The Little Albert experiment was an experiment showing empirical evidence of classical conditioning in humans. This study was also an example of stimulus generalization. It was conducted in 1920 by John B. Watson along with his assistant Rosalie Rayner. The study was done at Johns Hopkins University.

John B. Watson, after observing children in the field, was interested in finding support for his notion that the reaction of children, whenever they heard loud noises, was prompted by fear. Furthermore, he reasoned that this fear was innate or due to an unconditioned response. He felt that following the principles of classical conditioning, he could condition a child to fear another distinctive stimulus which normally would not be feared by a child.

[edit] Methodology

John B. Watson and his partner, Rayner, chose Albert from a hospital for this study at the age of almost nine months^[1]. Albert's mother was a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. "Albert was the son of an employee of the Phipps Clinic at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, where Watson and Rayner were conducting their experiments."^[2] Before the commencement of the experiment, Little Albert was given a battery of baseline emotional tests; the infant was exposed, briefly and for the first time, to a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers, etc. During the baseline, Little Albert showed no fear toward any of these items.

Watson and his colleague did not begin to condition Little Albert until approximately two months later, when he was just over 11 months old. The experiment began by placing Albert on a mattress on a table in the middle of a room. A white laboratory rat was placed near Albert and he was allowed to play with it. At this point, the child showed no fear of the rat. He began to reach out to the rat as it roamed around him. In later trials, Watson and Rayner made a loud sound behind Albert's back by striking a suspended steel bar with a hammer when the baby touched the rat. Not surprisingly in these occasions, Little Albert cried and showed fear as he heard the noise. After several such pairings of the two stimuli, Albert was again presented with only the rat. Now, however, he became very distressed as the rat appeared in the room. He cried, turned away from the rat, and tried to move away. Apparently, the baby boy had associated the white rat (original neutral stimulus, now conditioned stimulus) with the loud noise (unconditioned stimulus) and was producing the fearful or emotional response of crying (originally the unconditioned response to the noise, now the conditioned response to the rat).

This experiment led to the following progression of results:

• Introduction of a loud sound (unconditioned stimulus) resulted in fear (unconditioned response), a natural response.
• Introduction of a rat (neutral stimulus) paired with the loud sound (unconditioned stimulus) resulted in fear (unconditioned response).
• Successive introductions of a rat (conditioned stimulus) resulted in fear (conditioned response). Here, learning occurs.

What was problematic about this experiment was that Little Albert seemed to generalise his response so that when Watson sent a (non-white) rabbit into the room seventeen days after the original experiment, Albert also became distressed. He showed similar reactions when presented with a furry dog, a seal-skin coat, and even when Watson appeared in front of him wearing a Santa Claus mask with white cotton balls as his beard, although Albert did not fear everything with hair.

[edit] Post experiment

Shortly after the series of experiments were performed, Albert was taken from the hospital; therefore, all testing was discontinued for a period of 31 days. Watson wanted to desensitize him to see if a conditioned stimulus could be removed, but knew from the beginning of the study that there would not be time. However, Albert left the hospital on the day these last tests were made, and no desensitizing ever took place, hence the opportunity of developing an experimental technique for removing the Conditioned Emotional Response was denied. Nothing was known of Albert's later life until Beck, Levinson & Irons (2009) reported on the results of their intensive investigation (see below). Watson later stated that he knew the boy would depart one month before the trial ended. Had the opportunity existed, they would have tried several other methods, including:

• Constantly confronting the child with those stimuli which produced the responses, in the hope that habituation would occur.
• Try to "recondition" by feeding him candy or other food just as the animal is shown.
• Buildup "constructive" activities around the object by imitation and putting the hand through the motions of manipulation.

A study on reconditioning a child was conducted several years later by Mary Cover Jones (1924). It was one of the first studies on behavioral therapy. The child was selected to take part in the study because s/he had personality characteristics similar to those of Albert B. As author notes:

Peter was 2 years and 10 months old when we began to study him. He was afraid of a white rat, and this fear extended to a rabbit, a fur coat, a feather, cotton wool, etc., but not to wooden blocks and similar toys.

