The Little Albert Experiment, conducted in 1920 by behaviorist psychologist John B. Watson and his associate Rosalie Rayner at Johns Hopkins University, was an experimental study designed to investigate classical conditioning processes in humans. This experiment was carried out to test whether emotional responses could be learned in human psychology and is considered one of the most controversial experiments in the history of psychology.

Aim of the Experiment

The primary aim of the experiment was to observe whether a fear response could be conditioned in an infant through classical conditioning. According to Watson, fundamental emotions like fear, anger, and love are innate, but the objects towards which these emotions are directed are learned behaviors. In this context, the experiment was designed based on the assumption that a fear response could be created by conditioning it to a neutral stimulus.

Execution of the Experiment

The experiment was conducted on "Albert," a male infant approximately nine months old. In the first phase of the experiment, Albert was shown various objects such as a white laboratory rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, and masks. No fear response was observed towards these objects initially.

In the second phase, while Albert was shown the white rat, a sudden and loud noise was created in the background by striking a metal bar with a hammer. This sound naturally elicited a fear reflex in the infant. This pairing was repeated several times. As a result, Albert began to show a fear response even when he only saw the white rat. In this case, the white rat had become a conditioned stimulus.

Conditioning and Generalization

In the later stages of the experiment, it was observed that Albert's fear response generalized not only to the white rat but also to objects of similar nature. The child exhibited similar fear responses when confronted with white and furry objects such as a rabbit, fur coats, cotton balls, and even a Santa Claus mask. This finding revealed that conditioned emotional responses can spread to other similar stimuli.

Criticisms and Ethical Discussions

The experiment has been criticized by scientific circles from various perspectives. Firstly, conducting it on only a single subject created methodological limitations regarding the generalizability of the experiment. Furthermore, the ethical aspect of the experiment has been seriously questioned. Albert was artificially conditioned to fear responses, but no effort was made to decondition these fears afterward. According to current ethical standards, such an application involves serious ethical violations due to the lack of informed consent and the risk of harming the child's psychological health.

Debates on Albert's Identity

A long time after the experiment was conducted, discussions arose about the true identity of the infant named "Albert." One group of researchers suggested that the child was an infant named Douglas Merritte and had neurological disorders, while some studies argued that he was a healthy child named William Barger. This situation further deepened the discussions regarding the ethical and scientific validity of the experiment.

Scientific Legacy of the Experiment

The Little Albert Experiment holds a significant place in the history of psychology because it experimentally demonstrated the validity of the classical conditioning principle in humans. As a result of the experiment's impact, the behaviorist approach gained momentum, and observable behaviors became central to psychological research. However, due to the ethical problems created by the experiment, the tightening of ethical rules for studies involving human subjects came to the forefront in later years, and modern research ethics principles were established.

^{An Image Representing the Little Albert Experiment. (Generated by Artificial Intelligence.)}