Watson and Rayner

The primary aim of Watson and Rayner's 1920 Little Albert study

To demonstrate that complex human emotional responses, such as phobias, can be successfully created using classical conditioning.

The baseline screening results for Little Albert

At nine months old, Albert showed no baseline fear toward a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, or cotton wool, but cried at a loud steel bar strike.

The conditioning procedure used on Little Albert

At eleven months old, every time Albert reached for the white rat (NS), researchers struck a steel bar (UCS) right behind him.

The specific schedule of pairings used on Little Albert

A total of seven pairings of the white rat and the loud sound completed across multiple structured testing sessions.

The immediate behavioral results of the conditioning on Little Albert

The white rat alone became a conditioned stimulus (CS), instantly triggering intense crying, screaming, and crawling away.

The findings regarding stimulus generalization in Little Albert

Albert exhibited a conditioned fear response toward structurally similar white furry objects including a rabbit, a dog, and a Santa mask.

One methodological limitation of Watson and Rayner (1920)

Single-subject case design lacks population generalizability because Albert's personal neurological responses may not represent all infants.

Ethical violations in Watson and Rayner (1920)

The researchers deliberately created a lasting psychological phobia, caused severe distress, and failed to recondition or extinguish his fear.