Experimental work had been done so far on only one child, Albert B. This infant was reared almost from birth in a hospital environment; his mother was a wet nurse in the Harriet Lane Home for Invalid Children. Albert's life was normal: he was healthy from birth and one of the best developed youngsters ever brought to the hospital, weighing twenty-one pounds at nine months of age. He was on the whole stolid and unemotional. His stability was one of the principal reasons for using him as a subject in this test. We [p.2] felt that we could do him relatively little harm by carrying out such experiments as those outlined below.
At approximately nine months of age we ran him through the emotional tests that have become a part of our regular routine in determining whether fear reactions can be called out by other stimuli than sharp noises and the sudden removal of support. Tests of this type have been described by the senior author in another place.[2] In brief, the infant was confronted suddenly and for the first time successively with a white rat, a rabbit, a dog, a monkey, with masks with and without hair, cotton wool, burning newspapers, etc. A permanent record of Albert's reactions to these objects and situations has been preserved in a motion picture study. Manipulation was the most usual reaction called out. At no time did this infant ever show fear in any situation. These experimental records were confirmed by the casual observations of the mother and hospital attendants. No one had ever seen him in a state of fear and rage. The infant practically never cried.
Up to approximately nine months of age we had not tested him with loud sounds. The test to determine whether a fear reaction could be called out by a loud sound was made when he was eight months, twenty-six days of age. The sound was that made by striking a hammer upon a suspended steel bar four feet in length and three-fourths of an inch in diameter. The laboratory notes are as follows:
One of the two experimenters caused the child to turn its head and fixate her moving hand ; the other stationed back of the child, struck the steel bar a sharp blow. The child started violently, his breathing was checked and the arms were raised in a characteristic manner. On the second stimulation the same thing occurred, and in addition the lips began to pucker and tremble. On the third stimulation the child broke into a sudden crying fit. This is the first time an emotional situation in the laboratory has produced any fear or even crying in Albert.
[p.3] We had expected just these results on account of our work with other infants brought up under similar conditions. It is worth while to call attention to the fact that removal of support (dropping and jerking the blanket upon which the infant was lying) was tried exhaustively upon this infant on the same occasion. It was not effective in producing the fear response. This stimulus is effective in younger children. At what age such stimuli lose their potency in producing fear is not known. Nor is it known whether less placid children ever lose their fear of them. This probably depends upon the training the child gets. It is well known that children eagerly run to be tossed into the air and caught. On the other hand it is equally well known that in the adult fear responses are called out quite clearly by the sudden removal of support, if the individual is walking across a bridge, walking out upon a beam, etc. There is a wide field of study here which is aside from our present point.
The sound stimulus, thus, at nine months of age, gives us the means of testing several important factors. I. Can we condition fear of an animal, e.g., a white rat, by visually presenting it and simultaneously striking a steel bar? II. If such a conditioned emotional response can be established, will there be a transfer to other animals or other objects? III. What is the effect of time upon such conditioned emotional responses? IV. If after a reasonable period such emotional responses have not died out, what laboratory methods can be devised for their removal?
I. The establishment of conditioned emotional responses.
At first there was considerable hesitation upon our part in making the attempt to set up fear reactions experimentally. A certain responsibility attaches to such a procedure. We decided finally to make the attempt, comforting ourselves by the reflection that such attachments would arise anyway as soon as the child left the sheltered environment of the nursery for the rough and tumble of the home. We did not begin this work until Albert was eleven months, three days of age. Before attempting to set up a conditioned response we, as before, put him through all of the regular emotional [p.4] tests. Not the slightest sign of a fear response was obtained in any situation.
The steps taken to condition emotional responses are shown in our laboratory notes.
1. White rat suddenly taken from
the basket and presented to Albert. He began to reach for rat with left
hand. Just as his hand touched the animal the bar was struck immediately
behind his head. The infant jumped violently and fell forward, burying
his face in the mattress. He did not cry, however.
2. Just as the right hand touched
the rat the bar was again struck. Again the infant jumped violently, fell
forward and began to whimper.
In order not to disturb the child too seriously no further tests were given for one week.
