independent variable in little albert experiment

Little Albert Experiment (Watson & Rayner)

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.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Watson and Rayner (1920) conducted the Little Albert Experiment to answer 3 questions:

Can an infant be conditioned to fear an animal that appears simultaneously with a loud, fear-arousing sound?

Would such fear transfer to other animals or inanimate objects?

How long would such fears persist?

Little Albert Experiment

Ivan Pavlov showed that classical conditioning applied to animals.  Did it also apply to humans? In a famous (though ethically dubious) experiment, John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner showed it did.

Conducted at Johns Hopkins University between 1919 and 1920, the Little Albert experiment aimed to provide experimental evidence for classical conditioning of emotional responses in infants

At the study’s outset, Watson and Rayner encountered a nine-month-old boy named “Little Albert” (his real name was Albert Barger) – a remarkably fearless child, scared only by loud noises.

After gaining permission from Albert’s mother, the researchers decided to test the process of classical conditioning on a human subject – by inducing a further phobia in the child.

The baseline session occurred when Albert was approximately nine months old to test his reactions to neutral stimuli.

Albert was reportedly unafraid of any of the stimuli he was shown, which consisted of “a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, with [sic] masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers, etc.” (Watson & Rayner, 1920, p. 2). 

Approximately two months after the baseline session, Albert was subjected during two conditioning sessions spaced one week apart to a total of seven pairings of a white rat followed by the startling sound of a steel bar being struck with a hammer.

When Little Albert was just over 11 months old, the white rat was presented, and seconds later, the hammer was struck against the steel bar.

After seven pairings of the rat and noise (in two sessions, one week apart), Albert reacted with crying and avoidance when the rat was presented without the loud noise.

By the end of the second conditioning session, when Albert was shown the rat, he reportedly cried and “began to crawl away so rapidly that he was caught with difficulty before reaching the edge of the table” (p. 5). Watson and Rayner interpreted these reactions as evidence of fear conditioning.

By now, little Albert only had to see the rat and immediately showed every sign of fear. He would cry (whether or not the hammer was hit against the steel bar), and he would attempt to crawl away.

The two conditioning sessions were followed by three transfer sessions. During the first transfer session, Albert was shown the rat to assess maintained fear, as well as other furry objects to test generalization. 

Complicating the experiment, however, the second transfer session also included two additional conditioning trials with the rat to “freshen up the reaction” (Watson & Rayner, 1920, p. 9), as well as conditioning trials in which a dog and a rabbit were, for the first time, also paired with the loud noise.

This fear began to fade as time went on, however, the association could be renewed by repeating the original procedure a few times.

Unlike prior weekly sessions, the final transfer session occurred after a month to test maintained fear. Immediately following the session, Albert and his mother left the hospital, preventing Watson and Rayner from carrying out their original intention of deconditioning the fear they have classically conditioned.

Experimental Procedure

Classical conditioning.

• Neutral Stimulus (NS): This is a stimulus that, before conditioning, does not naturally bring about the response of interest. In this case, the Neutral Stimulus was the white laboratory rat. Initially, Little Albert had no fear of the rat, he was interested in the rat and wanted to play with it.
• Unconditioned Stimulus (US): This is a stimulus that naturally and automatically triggers a response without any learning. In the experiment, the unconditioned stimulus was the loud, frightening noise. This noise was produced by Watson and Rayner striking a steel bar with a hammer behind Albert’s back.
• Unconditioned Response (UR): This is the natural response that occurs when the Unconditioned Stimulus is presented. It is unlearned and occurs without previous conditioning. In this case, the Unconditioned Response was Albert’s fear response to the loud noise – crying and showing distress.
• Conditioning Process: Watson and Rayner then began the conditioning process. They presented the rat (NS) to Albert, and then, while he was interacting with the rat, they made a loud noise (US). This was done repeatedly, pairing the sight of the rat with the frightening noise. As a result, Albert started associating the rat with the fear he experienced due to the loud noise.
• Conditioned Stimulus (CS): After several pairings, the previously Neutral Stimulus (the rat) becomes the conditioned stimulus , as it now elicits the fear response even without the presence of the loud noise.
• Conditioned Response (CR): This is the learned response to the previously neutral stimulus, which is now the Conditioned Stimulus. In this case, the Conditioned Response was Albert’s fear of the rat. Even without the loud noise, he became upset and showed signs of fear whenever he saw the rat.

In this experiment, a previously unafraid baby was conditioned to become afraid of a rat. It also demonstrates two additional concepts, originally outlined by Pavlov .

• Extinction : Although a conditioned association can be incredibly strong initially, it begins to fade if not reinforced – until is disappears completely.
• Generalization : Conditioned associations can often widen beyond the specific stimuli presented. For instance, if a child develops a negative association with one teacher, this association might also be made with others.

Over the next few weeks and months, Little Albert was observed and ten days after conditioning his fear of the rat was much less marked. This dying out of a learned response is called extinction.

However, even after a full month, it was still evident, and the association could be renewed by repeating the original procedure a few times.

Unfortunately, Albert’s mother withdrew him from the experiment the day the last tests were made, and Watson and Rayner were unable to conduct further experiments to reverse the condition response.

• The Little Albert experiment was a controversial psychology experiment by John B. Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, at Johns Hopkins University.
• The experiment was performed in 1920 and was a case study aimed at testing the principles of classical conditioning.
• Watson and Raynor presented Little Albert (a nine-month-old boy) with a white rat, and he showed no fear. Watson then presented the rat with a loud bang that startled Little Albert and made him cry.
• After the continuous association of the white rat and loud noise, Little Albert was classically conditioned to experience fear at the sight of the rat.
• Albert’s fear generalized to other stimuli that were similar to the rat, including a fur coat, some cotton wool, and a Santa mask.

