- Email: [email protected]
Psychology's ‘lost boy’ lost no more
Courtesy of Ben Harris
This week
Psychology’s ‘lost boy’ lost no more Helen Thomson
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 repeatedly presented with the rat as someone struck a metal pole with a hammer until he cried at merely the sight of any furry object. 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 10 | NewScientist | 4 October 2014
tenacious researchers on the case. Watson’s papers stated that Albert 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. 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 (American Psychologist, doi.org/b9bsvx). Beck and his colleagues reanalysed grainy video footage of Watson’s experiments, in which they claim Little Albert acts oddly during his initial encounters with the animals. Clinicians suggested that Albert showed signs of neurological damage that fitted with Merritte’s medical records. Could Watson have known about this impairment and lied when he
before marrying. A census later revealed that the child 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? Powell argues that the infant’s behaviour is not unusual for a child who has never seen an –Rat or rabbit, I don’t like it– animal before. If correct, it means Watson actually did test a healthy said that he had chosen Albert child as claimed (American because he was a healthy baby? Psychologist, doi.org/v2k). If correct, “the significance Alan Fridlund at the University of Beck’s revelation was that it of Santa Barbara, who worked indicated the scale and nature of with Beck on his paper, stands the researcher’s dubious practices by the original finding. “We was far greater than previously sought two clinical experts supposed,” says Alex Haslam, to view Albert on film,” says a psychologist at the University Fridlund. He also argues that of Exeter, UK. body weight is meaningless But not everyone was won when stature isn’t considered, over. “When Beck claimed he and that Albert’s stature is had discovered Little Albert I was consistent with hydrocephalus. so excited,” says Russ Powell at “The important point is not MacEwan University in Alberta, that Beck was probably wrong,” Canada, “but then I started counters Haslam, “but that finding inconsistencies.” we were rushing in to confer Powell and his colleagues pariah status on the already decided to reinvestigate the case. unfashionable Watson.” They focused on another woman What of Albert Barger? He died in 2007 after a happy life, says his “Albert lived a long, happy niece. She describes him as an life. He disliked animals intellectually curious person who but there is no way to link would have been thrilled to know that to the conditioning” he had participated in this kind of experiment. Intriguingly, he who had worked at the hospital – had an aversion to animals – the 16-year-old Pearl Martin, who, family dogs had to be kept in a they claim, Beck had discounted separate room when he visited. after finding no evidence that While it is impossible to link she’d had a baby while there. this to the experiments, says Having uncovered new Powell, if Barger was indeed Little documentation, Powell’s team Albert, it does suggest Watson’s found that Pearl Martin, whose claim that conditioning would do maiden name was Barger, had relatively little harm in the long given birth to a child in 1919 run was, thankfully, correct. n
This week
Psychology’s ‘lost boy’ lost no more Helen Thomson
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 repeatedly presented with the rat as someone struck a metal pole with a hammer until he cried at merely the sight of any furry object. 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 10 | NewScientist | 4 October 2014
tenacious researchers on the case. Watson’s papers stated that Albert 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. 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 (American Psychologist, doi.org/b9bsvx). Beck and his colleagues reanalysed grainy video footage of Watson’s experiments, in which they claim Little Albert acts oddly during his initial encounters with the animals. Clinicians suggested that Albert showed signs of neurological damage that fitted with Merritte’s medical records. Could Watson have known about this impairment and lied when he
before marrying. A census later revealed that the child 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? Powell argues that the infant’s behaviour is not unusual for a child who has never seen an –Rat or rabbit, I don’t like it– animal before. If correct, it means Watson actually did test a healthy said that he had chosen Albert child as claimed (American because he was a healthy baby? Psychologist, doi.org/v2k). If correct, “the significance Alan Fridlund at the University of Beck’s revelation was that it of Santa Barbara, who worked indicated the scale and nature of with Beck on his paper, stands the researcher’s dubious practices by the original finding. “We was far greater than previously sought two clinical experts supposed,” says Alex Haslam, to view Albert on film,” says a psychologist at the University Fridlund. He also argues that of Exeter, UK. body weight is meaningless But not everyone was won when stature isn’t considered, over. “When Beck claimed he and that Albert’s stature is had discovered Little Albert I was consistent with hydrocephalus. so excited,” says Russ Powell at “The important point is not MacEwan University in Alberta, that Beck was probably wrong,” Canada, “but then I started counters Haslam, “but that finding inconsistencies.” we were rushing in to confer Powell and his colleagues pariah status on the already decided to reinvestigate the case. unfashionable Watson.” They focused on another woman What of Albert Barger? He died in 2007 after a happy life, says his “Albert lived a long, happy niece. She describes him as an life. He disliked animals intellectually curious person who but there is no way to link would have been thrilled to know that to the conditioning” he had participated in this kind of experiment. Intriguingly, he who had worked at the hospital – had an aversion to animals – the 16-year-old Pearl Martin, who, family dogs had to be kept in a they claim, Beck had discounted separate room when he visited. after finding no evidence that While it is impossible to link she’d had a baby while there. this to the experiments, says Having uncovered new Powell, if Barger was indeed Little documentation, Powell’s team Albert, it does suggest Watson’s found that Pearl Martin, whose claim that conditioning would do maiden name was Barger, had relatively little harm in the long given birth to a child in 1919 run was, thankfully, correct. n