What Happened To Little Albert? Regain Of His Identity

“Little Albert,” the infant from John Watson’s famous 1920 emotional conditioning experiment, has been identified as Douglas Merritte, the son of a wet nurse at Johns Hopkins University. Arvilla Merritte, his mother, received $1 for her baby’s participation.

The experiment, which conditioned Albert to fear a white rat through loud noises, became iconic in psychology.

Later research revealed that Douglas had neurological impairments, raising ethical concerns about his involvement and highlighting the questionable practices of the time.

In John Watson and Rosalie Rayner’s 1920 study, they exposed 9-month-old “Albert B” to a white rat and other furry objects, which he initially enjoyed.

However, during the conditioning phase, every time Albert played with the rat, Watson made a loud noise behind him.

After several trials, Albert began associating the furry objects with fear. When the animals and items were later reintroduced without the noise, they no longer brought joy but instead triggered fear, demonstrating the effects of emotional conditioning.

John Watson never revealed “Little Albert’s” true identity and did not de-condition the child after the experiment.

Around the same time, Watson was dismissed from Johns Hopkins University due to an affair with his colleague, Rosalie Rayner.

Since then, the fate and identity of Little Albert remained a mystery, sparking curiosity among psychology scholars.

Appalachian State University psychologist Hall P. Beck, PhD, led a seven-year investigation with a team, examining historical records, consulting facial recognition experts, and meeting with the boy’s relatives in an effort to uncover the truth.

Eventually, the puzzle was solved when key details about Douglas Merritte and his mother aligned with what was known about “Little Albert” and his mother. Both mothers worked at the Harriet Lane Home, a pediatric hospital on the Johns Hopkins campus.

Douglas, like Albert, was a white male who left the hospital in the early 1920s and was born around the same time.

Additionally, a comparison between a picture of Albert and Douglas’ portrait revealed striking facial similarities, confirming Douglas as “Little Albert.”

Sadly, the research team discovered that Douglas Merritte died at age 6 from acquired hydrocephalus, and they were unable to determine if his fear of furry objects persisted after leaving Johns Hopkins.

The team, including Sharman Levinson, PhD, and Gary Irons, Douglas’ grandson, published their findings in American Psychologist (Vol. 64, No. 7).

Their work not only solved a long-standing mystery but also highlighted the growing interest in the lives of research participants.

Cathy Faye from the Archives of the History of American Psychology noted that such participants, especially in controversial studies, have become “unwitting protagonists,” sparking curiosity about their identities and experiences.

Hall P. Beck is pleased that his students were able to answer some of the lingering questions surrounding “Little Albert,” but he believes the true reward lies in the valuable experience they gained through the research process.

By engaging deeply in historical investigation, collaboration, and critical thinking, the students developed important skills that extend beyond solving the mystery.

“The search took them beyond the memorization of their lectures and textbooks, and for the first time, into the creative world of psychological research,” he says. “In the end, that was even more important to them than finding Albert.”