Critical Evaluation

Methodological limitations.

The study is often cited as evidence that phobias can develop through classical conditioning. However, critics have questioned whether conditioning actually occurred due to methodological flaws (Powell & Schmaltz, 2022).

• The study didn’t control for pseudoconditioning – the loud noise may have simply sensitized Albert to be fearful of any novel stimulus.
• It didn’t control for maturation – Albert was 11 months old initially, but the final test was at 12 months. Fears emerge naturally over time in infants, so maturation could account for Albert’s reactions.
• Albert’s reactions were inconsistent and the conditioned fear weak – he showed little distress to the rat in later tests, suggesting the conditioning was not very effective or durable.

Other methodological criticisms include:

• The researchers confounded their own experiment by conditioning Little Albert using the same neutral stimuli as the generalized stimuli (rabbit and dog).
• Some doubts exist as to whether or not this fear response was actually a phobia. When Albert was allowed to suck his thumb he showed no response whatsoever. This stimulus made him forget about the loud sound. It took more than 30 times for Watson to finally take Albert’s thumb out to observe a fear response.
• Other limitations included no control subject and no objective measurement of the fear response in Little Albert (e.g., the dependent variable was not operationalized).
• As this was an experiment of one individual, the findings cannot be generalized to others (e.g., low external validity). Albert had been reared in a hospital environment from birth and he was unusual as he had never been seen to show fear or rage by staff. Therefore, Little Albert may have responded differently in this experiment to how other young children may have, these findings will therefore be unique to him.

Theoretical Limitations

The cognitive approach criticizes the behavioral model as it does not take mental processes into account. They argue that the thinking processes that occur between a stimulus and a response are responsible for the feeling component of the response.

Ignoring the role of cognition is problematic, as irrational thinking appears to be a key feature of phobias.

Tomarken et al. (1989) presented a series of slides of snakes and neutral images (e.g., trees) to phobic and non-phobic participants. The phobics tended to overestimate the number of snake images presented.

The Little Albert Film

Powell and Schmaltz (2022) examined film footage of the study for evidence of conditioning. Clips showed Albert’s reactions during baseline and final transfer tests but not the conditioning trials. Analysis of his reactions did not provide strong evidence of conditioning:

• With the rat, Albert was initially indifferent and tried to crawl over it. He only cried when the rat was placed on his hand, likely just startled.
• With the rabbit, dog, fur coat, and mask, his reactions could be explained by being startled, innate wariness of looming objects, and other factors. Reactions were inconsistent and mild.

Overall, Albert’s reactions seem well within the normal range for an infant and can be readily explained without conditioning. The footage provides little evidence he acquired conditioned fear.

The belief the film shows conditioning may stem from:

• Viewer expectation – titles state conditioning occurred and viewers expect to see it.
• A tendency to perceive stronger evidence of conditioning than actually exists.
• An ongoing perception of behaviorism as manipulative, making Watson’s conditioning of a “helpless” infant seem plausible.

Rather than an accurate depiction, the film may have been a promotional device for Watson’s research. He hoped to use it to attract funding for a facility to closely study child development.

This could explain anomalies like the lack of conditioning trials and rearrangement of test clips.

Ethical Issues

The Little Albert Experiment was conducted in 1920 before ethical guidelines were established for human experiments in psychology. When judged by today’s standards, the study has several concerning ethical issues:

• There was no informed consent obtained from Albert’s parents. They were misled about the true aims of the research and did not know their child would be intentionally frightened. This represents a lack of transparency and a violation of personal autonomy.
• Intentionally inducing a fear response in an infant is concerning from a nonmaleficence perspective, as it involved deliberate psychological harm. The distress exhibited by Albert suggests the conditioning procedure was unethical by today’s standards.
• Watson and Rayner did not attempt to decondition or desensitize Albert to the fear response before the study ended abruptly. This meant they did not remove the psychological trauma they had induced, violating the principle of beneficence. Albert was left in a state of fear, which could have long-lasting developmental effects. Watson also published no follow-up data on Albert’s later emotional development.

Learning Check

• Summarise the process of classical conditioning in Watson and Raynor’s study.
• Explain how Watson and Raynor’s methodology is an improvement on Pavlov’s.
• What happened during the transfer sessions? What did this demonstrate?
• Why is Albert’s reaction to similar furry objects important for the interpretation of the study?
• Comment on the ethics of Watson and Raynor’s study.
• Support the claim that in ignoring the internal processes of the human mind, behaviorism reduces people to mindless automata (robots).

Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64 , 605–614.

Digdon, N., Powell, R. A., & Harris, B. (2014). Little Albert’s alleged neurological persist impairment: Watson, Rayner, and historical revision. History of Psychology , 17 , 312–324.

Fridlund, A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology , 15, 1–34.

Griggs, R. A. (2015). Psychology’s lost boy: Will the real Little Albert please stand up? Teaching of Psychology, 4 2, 14–18.

Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to little Alb ert? . American Psychologist, 34 (2), 151.

Harris, B. (2011). Letting go of Little Albert: Disciplinary memory, history, and the uses of myth. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 47 , 1–17.

Harris, B. (2020). Journals, referees and gatekeepers in the dispute over Little Albert, 2009–2014. History of Psychology, 23 , 103–121.

