![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.historydefined.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/43EC20AB00000578-0-image-a-17_1504600346399.jpg\")
What Was the Little Albert Experiment?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nIn 1920, psychologists John Watson and Rosalie Rayner wanted to test if humans could be classically conditioned to react negatively to objects that posed no threat. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This was an extension of Ivan Pavlov\u2019s famous experiment on conditioning responses in dogs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the original experiment, Pavlov would ring a bell just before it was time for the dogs to feed. After doing this repeatedly, the dogs learned to associate the sound of the bell with being fed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
That is, they were conditioned to associate one stimulus with another. Pavlov found that once he established an association, he could remove one stimulus, the food, and the dogs would still salivate at the sound of a bell as if expecting to be fed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Watson and Rayner wanted to see if they could train a human to elicit the same type of response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conducting the Experiment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
To begin, Watson and Rayner presented Albert with a series of animals. They used fuzzy, innocent-looking animals like a monkey, a rabbit, and a white mouse. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Albert showed no fear at first and was even curious enough to reach out and pet some of them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But in the second phase of the experiment, the researchers would take out a hammer and bang it repeatedly against a metal pipe as Albert interacted with each animal. Once the banging started, Albert\u2019s reaction changed completely. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
With the din of the hammer invading his ears, little Albert began to cry whenever he saw those same fluffy animals, even after the banging had stopped. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
He had learned to associate the loud sound of the hammer with fluffy animals. In fact, he had learned so well that he became afraid of other fluffy things, including a Santa Beard and his own family\u2019s dogs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Why The Little Albert Experiment Was So Unethical<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\nIn the first couple of decades of the 20th century, the ethical guidelines for psychology experiments were different than they are today. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Today, it\u2019s easy to see that deliberately scaring an infant isn\u2019t exactly responsible science. But Watson and Rayner didn\u2019t seem to appreciate the potential for harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For one thing, they noted that the boy they chose, Albert, was \u201con the whole stolid and unemotional.\u201d Because of his calm demeanor, they believed they \u201ccould do him relatively little harm by carrying out such experiments.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Beyond the ethical issues with the experiment, there were also problems with its design. For one thing, the psychologists failed to use a control subject. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nor did they use an objective way of measuring Albert\u2019s reactions. Instead, they watched as the child \u201cburst into tears\u201d or crawled away from the objects and took that as proof that Albert had developed a phobia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Second, some critics point out that Albert may not have developed a true phobia at all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the experiment, when Albert sucked his thumb, he didn\u2019t show a fear of loud noises. At times, Watson had to try the experiment repeatedly before Albert finally took his thumb out of his mouth and showed the fear response Watson was looking for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What Happened to Poor Little Albert?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
In the first couple of decades of the 20th century, the ethical guidelines for psychology experiments were different than they are today. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Today, it\u2019s easy to see that deliberately scaring an infant isn\u2019t exactly responsible science. But Watson and Rayner didn\u2019t seem to appreciate the potential for harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For one thing, they noted that the boy they chose, Albert, was \u201con the whole stolid and unemotional.\u201d Because of his calm demeanor, they believed they \u201ccould do him relatively little harm by carrying out such experiments.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Beyond the ethical issues with the experiment, there were also problems with its design. For one thing, the psychologists failed to use a control subject. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nor did they use an objective way of measuring Albert\u2019s reactions. Instead, they watched as the child \u201cburst into tears\u201d or crawled away from the objects and took that as proof that Albert had developed a phobia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Second, some critics point out that Albert may not have developed a true phobia at all. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the experiment, when Albert sucked his thumb, he didn\u2019t show a fear of loud noises. At times, Watson had to try the experiment repeatedly before Albert finally took his thumb out of his mouth and showed the fear response Watson was looking for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n