Rat or rabbit, I don’t like it (Image: Courtesy of Ben Harris)

You’ll have heard of Pavlov’s dogs, conditioned to expect food at the sound of a bell. You might not have heard that a scarier experiment – arguably one of psychology’s most unethical – was once performed on a baby.

In it, a 9-month-old, at first unfazed by the presence of animals, was conditioned to feel fear at the sight of a rat. The infant was presented with the animal as someone struck a metal pole with a hammer above his head. This was repeated until he cried at merely the sight of any furry object – animate or inanimate.

Video: How a baby was trained to fear Advertisement

The “Little Albert” experiment, performed in 1919 by John Watson of Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, was the first to show that a human could be classically conditioned. The fate of Albert B has intrigued researchers ever since.

Hall Beck at the Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina, has been one of the most tenacious researchers on the case. Watson’s papers stated that Albert B was the son of a wet nurse who worked at the hospital. Beck spent seven years exploring potential candidates and used facial analysis to conclude in 2009 that Little Albert was Douglas Merritte, son of hospital employee Arvilla.

A life cut short

Douglas was born on the same day as Albert and several other points tallied with Watson’s notes. Tragically, medical records showed that Douglas had severe neurological problems and died at an early age of hydrocephalus, or water on the brain. According to his records, this seems to have resulted in vision problems, so much so that at times he was considered blind.

Beck and his colleagues reanalysed grainy video footage of Watson’s experiments, in which they claim Little Albert shows behavioural deficits that were “grossly abnormal”. These included being unusually uninterested in the animals when he was initially presented with them, and some kind of perception problem. They consulted with two clinicians, who suggested that Albert showed signs of neurological damage that fitted with Merritte’s medical records, discovered at a later date. Could Watson have known about this impairment and lied when he said that he had chosen Albert because he was a healthy, psychologically stable, baby?

If correct, “the significance of Beck’s revelation was that it indicated the scale and nature of the researcher’s dubious practices was far greater than previously supposed,” says Alex Haslam, a psychologist at the University of Exeter, UK.

But not everyone was won over. “When Beck claimed he had discovered Little Albert I was so excited,” says Russ Powell at MacEwan University in Alberta, Canada, “but then I started finding inconsistencies.”

All adding up

Powell and his colleagues decided to reinvestigate the case. They focused on another woman who had worked at the hospital – teenager Pearl Barger, who, they claim, Beck had discounted after finding no evidence that she’d had a baby while there.

Powell’s team uncovered new genealogical documentation, of a Pearl Barger, married and known as Pearl Martin. A US census later revealed that Pearl Martin had three children with her husband – however, one was delivered in 1919, before they married. That child’s name was William Albert Barger, but hospital records showed he went by his middle name. “Albert B,” says Powell, “it all added up.”

As well as the name, the team argue that there are more significant consistencies between Albert Barger and Little Albert than for Douglas Merritte and Little Albert. Although both boys were born on the same day as Albert B, Barger was much closer in weight and left hospital at exactly the same age.

But what of the neurological impairment seen in the videos? Having sought advice from researchers familiar with child behaviour, Powell argues that the infant’s behaviour on first encountering the animals was not in fact abnormal but consistent with Watson’s previous research that showed most infants are unafraid of animals they have never seen before. He also points out that Albert grasps a small marble in one video, which doesn’t tally with the visual impairment problems noted on Merritte’s medical records.

If correct, it means Watson actually did test a healthy, stable child as claimed.

The real Albert B?

Alan Fridlund at the University of Santa Barbara, who worked with Beck on his paper, stands by the original finding. “We sought two clinical experts to view Albert on film,” says Fridlund. He also argues that body weight is meaningless when stature isn’t considered, and that Albert’s short stature is consistent with hydrocephalus.

Fridlund says that Powell and his colleagues have made numerous errors in their medical interpretation. “Without the advice of external experts, they fell prey to frank confirmation bias,” he says. “In an upcoming paper we will clarify the evidence that excludes William Barger as the Albert candidate.”

Haslam is, for now, convinced by Powell’s interpretation: “The important point is not that Beck was probably wrong,” he says, “but that we were rushing in to confer pariah status on the already unfashionable Watson.”

But what of Albert Barger? He died in 2007 after a long, happy life, says his niece. She says the family had no idea he might be Little Albert, and that his mum had hidden the fact that he was born out of wedlock. She describes him as an intellectually curious person who would have been thrilled to know he had participated in this kind of experiment. Intriguingly, he had an aversion to animals – so much so that the family dogs had to be kept in a separate room when he visited – although she says this might have been because he once witnessing a dog killed in an accident.

“We will never be able to confirm nor deny the possibility that his aversion to animals could be, to some extent, the lingering effects of the condition procedure,” says Powell. “Perhaps a fittingly ambiguous outcome for a poorly design experiment conducted almost a century ago.” But, he adds, if Barger is indeed Little Albert, it does suggest Watson’s claim that his experiments would do relatively little harm in the long run was, thankfully, correct.

Journal references: Beck’s paper: American Psychologist, doi.org/b9bsvx

Powell’s paper: American Psychologist, doi.org/v2k