Introduction to Psychology
Popular Psychology

Back to the directoryFind in the timeline

Watson and Rayner's Little Albert study

Watson and Rayner paired a white rat with a loud noise for one infant and reported that his fear spread to similar objects. The paper reports no follow-up or removal of the fear, and the identity of Albert B. is disputed.

1920. Publication of Conditioned Emotional Reactions in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. The sessions took place earlier, when Albert was between about 9 and 13 months old. Chronology section: 1920 to 1949.

StudyDocumentedBehaviorism

Where it sits
Academic psychologyResearch published for other researchers and students.
Evidence level
DocumentedThe event or practice is documented by primary or authoritative sources.
Sources inspected
5 of 52 with the relevant text, company document or archive item checked, 3 as an abstract or reference article, 0 not verified.

What happened

In 1920 John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner published Conditioned Emotional Reactions in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. Their subject, Albert B., was reared almost from birth in a hospital, and his mother was a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home. At about nine months he showed no fear of a white rat, rabbit, dog, monkey, masks or burning newspapers. At 11 months, 3 days the rat was presented with a loud bar strike behind his head. Five more pairings followed a week later.

The psychological idea

The study asked whether a fear response could be conditioned in an infant. After seven pairings the rat alone made Albert cry and crawl away. Five days later the fear had spread to a rabbit, a dog, a seal fur coat and a Santa Claus mask, and cotton wool drew a weaker reaction. After 31 days, reactions to the mask, coat, rat, rabbit and dog persisted with some loss of intensity.

In practice

The paper reports no removal of the fear. The authors proposed four untested methods: repeated exposure, reconditioning through erogenous stimulation, reconditioning with food and imitation. Albert left the hospital on the day of the final tests, so none was tried. They suggested the responses would persist indefinitely unless an accidental method removed them, and called that view possibly not very well grounded. It is a prediction, not an observation.

Why it mattered

The historian José María Gondra describes the experiment as the first experimental proof of Watson's theory. Any account of a lifelong phobia, or of a later observed follow-up, goes beyond the paper, which reports nothing after the final tests at one year and 21 days.

Limits and qualifications

The sample is one infant. Beck, Levinson and Irons proposed in 2009 that Albert was Douglas Merritte, who died at six. Powell and colleagues argued in 2014 that Albert Barger fits better. Barger died in 2007 aged 87, and his niece recalled a mild dislike of animals, with no known cause. Fridlund and colleagues alleged in 2012 that Merritte was neurologically impaired. The textbook OpenStax calls the study unethical by today's standards, which is a present-day judgment.

Evidence behind the claims

  • Watson and Rayner's Conditioned Emotional Reactions (Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1920) studied Albert B., raised almost from birth in a hospital, whose mother was a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home; at about nine months he showed no fear of a white rat, rabbit, dog, monkey, masks, cotton wool or burning newspapers.

    DocumentedSource: [1]Where: Subject and baseline emotional testsChecked at page level

  • At 11 months 3 days the rat was presented with a bar struck behind Albert (2 pairings); at 11 months 10 days 5 more pairings made 7 in all; the rat alone then produced crying and crawling away.

    Experimental findingSource: [1]Where: Conditioning sessionsChecked at page level

  • At 11 months 15 days the reaction extended to a rabbit, dog, seal fur coat and Santa Claus mask, with cotton wool producing a weaker reaction; after 31 days (1 year 21 days) reactions to the mask, coat, rat, rabbit and dog persisted with some loss of intensity.

    Experimental findingSource: [1]Where: Transfer and retest sectionsChecked at page level

  • The authors proposed four untested removal methods (habituation, reconditioning with erogenous stimulation, reconditioning with food, imitation); Albert left the hospital on the day of the 1 year 21 days tests so none was carried out; they suggested the responses were likely to persist indefinitely unless an accidental method removed them, and called this view possibly not very well grounded. The paper reports no observation after that day.

    DocumentedSource: [1]Where: Section IV, removal of conditioned responsesChecked at page level

  • Beck, Levinson and Irons (2009) proposed that Little Albert was Douglas Merritte; Fridlund, Beck, Goldie and Irons (2012) alleged Douglas was neurologically impaired; Powell, Digdon, Smithson and Harris (2014) argue that Albert Barger fits the characteristics better. The BPS Research Digest reports that Merritte died at age six of hydrocephalus, that Barger died in 2007 at age 87, and that Barger's niece recalls a mild dislike of animals whose cause is not known.

    ContestedSources: [2] [3]Where: Abstract (American Psychologist 69, 600 to 611); digest sections on the two identity claimsChecked at page level

  • Gondra describes the Little Albert experiment, made public in February 1920, as the first experimental proof of Watson's theory.

    InterpretationSource: [4]Where: Journal page 17Checked at page level

  • OpenStax Psychology 2e describes Watson and Rayner's work on Little Albert, his fear of other furry things including a Santa Claus mask, and says it would be considered unethical by today's standards.

    InterpretationSource: [5]Where: Section 6.2, Little Albert passageChecked at page level

People involved

  • John B. Watson. Lead author, professor at Johns Hopkins University
  • Rosalie Rayner. Co-author and Watson's research assistant
  • Albert B.. Infant subject, identity disputed

In the Psy101 course

This is course relevance only. It is not evidence for the historical or corporate claims on this page.See the full course map.

Sources and inspection

5 of 5 sources were opened and read at the level shown. A source marked as not verified supports no claim on this page by itself.

  1. [1]
    Conditioned Emotional ReactionsWatson, J. B.; Rayner, R.. Journal of Experimental Psychology 3(1), 1-14; Classics in the History of Psychology, York University, 1920. Journal article. Primary source.Relevant text checkedOpened the Classics page. The fetch tool returned a detailed passage-by-passage account of the subject, baseline tests, conditioning sessions, transfer tests, the 31-day retest, the removal proposals and the speculation, with short quotations. The paper was not read line by line.
  2. [2]
    Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as psychology's lost boyPowell, R. A.; Digdon, N.; Smithson, C.; Harris, B.. American Psychologist 69, 600-611; MacEwan University repository record, 2014. Journal article. Critique or replication.Abstract or publisher record onlyRead the MacEwan repository record with the abstract and metadata only. The PDF was not opened, so the authors' findings on later fear of animals and on neurological impairment are not reported.
  3. [3]
    Little Albert, one of the most famous research participants in psychology's history: who was he?British Psychological Society Research Digest. BPS Research Digest, 2014. News report. Secondary account.Reference article readRead the research digest as returned by the fetch tool: Merritte and Barger, their deaths, the niece's recollection and the digest's comment that a link to the experiment cannot be confirmed. It identifies no specific popular embellishments.
  4. [4]
    Behaviorist, publicist and social critic: the evolution of John B. WatsonGondra, J. M.. Revista de Historia de la Psicologia, 35(1), 13-36, 2014. Journal article. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedRead journal pages 15 to 18 of the PDF as page images; page 17 describes the February 1920 publication of the experiment as the first experimental proof of Watson's theory.
  5. [5]
    Classical Conditioning, Psychology 2e, section 6.2OpenStax. OpenStax, Undated. Reference work. Secondary account.Reference article readRead the OpenStax section as returned by the fetch tool: the passage on Watson, Rayner and Little Albert, the furry-objects generalization and the statement that it would be unethical by today's standards. It is a course map, not historical evidence.

Access note: Beck, Levinson and Irons (2009) was not opened, and the Powell paper was read only as an abstract. The sources opened do not themselves list popular embellishments; the record states only what the paper does and does not report.

Independent source review: Claude review agent, independent of the research agent, 2026-10-21. Verdict: pass-with-edits.