Powell, R. A., Digdon, N., Harris, B., & Smithson, C. (2014). Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as “psychology’s lost boy.” American Psychologist, 69 , 600–611.

Powell, R. A., & Schmaltz, R. M. (2021). Did Little Albert actually acquire a conditioned fear of furry animals? What the film evidence tells us.  History of Psychology ,  24 (2), 164.

Todd, J. T. (1994). What psychology has to say about John B. Watson: Classical behaviorism in psychology textbooks. In J. T. Todd & E. K. Morris (Eds.), Modern perspectives on John B. Watson and classical behaviorism (pp. 74–107). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Tomarken, A. J., Mineka, S., & Cook, M. (1989). Fear-relevant selective associations and covariation bias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 98 (4), 381.

Watson, J.B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist Views It. Psychological Review, 20 , 158-177.

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3 (1), 1.

Watson, J. B., & Watson, R. R. (1928). Psychological care of infant and child . New York, NY: Norton.

Further Information

• Finding Little Albert
• Mystery solved: We now know what happened to Little Albert
• Psychology’s lost boy: Will the real Little Albert please stand up?
• Journals, referees, and gatekeepers in the dispute over Little Albert, 2009-2014
• Griggs, R. A. (2014). The continuing saga of Little Albert in introductory psychology textbooks. Teaching of Psychology, 41(4), 309-317.

SiOWfa15: Science in Our World: Certainty and Controversy

The course website and blog for the fall 2015 instance of penn state's sc200 course.

Analyzing “Little Albert”

Fear is something that we have all experienced at some point in our lives. It is triggered by the expectance of pain or an unrecognizable event. Fear is an emotion, triggered by the amygdalae, the part of the brain that is responsible for emotional reactions. Throughout our lives, that part of our brain will react to different things. As an infant perhaps you were afraid of one of your relatives, as you grew older maybe you were afraid of the dark. As a college student maybe you are afraid of your exams. It feels like a natural reaction when we are scared of something, and it is, it is human nature for fear to be triggered by certain things. But can fear be taught? Can the power of a natural reaction be harnessed and exerted whenever presented with a specific situation? And lastly, is there an ethical way for us to find that out? Ethical or not, I introduce you to the Conditioning of Little Albert Experiment.

The “Little Albert Experiment” took place in the early 20 th century, performed by John B. Watson and a graduate student of his at Johns Hopkins, Rosalie Raynor. They hypothesized that following the procedure of classic conditioning , they could condition “little Albert” to fear things that normally go without fear from children.

“Around the age of nine months, Watson and Rayner exposed the child to a series of stimuli including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks and burning newspapers and observed the boy’s reactions. The boy initially showed no fear of any of the objects he was shown. The next time Albert was exposed the rat, Watson made a loud noise by hitting a metal pipe with a hammer. Naturally, the child began to cry after hearing the loud noise. After repeatedly pairing the white rat with the loud noise, Albert began to cry simply after seeing the rat.”(psychology.about.com)

Teaching an adult to fear something such as a white furry animal would prove much more difficult than an infant. For the most part, adults know how to rationalize, to decide whether a situation truly poses a threat to them or not. This is beyond an infant’s mental ability, which is why it was much easier to teach this fear to “little Albert”. I believe that the hypothesis that one can be conditioned to fear was definitely proven by this experiment. Although I think the hypothesis is very age specific. An important third variable for an experiment like this could definitely be age. As I mentioned before, an adult would have entirely different results than an infant, making age a very vital component in such an experiment.

Watson and Rayner also raised serious ethical concerns. First of all, they were unable to reverse the effects of their experiments on the baby. He moved away with his mother before they even had the chance. What was to become of “little Albert”? The effects could have had a strange and troubling effect on him later in life. As I said before, the experiment being done to an infant was vital, seeing as an adult would react completely different. But if the conditioning was so intense that it lingered with him it could have effects well into adulthood. Memories from being an infant are difficult to recall, some psychologists have even given the inability to remember early events a name; infantile amnesia . But recently, there has been increasing belief that emotional events can be recalled much easier: “…there has been increased awareness about the role of emotion in the modulation of memory, accompanied by the discovery that certain brain structures like the amygdala are specialized for emotional learning. Moreover, some researchers have found that high levels of stress may actually benefit recall. The links between emotion, stress, and memory have led scientists to wonder whether there might be less infantile amnesia associated with traumatic childhood events.”(brainconnection.brainhq.com) Testing on an adult “little Albert” would have been the best way to test this hypothesis, but would most likely prove to be just as unethical as it was when he was an infant. But regardless of ethics it would have been impossible to do so, seeing as he died at just age 6.

In conclusion, Watson and Rayner concluded that their hypothesis was correct, and they could condition “little Albert” to fear something irrational. Although their experiment was riddled with third variables such as age and mental ability. The experiment also is viewed widely as unethical, they taught an infant to be afraid of irrational things such as white fluffy animals, that he was previously unafraid of. Had the baby lived past 6 years old, the experiment could have proved life altering seeing as they did not attempt to reverse or reduce the effects of the emotional conditioning. Although the experiment is considered extremely controversial, almost 100 years later it is still discussed in most psychology courses across the United States. The memory of the Conditioning of Little Albert lives on.

Here is a link to Little Albert reacting to different animals and at the end a white mask worn by Watson, largely due to his manufactured fear of white or fluffy things.

