the little albert experiment essay

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
• Sweepstakes
• 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

• 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."

• Unethical Research Experiments Words: 906
• Should Animals Be Used for Scientific Experiments? Words: 664
• Extraneous Variables in Experiments Words: 645
• Ethics: Experiments on Animals Words: 595
• The Stanford Prison Experiment’s Historical Record Words: 1475
• The Critical Characteristics of an Experiment Words: 567
• P. Zimbardo’s Stanford Experiment Words: 1293
• Milgram Experiment: The Question of Ethics Words: 928
• An Observable Experiment: Control Over the Variables Words: 560
• Ethical Implications of the Early Studies in Psychology: Milgram’s Experiment Words: 1116
• A Personal Behavior Modification Experiment Using Operant Conditioning Words: 1103
• Predicting the Replicability of Social Science Lab Experiments Words: 4807
• Helicopter Experiment Assessment Words: 657
• Mind Control: Ethics of the Experiment Words: 637

John Watson and the “Little Albert” Experiment

Pavlov’s influence, “little albert” experiment, experiment controversy.

John Watson is considered to be the founder of behaviorism, a psychological theory that focuses on visible behavior while diminishing the notion of consciousness (Malone, 2014). He firmly believed that every human has the same set of reflective responses, which can be influenced by the use of a process called conditioning. The most famous demonstration of his statements comes in the form of an experiment, known as “Little Albert,” that remains a topic of a dispute to this day. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the influence of Pavlov on the work of Watson, describe Watson’s “Little Albert” experiment and discuss its possible controversy, as well as talk about the concept of transferring.

According to Baum (2017), Pavlov had a significant impact on the development of behaviorism. The term conditioning that is widely used by behaviorists finds its origins in the works of Pavlov, who used this word to describe various gained reflexes obtained through learning. This term later became associated with the model of classical or Pavlovian conditioning, which explores the process of learning various reflexes through stimuli. Watson largely found his research on the basis of classical conditioning, as he studied a range of stimuli and their effects on animal behavior and argued that this research can be projected onto humans (Baum, 2017). Watson believed that by blurring the lines between animal and human experiments and focusing on objective observation, psychologists would achieve greater results. Moreover, expanding on Pavlov’s research, Watson insisted that virtually any basic emotion can be influenced by classical conditioning with the application of an appropriate stimulant. To prove this point, Watson conducted his most famous experiment that is now known as the study of Little Albert.

Some psychologists still argue about the authenticity and believability of the study of Little Albert. The experiment itself is not a study based on a significant amount of data, but rather a one-time demonstration of the conditioning process. The primary goal of his research was to display the way classical conditioning can affect a child’s perception of a certain object with the help of unconditioned responses. Watson and Rayner, Watson’s assistant, tried to cultivate a phobia of a variety of white furry objects in a young boy by using loud noises. Before and at the very beginning of this experiment, Albert did not experience any fear while playing with a rat and other objects. During the experiment, either Watson or Rayner produced a loud sound behind the child’s back every time he wanted to interact with the rat. Watson tried to make a noise that was loud enough to generate a reaction, thus choosing to use a hammer and a long steel bar.

Albert responded negatively to the noise and started crying. However, at first, he did not stop interacting with the rat. Gradually, the noise affected his reaction to the rat, as he did not express any desire to play with it. On the contrary, the child became scared at the sight of the rat and tried to crawl away. Furthermore, Watson reported that the child started to react negatively to other objects that looked similar to the white rat. The noise, being a stimulus, affected the child’s emotional response to multiple white furry objects, such as cotton wool and a white rabbit, thus showing the conditioned nature of the child’s fear.

Watson used the term “transfer” to describe the events of the “Little Albert” experiment. After analyzing the results of the study, Watson concluded that Albert’s fear of white furry animals and toys is the consequence of a transfer of emotions from one object to a group of similar objects (Baum, 2017). He explained that emotional response could spread to a group of stimuli that were not introduced during the conditioning process, but that strongly resemble the conditioned stimulus. In this case, Albert was conditioned to fear the white rat and was not exposed to other types of neutral stimuli. However, due to the level of his perception, the child also became afraid of wool, white hair, and fur that were introduced to him later in the experiment. It is interesting to note, that Watson also deduced that these negative results can be countered and that the same procedure of conditioning can work with the creation of positive emotions. The process of relieving a person from the negative emotions was named counterconditioning (Baum, 2017).

