Little Albert experiment
In 1920, psychologists John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner conducted a groundbreaking—and deeply controversial—experiment that sought to demonstrate how fear could be 'conditioned' in a human infant. Known as the Little Albert experiment, their work profoundly influenced early behaviorism and raised ethical questions that continue to shape psychological research today. But beyond its scientific impact, the true identity and fate of 'Little Albert' remain a compelling, unresolved mystery. The Little Albert experiment demonstrated how classical conditioning could instill fear in an infant, linking a neutral stimulus to an innate fright response. Despite its scientific influence, the experiment is now considered highly unethical due to the distress caused to the child and the failure to 'decondition' his learned fears. The true identity of 'Little Albert' has been a subject of intense debate, with modern research proposing conflicting candidates and highlighting potential health issues that further complicate the study's interpretation.
AI Summary
In 1920, psychologists John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner conducted a groundbreaking—and deeply controversial—experiment that sought to demonstrate how fear could be 'conditioned' in a human infant. Known as the Little Albert experiment, their work profoundly influenced early behaviorism and raised ethical questions that continue to shape psychological research today. But beyond its scientific impact, the true identity and fate of 'Little Albert' remain a compelling, unresolved mystery.
- The Little Albert experiment demonstrated how classical conditioning could instill fear in an infant, linking a neutral stimulus to an innate fright response.
- Despite its scientific influence, the experiment is now considered highly unethical due to the distress caused to the child and the failure to 'decondition' his learned fears.
- The true identity of 'Little Albert' has been a subject of intense debate, with modern research proposing conflicting candidates and highlighting potential health issues that further complicate the study's interpretation.
The Birth of a Controversial Idea
Imagine if you could 'teach' someone to be afraid of something they initially felt neutral about. This was the audacious premise of the Little Albert experiment, conceived by pioneering behaviorist John B. Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, in 1920. Watson theorized that if a loud, startling noise could instinctively frighten a child, perhaps that fear could be transferred to an otherwise harmless object.
Their aim was to demonstrate classical conditioning in humans — a concept previously explored by Ivan Pavlov with his famous experiments on dogs. Pavlov showed dogs could be conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell if the bell was consistently paired with food. Watson and Rayner wanted to see if the same principles could create a phobia in an emotionally stable child.
Meet "Little Albert"
For their subject, Watson and Rayner chose a nine-month-old infant from a hospital, whom they referred to simply as 'Albert.' Before the experiment began, they conducted baseline tests, exposing Albert to various stimuli he'd never encountered before: a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, masks, cotton, and even burning newspapers.
Crucially, Albert showed absolutely no fear of any of these items. In fact, he often reached out to touch them with curiosity. This confirmed his 'neutral' emotional state towards these potential future fear objects, setting the stage for the conditioning process.
The Conditioning Begins
When Albert was 11 months old, the main experiment began. He was placed on a mattress in the middle of a room. A white laboratory rat, previously a neutral object, was placed near him, and Albert was allowed to play with it. The moment Albert touched the rat, Watson and Rayner would strike a suspended steel bar with a hammer, creating a sudden, terrifyingly loud noise behind the baby's head.
Albert's natural, unconditioned response to this loud noise was immediate distress — crying and showing clear signs of fear. This pairing of the harmless rat (neutral stimulus) with the frightening noise (unconditioned stimulus) was repeated several times. The goal was to forge a powerful, unconscious association in Albert's mind.
After just a few such pairings, the researchers presented Albert with only the white rat. What happened next was both a scientific 'success' and a heartbreaking outcome: Albert became severely distressed, crying and attempting to crawl away from the rat. The neutral rat had become a conditioned stimulus, now capable of eliciting a conditioned emotional response — fear — all on its own.
The Spread of Fear
The conditioning didn't stop there. In subsequent tests, Little Albert appeared to generalize his fear response. He became distressed at the sight of several other furry objects, including a rabbit, a furry dog, a fur coat, and even a Santa Claus mask adorned with white cotton balls for a beard. His fear had spread beyond the initial white rat.
However, this generalization wasn't universal. The fear didn't extend to all things with hair, suggesting there were limits to how broadly the conditioned response could spread. Interestingly, Watson himself later admitted in his research article that the fear he generated in Albert was 'neither strong nor lasting' — a crucial detail often overlooked in popular retellings.
