the little albert experiment significance

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 B. 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.

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

The Little Albert Experiment

Watson and Rayner's classic (and controversial) experiment

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

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

• The Experiment
• Classical Conditioning
• Stimulus Generalization
• Criticism and Ethical Problems

What Happened to Little Albert?

One of the most famous figures in psychology history isn't a psychologist at all. "Little Albert," as he was called, was the pseudonym of a young boy at the center of the infamous psychology experiment in which he was conditioned to fear rats—a fear that also extended to other similar objects, including fluffy white toys and a white beard.

The Little Albert experiment was a famous psychology experiment conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and graduate student Rosalie Rayner. Previously, Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov had conducted experiments demonstrating the conditioning process in dogs . Watson took Pavlov's research a step further by showing that emotional reactions could be classically conditioned in people.

Keep reading to learn more about what happened in the Little Albert experiment, what it reveals about the conditioning process, and why it is considered so controversial.

Verywell / Jessica Olah

What Happened in the Little Albert Experiment?

The experiment's participant was a child that Watson and Rayner called "Albert B." but is known popularly today as Little Albert. When Little Albert was 9 months old, Watson and Rayner exposed him to a series of stimuli, including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks, and burning newspapers, and observed the boy's reactions.

At the experiment's outset, the little boy showed no fear of any objects he was shown. What Watson did next changed everything. The next time Albert was exposed to the rat, Watson made a loud noise by hitting a metal pipe with a hammer.

Naturally, the child began to cry after hearing the loud noise. After repeatedly pairing the white rat with the loud noise, Albert began to expect a frightening noise whenever he saw the white rat. Soon, Albert began to cry simply after seeing the rat.

Watson and Rayner wrote: "The instant the rat was shown, the baby began to cry. Almost instantly he turned sharply to the left, fell over on [his] left side, raised himself on all fours and began to crawl away so rapidly that he was caught with difficulty before reaching the edge of the table."

It's a textbook example of how classical conditioning works. In some cases, these frightening experiences can cause a lasting fears, such as with phobias .

Classical Conditioning in the Little Albert Experiment

The Little Albert experiment is a great example of how classical conditioning can be used to condition an emotional response. Here's how the process works:

• Neutral Stimulus : A stimulus that does not initially elicit a response (the white rat).
• Unconditioned Stimulus : A stimulus that elicits a reflexive response (the loud noise).
• Unconditioned Response : A natural reaction to a given stimulus (fear).
• Conditioned Stimulus : A stimulus that elicits a response after repeatedly being paired with an unconditioned stimulus (the white rat).
• Conditioned Response : The response caused by the conditioned stimulus (fear).

Stimulus Generalization in the Little Albert Exerpiment

In addition to demonstrating that emotional responses could be conditioned in humans, Watson and Rayner also observed a phenomenon known as stimulus generalization.

Stimulus generalization happens when things similar to the conditioned stimulus evoke a similar response.

After conditioning, Albert feared not just the white rat, but a wide variety of similar white objects as well. His fear included other furry objects, including Raynor's fur coat and Watson wearing a Santa Claus beard.

Criticism and Ethical Problems With the Little Albert Experiment

While the experiment is one of psychology's most famous and is included in nearly every introductory psychology course , it is widely criticized for several reasons. First, the experimental design and process were not carefully constructed. Watson and Rayner did not develop an objective means to evaluate Albert's reactions, instead of relying on their own subjective interpretations.

The experiment also raises many ethical concerns. Little Albert was harmed during this experiment—he left the experiment with a previously nonexistent fear. By today's standards, the Little Albert experiment would not be permitted.

The question of what happened to Little Albert has long been one of psychology's mysteries. Before Watson and Rayner could attempt to "cure" Little Albert, he and his mother moved away. Some envisioned the boy growing into a man with a strange phobia of white, furry objects.

In 2009, researchers published the results of their attempt to track down the boy's identity. As reported in American Psychologist , a seven-year search led by psychologist Hall P. Beck led to the discovery of a child the researchers believed might be Little Albert. After tracking down and locating the original experiments and the possible identity of the boy's mother, it was suggested that Little Albert was actually a boy named Douglas Merritte.

Unfortunately, the researchers discovered that Douglas had died on May 10, 1925, at the age of six, of hydrocephalus (a build-up of fluid in his brain), which he had suffered from since birth.

