Fluent Essays

College of Staten Island – The City University of New York PSY 352 – History and Systems of Psychology – Spring 2021 METACOGNITION GRAPHIC PAPER Due March 21 For this paper, you will think about how you think within the context of history. You will apply the framework of historiography to the history of psychology. You will do this by analyzing Harris’ (1979) paper on the famous Little Albert study. This paper has a graphic component. This means that you need to include at least five images that describe what you discuss. You should write around 800 words and the images that you choose should add to your argument. You will need these two readings: Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to little Albert?. American Psychological Association. 34 (3), 251- 160. This is in the week 6 weekly lesson folder. Writing on history (n.d). Historiography. https://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/writing/history/critical/historiography.html. This is in the week 2 weekly lesson folder. Instructions: Section 1: In this section of the assignment, use the historiography short reading to respond to the following questions on the historiography of psychology (approximately 400 words; 2-3 images):  Explain in your own words what historiography is.  What is the importance of historiography in psychology? Why do researchers of the history of psychology use historiography?  Section 2: In this section of the assignment, use Harris’ article to discuss his historiography of Watson’s study and reporting of little Albert (approximately 400 words, 2-3 images). Respond to the following questions:  Explain why Harris’ article is a historiography (you can apply what you’ve written about in the first part to this question).   Give two examples from Harris to show how reports on the little Albert’s study are an example of myth making in the history of psychology. What implications does this myth making have on how we understand behaviorism today? Note: College of Staten Island – The City University of New York PSY 352 – History and Systems of Psychology – Spring 2021 The grading rubric is attached to the Blackboard assignment. This is what I will be looking for while I grade. READ IT CLOSELY. Make Whatever Happened to Little Albert? BEN HARRIS Vassar College ABSTRACT: John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayners 1920 conditioning of the infant Albert B. is a well- known piece of social science folklore. Using pub- lished sources, this article reviews the studys actual procedures and its relationship to Watsons career and work. The article also presents a history of psycholo- gists accounts of the Albert study, focusing on the studys distortion by Watson himself, general textbook authors, behavior therapists, and most recently, a prominent learning theorist. The author proposes pos- sible causes for these distortions and analyzes the Albert study as an example of myth making in the history of psychology. Almost 60 years after it was first reported, Watson and Rayners (1920) attempted conditioning of the infant Albert B. is one of the most widely cited experiments in textbook psychology. Under- graduate textbooks of general, developmental, and abnormal psychology use Alberts conditioning to illustrate the applicability of classical conditioning to the development and modification of human emotional behavior. More specialized books focus- ing on psychopathology and behavior therapy (e.g., Eysenck, 1960) cite Alberts conditioning as an ex- perimental model of psychopathology (i.e., a rat phobia) and often use Albert to introduce a dis- cussion of systematic desensitization as a treat- ment of phobic anxiety. Unfortunately, most accounts of Watson and Rayners research with Albert feature as much fabrication and distortion as they do fact. From information about Albert himself to the basic ex- perimental methods and results, no detail of the original study has escaped misrepresentation in the telling and retelling of this bit of social science folklore. There has recently been a revival of interest in Watsons conditioning research and theorizing (e.g., MacKenzie, 1972; Seligman, 1971; Weimer & Palermo, 1973; Samelson, Note 1), and in the mythology of little Albert (Cornwell & Hobbs, 1976; Larson, 1978; Prytula, Oster, & Davis, 1977). However, there has yet to be a complete examination of the methodology and results of the Vol. 34, No. 2, 151-160 Albert study and of the process by which the studys details have been altered over the years. In the spirit of other investigations of classic studies in psychology (e.g., Ellenberger, 1972; Parsons, 1974) it is time to examine Alberts con- ditioning in light of current theories of learning. It is also time to examine how the Albert study has been portrayed over the years, in the hope of discovering how changes in psychological theory have affected what generations of psychologists have told each other about Albert. The Experiment As described by Watson and Rayner (1920), an experimental study was undertaken to answer three questions: (1) Can an infant be conditioned to fear