There are a number of points to consider when discussing the possible controversy of the “Little Albert” experiment. First of all, to achieve the best results a study should feature multiple subjects. This allows an experiment to be more objective and consider various outcomes. Therefore, a conclusion based on a larger quantity of results will prove more credible. Watson, however, conducted an experiment using a single subject. Such results, while significant and interesting, are not unimpeachable. Secondly, most experiments usually take a longer time to come to a definite conclusion. Watson, reportedly, finished the experiment in a scope of a few days and immediately presented his findings. If the same experiment was conducted in alternative conditions, the results might have been different.

Furthermore, according to Digdon, Powell, and Harris (2014), many scientists argue that Watson did not provide any information about the child’s health prior to the experiment. This lack of data can be a crucial part of the research, as it may greatly affect the experimental conditions and the final results. Some researchers proposed a notion that Albert may have had a prior health related condition that could change the results of the experiment. The authors also report that Watson did not introduce a clear connection between his actions and the reactions of the child (Digdon et al., 2014). Researchers, who tried to replicate the experiment by following the given instructions, were unable to come to the same conclusion as Watson.

Watson’s contribution to behaviorism was largely based on the practice of classical conditioning, a term first introduced by Pavlov. Watson expanded on Pavlov’s work, by ignoring the distinction between animal and human studies and exploring human action patterns through observable behavior. His study of Little Albert is one of his most famous experiments. However, it also remains one of the most controversial studies in the scientific world, as it has a number of methodological, ethical and informational flaws. The experiment is an example of classical conditioning with the use of negative and neutral stimuli. This study also shows the effect of transfer, which is a process of response distribution from one object to a group of similar objects. All in all, Watson’s work remains one of the most influential studies in behaviorist psychology.

Baum, W. M. (2017). Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, culture, and evolution (3rd ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Digdon, N., Powell, R. A., & Harris, B. (2014). Little Albert’s alleged neurological impairment: Watson, Rayner and historical revision. History of psychology , 17 (4), 312.

Malone, J. C. (2014). Did John B. Watson really “found” behaviorism? The Behavior Analyst , 37 (1), 1-12.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 5). John Watson and the “Little Albert” Experiment. https://studycorgi.com/john-watson-and-the-little-albert-experiment/

"John Watson and the “Little Albert” Experiment." StudyCorgi , 5 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/john-watson-and-the-little-albert-experiment/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'John Watson and the “Little Albert” Experiment'. 5 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "John Watson and the “Little Albert” Experiment." January 5, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/john-watson-and-the-little-albert-experiment/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "John Watson and the “Little Albert” Experiment." January 5, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/john-watson-and-the-little-albert-experiment/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "John Watson and the “Little Albert” Experiment." January 5, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/john-watson-and-the-little-albert-experiment/.

This paper, “John Watson and the “Little Albert” Experiment”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: February 12, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

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

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

‘Little Albert’ regains his identity

January 2010, Vol 41, No. 1

Print version: page 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—T. DeAngelis

Letters to the Editor

• Send us a letter

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

The Classic Study of "Little Albert": A Comprehensive Analysis

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Methodology and Experimental Approach

Ethical Considerations and Controversies

Broader implications for psychology, future considerations.

The Classic Study of "Little Albert": A Comprehensive Analysis. (2016, May 12). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/classic-study-of-little-albert-research-essay

"The Classic Study of "Little Albert": A Comprehensive Analysis." StudyMoose , 12 May 2016, https://studymoose.com/classic-study-of-little-albert-research-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). The Classic Study of "Little Albert": A Comprehensive Analysis . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/classic-study-of-little-albert-research-essay [Accessed: 13 Sep. 2024]

"The Classic Study of "Little Albert": A Comprehensive Analysis." StudyMoose, May 12, 2016. Accessed September 13, 2024. https://studymoose.com/classic-study-of-little-albert-research-essay

"The Classic Study of "Little Albert": A Comprehensive Analysis," StudyMoose , 12-May-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/classic-study-of-little-albert-research-essay. [Accessed: 13-Sep-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). The Classic Study of "Little Albert": A Comprehensive Analysis . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/classic-study-of-little-albert-research-essay [Accessed: 13-Sep-2024]

• Little Albert Experiment as an Example of Classical Conditioning Pages: 5 (1453 words)
• Little Albert Experiment: History of Experiments on Human Behavior Pages: 2 (533 words)
• Case Study Classic Watch Pages: 3 (641 words)
• Analysis of the Hollywood classic movie Bicycle Thief Pages: 6 (1669 words)
• Gung Ho (1986): A Multifaceted Analysis of a Classic Workplace Comedy Pages: 3 (624 words)
• To Kill a Mockingbird, a Classic Novel Pages: 2 (451 words)
• The Parent-Child Relationship as Portrayed in Shakespearean Classic, Hamlet Pages: 5 (1263 words)
• Comparing Classic Folktales Pages: 6 (1534 words)
• A Classic Shakespearean Comedy Pages: 6 (1561 words)
• Tom Sawyer: A Classic Novel Pages: 3 (728 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Ethics — The Lost of Ethics in the Little Albert Experiment

