In the 1920s an experiment was conducted on a 9 month old baby, to test whether …show more content…
Almost instantly he turned sharply to the left, fell over on [his] 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 …show more content…
Firstly, the experiment was not constructed carefully enough to provide conclusive findings. Watson and Raynor didn’t find an objective way to assess the infants reactions, instead relying on their own interpretations to draw a conclusion from their experiment. Later it came out that the child used in the experiment may have suffered from hydrocephalus. This would have seriously jeopardized any conclusions drawn from the experiment as in the experimental notes, Albert was described as ‘a healthy child.’ Furthermore, it is immoral to carry out an experiment of this type on anyone unwilling or unable to give their explicit consent. As Albert was an infant, he was unable to give his consent and this point is strengthened due to the fact that Albert was not de-sensitized after the experiment. He was removed from the hospital by his mother, leaving Raynor and Watson unable to de-sensitize him due to a lack of time. It is unclear whether Albert’s mother a) knew about the experiment b) if she did indeed give consent for her child to be used in this experiment and c) knew if he would have to be de-sensitized