top of page

Is Fear Learned? Little Albert Experiment


In 1920, a behavioral psychologist called John B Watson performed an experiment with his student, Rosalie Rayner, that came to be known as one of the most controversial experiments done. This experiment had the goal of testing out the principles of Ivan Pavlov’s classical conditioning, and whether fear was something that could arise as a result of conditioning.

Pavlov’s dog studies showed the effects of classical conditioning on animals. Watson wanted to understand if it worked the same on humans, with regard to fear. Watson used a nine month old baby Little Albert (with the permission of his mother) as the subject for the study. The baby was tested on his reactions to certain stimuli. The experiment began with Little Albert being shown different masks, a white rat, a rat, a dog, a monkey, etc. which he showed no emotion towards. Watson then banged a hammer against a steel wall behind the baby’s head, causing him to cry uncontrollably in fear. This loud noise was then used to create conditioning in Little Albert. He was presented with the loud noise right after being shown a white rat. This was done repeatedly (around 7 times). As a result, little Albert would start to cry right when seeing the white rat, even though prior to the conditioning he had no response to it being presented to him. However, paired with the loud noise, Albert had learnt to associate the noise with the rat and developed a fear of it. This fear was then generalized to other furry things (like a Santa clause mask, a dog, a rabbit, fur coat, etc) in different trials. He additional single trials with the rabbit, one with the dog, which was confounded because the dog began to bark at him. 10 days after the initial trial, Albert received another trial to the same rat. While his response of crying was not consistent when seeing the rat, he would crawl away or fall over to the side to avoid the rat. 31 days after the trial, his reaction was tested again. This time, his response to the rat was slightly cautious but not fear based. He did not cry, or crawl away.


Despite the experiment being considered wildly unethical, the results of it proved that humans could be conditioned to develop a phobia. It also showed that fear has a huge impact on the personality development of children.

The reason this experiment was considered unethical was because of the large alteration to Little Albert’s psyche, that could not be consented by him because of his age. An experiment like this would never be approved today because of the intensity of distress inflicted upon him. The study also lacked informed consent of the mother. She was unaware of the extent of the emotional consequences of it. Additionally, the long-term consequences of the experiment on Little Albert remain unknown. The absence of a follow up study to assess the child's psychological well being is also something that was missing. Watson and Rayner did not decondition Little Albert and therefore, the induced fear that he probably grew up with could be very harmful to him, which is why it’s extremely unethical.



Who was Little Albert?


Little Albert’s identity was revealed to be Douglas Merritte, the son of nurse Arvilla Merritte, who worked at the campus hospital and received $1 for the experiment. Unfortunately, Douglas passed away at the age of 6, so the effects of the experiment will never properly be known.



What have we learned from the little Albert experiment?



This experiment has shown us that fear can be learned through association, and it is possible to invoke emotional responses and induce fear. This learned fear to certain stimuli can also be generalized to others. Human behavior is malleable and can be manipulated. However, an important lesson is how unethical the nature of experiments is, that manipulate human behavior in this manner.


Comments


bottom of page