Little Albert study by Watson and Rayner 1920

This was a short research paper I did for my Introduction to Psychology class.  The assignment was to view the Youtube video on the Little Albert study and then discuss it in the forums. 

The Little Albert experiment done in 1920 by Watson and Rayner is one of psychology's most famous and well-known, and is included in nearly every introductory psychology course. It was done to illustrate how classical conditioning can be used to condition an emotional response. The three research questions were: 1. Can an infant be conditioned to fear an animal that appears simultaneously with a loud, fear ­arousing sound?  2. Would such fear transfer to other animals or to inanimate objects?  3. How long would such fears persist?  (Harris, 1979).

On the other hand, this study has also been criticized widely for many reasons, and extensive detective work over seven years by psychologist, Dr. Michael Britt, uncovered multiple reported inaccuracies and distortions (DeAngelis, 2010). In fact, it was not even a true “experiment,” but rather a “pilot study” (Britt, 2008). Dr. Vassar refers to it as “a well-known piece of social science folklore” and “an example of myth making in the history of psychology (Harris, 1979).

Some of the criticisms of this so-called “experiment” are:

There were multiple methodological flaws and the experimental design and process was not carefully constructed. Watson and Rayner failed to develop an objective means to evaluate Albert's reactions, but rather relied on their own subjective interpretations (Harris, 1979; Cherry, n.d.). It was not a true experiment and was poorly conducted – it did not have two subjects, two levels of variables, was not controlled, and was never successfully replicated (Mills, 1998), thus, in actuality, it was a pilot study. Nor was the study done with an appropriate sample size or inadequate confidence levels (according to the scientific method).  The Little Albert experiment would not be conducted based on today's ethical standards as it did not meet many of the ethical requirements (Cherry, n.d.)

The 9-month old baby named Little Albert was identified as Douglas Merritte, the son of a wet nurse named Arvilla Merritt. Ms. Merritt lived and worked at a pediatric hospital on the John Hopkins University campus called the Harriet Lane Home at the time of the experiment in 1920, and received $1 for her baby's participation.  It was discovered that Little Albert was not the "healthy," "normal" boy Watson claimed. Verified with medical records from Johns Hopkins University, Little Albert was, in reality, a neurologically impaired child who suffered from congenital hydrocephalus, and died at the age of 6 (DeAngelis, 2010).  Fridlund (2012) believes that "because Watson and Rayner tried to condition fear in an infant and made no effort to follow him after discharge and insure his well-being, the Little Albert study has always led us to consider basic issues of experimental ethics…but now it forces us to confront deeper, more disturbing issues like the medical misogyny, the protection of the disabled and the likelihood of scientific fraud. It's a story all psychologists can learn from."

There was no evidence that Little Albert was conditioned to a white rat (the rabbit was brown), a sealskin coat, fur muffs, white furry gloves, or a teddy bear. Burning newspapers were also tried by putting in front of Little Albert but with no noise. Samuelson (1980) wrote that the Santa Claus mask had been played with, then later it was paired with the steel bar noise, which means it was not properly conditioned to be generalized.

Little Albert’s fear was not powerful or phobic, his reactions were not that strong or lasted very long. He was never unconditioned as there wasn’t enough to uncondition, and his reactions were extinguished on their own. Attempts to desensitize and recondition him were with unethical methods, feeding him candy, milk, cookies. Harris (1979) states that Little Albert’s conditioning was not true fear conditioning reactions, as he cooed and gurgled, and showed only slight fear. In fact, he even allowed the rat to crawl towards him and later touched the rat’s ear. As such, there was no permanent psychological damage, since the “fear” was only a weak reaction.

Watson wanted to establish behaviorism in the midst of Freudian concepts as a science and thus, attain respectability; however, he did not report results accurately, “altered and deleted important aspects of the study in his many descriptions of it,” stretched the truth, and gave frequent unobjective editorial comments (Harris, 1979). Rather, Watson provided a catchy story, nice photographs, and built up his conclusions based on what could happen in a real study. To develop a successful theory that is adopted, it must be “marketed;” one that is easy to understand makes it more successful, (Britt, 2008) which is what Watson’s study was. Watson knew his popularity could be gained if simple tools were used, with familiar concepts, and done by well-known researchers. Watson had a persuasive personality and knew how to get his story across to attain his hidden agenda.

Harris (1979) concluded his research on the misrepresentations that have persisted on the Little Albert study with this:

“What can be deduced from reviewing the many versions of Watson and Rayner's study of Albert? One somewhat obvious conclusion is that we should be extremely wary of secondhand (and more remote) accounts of psychological research… secondary sources themselves come to err in their description of classic studies… In reviewing these classic studies or origin myths in psychology, it should be emphasized that this myth-making process is not anyone's attempt to defraud the public. Instead, it arises ' as largely a byproduct of pedagogy: as a means to elucidate the concepts of a scientific specialty, to establish its tradition, and to attract students’… the major difficulty with such reevaluations of classic studies is that they obscure the actual factors that determine the course of scientific research… It may be useful for modern learning theorists to see how the Albert study prompted subsequent research, but it seems time, finally, to place the Watson and Rayner data in the category of "interesting but uninterpretable results."

References

DeAngelis, T. (2010). ‘Little Albert’ regains his identity.  American Psychological Association Monitor on Psychology, 41:1, 10. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/01/little-albert.aspx

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. Retrieved September 7, 2013, from http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Beck_Hall_2009_Finding_Little_Albert.pdf

Britt, M. (2008). Episode 47: The little Albert study: What you know is…mostly wrong (podcast). Retrieved September 6, 2013, from http://www.thepsychfiles.com/2008/02/episode-47-the-little-albert-study-what-you-know-ismostly-wrong/#ixzz2eFmD2sVb

Cherry, K. (n.d.) The little Albert experiment, a closer look at the famous Case of little Albert. Retrieved September 7, 2013, from http://psychology.about.com/od/classicpsychologystudies/a/little-albert-experiment.htm

Fridlund, A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology. doi: 10.1037/a0026720 (abstract available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&uid=2012-01974-001)

Harris, B. (1979).  Whatever happened to Little Albert? American Psychologist, 34(2), 151-160. Retrieved September 5, 1013, from http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000198/01/BHARRIS.HTM

Mills, J.A. (1998). Control, A history of behavioral psychology.  New York University Press, N.J. Retrieved September 7, 2013, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/133434820/Book-Control-A-History-of-Behavioral-Psychology-John-a-Mills

Samuelson, F. (1980). J.B. Watson’s little Albert, Cyril Burt’s twins, and the need for a critical science. American Psychologist, 35(7). Doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.35.7.619 (abstract available at: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/35/7/619/)

Watson, J. B. & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14. Retrieved September 7, 2013, from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/emotion.htm

Prepared by Mary R. Noble, PhD

(mklecuyer@hotmail.com)

September 7, 2013