Introduction: In 1920, psychologists John Watson and Rosalie Rayner conducted an experiment on a 9-month-old infant. They aimed to test whether classical conditioning could apply to humans. The results showed that little Albert developed a fear response to previously harmless objects, such as a white rat.
What Was the Little Albert Experiment?
In 1920, psychologists John Watson and Rosalie Rayner conducted what became known as the Little Albert experiment. Their goal was to prove that classical conditioning worked on both humans and animals. The experiment involved inducing fear in an infant toward a harmless object. This violated modern ethical standards.
As early as 1900, Ivan Pavlov had used classical conditioning to make dogs salivate at the sound of a bell. This happened even without food present. Inspired by Pavlov’s work, Watson and Rayner sought to create similar responses in humans. Unfortunately, things quickly went awry. 
They succeeded in making Little Albert develop negative reactions to a white rat, Santa Claus masks, and other objects. However, before they could reverse the fear response, Albert’s mother removed him from the experiment. This prevented the hypothesis from being fully tested.
Critics argue that the Little Albert experiment had scientific flaws. Today, it is viewed as highly unethical. It may have caused lifelong trauma for an innocent child, all in the name of science.
What Is Classical Conditioning?
The concept of “classical conditioning” was introduced by Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov. Even those without a background in psychology are familiar with the idea. Pavlov demonstrated that animals could develop a conditioned response to a neutral stimulus. A neutral stimulus initially has no natural effect on the subject.
In his experiment, Pavlov paired the sound of a metronome with food. Over time, the dogs began to salivate at the sound alone. They salivated even without the presence of food.
Inspired by Pavlov’s research, Watson and Rayner attempted to replicate this phenomenon in humans. This resulted in the Little Albert experiment. They showed a nine-month-old baby, Albert, a series of furry animals. These included monkeys, rabbits, and a white rat. Albert showed no fear and even attempted to pet these animals.
Then, the psychologists struck a steel bar with a hammer whenever Albert was shown the animals. This produced a loud, startling noise that caused the infant to cry. After repeated pairings of the furry animals with the loud noise, Albert began to cry. He cried at the sight of the animals, even without the accompanying noise.
Albert’s fear wasn’t limited to just the animals he had been conditioned to fear. He began to show signs of fear toward any similar furry object. This included a Santa Claus mask and even his family dog.
Watson and Rayner had planned to reverse Albert’s fear response. However, before they could, his mother removed him from the experiment. This left Albert possibly with a lifelong fear of furry objects. This raised numerous ethical concerns.
Controversy Surrounding the Little Albert Experiment
The ethical debate surrounding the Little Albert experiment revolves primarily around the methods used by Watson and Rayner. They conducted “conditioned reflex” experiments on an infant, as well as the approach of psychologists in general. Firstly, the experiment involved only one subject. This is considered insufficient for scientific research.
More importantly, the induced fear response would now be regarded as psychological harm. This is something that is not permitted in modern experimental psychology. While the experiment was conducted before modern ethical standards were put in place, Watson and Rayner’s methods were criticized even at the time.
Moreover, after the experiment, the psychologists failed to remove Albert’s conditioned fear response. This further escalated the ethical issues. While they had intended to decondition Albert—that is, remove his irrational fear—the intervention was cut short when Albert’s mother took him away.
As a result, Albert might have been left with a deep-rooted fear. This was a fear that he didn’t have before the experiment. The American Psychological Association (APA) and the British Psychological Society now consider the experiment to be unethical.
The Unknown Fate of Little Albert
Despite criticism, Watson defended his actions. He claimed that Little Albert would eventually encounter fearful stimuli in his life anyway. He acknowledged initial hesitations but reassured himself that any fears Albert developed would dissipate once removed from the controlled environment.
However, Little Albert’s true identity remained unknown for decades. Experts still debate who he really was. Some researchers believe Little Albert was actually Douglas Merritt. He was the son of a nurse at Johns Hopkins University. Douglas died at the age of six due to complications from hydrocephalus. This raises questions about the ethics of using him in the experiment. His medical condition may have influenced his response to stimuli.
Other studies suggest the real Albert was William Albert Barger. He reportedly lived a long, happy life before passing away in 2007. His relatives note that he did have an aversion to animals. He needed to keep his family dog isolated when he visited.
The Little Albert experiment serves as a reminder for scientists. While research helps us understand human conditions, the long-term impacts on subjects must be considered. Ethical issues must be carefully managed to prevent lasting harm, especially when vulnerable individuals are involved.
