watson and rayner's experiments with little albert showed that

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.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Little Albert Experiment

Watson and Rayner's classic (and controversial) experiment

• The Experiment
• Classical Conditioning
• Stimulus Generalization
• Criticism and Ethical Problems

What Happened to Little Albert?

One of the most famous figures in psychology history isn't a psychologist at all. "Little Albert," as he was called, was the pseudonym of a young boy at the center of the infamous psychology experiment in which he was conditioned to fear rats—a fear that also extended to other similar objects, including fluffy white toys and a white beard.

The Little Albert experiment was a famous psychology experiment conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and graduate student Rosalie Rayner. Previously, Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov had conducted experiments demonstrating the conditioning process in dogs . Watson took Pavlov's research a step further by showing that emotional reactions could be classically conditioned in people.

Keep reading to learn more about what happened in the Little Albert experiment, what it reveals about the conditioning process, and why it is considered so controversial.

Verywell / Jessica Olah

What Happened in the Little Albert Experiment?

The experiment's participant was a child that Watson and Rayner called "Albert B." but is known popularly today as Little Albert. When Little Albert was 9 months old, Watson and Rayner exposed him to a series of stimuli, including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks, and burning newspapers, and observed the boy's reactions.

At the experiment's outset, the little boy showed no fear of any objects he was shown. What Watson did next changed everything. The next time Albert was exposed to 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 expect a frightening noise whenever he saw the white rat. Soon, Albert began to cry simply after seeing the rat.

Watson and Rayner wrote: "The instant the rat was shown, the baby began to cry. Almost instantly he turned sharply to the left, fell over on [his] left side, raised himself on all fours and began to crawl away so rapidly that he was caught with difficulty before reaching the edge of the table."

It's a textbook example of how classical conditioning works. In some cases, these frightening experiences can cause a lasting fears, such as with phobias .

Classical Conditioning in the Little Albert Experiment

The Little Albert experiment is a great example of how classical conditioning can be used to condition an emotional response. Here's how the process works:

• Neutral Stimulus : A stimulus that does not initially elicit a response (the white rat).
• Unconditioned Stimulus : A stimulus that elicits a reflexive response (the loud noise).
• Unconditioned Response : A natural reaction to a given stimulus (fear).
• Conditioned Stimulus : A stimulus that elicits a response after repeatedly being paired with an unconditioned stimulus (the white rat).
• Conditioned Response : The response caused by the conditioned stimulus (fear).

Stimulus Generalization in the Little Albert Exerpiment

In addition to demonstrating that emotional responses could be conditioned in humans, Watson and Rayner also observed a phenomenon known as stimulus generalization.

Stimulus generalization happens when things similar to the conditioned stimulus evoke a similar response.

After conditioning, Albert feared not just the white rat, but a wide variety of similar white objects as well. His fear included other furry objects, including Raynor's fur coat and Watson wearing a Santa Claus beard.

Criticism and Ethical Problems With the Little Albert Experiment

While the experiment is one of psychology's most famous and is included in nearly every introductory psychology course , it is widely criticized for several reasons. First, the experimental design and process were not carefully constructed. Watson and Rayner did not develop an objective means to evaluate Albert's reactions, instead of relying on their own subjective interpretations.

The experiment also raises many ethical concerns. Little Albert was harmed during this experiment—he left the experiment with a previously nonexistent fear. By today's standards, the Little Albert experiment would not be permitted.

The question of what happened to Little Albert has long been one of psychology's mysteries. Before Watson and Rayner could attempt to "cure" Little Albert, he and his mother moved away. Some envisioned the boy growing into a man with a strange phobia of white, furry objects.

In 2009, researchers published the results of their attempt to track down the boy's identity. As reported in American Psychologist , a seven-year search led by psychologist Hall P. Beck led to the discovery of a child the researchers believed might be Little Albert. After tracking down and locating the original experiments and the possible identity of the boy's mother, it was suggested that Little Albert was actually a boy named Douglas Merritte.

Unfortunately, the researchers discovered that Douglas had died on May 10, 1925, at the age of six, of hydrocephalus (a build-up of fluid in his brain), which he had suffered from since birth.

In 2012, Beck and Alan J. Fridlund reported that Douglas was not the healthy, normal child Watson described in his 1920 experiment. Instead, they suggested that Watson may have known about and deliberately concealed the boy's neurological condition. If true, these findings would have cast a shadow over Watson's legacy, and deepened the ethical and moral issues of this well-known experiment.

In 2014, however, doubt was cast over Beck and Fridlund's findings when researchers presented evidence that a boy named William Barger was the real Little Albert. Barger was born on the same day as Merritte to a wet nurse who worked at the same hospital as Merritte's mother. While his first name was William, he was known his entire life by his middle name—Albert.

While experts continue to debate the true identity of the boy at the center of Watson's experiment, there is little doubt that Little Albert left a lasting impression on the field of psychology. The experiments contributed to our understanding of the classical conditioning process. It also demonstrated that fear could be conditioned, which has helped mental health experts better understand how conditions like specific phobias and post-traumatic stress disorder form.

Beck HP, Levinson S, Irons G. Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory . Am Psychol. 2009;64(7):605-14. doi:10.1037/a0017234

van Meurs B, Wiggert N, Wicker I, Lissek S. Maladaptive behavioral consequences of conditioned fear-generalization: a pronounced, yet sparsely studied, feature of anxiety pathology .  Behav Res Ther . 2014;57:29-37. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2014.03.009

Fridlund AJ, Beck HP, Goldie WD, Irons G. Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child . Hist Psychol. 2012;15(4):302-27. doi:10.1037/a0026720

Powell RA. Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as "psychology's lost boy" . Am Psychol.  2014;69(6):600-11.

• Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory.  American Psychologist, 2009;64(7):  605-614.
• Fridlund, A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0026720; 2012.
• Watson, John B. & Rayner, Rosalie. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions.  Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3 , 1-14.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

The Little Albert Experiment

The Little Albert Experiment is a world-famous study in the worlds of both behaviorism and general psychology. Its fame doesn’t just come from astounding findings. The story of the Little Albert experiment is mysterious, dramatic, dark, and controversial.