an animal that appears simultaneously with a loud, fear-arousing sound? ( 2 ) Would such fear transfer to other animals or to inanimate objects? (3) How long would such fears persist? In at- tempting to answer these questions, Watson and Rayner selected an infant named Albert B., whom they described as healthy, and stolid and un- emotional (p. 1). At approximately 9 months of age, Albert was tested and was judged to show no fear when successively observing a number of live animals (e.g., a rat, a rabbit, a dog, and a monkey), and various inanimate objects (e.g., cotton, human masks, a burning newspaper). He was, however, judged to show fear whenever a long steel bar was unexpectedly struck with a claw hammer just behind his back. Two months after testing Alberts apparently unconditioned reactions to various stimuli, Watson and Rayner attempted to condition him to fear a Preparation of this article was aided by the textbook and literature searches of Nancy Kinsey, the helpful com- ments of Mike Wessels, and the bibliographic assistance of Cedric Larson. The author also thanks Bill Wood- ward and Ernest Hilgard for their comments on earlier versions of this work. Requests for reprints should be sent to Ben Harris, Box 368, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York 12601. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • FEBRUARY 1979 • 151 Copyright 1979 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/79/3402-01Sl$00.75 white rat. This was done by presenting a white rat to Albert, followed by a loud clanging sound (of the hammer and steel bar) whenever Albert touched the animal. After seven pairings of the rat and noise (in two sessions, one week apart), Albert reacted with crying and avoidance when the rat was presented without the loud noise. In order to test the generalization of Alberts fear response, 5 days later he was presented with the rat, a set of familiar wooden blocks, a rabbit, a short-haired dog, a sealskin coat, a package of white cotton, the heads of Watson and two assist- ants (inverted so that Albert could touch their hair), and a bearded Santa Glaus mask. Albert seemed to show a strong fear response to the rat, the rabbit, the dog, and the sealskin coat; a nega- tive response to the mask and Watsons hair; and a mild response to the cotton. Also, Albert played freely with the wooden blocks and the hair of Watsons assistants. After an additional 5 days, Watson recondi- tioned Albert to the rat (one trial, rat paired with noise) and also attempted to condition Albert di- rectly to fear the previously presented rabbit (one trial) and dog (one trial). When the effects of this procedure were tested in a different, larger room, it was found that Albert showed only a slight reaction to the rat, the dog, and the rabbit. Consequently, Watson attempted to freshen the reaction to the rat (p. 9) by presenting it with the loud noise. Soon after this, the dog began to bark loudly at Albert, scaring him and the experi- menters and further confounding the experiment. To answer their third question concerning the permanence of conditioned responses over time, Watson and Rayner conducted a final series of tests on Albert after 31 days of neither condition- ing nor extinction trials. In these tests, Albert showed fear when touching the Santa Claus mask, the sealskin coat, the rat, the rabbit, and the dog. At the same time, however, he initiated contact with the coat and the rabbit, showing strife be- tween withdrawal and the tendency to manipulate (Watson & Rayner, 1920, p. 10). Following these final tests, Alberts mother removed him from the hospital where the experiment had been conducted. (According to their own account, Watson and Rayner knew a month in advance the day that Albert would no longer be available to them.) The Context of Watson and Rayners Study What was the relationship of the Albert experi- ment to the rest of Watsons work? On a per- sonal level, this work was the final published project of Watsons academic career, although he supervised a subsequent, related study of the de- conditioning of young childrens fears (M. C. Jones, 1924a, 1924b). From a theoretical per- spective, the Albert study provided an empirical test of a theory of behavior and emotional de- velopment that Watson had constructed over a number of years. Although Watson had publicly declared himself a behaviorist in early 1913, he apparently did not become interested in the conditioning of motor and autonomic responses until late 1914, when he read a French edition of Bekhterevs Objective Psychology (see Hilgard & Marquis, 1940). By 1915, Watsons experience with conditioning re- search was limited to this reading and his collabora- tion with his student Karl Lashley in a few simple studies. Nevertheless, Watsons APA Presidential Address of that year made conditioned responses a key aspect of his outline of behaviorism and seems to have been one of the first American ref- erences to Bekhterevs work (Hilgard & Marquis, 1940, p. 24; Koch, 1964, p. 9; Watson, 1916b). Less than a year after his APA address, two ar- ticles by Watson (1916a, 