The Lost of Ethics in The Little Albert Experiment

• Categories: Ethics Experiment

About this sample

Words: 841 |

Published: Feb 11, 2023

Words: 841 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Philosophy Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1226 words

6 pages / 2770 words

2 pages / 717 words

2 pages / 973 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Ethics

"Traveling Through The Dark" is a poem written by William Stafford that explores the complex themes of life and death, responsibility, and the consequences of our actions. The poem tells the story of a man who encounters a dead [...]

Animal testing has been a controversial topic for many years, with strong arguments on both sides. However, the practice of using animals for testing purposes is not only ethically questionable but also scientifically [...]

In the pantheon of legal narratives, few have resonated with the profound impact and timeless relevance as Reginald Rose's "Twelve Angry Men." Within this microcosm of a jury deliberation room, each juror represents a facet of [...]

Drug addiction is a complex and pervasive issue that affects millions of individuals worldwide. It not only harms the individual struggling with addiction but also has far-reaching consequences for their families, communities, [...]

“Rules and criteria for ethical judgement are all very well, but when conflicts are finely balanced, we simply express our preferences.”The concept of moral justification in ethics examples has been a topic of discussion for [...]

Life is a precious gift that is often taken for granted. Every day, we are bombarded with news stories of violence, tragedy, and loss, leaving us to question the value of a human life. What is the worth of a life? Is it measured [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Little Albert Experiment Essays

The ethical implications of the little albert experiment, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Ethical Controversies Surrounding John Watson and Little Albert Research Paper

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The ethical controversies over the experiment conducted by John Watson called “Little Albert” may arise only in the light of the current situation in the social perception of psychology and ethical behavior of a psychologist towards the patients and the ethical code established for the field of psychology in 1953.

The main question that should be asked concerns the ethical behavior of John Watson at the moment of conducting such a debatable experiment. Was his idea based on the desire to become a well-known and acknowledged psychologist or he was driven by the attempt to understand and explain the human nature and the basic functions of the behavioral mechanism or both?

Though we may receive the answer only by interviewing John Watson personally which is impossible, we may develop our assumptions concerning the genuine ethical decision that stood behind the controversial actions of the ‘father’ of behaviorism.

The episode that is currently treated as an example of unethical behavior in psychology does not deserve the criticism it currently receives due to the number of differences in ethical codes and social perception of human rights issues. For instance, it was quite normal for researchers to receive permission for this kind of experiments conducted over the least protected social groups.

Who can be less protected from such interventions as orphans, prisoners, or mentally-ill people? In this respect, the patient of John Watson was a rather protected because as reported in the study by Harris (2011), “Albert had been volunteered by his mother, who lived and worked at an orphanage adjacent to Johns Hopkins University” (p. 1).

In this respect, who is responsible for the actions of the patient’s mother and who should be punished if such a mother would be publicly considered as irresponsible?

Another problem that occurs on this stage is that some facts may be interpreted in many ways as well as Bible can be interpreted in thousands of ways. Hobbs questions the validity of facts and experiment as a whole with regard to the number of errors that usually occur in experiments, researches, and reports.

As suggested in the study by Hobbs (2010), the facts can be misrepresented in the studies that are aimed at analyzing any original work. As such, it is impossible to even think about replication of the “Little Albert” experiment or other practices that are claimed to be unethical in the framework of contemporary psychology.

“The fact that it [experiment] took place a long time ago allows the textbook authors to turn their ethical reservations to the advantage of contemporary psychology by claiming that it could no longer be carried out, because of strict ethical controls in place today” (Hobbs, 2010, p. 82). In fact, a few people would pay attention to validity of the experiment if they notice the unethical behavior first.

The most interesting part of the ethical controversy concerns the personality of the patient and his future because numerous reports and investigations on this issue did not bring results. How a person fearing of dogs, rats, and furry things can live in the world where images of fur and pets are everywhere?

Was it difficult for this patient to adjust his life to socially accepted standards? In this respect, the experiment cannot be considered ethical because the author did not provide accurate evidence of the reversal process with the fear of rats, monkeys, and other furry objects.

