Editing Little Albert experiment (section)

==Identifying Little Albert==
According to some textbooks,{{Example needed|date=June 2022}} Albert's mother worked in the same building as Watson and did not know the tests were being conducted. When she found out, she took Albert and moved away, letting no one know where they were going. A 2009 report, however, disputes that.<ref name="Levinson, S. pp.605">H. P.; Levinson, S., & Irons, G.; 2009; pp. 605–614"</ref> The original report had stated that the baby's mother was a [[wet nurse]] at the hospital, who may have felt [[coerced]] and unable to turn down a request for her baby to be used in Watson's experiment.  The claim of coercion was challenged in an article published in the same journal as the coercion claim.{{citation needed|date=October 2023}}

===Douglas Merritte===
In 2009, psychologists Hall P. Beck and Sharman Levinson published an article in which they claimed to have discovered the true identity of "Albert B."<ref name="Beck, Levinson & Irons" /> After reviewing Watson's correspondence and publications, as well as research in public documents (such as the [[1920 United States Census]] and state birth and death records), Beck argued that "Albert B." was a pseudonym for Douglas Merritte, the son of Arvilla Merritte, then a woman who appears to have been a wet nurse at the Harriet Lane Home.<ref name="Beck, Levinson & Irons" />

It was later found that Douglas Merritte had [[hydrocephalus]], from which he died at the age of 6. With this condition, which is an accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid on the brain, Merritte may have had severe trouble seeing at the time of the experiment, and this disputes the claim that the child in question was average and healthy.<ref name="Levinson, S. pp.605"/> According to researchers who looked at this case years later, if Douglas Merritte was, indeed, Little Albert, his actions during the conditioning sessions align with signs of neurological impairment.<ref>{{cite web |last1=DeAngelis |first1=T. |title=Was 'Little Albert' ill during the famed conditioning study? |url=https://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/03/little-albert |website=www.apa.org |publisher=American Psychological Association |access-date=3 December 2020}}</ref> This includes Little Albert's use of hand-scooping, rather than grasping gestures typical of this age, as well as poor eye-scanning abilities and his lack of facial expressions. Other research has argued, however, that Douglas Merritte may not have been "Little Albert",<ref name="Correcting" /> who may, in fact, have been young Albert Barger (known later as William Albert Martin).<ref name="Correcting" /><ref name="Digdon" />

===Albert Barger===
The identity claimed by Beck, et al., has been contested by psychology researchers Russ Powell, Nancy Digdon and Ben Harris, who offer an alternative identity based on available data.<ref name="Correcting" /><ref name="Digdon" /> Albert Barger had been born within a day of Merritte, and his mother had also worked at the hospital where the experiment was conducted. In addition, his body weight and developmental condition closely matched the experiment's documentation of the subject baby's condition.<ref name="Search" /> Moreover, according to Watson and Rayner (1920), Little Albert was 12 months and 21 days the last day of the experiment when "he was taken from the hospital" (p. 12), the exact age Albert Barger had been when he left the hospital.<ref>Powell, et al., 2014, p. 603</ref> Finally, when Powell et al. were allowed to independently verify Douglas Merritte's clinical file, it was revealed that he was "completely blind",<ref>Powell, et al., 2014, p. 607</ref> which is at odds with the experiment's films where Little Albert engages in probable instances of object-directed action and social referencing. 

Through the use of a professional genealogist, the researchers learned Barger had died in 2007 at age 87 and identified one close living relative, a niece. In an interview, Barger's niece stated that she and her uncle had been quite close throughout his life, and acknowledged Barger's antipathy toward dogs as a well-known fact that family members, particularly his wife, would tease him about (the researchers noted there was no way to determine whether or not this behavior was linked to Watson's experiment). She also informed researchers of her uncle's aversion to animals in general, not just dogs. Though it was not a particularly strong aversion, family members would often have to keep their dogs in a separate room when he visited.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Powell |first1=Russell A. |last2=Digdon |first2=Nancy |last3=Harris |first3=Ben |last4=Smithson |first4=Christopher |title=Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as "Psychology's lost boy". |url=https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0036854 |journal=[[American Psychologist]] |publisher=American Psychological Association |pages=600–611 |doi=10.1037/a0036854 |date=2014|volume=69 |issue=6 |pmid=25197838 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Outside of this, Barger's niece stated that she did not recall any other phobias he may have had. The researchers concluded that Barger would have been unaware of his role as an infant test subject.<ref name="Whatever" />