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
- Bipolar Disorder
- Therapy Center
- When To See a Therapist
- Types of Therapy
- Best Online Therapy
- Best Couples Therapy
- Managing Stress
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Understanding Emotions
- Self-Improvement
- Healthy Relationships
- Student Resources
- Personality Types
- Sweepstakes
- Guided Meditations
- Verywell Mind Insights
- 2024 Verywell Mind 25
- Mental Health in the Classroom
- Editorial Process
- Meet Our Review Board
- Crisis Support
The Unconditioned Stimulus in Classical Conditioning
Definition and Examples of the UCS
Tara Moore / Getty Images
Examples of Unconditioned Stimuli
The neutral stimulus.
- Unconditioned vs. Conditioned Stimuli
Timing of Learned Behavior
Types of classical conditioning.
In the learning process known as classical conditioning , the unconditioned stimulus (UCS) is one that unconditionally, naturally, and automatically triggers a response . In other words, the response takes place without any prior learning.
Contrast this with the conditioned stimulus, which only prompts a response after a person or animal has learned to associate the stimulus with a certain response.
Unconditioned stimuli are all around us. Think about:
- The smell of a favorite food, which immediately makes you feel hungry
- A feather tickling your nose, which causes you to sneeze
- An onion's smell as you cut it, which makes your eyes water
- Pollen from grass and flowers, which causes you to sneeze
- A unexpected loud bang, which causes you to flinch
In each of these examples, the unconditioned stimulus naturally triggers an unconditioned response or reflex. You don't have to learn to respond to the unconditioned stimulus; it occurs automatically.
The Unconditioned Stimulus in Pavlov's Experiment
In Ivan Pavlov's classic experiment with dogs, Pavlov and his assistants showed the dogs edible and non-edible items and measured saliva production with each. Salivation occurred automatically and without the dogs' conscious effort when they smelled the food.
This response required no learning. The food was an unconditioned stimulus because it prompted a reflexive response.
The Little Albert Experiment
Building on Pavlov's work, behaviorist John B. Watson and graduate student Rosalie Rayner conducted what came to be known as " the Little Albert experiment ." The research showed that emotional reactions could be classically conditioned in people.
Watson and Rayner exposed a 9-month-old child, Albert, to a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, masks, and burning newspapers and observed the boy's reactions. He showed no fear of them at first.
But after Watson began making a loud noise—an unconditioned stimulus that provoked Albert's crying—whenever he showed Albert the white rat, Albert became frightened whenever he saw the white rat. Because he'd learned to associate the white rat with a noise he feared, he ultimately reacted with fear to the rat as well. The rat, once a neutral stimulus, had become a conditioned stimulus.
For the purposes of classical conditioning or learning, you need a neutral stimulus as well as an unconditioned stimulus. In other words, for conditioning to take place, you must first start by pairing a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus.
A neutral stimulus doesn't trigger any particular response at first, but when used together with an unconditioned stimulus, it can effectively stimulate learning, eventually becoming a conditioned stimulus. A good example of a neutral stimulus is a sound or a song.
When it is initially presented, the neutral stimulus has no effect on behavior. As it is repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus, it will begin to cause the same response as the UCS.
For example, the assistants in Pavlov's experiment initially elicited no salivation and therefore were neutral stimuli. Likewise, the sound of a squeaky door opening is initially a neutral stimulus. If that sound is repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus, such as feeding your cat, that sound will eventually come to trigger a change in your cat's behavior. Once an association has been formed, your cat may react as if it is being fed every time it hears the squeaky door open.
Unconditioned Stimulus vs. Conditioned Stimulus
An unconditioned stimulus causes a response without any prior learning on the part of the subject. The response is automatic and occurs without thought. In contrast, a conditioned stimulus produces a reaction only after the subject has learned to associate it with a given outcome.
In Pavlov's experiments, the dogs learned to salivate when they saw the assistants' white lab coats because they'd formed an association between the assistants and the food they presented, The salivary response to the assistants was not an automatic, physiological process, but a learned one. The presence of the assistants, initially a neutral stimulus, became a conditioned stimulus.
Throughout the classical conditioning process, a number of factors can influence how quickly associations are learned. The length of time that passes between presenting the initially neutral stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus is one of the most important factors in whether learning occurs.
The timing of how the neutral stimulus and the unconditioned stimulus are presented is what influences whether or not an association will be formed, a principle that is known as the theory of contiguity.
In Pavlov's experiment, the sound of a buzzer was initially a neutral stimulus, while the smell of food was an unconditioned stimulus. Presenting the tone close to presenting the smell of food resulted in a stronger association. Ringing the buzzer, the neutral stimulus, long before the unconditioned stimulus led to a much weaker or even nonexistent association.
Different types of conditioning may use different timing or order between the neutral stimulus and the UCS.
- In simultaneous conditioning , the neutral stimulus is presented at the exact time as the unconditioned stimulus. This type of conditioning leads to weak learning.
- In backward conditioning , the unconditioned stimulus is given first, and the neutral stimulus is presented afterward. This type of conditioning also tends to result in weak learning.
- In trace conditioning , the neutral stimulus is presented briefly and then stopped, then the unconditioned stimulus is presented. This type of conditioning produces good results.
- In delayed conditioning , the neutral stimulus is presented and continues while the unconditioned stimulus is offered. This type of conditioning produces the best results.
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
Boakes RA, Costa DSJ. Temporal contiguity in associative learning: Interference and decay from an historical perspective . J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2014;40(4):381-400. doi:10.1037/xan0000040
Prével A, Rivière V, Darcheville J, Urcelay GP. Conditioned reinforcement and backward association . Learn Motivat. 2016;56:38-47. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2016.09.004
Pavlov I. Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex . Oxford University Press.
By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."