The Heartbreaking Fate Of ‘Little Albert’, Child Subject Of Historic Study Died At Just Six

The baby at the heart of one of psychology’s most debated experiments—now known as “medical misogyny”—was little Albert. This child, who tragically died just six years after the experiment that instilled a fear of anything furry in him, remained largely unknown for many years.

In the 1890s, Russian neurologist Ivan Pavlov discovered that dogs displayed conditioned learning, or conditioned reflex, by salivating at the sound of a bell, which they had learned to associate with food.

The groundbreaking findings of this Nobel Prize laureate were so significant that they played a crucial role in the emergence of behaviorism, a theory that posits “all behaviors are learned through conditioning processes,” as noted by Verywell Mind.

To put it simply, “It all boils down to the learning patterns we’ve developed through associations, rewards, and punishments. This perspective suggests that our environment influences our actions more than our thoughts and emotions do.”

Baby Experiment

John B. Watson, recognized as the founder of behaviorism, drew inspiration from Pavlov’s research and chose to examine conditioned reflexes, or fear responses, on a 9-month-old baby in 1920.

“He was healthy from birth and one of the best developed youngsters ever brought to the hospital, weighing twenty-one pounds at nine months of age,” Watson and his research partner, Rosalie Rayner, noted about Little Albert, whose mother worked as a wet nurse. “He was generally calm and unemotional. His steadiness was one of the main reasons for selecting him as a subject for this experiment. We believed that we could inflict relatively little harm by conducting such tests.”

Feared Santa

The duo was gearing up for a science-themed horror show.

At first, Albert showed playful curiosity towards gentle animals like the white rat and a rabbit.

“At no point did this infant ever exhibit fear in any circumstance,” Watson, who passed away at 80 in 1958, wrote. “No one had ever witnessed him in a state of fear or anger. The infant almost never cried.”

The twist was that each time Albert reached for the rat, the room erupted with the sound of a hammer striking a steel pipe. The baby recoiled, cried out, and flinched.

This is in loving remembrance of Douglas Merritte who was my little Albert in the "Little Albert Experiment".Thank you for your greatness! pic.twitter.com/FvEBFghJhr

— John B. Watson (@John_B_Watsonnn) September 21, 2016

After several attempts, the child’s cheerful demeanor shifted to pure fear, causing him or her to shy away from anything resembling furry creatures, such as Santa Claus’ fluffy white beard, a dog, a rabbit, or a wool coat.

This situation exemplified Pavlovian conditioning, but instead of drooling dogs, the doctors were faced with a frightened infant.

“Watson presented [the Albert study] as evidence for his theory that all our emotional reactions in adulthood stem from three basic responses – fear, rage, and love,” explained Dr. Alan Fridlund, a social and clinical psychologist at UC Santa Barbara.

However, behind the scenes, a storm was brewing.

Study gets complicated

Little Albert was not in a position to give his consent. He was just a baby.

Moreover, Watson kept the baby’s mother unaware of how distressing the testing would be. She pulled Albert from the study once she finally understood the reality, and despite Watson and Rayner’s promises to reverse the damage and “decondition” him, they never followed through.

Baby’s identity uncovered

For many years, Little Albert’s true identity remained a mystery since Watson never documented his name.

However, a determined group of psychologists embarked on a quest for the truth in 2009. They concluded that Little Albert was likely Douglas Merritte, the son of a wet nurse at Johns Hopkins hospital, using facial recognition technology and medical records.

They uncovered the heartbreaking news that Douglas had died from hydrocephalus, a condition where fluid builds up in the brain, six years after the experiment.

Long before Watson had placed him in front of the white rat, baby Douglas had suffered from meningitis and exhibited signs of developmental issues.

“He has a very large head, and he’s quite pudgy and short, but the head is still big for a pudgy, short infant,” Fridlund remarked to How Stuff Works regarding the evident health challenges the baby was facing.

Next, when discussing moments from the film that captures the experiment, the doctor remarked, “The second observation was how unusual his behavior was. Throughout the entire film – in which Albert is featured for about four minutes – there isn’t a single social smile from Albert. Not one.”

Additionally, he states, “Not once in the film, even when an Airdale is brought in that’s playfully running around, when burning paper is shown, or when a monkey is seen frolicking on a leash – and despite having a steel bar struck with a hammer 14 times behind his back – Albert never turns to either Watson or Rayner for reassurance. If infants sense that the stimulus is threatening, they usually move towards a caretaker.

Imperfect basis

The Little Albert experiment left a significant mark, even though the science behind it was questionable and the ethics were shocking.

Over the years, Watson’s account of the experiment grew increasingly vague, yet he persisted in building his career on bold claims regarding human behavior.

Nonetheless, many individuals today think that the Little Albert study rested on a flawed foundation, possibly even exploiting the distress of a child with a neurological condition.

“Dr. Fridlund stated in an article for the American Psychological Association, ‘The Little Albert study, due to Watson and Rayner’s attempt to condition fear in an infant without ensuring his well-being post-discharge, has always raised fundamental questions about experimental ethics. However, it now compels us to address even more troubling matters such as medical misogyny, the safeguarding of the disabled, and the potential for scientific fraud. This is a lesson that all psychologists should take to heart.'”

Douglas Merritte, commonly referred to as Little Albert, was not just a subject of a scientific study. He was a real child, and his short life serves as a poignant reminder that compassion should always take precedence over the pursuit of knowledge.