What Became Of “Little Albert?”

In the 1920 study John B. Watson, and Rosalie Rayner conducted with “Little Albert,” who’s real name appears to have been Douglas Merritte, (Watson, 1920; Harris, 1979) to show how specific fears can be conditioned, currently leads to ongoing work in extinction of our worst emotional responses (Travis, 2004). Although the experiments with “Little Albert” are certainly ethically questionable by today’s standards, the research, conducted at that time, were groundbreaking experiments in conditioning. But what ever became of the actual “Little Albert?”

In an article by T. DeAngelis (2010) a team comprised of Sharman Levinson, PhD, and Gary Irons, the grandson of Arvilla Merritte, feel that they have discovered the true identity of, “Little Albert,” based on the facts of his birth, his mother’s employment, along with photographic evidence. The conclusion was, that “Little Albert’s” name was Douglas Merritte. His mother was Arvilla Merritte. Unfortunately Douglas Merritte died of acquired hydrocephalus at that age of six, and there was no evidence about his short life to verify if his Watsonian conditioned fears persisted until the time of his death. Or, was his conditioning successful to begin with?

In research done by Ben Harris (1979), Watson & Rayner’s original data (1920) are inconclusive as to the permanence of the conditioning, to begin with. He states that within Watson & Rayner’s (1920) study, that “Little Albert” did not exhibit any strong conditioned response to the animals, and in fact showed more aversion to the dog, with which he was not conditioned, rather than the white rat, to which he was conditioned. Later writings by Watson and Watson (1921, 1928a, etc.) omitted these findings, and subsequent references by other psychologists, omitted these flaws, as well. Harris went on to say that even other attempts to replicate Watson & Rayner’s experiment (Jones, 1930; Valentine, 1930; Bregman, 1934; & Thorndike, 1935), were unsuccessful, using Watson’s methods. So, it is highly speculative to believe that “Little Albert” retained any permanent conditioning to begin with. The facts simply are not there to support these findings, and the evidence of conclusion is certainly lacking based on scientific methods. Given the recent findings pointing to Douglas Merritte, as the probable identity of “Little Albert,” more questions about the study are raised.

Since it is known that Douglas Merritte died of acquired hydrocephalus (DeAngelis, 2010), new questions as to the time of acquisition, extent of brain damage resulting, and even if he had shown any diminished mental abilities during the time of the experiments are raised. Did Watson & Rayner know about this condition? Was the strict anonymity of “Little Albert” a result of the subject’s condition, or was it due to preserving the study, that had turned into a disaster? So many more questions are raised by the latest information. But the questions Harris (1979) raised, seems unaddressed by my limited research. Harris (1979) believed Watson & Rayner’s work with “Little Albert” should be categorized as, “Interesting, but uninterpretable results.” And, with newer revelations as to the identity and medical condition surrounding the death of Douglas Merritte, I agree with Harris.

Having input into the well-known study of “Little Albert”, Ben Harris has opened the door to many questions. Furthermore, knowing his identity and the circumstances surrounding his death at the age of six, has opened up many more questions. I had never read anything, which had a skeptical nature to Watson & Rayner’s study prior to the research for this paper. For what is considered by today’s ethical standards as certainly questionable, and based on the information by Harris, that points out flaws in the results, methods, the inability for subsequent duplication of the experiment by others using Watson & Rayner’s methods, the entire study comes into question. For the use of their own methods to condition in the Watsonian paradigm, other psychologists have had poor results. However, as Harris (1979), points out, the experiments with “Little Albert” have prompted subsequent research. Similarly, when researching this story, I came across a UC PSYCH blog, which had an “April Fools” story (2009) about “Little Albert” leading led me to the Harris article, and from there, to DeAngelis (2010). So, I agree with Harris that the experiments with “Little Albert” should be acknowledged, even if not for the purposes of the results of the experiments, but for the subsequent research into learning and conditioning that followed.

Much as Karen Horney (1937) believed that strict adherence to Freudian orthodoxy would lead to stagnation, Watsonian adherence has demonstrated to lead to a somewhat mystical interpretation of their factual data in a scientific sense. With certain factual omissions about the pre-planned length of testing, objective analysis of results, and the concealed identity of “Little Albert,” only to be discovered eighty years hence with even more questions about the validity of the test as an actual representative of a typical child, inability of others to replicate the findings of Watson, and more ethical violations, the experiment with “Little Albert” continues to provide a multitude of questions.

So, what has happened to “Little Albert”? He has become an icon of the development of conditioning. Like a mythical figure, he has come in and out of fashion, only to reveal more questions with each appearance. In some sense he was a pawn in the development of behaviorism. But he was a real person. His identity now revealed, he will once again spark interest, allow us to look back through the mists of nearly a century, and learn about ourselves. But our studies should focus on our own delusion, this time. Not on fanciful aspirations, but on raw factual data.

Works Cited

Bregman, E. O. An attempt to modify the emotional attitudes of infants by the conditioned response technique. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1934 45, 169-198.

DeAngelis, T., “Little Albert Regains His Identity” Monitor On Psychology, January 2010, Vol 41, No. 1 Print version: page 10 http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/01/little-albert.aspx

Harris, Ben “What Happened To Little Albert” American Psychologist, February 1979, Vol. 34, No.2, 151-160 http://www.sussex.ac.uk/psychology/documents/harris_-1979.pdf

Horney, Karen The neurotic personality of our time. New York: W. W. Norton, 1937

Jones, M. C. The retention of conditioned emotional reactions in infancy. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1930, 37, 485-497.

Myers, David G., Psychology 8th Edition in Modules, New York: Worth Publishers 2007, Module 21-9

Thorndike, E. L. The psychology of wants, interests, and attitudes. New York: Appleton-Century, 1935.

Travis, John “Fear Not: Scientists are learning how people can unlearn fear” Science News, Volume 165, No. 3, January 17, 2004, p. 42. (Rapid Extinction) http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/fear_not.html

UCPSYCH Blog http://ucpsych.wordpress.com/ 2009

Valentine, C. W. The innate bases of fear. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1930, 37, 394-420.

Watson, J. B. Behaviorism. New York: Norton, 1924.

Watson, J. B. Psychological care of infant and child. New York: Norton, 1928. (a)

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1920, 3, 1-14

Watson, J. B., & Watson, R. R., Studies in infant psychology. Scientific Monthly, 1921, 13, 493-515.