In 2012, Beck and Alan J. Fridlund reported that Douglas was not the healthy, normal child Watson described in his 1920 experiment. Instead, they suggested that Watson may have known about and deliberately concealed the boy's neurological condition. If true, these findings would have cast a shadow over Watson's legacy, and deepened the ethical and moral issues of this well-known experiment.

In 2014, however, doubt was cast over Beck and Fridlund's findings when researchers presented evidence that a boy named William Barger was the real Little Albert. Barger was born on the same day as Merritte to a wet nurse who worked at the same hospital as Merritte's mother. While his first name was William, he was known his entire life by his middle name—Albert.

While experts continue to debate the true identity of the boy at the center of Watson's experiment, there is little doubt that Little Albert left a lasting impression on the field of psychology. The experiments contributed to our understanding of the classical conditioning process. It also demonstrated that fear could be conditioned, which has helped mental health experts better understand how conditions like specific phobias and post-traumatic stress disorder form.

Beck HP, Levinson S, Irons G. Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson's infant laboratory . Am Psychol. 2009;64(7):605-14. doi:10.1037/a0017234

van Meurs B, Wiggert N, Wicker I, Lissek S. Maladaptive behavioral consequences of conditioned fear-generalization: a pronounced, yet sparsely studied, feature of anxiety pathology .  Behav Res Ther . 2014;57:29-37. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2014.03.009

Fridlund AJ, Beck HP, Goldie WD, Irons G. Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child . Hist Psychol. 2012;15(4):302-27. doi:10.1037/a0026720

Powell RA. Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as "psychology's lost boy" . Am Psychol.  2014;69(6):600-11.

• Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory.  American Psychologist, 2009;64(7):  605-614.
• Fridlund, A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0026720; 2012.
• Watson, John B. & Rayner, Rosalie. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions.  Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3 , 1-14.

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

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

• General Categories
• Mental Health
• IQ and Intelligence
• Bipolar Disorder

Little Albert Experiment: Watson’s Controversial Psychology Study on Fear Conditioning

A chilling cry echoed through the laboratory as an innocent baby’s trust was shattered, all in the name of a groundbreaking yet controversial psychology experiment that would forever change our understanding of fear. This haunting scene marked the beginning of the Little Albert experiment, a study that would etch itself into the annals of psychological history and spark debates for generations to come.

In the early 20th century, the field of psychology was still in its infancy, grappling with questions about human behavior and the nature of emotions. It was in this context that John B. Watson, the founder of behavioral psychology , embarked on a journey that would revolutionize our understanding of fear acquisition. Little did he know that his pursuit of knowledge would lead to one of the most controversial experiments in the history of psychology.

The Little Albert experiment, conducted in 1920, was designed to explore the process of classical conditioning in humans. Watson, along with his graduate student Rosalie Rayner, set out to prove that emotional responses could be learned through association. Their subject? A 9-month-old infant known only as “Albert B.” This seemingly innocent study would go on to become a cornerstone of behaviorism, while simultaneously raising serious ethical questions that continue to reverberate through the scientific community today.

The Man Behind the Experiment: John B. Watson

Before we delve into the nitty-gritty of the experiment, let’s take a moment to understand the mastermind behind it. John B. Watson was a force to be reckoned with in the world of psychology. His bold ideas and unorthodox methods would earn him both acclaim and criticism throughout his career.

Watson was a man on a mission. He believed that psychology should focus on observable behaviors rather than internal mental states. This radical departure from the introspective methods of his time would lay the foundation for behaviorism, a school of thought that dominated psychology for decades.

But Watson wasn’t content with just theorizing. He wanted to prove his ideas through rigorous experimentation. And what better way to demonstrate the power of conditioning than by working with a blank slate – an infant whose fears and phobias had yet to be formed?

The Little Albert Experiment: A Controversial Quest for Knowledge

The objectives of the Little Albert experiment were ambitious, to say the least. Watson and Rayner hypothesized that they could condition a fear response in a child by pairing a neutral stimulus with a frightening experience. If successful, this would demonstrate that complex emotional reactions could be learned through environmental associations.

Enter Little Albert, a healthy, emotionally stable infant who would unwittingly become the subject of one of psychology’s most unethical experiments . The child’s true identity remained a mystery for decades, adding an air of intrigue to an already controversial study.

The experimental design was deceptively simple. Watson and Rayner would present Albert with various stimuli, including a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks, and burning newspapers. Initially, Albert showed no fear towards these objects. But that was about to change in a way that would send shockwaves through the scientific community.

