little albert experiment details

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 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.

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

The Shocking Truth Behind the Little Albert Experiment: How One Study Changed Psychology Forever

The Little Albert experiment is one of psychology’s most controversial and widely known studies. Conducted in 1920 by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner at Johns Hopkins University, the study aimed to test the principles of classical conditioning. The experiment involved conditioning a young child to fear a white rat by pairing the rat with a loud noise. The study is still discussed today as an example of the ethical concerns surrounding research on human subjects.

The study involved a nine-month-old infant, “Little Albert,” who was exposed to a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, and other animals. Initially, the baby showed no fear of the animals, but the researchers then began to pair the presentation of the animals with a loud noise. After several pairings, Little Albert began to show fear of the rat, even when the noise was not present. The study has been criticized for its lack of ethical considerations, including the use of a young child as a subject and the potential long-term effects of the conditioning on the child’s mental health.

Despite the criticisms, the Little Albert experiment remains a significant study in the history of psychology. It has contributed to our understanding of classical conditioning and the effects of early experiences on behavior. The study has also raised important ethical questions about using human subjects in research and the need for informed consent and ethical considerations in psychology.

Background of the Experiment

The Little Albert Experiment is a famous psychology experiment conducted in the early 1920s by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner. The experiment aimed to test the principles of classical conditioning, which had been previously demonstrated in experiments with dogs by Ivan Pavlov.

The experiment involved a 9-month-old infant named Albert, conditioned to fear a white rat by pairing it with a loud noise. The goal was to see if Albert would develop a fear response to the rat even without the loud noise.

The experiment was controversial from the start, as it involved using a human subject, and the methods used were considered unethical by today’s standards. The experiment was also criticized for its lack of scientific rigor and the fact that it was a single case study, limiting the generalizability of the findings.

Despite these criticisms, the Little Albert Experiment remains an integral part of the history of psychology and continues to be studied and discussed today. It has helped to shape our understanding of how humans learn and develop fears and phobias, and it has also raised important ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychological research.

The Little Albert Experiment is a fascinating and controversial case study that has significantly impacted the field of psychology. While the methods used in the experiment are no longer considered acceptable, the findings have helped to advance our understanding of how humans learn and develop emotional responses to stimuli.

The Subject: Little Albert

Little Albert was the subject of a famous psychology experiment conducted in 1920 by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner at Johns Hopkins University. At the time of the experiment, Albert was a 9-month-old infant selected for his age and lack of fear towards animals.

Little Albert was presented with a white rat during the experiment, which he initially showed no fear of. However, the researchers then paired the presentation of the rat with a loud noise, causing the infant to become frightened and cry. This process was repeated several times until Little Albert began to show fear towards the rat, even without the accompanying noise.

The experiment tested the principles of classical conditioning, which is the process by which an organism learns to associate a neutral stimulus with a meaningful stimulus. In this case, the white rat served as the neutral stimulus, while the loud noise served as the meaningful stimulus.

The experiment’s results were controversial, as some critics argued that it was unethical to cause fear in an infant intentionally. Additionally, some psychologists have questioned the experiment’s validity, as Little Albert’s identity was only known many years later.

Despite these criticisms, the Little Albert experiment remains a significant contribution to psychology and has influenced subsequent research on the effects of conditioning on behavior.

The Process

In the Little Albert experiment, John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner aimed to test the principles of classical conditioning on a 9-month-old infant named Albert. The process involved conditioning Albert to fear a white rat by pairing it with a loud noise.

The experiment was conducted in several stages. In the first stage, Albert was shown the white rat, and he did not show any fear. In the second stage, Watson and Rayner made a loud noise behind Albert’s head whenever he reached for the rat. This process was repeated several times until Albert began to associate the loud noise with the rat and became afraid of it.

In the subsequent stages, Watson and Rayner tested Albert’s fear response to similar stimuli, such as a rabbit, a dog, and a fur coat. Albert showed fear responses to these stimuli as well, demonstrating stimulus generalization.

The experiment was controversial, as it involved subjecting a young child to fear and distress. Additionally, the experiment lacked ethical considerations and was not conducted with informed consent from Albert’s parents.

Despite these criticisms, the Little Albert experiment remains a landmark study in psychology, as it demonstrated the principles of classical conditioning and the potential for fear to be conditioned in humans.

Stimulus and Response

When discussing the Little Albert Experiment, we often refer to the concept of stimulus and response. Stimulus refers to any event or object that elicits a response from an organism. Response, on the other hand, refers to the behavior or reaction of an organism to a particular stimulus.

In the Little Albert Experiment, the white rat was the stimulus, and Albert’s crying and crawling away was the response. Through classical conditioning, the researchers paired the white rat with a loud noise, eventually leading to Albert’s fear of the rat.

Stimulus generalization also occurred in the experiment. Albert’s fear response generalized to similar stimuli, such as a white rabbit, a fur coat, and a Santa Claus mask. This demonstrates how our responses to one stimulus can generalize to other similar stimuli.

It’s important to note that stimulus and response are only sometimes straightforward. Various factors, such as past experiences, emotions, and cognitive processes, can influence our responses to stimuli.

For example, if we have a positive association with a particular food, such as pizza, the sight or smell of pizza can elicit a positive response, such as hunger or pleasure. However, if we have a negative experience with pizza, such as getting food poisoning, the same stimulus can elicit a negative response, such as disgust or nausea.

