Albert was the infant at the center of one of the most contentious psychological tests, which is now seen as “medical misogyny.” The baby, who passed away just six years after the study that made him fear everything hairy, was unknown for decades.
Ivan Pavlov, a Russian neurologist, found in the 1890s that dogs exhibited conditioned learning, also known as conditioned reflex, when they responded to the ring of a bell by drooling as they associated the sound with food.
According to Verywell Mind, the Nobel Prize winner’s discovery was so revolutionary that it had an impact on behaviorism, a theory that contends “all behaviors are acquired through conditioning processes.”
Simply put, “it all boils down to the learning patterns we’ve developed via associations, rewards, and penalties.” This method contends that our surroundings have a greater influence on our behavior than do our emotions and ideas.
Baby test
John B. Watson, who is considered the creator of behaviorism, was influenced by Pavlov’s research and made the decision to test conditioned reflexes, or fear reactions, on a 9-month-old human infant in 1920.
Watson and Rosalie Rayner, his study partner, noted of Little Albert, whose mother worked as a wet nurse, that “he was healthy from birth and one of the best developed youngsters ever brought to the hospital, weighing twenty-one pounds at nine months of age.” He was generally emotionless and stolid. One of the main justifications for utilizing him as a test subject was his stability. We believed that conducting such studies would not cause him much harm.
Santa was feared.
The two were preparing for a science-disguised horror performance.
Initially, Albert responded to soft animals like the white rat and a rabbit with playful interest.
Watson, who passed away in 1958 at the age of 80, writes, “This infant never showed fear at any time in any situation.”Nobody has ever witnessed him in a frightened or angry state. The baby hardly ever let out a cry.
The twist was that every time Albert reached for the rat, the room was filled with the sound of a hammer crashing on a steel pipe. The infant recoiled, wailed, and flinched.
After a few trials, the child’s lighthearted response turned into sheer terror, and he or she retreated from anything that looked like the furry animals, including Santa Claus’ fluffy white beard, a dog, a rabbit, or a wool coat.
This was an example of Pavlovian conditioning, but the doctors had a scared newborn instead of drooling dogs.
Dr. Alan Fridlund, a social and clinical psychologist at UC Santa Barbara, stated that Watson used the Albert study as evidence for his theory that all of our mature emotional reactions are derivatives of three primal reactions: fear, fury, and love.
Behind the scenes, however, a tempest was building.
Research becomes murky
Little Albert was unable to give his consent. He was a newborn.
Furthermore, Watson kept the mother of the baby in the dark about how upsetting the testing would be. She snatched Albert out of the study when she finally realized the truth, and despite Watson and Rayner’s vows to undo the harm and “decondition” him, they never did.
The identify of the baby was revealed.
Little Albert’s true identity was unknown for decades since Watson never wrote down his name.
However, a resolute group of psychologists set out to find the truth in 2009. They came to the conclusion that Little Albert was most likely Douglas Merritte, the son of a Johns Hopkins hospital wet nurse, using facial recognition and medical records.
They discovered the tragic news that Douglas had passed away from hydrocephalus, a disorder in which fluid accumulates in the brain, six years after the experiment.
Long before Watson ever placed baby Douglas in front of the white rat, he had already experienced meningitis and displayed symptoms of developmental problems.
Given the baby’s apparent health problems, Fridlund told How Stuff Works, “He has a very large head, and he’s quite pudgy and short, but the head is still big for a pudgy, short infant.”
The doctor went on to discuss scenes from the movie that shows the experiment, saying, “The second thing was how abnormal he was in his behavior.” You don’t see a single social smile from Albert during the entire movie, which he appears in for around four minutes. Not one.
Additionally, he continues, “At no point in the movie does Albert look to Watson or Rayner for assistance, even after being taken an Airdale that is running around, seeing burning paper, seeing a monkey playing on a leash, and having a steel bar hit 14 times behind his back. Babies usually run toward a caregiver if they think the stimulation is dangerous.
Foundation flaws
The Little Albert experiment made a lasting impression despite the dubious science and appalling ethics.
As time went on, Watson’s description of the experiment became less clear, but he continued to base his career on his audacious assertions about human nature.
However, a lot of people now believe that the Little Albert research was based on a faulty foundation, perhaps even on the suffering of a child with a neurological impairment.
In an article published in the American Psychological Association, Dr. Fridlund stated, “The Little Albert study has always led us to consider basic issues of experimental ethics because Watson and Rayner attempted to condition fear in an infant and made no effort to follow him after discharge and insure his well-being.” However, it now compels us to address more profound and unsettling concerns, such as medical misogyny, disability protection, and the possibility of scientific fraud. All psychologists can learn from this story.
Douglas Merritte, often known as Little Albert, was more than a scientific experiment. He was a genuine child, and his brief life has served as a heartbreaking reminder that compassion must always come before knowledge.