The Little Albert Experiment was a study conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920, where they conditioned a 9-month-old infant named "Albert" to fear a white rat by pairing it with a loud noise. Albert later showed fear responses to the rat and other similar stimuli.

The Little Albert Experiment is one of the most well-known and controversial psychological experiments of the 20th century. In 1920, American psychologist John B. Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, carried out a study. Their goal was to explore the concept of classical conditioning. This theory proposes that individuals can learn to link an emotionless stimulus with an emotional reaction through repeated pairings.

For their experiment, Watson and Rayner selected a 9-month-old infant named "Albert" and exposed him to a series of stimuli, including a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, and various masks. Initially, Albert showed no fear of any of these objects. However, when the researchers presented the rat to him and simultaneously struck a steel bar with a hammer behind his head, Albert began to cry and show signs of fear. After several repetitions of this procedure, Albert began to show a fear response to the rat alone, even when the loud noise was not present.

The experiment was controversial because of its unethical nature. Albert could not provide informed consent, and his fear response was deliberately induced and not treated. Additionally, the experiment lacked scientific rigor regarding experimental design, sample size, and ethical considerations. Despite these criticisms, the Little Albert Experiment has had a significant impact on the field of psychology, particularly in the areas of behaviorism and classical conditioning. It has also raised important questions about the ethics of research involving human subjects and the need for informed consent and ethical guidelines in scientific studies.

Let's learn who was behind this experiment...

Who Was John B. Watson?

John B. Watson is pivotal in psychology's annals, marked by acclaim and controversy. Often hailed as the "Father of Behaviorism," his contributions extend beyond the well-known Little Albert study. At Johns Hopkins University, where much of his groundbreaking work was conducted, he delivered the seminal lecture "Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It."

This speech laid the foundation for behaviorism, emphasizing observable and measurable behavior over introspective methods, a paradigm shift in how psychological studies were approached. Watson's insistence on studying only observable behaviors positioned psychology more closely with the natural sciences, reshaping the discipline. Although he achieved significant milestones at Johns Hopkins, Watson's tenure there ended in 1920 under controversial circumstances, a story we'll delve into shortly.

Classical Conditioning

John B. Watson was certainly influential in classical conditioning, but many credit the genesis of this field to another notable psychologist: Ivan Pavlov. Pavlov's groundbreaking work with dogs laid the foundation for understanding classical conditioning, cementing his reputation in the annals of psychological research.

Classical conditioning is the process wherein an organism learns to associate one stimulus with another, leading to a specific response. Pavlov's experiment is a quintessential example of this. Initially, Pavlov observed that dogs would naturally salivate in response to food. During his experiment, he introduced a neutral stimulus, a bell, which did not produce any specific response from the dogs.

However, Pavlov began to ring the bell just before presenting the dogs with food. After several repetitions, the dogs began to associate the sound of the bell with the forthcoming food. Remarkably, even without food, ringing the bell alone led the dogs to salivate in anticipation. This involuntary response was not a behavior the dogs were intentionally trained to perform; instead, it was a reflexive reaction resulting from the association they had formed between the bell and the food.

Pavlov's research was not just about dogs and bells; its significance lies in the broader implications for understanding how associative learning works, influencing various fields from psychology to education and even marketing.

Who Was Little Albert?

John B. Watson took an idea from this theory. What if...

• ...all of our behaviors were the result of classical conditioning?
• ...we salivated only after connecting certain events with getting food?
• ...we only became afraid of touching a stove after we first put our hand on a hot stove and felt pain?
• ...fear was something we learned? 

These are the questions that Watson attempted to answer with Little Albert.

Little Albert was a nine-month-old baby. His mother was a nurse at Johns Hopkins University, where the experiment was conducted. The baby’s name wasn’t really Albert - it was just a pseudonym that Watson used for the study. Due to the baby’s young age, Watson thought it would be a good idea to use him to test his hypothesis about developing fear.

Here’s how he conducted his experiment, now known as the “Little Albert Experiment.”

Watson exposed Little Albert to a handful of different stimuli. The stimuli included a white rat, a monkey, a hairy mask, a dog, and a seal-skin coat. When Watson first observed Little Albert, he did not fear any stimuli, including the white rat.

Then, Watson began the conditioning.

He would introduce the white rat back to Albert. Whenever Little Albert touched the rat, Watson would smash a hammer against a steel bar behind Albert’s head. Naturally, this stimulus scared Albert, and he would begin to cry. This was the “bell” of Pavlov’s experiment, but you can already see that this experiment is far more cruel.

Like Pavlov’s dogs, Little Albert became conditioned. Whenever he saw the rat, he would cry and try to move away from the rat. Throughout the study, he exhibited the same behaviors when exposed to “hairy” stimuli. This process is called stimulus generalization. 

What Happened to Little Albert?

The Little Albert study was conducted in 1920. Shortly after the findings were published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, Johns Hopkins gave Watson a 50% raise . However, the rise (and Watson’s position at the University) did not last long. At the end of 1920, Watson was fired.

Why? At first, the University claimed it was due to an affair. Watson conducted the Little Albert experiment with his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner. They fell in love, despite Watson’s marriage to Mary Ickes. Ickes was a member of a prominent family in the area, upon the discovery of the affair, Watson and Rayner’s love letters were published in a newspaper. John Hopkins claimed to fire Watson for “indecency.”

Years later, rumors emerged that Watson wasn’t fired simply for his divorce. Watson and Rayner were allegedly conducting behaviorist experiments concerning sex. Those rumors included claims that Watson, a movie star handsome then, had even hooked devices up to him and Rayner while they engaged in intercourse. These claims seem false, but they appeared in psychology textbooks for years. 

There is so much to this story that is wild and unusual! Upon hearing this story, one of the biggest questions people ask is, “What happened to Little Albert?”