Understanding the concept of stimulus and response can help us better understand our behaviors and reactions to different situations. By identifying the stimuli that elicit certain responses, we can learn to control our behaviors and emotions more effectively.

We now know that the Little Albert experiment was a study conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920. The study aimed to show that it was possible to condition a young child to fear a previously neutral stimulus. In this case, the neutral stimulus was a white rat, and the unconditioned stimulus was a loud noise.

The study’s findings were significant because they showed that fear could be learned through classical conditioning. The study demonstrated that fear could be generalized to other stimuli, even if they were not initially associated with the fear response. For example, Albert later showed fear responses to the rat and other similar stimuli.

The Little Albert experiment raised ethical concerns because it involved using a young child as a subject. The study was also criticized for its lack of scientific rigor and for the fact that it did not follow proper ethical guidelines. Despite these criticisms, the study remains a classic example of classical conditioning and its effects on human behavior.

It is important to note that the identity of Little Albert was just recently discovered. Researchers have now identified him as Douglas Merritte, the son of a wet nurse named Arvilla Merritte, who lived and worked at a campus hospital during the experiment. This discovery has shed new light on the study and its impact on the child involved.

The Little Albert experiment has significantly impacted the field of psychology and our understanding of classical conditioning. While the study may have been ethically questionable, it has provided valuable insights into how we learn and respond to environmental stimuli.

Implications

The Little Albert experiment has significant implications in the field of psychology. It provides evidence for the principles of classical conditioning and the role of environmental factors in shaping behavior.

One implication of the experiment is the potential for developing phobias through classical conditioning. The experiment demonstrated that fear responses can be conditioned in humans by pairing a neutral stimulus, such as a white rat, with an aversive stimulus, such as a loud noise. This finding has been applied to developing treatments for phobias, such as exposure therapy, which involves gradually exposing individuals to feared stimuli in a safe and controlled environment.

Another implication is the importance of ethical considerations in research. The Little Albert experiment has been criticized for its ethical implications, particularly regarding the use of a young child as a subject and the potential long-term effects of the experiment on the child’s psychological well-being. This has led to the development of ethical guidelines in research, which prioritize the protection of human subjects and the prevention of harm.

The Little Albert experiment highlights the complex interplay between environmental factors and behavior and the importance of ethical considerations in research. It has contributed to developing theories and treatments in psychology while also serving as a cautionary tale for the potential consequences of unethical research practices.

Controversies and Criticisms

Regarding the Little Albert Experiment, several controversies and criticisms have been raised over the years. Here are some of the most notable ones:

• Ethical concerns:  One of the biggest criticisms of the Little Albert Experiment is that it was highly unethical. 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.
• Validity of the results:  Another criticism of the Little Albert Experiment is that its results may need to be validated. The experiment lacked control groups and was not well-controlled, so it isn’t easy to know whether the results were due to classical conditioning or other factors.
• Generalization of the results:  Some critics have also pointed out that the results of the Little Albert Experiment may not be generalizable to other contexts. For example, the experiment only involved one child, and whether the same results would be seen with other children or in different situations is still being determined.

Despite these criticisms, the Little Albert Experiment remains an essential landmark in the history of psychology. It helped to establish the principles of classical conditioning and paved the way for future research in this area. However, it is essential to remember the ethical concerns raised and approach the experiment’s results with caution.

Replications

We know that replication is a crucial part of the scientific process. It helps researchers determine if a study’s findings are reliable and can be generalized to other populations. In the case of the Little Albert experiment, there have been a few attempts at replication.

One of the most well-known replications was conducted by Mary Cover Jones in 1924. She used a similar method to the Little Albert experiment but aimed to reverse the conditioned fear response. She worked with a three-year-old boy named Peter, who was afraid of rabbits. Jones gradually introduced the rabbit to Peter while eating; eventually, he could touch and play with the rabbit without fear.

Another attempt at replication was conducted by Hall and his colleagues in 1965. They tried replicating the Little Albert experiment but used a different participant and stimulus. They conditioned an eight-month-old boy named Steven to fear a white rabbit. However, the results were different from the original Little Albert experiment.

In 2009, Beck and colleagues attempted to replicate the Little Albert experiment using a similar method. They conditioned an eleven-month-old boy named Jonah to fear a white rat. However, they did not use the same ethical standards as the original experiment, and the results were inconsistent with the original study.

The attempts at replication have been mixed, and the results have yet to be consistent with the original Little Albert experiment. However, these replications have helped researchers better understand the limitations and ethical concerns of the original study.

Impact on Psychology

The Little Albert Experiment has had a significant impact on the field of psychology, particularly in the areas of behaviorism and classical conditioning. This experiment provided evidence that humans, like animals, can be conditioned to respond to a stimulus through the principles of classical conditioning.

The experiment also demonstrated the concept of stimulus generalization, where the fear response is generalized to other furry objects. This finding helped psychologists understand how phobias can develop and how they can be treated through exposure therapy.

Furthermore, the experiment sparked ethical debates about using human subjects in research. Today, psychologists have strict guidelines and regulations to ensure that research is conducted ethically and responsibly.

The Little Albert Experiment remains a landmark study in psychology. It has contributed to our understanding of human behavior and has paved the way for future research in classical conditioning and behaviorism.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the purpose of the little albert experiment.