1. Rat presented suddenly without
sound. There was steady fixation but no tendency at first to reach for
it. The rat was then placed nearer, whereupon tentative reaching movements
began with the right hand. When the rat nosed the infant's left hand, the
hand was immediately withdrawn. He started to reach for the head of the
animal with the forefinger of the left hand, but withdrew it suddenly before
contact. It is thus seen that the two joint stimulations given the previous
week were not without effect. He was tested with his blocks immediately
afterwards to see if they shared in the process of conditioning. He began
immediately to pick them up, dropping them, pounding them, etc. In the
remainder of the tests the blocks were given frequently to quiet him and
to test his general emotional state. They were always removed from sight
when the process of conditioning was under way.
2. Joint stimulation with rat and
sound. Started, then fell over immediately to right side No crying.[p.5]
3. Joint stimulation. Fell to right
side and rested upon hands, with head turned away from rat. No crying.
4. Joint stimulation. Same reaction.
5. Rat suddenly presented alone.
Puckered face, whimpered and withdrew body sharply to the left.
6. Joint stimulation. Fell over
immediately to right side and began to whimper.
7. Joint stimulation. Started violently
and cried, but did not fall over.
8. Rat alone. The instant the
rat was shown the baby began to cry. Almost instantly he turned sharply
to the left, fell over on left side, raised himself on all fours and began
to crawl away so rapidly that he was caught with difficulty before reaching
the edge of the table.
This was as convincing a case of a completely conditioned fear response as could have been theoretically pictured. In all seven joint stimulations were given to bring about the complete reaction. It is not unlikely had the sound been of greater intensity or of a more complex clang character that the number of joint stimulations might have been materially reduced. Experiments designed to define the nature of the sounds that will serve best as emotional stimuli are under way.
II. When a conditioned emotional response has been established for one object, is there a transfer? Five days later Albert was again brought back into the laboratory and tested as follows:
1. Tested first with blocks. He reached
readily for them, playing with them as usual. This shows that there has
been no general transfer to the room, table, blocks, etc.
2. Rat alone. Whimpered immediately,
withdrew right hand and turned head and trunk away.
3.Blocks again offered. Played readily
with them, smiling and gurgling. [p.6]
4. Rat alone. Leaned over to the
left side as far away from the rat as possible, then fell over, getting
up on all fours and scurrying away as rapidly as possible.
5. Blocks again offered. Reached
immediately for them, smiling and laughing as before.
The above preliminary test shows that the conditioned response to the rat had carried over completely for the five days in which no tests were given. The question as to whether or not there is a transfer was next taken up.
6. Rabbit alone. The rabbit was suddenly
placed on the mattress in front of him. The reaction was pronounced. Negative
responses began at once. He leaned as far away from the animal as possible,
whimpered, then burst into tears. When the rabbit was placed in contact
with him he buried his face in the mattress, then got up on all fours and
crawled away, crying as he went. This was a most convincing test.
7. The blocks were next given him,
after an interval. He played with them as before. It was observed by four
people that he played far more energetically with them than ever before.
The blocks were raised high over his head and slammed down with a great
deal of force.
8. Dog alone. The dog did not produce
as violent a reaction as the rabbit. The moment fixation occurred the child
shrank back and as the animal came nearer he attempted to get on all fours
but did not cry at first. As soon as the dog passed out of his range of
vision he became quiet. The dog was then made to approach the infant's
head (he was lying down at the moment). Albert straightened up immediately,
fell over to the opposite side and turned his head away. He then began
to cry.
9. The blocks were again presented.
He began immediately to play with them.
10. Fur coat (seal). Withdrew immediately
to the left side and began to fret. Coat put close to him on the [p.7]
left side, he turned immediately, began to cry and tried to crawl away
on all fours.
11. Cotton wool. The wool was presented
in a paper package. At the end the cotton was not covered by the paper.
It was placed first on his feet. He kicked it away but did not touch it
with his hands. When his hand was laid on the wool he immediately withdrew
it but did not show the shock that the animals or fur coat produced in
him. He then began to play with the paper, avoiding contact with the wool
itself. He finally, under the impulse of the manipulative instinct, lost
some of his negativism to the wool.
12. Just in play W. put his head
down to see if Albert would play with his hair. Albert was completely negative.
