his involves a process ofdisculturation from one’s old life and identity and reaculturation to the institution and a newidentity.3 Sometimes this is done as part of punishment (e.g., with prisoners) and sometimesnot (e.g., with mental patients), but it is always done. Admission procedures are a primaryway to “mortify” the self and can involve public nudity; photographing; body searching;disinfecting; haircutting; fingerprinting; taking a case history; or being assigned numbers,issued institutional clothing, told the rules, and assigned quarters. There may be tests ofdeference or obedience to help ensure compliance. In general, upon admittance, everythingthat reminded the resident of the outside world is taken away, and none of the things thatformed the basis of distinction between the inmate and other humans remains. An oldidentity is taken away, and a new one is “issued.” Many of these processes existed atWillowbrook.

One might think that children and adults who werementally deficient would not need to be subject to forms of degrading treatment to “stripaway” their old identities, as it appears they were at Willowbrook, Pacific State, and otherinstitutions of their ilk. Goffman cites various mechanisms that are used by management tostrip the identity of inmates. These include personal disfigurement (beating, shock, burning,cutting, and tattooing), humiliation (forced deference, deferential speech), contamination(public nudity, urination and defecation, and physical contamination with unclean bedding,food, and facilities), and social contamination (forced age mixing, rape, and in earlier periodsforced racial and ethnic mixing). These were all things that could be found to some degree atWillowbrook.

Bettleheim and Sylvester’s (1948)study of children in institutional settings also had a similar theme, emphasizing the socialmilieu—that is, relationships as the primary determinant of resident behavior.

Watson had publicly declared himselfa "behaviorist" in early 1913, he apparently didnot become interested in the conditioning of motorand autonomic responses until late 1914, when heread a French edition of Bekhterev's ObjectivePsychology (see Hilgard & Marquis, 1940).

(According to their own account, Watson andRayner knew a month in advance the day thatAlbert would no longer be available to them.

However, most textbookversions of Albert's conditioning suffer from in-accuracies of various degrees.

Watson hypothe-sized that although infants do not naturally fearanimals, if "one animal succeeds in arousing fear,any moving furry animal thereafter may arouse it