The Little Albert experiment aimed to test the principles of classical conditioning. In particular, the experiment aimed to determine if a child could be conditioned to fear a previously neutral stimulus, in this case, a white rat, by repeatedly pairing it with a loud, unpleasant noise.

Is the Little Albert experiment classical or operant conditioning?

The Little Albert experiment is an example of classical conditioning, which is the process of learning by association. In classical conditioning, a neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with a stimulus that naturally elicits a response, and eventually, the neutral stimulus alone will elicit the same response.

What happened in the Little Albert experiment?

During the experiment, a young boy named Albert was exposed to a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, and other furry objects. Initially, Albert showed no fear of these objects. However, when a loud noise was made behind Albert’s head while he was playing with the rat, he became frightened. After several repetitions of this procedure, Albert began to show fear of the rat even without the noise.

Did they ever find the baby in the Little Albert experiment?

The identity of Little Albert was never definitively confirmed, and his fate remains unknown. Some researchers have speculated that Albert may have died during childhood, while others believe that he may have lived a long and healthy life.

Was Little Albert sick during the experiment?

There is no evidence to suggest that Little Albert was sick during the experiment. However, it is important to note that the experiment was conducted without the consent of Albert’s parents, and the potential psychological harm caused by the experiment is a matter of ongoing debate.

Did Little Albert kill himself?

There is no evidence to suggest that Little Albert killed himself. The identity and fate of Little Albert remain unknown, and it is important to approach any speculation about his life and death with caution.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Little Albert – one of the most famous research participants in psychology’s history – but who was he?

In 1920 a pair of researchers at Johns Hopkins University taught a little baby boy to fear a white rat.

09 October 2014

By Christian Jarrett

For decades, the true identity and subsequent fate of this poor infant nicknamed "Little Albert" has remained a mystery.But recently this has changed, thanks to the tireless detective work of two independent groups of scholars. Now there are competing proposals for who Little Albert was and what became of him. Which group is correct –  the one led by Hall Beck  at Appalachian State University in North Carolina, or the other  led by Russell Powell  at MacEwan University in Alberta?

These developments are so new they have yet to be fully documented in any textbooks. Fortunately,  Richard Griggs  at the University of Florida has written an accessible outline of the evidence unearthed by each group. His overview will be published in the journal Teaching of Psychology in January 2015, but the Research Digest has been granted an early view.

The starting point for both groups of academics-cum-detectives was that Little Albert is known to have been the son of a wet nurse at Johns Hopkins. Hall Beck and his colleagues identified three wet nurses on the campus in that era, and they found that just one of them had a child at the right time to have been Little Albert. This was Arvilla Merritte, who named her son Douglas. Further supporting their case, Beck's group found a portrait of Douglas and their analysis suggested he looked similar to the photographs and video of Little Albert and could well be the same child.

The Merritte line of enquiry was further supported, although controversially so, when a clinical psychologist Alan Fridlund and his colleagues analysed footage of Little Albert and deemed that he was neurologically impaired. If true, this would fit with the finding that Douglas Merritte's medical records show he had hydrocephalus ("water on the brain"). Of course this would also mean that the Little Albert study was even more unethical than previously realised.

Perhaps the most glaring short-coming of the Merritte theory is why the original researchers John Watson and Rosalie Rayner called the baby Albert if his true name was Douglas Merritte. Enter the rival detective camp headed by Russell Powell. Their searches revealed that in fact another of the John Hopkins' wet nurses had given birth to a son at the right time to have been Little Albert. This child was William A. Barger, although he was recorded in his medical file as Albert Barger. Of course, this fits the nickname Little Albert (and in fact, in their writings, Watson and Rayner referred to the child as "Albert B").

Also supporting the William Barger story, Powell and his team found notes on Barger's weight which closely match the weight of Little Albert as reported by Watson and Rayner. This is also ties in with the fact that Little Albert looks healthily chubby in the videos (Merritte, by contrast, was much lighter). Meanwhile, other experts have criticised the idea of diagnosing Little Albert as neurologically impaired based on a few brief video clips, further tilting the picture in favour of the Barger interpretation. Indeed, summing the evidence for each side, Griggs decides in favour of Powell's camp. "Applying Occam's razor to this situation would indicate that Albert Barger is far more likely to have been Little Albert," he writes.

What do the two accounts mean for the fate of Little Albert? If he was Douglas Merritte, then the story is a sad one – the boy died at age six of hydrocephalus. In contrast, if Little Albert was Willam Barger, he in fact lived a long life, dying in 2007 at the age of 87. His niece recalls that he had a mild dislike of animals. Was this due to his stint as an infant research participant? We'll probably never know.

Related articles

15 May 2011

• Children, young people and families
• History and philosophy
• Violence and trauma

18 July 2013

• BPS updates

10 September 2008

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.

Related Posts

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

Little Albert

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2021
• pp 4603–4606
• Cite this reference work entry

• Polyxeni Georgiadou 3  

447 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Conditioned emotional reactions ; Experiment ; Learning ; Watson

John Watson’s experiment on children’s conditioned emotional reactions

Introduction

In 1919, upon Watson’s return from the army, he decided to pursue research, along with Rosalie Rayner, on children’s emotional response and development based on conditioning processes. The first and only study that Watson and Rayner performed on this topic was the study with Albert B. or, most known, as Little Albert, at the laboratory of a hospital. This experiment became one of the most frequently cited in psychology books and magazines and is described as “one of the classic studies of twentieth-century psychology” (Todd 1994 , p. 82).

