In 1920 at Johns Hopkins University, John B. Watson and his assistant (later wife) Rosalie Rayner conditioned a nine-month-old infant known as Little Albert to fear a white rat by pairing it with a loud noise from striking a steel bar. After several pairings the child became distressed at the sight of the rat alone, demonstrating conditioned emotional responses in a human infant. Watson and Rayner never deconditioned Albert, a lasting ethical criticism of the study; Watson himself admitted the fear generated was neither strong nor lasting.
Facts
Disputed
Key FindingThe child's true identity is contested: a 2009 investigation identified him as Douglas Merritte, an infant with a neurological impairment that may confound the study's findings, while a 2014 investigation instead identified him as Albert Barger, a neurologically typical child, and historians have not settled which identification is correct. 1 Beck, Levinson and Irons (2009) proposed Douglas Merritte; Powell, Digdon, Harris and Smithson (2014) proposed Albert Barger on the strength of matching hospital admission records. The two identifications are incompatible. Partially Attested
Study DesignCase Report or Case Series 1 Classified as a single-subject case report because the source states the experiment had only one subject and no control subjects, so it does not meet a controlled-experiment design by modern standards. Method
Participants Key FindingAn infant can be conditioned to fear a previously neutral stimulus (a white rat) by repeatedly pairing it with a frightening loud noise, demonstrating classical conditioning of emotional responses in humans. 2 Connections
Conducted By
Source Wikipedia: John B. Watson
In Branch
Open Questions
Source Wikipedia: Little Albert experiment
Source Wikipedia: Little Albert experiment
In the Other Atlases
Found In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject is found.
Source Wikipedia: Little Albert experimenttier 2
Sources
1. Wikipedia: Little Albert experiment
Wikimedia FoundationLead section
It was carried out by John B. Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, at Johns Hopkins University. The results were first published in the February 1920 issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Douglas Merritte section
After reviewing Watson's correspondence and publications, as well as research in public documents (such as the 1920 United States census and state birth and death records), Beck argued that "Albert B." was a pseudonym for Douglas Merritte, the son of Arvilla Merritte, then a woman who appears to have been a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home.
Participant and baseline testing
a nine-month-old infant from a hospital
Methodological limitations discussion
Watson's experiment had many failings by modern standards. For example, it had only a single subject and no control subjects.
Albert Barger
Albert Barger had been born within a day of Merritte, and his mother had also worked at the hospital
2. Wikipedia: John B. Watson
Wikimedia FoundationLittle Albert section
This study demonstrated how emotions could become conditioned responses.
Conducted By: John B. Watson, Use of children section
his assistant
Open Questions (2 open questions)
Who was the infant known as Little Albert in Watson and Rayner's 1920 conditioning experiment?
Beck and Levinson (2009) identified Little Albert as Douglas Merritte, who died at age 6 of congenital hydrocephalus, but a competing claim by Powell et al. holds he was Albert Barger, arguing Merritte was completely blind, incompatible with the infant's observed behavior in the surviving films.
What would resolve this Further historical-archival research, medical records verification, or re-analysis of the surviving experimental films against each candidate's documented medical history.
History of psychology / archival scholarshipWikipedia: Little Albert experiment
Which child was actually filmed as "Little Albert" in Watson and Rayner's 1920 conditioning experiment?
Two independent historical investigations identify two different children from incompatible hospital records -- Douglas Merritte (Beck, Levinson and Irons, 2009) and Albert Barger (Powell, Digdon, Harris and Smithson, 2014) -- and neither identification has been conclusively confirmed against the surviving film and case notes.
What would resolve this Additional archival or genetic evidence definitively linking the surviving film footage to one specific infant's hospital record.
History of PsychologyWikipedia: Little Albert experiment
Dissenting Readings (1 dissenting reading)
Key Finding
Powell, Digdon, Harris and Smithson's 2014 re-examination of hospital admission records concluded that "Little Albert" was more likely Albert Barger, a neurologically typical infant, contradicting the widely cited 2009 identification of a neurologically impaired child, Douglas Merritte, and unsettling what the experiment's filmed reactions can be taken to show.
A dissenting reading, from Nancy Digdon, Ben Harris and Russell PowellWikipedia: Little Albert experiment, Wikimedia Foundation
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.