The True Story of the Little Albert Experiment

Well, this element of the story isn’t without uncertainty and rumor. In 2012, researchers claimed to uncover the true story of Little Albert. The boy’s real name was apparently Douglas Merritte, who died at the age of seven. Merritt had a serious condition of built-up fluid in the brain. This story element was significant - Watson claimed Little Albert was a healthy and normal child. If Merritte were Little Albert, then Watson’s lies about the child’s health would ruin his legacy.

And it did until questions about Merritte began to arise. Further research puts another candidate into the ring: William Albert Barger. Barger was born on the same day in the same hospital as Merritte. His mother was a wet nurse in the same hospital where Watson worked. Barger’s story is much more hopeful than Merritte’s - he died at 87. Researchers met with his niece, who claimed that her uncle was particularly loving toward dogs but showed no evidence of fear that would have been developed through the famous study.

The mystery lives on.

Criticisms of the Little Albert Experiment

This story is fascinating, but psychologists note it is not the most ethical study.

The claims about Douglas Merritte are just one example of how the study could (and definitely did) cross the lines of ethics. If Little Albert was not the healthy boy that Watson claimed - well, there’s not much to say about the findings. Plus, the experiment was only conducted on one child. Follow-up research about the child and his conditioning never occurred (but this is partially due to the scandalous life of Watson and Rayner.)

Behaviorism, the school of psychology founded partly by this study, is not as “hot” as it was in the 1920s. But no one can deny the power and legacy of the Little Albert study. It is certainly one of the more important studies to know in psychology, both for its scandal and its place in studying learned behaviors.

Other Controversial Studies in Psychology 

The Little Albert Experiment is one of the most notorious experiments in the history of psychology, but it's not the only one. Psychologists throughout the past few decades have used many unethical or questionable means to test out (or prove) their hypotheses. If you haven't heard about the following experiments, you can read about them on my page!

The Robbers Cave Experiment

Have you ever read  Lord of the Flies?  The book details the shocking and deadly story of boys stranded on a desert island. When the boys try to govern themselves, lines are drawn in the sand, and chaos ensues. Would that actually happen in real life?

Muzafer Sherif wanted to find out the answer. He put together the Robbers Cave Experiment, which is now one of the most controversial experiments in psychology history. The experiment involved putting together two teams of young men at a summer camp. Teams were put through trials to see how they would handle conflict within their groups and with "opposing" groups. The experiment's results led to the creation of the Realistic Conflict Theory.

The experiment did not turn out like  Lord of the Flies,  but the results are no longer valid. Why? Sherif highly manipulated the experiment. Gina Perry's The Lost Boys: Inside Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment  details where Sherif went wrong and how the legacy of this experiment doesn't reflect what actually happened.

Read more about the Robber's Cave Experiment .

The Stanford Prison Experiment 

The Stanford Prison Experiment looked similar to the Robbers Cave Experiment. Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo brought together groups of young men to see how they would interact with each other. These participants, however, weren't at summer camp. Zimbardo asked his participants to either be a "prison guard" or "prisoner." He intended to observe the groups for seven days, but the experiment was cut short.

Why? Violence ensued. The experiment got so out of hand that Zimbardo ended it early for the safety of the participants. Years later, sources question whether his involvement in the experiment encouraged some violence between prison guards and prisoners. You can learn more about the Stanford Prison Experiment on Netflix or by reading our article.

The Milgram Experiment 

Why do people do terrible things? Are they evil people, or do they just do as they are told? Stanley Milgram wanted to answer these questions and created the Milgram experiment . In this experiment, he asked participants to "shock" another participant (who was really just an actor receiving no shocks at all.) The shocks ranged in intensity, with some said to be hurtful or even fatal to the actor.

The results were shocking - no pun intended! However, the experiment remains controversial due to the lasting impacts it could have had on the participants. Gina Perry also wrote a book about this experiment - Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. 

The Monster Study 

In the 1930s, Dr. Wendell Johnson was keen on exploring the origins and potential treatments for stuttering in children. To this end, he turned to orphans in Iowa, unknowingly involving them in his experiment. Not all the participating children had a stutter. Those without speech impediments were treated and criticized as if they did have one, while some with actual stuttering were either praised or criticized. Johnson's aim was to observe if these varied treatments would either alleviate or induce stuttering based on the feedback given.

Unfortunately, the experiment's outcomes painted a bleak picture. Not only did the genuine stutterers fail to overcome their speech issues, but some of the previously fluent-speaking orphans began to stutter after experiencing the negative treatment. Even by the standards of the 1930s, before the world was fully aware of the inhumane experiments conducted by groups like the Nazis, Johnson's methods were deemed excessively harsh and unethical.

Read more about the Monster Study here .

How Do Psychologists Conduct Ethical Experiments?

To ensure participants' well-being and prevent causing trauma, the field of psychology has undergone a significant evolution in its approach to research ethics. Historically, some early psychological experiments lacked adequate consideration for participants' rights or well-being, leading to trauma and ethical dilemmas. Notable events, such as the revelations of the Milgram obedience experiments and the Stanford prison experiment, brought to light the pressing need for ethical guidelines in research.

As a result, strict rules and guidelines for ethical experimentation were established. One fundamental principle is informed consent: participants must know that they are part of an experiment and should understand its nature. This means they must be informed about the procedures, potential risks, and their rights to withdraw without penalty. Participants consent to participate only after this detailed disclosure, which must be documented.

Moreover, creating ethics review boards became commonplace in research institutions, ensuring research proposals uphold ethical standards and protect participants' rights. If you are ever invited to participate in a research study, it's crucial to thoroughly understand its scope, ask questions, and ensure your rights are protected before giving consent. The journey to establish these ethical norms reflects the discipline's commitment to balancing scientific advancement with the dignity and well-being of its study subjects.

Related posts:

• John B. Watson (Psychologist Biography)
• The Psychology of Long Distance Relationships
• Behavioral Psychology
• Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI Test)
• Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)

Reference this article:

About The Author

Operant Conditioning

Observational Learning

Latent Learning

Experiential Learning

The Little Albert Study

Bobo Doll Experiment

Spacing Effect

Von Restorff Effect

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

Little Albert Experiment: A Landmark Study in Classical Conditioning

A single, terrified cry echoed through the laboratory as Little Albert, an innocent infant, unknowingly became the centerpiece of a groundbreaking experiment that would forever change our understanding of human behavior and the power of classical conditioning. This haunting moment marked the beginning of one of the most controversial and influential studies in the history of psychology, setting the stage for decades of research and ethical debates to come.