The Experiment Unfolds: A Step-by-Step Journey into Fear

The experiment began innocently enough. Watson and Rayner observed Albert’s reactions to various stimuli, establishing a baseline of his emotional responses. The infant showed curiosity and even delight when presented with the white rat and other objects.

But then came the twist that would forever change little Albert’s life. As he reached out to touch the white rat, Watson struck a steel bar with a hammer just behind Albert’s head, producing a loud, startling noise. The sudden clanging sound frightened Albert, causing him to cry and show signs of distress.

This pairing of the rat with the loud noise was repeated several times. Soon, Albert began to show signs of fear and distress at the mere sight of the rat, even without the accompanying noise. The once-neutral stimulus had become a source of terror for the infant.

But Watson and Rayner didn’t stop there. They wanted to see if Albert’s newly acquired fear would generalize to other similar objects. They presented him with a rabbit, a dog, a fur coat, and even a Santa Claus mask with a white beard. To their fascination (and our horror), Albert showed signs of fear and avoidance towards these stimuli as well.

Results That Shook the Foundations of Psychology

The results of the Little Albert experiment were nothing short of groundbreaking. Watson and Rayner had successfully demonstrated that a fear response could be conditioned in a human subject. Albert’s acquired fear of the rat persisted, and even generalized to similar objects, providing strong evidence for the power of classical conditioning in shaping emotional responses.

Watson’s conclusions were bold and far-reaching. He argued that this experiment proved that phobias and other emotional reactions were learned rather than innate. This interpretation would go on to influence theories of personality development and psychopathology for years to come.

But as with any scientific breakthrough, the devil was in the details. Critics would later point out limitations in the study’s methodology and question the generalizability of its findings. After all, how much can we really infer from a single case study, especially one conducted under such ethically dubious circumstances?

The Little Albert Psychology Definition: A New Understanding of Fear

The Little Albert experiment gave rise to a new understanding of fear acquisition, encapsulated in what we now call the Little Albert psychology definition. This concept refers to the process by which a neutral stimulus becomes associated with a fear response through repeated pairings with an aversive stimulus.

This definition has far-reaching implications for our understanding of human behavior. It suggests that many of our emotional reactions, including our fears and phobias, are not innate but learned through experience. This insight has been applied in various therapeutic contexts, from treating phobias to modifying problematic behaviors.

However, it’s crucial to note that the Little Albert experiment, while influential, is not without its critics. Some researchers have questioned the validity of Watson’s conclusions, pointing out potential confounding variables and methodological flaws. Others have raised concerns about the ethical implications of inducing fear in an infant for the sake of scientific inquiry.

The Ethical Quagmire: A Dark Chapter in Psychological Research

As we delve deeper into the Little Albert experiment, we can’t ignore the elephant in the room – the glaring ethical violations that would make any modern researcher’s skin crawl. Today, this study stands as a stark reminder of how far we’ve come in terms of research ethics, and how far we still have to go.

The experiment violated several fundamental ethical principles that we now take for granted in psychological research. There was no informed consent from Albert’s mother, no consideration for the potential long-term psychological harm to the infant, and no attempt to decondition Albert’s fear response at the end of the study.

These ethical breaches have cast a long shadow over the experiment’s legacy. While its scientific contributions are undeniable, the Little Albert study has become a cautionary tale, often cited alongside other disturbing psychological experiments as an example of what not to do in the pursuit of knowledge.

The controversy surrounding the Little Albert experiment has had a profound impact on the development of research ethics guidelines. Today, institutional review boards carefully scrutinize proposed studies involving human subjects, paying particular attention to potential risks and the informed consent process.

The Mystery of Little Albert: A Cold Case in Psychology

One of the most intriguing aspects of the Little Albert story is the mystery surrounding the true identity of the infant subject. For decades, psychologists and historians alike have been captivated by the question: who was Little Albert, and what became of him?

In 2009, a team of researchers led by Hall P. Beck claimed to have identified Little Albert as Douglas Merritte, the son of a wet nurse who worked at the hospital where the experiment was conducted. They suggested that Albert may have had neurological impairments and died at a young age from hydrocephalus.

However, this identification was later challenged by other researchers who proposed an alternative candidate: William Barger, born to a different wet nurse at the same hospital. The debate continues, highlighting the enduring fascination with this controversial experiment and its young subject.