An Unfinished Story: Albert's Fate
At the conclusion of the experiment, Albert was about one year old and reportedly left the hospital shortly thereafter. Watson had discussed the possibility of 'deconditioning' Albert's newly instilled fears, but he never actually attempted to do so. It is widely believed that Albert's conditioned fear of furry objects likely continued long after the experiment ended.
A Spark for Future Research
Despite the controversial nature of the experiment, it undeniably influenced the field of psychology. One notable individual inspired by Watson's work was Mary Cover Jones. After attending one of Watson's lectures on the Little Albert study, she became determined to find a way to eliminate fear responses in children.
Jones conducted her own groundbreaking experiment with a two-year-old boy named Peter, who, like Albert, feared white rabbits and furry objects. Through a process of gradual exposure and social learning (having Peter interact with children who weren't afraid), Jones successfully increased Peter's tolerance for the rabbit, eventually eliminating his fear. Her pioneering work earned her the title 'Mother of Behavior Therapy,' as she was the first to successfully decondition a fear response.
A Modern Ethical Dilemma
By today's standards, the Little Albert experiment would be deemed profoundly unethical. Modern psychological research is strictly governed by codes of conduct, such as those established by the American Psychological Association and frameworks like the Belmont Report. These guidelines prioritize the well-being and informed consent of participants, especially vulnerable populations like infants.
Experiments like Watson's, which intentionally induce distress or potential long-term psychological harm without clear therapeutic benefit, would never receive approval today. The emphasis on protecting human subjects reflects a significant shift in scientific ethics, ensuring that the pursuit of knowledge never comes at the expense of an individual's welfare.
Who Was Little Albert, Really?
One of the most enduring mysteries surrounding the experiment is the true identity of 'Little Albert.' For decades, it was commonly believed that Albert's mother, a wet nurse at the hospital, took him away shortly after the experiment when she learned of the nature of the tests, vanishing without a trace.
The Douglas Merritte Hypothesis
In 2009, psychologists Hall P. Beck and Sharman Levinson claimed to have identified Albert as Douglas Merritte. After extensive research into census records and hospital documents, they proposed that Douglas, the son of a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home, was the baby in question. Tragically, Douglas Merritte was found to have suffered from hydrocephalus, an accumulation of fluid on the brain, and died at age six.
If Douglas Merritte truly was Little Albert, it casts a very different shadow on the experiment. His neurological impairment could explain some of his behaviors during the study, like unusual hand-scooping gestures and a lack of typical facial expressions. This finding ignited a fierce debate, as it would mean the researchers knowingly experimented on a sick infant and potentially misrepresented their findings as applicable to 'normal, healthy' children.
The Albert Barger Alternative
However, this identification was soon challenged. Other psychology researchers, Russ Powell, Nancy Digdon, and Ben Harris, put forward an alternative: Albert Barger, also known as William Albert Martin. Barger was born within a day of Merritte, and his mother also worked at the hospital. Crucially, his developmental condition and body weight closely matched the original experiment's documentation.
Further complicating matters, Merritte's clinical file later revealed he was 'completely blind' — a fact inconsistent with the experiment's films, which show Little Albert engaging in object-directed actions. Albert Barger, conversely, was found to be healthy when he left the hospital at the exact age mentioned in Watson's report. While Barger's niece recalled he had a mild aversion to animals, there was no strong phobia that could be definitively linked to the experiment, and he remained unaware of his potential role throughout his life.
A Legacy of Debate
Ultimately, the Little Albert experiment remains shrouded in uncertainty. The lack of concrete, verifiable scientific records, conflicting interpretations of the existing film, and the unresolved identity of the child have led some critics to label its results as 'interesting but uninterpretable.' Many psychology textbooks are even said to contain inaccuracies or exaggerations when describing Albert's post-conditioning fears.
Regardless of the specific details and the true identity of its subject, the Little Albert experiment stands as a powerful, albeit ethically troubling, illustration of classical conditioning. It forever changed our understanding of how fears can be learned, while simultaneously serving as a stark reminder of the critical importance of ethical considerations in all scientific endeavors.