The Little Albert experiment, conducted in 1920 by John B. Watson and his graduate student Rosalie Rayner, was a landmark study that sought to demonstrate how classical conditioning could be applied to human emotions and behavior. But what exactly is classical conditioning, and why was this particular experiment so significant?

The Foundations of Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning, first discovered by Ivan Pavlov in his famous experiments with dogs, is a learning process that occurs through associations between an environmental stimulus and a naturally occurring stimulus. This fundamental concept forms the backbone of behaviorism, a psychological approach that dominated the field in the early 20th century.

To truly appreciate the impact of the Little Albert experiment, we must first understand the historical context in which it took place. The early 1900s saw a shift in psychological thinking, moving away from introspection and towards more observable and measurable behaviors. This era gave birth to behaviorism, a school of thought that emphasized the role of environmental factors in shaping human behavior.

John B. Watson, often referred to as the father of behaviorism, was at the forefront of this movement. His bold claim that he could take any healthy infant and, through careful conditioning, mold them into any type of specialist he desired – “doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and, yes, even beggar-man and thief” – set the stage for the Little Albert experiment.

The Birth of a Controversial Study

Watson’s goals for the Little Albert experiment were ambitious and, by modern standards, ethically questionable. He aimed to demonstrate that emotional responses could be conditioned in humans, just as Pavlov had shown with his dogs. This hypothesis, if proven, would have far-reaching implications for our understanding of human psychology and the development of fears and phobias.

The subject of this groundbreaking study was a 9-month-old infant known as “Albert B.” Little Albert, as he came to be called, was selected from a hospital where his mother worked as a wet nurse. The choice of such a young subject was deliberate – Watson wanted to work with a child who had not yet developed many fears or phobias.

The Experimental Design: A Blueprint for Controversy

The methodology of the Little Albert experiment was both ingenious and troubling. Watson and Rayner began by presenting Albert with various stimuli, including a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, and several masks. Initially, Albert showed no fear of these objects, even reaching out to touch them with curiosity.

Then came the crucial phase of the experiment. As Albert reached for the white rat, Watson would strike a steel bar with a hammer, creating a loud, frightening noise. This process was repeated several times, pairing the sight of the rat with the startling sound. Soon, Albert began to cry and show signs of distress at the mere sight of the rat, even without the accompanying noise.

This conditioning process demonstrated the power of Watson classical conditioning , showing how a neutral stimulus (the rat) could become associated with an aversive stimulus (the loud noise) to produce a conditioned fear response. The implications were profound, suggesting that human emotions and behaviors could be shaped through environmental associations.

The Ripple Effect: Generalization and Its Consequences

Perhaps the most striking finding of the Little Albert experiment was the generalization of Albert’s fear response. Not only did he become afraid of the white rat, but he also showed fear towards similar objects, including a rabbit, a dog, and even a Santa Claus mask with white fur trim. This generalization demonstrated how conditioned fears could extend beyond the original stimulus, potentially explaining the development of phobias in real-world situations.

However, the experiment was not without its limitations and criticisms. One glaring omission was the lack of any attempt to extinguish Albert’s newly acquired fears. In modern respondent conditioning in ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis), the process of extinction – gradually reducing the conditioned response – is considered crucial. This oversight left many questions unanswered about the long-term effects of the conditioning and the potential for reversing such learned fears.

The Ethical Quagmire: A Study That Shaped Research Practices

The Little Albert experiment stands as a stark reminder of the ethical considerations that must guide psychological research. By today’s standards, the study would be considered highly unethical. Inducing fear in an infant, without parental consent or any plan for removing the conditioned fear, raises serious moral questions.

This experiment, along with other controversial studies of its time, played a significant role in shaping modern research ethics. It sparked debates about the rights of research subjects, especially vulnerable populations like children, and led to the development of strict ethical guidelines that govern psychological research today.

The Hunt for Little Albert: A Mystery Unsolved

One of the most intriguing aspects of the Little Albert story is the mystery surrounding the true identity of the infant. For decades, psychologists and historians have attempted to uncover what became of Little Albert after the experiment. Various theories and claims have emerged, but the truth remains elusive.

This ongoing mystery has kept the Little Albert experiment in the public eye, sparking discussions about the long-term consequences of early psychological interventions and the responsibility of researchers to their subjects. It serves as a poignant reminder of the human element in scientific research and the potential for unforeseen consequences.

The Legacy of Little Albert in Modern Psychology

Despite its ethical shortcomings, the Little Albert experiment has left an indelible mark on the field of psychology. It demonstrated the applicability of classical conditioning principles to human behavior, paving the way for further research into learning and behavior modification.

The study’s influence can be seen in various areas of psychology, from the development of behavior therapy techniques to our understanding of the origins of phobias. It has also played a crucial role in shaping our approach to child psychology and parenting, highlighting the potential impact of early experiences on emotional development.

Replication and Modern Interpretations

In recent years, there have been attempts to replicate and reanalyze the Little Albert experiment using modern research methods. These efforts have shed new light on Watson and Rayner’s original findings while also raising questions about the study’s methodology and conclusions.

One notable replication attempt, conducted in 2009, used ethically appropriate methods to test the conditioning of fear responses in infants. While the results supported some of Watson’s findings, they also highlighted the complexity of human learning and the limitations of the original study.

The Intersection of Classical and Instrumental Conditioning

The Little Albert experiment primarily focused on classical conditioning, but it’s important to note its relationship to other forms of learning, such as instrumental conditioning . While classical conditioning deals with involuntary responses to stimuli, instrumental conditioning involves learning through the consequences of voluntary behaviors.

The interplay between these two forms of conditioning has been a subject of much research since Watson’s time. Modern psychologists recognize that both processes often work in tandem, shaping complex human behaviors and emotions.