The Legacy of Little Albert: A Double-Edged Sword

As we reflect on the Little Albert experiment, we’re left with a complex legacy that continues to shape the field of psychology. On one hand, the study provided valuable insights into the nature of fear and learning, contributing to the development of behaviorism and influencing therapeutic approaches to treating phobias.

On the other hand, it serves as a stark reminder of the potential for harm in psychological research and the paramount importance of ethical considerations. The experiment has become a touchstone in discussions about research ethics, prompting soul-searching within the scientific community about the limits of what we’re willing to do in the name of knowledge.

Perhaps the most enduring lesson of the Little Albert experiment is the need for balance between scientific curiosity and ethical responsibility. As we continue to push the boundaries of our understanding of the human mind, we must remain vigilant, always questioning not just what we can do, but what we should do.

The cry that echoed through Watson’s laboratory that day in 1920 continues to resonate through the halls of psychology. It serves as a haunting reminder of the power we wield as researchers and the profound responsibility that comes with it. As we move forward, let us carry the lessons of Little Albert with us, striving always to advance our knowledge while never losing sight of our humanity.

In the end, the Little Albert experiment, much like Harlow’s controversial monkey experiments , stands as a complex chapter in the annals of psychological history. It is at once a scientific milestone, an ethical cautionary tale, and a poignant human story. As we continue to grapple with its implications, we are reminded that in the pursuit of understanding the human mind, we must never forget the human hearts at stake.

References:

1. Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1–14.

2. Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to little Albert? American Psychologist, 34(2), 151–160.

3. 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.

4. 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(6), 600–611.

5. Fridlund, A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology, 15(4), 302–327.

6. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

7. Guthrie, R. V. (1998). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology. Allyn & Bacon.

8. Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (2007). A brief history of modern psychology. Blackwell Publishing.

9. Hock, R. R. (2009). Forty studies that changed psychology: Explorations into the history of psychological research (6th ed.). Pearson.

10. Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2015). A history of modern psychology (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Post Comment

Related Resources

Natural Experiments in Psychology: Unveiling Real-World Insights

Dichotic Listening in Psychology: Unraveling Auditory Processing

Psychological Illusions: Exploring the Tricks Our Minds Play

Moderators in Psychology: Key Factors Influencing Relationships Between Variables

Nova Psychology: Exploring the Frontiers of Human Behavior and Mental…

Game Theory in Psychology: Unraveling Human Decision-Making

Greebles in Psychology: Exploring Visual Object Recognition and Expertise

Hypothesis in Psychology: Definition, Types, and Applications

Naturalistic Observation in Psychology: Definition, Examples, and Applications

Induction Psychology: Exploring the Power of Inductive Reasoning in Cognitive…

Psychologized

Psychology is Everywhere...

The Little Albert Experiment

Little Albert was the fictitious name  given to an unknown child who was  subjected to an experiment in classical conditioning by John Watson and Rosalie Raynor at John Hopkins University in the USA, in 1919. By today’s standards in psychology, the experiment would not be allowed because of ethical violations, namely the lack of informed consent from the subject or his parents and the prime principle of “do no harm”.  The experimental method contained significant weaknesses including failure to develop adequate control conditions and the fact that there was only one subject.  Despite the many short comings of the work, the results of the experiment are widely quoted in a range of psychology texts and also were a starting point for understanding phobias and the development of treatments for them.

What happened to Little Albert as he was known is unknown and several psychologists have tried in vain to definitively answer the question of: “what happened to Little Albert?”

What is classical conditioning?

Classical Conditioning Explained

Classical conditioning is a type of behaviourism first demonstrated by Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov in the 1890s.Through a series of experiments he demonstrated that dogs which normally salivated when presented with food could be conditioned to salivate in response to any stimulus in the absence of the original stimulus, food.  He rang a bell every time a dog was about to be fed, and after a period of time the dog would salivate to the sound of the bell irrespective of food being presented.

What did Watson do to Little Albert?

Many people have illogical fears of animals.  While it is logical to be frightened of a predator with the power to kill you, being afraid of a spider, a mouse or even cats and most dogs is not.  To those of us who don’t suffer from phobias it is the funniest thing in the world to see a person standing on a stool, screaming because of a mouse.  Phobias however are real, and for some people quite limiting and potentially damaging. Imagine suffering from agoraphobia – fear of open spaces or even being afraid of going to the dentist to the extent that your health suffered.

Now,  while we know now that phobias can be learned from watching others who have a fear,  for example our mother being afraid of spiders, known as social learning, Watson used the tools and knowledge he had available to him to investigate the potential causes of them ultimately, one supposes, to develop treatments for phobias.