Article
Little Albert experiment
One of a series of published stills taken from film of the experiment
The Little Albert experiment was a study that mid-20th century psychologists interpret as evidence of classical conditioning in humans. The study is also claimed to be an example of stimulus generalization although reading the research report demonstrates that fear did not generalize by color or tactile qualities. It was carried out by John B. Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, at Johns Hopkins University. The results were first published in the February 1920 issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
After observing children in the field, Watson hypothesized that the fearful response of children to loud noises is an innate unconditioned response. He wanted to test the notion that by following the principles of the procedure now known as "classical conditioning", he could use this unconditioned response to condition a child to fear a distinctive stimulus that normally would not be feared by a child (in this case, furry objects). However, he admitted in his research article that the fear he generated was neither strong nor lasting.
Method
Little Albert experiment
The aim of Watson and Rayner was to condition a phobia in an emotionally stable child. For this study, they chose a nine-month-old infant from a hospital. The child was referred to as "Albert" for the experiment. Watson followed the procedures which Ivan Pavlov had used in his experiments with dogs.
Before the experiment, Albert was given a battery of baseline emotional tests: the infant was exposed, briefly and for the first time, to a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, masks (with and without hair), cotton, wool, burning newspapers, and other stimuli. Albert showed no fear of any of these items during the baseline tests.
For the experiment proper, by which point Albert was 11 months old, he was put on a mattress on a table in the middle of a room. A white laboratory rat was placed near Albert and he was allowed to play with it. At this point, Watson and Rayner made a loud sound behind Albert's back by striking a suspended steel bar with a hammer each time the baby touched the rat. Albert responded to the noise by crying and demonstrating fear. After several such pairings of the two stimuli, Albert was presented with only the rat. Upon seeing the rat, Albert became very distressed, crying and crawling away. Apparently, the infant associated the white rat with the noise. The rat, originally a neutral stimulus, had become a conditioned stimulus and was eliciting an emotional (conditional) response similar to the distress (unconditioned response) originally given to the noise (unconditioned stimulus).
In further experiments, Little Albert seemed to generalize his response to the white rat. He became distressed at the sight of several other furry objects, such as a rabbit, a furry dog, a fur coat, and even a Santa Claus mask with white cotton balls in the beard. However, this stimulus generalization did not extend to everything with hair.
Watson's experiment had many failings by modern standards. For example, it had only a single subject and no control subjects. Furthermore, such an experiment could be hard to conduct in compliance with current laws and regulations, given the expected risks to the subject.
Subsequent events
Little Albert experiment
Albert was about one year old at the end of the experiment, and he reportedly left the hospital shortly thereafter. Though Watson had discussed what might be done to remove Albert's conditioned fears, he chose not to attempt such desensitization with Albert, and it is thought likely that the infant's fear of furry things continued postexperimentally.
Watson later gave a series of weekend lectures describing the Little Albert study. One of these lectures was attended by Mary Cover Jones, which sparked her interest in pursuing graduate work in psychology. Jones conducted an experiment to figure out how to eliminate fear responses in children and studied a boy named Peter, who was two years old. Peter shared similar fears of white rabbits and furry objects as Little Albert. Jones was able to increase Peter's tolerance of white rabbits by exposing him to the animal at gradually shorter distances and having Peter interact with children who were not afraid of the rabbit. Watson is listed in the publication of the study as advisor and editor. Mary Cover Jones was the first psychologist to desensitize, or decondition, a fear response and become known as the "Mother of Behavior Therapy".
Identifying Little Albert
Little Albert experiment
According to some textbooks, Albert's mother worked in the same building as Watson and did not know the tests were being conducted. When she found out, she took Albert and moved away, letting no one know where they were going. A 2009 report, however, disputes that. The original report had stated that the baby's mother was a wet nurse at the hospital, who may have felt coerced and unable to turn down a request for her baby to be used in Watson's experiment. The claim of coercion was challenged in an article published in the same journal as the coercion claim.
Douglas Merritte
In 2009, psychologists Hall P. Beck and Sharman Levinson published an article in which they claimed to have discovered the true identity of "Albert B." After reviewing Watson's correspondence and publications, as well as research in public documents (such as the 1920 United States census and state birth and death records), Beck argued that "Albert B." was a pseudonym for Douglas Merritte, the son of Arvilla Merritte, then a woman who appears to have been a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home.