The Conditions Surrounding the Experiment

Watson’s academic career was built on examining animal learning. He was applying Pavlov’s principles of classical conditioning, where innate bodily reflexes are conditioned with new stimuli to create new learning by association. Thus, conditioning...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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.

Article   Google Scholar  

Digdona, N., Powell, R. A., & Smithson, C. (2014). Watson’s alleged Little Albert scandal: Historical breakthrough or new Watson myth ? Revista de Historia de la Psicologia, 35 (1), 47–60.

Google Scholar  

Hergenhahn, B. R. (2000). Introduction to the history of psychology . Belmont: Wadsworth.

Moore, J. (2017). John B. Watson’s classical S-R Behaviorism. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 38 (1), 1–34.

Rilling, M. (2000). How the challenge of explaining learning influenced the origins and development of John B. Watson’s behaviorism. American Journal of Psychology, 113 (2), 275–301.

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 , Contributions in psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 75–107). Westport: Greenwood Press/Greenwood Publishing Group.

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (2000). Conditioned emotional reactions. American Psychologist, 55 (3), 313–317, a reprint of Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. R. (1920). Journal of Experimental Psychology , 3 , 1–14.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus

Polyxeni Georgiadou

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Polyxeni Georgiadou .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA

Todd K Shackelford

Viviana A Weekes-Shackelford

Section Editor information

Menelaos Apostolou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Georgiadou, P. (2021). Little Albert. In: Shackelford, T.K., Weekes-Shackelford, V.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_1046

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19650-3_1046

Published : 22 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-19649-7

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-19650-3

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Sign up and Get Listed

Be found at the exact moment they are searching. Sign up and Get Listed

• For Professionals
• Worksheets/Resources
• Get Help 
• Learn 
• For Professionals 
• About 
• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Marriage Counselor
• Find a Child Counselor
• Find a Support Group
• Find a Psychologist
• If You Are in Crisis
• Self-Esteem
• Sex Addiction
• Relationships
• Child and Adolescent Issues
• Eating Disorders
• How to Find the Right Therapist
• Explore Therapy
• Issues Treated
• Modes of Therapy
• Types of Therapy
• Famous Psychologists
• Psychotropic Medication
• What Is Therapy?
• How to Help a Loved One
• How Much Does Therapy Cost?
• How to Become a Therapist
• Signs of Healthy Therapy
• Warning Signs in Therapy
• The GoodTherapy Blog
• PsychPedia A-Z
• Dear GoodTherapy
• Share Your Story
• Therapy News
• Marketing Your Therapy Website
• Private Practice Checklist
• Private Practice Business Plan
• Practice Management Software for Therapists
• Rules and Ethics of Online Therapy for Therapists
• CE Courses for Therapists
• HIPAA Basics for Therapists
• How to Send Appointment Reminders that Work
• More Professional Resources
• List Your Practice
• List a Treatment Center
• Earn CE Credit Hours
• Student Membership
• Online Continuing Education
• Marketing Webinars
• GoodTherapy’s Vision
• Partner or Advertise
• GoodTherapy Blog >
• PsychPedia >

Little Albert Experiment

Classical conditioning plays a central role in the development of fears and associations. Some phobias may be due at least in part to classical conditioning. For example, a person who associates leaving the home with being abused by their parents might develop agoraphobia .

Who Conducted the Little Albert Experiment?

Psychologist John Watson conducted the Little Albert experiment. Watson is known for his seminal research on behaviorism, or the idea that behavior occurs primarily in the context of conditioning. He was a professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins University, and much of his research revolved around animal behavior. Some sources report that Watson implicated his children in some of his studies, creating tension in his family. After a scandal that resulted in his resignation from John Hopkins, Watson worked in advertising until his retirement.

How Did the Experiment Work?

Albert was a 9-month-old baby who had not previously demonstrated any fear of rats. In the beginning of the experiment, when Albert was 11 months old, John Watson placed a rat (in addition to some other animals and objects with fur) on the table in front of Albert, who reacted with curiosity and no sign of fear.

He then began making a loud noise behind the baby by pounding on a steel bar with a hammer on several separate occasions while showing Albert the rat. Albert cried in reaction to the noise and, after a period of conditioning, cried in response to the rat even without the loud noise. When presented with the other animals, he also responded with varying degrees of fear despite not ever hearing the loud noise when presented with those animals.

This experiment is prototypical example of classical conditioning. One conclusion Watson drew from the experiment was that fear may have a critical impact on personality development.

The Little Albert Experiment: Ethical Issues and Criticism

Watson had originally planned to decondition Albert to the stimulus, demonstrating that conditioned fears could be eliminated. However, Albert was removed from the experiment before this could happen, and thus Watson created a child with a previously nonexistent fear. This research practice would be widely considered unethical today; standards outlined by the American Psychological Association and the British Psychological Society would also deem the study unethical.

Watson rationalized his treatment of Little Albert by stating that even if they did not conduct the experiment on the child, he would experience similar conditioning as he grew older. “At first there was considerable hesitation upon our part in making the attempt to set up fear reactions experimentally,” Watson wrote. “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.”

Although the experiment is remembered as a case for classical conditioning, some critics point out that the study was done without any type of control. However, adding a control element to psychological research was not common at this time.