One thought on “ Analyzing “Little Albert” ”

I found this blog very interesting because when I was in high school I took a psychology class and learned about “Little Albert”. The entire story fascinated me because I can not imagine a world where there was no regard for patient safety or well being. However the one thing that still confuses me to this day is who was Little Albert. I know that there are many different theories, but it would be interesting to actually find out who was this mysterious Albert. Maybe if there is one thing that you could have added to you blog, it would have been to talk about the theories behind who was Little Albert. That would have added some suspense and mystery, which in my mind never hurts to have.

Comments are closed.

Skip to content

Get Revising

Join get revising, already a member.

Watson and Rayner (1920)

• Created by: VittoriaAnna
• Created on: 23-05-16 10:00
• Educational psychology

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

Learning Overview 0.0 / 5

Psychological Studies 0.0 / 5

Psychology Approaches 5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating

Behavioural approach to explaining phobias 0.0 / 5

AS Psychology Abnormality Approaches Mind Map 3.5 / 5 based on 3 ratings

Behaviourist Approach (SLT) 0.0 / 5

Psychology : Behavioural Approach - Little Albert (Watson and Rayner 1920) 0.0 / 5

Watson and Rayner 1920- Little Albert: Classically Contion a fear 0.0 / 5

Evaluation of Watson and Rayner 1920 5.0 / 5 based on 2 ratings

The Behaviourist Approach 5.0 / 5 based on 4 ratings

• General Categories
• Mental Health
• IQ and Intelligence
• Bipolar Disorder

Little Albert Experiment: Watson’s Controversial Psychology Study on Fear Conditioning

A chilling cry echoed through the laboratory as an innocent baby’s trust was shattered, all in the name of a groundbreaking yet controversial psychology experiment that would forever change our understanding of fear. This haunting scene marked the beginning of the Little Albert experiment, a study that would etch itself into the annals of psychological history and spark debates for generations to come.

In the early 20th century, the field of psychology was still in its infancy, grappling with questions about human behavior and the nature of emotions. It was in this context that John B. Watson, the founder of behavioral psychology , embarked on a journey that would revolutionize our understanding of fear acquisition. Little did he know that his pursuit of knowledge would lead to one of the most controversial experiments in the history of psychology.

The Little Albert experiment, conducted in 1920, was designed to explore the process of classical conditioning in humans. Watson, along with his graduate student Rosalie Rayner, set out to prove that emotional responses could be learned through association. Their subject? A 9-month-old infant known only as “Albert B.” This seemingly innocent study would go on to become a cornerstone of behaviorism, while simultaneously raising serious ethical questions that continue to reverberate through the scientific community today.

The Man Behind the Experiment: John B. Watson

Before we delve into the nitty-gritty of the experiment, let’s take a moment to understand the mastermind behind it. John B. Watson was a force to be reckoned with in the world of psychology. His bold ideas and unorthodox methods would earn him both acclaim and criticism throughout his career.

Watson was a man on a mission. He believed that psychology should focus on observable behaviors rather than internal mental states. This radical departure from the introspective methods of his time would lay the foundation for behaviorism, a school of thought that dominated psychology for decades.

But Watson wasn’t content with just theorizing. He wanted to prove his ideas through rigorous experimentation. And what better way to demonstrate the power of conditioning than by working with a blank slate – an infant whose fears and phobias had yet to be formed?

The Little Albert Experiment: A Controversial Quest for Knowledge

The objectives of the Little Albert experiment were ambitious, to say the least. Watson and Rayner hypothesized that they could condition a fear response in a child by pairing a neutral stimulus with a frightening experience. If successful, this would demonstrate that complex emotional reactions could be learned through environmental associations.

Enter Little Albert, a healthy, emotionally stable infant who would unwittingly become the subject of one of psychology’s most unethical experiments . The child’s true identity remained a mystery for decades, adding an air of intrigue to an already controversial study.

The experimental design was deceptively simple. Watson and Rayner would present Albert with various stimuli, including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks, and burning newspapers. Initially, Albert showed no fear towards these objects. But that was about to change in a way that would send shockwaves through the scientific community.

The Experiment Unfolds: A Step-by-Step Journey into Fear

The experiment began innocently enough. Watson and Rayner observed Albert’s reactions to various stimuli, establishing a baseline of his emotional responses. The infant showed curiosity and even delight when presented with the white rat and other objects.

But then came the twist that would forever change little Albert’s life. As he reached out to touch the white rat, Watson struck a steel bar with a hammer just behind Albert’s head, producing a loud, startling noise. The sudden clanging sound frightened Albert, causing him to cry and show signs of distress.

This pairing of the rat with the loud noise was repeated several times. Soon, Albert began to show signs of fear and distress at the mere sight of the rat, even without the accompanying noise. The once-neutral stimulus had become a source of terror for the infant.

But Watson and Rayner didn’t stop there. They wanted to see if Albert’s newly acquired fear would generalize to other similar objects. They presented him with a rabbit, a dog, a fur coat, and even a Santa Claus mask with a white beard. To their fascination (and our horror), Albert showed signs of fear and avoidance towards these stimuli as well.

Results That Shook the Foundations of Psychology

The results of the Little Albert experiment were nothing short of groundbreaking. Watson and Rayner had successfully demonstrated that a fear response could be conditioned in a human subject. Albert’s acquired fear of the rat persisted, and even generalized to similar objects, providing strong evidence for the power of classical conditioning in shaping emotional responses.

Watson’s conclusions were bold and far-reaching. He argued that this experiment proved that phobias and other emotional reactions were learned rather than innate. This interpretation would go on to influence theories of personality development and psychopathology for years to come.