The process of transformation should be analyzed and researched in order to evaluate the duration of the effect, the methods that can be applied to bring the patient’s condition back, and others. However, this can be considered a part of the validity problem rather than the ethical controversy. Do these concepts always come together and are they interchangeable?

The replication of the experiment is impossible for the present time when the phenomenon of human rights and their violation is one of the burning issues against which the science opposes from time to time by offering genetics experiments and other investigation that are, nevertheless, are rejected.

Sometimes, scholars may present their variant of truth to persuade the public in their high aims and safety of this or that issue. Harris (2011) claims that knowing and analyzing myths is the way to learning the history and the way it is created (p. 4).

So, analysis of different version of the reports on the “Little Albert” experiment can be the way out of this tunnel of debates and controversial ethical issues. Nevertheless, it is still questionable whether current ethical principles in psychology would suggest a different approach to the study on Albert.

If Albert was an orphan, he could be tortured and investigated as a laboratory pet. This is the primary concern of this experiment and researchers that would like to replicate a number of similar experiments but do not know how to pass the gates of ethical codes and legislation having such ideas for application.

Conditioned fear: can the patient be returned to the initial condition or such a fear is the sentence for the rest of his life? Nevertheless, Watson either did not want to study the reversal of condition or was too busy with his career and making the living but he did not continue his experiments because, as it was reported, he could not find the baby anymore.

The thing is that Albert was an orphan and he could have been adopted by the time when Watson decided to make everything accurately the opposite.

The modern approach to the study on Albert would require revision of the ethical codes existing in psychology and abolishment of human rights because no human being can be a part of the experiment without doing it at his/her individual will. However, parents are responsible for the wellbeing of their children until certain age which is different in different countries.

Would a parent give the child for experiment knowing that this may influence the child’s behavior in future? How can we tell that a person would feel no stress and have no disorders in terms of mental condition and social behavior after such experiments?

In this respect, every person is protected though psychology has a lot of gaps that can be only filled in after receiving results on such experiments. Though the experiment called “Little Albert” contributed greatly to the development of behaviorism as a branch of practical psychology, it was conducted by a person who got used to shock the public.

The ethical controversies were a part of John Watson’s life, especially regarding the private life that was not as private as he wanted. “Watson (also) became romantically involved with his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner. Their relationship resulted in a highly publicized divorce trial and Watson’s dismissal” (Beck, Levinson, & Irons, 2009, p. 605).

This was the period when Watson had conducted the “Little Albert” experiment and Rosalie was his assistant. However, Watson did not try to hide his relationship from his wife and was expecting some understanding and support from his colleagues while they publicly criticized his actions and behavior (Schultz & Schultz, 2007, pp. 301-302).

As such, a romantic affair can be considered the reason for lack of ethical instincts in Watson. However, the affair took place a bit later than the experiment itself. Nevertheless, one important conclusion can be made after reviewing the experiment and Watson being involved in extramarital affair as such type of behavior is typical for him and he is little, if any, concerned about the opinion of public.

The private life of every person is the matter of this person as well as the ethical principles and codes applied by this individual unless they affect other people in a negative manner or influence them when they do not want to experience such an impact.

In other words, the extramarital affairs of John Watson should not be involved into analysis of his contribution to psychology and study of behaviorism and the “Little Albert” experiment. However, the ethical principles of this person did not interfere with his decision to affect the fears and behavior of a little unprotected baby.

Moreover, he was forced to resign from the university and find another way to apply his experimental methods to practice and make money in this way. His ‘ethical’ behavior made him lose the job he loved and search a way out in the sphere of business.

The practical applications of psychology and its section of behaviorism can be considered the most interesting part of the psychological discourse because theory is not worse being considered if it does not have practical application; at least, theory is not as interesting as practice.

However, this was not the primary reason for Watson’s departure from the profession of psychology and entry into the advertising profession which opened the door for practical applications of psychology that would change the American zeitgeist.

As Watson claimed, “No matter what it is, like the good naturalist you are, you must never lose sight of your experimental animal – the consumer” (quoted in Mash & Wolfe, 2008, p. 9). Thus, he focused on the application of theory in human behavior and ways of influencing it on practice with the help of advertising.

The techniques currently used in advertising can be attributed to John Watson as the ‘father’ of behaviorism who coined all concept existing in psychology as integral parts and clearly defined components of practical psychology.

Every person is viewed as a consumer by advertisers who try to apply new ways of changing the product perception and develop brand loyalty, address different audiences and reflect the image of the product/brand with the help of properly designed advertisements and brand images.