What Happened to Little Albert?

“Little Albert” was the son of a wet nurse by the name Arvilla Merritte who worked at the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. Because of this, much of Albert’s infancy was spent in Johns Hopkins Hospital with his mother. Arvilla received $1 for her son’s part in the experiment, which would be equivalent to around $13 today.

Most sources agree that Albert’s real name was Douglas Merritte. Nobody knows whether his fear of rats persisted into adulthood, as he died at six years of age from hydrocephalus.

Classical Conditioning in Popular Culture

Several pieces of literature have addressed classical conditioning in children, including Thomas Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World . In Brave New World , poor children were conditioned to dislike or fear books. Thus their lower status was maintained as they avoided learning from books. This page contains at least one affiliate link for the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, which means GoodTherapy.org receives financial compensation if you make a purchase using an Amazon link.

References:

• American Psychological Association. APA concise dictionary of psychology . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2009. Print.
• Augustyn, A. (n.d.). John B. Watson. Encyclopedia Britannica . Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-B-Watson
• Burgemeester, A. (n.d.). The Little Albert experiment. Retrieved from https://www.psychologized.org/the-little-albert-experiment
• Cherry, K. (2019, July 3). The Little Albert experiment: A closer look at the famous case of Little Albert. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/the-little-albert-experiment-2794994
• DeAngelis, T. (2010). ‘Little Albert’ regains his identity. Monitor on Psychology, 41 (1), 10. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/01/little-albert
• Inflation calculator. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1920?amount=1
• Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3 (1), 1-14. Retrieved from https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm

Last Updated: 07-30-2019

Please fill out all required fields to submit your message.

Invalid Email Address.

Please confirm that you are human.

• 18 comments

Leave a Comment

wow little albert had a hard life

He did. Unfortunately he died at the age of 6 after contracting hydrocephalus.

The only problem I have with this is that it says about if they had permission from Little Albert’s mother for the experiment, Yet to my knowledge Little Albert was an orphan

therefore how do we know she wouldnt have given permission?

Little Albert was in a special needs hospital for the first year of his life. His mother was a nurse there. The experiments were done without her presence. There were not any research regulations at the time saying that the parent or participant needed to be fully informed of the experiment.

His mother was actually present everyday for the experiments. She gave permission to Watson to do these experiments because Watson was giving her 1 dollar (which was a lot back then) after each of the experiments, and she needed that money to survive and help feedL’little Albert’

Which behaviourist theory is being discussed in the little albert story

I think we need more of this kind of experimentation, too bad he died before he was permanently scared. Woulda been cool to see his life deteriorate naturally instead of some freak accident medical phenomena.

TheFastAndTheCurious

I think Albert was a troubled child with bad parents

but why was he removed from the experiment?

He was orphaned out to a family.

Can someone please maybe tell me who wrote it and the date, i want to reference this site for an assignment.

We are happy to hear you’re finding our site to be a helpful resource! There is no named author — the author of this page is simply “GoodTherapy.” I would recommend asking your professor or faculty how they would like you to cite a website with no named author.

We hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have further questions!

Great article. thanks

bro he should have been put down this poor child was abused by his own (illegitimate) father#Maury#unfortunate#thatstuff

Poor little Albert :( . Bless his soul may he RIP. Great article (;.

By commenting you acknowledge acceptance of GoodTherapy.org's  Terms and Conditions of Use .

* Indicates required field.

• Classical Conditioning
• John Watson

Notice to users

This page has been archived and is no longer being updated regularly.

‘Little Albert’ regains his identity

January 2010, Vol 41, No. 1

Print version: page 10

One of psychology's greatest mysteries appears to have been solved. “Little Albert,” the baby behind John Watson's famous 1920 emotional conditioning experiment at Johns Hopkins University, has been identified as Douglas Merritte, the son of a wetnurse named Arvilla Merritte who lived and worked at a campus hospital at the time of the experiment — receiving $1 for her baby's participation.

In the study, Watson and graduate student Rosalie Rayner exposed the 9-month-old tot, whom they dubbed “Albert B,” to a white rat and other furry objects, which the baby enjoyed playing with. Later, as Albert played with the white rat, Watson would make a loud sound behind the baby's head. After a number of conditioning trials, Watson and Rayner reintroduced the animals and furry items without the scary noise. Through the conditioning, the animals and objects that were once a source of joy and curiosity had become a trigger of fear.

Watson had no reason to reveal Albert's true identity, and he never de-conditioned the child. (Watson was also dismissed from the university around the same time because of an affair with Rayner.) Since then, Little Albert's fate and identity have been a recurring question among psychology scholars, including Appalachian State University psychologist Hall P. Beck, PhD, who with a team of colleagues and students, sought answers. For seven years, Beck and his associates scoured historical materials, conferred with facial recognition experts, met with relatives of the boy they theorized was Albert.

Eventually, the pieces of the puzzle came together. The attributes of Douglas and his mother matched virtually everything that was known about Albert and his mother. Like Albert's mother, Douglas's mother worked at a pediatric hospital on campus called the Harriet Lane Home. Like Albert, Douglas was a white male who left the home in the early 1920s and was born at the same time of year as Albert. What's more, a comparison of a picture of Albert with Douglas' portrait revealed facial similarities.