But as with any scientific breakthrough, the devil was in the details. Critics would later point out limitations in the study’s methodology and question the generalizability of its findings. After all, how much can we really infer from a single case study, especially one conducted under such ethically dubious circumstances?

The Little Albert Psychology Definition: A New Understanding of Fear

The Little Albert experiment gave rise to a new understanding of fear acquisition, encapsulated in what we now call the Little Albert psychology definition. This concept refers to the process by which a neutral stimulus becomes associated with a fear response through repeated pairings with an aversive stimulus.

This definition has far-reaching implications for our understanding of human behavior. It suggests that many of our emotional reactions, including our fears and phobias, are not innate but learned through experience. This insight has been applied in various therapeutic contexts, from treating phobias to modifying problematic behaviors.

However, it’s crucial to note that the Little Albert experiment, while influential, is not without its critics. Some researchers have questioned the validity of Watson’s conclusions, pointing out potential confounding variables and methodological flaws. Others have raised concerns about the ethical implications of inducing fear in an infant for the sake of scientific inquiry.

The Ethical Quagmire: A Dark Chapter in Psychological Research

As we delve deeper into the Little Albert experiment, we can’t ignore the elephant in the room – the glaring ethical violations that would make any modern researcher’s skin crawl. Today, this study stands as a stark reminder of how far we’ve come in terms of research ethics, and how far we still have to go.

The experiment violated several fundamental ethical principles that we now take for granted in psychological research. There was no informed consent from Albert’s mother, no consideration for the potential long-term psychological harm to the infant, and no attempt to decondition Albert’s fear response at the end of the study.

These ethical breaches have cast a long shadow over the experiment’s legacy. While its scientific contributions are undeniable, the Little Albert study has become a cautionary tale, often cited alongside other disturbing psychological experiments as an example of what not to do in the pursuit of knowledge.

The controversy surrounding the Little Albert experiment has had a profound impact on the development of research ethics guidelines. Today, institutional review boards carefully scrutinize proposed studies involving human subjects, paying particular attention to potential risks and the informed consent process.

The Mystery of Little Albert: A Cold Case in Psychology

One of the most intriguing aspects of the Little Albert story is the mystery surrounding the true identity of the infant subject. For decades, psychologists and historians alike have been captivated by the question: who was Little Albert, and what became of him?

In 2009, a team of researchers led by Hall P. Beck claimed to have identified Little Albert as Douglas Merritte, the son of a wet nurse who worked at the hospital where the experiment was conducted. They suggested that Albert may have had neurological impairments and died at a young age from hydrocephalus.

However, this identification was later challenged by other researchers who proposed an alternative candidate: William Barger, born to a different wet nurse at the same hospital. The debate continues, highlighting the enduring fascination with this controversial experiment and its young subject.

The Legacy of Little Albert: A Double-Edged Sword

As we reflect on the Little Albert experiment, we’re left with a complex legacy that continues to shape the field of psychology. On one hand, the study provided valuable insights into the nature of fear and learning, contributing to the development of behaviorism and influencing therapeutic approaches to treating phobias.

On the other hand, it serves as a stark reminder of the potential for harm in psychological research and the paramount importance of ethical considerations. The experiment has become a touchstone in discussions about research ethics, prompting soul-searching within the scientific community about the limits of what we’re willing to do in the name of knowledge.

Perhaps the most enduring lesson of the Little Albert experiment is the need for balance between scientific curiosity and ethical responsibility. As we continue to push the boundaries of our understanding of the human mind, we must remain vigilant, always questioning not just what we can do, but what we should do.

The cry that echoed through Watson’s laboratory that day in 1920 continues to resonate through the halls of psychology. It serves as a haunting reminder of the power we wield as researchers and the profound responsibility that comes with it. As we move forward, let us carry the lessons of Little Albert with us, striving always to advance our knowledge while never losing sight of our humanity.

In the end, the Little Albert experiment, much like Harlow’s controversial monkey experiments , stands as a complex chapter in the annals of psychological history. It is at once a scientific milestone, an ethical cautionary tale, and a poignant human story. As we continue to grapple with its implications, we are reminded that in the pursuit of understanding the human mind, we must never forget the human hearts at stake.

References:

1. Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1–14.

2. Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to little Albert? American Psychologist, 34(2), 151–160.

3. Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64(7), 605–614.

4. Powell, R. A., Digdon, N., Harris, B., & Smithson, C. (2014). Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as “Psychology’s Lost Boy”. American Psychologist, 69(6), 600–611.

5. Fridlund, A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology, 15(4), 302–327.

6. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

7. Guthrie, R. V. (1998). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology. Allyn & Bacon.

8. Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (2007). A brief history of modern psychology. Blackwell Publishing.

9. Hock, R. R. (2009). Forty studies that changed psychology: Explorations into the history of psychological research (6th ed.). Pearson.

10. Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2015). A history of modern psychology (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Was this article helpful?

Would you like to add any comments (optional), leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Post Comment

Related Resources

Natural Experiments in Psychology: Unveiling Real-World Insights

Dichotic Listening in Psychology: Unraveling Auditory Processing

Psychological Illusions: Exploring the Tricks Our Minds Play

Moderators in Psychology: Key Factors Influencing Relationships Between Variables

Nova Psychology: Exploring the Frontiers of Human Behavior and Mental…

Game Theory in Psychology: Unraveling Human Decision-Making

Greebles in Psychology: Exploring Visual Object Recognition and Expertise

Hypothesis in Psychology: Definition, Types, and Applications

Naturalistic Observation in Psychology: Definition, Examples, and Applications

Induction Psychology: Exploring the Power of Inductive Reasoning in Cognitive…

• Free Essays
• Citation Generator

Watson's Little Albert Experiment

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

Su psy1001 w2 a2 whelchel.