[edit] Finding Little Albert

After 90 years, the identity of "Little Albert B." appears to have been uncovered with reasonable certainty by Dr. Hall P. Beck of Appalachian State University and his colleagues. After intensive review of Watson's correspondence and publications as well as extensive research in public documents (such as the 1920 United States Census and state birth and death records), Beck et al. (2009) propose that "Little Albert B." was a pseudonym for Douglas Merritte, the son of Arvilla Merritte, then an unmarried woman who appears to have been a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home. She gave birth to Douglas on March 9, 1919 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. She was employed at the Harriet Lane Home and a resident of the Johns Hopkins campus at the time of Watson's experiment. Beck et al. (2009) determined that Watson obtained his baseline assessment of Little Albert on or around December 5, 1919 when Douglas Merritte was 8 months 26 days old, the same age reported in Watson's article (Watson & Raynor, 1920). No descriptive data beyond a probable photograph were uncovered for Douglas and, hence, there is nothing known about the enduring effects of Watson's experiment on the child. The young boy died on May 10, 1925 of hydrocephalus which he developed in 1922. He is buried in the cemetery of the Locust Grove Church of the Brethern in Mt. Airy, Maryland.

[edit] Critique

A detailed review of the original study and its subsequent misinterpretations by Harris (1979) found that:

Critical reading of Watson and Rayner's (1920) report reveals little evidence either that Albert developed a rat phobia or even that animals consistently evoked his fear (or anxiety) during Watson and Rayner's experiment.

It may be useful for modern learning theorists to see how the Albert study prompted subsequent research [...] but it seems time, finally, to place the Watson and Rayner data in the category of "interesting but uninterpretable" results.

It was also found that most textbooks "suffer from inaccuracies of various degrees" while referring to Watson and Rayner's study. Texts often misrepresent and maximize the range of Albert's post-conditioning fears.

According to some textbooks, Albert's mother worked in the same building as Watson and didn't know the tests were being conducted. When she found out, she took Albert and moved away, letting no one know of where they were going. Others claimed that he had been adopted by a family north of Baltimore or that the phobia induced by Watson later proved resistant to extinction. The report of Beck et al. (2009) cited previously demonstrates that none of these and other fanciful tales about Little Albert were true.

[edit] Ethics

Albert was eight months and twenty six days old at the time of the first test. Because of his young age, the experiment today would be considered, by the American Psychological Association's ethic code (see references) unethical. Since this experiment, and others that pushed the boundaries of experimental ethics, the APA has banned studies considered unethical. Like other experiments that provided groundbreaking insights into the nature of human functioning, researchers have taken the information they gleaned and attempt to apply this information within a less-destructive setting.

By present-day standards, Watson's experiment was unethical for several reasons. Albert's mother was not informed of the experiment. It was performed without her consent.^{[citation needed]} Researchers today are required to obtain fully informed consent from participants or in the case of infants/children, from their parents/guardians before any study can begin.

It is also today considered unethical to evoke responses of fear in a laboratory setting, unless a participant has given informed consent to being intentionally frightened as part of an experiment. Experiments should not cause the participants to suffer unnecessary distress or to be in any way physically harmed. The welfare of the participants must always be the paramount consideration in any form of research, and this especially true with specially protected groups such as children.

Albert's fear was not extinguished because he moved away before systematic desensitization could be administered. It is presumed that, although he still must have had fear conditioned to many various stimuli after moving, he would likely have been desensitized by his natural environments later in life. However, as mentioned above, today's ethical guidelines would never permit this study to be carried out or replicated.

[edit] In popular culture

A similar method of conditioning children appears in Aldous Huxley's 1932 science fiction novel Brave New World. There, children of lower castes are described as conditioned to dislike books and various objects associated with nature, like flowers, in order better to fit into their caste's assigned lifestyle.

Little Albert was featured in a 1919 film by Rayner and Watson.^[3]

In Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, Baby Tyrone is conditioned to associate erotic arousal with the smell of plastic Imipolex G. Decades later, his sexual behavior in London is studied in an effort to track V-2 rocket explosions because the plastic is used in the rocket.

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (March 2009)

• American Psychological Association (2002). Code of Ethics.
• Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64, 7. pp. 605-614.
• Cover Jones, M. (1924). A Laboratory Study of Fear: The Case of Peter. Pedagogical Seminary, 31, pp. 308–315.
• Harris, B. (1979). Whatever Happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34, 2, pp. 151–160.
• Hock, R. (2005). Forty Studies That Changed Psychology: Explorations into the History of Psychological Research. 5th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Kasschau, R. (2001). Understanding psychology. Columbus, OH: Glenco/McGraw-Hill.
• Watson, J.B. and Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1, pp. 1–14.