Beyond Little Albert: The Evolution of Conditioning Research

The Little Albert experiment was just the beginning of a rich field of study in behavioral psychology. Subsequent researchers have expanded on Watson’s work, exploring various aspects of conditioning and learning. For instance, the concept of latent conditioning emerged, suggesting that learning can occur even when the association between stimuli is not immediately apparent.

Another fascinating area of research that grew from the foundations laid by Watson is observational conditioning . This form of learning occurs when individuals acquire new behaviors or emotional responses by watching others, rather than through direct experience. It’s a testament to the complexity of human learning and the diverse ways in which our behaviors can be shaped.

The Dark Side of Conditioning: Aversive Techniques and Ethical Concerns

The Little Albert experiment also opened the door to discussions about aversive conditioning , a controversial technique that uses unpleasant stimuli to modify behavior. While aversive conditioning has been used in various therapeutic contexts, it remains a subject of ethical debate, much like the original Little Albert study.

These ethical considerations have led to the development of more positive reinforcement-based approaches in behavioral therapy, as exemplified by the use of the Operant Conditioning Chamber in research and clinical settings. This shift reflects a growing understanding of the potential harm associated with aversive techniques and a commitment to more humane and effective methods of behavior modification.

The Enduring Impact of Little Albert

As we reflect on the Little Albert experiment nearly a century later, its significance in the history of psychology remains undeniable. It serves as a powerful example of how a single study can shape an entire field of research, influencing everything from theoretical frameworks to ethical guidelines.

The experiment continues to be a staple in psychology textbooks, not just for its demonstration of classical conditioning principles, but also as a cautionary tale about the ethical responsibilities of researchers. It prompts students and professionals alike to grapple with complex questions about the balance between scientific inquiry and human welfare.

Moreover, the Little Albert study has left an indelible mark on popular culture, inspiring countless discussions, debates, and even works of fiction. It has become a symbol of both the potential and the perils of psychological research, reminding us of the profound impact our early experiences can have on our emotional development.

In conclusion, the Little Albert experiment, despite its ethical flaws, remains a pivotal moment in the history of psychology. It demonstrated the power of classical conditioning in humans, opened new avenues of research in behavioral psychology, and sparked crucial discussions about research ethics. As we continue to unravel the complexities of human behavior and learning, the legacy of Little Albert serves as both a foundation and a cautionary tale, reminding us of the responsibility we bear when exploring the depths of the human mind.

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. 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.

5. 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.

6. Todd, J. T. (1994). What psychology has to say about John B. Watson: Classical behaviorism in psychology textbooks, 1920–1989. In J. T. Todd & E. K. Morris (Eds.), Modern perspectives on John B. Watson and classical behaviorism (pp. 75–107). Greenwood Press/Greenwood Publishing Group.

7. Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist, 43(3), 151–160.

8. Guthrie, E. R. (1935). The psychology of learning. Harper & Brothers.

9. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

10. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

Similar Posts

Shaping New Behavior: The Key to Personal Growth and Positive Change

Picture a sculptor, meticulously chiseling away at a block of marble, transforming it into a masterpiece—this is the essence of shaping new behaviors, a process that holds the key to unlocking your full potential and achieving profound personal growth. Just as the sculptor’s hands guide the chisel, we too can mold our actions, habits, and…

Delayed Conditioning: Exploring the Principles and Applications of Time-Based Learning

Time’s invisible threads weave a tapestry of learning, where delayed rewards shape behavior and unveil the mind’s extraordinary capacity for transformation. In the intricate dance of cause and effect, our brains pirouette through time, connecting disparate events and forging associations that defy the constraints of immediacy. This fascinating phenomenon, known as delayed conditioning, forms the…

LCD Conditioning: Enhancing Display Performance and Longevity

In a world where visual perfection reigns supreme, a little-known secret lies within the heart of your display, waiting to be unleashed for an unparalleled viewing experience. This hidden gem, known as LCD conditioning, is the key to unlocking the full potential of your screen, transforming your everyday viewing into a feast for the eyes….

Punitive Behavior: Causes, Effects, and Alternatives in Discipline

From harsh words to physical discipline, the specter of punitive behavior looms large in our society, shaping lives and perpetuating cycles of pain that echo through generations. It’s a sobering reality that many of us have encountered, whether as recipients or perpetrators, in various aspects of our lives. The impact of punitive behavior extends far…

MMA Conditioning: Comprehensive Training Strategies for Elite Fighter Performance

In the octagon, where split-second decisions separate triumph from defeat, an elite fighter’s most formidable weapon is often forged in the crucible of grueling conditioning regimens that push the boundaries of human endurance and resilience. The world of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) is a brutal arena where only the fittest survive, and conditioning plays a…

Hyperthermic Conditioning: Boosting Performance and Health Through Heat Exposure

From ancient traditions to modern fitness trends, the practice of deliberately exposing the body to heat stress has emerged as a powerful tool for optimizing physical performance and overall well-being. This fascinating approach, known as hyperthermic conditioning, has captivated the attention of athletes, health enthusiasts, and researchers alike. But what exactly is this sweat-inducing practice,…

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.

Inside The Horrifying Little Albert Experiment That Terrified An Infant To The Point Of Tears

In 1920, the two psychologists behind the little albert experiment performed a study on a nine-month-old baby to determine if classical conditioning worked on humans — and made him terrified of harmless objects in the process..

In 1920, psychologists John Watson and Rosalie Rayner performed what’s known today as the Little Albert Experiment. In an attempt to prove that classical conditioning worked on humans as well as animals, they trained an infant to show fear toward completely harmless objects, a concept that goes against all modern ethical guidelines.

YouTube The nine-month-old subject of the Little Albert Experiment.

Twenty years earlier, Ivan Pavlov had conditioned dogs to drool upon hearing the sound of a dinner bell, even when no food was presented to them. Watson and Rayner wanted to similarly condition a human to react to a stimulus, but their idea quickly went wrong.