Albert is a nine month old boy who was subject to emotional testing. He went through a series of pretesting and was eventually introduced to a white rat. Albert initially had no fear of the rat but every time he would reach out to touch it he heard the sound of a hammer hitting a steel bar. The tests eventually led to the following results: First they introduced the banging of the steel bar (unconditioned stimuli) causing fear (unconditioned response) in Albert. They then introduced a white rat to Albert who initially had no fear of the rat. Every time Albert reached out to touch the rat the loud banging was heard, which eventually resulted in Albert being afraid to touch the rat. Finally they introduced just the rat (conditioned stimulus) without the loud banging still caused fear (conditioned response) in Albert.…

WEEK 2 QUIZ

After Little Albert acquired a conditioned fear of rats, Watson wanted to see how he would react to a white rabbit, cotton wool, and a Santa Claus mask. He was studying whether or not _____________________ had occurred.…

Differences Between Watson And Rayner's Experiment

Since they had given Albert, a child who originally was an emotionless being, a conditioned to stimulus of rats mainly animals or furry items, he may carry this throughout his life and shape his development. Another hypothesis they wanted to test was if you could remove these conditioned responses but unfortunately the subject was removed from the hospital, which may have led to some more findings. All in all the study had followed the scientific method, even though it may have been slightly unethical by producing fear in a child, but ethics are new subject in the field psychology which would not have been practiced back in the…

Ps210 Unit 6 Assignment

John B. Watson famous “Little Alert Experiment” was best known as a case study showing and proving evidence of classical conditioning and also an example of stimulus generalization. It was carried out by John B. Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, at Johns Hopkins University and its’ first findings were published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology.…

Film Analysis: A Clockwork Orange

Classical conditioning experiments have been performed on humans with a large degree of success. One of the most notable and most controversial classical conditioning experiments done on humans was Watson’s “Little Albert” experiment. This experiment was conducted to test the fear response in humans. The experiment started off by introducing Albert to several animals, a white rat, monkey, bunny and a dog (Creelan). When Albert started to play with the rat, Watson banged a hammer on a metal pipe scaring Albert causing him to cry. Over time the sight of the rat without the banging of the hammer caused Albert to cry. Albert associated the loud scary noise to touching the rat, thus being successfully conditioned to fear the rat. By today’s standards, this experiment would never be allowed due to the ethical standards set forth by the American Psychological Association…

Replicating Milgram's Obedience Experiment

In Replicating Milgram (The Open University, 2014), Milgram explains how he set up his obedience experiment. His aim was to get a volunteer, a ‘teacher’ to inflict increasing amounts of pain, through electric shocks, to another volunteer a ‘learner’ and to see when the ‘teacher’ would turn to the researcher, the ‘authority figure’ and ask to stop. Unknown to ‘the teacher’, the ‘learner’ and the ‘authority figure’ were aware of the real purpose of the experiment; the ‘teacher’ was told it was to study the effect of punishment on learning, and genuinely thought that they were inflicting pain on the ‘learner’ sat in another room. It was this deception and the emotional stress it generated to the ‘teacher’ that prompted the ethical issues debate…

Essay On Watson's Methodological Behaviourism

Leading on from this, Thorndike (1911) described ‘the law of effect’, suggesting that behaviour is more likely to be repeated if it produces a favourable response to the environment. He demonstrated this by conducting an experiment by which a cat was placed within a box. The cat could escape from the box by pressing a lever; once the cat discovered this, the cat was quicker to elicit the response and escape to a favourable environment. In 1913, Watson defined behaviourism as a science which focused on the nature of behaviour, with no scientific experimentation related to introspective stimuli. Watson’s methodological behaviourism focused on experiments where environmental stimulus elicited a response. He concluded that there was “no dividing line between the man and the brute” (Watson, 1913), rejecting the idea of the private behaviour. Jones (1915) agreed with Watson, stating that psychology needed to focus on observable phenomena in order to be considered a science, and “turn its back on all private data”. Skinner (1938) expanded behaviourism to distinguish respondent conditioning, the Pavlovian stimulus-response based, and operant conditioning, which focused on Thorndike’s favourable reoccurrence.…

Stanley Milgram's Experiment

While the test subject is in complete control over when the experiment can be stopped based on their own level of morals, it would not be considered proper to put the test subject in an environment like this that could be perceived as “hostile” without their complete knowledge of their part in the experiment. It would be impossible to inform the test subjects about the extremely stressful experiment they would be taking place in without informing them on exactly what they would be doing, and in this experiment, the discretion of the test was important to get clear and true results. Another immoral part of Milgram’s experiment was the severe psychological stress imposed on the applicants. Numerous participants stated that they felt extremely uncomfortable about what they were expected to do, although a sizable amount of the members in the primary trials subsequently pronounced that they felt vastly pleased to have been chosen to take part in the experiment. Another immoral aspect of the experiment was the fact that the test subject was not expressly given the right to withdrawal from the experiment, and were continuously given orders to continue the experiment. Milgram claimed that in this experiment strict orders were essential to…

