Little Albert Experiment

The Little Albert Experiment and it's affects on psychology

Skinner primarily worked and developed his theory of radical behaviorism and operant conditioning, Pavlov delved into reinforcing behavior using his theory of classical conditioning, and John B. Watson developed the theory of methodological behaviorism. Watson’s psychological research led to the "Little Albert Experiment", a widely cited, controversial study in which Watson set out to prove that emotional reactions could be conditioned in human subjects. 

John B. Watson and Behaviorism

Watson's research

Watson's contributions to psychology

The Little Albert experiment: White rat, loud noises, and conditioning psychology

John Watson's experiment was the first of its kind and has been recounted in psychology textbooks for decades, though it is often considered controversial. Using a child in a psychological experiment was considered unethical, but Watson wanted to follow the guidelines Pavlov used to condition dogs. Pavlov used food to condition dogs in his experiments, training the dogs to respond to the sound of a bell and associate it with food. Each time the dogs heard the bell, they would salivate, showing they were conditioned to expect food at the sound of the bell. 

The methods of the Little Albert Experiment

In the Little Albert experiment, Watson wanted to show that infants have a natural, innate fear of loud sounds. The experiment was also meant to prove that he could use a loud noise to produce conditioned responses in the child when they were shown a neutral stimulus. Watson believed phobias were developed from external stimuli and were conditioned responses. Watson and his assistant, graduate student Rosalie Rayner, recruited a nine-month-old infant and performed the experiments at Johns Hopkins University.

Watson and Rayner called the child "Little Albert" to hide his identity. They devised a protocol to produce emotional conditioning in the experiment with little Albert. Watson wanted to condition fear and believed his controlled experiment would produce the desired fear conditioning because of the hypothesis that babies fear loud sounds.

Little Albert and the white rat

In the experiment, Little Albert was first presented with a white laboratory rat, which served as the neutral stimulus. The white rat approached him and crawled around and on top of him. Albert showed no signs of fear and a mild interest in the rat. During this phase of the experiment, other white furry objects were presented to Albert, including a white rabbit, a white dog, and a Santa Claus mask. Albert showed no fear but was interested in the animals and other furry objects. 

Once Albert was introduced to the objects, they were presented again. However, this time, Watson created a loud clang, or unconditioned stimulus, using a hammer and a pipe. The loud noise startled Albert, causing him to cry, the unconditioned response. The researchers repeated this loud noise several times. First, the object, such as a white rat, was presented, followed immediately by a loud sound. After a few repetitions, Albert began crying at the sight of the rat with no loud noise. The rat, which was previously the neutral stimulus, had become the conditioned stimulus, causing Albert to cry due to its association with the unconditioned stimulus. Albert’s fearful reaction, which was once the unconditioned response, then became the conditioned response. During further experiments, the conditioned response of crying was also transferred to all other furry objects from the experiment—a process called stimulus generalization. This led Watson and Rayner to believe they had produced an emotionally conditioned response in Albert through classical conditioning.

Classical conditioning

The experiment conducted by John Watson and Rosalie Raynor demonstrated that classical conditioning could produce a fear response in humans. The results of the Little Albert experiment were originally published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 1920. Though it has been widely criticized, Watson’s study represents an important advancement in clinical psychology and the behavioral sciences; and it is one of the reasons Watson is still considered a highly influential American psychologist. 

Critics of the experiment

The Little Albert experiment is often cited as a compelling example of emotional conditioning. However, some researchers agree that a more extensive study pool or more than one experiment should have been conducted to produce comprehensive results that proved Watson had achieved classical conditioning. Infants have different personalities; some are naturally fearful, others are bold, and many are naturally cautious of unfamiliar items, people, and sounds. 

Douglas Meritte and his mother's role

Critics have another reason for not agreeing with Watson's experiment. Some believe the infant was sick when the conditioning experiments took place. The idea that Little Albert was ill at the time of the experiments comes from research into the identity of Albert. Psychologists believe they have tracked down the real Little Albert, Douglas Merritte. According to research published in a paper titled “Finding Little Albert: A Journey to John B. Watson’s Infant Laboratory”, Douglas Merritte was the son of a wet nurse at Harriet Lane Home, a pediatric hospital at Johns Hopkins University. According to John Watson, Albert’s mother held the same role at the same hospital. 

Douglas Merritte was born around the same time as Albert, and he lived with his mother at Harriet Lane Home for the majority of the first year of his life. These clues are frequently cited as evidence that Albert was sick during the experiments. Douglas might have had meningitis at the time of the experiments. Douglas died five years later due to hydrocephalus. If Little Albert was Douglas, he might have been a neurologically impaired child who was too sick to be considered a typical example of a perfectly healthy infant. He may have been dealing with underlying health issues that could have impacted his reactions during the experiment, including whether or not he was actually conditioned to react to the objects.

Other theories on the identity of Little Albert beyond Douglas Meritte

Some individuals have considered another possible candidate for Little Albert named William Barger. In a paper titled “Psychology’s Lost Boy: Will the Real Little Albert Please Stand Up?” researchers state that William Albert Barger was known to family and friends as Albert, and they used his middle name more than his first name. Modern psychologists use the information from this experiment to shape their hypotheses and theories regardless of who the child was. Today, using a young child in a psychology experiment, such as the one devised by Watson and Rayner, is unethical.

Long term effects and ethical psychology

If the child was Douglas Merritte, the long-term effects of this type of conditioning are not fully understood. Using a sick child also may impact Watson's reputation. If Douglas is the real Albert, the experiment may not able to support the idea of conditioning. Hydrocephaly is painful, and it potentially damages cognitive capabilities. It is speculated that Watson chose Douglas because he was sick; a baby with Douglas's condition would be calm during the initial stages but more likely to react by crying at the sound of the clanging. There are arguments on both sides, and whether the child in the Little Albert study was Douglas Meritte, William Albert Barger, or another child may not be as important as the ethics of this situation and what happened to Little Albert. 

The ethical complications of the Little Albert test

Testing and clinical trials involving children are not commonplace in psychology in the 21st century. Tests where one scares a child or causes traumatic responses can impact that child for life. Young children cannot consent to being included in experiments, and informed consent was not obtained in Albert’s case. Additionally, the conditioning of the irrational fear was never reversed in Albert. For these reasons, the psychology experiment is often considered unethical and abusive. 

Behaviorism and modern psychology