What is the Little Albert study?

Introduction

John B. Watson
and Rosalie Rayner’s Little Albert study involved attempted conditioning of an infant known as Albert B. Some researchers see the work as way to explore classical conditioning as a mechanism of change in emotional behavior in young children, while other researchers view the work as a way to advance understanding in psychopathology. The study, however, must be viewed in light of the early nineteenth century methodology employed as well as the study’s modest results.

Perhaps as interesting as the study itself is the historical pattern created by psychologists’ accounts of the work. In the years since the publication of the Little Albert study, its methods and results have been described many times. Some researchers believe that the study’s importance and its theoretical offerings have been overstated in the literature. In 1979, Ben Harris proposed possible causes for these alleged overstatements, and he discussed the changing interpretations of the Little Albert study. Any examination of the Little Albert study must deal with the manner in which changes in psychological theory have influenced psychologists’ interpretations of such research endeavors.

Method

The Little Albert study was designed to test the premises that an infant can be conditioned to fear an animal that appears at the same time as a loud sound that was previously identified to arouse fear in the infant, that the fear would generalize to other animals or inanimate objects, and that such fears would persist over a period of time. On pretesting, nine-month-old Albert was shown to display no fear when observing certain live animals as well as several inanimate objects. In contrast, he showed fear through crying and avoidance when the experimenter struck a steel bar with a hammer near him (the unconditioned stimulus in this work).

Two months after pretesting, Albert was shown a white rat, and anytime Albert touched the rat, he was exposed to the sound of the hammer hitting a steel bar. After seven trials, Albert cried and demonstrated avoidance on presentation of the rat—the conditioned stimulus—in the absence of the loud noise. The experimenters sought to test for generalization after five days by presenting the rat along with other small animals and objects. The authors reported that Albert appeared to show a strong fear response to the rat and certain other small animals, a “negative” response to some human hair and a bearded mask, and a “mild” response to some white cotton.

After five additional days, Watson attempted to recondition Albert to the rat by one trial of rat and noise pairing and to condition Albert directly to fear the previously presented rabbit and dog. On moving Albert to a different room for testing, the child was said to demonstrate a “slight” reaction to the rat, rabbit, and dog. Watson again subjected Albert to noise and rat pairing, but the dog barked in the middle of the session, rendering the session particularly problematic. After thirty-one days, Albert was said to show “fear” when touching a mask, a sealskin coat, the rat, a dog, and a rabbit. At the same time, however, he initiated contact with the coat and the rabbit. Albert’s avoidance behaviors coupled with gestures of interest are difficult to interpret, making it hard to draw conclusions regarding persistence of conditioned responses.

From Watson and Rayner’s report, it is difficult to conclude that the child developed a rat phobia or that Albert responded interpretably toward the stimuli. Theoretical limitations are apparent. Also, methodological advances necessary to permit more objective and reliable assessments of emotional responses had not yet been developed. The stimuli were of a limited nature, and the data came from only one participant. Watson and Rayner never repeated the study with other subjects, and the results have never been successfully replicated. Despite the theoretical and methodological limitations of the Little Albert study, persistent interest in the work is reflected in its continued citation in psychology textbooks as well as in the public’s interest in the relationship between fear and emotional well-being.

Summary

The methods and findings of the Little Albert study must be understood in the context of the early history of experimental psychology. According to Harris, repeated retelling of the Little Albert study may have adversely affected the accuracy of the details of the study. Later researchers may have a tendency to reconcile findings to unify support for some theories. In addition, when a particular research endeavor is cited frequently, the consequence may be enhanced attributions of the magnitude of reported effects.

Bibliography

Harris, Ben. “Whatever Happened to Little Albert?” American Psychologist 34. 2 (1979): 151–160. Print.

Jones, Mary Cover. “A Laboratory Study of Fear: The Case of Peter.” Pedagogical Seminary 31 (1924): 308–315. Print.

Marks, Isaac Meyer, and David Mataix-Cols. “Diagnosis and Classification of Phobias: A Review.” Phobias, ed. by Mario Maj et al. Hoboken: Wiley, 2004. Print.

Rolls, Geoff. Classic Case Studies in Psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2013. Print.

Todd, James T., and Edward K. Morris, eds. Modern Perspectives on John B. Watson and Classical Behaviorism. Westport: Greenwood, 1994. Print.

Watson, J. B., and R. Rayner. “Conditioned Emotional Reactions.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 3 (1920): 1–14. Print.