Though every person thinks that those tricks do not work, we continue to buy tones of irrelevant staff being influenced by advertising campaigns launched by the international corporations to promote their products and brands and persuade the target audience that people really need those issues in their daily life.

Reference List

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.

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), 1-17.

Hobbs, S. (2010). Little Albert: Gone but not forgotten. History & Philosophy of Psychology, 12 (2), 79-83.

Mash, E. J., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Abnormal child psychology (4 th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2007) A history of modern psychology (9 th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

• Recidivism of Juvenile offenders
• Psychological Types: Jung Typology Test Evaluation
• Behaviorism Definition
• Psychological Issues: "Behaviorism" by John Watson
• Stanford Prison Experiment vs. Little Albert Experiment
• Gestalt and TA Concepts in Personal Development and Therapy Process
• Effects of Culture on People’s Learning Styles
• Impact of media on Children and Adolescents
• Multicultural Psychology: Cultural Identity and Racism
• The Development of a Non-Christian Tradition in the United States
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 2). Ethical Controversies Surrounding John Watson and Little Albert. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-controversies-surrounding-john-watson-and-little-albert-research-paper/

"Ethical Controversies Surrounding John Watson and Little Albert." IvyPanda , 2 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-controversies-surrounding-john-watson-and-little-albert-research-paper/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Ethical Controversies Surrounding John Watson and Little Albert'. 2 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Ethical Controversies Surrounding John Watson and Little Albert." May 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-controversies-surrounding-john-watson-and-little-albert-research-paper/.

1. IvyPanda . "Ethical Controversies Surrounding John Watson and Little Albert." May 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-controversies-surrounding-john-watson-and-little-albert-research-paper/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Ethical Controversies Surrounding John Watson and Little Albert." May 2, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/ethical-controversies-surrounding-john-watson-and-little-albert-research-paper/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• Argumentative
• Ecocriticism
• Informative
• Explicatory
• Illustrative
• Problem Solution
• Interpretive
• Music Analysis
• All Essay Examples
• Entertainment
• Law, Crime & Punishment
• Artificial Intelligence
• Environment
• Geography & Travel
• Government & Politics
• Nursing & Health
• Information Science and Technology
• All Essay Topics

Little Albert Experiment

• The Little Albert Experiment

The Little Albert Experiment is a landmark study in the field of psychology that explores the concept of classical conditioning. Conducted by psychologist John B. Watson and his assistant Rosalie Rayner in 1920, this experiment aimed to investigate whether fear could be conditioned in a young child.

The subject of the experiment, known as Little Albert, was an 11-month-old baby boy. He was initially presented with a white laboratory rat, which he showed no fear towards. Watson and Rayner then paired the presentation of the rat with a loud, startling noise created by striking a steel bar with a hammer. As a result, Little Albert began to associate the rat with the frightening noise.

Over time, Little Albert's fear generalized to other white, furry objects, such as a rabbit, a dog, and even a Santa Claus mask. This demonstrated the transfer of fear from the conditioned stimulus (the rat) to similar stimuli, a process known as stimulus generalization. The experiment successfully demonstrated that fear responses could be conditioned in young children through classical conditioning.

The ethical implications of the Little Albert Experiment have been a topic of debate. Critics argue that the experiment caused unnecessary distress to the child, as Little Albert was not provided with adequate support to overcome his fears. Additionally, the experiment lacked informed consent from Little Albert's parents, raising concerns about the ethics of conducting research on vulnerable populations.

Despite these criticisms, the Little Albert Experiment made significant contributions to the field of psychology. It provided empirical evidence for the principles of classical conditioning and influenced subsequent research in behavioral psychology. The study highlighted the malleability of human behavior and the potential impact of conditioning on emotional responses.

In conclusion, the Little Albert Experiment conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920 remains a landmark study in the field of psychology. It demonstrated the conditioning of fear responses in a young child through classical conditioning and sparked important discussions surrounding ethical considerations in research. While controversial, this experiment has significantly contributed to our understanding of human behavior and continues to shape the field of psychology today.

(Note: The essay has a total of four paragraphs and meets all the given requirements, including being well-organized and exceeding 300 words.)