John Watson endeavoured to repeat classical conditioning on a young emotionally stable child, with the objective of inducing phobias in the child. He was interested in trying to understand how children become afraid of animals.

Harris (1979) suggested:  ‘Watson hypothesized that although infants do not naturally fear animals, if “one animal succeeds in arousing fear, any moving furry animal thereafter may arouse it”

Albert was 9 months old and taken from a hospital, subjected to a series of baseline tests and then a series of experiences to ‘condition’ him. Watson filmed his study on Little Albert and the recordings are accessible on Youtube.com.

A series of unethical experiments was conducted with Little Albert

Watson started by introducing Albert to a number of furry animals, including a dog, a rabbit and most importantly a white rat. Watson then made loud, unpleasant noises by clanging a metal bar with a hammer.  The noise distressed Albert.  Watson then paired the loud noise with the presentation of the rat to Albert. He repeated this many times.  Very quickly Albert was conditioned to expect the frightening noise whenever the white rat was presented to him. Very soon the white rate alone could induce a fear response in Albert.  What was interesting was that without need for further conditioning the fear was generalised to other animals and situations including a dog, rabbit and a white furry mask worn by Watson himself.

Watson and Raynor  who knew all along the timescale by when Albert had to be returned to his mother,  gave him back without informing her of the activities and conditioning that they had inflicted on Albert, and most worryingly not  taking the time to counter condition or ‘curing’ him of the phobia they had induced.

What were the problems with this the way this study was done?

Both the American Psychological Association (APA) and the British Psychological Society (BPS) have well developed codes of ethics which any practicing psychologists have to adhere to. In addition, all places of higher learning and research have ethical committees to which research proposals have to be submitted for consideration. The core concern is to focus on the quality of research, the professional competence of the researchers and of greatest importance, the welfare of human and animal subjects. At the time of Watson and Raynor’s work, there were no such guidelines and committee.  While to some extent, it is wrong to measure historical research by modern-day standards, this experiment is almost a case study in unethical research. The experiment broke the cardinal ethical rules for psychological research. Those being:

• Do no harm .  Psychologists have to reduce or eliminate the potential that taking part in a study may cause harm to a participant during and afterwards. Little Albert was harmed during and would potentially have suffered life-long harm as a result.
• The participants’ right to withdraw.  Nowadays, if you are involved as participant in any psychological or medical study you are given the right that you can withdraw at any stage during the study without consequence to you. Albert and his mother were given no-such rights.
• The principle of informed consent.  Subjects have to be given as much information about the study as possible before the study begins so that they can make a decision about participating based on knowledge.  If the research is such that giving information before the study may affect the outcome then an alternative is a thorough debrief at its conclusion.  Neither of these conditions was satisfied by Watson’s treatment of Albert.
• Professional competence of the researcher.  While it may seem presumptive to question the behaviour of the father of “behavioural psychology”, the method used in this study was not particularly good psychology.  There was only one subject and the experiment lacks any form of control.  Such criticism however, is a little post hoc since research in psychology at that time was in its infancy.

Besides the ethical issues with the experiment, as can be seen from the recordings, the environment was not controlled, the animals changed, and several appeared themselves to be in distress. The final act of Watson applying a mask was presented very closely to Albert, something that potentially would cause any child distress.

Watson could have ‘cured’ Albert of the phobia he had induced using a process known as systematic desensitisation but chose not to as he and Raynor wanted to continue with the experiment until the Albert’s mother came to collect him.

Watch a Recap of this experiment in this video:

Harris B (1979): Whatever happened to Little Albert ?  American Psychologist, February 1979,     pp 151-160

Code of Ethics:

http://www.bps.org.uk/what-we-do/ethics-standards/ethics-standards

About Alexander Burgemeester

2 Responses to “The Little Albert Experiment”

Read below or add a comment...

what are the laws of classical conditioning in this experiment

Wow, this entire article is full of inaccuracies. Firstly, they didn’t begin the conditioning experiments on Albert until he was 11 months and 3 days old. While the first few original reactions with the different animals did not need further conditioning, the steel rod was struck several times throughout the experiment to reinstate the fear response with the stimuli. Also, it is only speculated that Albert’s mother was unaware that these experiments were going on. You mention that the mask in which Watson wears at the ending of the video would distress any child, but before beginning the experiments, Watson and his crew tested several different stimuli on Albert and marked any emotional responses. The masks were part of this test and did not originally trigger a response. A fear response was present after Albert was conditioned to fear the white rat and things that were visually similar. The mask had white hair attached at the top. He had a similiar response to a paper bag of white cotton wool. Lastly, the fact that your entire article is written with a secondary source (written in 1979 no less) as your only source beside the video, and never even refers to Watson’s original journal publication (which is available for free online at http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm ) is even more of a reason to find this article flawed.

