is Transpersonal Psychology? 9 Examples and Theories

Have you ever had an experience of feeling connected to something larger than yourself? Perhaps while in nature, listening to music or appreciating art, or [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (52)
• Coaching & Application (39)
• Compassion (23)
• Counseling (40)
• Emotional Intelligence (21)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (18)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (16)
• Mindfulness (40)
• Motivation & Goals (41)
• Optimism & Mindset (29)
• Positive CBT (28)
• Positive Communication (23)
• Positive Education (36)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (16)
• Positive Parenting (14)
• Positive Psychology (21)
• Positive Workplace (35)
• Productivity (16)
• Relationships (46)
• Resilience & Coping (38)
• Self Awareness (20)
• Self Esteem (37)
• Strengths & Virtues (29)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (33)
• Theory & Books (42)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (54)

3 Positive Psychology Tools (PDF)

Skip to content

Get Revising

Join get revising, already a member.

Jones' Study of Little Peter, 1924

Sequel to Watson and Rayner's Classical Conditioning of Little Albert. This experiment was used as a counter-conditioning to a phobia belonging to Little Peter, 1924.

• Created by: Gemma-Josiane
• Created on: 08-06-10 09:26

Aim/Hypothesis

Mary Cover Jones, 1924, wanted to determin the most effective way to remove a fear response in a child through the use of classical conditioning.

As well as this, it might be worth noting that Jones wanted also to see whether the counter-conditioning of one stimulus could spread without further training to other stimuli.

Method/Design

Little Peter was nearly three years old when he became a participant of this experiment.

He originally displayed a fear of white rats which grew so intense, it even associated with rabbits, fur coats and the like.

The 'unconditioning procedure' began with Peter being around a group of peers who were specifically picked for their fearless and well-adapted attitudes. He was invited to play with them for a period of time, where the rat was always present.

Later on, further pleasant stimuli (warm food)was presented to him at the same time as the rat.

Results/Conclusion

In the very last session, Peter showed no fear response to the white rat. Even when he was in the presence of other children who were markedly distressed at the presence of the rat, Peter showed no distress at all.

This counter-conditioning did indeed spread to his fear of other related objects and successfully removed the fear of fur coats, feathers, rabbits etc.

It can be concluded therefore that emotional responses can be extinguished through a process of counter-conditioning.

• Marks in 1987 pondered whether it was the repeated exposure to the unpleasant stimulus that gradually reduced the inital fear, as opposed to the pairment of a pleasant stimulus.
• Although there may be some ethical issues, they are not nearly as intense as those with Watson and Rayner's initial study because although Little Peter did show some signs of fear and distress during the experiment (a) the experiment sought to bring good consequences and (b) these signs of fear and distress were not any more than what would normally be exhibited in every day life.
• Again, there may be some question of ecological validity for being held in a lab, but on the other hand, Peter was placed in a genuine social situation and was given food he may normally be exposed to outside of the experimental conditons.

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

Jones 0.0 / 5

Psychology - Jones (1924): curing a boy's phobia 5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating Teacher recommended

Systematic Desensitisation 4.0 / 5 based on 1 rating

Systematic Desensitisation 0.0 / 5

Psychology- Cover-Jones 0.0 / 5

Phobias - New spec 0.0 / 5

Jones : Curing a boy's phobia 4.0 / 5 based on 1 rating

Influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships, including the role of an internal working model 0.0 / 5

Influence of early attachment on later relationships 0.0 / 5

Psychology - Memory 3.0 / 5 based on 3 ratings