In recent literature various speculations have been
entered into concerning the possibility of conditioning various types of emotional
response, but direct experimental evidence in support of such a view has been lacking. If
the theory advanced by Watson and Morgan [1] to the effect that in infancy the original
emotional reaction patterns are few, consisting so far as observed of fear, rage and love,
then there must be some simple method by means of which the range of stimuli which can
call out these emotions and their compounds is greatly increased. Otherwise, complexity in
adult response could not be accounted for. These authors without adequate experimental
evidence advanced the view that this range was increased by means of conditioned reflex
factors. It was suggested there that the early home life of the child furnishes a
laboratory situation for establishing conditioned emotional responses. The present authors
have recently put the whole matter to an experimental test.
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.
11 Months 3 Days
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.
11 Months 10 Days
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:
11 Months 15 Days
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.
11 Months 20 Days
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 Year 21 Days
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.
INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS
(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.
Footnotes
[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.