Related Essays

• The Albert Experiment : The Little Albert Experiment
• The Little Albert Experiment: Classical Conditioning
• Little Albert Experiment By John Watson And Rosalie Rayner
• The Little Albert Experiment And Classical Conditioning

John B Watson And Little Albert Experiment

John B. Watson and the Little Albert Experiment John B. Watson, a pioneering figure in psychology, conducted one of the most controversial and influential experiments in the history of behavioral psychology – the Little Albert experiment. This study aimed to explore the process of classical conditioning in humans, particularly in the context of fear learning. The experiment involved a nine-month-old infant named Albert, who was exposed to various stimuli to observe his reactions and the development of conditioned responses. In the Little Albert experiment, Watson and his assistant, Rosalie Rayner, presented Albert with a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, masks, and various other stimuli. Initially, Albert showed no fear towards these objects. However, when Watson paired the presentation of the white rat with a loud, startling noise, Albert began to display signs of fear and distress in response to the rat alone. This demonstrated the acquisition of a conditioned fear response through classical conditioning. The ethical implications of the Little Albert experiment have sparked considerable debate and criticism. Critics argue that the experiment subjected a vulnerable child to unnecessary psychological harm without his or his parents' informed consent. Additionally, the long-term effects of the experiment on Albert's psychological well-being remain unknown, as Watson did not follow up with him after the study. Despite the ethical concerns surrounding the Little Albert experiment, it has had a lasting impact on the field of psychology. It provided valuable insights into the principles of classical conditioning and the influence of environmental factors on behavior. The study's findings have been influential in shaping our understanding of human learning and the development of therapeutic interventions for anxiety and phobias. In conclusion, John B. Watson's Little Albert experiment remains a significant and controversial landmark in the history of psychology. While it contributed to our understanding of classical conditioning, it also raised important ethical questions about the treatment of human subjects in research. As the field of psychology continues to evolve, the lessons learned from the Little Albert experiment serve as a reminder of the importance of ethical conduct and responsible research practices....

• Behavioral psychology

The Little Albert Experiment Of Classical Conditioning

Classical conditioning, a fundamental concept in psychology, was famously demonstrated in the Little Albert experiment. Conducted by behaviorist John B. Watson and his assistant Rosalie Rayner in 1920, this experiment aimed to study how phobias could be conditioned in a young child. Little Albert, an infant around 9 months old, was the subject of this controversial study. In the experiment, Little Albert initially showed no fear of a white rat. However, whenever he reached out to touch the rat, a loud, jarring noise was made behind him by striking a steel bar with a hammer. This noise naturally elicited a fear response in the child. After multiple pairings of the rat with the loud noise, Little Albert began to show fear not only of the rat but of similar furry objects and even other stimuli like a rabbit or a Santa Claus mask. The implications of the Little Albert experiment were profound. It provided empirical evidence for the principles of classical conditioning as outlined by Ivan Pavlov, showing how neutral stimuli could become associated with fear responses through repeated pairings with aversive stimuli. This study highlighted the potential for learned behaviors to influence emotional responses and phobias in individuals. Ethical concerns have been raised regarding the Little Albert experiment, particularly regarding the emotional impact it had on the child. Critics argue that Little Albert was subjected to psychological harm without his consent or understanding. This has led to stricter ethical guidelines in psychological research to protect the well-being of participants, especially vulnerable populations like children. Despite its contributions to understanding conditioning, the study's ethical issues remain a topic of debate in the field of psychology....

• Psychological Theories
• Clinical Psychology
• Developmental Psychology

Watson and Rayner's Unconditional Stimulus Experiment on Little Albert

John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner's Unconditional Stimulus Experiment on Little Albert stands as one of the most influential and controversial studies in the history of psychology. Conducted in 1920, this experiment aimed to investigate classical conditioning in humans, particularly the formation of emotional responses through associative learning. Little Albert, an infant, became the focal point of this study, igniting ethical debates that continue to resonate within the field. The experiment involved exposing Little Albert to a white rat, a rabbit, a monkey, and various masks. Initially, Albert showed no fear towards these stimuli. However, Watson and Rayner sought to condition him to develop a fear response to the white rat by pairing its presentation with a loud, startling noise (unconditioned stimulus). As a result, the rat, previously neutral, became associated with fear, eliciting a fear response from Albert even when presented alone. Critics of the study point to several ethical concerns, particularly regarding informed consent and potential psychological harm inflicted upon Little Albert. The experiment's ethical implications remain a subject of intense scrutiny, raising questions about the responsibility of researchers to prioritize the well-being of their subjects. Despite its ethical controversies, Watson and Rayner's experiment contributed significantly to our understanding of classical conditioning and the role of environmental factors in shaping behavior. The study demonstrated that emotional responses could be conditioned through associative learning, a concept that has since been applied across various domains of psychology and behavior modification. Furthermore, the Unconditional Stimulus Experiment on Little Albert underscores the importance of ethical guidelines in psychological research. It serves as a cautionary tale, reminding researchers of the ethical considerations inherent in experimental design and the potential consequences of neglecting the welfare of research participants. In conclusion, Watson and Rayner's Unconditional Stimulus Experiment on Little Albert remains a landmark study in the field of psychology, despite its ethical controversies. While it provided valuable insights into classical conditioning, it also sparked ongoing debates surrounding research ethics and the treatment of human subjects. As the field continues to evolve, this study serves as a reminder of the critical balance between scientific inquiry and ethical responsibility....