1916c) were published in which he hypothesized that both normal de- fense mechanisms and psychiatric disorders (e.g., phobias, tics, hysterical symptoms) could be under- stood on the basis of conditioning theory. Six months later, the American Journal of Psy- chology featured a more extensive article by Wat- son and J. J. B. Morgan (1917) that formulated a theory of emotion, intended to serve both ex- perimentalists and clinicians. Its authors hypothe- sized that the fundamental (unlearned) human emotions were fear, rage, and love; these emotions were said to be first evoked by simple physical manipulations of infants, such as exposing them to loud sounds (fear) or restricting their movements (rage). Concurrently, they hypothesized that the method of conditioned reflexes could explain how these basic three emotions become transformed and transferred to many objects, eventually result- ing in the wide range of adult emotions ithat is evoked by everyday combinations of events, per- sons, and objects. In support of these theoretical ideas, Watson and Morgan began to test whether infants fears could be experimentally conditioned, using laboratory analogues of thunder and light- ning. In the description of this work and the related theory, a strong appeal was made for its practical importance, stating that it could lead to a standard experimental procedure for bringing 152 • FEBRUARY 1979 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST the human emotions under experimental control (p. 174). By the early months of 1919, Watson appears not yet to have found a reliable method for experi- mentally eliciting and extinguishing new emotional reactions in humans. However, by this time he had developed a program of research with infants to verify the existence of his hypothesized three fundamental emotions. Some early results of this work were described in May 1919, as part of a lengthy treatise on both infant and adult emotions. Anticipating his work with Albert,1 Watson (1919b) for the first time applied his earlier prin- ciples of emotional conditioning to childrens fears of animals. Based on a case of a child frightened by a dog that he had observed, Watson hypothe- sized that although infants do not naturally fear animals, if one animal succeeds in arousing fear, any moving furry animal thereafter may arouse it (p. 182). Consistent with this hypothesis, the results of Watson and Rayners experiments with Albert were reported 9 months later. Although Watsons departure from Johns Hop- kins prematurely ended his own research in 1920, he continued to write about his earlier findings, including his work with Albert. In 1921, he and Rayner (then Rosalie Rayner Watson) summa- rized the results of their interrupted infant re- search program, concluding with a summary of their experience with Albert. Although this was a less complete account than their 1920 article, it was the version that was always referenced in Watsons later writings. These writings included dozens of articles in the popular press (e.g., Wat- son, 1928b, 1928c), the books Behaviorism (1924) and Psychological Care of Infant and Child (1928a), and a series of articles in Pedagogical Seminary (Watson, 192Sa, 192Sb, 1925c). Many of these articles retold the Albert story, often with photographs and with added comments elabo- rating on the lessons of this study. Introductory-Level Textbook Versions of Albert A selective survey of textbooks2 used to introduce students to general, developmental, and abnormal psychology revealed that few books fail to refer to Watson and Rayners (1920) study in some manner. Some of these accounts are completely accurate (e.g., Kennedy, 197S; Page 1975; White- hurst & Vasta, 1977). However, most textbook versions of Alberts conditioning suffer from in- accuracies of various degrees. Relatively minor details that are misrepresented include Alberts age (Calhoun, 1977; Johnson & Medinnus, 1974), his name (Galanter, 1966), the spelling of Rosalie Rayners name (e.g., Biehler, 1976; Helms & Turner, 1976; McCandless & Trotter, 1977; Pa- palia & Olds, 1975), and whether Albert was ini- tially conditioned to fear a rat or a rabbit (CRM Books, 1971; Staats, 1968). Of more significance are texts misrepresenta- tions of the range of Alberts postconditioning fears and of the postexperimental fate of Albert. The list of spurious stimuli to which Alberts fear response is claimed to have generalized is rather extensive. It includes a fur pelt (CRM Books, 1971), a mans beard (Helms & Turner, 1976), a cat, a pup, a fur muff (Telford & Sawrey, 1968), a white furry glove (Whittaker, 1965), Alberts aunt, who supposedly wore fur (Bernhardt, 1953), either the fur coat or the fur neckpiece of Alberts mother (Hilgard, Atkinson, & Atkinson, 1975; Kisker, 1977; Weiner, 1977), and even a teddy bear (Boring, Langfeld, & Weld, 1948). In a number of texts, a happy ending has been added to the story by the assertion that Watson removed (or reconditioned) Alberts fear, with this pro- cess sometimes described in detail (Engle & Snell- grove, 1969; Gardiner, 1970; Whittaker, 1965). What are the