It was later found that Douglas Merritte had hydrocephalus, from which he died at the age of 6. With this condition, which is an accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid on the brain, Merritte may have had severe trouble seeing at the time of the experiment, and this disputes the claim that the child in question was average and healthy. According to researchers who looked at this case years later, if Douglas Merritte was, indeed, Little Albert, his actions during the conditioning sessions align with signs of neurological impairment. This includes Little Albert's use of hand-scooping, rather than grasping gestures typical of this age, as well as poor eye-scanning abilities and his lack of facial expressions. Other research has argued, however, that Douglas Merritte may not have been "Little Albert", who may, in fact, have been young Albert Barger (known later as William Albert Martin).
Albert Barger
The identity claimed by Beck, et al., has been contested by psychology researchers Russ Powell, Nancy Digdon and Ben Harris, who offer an alternative identity based on available data. Albert Barger had been born within a day of Merritte, and his mother had also worked at the hospital where the experiment was conducted. In addition, his body weight and developmental condition closely matched the experiment's documentation of the subject baby's condition. Moreover, according to Watson and Rayner (1920), Little Albert was 12 months and 21 days the last day of the experiment when "he was taken from the hospital" (p. 12), the exact age Albert Barger had been when he left the hospital. Finally, when Powell et al. were allowed to independently verify Douglas Merritte's clinical file, it was revealed that he was "completely blind", which is at odds with the experiment's films where Little Albert engages in probable instances of object-directed action and social referencing.
Through the use of a professional genealogist, the researchers learned Barger had died in 2007 at age 87 and identified one close living relative, a niece. In an interview, Barger's niece stated that she and her uncle had been quite close throughout his life, and acknowledged Barger's antipathy toward dogs as a well-known fact that family members, particularly his wife, would tease him about (the researchers noted there was no way to determine whether or not this behavior was linked to Watson's experiment). She also informed researchers of her uncle's aversion to animals in general, not just dogs. Though it was not a particularly strong aversion, family members would often have to keep their dogs in a separate room when he visited. Outside of this, Barger's niece stated that she did not recall any other phobias he may have had. The researchers concluded that Barger would have been unaware of his role as an infant test subject.
Ethical considerations
Little Albert experiment
The experiment today would be considered unethical according to the American Psychological Association's ethic code, and legislation has been passed to prevent such potentially harmful experiments. In the early 1970s, following widely publicized cases of research abuse, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (NCPHS) was created to study issues surrounding the protection of humans in research. In 1979, the Commission issued a report entitled Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (commonly called the Belmont Report), which provided the ethical framework on which current federal regulations for the protection of human participants in research are based. Under the NCPHS standards set in the late 1970s, an experiment such as Watson's would not have been allowed. Research with participants is also regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Public Health Service Act. In addition, training of researchers in the use of human participants has been required by the National Institutes of Health since 2000.
Criticisms
Little Albert experiment
A detailed review of the original study and its subsequent interpretations by Ben Harris (1979) stated:
Critical reading of Watson and Rayner's (1920) report reveals little evidence either that Albert developed a rat phobia or even that animals consistently evoked his fear (or anxiety) during Watson and Rayner's experiment. It may be useful for modern learning theorists to see how the Albert study prompted subsequent research ... but it seems time, finally, to place the Watson and Rayner data in the category of "interesting but uninterpretable" results.
It is difficult to be certain exactly what happened during the Little Albert experiment since concrete evidence and scientific records are lacking. Though a film was shot during the experiment, textbooks interpret the movie differently. Various sources give contradicting accounts of events that took place and they raise questions about exactly what stimuli were used, which stimuli the baby came to fear, and what happened to the child after the experiment. It was said that most textbooks "suffer from inaccuracies of various degrees" while referring to Watson and Rayner's study. Texts often misrepresent, exaggerate, or minimize the range of Albert's post-conditioning fears.
Other criticisms concern the health of the child. It has been alleged that his name was Douglas Merritte and that he was not a "healthy", "normal" infant as claimed in the study, but one who was very ill and had exhibited symptoms of hydrocephalus since birth—according to relatives he never learned to walk or talk later in life. The child would purportedly die five years after the experiment due to complications from the congenital disease. It is stated that the study's authors were aware of the child's severe cognitive deficit, abnormal behavior, and unusually frequent crying, but continued to terrify the sick infant and generalize their findings to healthy infants, an act criticized as academic fraud. These accusations were rejected by other articles in the same journals that published the initial claims. The authors rejecting the "sick baby" claim stated that the child was actually William (called Albert by his family) Barger, and that the child was, in fact, healthy.