The Little Albert Experiment: A Violation of Ethics on an Infant and Early Psychology

Written by Crystal Kong and Chloe Cherng, Code Of Cures Founders

Image from John B. Watson’s Little Albert Experiment

---

The Little Albert study, conducted in 1920 by psychologist John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner, explored how human emotions could be conditioned in infants–the concept of emotional conditioning. The study aimed to determine whether a stimulus that had a neutral reaction–such as a white rat–could evoke fear in a child when paired with a loud, frightening sound. They conducted this experiment on an infant known as “Little Albert,” who 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 participation. Initially, Little Albert showed no fear of the rat. However, after repeated trials, he began to associate the rat with fear from the loud noise. Eventually, he began to fear the rat even without the noise. This fear further expanded towards other soft, white objects through generalization—even fearing a Santa Claus mask. Ultimately, the experiment’s results concluded that emotional responses could be learned and shaped modern theories on behavior. However, its legacy violated many ethical principles. 

Ethical Issues

This experiment was conducted in 1920, before formal ethical guidelines were established to conduct human psychology experiments, resulting in various ethical issues when judged by today’s standards. 

1. Autonomy: Albert’s mother was not fully informed about the study’s aims and was unaware that her child would be deliberately exposed to harm. Thus, she did not provide informed consent. 

2. Non-maleficence: Watson and Rayner intentionally induced fear in an infant. Albert’s visible distress, of crying and withdrawal, indicates that the procedure caused clear psychological harm. 

3. Beneficience: The researchers ended the study without attempting to decondition the fear. They neglected the duty to minimize harm and promote the participant’s well-being. 

4. Justice: Albert, an infant from a lower socioeconomic background, was used because of a power imbalance and accessibility, highlighting the unethical exploitation of a vulnerable population.

Conclusion

The mystery surrounding what happened to Little Alvert after the experiment only deepened the ethical concerns raised by the study. Because the researchers failed to document Albert’s long-term outcomes to attempt to reverse the fear they induced, the child’s psychological well-being was not prioritized. This underscores why ethical guidelines are essential in human research: they exist to protect participants from harm, ensure accountability, and prioritize human dignity. The Little Albert experiment serves as a lasting reminder that scientific progress without ethical guidelines can leave irreversible consequences–especially for vulnerable populations. 

---

Works Cited

DeAngelis, T. “Mystery Solved: We Now Know What Happened to Little Albert.” American Psychological Association, Jan. 2010, p. 10, www.apa.org/monitor/2010/01/little-albert.

Dillon, Ronna F. “Little Albert Study | EBSCO.” EBSCO Information Services, Inc. | Www.ebsco.com, 2024, www.ebsco.com/research-starters/psychology/little-albert-study.