Sadly, the team also discovered that Douglas died at age 6 of acquired hydrocephalus, and was unable to determine if Douglas' fear of furry objects persisted after he left Hopkins.

The team, which also included Sharman Levinson, PhD, of The American University in Paris, and Gary Irons, the grandson of Arvilla Merritte, published their findings in the October American Psychologist (Vol. 64, No. 7). The article not only satisfies a long-held curiosity, but also reflects a growing interest in the fate of research participants, says Cathy Faye, of the Archives of the History of American Psychology at the University of Akron. Participants in such famous, controversial studies “have become unwitting protagonists whose stories are told over and over again in psychology textbooks,” she says. “So people become very curious: Who were they, and how did they feel about the experiment?”

Beck is pleased his students have answered some of those questions, but the real bonus, he believes, is what they gained in the research process.

“The search took them beyond the memorization of their lectures and textbooks, and for the first time, into the creative world of psychological research,” he says. “In the end, that was even more important to them than finding Albert.”

—T. DeAngelis

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

• 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
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Biography of Psychologist John B. Watson

• Contributions
• Achievements and Awards
• Publications
• Famous Quote

John B. Watson was a pioneering psychologist who played an important role in developing behaviorism . He is remembered for his research on the conditioning process .

Watson is also known for the Little Albert experiment, in which he demonstrated that a child could be conditioned to fear a previously neutral stimulus. His research further revealed that this fear could be generalized to other similar objects.

John B. Watson believed that psychology should be the science of observable behavior.

Early Life of John B. Watson

John B. Watson was born on January 9, 1878, and grew up in South Carolina. He entered Furman University at the age of 16. After graduating five years later with a master's degree, he began studying psychology at the University of Chicago, earning his Ph.D. in psychology in 1903.

John B. Watson's Career

Watson began teaching psychology at Johns Hopkins University in 1908. In 1913, he gave a seminal lecture at Columbia University titled "Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It," which essentially detailed the behaviorist position.   According to Watson, psychology should be the science of observable behavior.

"Psychology as the behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behavior. Introspection forms no essential part of its methods, nor is the scientific value of its data dependent upon the readiness with which they lend themselves to interpretation in terms of consciousness."  

The "Little Albert" Experiment

In his most famous and controversial experiment , known today as the "Little Albert" experiment , John Watson and a graduate assistant named Rosalie Rayner conditioned a small child to fear a white rat. They accomplished this by repeatedly pairing the white rat with a loud, frightening clanging noise.

They were also able to demonstrate that this fear could be generalized to white, furry objects other than the white rat. The ethics of the experiment are often criticized today, especially because the child's fear was never de-conditioned.

In 2009, researchers proposed that Little Albert was a boy named Douglas Merritte. Questioning what happened to the child had intrigued many for decades.   Sadly, the researchers found that the child died at the age of six of hydrocephalus, a medical condition in which fluid builds up inside the skull.

In 2012, researchers proposed that Merritte suffered from neurological impairments at the time of the Little Albert experiment and that Watson may have knowingly misrepresented the boy as a "healthy" and "normal" child. However, in 2014, researchers suggested that another child, Albert Barger, matches the characteristics of Little Albert better than Douglas Merritte.  

Leaving Academia

Watson remained at Johns Hopkins University until 1920. He had an affair with Rayner, divorced his first wife, and was then asked by the university to resign from his position. Watson later married Rayner and the two remained together until her death in 1935. After leaving his academic position, Watson began working for an advertising agency where he stayed until he retired in 1945.

During the latter part of his life, Watson's already poor relationships with his children grew progressively worse. He spent his last years living a reclusive life on a farm in Connecticut. Shortly before his death on September 25, 1958, he burned many of his unpublished personal papers and letters.

John B. Watson's Contributions to Psychology

Watson set the stage for behaviorism, which soon rose to dominate psychology. While behaviorism began to lose its hold after 1950, many of the concepts and principles are still widely used today. Conditioning and behavior modification are still widely used in therapy and behavioral training to help clients change problematic behaviors and develop new skills.

John B. Watson's Achievements and Awards

Watson's lifetime achievements, publications, and awards include:

• 1915—Served as the president of the American Psychological Association (APA)
• 1919—Published Psychology From the Standpoint of a Behaviorist
• 1925—Published Behaviorism  
• 1928—Published Psychological Care of Infant and Child
• 1957—Received the APA's Award for Distinguished Scientific Contributions

Selected Publications of John B. Watson

Here are some of Watson's works for further reading:

• Watson JB. Psychology as the behaviorist views it .  Psychological Review. 1913;20(2):158-177. doi:10.1037/h0074428
• Watson JB, Rayner R. Conditioned emotional reactions .  Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1920;3(1):1-14. doi:10.1037/h0069608

John B. Watson's Famous Quote

"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take anyone at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years." —John B. Watson, Behaviorism, 1925  

Watson JB. Psychology as the behaviorist views it .  Psychological Review, 1913;20:158–177. doi:10.1037/h0074428

Powell RA, Digdon N, Harris B, Smithson C. Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as “psychology’s lost boy" .  American Psychologist. 2014:69(6),600-611. doi:10.1037/a0036854

Watson JB.  Behaviorism . People's Institute Publishing Company, 1925.

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

Little Albert Experiment

The little albert experiment and it's affects on psychology.