Leave A Comment... Cancel reply

The Little Albert Experiment

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.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Psychologenie

Understanding the Little Albert Experiment

Summary of the Little Albert experiment is presented in this PsycholoGenie article. This experiment was based on the concept of classical conditioning. It was conducted by John B. Watson and his assistant Rosalie Rayner, and involved the process of evoking a fear response in a 9-month-old baby named Albert.

Unethical Experiment

Albert was the first and last child to have been subjected to a psychological experiment, which involved the process of evoking a fear response. Since an experiment involving inducing fear in the mind is unethical, such an experiment would not have been allowed in today’s world.

Ivan Pavlov, a physiologist from Russia, had conducted experiments on dogs, that demonstrated the conditioning process in them. Inspired by the success of the experiments by Pavlov, John B. Watson began studying the process of conditioning. The objective behind conducting the experiments was to test whether conditioning of emotional reactions in humans could be brought about.

It is said that Watson may have conducted the conditioning experiment on Albert, despite knowing that he was mentally impaired. Whether or not Watson took the baby’s mother’s permission before conducting the experiment, is a matter of debate.

The objective of the experiment conducted by Watson was to induce phobias in an emotionally stable child, through the process of conditioning.

• Exposure to a White Rat:  To conduct the experiment on Albert, he was exposed to a white rat. The baby played with the rat without exhibiting any kind of fear. When the baby touched the rat, a loud sound was made with a hammer. The sound caused the baby to retract and cry. The action of making a loud sound with a hammer was repeated every time the baby came near the rat, during several trials. There came a time when the baby started crying at the mere sight of the rat. This way, the baby’s mind was conditioned to evoke a fear response on seeing the rat.
• Exposure to Several Creatures and Objects:  The baby, Albert, was exposed to different creatures, including a white rabbit, a monkey, and masks, after being exposed to the white rat. Albert responded to seeing the white rat with crying. Seeing a white rabbit too, evoked a similar response from him. In fact, a generalized response was exhibited by the baby upon seeing furry animals and objects, including a furry, white dog and a seal-skin coat. The baby developed a fear response even for the ‘furry’ Santa Claus mask worn by Watson.

The Little Albert experiment has been criticized on the basis of observations made by some of the researchers who investigated the matter. According to Harris (1979), a critical study of reports of the experiment conducted by Watson and Rayner reveal that the baby, Albert, did not develop rat phobia. There is little evidence to suggest that the sight of these animals evoked a fear response in the child.

As per Alan Fridlund, an associate professor of psychology at the University of California, the reactions of the baby, as seen in the original film, seemed odd. When the baby saw a dog and a monkey, before the conditioning experiment, his behavior was markedly unresponsive. Fridlund believed that such unresponsive behavior could not be observed without the baby suffering from some neurological problem. The above observations raise doubts about the whole idea of conducting a conditioning experiment, since the baby was not healthy.

The Little Albert experiment is one of the most controversial experiments in the history of mankind. It must have had a deep impact on the functioning of the mind of baby Albert.

Hall P. Beck, a psychologist at the Appalachian State University, had stated that Albert was not the real name of the baby on which the experiment was conducted. In fact, his name was Douglas Merritte. It is reported that the boy died at the age of 6, in 1925. He suffered from hydrocephalus in his last days. The evidence of Albert suffering from congenital hydrocephalus was established when medical records were obtained from the John Hopkins University.

As per historical evidence obtained about the medical practices followed in olden days, using poor and sick infants for experiments was commonplace. Therefore, it is quite possible that Albert’s mother, a poor nurse, was forced to make the boy available for experiments.

The truth about the Little Albert experiment, even today, is clouded in mystery. This is because, in the course of time, the facts associated with this experiment got distorted and misinterpreted. Irrespective of what people say about the experiment, the idea of carrying out mental conditioning to evoke fear response in a 9-month-old baby is something one would not support.

Like it? Share it!

Get Updates Right to Your Inbox

Further insights.