Two other observers did the same thing. He began immediately to play with
their hair. W. then brought the Santa Claus mask and presented it to Albert.
He was again pronouncedly negative.
1. Blocks alone. Played with them
as usual.
2. Rat alone. Withdrawal of the
whole body, bending over to left side, no crying. Fixation and following
with eyes. The response was much less marked than on first presentation
the previous week. It was thought best to freshen up the reaction by another
joint stimulation.
3. Just as the rat was placed on
his hand the rod was struck. Reaction violent.
4. Rat alone. Fell over at once
to left side. Reaction practically as strong as on former occasion but
no crying.
5. Rat alone. Fell over to left
side, got up on all fours and started to crawl away. On this occasion there
was no crying, but strange to say, as he started away he began to gurgle
and coo, even while leaning far over to the left side to avoid the rat.
6. Rabbit alone. Leaned over to
left side as far as possible. Did not fall over. Began to whimper but reaction
not so violent as on former occasions. [p.8]
7. Blocks again offered. He reached
for them immediately and began to play.
All of these tests so far discussed were carried out upon a table supplied with a mattress, located in a small, well-lighted dark-room. We wished to test next whether conditioned fear responses so set up would appear if the situation were markedly altered. We thought it best before making this test to freshen the reaction both to the rabbit and to the dog by showing them at the moment the steel bar was struck. It will be recalled that this was the first time any effort had been made to directly condition response to the dog and rabbit. The experimental notes are as follows:
8. The rabbit at first was given
alone. The reaction was exactly as given in test (6) above. When the rabbit
was left on Albert's knees for a long time he began tentatively to reach
out and manipulate its fur with forefingers. While doing this the steel
rod was struck. A violent fear reaction resulted.
9. Rabbit alone. Reaction wholly
similar to that on trial (6) above.
I0. Rabbit alone. Started immediately
to whimper, holding hands far up, but did not cry. Conflicting tendency
to manipulate very evident.
11. Dog alone. Began to whimper,
shaking head from side to side, holding hands as far away from the animal
as possible.
12. Dog and sound. The rod was struck
just as the animal touched him. A violent negative reaction appeared. He
began to whimper, turned to one side, fell over and started to get up on
all fours.
13. Blocks. Played with them immediately
and readily.
On this same day and immediately after the above experiment Albert was taken into the large well-lighted lecture room belonging to the laboratory. He was placed on a table in the center of the room immediately under the skylight. Four people were present. The situation [p.9] was thus very different from that which obtained in the small dark room.
I. Rat alone. No sudden fear reaction
appeared at first. The hands, however, were held up and away from the animal.
No positive manipulatory reactions appeared.
2. Rabbit alone. Fear reaction slight.
Turned to left and kept face away from the animal but the reaction was
never pronounced.
3. Dog alone. Turned away but did
not fall over. Cried. Hands moved as far away from the animal as possible.
Whimpered as long as the dog was present.
4. Rat alone. Slight negative reaction.
5. Rat and sound. It was thought
best to freshen the reaction to the rat. The sound was given just as the
rat was presented. Albert jumped violently but did not cry.
6. Rat alone. At first he did not
show any negative reaction. When rat was placed nearer he began to show
negative reaction by drawing back his body, raising his hands, whimpering,
etc.
7. Blocks. Played with them immediately.
8. Rat alone. Pronounced withdrawal
of body and whimpering.
9. Blocks. Played with them as before.
10. Rabbit alone. Pronounced reaction.
Whimpered with arms held high, fell over backward and had to be caught.
11. Dog alone. At first the dog
did not produce the pronounced reaction. The hands were held high over
the head, breathing was checked, but there was no crying. Just at this
moment the dog, which had not barked before, barked three times loudly
when only about six inches from the baby's face. Albert immediately fell
over and broke into a wail that continued until the dog was removed. The
sudden barking of the hitherto quiet dog produced a marked fear response
in the adult observers!
[p.10] From the above results it would seem that emotional transfers do take place. Furthermore it would seem that the number of transfers resulting from an experimentally produced conditioned emotional reaction may be very large. In our observations we had no means of testing the complete number of transfers which may have resulted.