Skinner primarily worked and developed his theory of radical behaviorism and operant conditioning, Pavlov delved into reinforcing behavior using his theory of classical conditioning, and John B. Watson developed the theory of methodological behaviorism. Watson’s psychological research led to the "Little Albert Experiment", a widely cited, controversial study in which Watson set out to prove that emotional reactions could be conditioned in human subjects. 

John B. Watson and Behaviorism

Watson's research, watson's contributions to psychology, the little albert experiment: white rat, loud noises, and conditioning psychology.

John Watson's experiment was the first of its kind and has been recounted in psychology textbooks for decades, though it is often considered controversial. Using a child in a psychological experiment was considered unethical, but Watson wanted to follow the guidelines Pavlov used to condition dogs. Pavlov used food to condition dogs in his experiments, training the dogs to respond to the sound of a bell and associate it with food. Each time the dogs heard the bell, they would salivate, showing they were conditioned to expect food at the sound of the bell. 

The methods of the Little Albert Experiment

In the Little Albert experiment, Watson wanted to show that infants have a natural, innate fear of loud sounds. The experiment was also meant to prove that he could use a loud noise to produce conditioned responses in the child when they were shown a neutral stimulus. Watson believed phobias were developed from external stimuli and were conditioned responses. Watson and his assistant, graduate student Rosalie Rayner, recruited a nine-month-old infant and performed the experiments at Johns Hopkins University.

Watson and Rayner called the child "Little Albert" to hide his identity. They devised a protocol to produce emotional conditioning in the experiment with little Albert. Watson wanted to condition fear and believed his controlled experiment would produce the desired fear conditioning because of the hypothesis that babies fear loud sounds.

Little Albert and the white rat

In the experiment, Little Albert was first presented with a white laboratory rat, which served as the neutral stimulus. The white rat approached him and crawled around and on top of him. Albert showed no signs of fear and a mild interest in the rat. During this phase of the experiment, other white furry objects were presented to Albert, including a white rabbit, a white dog, and a Santa Claus mask. Albert showed no fear but was interested in the animals and other furry objects. 

Once Albert was introduced to the objects, they were presented again. However, this time, Watson created a loud clang, or unconditioned stimulus, using a hammer and a pipe. The loud noise startled Albert, causing him to cry, the unconditioned response. The researchers repeated this loud noise several times. First, the object, such as a white rat, was presented, followed immediately by a loud sound. After a few repetitions, Albert began crying at the sight of the rat with no loud noise. The rat, which was previously the neutral stimulus, had become the conditioned stimulus, causing Albert to cry due to its association with the unconditioned stimulus. Albert’s fearful reaction, which was once the unconditioned response, then became the conditioned response. During further experiments, the conditioned response of crying was also transferred to all other furry objects from the experiment—a process called stimulus generalization. This led Watson and Rayner to believe they had produced an emotionally conditioned response in Albert through classical conditioning.

Watson believed he had proven his hypothesis that a child could be emotionally conditioned to fear through association. Although the experiment is used as an example of emotional conditioning, some psychologists do not agree that a conditioned response had been instilled in little Albert, and others argue that it was an unethical experiment.

Classical conditioning

The experiment conducted by John Watson and Rosalie Raynor demonstrated that classical conditioning could produce a fear response in humans. The results of the Little Albert experiment were originally published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology in 1920. Though it has been widely criticized, Watson’s study represents an important advancement in clinical psychology and the behavioral sciences; and it is one of the reasons Watson is still considered a highly influential American psychologist. 

Critics of the experiment

The Little Albert experiment is often cited as a compelling example of emotional conditioning. However, some researchers agree that a more extensive study pool or more than one experiment should have been conducted to produce comprehensive results that proved Watson had achieved classical conditioning. Infants have different personalities; some are naturally fearful, others are bold, and many are naturally cautious of unfamiliar items, people, and sounds. 

Douglas Meritte and his mother's role

Critics have another reason for not agreeing with Watson's experiment. Some believe the infant was sick when the conditioning experiments took place. The idea that Little Albert was ill at the time of the experiments comes from research into the identity of Albert. Psychologists believe they have tracked down the real Little Albert, Douglas Merritte. According to research published in a paper titled “Finding Little Albert: A Journey to John B. Watson’s Infant Laboratory”, Douglas Merritte was the son of a wet nurse at Harriet Lane Home, a pediatric hospital at Johns Hopkins University. According to John Watson, Albert’s mother held the same role at the same hospital. 

Douglas Merritte was born around the same time as Albert, and he lived with his mother at Harriet Lane Home for the majority of the first year of his life. These clues are frequently cited as evidence that Albert was sick during the experiments. Douglas might have had meningitis at the time of the experiments. Douglas died five years later due to hydrocephalus. If Little Albert was Douglas, he might have been a neurologically impaired child who was too sick to be considered a typical example of a perfectly healthy infant. He may have been dealing with underlying health issues that could have impacted his reactions during the experiment, including whether or not he was actually conditioned to react to the objects.

Other theories on the identity of Little Albert beyond Douglas Meritte

Some individuals have considered another possible candidate for Little Albert named William Barger. In a paper titled “Psychology’s Lost Boy: Will the Real Little Albert Please Stand Up?” researchers state that William Albert Barger was known to family and friends as Albert, and they used his middle name more than his first name. Modern psychologists use the information from this experiment to shape their hypotheses and theories regardless of who the child was. Today, using a young child in a psychology experiment, such as the one devised by Watson and Rayner, is unethical.