causes of these frequent errors by the authors of undergraduate textbooks? Pry- tula et al. (1977) cataloged similar mistakes but offered little explanation of their source. Corn- well and Hobbs (1976) suggested that such dis- tortions, if not simply due to overreliance on sec- ondary sources, can be generally seen as authors 1 In tracing the development of Watsons ideas about conditioning, it would be helpful to know whether the experiments with Albert had already begun when Watson wrote his 1919 Psychological Review article. Unfortu- nately, there is no hard evidence of exactly when the Albert study was completed. Watson and Rayners origi- nal report was published in the February 1920 Journal of Experimental Psychology, suggesting that the research was completed in 1919. Also, M. C. Jones (1975, Note 2) remembers that Watson lectured about Albert as early as the spring of 1919 and showed a film of his work with infants at the Johns Hopkins University (Watson, 1919a). Individual frames of this film published later (Behavior- ist Babies, 1928; Can Science Determine Your Babys Career Before It Can Talk?, 1922; Watson, 1927, 1928a) suggest that at some date this film contained footage of Alberts conditioning. Since the work with Albert lasted for approximately 4 months, there seems to be a strong possibility that Watsons 1919 prediction was not en- tirely based on theoretical speculation. 2 After this survey of texts was completed, similar re- views by Cornwell and Hobbs (1976) and by Prytula et al. (1977) were discovered. Interested readers should con- sult these articles for lists of additional textbook errors. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • FEBRUARY 1979 • 153 attempts to paint the Albert study (and Watson) in a more favorable light and to make it believable to undergraduates. Certainly, many of the com- mon errors are consistent with a brushed-up image of Watson and his work. For example, not one text mentions that Watson knew when Albert would leave his control—a detail that might make Watson and Rayners failure to recondition Albert seem callous to some modern readers. However, there are other reasons for such errors besides textbooks tendencies to tell ethically pleas- ing stories that are consistent with students com- mon sense. One major source of confusion about the Albert story is \Watson himself, who altered and deleted important aspects of the study in his many descriptions of it. For example, in the Sci- entific Monthly description of the study (Watson & Watson, 1921), there is no mention of the con- ditioning of Albert to .the dog, the rabbit, and the rat that occurred at 11 months 20 days; thus Al- berts subsequent responses to these stimuli can be mistaken for a strong generalization effect (for which there is little evidence). A complementary and equally confusing omission occurs in Psycho- logical Care oj Infant and Child (Watson, 1928a). There, Watson begins his description of ithe Albert study with Alberts being conditioned to a rabbit (apparently the session occurring at 11 months 20 days). As a result, the reader is led to believe that Alberts fear of a rat (a month later) was the product of generalization rather than the initial conditioning trials. Besides these omissions, Wat- son and Rayner (1920) also made frequent edi- torial comments, such as the assention that fears such as Alberts were likely to persist indefinitely, unless an accidental method for removing them is hit upon (p. 12). Given such comments, it is understandable that one recent text overestimates the duration of the Albert experiment by 300\% (Goldenberg, 1977), and another states that Al- berts phobia became resistant to extinction (Kleinmuntz, 1974, p. 130). A second reason for textbook authors errors, it seems, is the desire of many of us to make experi- mental evidence consistent with textbook theories of how organisms should act. According to popu- lar versions of learning theory (as described by Herrnstein, 1977), organisms conditioning should generalize along simple stimulus dimensions; many textbooks list spurious fear-arousing stimuli (for Albert) that correspond to such dimensions. To illustrate the process of stimulus generalization, Albert is often said to have feared every white, furry object—although he actually showed fear mostly of nonwhite objects (the rabbit, the dog, the sealskin coat, Watsons hair), and did not even fear everything with hair (the observers). But to fit a more simplified view of learning, either new stimuli appear in some texts (e.g., a white rabbit, a white glove) or it is simply asserted that Alberts conditioning generalized to all white and furry (or hairy) stimuli (see Biehler, 1976; Craig, 1976; Helms & Turner, 1976). Though it might seem as if Alberts fear did generalize to the cate- gory of all animate objects with fur (e.g., the rabbit) or short hair (e.g., Watsons head), this is impossible to show conclusively. The only ex- perimental stimuli not fitting this category were the blocks and the observers hair. Apparently the blocks were a familiar toy (thus not a proper stimulus), and