Privacy Overview

image/svg+xml

The undergraduate neuroscience journal, ethical history: a contemporary examination of the little albert experiment, sehar bokhari.

Read more posts by this author.

Micaela Bartunek

Sehar bokhari , micaela bartunek.

In 1917, two curious researchers looking to examine the effects of fear conditioning began a study at Johns Hopkins University that would later become one of the most controversial experiments in the field. John Watson and Rosalie Rayner sought to test the limits of fear conditioning by recruiting a small child to partake in their study. The nine month old infant, known simply as "Little Albert B," was selected for his developmental and emotional stability at such a young age [1]. Watson's Little Albert study, taught in countless Introduction to Psychology courses, helps to further illustrate the idea of classical conditioning most notably explained by Ivan Pavlov. However, what many courses fail to explore is the issue of ethics behind experiments like Watson's, and the effects studies like it have on the subsequent behavior and development of their participants. As a result of studies such as Watson's, universities have created Institutional Review Boards, ethical boards that seek to ensure humane practices and protect human life while concurrently advancing knowledge in research. Understanding Watson's Little Albert study not only illuminates an interesting aspect of behavioral psychology, but also brings up interesting questions about research ethics in studies involving human participants.

The Mechanics of Fear Conditioning

Watson's research centered around Albert's interactions with a variety of animals including white rabbits and mice. Watson and Rayner noted that initially, Albert's behavior towards these animals was curious and playful. To condition a fearful response in the child, Watson exposed Albert to each animal while simultaneously producing a loud, frightening noise by slamming a large hammer into a long metal pipe. At first, Albert reacted by withdrawing from the animal. Then his lips began to tremble. Upon the third blow, Albert began to cry and shake violently. It was the first time Albert exhibited any sort of fear repsonse within the study. It certainly wouldn't be the last [1].

Days later, Albert was presented with the same animals as previously described, only this time without any noise. Albert immediately withdrew from them, now fearing the animals themselves. Watson and Rayner had successfully taught a nine-month old child to fear something he initially loved, through interaction and classical conditioning [1].

Fear Generalization

As the study progressed, Watson questioned whether Albert's fear conditioning could be applied to other objects and animals similar in nature to a white rabbit. Albert was presented with a wool coat, a small dog, and even a Santa Claus mask with a beard fashioned out of cotton balls. Albert now exhibited signs of generalization–a phenomenon in which the original stimulus is not the only stimulus that elicits fear from the participant. In Albert's case, objects that looked visually similar to the objects he was originally conditioned to fear also elicited the same response–despite the fact that these objects were not conditioned in the first phase of the study.

Watson and Rayner concluded that Albert's conditioned fear response persisted for approximately one month. As Albert's fears spread, however, his mother abruptly removed him from the study. Because of his immediate and sudden departure, Watson and Rayner were never able to reverse the effects of Albert's fear conditioning through a process known as desensitization [1].

Desensitization utilizes a series of relaxation and imagination techniques in order to reverse the effects of fear conditioning [2]. If properly performed, extinction occurs when the subject is repeatedly exposed to the conditioned stimulus without the fear-conditioning stimulus--in Albert's case, the loud sound. Over time, the participant's fear fades due to repeated exposure to the conditioned stimulus without the negative consequence. The participant then substitutes the initial fear with that of a normal response [3]. However, new research on desensitization raises questions as to whether it fully reverses the effects of fear conditioning. Research suggests that even if desensitization works, it may not necessarily last, so the participant runs the risk of relapse [9]. Unfortunately, Albert was never even exposed to these methods, and as such, many have wondered what effects this study and lack of desensitization may have had throughout Albert's lifetime.

The Mystery of a Lifetime

Johns Hopkins University became the focus of the search for Albert. Watson left behind little evidence to suggest Little Albert's whereabouts following the study, though he did leave Albert's estimated date of birth, age at the same time of their research, and a grain film that documented the entirety of the study. One researcher, Hall Beck from Appalachian State University in North Carolina, was the first to provide an answer.

Beck used Albert's history to track down, a nurse at Johns Hopkins University's Hospital that he suspected to be Albert's mother. Beck discovered that the nurse had a son named Douglas Merrite who fit the proper description of Albert during the time of the study [4]. Merritte pased away at age six due to hydrocephamus that initiate the fear response. These responses are regulated by the nervous system which creates a startle response and simultaneously increase a person's heart rate, respiration rate, or blood pressure [6].