Long term effects and ethical psychology

If the child was Douglas Merritte, the long-term effects of this type of conditioning are not fully understood. Using a sick child also may impact Watson's reputation. If Douglas is the real Albert, the experiment may not able to support the idea of conditioning. Hydrocephaly is painful, and it potentially damages cognitive capabilities. It is speculated that Watson chose Douglas because he was sick; a baby with Douglas's condition would be calm during the initial stages but more likely to react by crying at the sound of the clanging. There are arguments on both sides, and whether the child in the Little Albert study was Douglas Meritte, William Albert Barger, or another child may not be as important as the ethics of this situation and what happened to Little Albert. 

The ethical complications of the Little Albert test

Testing and clinical trials involving children are not commonplace in psychology in the 21st century. Tests where one scares a child or causes traumatic responses can impact that child for life. Young children cannot consent to being included in experiments, and informed consent was not obtained in Albert’s case. Additionally, the conditioning of the irrational fear was never reversed in Albert. For these reasons, the psychology experiment is often considered unethical and abusive. 

Behaviorism and modern psychology

Counselor reviews.

The Little Albert experiment is a demonstration of classical conditioning. John B. Watson's work, especially with Little Albert and the rat, contributed to psychology through the development of methodological behaviorism. Behaviorism and its concepts are the basis for many psychological approaches to treatment in the present day. You're not alone if you want to learn more about behaviorism or changing maladaptive patterns. Many therapists practice behavioral therapy, offering ethical support to anyone who seeks it. Consider contacting a provider online or in your area for further guidance.

The experiment is a demonstration of classic conditioning such as the naturally occurring stimuli, which are what behaviorists study. Psychological researchers B.F. Skinner, Ivan Pavlov, and John B. Watson studied theories involving reinforcement with little Albert to produce wanted/specific behaviors. Each of these psychologists added to the understanding of human behavior with their pioneering research and theories. Skinner primarily worked and developed his theory of radical behaviorism and operant conditioning, Pavlov delved into reinforcing behavior using his theory of classical conditioning, and John B. Watson developed the theory of methodological behaviorism.

John B. Watson’s work, especially with little Albert, contributed to psychology through the development of methodological behaviorism. Behaviorism and the concepts it puts forth are the basis for many psychological approaches to treatments for behavioral problems. Cognitive behavioral therapy is one such treatment that has its roots in John Watson’s school of behaviorism.

• Social Learning Theory Medically reviewed by Melissa Guarnaccia , LCSW
• Wilhelm Wundt: The Father Of Psychology Medically reviewed by Andrea Brant , LMHC
• Psychologists
• Relationships and Relations

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara.
• PMID: 23397921
• DOI: 10.1037/a0026720

Evidence collected by Beck, Levinson, and Irons (2009) indicates that Albert B., the "lost" infant subject of John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner's (1920) famous conditioning study, was Douglas Merritte (1919-1925). Following the finding that Merritte died early with hydrocephalus, questions arose as to whether Douglas's condition was congenital, rather than acquired in 1922, as cited on his death certificate. This etiology would imply that "Little Albert" was not the "healthy" and "normal" infant described by Watson and numerous secondary sources. Detailed analyses of Watson's (1923) film footage of Albert suggested substantial behavioral and neurological deficits. The anomalies we observed on film of Albert B. are insufficiently explained by his hospital upbringing but are consistent with findings from newly discovered medical records of Douglas Merritte. These documents revealed that the infant suffered from congenital obstructive hydrocephalus, iatrogenic streptococcal meningitis/ventriculitis, and retinal and optic nerve atrophy. The medical history also indicates that Albert's sessions with Watson occurred during periods when Douglas's clinical course was relatively stable. Further inquiries found ample sources of information available to Watson that would have made him aware of Douglas/Albert's medical condition at the times he tested the baby. Experimental ethics, Watson's legacy, and the Albert study are discussed in light of these new findings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as "psychology's lost boy". Powell RA, Digdon N, Harris B, Smithson C. Powell RA, et al. Am Psychol. 2014 Sep;69(6):600-11. doi: 10.1037/a0036854. Am Psychol. 2014. PMID: 25197838
• Finding Little Albert: a journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory. Beck HP, Levinson S, Irons G. Beck HP, et al. Am Psychol. 2009 Oct;64(7):605-14. doi: 10.1037/a0017234. Am Psychol. 2009. PMID: 19824748
• The case for Douglas Merritte: Should we bury what is alive and well? Fridlund AJ, Beck HP, Goldie WD, Irons G. Fridlund AJ, et al. Hist Psychol. 2020 May;23(2):132-148. doi: 10.1037/hop0000142. Hist Psychol. 2020. PMID: 32378913
• [Man and his fellow-creatures under ethical aspects]. Teutsch GM. Teutsch GM. ALTEX. 2005;22(4):199-226. ALTEX. 2005. PMID: 16344905 Review. German.
• Group B streptococcal ventriculitis: a report of three cases and literature review. Miyairi I, Causey KT, DeVincenzo JP, Buckingham SC. Miyairi I, et al. Pediatr Neurol. 2006 May;34(5):395-9. doi: 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2005.09.003. Pediatr Neurol. 2006. PMID: 16648002 Review.

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• American Psychological Association
• Ovid Technologies, Inc.
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• 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.