The Johns Hopkins University psychologists were able to train Little Albert to react negatively to objects like a white rat, a Santa Claus mask, and even his own family pets. However, the boy’s mother pulled him out of the study before Watson and Rayner could try to reverse the conditioning, leaving parts of their hypothesis unproven.

What’s more, critics were quick to point out that the Little Albert Experiment had several flaws that may have made it scientifically unsound. Today, it’s remembered as a profoundly unethical study that may have traumatized an innocent child for life — all in the name of science.

What Was The Little Albert Experiment?

Even people who aren’t in the psychology field know about “classical conditioning” thanks to the infamous experiment conducted by Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov. The psychologist proved that it was possible to teach animals to react to a neutral stimulus (that is, a stimulus that produced no natural effect) by conditioning them.

According to Verywell Mind , Pavlov made a metronome tick every time he fed his canine test subjects. The dogs soon associated the sound of the metronome (the neutral stimulus) with food.

Soon, Pavlov could make the dogs salivate in expectation of food simply by producing the ticking sound, even when he didn’t actually feed the dogs. Thus, they were conditioned to associate the sound of the metronome with food.

YouTube Little Albert showed no fear toward the white rat at the beginning of the experiment.

Watson and Rayner wanted to try to reproduce Pavlov’s study in humans, and the Little Albert Experiment was born. The researchers presented a nine-month-old boy they called “Albert” with fluffy animals like a monkey, a rabbit, and a white rat. Albert had no negative reaction to them, and he even tried to pet them.

Next, the psychologists struck a hammer against a steel pipe every time they presented Albert with the creatures. The sudden, loud noise made the baby cry.

Soon, Albert was conditioned to associate the loud noise with the fuzzy animals, and he began crying in fear whenever he saw the creatures — even when Watson and Rayner didn’t strike the pipe.

Albert became terrified of not only the monkey, rabbit, and rat, but also anything furry that looked like them. He cried when he saw a Santa Claus mask with a white beard and grew scared of his own family’s dogs.

YouTube Throughout the course of the study, Little Albert became frightened of a Santa Claus mask.

Watson and Rayner intended to attempt to reverse the conditioning performed on Little Albert, but his mother pulled him from the study before they had the chance. Thus, there is a chance the poor child remained scared of furry objects for life — which raises countless questions related to ethics.

The Controversy Surrounding The Little Albert Experiment

Many of the ethical debates regarding the Little Albert Experiment involved not only the methods that Watson and Rayner deployed to “condition” the infant but also the way in which the psychologists conducted the study. For one, the experiment had only a single subject.

What’s more, according to Simply Psychology , creating a fear response is an example of psychological harm that’s not permitted in modern psychological experiments. While the study was conducted before modern ethical guidelines were implemented, criticism of how Watson and Rayner executed the experiment was raised even at the time.

Wikimedia Commons John Watson, the psychologist behind the Little Albert Experiment.

Then there was the issue of the scientists’ failure to deprogram the child after the experiment was over. They initially intended to attempt to “uncondition” Little Albert, or remove the irrational fear from the poor child’s mind. However, since his mother withdrew him from the experiment, Watson and Rayner were unable to do so.

As such, the fear was potentially firmly embedded in the child’s brain — a fear that was previously nonexistent. Because of this, both the American Psychological Association and the British Psychological Society would ultimately deem this experiment unethical.

The Unknown Fate Of Little Albert

After criticism arose, Watson tried to explain his behavior, claiming that Little Albert would have been exposed to the frightening stimuli later in life anyway. “At first there was considerable hesitation upon our part in making the attempt to set up fear reactions experimentally,” he said, according to GoodTherapy .

Watson continued, “We decided finally to make the attempt, comforting ourselves… that such attachments would arise anyway as soon as the child left the sheltered environment of the nursery for the rough and tumble of the home.”

The true fate of Albert remained unknown for decades, however, and experts still aren’t positive about his actual identity.

YouTube Little Albert was conditioned to become frightened of furry creatures.

One study, as reported by the American Psychological Association , posited that Little Albert was a pseudonym for Douglas Merritte, the son of a nurse at Johns Hopkins named Arvilla Merritte. Arvilla was reportedly paid one dollar for her son’s participation in the study.

Sadly, young Douglas died of complications from hydrocephalus when he was just six years old. If he was indeed the true Little Albert, his medical condition adds another layer of questionability to the experiment. If he was born with hydrocephalus, he may have reacted to the stimulus differently than a typical baby would have.

Other research, however, suggests the true Albert was a little boy named William Albert Barger. Per New Scientist , Barger lived a long, happy life and died in 2007. However, his relatives report that he had an aversion to animals — and they even had to put the family dogs away when he came to visit.

If the Little Albert Experiment has taught scientists nothing else, it’s this: While it’s important to make discoveries in order to understand the human condition better, it’s vital to remember that the test subjects are human beings who may carry the impacts with them for the rest of their lives.

Now that you’ve read all about the Little Albert Experiment, go inside the Milgram experiment , which proved that everyday people are capable of monstrous acts. Then, discover the tragedy of David Reimer , the boy who was forced to live as a girl for a doctor’s experiment.

PO Box 24091 Brooklyn, NY 11202-4091

36 Facts About Little Albert Experiment

Written by Lizzie Elrod

Modified & Updated: 20 Sep 2024

• Psychology Facts

What was the Little Albert Experiment? The Little Albert Experiment was a controversial psychological study conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920. It aimed to explore whether emotional responses could be conditioned in humans. They used an infant, referred to as "Little Albert," to test this theory. By pairing a loud , frightening noise with the presence of a white rat, they successfully conditioned Albert to fear the rat. This fear eventually generalized to other white, furry objects. The experiment raised significant ethical concerns and has been widely debated in psychology . Despite its ethical issues, it provided valuable insights into human behavior and conditioning.

Key Takeaways:

• The Little Albert Experiment demonstrated how fear can be conditioned in humans, sparking ethical debates and influencing modern psychology.
• This controversial study by Watson and Rayner highlighted the importance of ethical research practices and the impact of early behavioral research on psychology.

