ABSTRACT
In 2012, we (Fridlund, Beck, Goldie, & Irons, 2012) suggested that a neurologically impaired infant, Douglas Merritte, was the likeliest candidate for John B. Watson's "Albert B." In advancing the case for their alternative candidate, Albert Barger, Harris (2020) and Digdon (2020) both pronounce the Merritte case moribund. Prof. Digdon attributes our differing conclusions to logical error, selective reporting, and "confirmation bias" throughout our research. Prof. Harris goes further, (a) accusing us of withholding evidence, (b) alleging that we charged Watson unjustly with malpractice and preying on a helpless victim, (c) likening our research to that of "many popular accounts" in the history of psychology "that exist beyond the reach of traditional peer review", (d) explaining the publication of our results as failures of peer review and the editorial process, and (e) attributing interest in our findings to gullible media and a guilty readership. We present data which show that the evidential claims Profs. Digdon and Harris advance against the Merritte case are incautious and expedient, and that their criticisms of our methods and allegations of bias arise from problems with their own scholarship. Contrary to their narratives, the neurologically impaired Douglas Merritte remains the closest fit to Watson's "extremely phlegmatic" Albert. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
ABSTRACT
Evidence collected by Beck, Levinson, and Irons (2009) indicates that Albert B., the "lost" infant subject of John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner's (1920) famous conditioning study, was Douglas Merritte (1919-1925). Following the finding that Merritte died early with hydrocephalus, questions arose as to whether Douglas's condition was congenital, rather than acquired in 1922, as cited on his death certificate. This etiology would imply that "Little Albert" was not the "healthy" and "normal" infant described by Watson and numerous secondary sources. Detailed analyses of Watson's (1923) film footage of Albert suggested substantial behavioral and neurological deficits. The anomalies we observed on film of Albert B. are insufficiently explained by his hospital upbringing but are consistent with findings from newly discovered medical records of Douglas Merritte. These documents revealed that the infant suffered from congenital obstructive hydrocephalus, iatrogenic streptococcal meningitis/ventriculitis, and retinal and optic nerve atrophy. The medical history also indicates that Albert's sessions with Watson occurred during periods when Douglas's clinical course was relatively stable. Further inquiries found ample sources of information available to Watson that would have made him aware of Douglas/Albert's medical condition at the times he tested the baby. Experimental ethics, Watson's legacy, and the Albert study are discussed in light of these new findings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
ABSTRACT
In 1920, John Watson and Rosalie Rayner claimed to have conditioned a baby boy, Albert, to fear a laboratory rat. In subsequent tests, they reported that the child's fear generalized to other furry objects. After the last testing session, Albert disappeared, creating one of the greatest mysteries in the history of psychology. This article summarizes the authors' efforts to determine Albert's identity and fate. Examinations of Watson's personal correspondence, scientific production (books, journal articles, film), and public documents (national census data, state birth and death records) suggested that an employee at the Harriet Lane Home was Albert's mother. Contact with the woman's descendents led the authors to the individual they believe to be "Little Albert."
