From Furry Objects to Phobias: The Little Albert Study and Its Consequences

The field of psychology is home to a plethora of intriguing studies aimed at comprehending human behavior and our interactions with the world. Thanks to psychology, we have discovered treatments for psychological problems that inhibit and threaten our daily lives, including depression, anorexia, and multiple personality disorder.

However, psychology was not always held in high regard. Historical psychological studies featured questionable ethical standards, with researchers going to great lengths to study human behavior without considering the consequences for their participants' well-being.

Nowadays, studies must adhere to legal regulations before being conducted. Ironically, the field that strives to understand the nature of human beings has a dark past. The Little Albert study, which took place in the 1920s, was one such study that presented a significant ethical dilemma.

The experiment known as the Little Albert study was a meticulously controlled trial that was conducted within the confines of a laboratory. The reason behind this approach was to eliminate any potential external factors that could potentially impact the outcome of the research.

The primary aim of this study was to examine the principles of classical conditioning, which had been previously discovered by Pavlov, and to replicate its procedures. The researchers sought to determine whether it was possible to elicit a phobia response in a child who was emotionally stable by associating two different stimuli - in this case, furry objects and loud noises.

In the study, the subject under investigation is a nine-month-old infant known as Albert (not his real name). The experiment was conducted at the Harriet Lane Home, a hospital where the researchers obtained the infant. It is unclear from the available information whether or not the researchers obtained consent from Albert's mother before beginning the study.

However, it is known that the study was stopped prematurely. A year later, John Watson and his graduate student Rosalie Raynor conducted the study at Johns Hopkins University, and the results were published in the February 1920 edition of the Journal of Experimental Psychology.

Watson proposed that children's instinctive and unconditioned response to loud noises is fear, indicating that their fear of loud noises is learned rather than innate. Before the study's commencement, Albert's initial emotional state was assessed.

In this initial phase, Albert was briefly exposed to several stimuli, such as a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey mask (both with and without hair), cotton wool, and burning newspapers, among others. Albert did not show any fear of these objects during the baseline test.

Once the initial test had been completed, Albert was positioned on a table placed on a mattress in the center of the laboratory. He was given a large laboratory rat to play with, which was positioned close to him.

Meanwhile, Watson and Raynor created a loud sound by striking a suspended steel bar with a hammer behind Albert's back while he was playing with the rat. Each time the baby touched the rat, he was exposed to the sound, which became increasingly loud. Albert reacted to the sound by crying and displaying fear.

The researchers concluded that Albert had associated the loud sound with the rat. In the subsequent testing, Albert was only shown the rat, and he became agitated without even touching it, demonstrating that classical conditioning had indeed occurred.

The rat, previously a neutral stimulus, had now become a conditioned stimulus that could elicit an emotional response similar to the fear that the noise initially provoked. Further testing was conducted to determine whether Albert would react similarly to other furry objects.

The findings were determined to be uniform. Little Albert exhibited a comparable response when presented with a white rat, a fluffy dog, or even a Santa Claus mask with white cotton balls in its beard. A year after the experiment, he was discharged from the hospital.

However, when Albert's mother discovered that her son had been used in a study without her permission, she learned that although Watson had considered ways to eliminate Albert's conditioned fears, he had made no effort to alleviate Albert's fear that had developed. It is believed that Albert may have had an enduring fear of furry objects as he grew older.

Fortunately, the story of little Albert did not come to an end there. Several researchers endeavored to uncover his true identity. The initial attempt was made by psychologists Ellen Frittlin and Hall, who, in 2012, published an article in which they claimed to have succeeded in identifying the actual person behind the name.

To accomplish this, they scrutinized Watson's letters and publications, along with public documents. Their investigation led them to conclude that little Albert was a pseudonym for Douglas Merritt, who passed away shortly after the study. Merritt was the son of Arvila Merit, who seemed to have worked as a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home Hospital.

The claims made by Frittlin and Back in their study about Douglas Merritt being a neurologically impaired child at the time of the experiment have been brought into question by a more recent study conducted by Russ and Nancy in 2014.

Upon reviewing the footage of the study, it was found that little Albert appeared to be a healthy infant instead. With the help of a professional genealogist, Russ and Nancy were able to identify a more likely candidate who matched the characteristics of little Albert.

This individual was an 87-year-old man named William Barger, who was known by his friends and family as Albert. William Barger had a developmental condition that was similar to the documented condition of the subject baby in the experiment.

Even though William Barger passed away in 2007, Russ and Nancy were able to gather information about his life after the experiment by speaking to his niece who had a close relationship with him.

According to Russ, "We've been in touch with Albert's niece who is Pearl Barger's only surviving relative, and she had some interesting things to say about him." He went on to explain that some of the information provided by Barger's niece would fit with the possibility of him being little Albert.

Barger's niece mentioned that her uncle, who had a dislike for animals, especially dogs, was one of the animals used in the study, which raises the question of whether or not the research had an impact on his feelings towards animals.

However, it is unclear if this was a result of the experiment. Fortunately, despite the common belief that little Albert may have suffered psychological damage due to the experiment, Barger's niece described him as a relaxed person who lived a long and fulfilling life.