The Little Albert Experiment: A Brief Overview

The Little Albert Experiment is one of the most famous and controversial studies in psychology. Conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920, it aimed to explore classical conditioning in humans. Here are some intriguing facts about this landmark experiment.

The Experiment's Origins

Understanding the background of the Little Albert Experiment helps grasp its significance in psychology.

• John B. Watson, a prominent behaviorist, sought to demonstrate that emotional responses could be conditioned in humans.
• Watson collaborated with Rosalie Rayner, his graduate student, to conduct the experiment.
• The study took place at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.
• Watson and Rayner were inspired by Ivan Pavlov's work on classical conditioning with dogs.

The Subject: Little Albert

The identity and experiences of Little Albert are central to the experiment's narrative.

• Little Albert was the pseudonym given to the infant subject, whose real identity remains debated.
• The baby was around nine months old when the experiment began.
• Albert was chosen because he was considered emotionally stable and healthy.
• His mother was a wet nurse at the hospital where the experiment was conducted.

The Conditioning Process

The steps taken to condition Little Albert reveal the methods used by Watson and Rayner.

• Initially, Albert was exposed to various stimuli, including a white rat, rabbit, monkey, masks, and burning newspapers.
• Albert showed no fear of these objects at first.
• Watson and Rayner then paired the white rat with a loud, frightening noise made by striking a steel bar with a hammer.
• The noise caused Albert to cry and show signs of fear.

The Results

The outcomes of the experiment provide insight into the effects of classical conditioning on human emotions.

• After several pairings of the rat and the noise, Albert began to cry and try to crawl away when he saw the rat alone.
• This demonstrated that Albert had been conditioned to fear the rat.
• The fear response generalized to other white, furry objects, such as a rabbit, a fur coat, and even Watson's hair.
• The experiment showed that emotional responses could be conditioned and generalized.

Ethical Concerns

The Little Albert Experiment has been criticized for several ethical reasons.

• Albert's mother was not fully informed about the nature of the experiment.
• The experiment caused distress and fear in the infant subject.
• There was no attempt to decondition Albert's fear responses after the experiment.
• Modern ethical standards in psychology would not permit such an experiment today.

The Legacy of the Experiment

Despite its ethical issues, the Little Albert Experiment has had a lasting impact on psychology.

• The study provided early evidence for the behaviorist perspective in psychology.
• It influenced subsequent research on classical conditioning and emotional responses.
• The experiment is often cited in discussions about the importance of ethical standards in research.
• Watson's work laid the groundwork for behavior therapy techniques used today.

The Mystery of Little Albert's Identity

The true identity of Little Albert has been a topic of much speculation and research.

• In 2009, researchers suggested that Little Albert might have been a boy named Douglas Merritte.
• Douglas Merritte was the son of a wet nurse at Johns Hopkins Hospital.
• Merritte's medical records indicated he had neurological impairments, raising questions about the experiment's validity.
• Other researchers have proposed different identities for Little Albert, but no definitive conclusion has been reached.

The Experiment's Influence on Popular Culture

The Little Albert Experiment has permeated popular culture in various ways.

• The experiment is frequently mentioned in psychology textbooks and courses.
• It has been referenced in films, television shows, and literature.
• The story of Little Albert has sparked debates about the nature of fear and conditioning.
• Watson's work has inspired fictional portrayals of unethical scientific experiments.

Modern Perspectives on the Experiment

Contemporary psychologists view the Little Albert Experiment through a critical lens.

• The study is often used as a cautionary tale about the importance of ethical research practices.
• It highlights the need for informed consent and the protection of vulnerable subjects.
• Modern replications of the experiment would require rigorous ethical oversight.
• The Little Albert Experiment remains a pivotal moment in the history of psychology, illustrating both the potential and the pitfalls of early behavioral research.

The Legacy of Little Albert

The Little Albert Experiment left a lasting impact on psychology. Conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920, it demonstrated how emotional responses could be conditioned in humans. Using a baby named Albert , they paired a loud noise with a white rat, causing Albert to develop a fear of the rat and other similar objects. This experiment highlighted the power of classical conditioning and influenced future research on behaviorism.

However, ethical concerns arose due to the lack of informed consent and the distress caused to Albert. Modern standards would never allow such an experiment. Despite its controversial nature, the Little Albert Experiment remains a cornerstone in understanding human behavior and the development of phobias. It serves as a reminder of the importance of ethical considerations in psychological research.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was this page helpful.

Our commitment to delivering trustworthy and engaging content is at the heart of what we do. Each fact on our site is contributed by real users like you, bringing a wealth of diverse insights and information. To ensure the highest standards of accuracy and reliability, our dedicated editors meticulously review each submission. This process guarantees that the facts we share are not only fascinating but also credible. Trust in our commitment to quality and authenticity as you explore and learn with us.

Share this Fact:

• The 'Little Albert' Experiment
• History's Most Brutal Human Experiments
• Scientists Who Paid with Their Lives
• Disgusting Experiments on Human Beings
• Experiments on Unknowing US Soldiers
• Barbaric Studies on Human Beings
• Could You Have Become a Nazi? Yes, Probably
• The Most Evil Experiments by the US Govt
• Creating Utopia in America
• They Took Babies Away from Their Mothers
• Attempts to Create a Frankenstein
• The Horrific Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments
• WWII Japanese Experiments on US Airmen
• Japanese WWII Unit 731
• The Disturbing Stanford Prison Experiment
• Using Orphaned Babies to Train Expecting Moms
• The Contained Attempts at Biosphere 2
• Crazy Medical Experiments That Worked
• Crazy Animal Experimentation Through History

• John B. Watson
• Wikimedia Commons
• Public domain

All The Controversies Surrounding The Little Albert Experiment

In 1920, behaviorist John B. Watson and his eventual wife, Rosalie Rayner - then a graduate student studying under him - set out to prove they could condition a child's feelings. Specifically, they wanted to demonstrate their power to engender a phobia within a living being. Their experiment was based on Pavlov’s conditioning of dogs, which implemented a repetitive action in order to elicit a desired response. 

