“Little Albert,” the baby behind John Watson's famous 1920 emotional conditioning experiment at Johns Hopkins University, has been identified as Douglas Merritte, the son of a wetnurse named Arvilla Merritte who lived and worked at a campus hospital at the time of the experiment — receiving $1 for her baby's ...
This Albert was not brain-damaged and was easy-going, though (likely coincidentally, given how Albert's fears would diminish between sessions) he had an aversion to dogs! Albert died in 2007, without ever knowing of his early life in a hospital residence, or of his apparent part in psychology's history.
The story does not have a happy ending, however. Douglas died at the age of six on May 10, 1925, of hydrocephalus (a build-up of fluid in his brain), which he had suffered from since birth. "Our search of seven years was longer than the little boy's life," Beck wrote of the discovery. In 2012, Beck and Alan J.
Watson's and Rosalie Rayner's famous 1920 emotion-conditioning investigation at Johns Hopkins University—may not have been the "healthy," "normal" boy Watson touted, but a neurologically impaired child who suffered from congenital hydrocephalus.
The Little Albert experiment was a controversial psychology experiment conducted by John B. Watson and his graduate student, Rosalie Rayner, at Johns Hopkins University.
“Little Albert,” the baby behind John Watson's famous 1920 emotional conditioning experiment at Johns Hopkins University, has been identified as Douglas Merritte, the son of a wetnurse named Arvilla Merritte who lived and worked at a campus hospital at the time of the experiment — receiving $1 for her baby's ...
The researchers failed to decondition Albert to the stimuli he was afraid of, which should have been done after the experiment. Albert ended up passing away at the age of six due to hydrocephalus, a condition that can lead to brain damage. Despite knowing the child's health condition, Watson continued the experiment.
“Little Albert” was the son of a wet nurse by the name Arvilla Merritte who worked at the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. Because of this, much of Albert's infancy was spent in Johns Hopkins Hospital with his mother.
The Little Albert Experiment
According to what Watson said in his notes, the boy was the son of an orphanage's nurse. He was chosen for the experiment due to his calm and somewhat indifferent character and response to external stimuli.
The study had only one subject. The study has never been replicated.
Arvilla Merritte was a 22-year-old Caucasian. On 9 March 1919, she delivered a boy ('Baby Merritte') on the Hopkins campus (Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 1919). The father was listed as William Merritte.
Answer and Explanation: The Little Albert Experiment demonstrates a violation of the principle of beneficence and nonmaleficence in American Psychological Association Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct. This principle states that psychologists strive to benefit others in their work, and to do no harm.
Gibson and Richard D. Walk (1960) investigated the ability of newborn animals and human infants to detect depth. Gibson and Walk tested whether youngsters would crawl over an apparent cliff – if the neonates did it could be assumed that the ability to see depth was not inborn.
Much similar to the experiment involving Pavlov's dogs, John B Watson performed an experiment in 1913 in which classical conditioning was put to the test. The experiment involved a 9- month old infant orphan boy, named Albert, and several items used as stimuli.
This was an opportunity sample. At 9 months, Albert was tested with a white rat, a rabbit, cotton wool and other stimuli to see if he had a fear reaction. He didn't; this shows these were Neutral Stimuli (NS). The researchers also checked his fear response by banging an iron bar.
Experiment set-up
To do so, Tryon created an experiment that tested the proficiency of successive generations of rats in completing a maze. He initiated the experiment by exposing a genetically diverse group of rats to the maze, labeling those who made the fewest errors “bright”, and those with the most errors “dull”.
Known as the Little Albert study, it is typically presented as evidence for the role of classical conditioning in fear development. Some critics, however, have noted deficiencies in the study that suggest that little or no fear conditioning actually occurred.
Watson and Rayner did not develop an object means to evaluate Albert's reactions, instead relying on their own subjective interpretations. Secondly, the experiment also raises many ethical concerns. The Little Albert experiment could not be conducted by today's standards because it would be unethical.
In conclusion, Watson and Rayner concluded that their hypothesis was correct, and they could condition “little Albert” to fear something irrational. Although their experiment was riddled with third variables such as age and mental ability.
Identify the major flaw with John B. Watson's Little Albert experiment. ANSWER : It is unethical for a researcher to induce fear in a child, since it is harmful to induce fear.
Therefore: In the experiment, the White Rat was previously a Neutral Stimulus that turned into the Conditioned Stimulus. It is NOT an Unconditioned Stimulus because it did not initially cause Little Albert to cry, as he was not afraid of it.
Answer and Explanation: While the Little Albert experiment did fail to meet various standards of the current ethical standards of scientific study, it did not involve any deception, as far as the study's report suggests. The most unethical part of the study is the fear conditioning procedure.
Today, Watsons experiment would be deemed completely unethical according to the guidelines mentioned in the National Statement of Ethical conduct. The most concerning breach would be that the experiment exposed Albert to psychological harm, as the aim of the experiment was to induce a fear reaction.
Watson and Rosalie Rayner's (1920) famous conditioning study, was Douglas Merritte (1919-1925). Following the finding that Merritte died early with hydrocephalus, questions arose as to whether Douglas's condition was congenital, rather than acquired in 1922, as cited on his death certificate.
What happened after "Little Albert" was classically conditioned to fear a tame white rat? Stimulus generalization occurred; Albert responded with fear to other furry animals and fuzzy objects.