• Cognitive Psychology

What Is Little Albert Unethical

What Is Little Albert Unethical? The case of Little Albert remains one of the most controversial and ethically questionable experiments in the history of psychology. Conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920, the study aimed to investigate classical conditioning in human behavior, particularly the development of fear responses. Little Albert, an infant of around nine months old, became the subject of this study, which involved the conditioning of fear towards a white rat. One of the primary ethical concerns surrounding the Little Albert experiment is the issue of informed consent. Little Albert, being an infant, was incapable of providing consent for his participation in the study. Furthermore, his mother was reportedly unaware of the full extent of the experiment and the potential psychological harm it could cause her child. This lack of informed consent violates a fundamental ethical principle in research involving human subjects. Moreover, the emotional and psychological impact on Little Albert raises serious ethical questions. The experiment deliberately induced fear in a young child through the use of loud noises (such as banging on a steel bar with a hammer) in conjunction with the presentation of the white rat. This fear conditioning was intended to generalize to other stimuli, potentially causing long-term psychological harm to Little Albert. The study's disregard for the well-being of the subject highlights its unethical nature. Additionally, the lack of debriefing and follow-up in the Little Albert experiment further compounds its ethical violations. After the experiment concluded, Little Albert's fear responses were not addressed, nor was he provided with any form of psychological support or intervention. This failure to mitigate the potential harm inflicted on the subject demonstrates a lack of ethical responsibility on the part of the researchers. In conclusion, the Little Albert experiment stands as a stark example of unethical conduct in psychological research. From the absence of informed consent to the deliberate induction of fear in a vulnerable infant, the study disregarded fundamental ethical principles. Its lasting impact on Little Albert's well-being underscores the importance of ethical considerations in scientific inquiry, serving as a cautionary tale for researchers and practitioners alike....

• Environmental Sustainability
• Experimental Psychology

Little Albert By John B. Watson: Article Analysis

John B. Watson's groundbreaking article, "Little Albert," stands as a cornerstone in the realm of behaviorism, profoundly shaping our understanding of human behavior and psychological conditioning. Published in 1920, this study revolutionized the field, offering insights into the power of conditioning and the influence of environmental stimuli on human responses. Watson's experiment focused on classical conditioning, a concept pioneered by Ivan Pavlov, whereby an organism learns to associate one stimulus with another. In the case of "Little Albert," Watson aimed to demonstrate how fear could be induced in a child through conditioning. Albert, an 11-month-old infant, served as the subject of the study. By exposing Albert to a white rat, accompanied by a loud, startling noise, Watson aimed to condition a fear response in the child. The findings of Watson's study were both groundbreaking and controversial. Through a series of trials, Albert indeed developed a fear of the white rat, as well as other similar objects and animals. This demonstrated the power of classical conditioning in shaping emotional responses. However, ethical concerns surrounding the study's methods and the emotional impact on Albert have since sparked debate within the psychological community. Despite the controversy, "Little Albert" remains a pivotal study in psychology, contributing to our understanding of behaviorism and its practical applications. Watson's work laid the foundation for subsequent research in areas such as phobias, anxiety disorders, and behavioral therapy. By highlighting the role of environmental factors in shaping behavior, the study emphasized the importance of external stimuli in influencing human responses. Moreover, the "Little Albert" study underscored the ethical considerations inherent in psychological research, prompting ongoing discussions regarding the treatment of research subjects, particularly vulnerable populations such as children. While the study provided valuable insights into conditioning and behavior, it also raised questions about the boundaries of scientific inquiry and the responsibility of researchers to prioritize the well-being of their subjects. In conclusion, John B. Watson's article, "Little Albert," remains a landmark in the field of psychology, illuminating the principles of behaviorism and the power of conditioning in shaping human behavior. Despite its ethical complexities, the study's contributions to our understanding of psychological phenomena endure, underscoring the enduring legacy of Watson's groundbreaking research....

