The tragic truth behind the baby used in psychology’s most disturbing experiment

A baby once used in a famous psychology experiment to condition fear died just six years later — and the real story behind his short life is far more heartbreaking than history once told.

In 1920, psychologist John B. Watson and his partner Rosalie Rayner set out to prove a bold theory: that human emotions, like fear, could be taught. Inspired by Ivan Pavlov’s work with dogs and conditioned responses, they tested this idea on a 9-month-old boy known only as “Little Albert.”

At first, the baby showed no fear. He smiled at soft, furry animals like rabbits and rats. But things quickly changed.

Each time Albert reached for the white rat, the researchers struck a steel bar behind his head, making a terrifying noise. The sound scared the baby. After several repetitions, Albert began to fear not only the rat but anything soft and white — including dogs, coats, and even Santa Claus’s beard.

This became known as one of the earliest demonstrations of classical conditioning in humans. But it also became one of the most criticized studies in psychology.

No consent, no protection, and no follow-up care

Albert’s fear was not natural — it was created. He did not give permission, and neither did his mother, who worked at the hospital as a wet nurse. She was never fully informed about how distressing the experiment would become.

When she found out, she pulled her baby from the study. Watson and Rayner promised to undo the damage — a process called “deconditioning” — but they never followed through.

Even worse, once the study was over, Albert vanished from the records. For decades, no one knew who he really was or what had happened to him.

This is in loving remembrance of Douglas Merritte who was my little Albert in the “Little Albert Experiment”.Thank you for your greatness! pic.twitter.com/FvEBFghJhr

— John B. Watson (@John_B_Watsonnn) September 21, 2016

Baby Albert was Douglas Merritte — and he was already sick

In 2009, a team of researchers uncovered Albert’s identity. They believed he was Douglas Merritte, the son of a wet nurse at Johns Hopkins University.

The truth was devastating.

Douglas had hydrocephalus — a serious condition that causes fluid to build up in the brain. He showed signs of developmental delays before the experiment even began. His large head, lack of social responses, and overall behavior, captured on film, suggest he may have already been suffering.

Tragically, Douglas died just six years later from complications related to his condition.

“The idea that a neurologically impaired child was used in an experiment like this is deeply disturbing,” said Dr. Alan Fridlund, a psychologist at UC Santa Barbara.

Despite its questionable methods, the Little Albert experiment made a lasting mark on psychology. It was used to support the theory that our environment — not just our thoughts — shapes behavior.

But over time, experts began to question not just the ethics, but also the scientific value of the study.

“There was no proper follow-up, no effort to ensure the child’s well-being, and possibly even scientific fraud,” said Dr. Fridlund. “It wasn’t just bad science — it was inhumane.”

Today, the experiment is used in ethics classes as an example of what not to do. It highlights the importance of informed consent, especially when working with vulnerable individuals, and how ambition should never override humanity.

Douglas Merritte, the child behind “Little Albert,” wasn’t just a case study. He was a real boy, with real fears and real pain. His short life was marked by illness and made worse by an experiment that treated him more like a tool than a human being.

As psychology continues to evolve, his story serves as a painful reminder: science must always protect the people it studies — especially the most vulnerable.