While Watson and Rayner did technically accomplish their goal, they also clearly yet inadvertently demonstrated the need for ethics in psychological studies. Their actions against their subject, a baby known as “Little Albert,” are now understood to have been abhorrent -- riddled with ethical issues -- and due to the researchers' carelessness, determining the amount of damage they inflicted is practically impossible.

The Experiment Conditioned 'Little Albert' To Fear Any Furry, White Object

• CC BY-SA 3.0

John B. Watson and his assistant, Rosalie Rayner, instilled a genuine and debilitating fear of white, furry objects in their subject, a child known as "Little Albert." Watson wrote that he conditioned the child by creating a loud noise whenever Albert reached out to touch a white rat, leading the boy to become fearful of anything that looked remotely similar to the animal.

Watson further wrote that the baby became distressed whenever he saw a rabbit, a dog, or a rudimentary Santa Claus mask with a cotton-ball beard. As far as Watson could determine, the boy's fear only extended to objects that were both furry and white.

No Objective Parameters Were Imposed To Evaluate Albert's Reactions

A scientific experiment should record  objective observations and employ multiple subjects as a control group. Essentially, other scientists should be able to step into the laboratory and find similar results. Rather than employing these experimentation methods, Watson and Rayner carried out their experiment on only one child without any means to objectively evaluate his reactions.

In the experiment, Watson and Raynor introduced Albert to a small white rat. Once Albert was comfortable with the animal and began to reach out for it, Watson struck a metal bar with a hammer, creating a loud noise. Watson continued this cycle until Albert was not only afraid to reach out for the creature, but was also afraid of the rat itself. 

Watson and Rayner concluded that they could train Albert to fear the rat by making noise, though this conclusion was  far from objective .

Researchers Failed To Reverse Albert's Conditioning Once The Experiment Ended

Once Watson and Rayner's experiment concluded, they failed to reverse any of the psychological damage they inflicted upon Albert. Supposedly, the duo didn't have time to extinguish the child's fears because Albert's mother left town the moment the study was finished. 

Rather than reaching out to Albert's mother, Watson and Rayner assured their study's readers that Albert would grow out of his fear thanks to his time in the "rough and tumble" world.

Watson May Have Known About And Hid Albert's Poor Health

• Public Domain

According to Watson, the child used in the Little Albert experiment was a normal, docile child who could represent the "children of the world."  Watson wrote in 1920 :

Albert's life was normal: he was healthy from birth and one of the best developed youngsters ever brought to the hospital, weighing 21 pounds at nine months of age. He was on the whole stolid and unemotional. His stability was one of the principal reasons for using him as a subject in this test. We felt that we could do him relatively little harm by carrying out such experiments as those outlined below.

Albert likely wasn't as healthy as Watson claimed - he may have even been mentally impaired. Modern researchers debate whether or not Watson knew about Albert's possible impairment, although some believe he actually sought out a child with an infirmity.

Watson Burned All Of His Research Before He Passed

After the Little Albert experiment, Watson went on to publish books on child-rearing, but he never shared his research on the Little Albert investigation. Before Watson passed in 1958,  he burned all of his notes on the experiment, limiting the possibility of anyone tracking down the child at the center of the analysis.

No record exists of Watson publishing any additional information on the experiment or discussing his role in the child's conditioning.

Watson May Have Chosen A Passive Child To Procure The Desired Results

• Archives New Zealand

Modern scholars believe Watson specifically chose a baby for his experiment who was more passive than active. One theory claims that Albert suffered from a neurological disorder, and that in the film footage of the experiment, he's "alarmingly unresponsive."

Even if Albert did not have such a disorder, he displayed antisocial behavior. William Goldie, a pediatric neurologist, studied the footage in 2012 and noted that the child barely acknowledges Watson or Rayner:

No evidence is provided of mutual gaze or that Albert sees Watson or is responding to any of Watson’s specific actions. Albert’s temperament and behavior are not within the normal range for his age, and the abnormalities observed on film cannot solely be attributed to the hospital environment or the physical context of filming.

Chapter 6 Learning

Get better grades with Learn

82% of students achieve A’s after using Learn

Clinical Reasoning Cases in Nursing

infant sucking on a nipple Choose matching term 1 In ________ the stimulus or experience occurs before the behavior and then gets paired with the behavior. 2 Which of the following is an example of a reflex that occurs at some point in the development of a human being? 3 In Bandura's Bobo doll study, when the children who watched the aggressive model were placed in a room with the doll and other toys, they ________. 4 ________is when you take away a pleasant stimulus to stop a behavior. Don't know?

• Social Studies
• High School

john b. watson and rosalie rayner's experiment with little albert showed that multiple choice backward conditioning is the most efficient method of conditioning. organisms become immune to conditioned stimuli. extinction leads to the complete elimination of a response. psychological studies can raise ethical issues.

Allisonzawodny888 is waiting for your help., expert-verified answer.

• 33K answers
• 7.7M people helped

Final answer:

The experiment conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner with Little Albert demonstrated stimulus generalization as the most efficient method of conditioning. It did not show organisms becoming immune to conditioned stimuli or extinction leading to the complete elimination of a response. Psychological studies can raise ethical issues.

Explanation:

The experiment conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner with Little Albert demonstrated stimulus generalization, not multiple-choice backward conditioning, as the most efficient method of conditioning. Stimulus generalization occurs when an organism demonstrates the conditioned response to stimuli that are similar to the conditioned stimulus . In this case, Little Albert was conditioned to fear a white rat and then began to fear other furry white objects.The experiment showed that the more similar a stimulus is to the conditioned stimulus, the more likely the organism is to give the conditioned response, which is known as stimulus generalization. The study did not explore the concept of organisms becoming immune to conditioned stimuli. Additionally, the experiment did not involve extinction leading to the complete elimination of a response.Lastly, it is important to note that psychological studies can raise ethical issues, but this specific experiment did not explore or raise ethical concerns.

Learn more about Little Albert Experiment here:

brainly.com/question/32249482

Still have questions?

Get more answers for free, you might be interested in, new questions in social studies.