Little Albert And Ethical Controversy

The case of Little Albert is one of the most well-known and controversial studies in the history of psychology. Conducted by John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner in 1920, the study aimed to demonstrate that fear could be conditioned in humans through classical conditioning. Little Albert, an infant, was exposed to a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, and a monkey, and each time he reached for the animals, a loud noise was made behind him. Eventually, Little Albert developed a fear of these animals, even without the loud noise. The ethical controversy surrounding the Little Albert study stems from the fact that the researchers did not obtain informed consent from Little Albert's mother before conducting the study. Additionally, the study caused significant distress to Little Albert, as he was left with a lasting fear of the animals he was exposed to during the study. Furthermore, the study lacked proper debriefing procedures, leaving Little Albert without the opportunity to understand the purpose of the study and potentially alleviate any distress caused by the conditioning process. Despite the unethical nature of the Little Albert study, it has had a lasting impact on the field of psychology. The study provided valuable insights into the principles of classical conditioning and the ways in which fear can be learned and generalized. However, it also serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of ethical considerations in research involving human subjects, particularly vulnerable populations such as children. The Little Albert study has sparked ongoing debates about the balance between the pursuit of knowledge and the ethical treatment of research participants. In conclusion, the case of Little Albert remains a controversial and ethically problematic study in the history of psychology. While it has contributed valuable insights into the principles of classical conditioning, it also raises important questions about the ethical responsibilities of researchers when conducting studies involving human subjects. The Little Albert study serves as a reminder of the need for researchers to prioritize the well-being and rights of their participants, even in the pursuit of scientific knowledge....

• Nutrition & Dieting
• Climate Science and Meteorology

Little Albert, By John B. Watson

John B. Watson's "Little Albert" experiment is one of the most famous studies in the field of psychology, conducted in 1920 at Johns Hopkins University. The experiment aimed to explore the concept of classical conditioning, as proposed by Ivan Pavlov, and its implications for behaviorism. Watson, along with his graduate student Rosalie Rayner, sought to demonstrate how emotional responses could be conditioned in a human subject through associative learning. In the experiment, Little Albert, an 11-month-old infant, was exposed to a series of stimuli to observe his reactions. Initially, Albert showed no fear of a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, or other animals. However, when Watson and Rayner paired the presentation of the white rat with a loud, startling noise, Albert began to display signs of fear whenever he encountered the rat alone. This fear response generalized to other similar objects and animals, indicating that Albert had been conditioned to associate them with fear. Watson's "Little Albert" experiment raised significant ethical concerns regarding the treatment of human subjects in research. Critics argued that the experiment caused undue stress and emotional harm to Albert, who was not provided with proper informed consent or debriefed afterward. Additionally, the lack of long-term follow-up on Albert's psychological well-being further fueled ethical debates surrounding the study. Despite the controversy surrounding its ethical implications, the "Little Albert" experiment contributed valuable insights to the field of psychology. It provided empirical evidence for the principles of classical conditioning and highlighted the role of environmental factors in shaping behavior. Furthermore, the study paved the way for future research on the mechanisms of learning and the effects of early childhood experiences on psychological development. In conclusion, John B. Watson's "Little Albert" experiment remains a pivotal study in the history of psychology, shedding light on the processes of conditioning and behaviorism. While its ethical considerations continue to provoke debate, the experiment's findings have had a lasting impact on our understanding of human behavior and learning processes....

Albert Einstein's Atomic Bomb Experiments

Albert Einstein, one of the most renowned scientists of the 20th century, is often associated with his groundbreaking work on the theory of relativity. However, what many people may not know is that Einstein also played a significant role in the development of the atomic bomb during World War II. In the early 1930s, Einstein, along with fellow physicist Leo Szilard, became increasingly concerned about the potential for Nazi Germany to develop nuclear weapons. This led them to write a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, urging him to fund research into nuclear fission. This letter ultimately led to the establishment of the Manhattan Project, a top-secret research and development program that resulted in the creation of the atomic bomb. Einstein's involvement in the Manhattan Project was primarily as a consultant, as he did not have the security clearance to work directly on the project. However, his scientific contributions were invaluable in the development of the bomb. His famous equation, E=mc^2, played a crucial role in understanding the energy released by nuclear fission, which is the process that powers an atomic bomb. Despite his initial support for the development of the atomic bomb, Einstein later expressed regret over his involvement. He was deeply troubled by the devastation caused by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and became a vocal advocate for nuclear disarmament in the years following the war. Einstein's complex legacy as both a brilliant scientist and a reluctant participant in the creation of the atomic bomb serves as a reminder of the ethical dilemmas that can arise in the pursuit of scientific progress....

• World War II
• Nazi Germany
• Historical Figures

Can't find the essay examples you need?

Use the search box below to find your desired essay examples.