III. The effect of time upon conditioned emotional responses. We have already shown that the conditioned emotional response will continue for a period of one week. It was desired to make the time test longer. In view of the imminence of Albert's departure from the hospital we could not make the interval longer than one month. Accordingly no further emotional experimentation was entered into for thirty-one days after the above test. During the month, however, Albert was brought weekly to the laboratory for tests upon right and left-handedness, imitation, general development, etc. No emotional tests whatever were given and during the whole month his regular nursery routine was maintained in the Harriet Lane Home. The notes on the test given at the end of this period are as follows:
1. Santa Claus mask. Withdrawal,
gurgling, then slapped at it without touching. When his hand was forced
to touch it, he whimpered and cried. His hand was forced to touch it two
more times. He whimpered and cried on both tests. He finally cried at the
mere visual stimulus of the mask.
2. Fur coat. Wrinkled his nose and
withdrew both hands, drew back his whole body and began to whimper as the
coat was put nearer. Again there was the strife between withdrawal and
the tendency to manipulate. Reached tentatively with left hand but drew
back before contact had been made. In moving his body to one side his hand
accidentally touched the coat. He began to cry at once, nodding his head
in a very peculiar manner (this reaction was an entirely new one). Both
hands were withdrawn as far as possible from the coat. The coat [p.11]
was then laid on his lap and he continued nodding his head and whimpering,
withdrawing his body as far as possible, pushing the while at the coat
with his feet but never touching it with his hands.
3. Fur coat. The coat was taken
out of his sight and presented again at the end of a minute. He began immediately
to fret, withdrawing his body and nodding his head as before.
4. Blocks. He began to play with
them as usual.
5. The rat. He allowed the rat to
crawl towards him without withdrawing. He sat very still and fixated it
intently. Rat then touched his hand. Albert withdrew it immediately, then
leaned back as far as possible but did not cry. When the rat was placed
on his arm he withdrew his body and began to fret, nodding his head. The
rat was then allowed to crawl against his chest. He first began to fret
and then covered his eyes with both hands.
6. Blocks. Reaction normal.
7. The rabbit. The animal was placed
directly in front of him. It was very quiet. Albert showed no avoiding
reactions at first. After a few seconds he puckered up his face, began
to nod his head and to look intently at the experimenter. He next began
to push the rabbit away with his feet, withdrawing his body at the same
time. Then as the rabbit came nearer he began pulling his feet away, nodding
his head, and wailing "da da". After about a minute he reached out tentatively
and slowly and touched the rabbit's ear with his right hand, finally manipulating
it. The rabbit was again placed in his lap. Again he began to fret and
withdrew his hands. He reached out tentatively with his left hand and touched
the animal, shuddered and withdrew the whole body. The experimenter then
took hold of his left hand and laid it on the rabbit's back. Albert immediately
withdrew his hand and began to suck his thumb. Again the rabbit was laid
in his lap. He began to cry, covering his face with both hands. [p.12]
8. Dog. The dog was very active.
Albert fixated it intensely for a few seconds, sitting very still. He began
to cry but did not fall over backwards as on his last contact with the
dog. When the dog was pushed closer to him he at first sat motionless,
then began to cry, putting both hands over his face.
These experiments would seem to show conclusively that directly conditioned emotional responses as well as those conditioned by transfer persist, although with a certain loss in the intensity of the reaction, for a longer period than one month. Our view is that they persist and modify personality throughout life. It should be recalled again that Albert was of an extremely phlegmatic type. Had he been emotionally unstable probably both the directly conditioned response and those transferred would have persisted throughout the month unchanged in form.