Alberts familiarity with the ob- servers is not known (although we may guess that one might have been his mother). Behavior Therapists Views of Albert Unfortunately, misrepresentations of Watson and Rayners (1920) work are not confined to intro- ductory-level texts. For proponents of behavioral therapies, Alberts conditioning has been a fre- quently cited reference, although its details have often become altered or misinterpreted. Joseph Wolpe, for example, is well known for his condi- tioned-anxiety model of phobias and his treatment of various neurotic disorders by what was origi- nally termed reciprocal inhibition (Wolpe, 19S8). According to Wolpe and Rachman (1960): Phobias are regarded as conditioned anxiety (fear) reac- tions. Any neutral stimulus, simple or complex, that happens to make an impact on an individual at about the time that a fear reaction is evoked acquires the ability to evoke fear subsequently, (p. 145) In support of .this model Wolpe and Rachman cited the Albert study to indicate that it is quite possible for one experience to induce a phobia (p. 146). Also, Eysenck (1960) asserted that Albert developed a phobia for white rats and in- deed for all furry animals (p. 5). Similar inter- pretations of Watson and Rayners (1920) experi- ment are found in subsequent writings by Wolpe and other behavior therapists (e.g., Rachman, 1964; Sandier & Davidson, 1971; Ullman & Kras- ner, 1965; Wolpe, 1973). Critical reading of Watson and Rayners (1920) report reveals little evidence either that Albert developed a rat phobia or even that animals con- 154 • FEBRUARY 1979 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST sistently evoked his fear (or anxiety) during Wat- son and Rayners (1920) experiment. For ex- ample, 10 days after the completion of the initial (seven-trial) conditioning to a white rat, Albert received an additional trial of conditioning to the same rat. Immediately following this, his reaction to the rat was described as: Fell over to the 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 (p. 7 ) . On the same day as this, Albert received a trial of conditioning to the rabbit he had seen previ- ously (using the clanging steel bar). When shown the rabbit itwice again, he whimpered but did not cry. Immediately after this, his reactions were tested in a different (larger) room. When shown the rabbit, Alberts response was described as: Fear reaction slight. Turned to left and kept face away from the animal but the reaction was never pronounced (p. 9). Finally, 31 days later and after having received an additional conditioning trial to the rat at the end of the preceding session, Alberts reactions to the (same) rat were: He allowed the rat to crawl towards him without with- drawing. He sat very still and fixated 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 al- lowed to crawl against his chest. He first began to fret and then covered has eyes with both hands, (p. 11) Not only does Alberts response seem lacking in the strength that we associate with phobia (pos- sibly due to Watsons alternation of acquisition and extinction trials) but on a qualitative basis it seems unlike the classically conditioned anxiety on which some behavior therapists base their theoretical models of phobias. Of course, it might be argued by proponents of a two-factor theory of phobias that Alberts re- actions to the rat and the rabbit were successful escape responses from the anxiety-arousing stimuli, thus explaining Alberts relative calm (no rapid breathing, crying, etc.). However, Albert did not consistently avoid the animals to which he was conditioned. On his final day of testing, for ex- ample, Albert initially did not avoid the rabbit to which he had been conditioned; he then attempted to avoid it, but then after about a minute he reached out tentatively and slowly and touched the rabbits ear with his right hand, finally manip- ulating it (Watson & Rayner, 1920, p. II). 3 A more serious problem with clinicians citing of the Albert study is the failure of Watsons con- temporaries to replicate his work. Although H. E. Jones (1930) subsequently demonstrated persistent galvanic skin response (GSR) conditioning with an infant (using a mild electric current as an un- conditioned stimulus, and a light and various sounds as conditioned stimuli), attempts to repli- cate the Albert study using variations of Watsons own method were unsuccessful. Valentine (1930), for example, used extensive naturalistic observa- tion and failed to find conditioned fear of infants to loud noises; he criticized both Watsons meth- odology and his simplistic theory of emotional de- velopment. Bregman (1934) was also unsuccess- ful in her attempts to condition even 1 of IS in- fants to fear wooden and cloth objects, using a disagreeable noise as an unconditioned stimulus (see Thorndike, 1935). Finally, whatever our ret- rospective view of Alberts conditioned reactions, a conditioned-avoidance model of phobias (with fear as a necessary component) is not consistent with more recent experimental and clinical litera- ture (see Costello, 1970; Hineline, 1977; Marks, 