John Garcia

During the experiments rats were given one taste, sight, sound as a neutral stimulus. Later the rats would be exposed to radiation or drugs (the unconditioned stimulus), which would make the…

Evaluate Milgram's Experiment

Milgram's experiment in 1960 by social psychologist Dr. Stanely Milgram's (1963, 1965) was a controversial experiment. He researched the effect of authority on obedience. I don't think the scientific community overreacted to this experiment because it is unethical to reduce subjects to "twitching shuttering wrecks". Though the human mind is amazing strong we still do not know its breaking point. For interviewers to carry out the kind of experiment they did, they have to be willing to face the consequences of the experiment which could be a permanent damaged mental state. I do believe we need to do experiments like this as the outcome was very eye opening but it has to be better regulated and the background and methods of experimentation clearly…

Stanford Prison Experiment Zimbardo

Psychological studies are relatively new as far as the history of scientific research is concerned. As with anything, the rules for these experiments have evolved and become what they are today only through past circumstances. There are some main experiments in past psychological history, which became a true turning point and reasons for ethical guidelines to be placed. These experiments include the medical atrocities during WWII, the Tuskegee syphilis project, Milgram’s obedience studies, and Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment. Although the participants in Zimbardo’s study were informed of the situation they would have to endure, there was still a significant amount of psychological damage done.…

The Little Albert Experiment

The Little Albert Experiment was conducted and published in 1920. This experiment happened at Johns Hopkins University by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner. The study was conducted to prove that there was evidence of classical conditioning in humans making them fear things, such as white mice, by the unconditioned fear of loud noises. Watson felt that fear was learned and that children were not born with it, and he wanted to find support for that. He believed that fear was innate and caused by unconditioned responses, and that if he used that classic conditioning, he could cause a child to fear some other thing that most children aren’t typically afraid of.…

Milgram's Obedience Study Ethics

Discuss the ethics of Milgram's obedience study. In the years 1961-1962, Stanley Milgram - Yale University psychologist, conducted the first of the obedience experiments, which were also called "shock" studies. The research was invented to check if the people would be ready to harm somebody just to meet the requirements of the experiment. This essay will be focused on the ethical side of the study.…

assess different psychological approaches to study

For example, the little Albert experiment which was carried out by Watson and Rayner, where they conditioned an infant boy, which they called Albert B also known as little Albert, to fear a white rat. This experiment was the first ever study within psychology that proved classical conditioning can transpire within humans not just within animals.…

What Is The Milgram Experiment Unethical

These guidelines made any further replications of the experiment impossible, which proves how damaging the experiment truly was. The emotional scarring this experiment had on the participants was severe, leaving them to wonder whether they were evil people themselves. Though the participants did not actually cause harm to anyone, the trauma with believing that they were at the time was significant, and even though at the end of the process it was revealed that no one was harmed, they learned that they were capable to hurting someone else if they were asked to. Can this emotional pain caused by the thought to be causing physical pain justify the overall experiment? How can one determine whether the questioning of someone's own opinions, beliefs and making them feel like they had no choice but to stay in the experiment was worth the results given from the…

Related Topics

• Classical conditioning
• Little Albert experiment

• Milgram 1963 Experiment of Obedience
• Milgram's Variations
• Hofling's Study of Nurses
• Meeus and Raaijmakers
• Sherif Study of Intergroup Relations
• Research Methods
• Practical (social)
• Levels of Processing Model of Memory
• Multi-store Model of Memory
• Reconstructive Memory
• Cue Dependent Theory of Forgetting
• Displacement Theory of Forgetting
• Godden & Baddeley's Study of Context Dependent Forgetting
• Craik & Tulving's Study of Levels of Processing
• Practical (cognitive)
• Classical Conditioning
• Operant Conditioning
• Social Learning Theory
• Explanation of Gender
• Bandura, Ross and Ross Bobo Doll Study
• Watson & Rayner Little Albert
• Practical (learning)
• Freud: Case Study of Little Hans
• Axline: Case Study of Dibs
• Practical (Psychodynamic)
• Genes, Hormones and Brain Lateralisation
• Evaluation of Biological Explanation for Gender
• Gottesmann & Shields: Twin Study of Schizophrenia
• Dr Money: The case of Bruce Reimer
• Scanning Techniques
• Practical (Biological)
• Statistical Tests

Psychologized

Psychology is Everywhere...

The Little Albert Experiment

Little Albert was the fictitious name  given to an unknown child who was  subjected to an experiment in classical conditioning by John Watson and Rosalie Raynor at John Hopkins University in the USA, in 1919. By today’s standards in psychology, the experiment would not be allowed because of ethical violations, namely the lack of informed consent from the subject or his parents and the prime principle of “do no harm”.  The experimental method contained significant weaknesses including failure to develop adequate control conditions and the fact that there was only one subject.  Despite the many short comings of the work, the results of the experiment are widely quoted in a range of psychology texts and also were a starting point for understanding phobias and the development of treatments for them.

What happened to Little Albert as he was known is unknown and several psychologists have tried in vain to definitively answer the question of: “what happened to Little Albert?”

What is classical conditioning?

Classical Conditioning Explained

Classical conditioning is a type of behaviourism first demonstrated by Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov in the 1890s.Through a series of experiments he demonstrated that dogs which normally salivated when presented with food could be conditioned to salivate in response to any stimulus in the absence of the original stimulus, food.  He rang a bell every time a dog was about to be fed, and after a period of time the dog would salivate to the sound of the bell irrespective of food being presented.

What did Watson do to Little Albert?