IV. "Detachment" or removal of conditioned emotional responses. Unfortunately Albert was taken from the hospital the day the above tests were made. Hence the opportunity of building up an experimental technique by means of which we could remove the conditioned emotional responses was denied us. Our own view, expressed above, which is possibly not very well grounded, is that these responses in the home environment are likely to persist indefinitely, unless an accidental method for removing them is hit upon. The importance of establishing some method must be apparent to all. Had the opportunity been at hand we should have tried out several methods, some of which we may mention. (I) Constantly confronting the child with those stimuli which called out the responses in the hopes that habituation would come in corresponding to "fatigue" of reflex when differential reactions are to be set up. (2) By trying to "recondition" by showing objects calling out fear responses (vsual) and simultaneously stimulating the erogenous zones (tactual). We should try first the lips, then the nipples and as a final resort the sex organs. (3) By trying to "recondition" by feeding the subject candy or other food just as the animal is shown. This method calls for the food control of the subject. (4) By building up "constructive" activities around the object by imitation and [p.13] by putting the hand through the motions of manipulation. At this age imitation of overt motor activity is strong, as our present but unpublished experimentation has shown.
(a) Thumb sucking as a compensatory device for blocking fear and noxious stimuli. During the course of these experiments, especially in the final test, it was noticed that whenever Albert was on the verge of tears or emotionally upset generally he would continually thrust his thumb into his mouth. The moment the hand reached the mouth he became impervious to the stimuli producing fear. Again and again while the motion pictures were being made at the end of the thirty-day period, we had to remove the thumb from his mouth before the conditioned response could be obtained. This method of blocking noxious and emotional stimuli (fear and rage) through erogenous stimulation seems to persist from birth onward. Very often in our experiments upon the work adders with infants under ten days of age the same reaction appeared. When at work upon the adders both of the infants arms are under slight restraint. Often rage appears. They begin to cry, thrashing their arms and legs about. If the finger gets into the mouth crying ceases at once. The organism thus apparently from birth, when under the influence of love stimuli is blocked to all others.[3] This resort to sex stimulation when under the influence of noxious and emotional situations, or when the individual is restless and idle, persists throughout adolescent and adult life. Albert, at any rate, did not resort to thumb sucking except in the presence of such stimuli. Thumb sucking could immediately be checked by offering him his blocks. These invariably called out active manipulation instincts. It is worth while here to call attention to the fact that Freud's conception of the stimulation of erogenous zones as being the expression of an original "pleasure" seeking principle may be turned about [p.14] and possibly better described as a compensatory (and often conditioned) device for the blockage of noxious and fear and rage producing stimuli.
(b) Equal primacy of fear, love and possibly rage. While in general the results of our experiment offer no particular points of conflict with Freudian concepts, one fact out of harmony with them should be emphasized. According to proper Freudians sex (or in our terminology, love) is the principal emotion in which conditioned responses arise which later limit and distort personality. We wish to take sharp issue with this view on the basis of the experimental evidence we have gathered. Fear is as primal a factor as love in influencing personality. Fear does not gather its potency in any derived manner from love. It belongs to the original and inherited nature of man. Probably the same may be true of rage although at present we are not so sure of this.
The Freudians twenty years from now, unless their hypotheses change, when they come to analyze Albert's fear of a seal skin coat - assuming that he comes to analysis at that age - will probably tease from him the recital of a dream which upon their analysis will show that Albert at three years of age attempted to play with the pubic hair of the mother and was scolded violently for it. (We are by no means denying that this might in some other case condition it). If the analyst has sufficiently prepared Albert to accept such a dream when found as an explanation of his avoiding tendencies, and if the analyst has the authority and personality to put it over, Albert may be fully convinced that the dream was a true revealer of the factors which brought about the fear.
It is probable that many of the phobias in psychopathology are true conditioned emotional reactions either of the direct or the transferred type. One may possibly have to believe that such persistence of early conditioned responses will be found only in persons who are constitutionally inferior. Our argument is meant to be constructive. Emotional disturbances in adults cannot be traced back to sex alone. They must be retraced along at least three collateral lines - to conditioned and transferred responses set up in infancy and early youth in all three of the fundamental human emotions.
[1] 'Emotional Reactions and Psychological Experimentation,' American Journal of Psychology, April, 1917, Vol. 28, pp. 163-174.
[2] 'Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist,' p.202.
[3] The stimulus to love in infants according to our view is stroking of the skin, lips, nipples and sex organs, patting and rocking, picking up, etc. Patting and rocking (when not conditioned) are probably equivalent to actual stimulation of the sex organs. In adults of course, as every lover knows, vision, audition and olfaction soon become conditioned by joint stimulation with contact and kinaesthetic stimuli.