The human brain is a complicated system of neural structures and pathways, some of the which serve as conduits to fear and learning. These intricate systems in the brain can cause even nine month old children to fear for their lives. Even with desensitization techniques, it is still uncertain just how these sorts of experiments affect human beings. Today, Institutional Review Boards closely monitor modern studies to avoid repeating what happened to Little Albert and ensure that subjects are protected both mentally and physically.

IRBS & Ethics

As with many controversial experiments like Watson's, the question of the ethical boundaries in research is brought to the forefront. Is it morally acceptable to conduct an experiment on an infant? Many suggest that experimenters should find a strict balance between the importance of protecting those who participate in experiments, especially infants, and scientific advancement [7]. Regulations boards, known as Institutional Review Boards (or IRBs) now exist within federally funded research universities in order to protect such balances within proposed research studies [8]. Research proposals must explicitly state and explain the risk and benefits to participants within the study, as well as give participants the right to withdraw at any time if they wish to do so. Proper debriefing following experiments must also take place, ensuring that subjects are fully aware of the purpose of the study and how the experiments will be obtaining their results [2].

Perhaps as time goes on and new findings emerge, IRBs and researchers alike can learn to identify the line beyond which an experiment goes too far. Even if a study is considered ethical and approved by an IRB, it may still be controversial. Examining studies such as Little Albert's allow IRBs to recognize moral dilemmas and adapt their procedures regarding experimental proposals in order to ensure that these ethical complications do not reoccur. It may not be easy, but when an experiment builds itself around a strong ethical foundation, the results of the study, as well as the study itself, are preserved in honesty and integrity. As Dan McArthur, a Professor of Philosophy at York University, puts it, when we protect scientific integrity and respect our participants, "good ethics can sometimes mean better results" [10].

• Classics in the History of Psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm
• Systematic Desensitization | Simply Psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/Systematic-Desensitisation.html
• Hermans, D., Graske, M., Mineka, S., & Lovibond, P. (2006). Extinction in Human Fear Conditioning. Retrieved November 19, 2015, from https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/125886/1/24.pdf
• The Search for Psychology's Lost Boy. (2014, June 1). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://chronicle.com/interactives/littlealbert
• Limbic System: Amygdala (Section 4, Chapter 6) Neuroscience Online: An Electronic Textbook for the Neurosciences | Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy - The University of Texas Medical School at Houston. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/S4/chapter06.html
• Maren, S. (n.d.). Neurobiology of Pavlovian Fear Conditioning - Annual Review of Neuroscience. Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://www.annualreviews.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.897
• Diekema, D. (n.d.). Ethical Issues In Research Involving Infants. Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://www.seminperinat.com/article/S0146-0005(09)00060-3/fulltext
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, A. (1995). Ethics in Psychological Research. In Research in psychology: Methods and design (7th ed., pp. 41-44). New York: Wiley.
• Vervliet, B., Craske, M. & Hermans, D. (n.d.). Fear Extinction and Relapse: State of the Art. Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://www.annualreviews.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-clinp-sy-050212-185542
• Mcarthur, D. (2009). Good ethics can sometimes mean between science: Research ethics and the milgram experiments. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15(1), 69-79. doi: http://dx.doi.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/10.1007/S11948-008-9083-4

Did Little Albert actually acquire a conditioned fear of furry animals? What the film evidence tells us

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Psychology, MacEwan University.
• PMID: 33090820
• DOI: 10.1037/hop0000176

Watson and Rayner's (1920) attempt to condition a fear of furry animals and objects in an 11-month-old infant is one of the most widely cited studies in psychology. Known as the Little Albert study, it is typically presented as evidence for the role of classical conditioning in fear development. Some critics, however, have noted deficiencies in the study that suggest that little or no fear conditioning actually occurred. These criticisms were primarily based on the published reports of the study. In this article, we present a detailed analysis of Watson's (1923) film record of the study to determine the extent to which it provides evidence of conditioning. Our findings concur with the view that Watson and Rayner's conditioning procedure was largely ineffective, and that the relatively weak signs of distress that Albert does display in the film can be readily accounted for by such factors as sensitization and maturational influences. We suggest that the tendency for viewers to perceive the film as a valid demonstration of fear conditioning is likely the result of expectancy effects as well as, in some cases, an ongoing mistrust of behaviorism as dehumanizing and manipulative. Our analysis also revealed certain anomalies in the film which indicate that Watson engaged in some "literary license" when editing it, most likely with a view toward using the film mainly as a promotional device to attract financial support for his research program. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).