John B. Watson was the psychologist most responsible for the rise of behaviorism. Watson believed that internal thought played no role in human behavior and that behavior could be induced through classical conditioning. He demonstrated it with the famous “Little Albert Experiment”.
initial conditioning
In 1920, Watson and her assistant, Rosalie Rayner, conducted an experiment in which they tried to condition a baby to fear an animal. Furthermore, they sought to examine whether that fear would transfer to animals or similar objects and to see how long this fear would last. They selected a healthy 9-month-old baby who would be immortalized in Psychology as “Little Albert.” Watson and Rayner (1920) described little Albert as “stolid and unemotional”.
Initially, Albert interacted with various animals, such as a rabbit, rat, dog, and monkey, and with inanimate objects, such as cotton, fur, and masks, to examine their unconditioned responses to these stimuli. Albert was deemed not to be afraid of any of the animals, but it was discovered that he was startled when a loud, disturbing noise was created by hitting a steel bar with a claw hammer. Watson and Rayner (1920) continued to examine Albert’s unconditioned responses and after about two months decided that they would try to induce a phobia of a white rat in Albert.
To condition Albert’s fear response, the researchers had to get Albert to associate the rat with the disturbing noise. Every time Albert touched the rat, the loud noise was made immediately afterward and the boy became distressed. When Albert saw the rat, he reacted by crying and trying to avoid the animal even without the noise.
Generalization and Permanence
With the proof that Albert was conditioned to fear an animal, they now examined how this fear generalized to other animals or objects. 5 days after the conditioned fear response, Albert was placed in a room with the rat, a rabbit, a dog, a sealskin coat, some white cotton, a Santa Claus mask with a beard, some wooden blocks and the inverted heads of Watson and his assistants. so Albert could feel his hair. Albert reportedly displayed a strong fear response to the rat, dog, rabbit, and sealskin coat, a negative response to the Santa Claus mask and Watson’s hair, and a mild response to cotton. Albert however, enjoyed the blocks and the hairstyle of the attendees.
After 5 more days, Watson tried to recondition Albert to fear the rat and also to fear the dog and rabbit. Watson tested this conditioning but in a larger room than previous tests. In this room, Albert had only a mild reaction to the rat, the dog, and the rabbit.
Having shown that the phobia can spread to similar objects, the final step was to test the permanence of the conditioning. Watson and Rayner (1920) did not see Albert for 31 days before he returned to them for final tests. Albert once again interacted with multiple different objects and showed fear by touching the rat, dog, rabbit, sealskin coat, and Santa mask. However, he did initiate contact with the rabbit and the fur. Therefore, it seemed that the fear of him persisted but to a much lesser degree. After these tests, Albert’s mother took him out of the experiment, but Watson knew this would happen a month in advance.
The fate of little Albert
For years after the experiment, little Albert’s fate was unknown until, in 2009, psychologist Hall P. Beck published how he was able to discover the real name of Albert’s mother and subsequently deduced that Albert was actually a boy named Douglas Merritte. . Unfortunately, Douglas passed away at the age of six due to hydrocephalus, a buildup of fluid in the brain. Beck also discovered that Douglas had suffered from hydrocephalus since his birth. He believed that Watson knew about this and intentionally lied about the boy’s health for his experiment.
However, in 2014, researchers also presented evidence that Little Albert was actually William Albert Barger. Barger was the son of a wet nurse who worked at the hospital where the experiment took place. Unfortunately, it may never be known for certain who Little Albert really was, as Watson burned his collection of letters and personal papers before his death.
Criticism of the Little Albert experiment
-
There was never an objective measure of Albert’s fear response. It was based on Watson’s own subjective observations and his assistants.
-
The experiment was incredibly unethical by today’s standards, especially considering that no attempt was made to decondition the child.
-
Watson underestimated the severity of Douglas Merritte’s illness for the experiment, assuming it was little Albert.
References
Beck, HP, Levinson, S. & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A Trip to John B. Watson’s Children’s Laboratory. American Psychologist, 2009;64(7):605-614.
Fridlund, AJ, Beck, HP, Goldie, WD, and Irons, G. Little Albert: a neurologically disabled child. History of Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0026720; 2012.
Powell, RA, Digdon, N., Harris, B. & Smithson, C. (2014). Correction to Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert’s record: Albert Barger as “psychology’s lost child.” American Psychologist, 69(6), 600-611
Watson, J.B. & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1-14.