1969,1977). Albert and Preparedness Theory One of the reasons that Albert is so well known is that he is rediscovered every S or 10 years by a new group of psychologists. In the early 1960s, Wolpe and Eysenck were the curators and analysts of the Albert myth. Ten years later, Wolpe and Eysenck were supplanted by M. E. P. Seligman, 3 Another model that has been applied to the Albert study is that of operant or instrumental conditioning. For example, Larson (1978) and Reese and Lipsitt (1970) cited a paper by R. M. Church (Note 3) on this point (see also Kazdin, 1978). Such an interpretation is ap- parently based on Watsons notes indicating that at least for the first two trials, the loud noise was contingent on Alberts active response (i.e., touching the rat). Also, the one trial of conditioning to the rabbit occurred when Albert had begun to reach out and manipulate its fur with forefingers (Watson & Rayner, 1920, p. 8). The attractiveness of an (aversive) instrumental model of Al- berts conditioning is that it would not necessarily predict any emotional reaction by Albert and would help ex- plain his reluctance to touch the experimental animals. Strong support for this model is lacking, however, with Watson and Rayner describing at least four conditioning trials on which the loud sound was not contingent on Alberts instrumental response, and a number of trials the character of which is uncertain. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • FEBRUARY 1979 • 155 who has seized control of the Albert story and uses it (in slightly revised form) to attack the views of its former proponents. At the same time, Seligman both challenges traditional theories of learning and proposes his own reformulation, known as preparedness theory. Briefly stated, preparedness theory (Seligman, 1970, 1971; see also Schwartz, 1974) posits that traditionally held laws of learning cannot be uni- formly applied to all stimuli interacting with all organisms. In a classical conditioning paradigm, organisms may be physiologically or cognitively prepared to form certain conditioned stimulus- unconditioned stimulus associations and contra- prepared to develop others. In the former case (e.g., rats learning taste aversion to food causing illness) the association is easily formed, but in the latter case (e.g., rats learning taste aversion to food paired with footshock) it is difficult if not im- possible to form. Similarly, Seligman (1970) sum- marized evidence from instrumental-learning para- digms to suggest that for a particular organism, certain behaviors differ in their potential to be successfully conditioned (see Shettleworth, 1973). Relevant to Albert, Seligman (1971) hypothe- sized that the strength of human phobic reactions (i.e., their resistance to extinction) is due to the high degree of preparedness of certain stimuli (e.g., snakes). This conditioning to phobic objects oc- curs very quickly, whereas conditioning to other stimuli (assumed to be of low preparedness or contraprepared) results in fear reactions that are less intense, take longer to establish, and extinguish more quickly. As Marks (1977) noted, there is some evidence that objects differ in their ability to produce conditioned GSR in humans over time (e.g., Ohman, Erixon, & Lbfberg, 1975). It also makes sense that evolution may have made it easier for humans to learn some responses than others (see Herrnstein, 1977). However, much of Seligmans (1971) discussion of human phobias is based on an erroneous interpretation of Watson and Rayners (1920) work. As described in his article Phobias and pre- paredness, Seligmans version of Alberts condi- tioning is generally consistent with the exaggerated claims for the study made by Watson (e.g., Wat- son, 1924). According to preparedness theory, the existence of strong animal phobias in the hu- man clinical literature is evidence that furry things (Seligman, 1971, p. 315) are strongly prepared phobic stimuli for humans. If furry things are highly prepared and Watson and Rayner (1920) used furry things in their study, then Al- bert must have quickly developed a strong fear of animals and other furry things. Consistent with this logic is Seligmans (1971) assertion that Al- bert became afraid of rats, rabbits, and other furry objects (p. 308, italics added) and that Watson probably did not become an aversive stimulus to Albert. In fact, Albert was com- pletely negative to Watsons hair (Watson & Rayner, 1920, p. 7), and of course, Alberts fear was only tested to a single rat, a single rabbit, and to no previously neutral, nonfurry objects. In addition to presenting this inaccurate picture of how Alberts fear initially generalized, Selig- mans account also misrepresents the ease with which Albert was conditioned, the durability of his reactions, and the details of an attempt to repli- cate the Albert study. According to Seligman (1971), Alberts conditioning occurred in two trials and this prepared fear conditioning [did] not extinguish readily (p. 315). In fact, seven joint stimulations were given [to Albert] to bring about the complete reaction (Watson & …