Many people have illogical fears of animals.  While it is logical to be frightened of a predator with the power to kill you, being afraid of a spider, a mouse or even cats and most dogs is not.  To those of us who don’t suffer from phobias it is the funniest thing in the world to see a person standing on a stool, screaming because of a mouse.  Phobias however are real, and for some people quite limiting and potentially damaging. Imagine suffering from agoraphobia – fear of open spaces or even being afraid of going to the dentist to the extent that your health suffered.

Now,  while we know now that phobias can be learned from watching others who have a fear,  for example our mother being afraid of spiders, known as social learning, Watson used the tools and knowledge he had available to him to investigate the potential causes of them ultimately, one supposes, to develop treatments for phobias.

John Watson endeavoured to repeat classical conditioning on a young emotionally stable child, with the objective of inducing phobias in the child. He was interested in trying to understand how children become afraid of animals.

Harris (1979) suggested:  ‘Watson hypothesized that although infants do not naturally fear animals, if “one animal succeeds in arousing fear, any moving furry animal thereafter may arouse it”

Albert was 9 months old and taken from a hospital, subjected to a series of baseline tests and then a series of experiences to ‘condition’ him. Watson filmed his study on Little Albert and the recordings are accessible on Youtube.com.

A series of unethical experiments was conducted with Little Albert

Watson started by introducing Albert to a number of furry animals, including a dog, a rabbit and most importantly a white rat. Watson then made loud, unpleasant noises by clanging a metal bar with a hammer.  The noise distressed Albert.  Watson then paired the loud noise with the presentation of the rat to Albert. He repeated this many times.  Very quickly Albert was conditioned to expect the frightening noise whenever the white rat was presented to him. Very soon the white rate alone could induce a fear response in Albert.  What was interesting was that without need for further conditioning the fear was generalised to other animals and situations including a dog, rabbit and a white furry mask worn by Watson himself.

Watson and Raynor  who knew all along the timescale by when Albert had to be returned to his mother,  gave him back without informing her of the activities and conditioning that they had inflicted on Albert, and most worryingly not  taking the time to counter condition or ‘curing’ him of the phobia they had induced.

What were the problems with this the way this study was done?

Both the American Psychological Association (APA) and the British Psychological Society (BPS) have well developed codes of ethics which any practicing psychologists have to adhere to. In addition, all places of higher learning and research have ethical committees to which research proposals have to be submitted for consideration. The core concern is to focus on the quality of research, the professional competence of the researchers and of greatest importance, the welfare of human and animal subjects. At the time of Watson and Raynor’s work, there were no such guidelines and committee.  While to some extent, it is wrong to measure historical research by modern-day standards, this experiment is almost a case study in unethical research. The experiment broke the cardinal ethical rules for psychological research. Those being:

• Do no harm .  Psychologists have to reduce or eliminate the potential that taking part in a study may cause harm to a participant during and afterwards. Little Albert was harmed during and would potentially have suffered life-long harm as a result.
• The participants’ right to withdraw.  Nowadays, if you are involved as participant in any psychological or medical study you are given the right that you can withdraw at any stage during the study without consequence to you. Albert and his mother were given no-such rights.
• The principle of informed consent.  Subjects have to be given as much information about the study as possible before the study begins so that they can make a decision about participating based on knowledge.  If the research is such that giving information before the study may affect the outcome then an alternative is a thorough debrief at its conclusion.  Neither of these conditions was satisfied by Watson’s treatment of Albert.
• Professional competence of the researcher.  While it may seem presumptive to question the behaviour of the father of “behavioural psychology”, the method used in this study was not particularly good psychology.  There was only one subject and the experiment lacks any form of control.  Such criticism however, is a little post hoc since research in psychology at that time was in its infancy.

Besides the ethical issues with the experiment, as can be seen from the recordings, the environment was not controlled, the animals changed, and several appeared themselves to be in distress. The final act of Watson applying a mask was presented very closely to Albert, something that potentially would cause any child distress.

Watson could have ‘cured’ Albert of the phobia he had induced using a process known as systematic desensitisation but chose not to as he and Raynor wanted to continue with the experiment until the Albert’s mother came to collect him.

Watch a Recap of this experiment in this video:

Harris B (1979): Whatever happened to Little Albert ?  American Psychologist, February 1979,     pp 151-160

Code of Ethics:

http://www.bps.org.uk/what-we-do/ethics-standards/ethics-standards

About Alexander Burgemeester

2 Responses to “The Little Albert Experiment”

Read below or add a comment...

what are the laws of classical conditioning in this experiment

Wow, this entire article is full of inaccuracies. Firstly, they didn’t begin the conditioning experiments on Albert until he was 11 months and 3 days old. While the first few original reactions with the different animals did not need further conditioning, the steel rod was struck several times throughout the experiment to reinstate the fear response with the stimuli. Also, it is only speculated that Albert’s mother was unaware that these experiments were going on. You mention that the mask in which Watson wears at the ending of the video would distress any child, but before beginning the experiments, Watson and his crew tested several different stimuli on Albert and marked any emotional responses. The masks were part of this test and did not originally trigger a response. A fear response was present after Albert was conditioned to fear the white rat and things that were visually similar. The mask had white hair attached at the top. He had a similiar response to a paper bag of white cotton wool. Lastly, the fact that your entire article is written with a secondary source (written in 1979 no less) as your only source beside the video, and never even refers to Watson’s original journal publication (which is available for free online at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm ) is even more of a reason to find this article flawed.

Leave A Comment... Cancel reply