When reading this for the first time, I thought they put healthy, stolid and unemotional in quotations to emphasize that the child was well, so suspicions wouldn't be raised. However, I was wrong. I read that Little Albert died at such a young age in my experimental psychology class prior to doing my annotations, and I was deeply saddened by the news. I wonder if Watson knew that Little Albert was neurologically impaired. If Watson knew, it was very cruel to carry on with the study and he should be ashamed. There is a video on youtube on the BBC channel called "Finding Little Albert". In the video, I was expecting to see Albert all grown up talking about loving animals. Instead, I saw his little tombstone. This is so sad. I am not sure what result is correct about what happened to Little Albert. Nonetheless, he was an adorable, precious little baby. He made huge contributions to psychology.

This is interesting because it reminds me of how someone would see or sense danger and move away. Is this the same thing as touching a hot pot and moving your hand away instantly?

This reminds me of the term "replication crisis". The replication crisis is when studies are impossible to be replicated. This is really important that it was included in the reading. Prior to reading this, I have never thought about variations of Watson's method being unsuccessful. This shows the importance of doing research. This also put conditioning in a new light for me.

This is extremely concerning. Isn't it harmful to deceive and change things to make it look good especially with research? Was this an attempt of covering up something morally wrong that occurred? Textbooks are usually reliable sources, since people recognize credibility in these works appurtenant to any publishing house or company.

Is it possible that the happy endings constructed by others was an attempt to make a sequel to the Little Albert story so it would appear more appealing? It seems like there has been additional alterations to the original study. Due to the nature of psychology, it is quite possible that someone may have done reconditioning on another child with another rat and it was successful.

This tells me that most children are not afraid of things unless they find a reason to be. Due to what has been said here, that can lead me to assume that if I aid in making a child fear something such as an orange color goldfish, any other sea creature could invoke fear. A question I have is, "Since some dogs are brown, if a child is scared of brown dogs, is it possible that the child would be scared of everything brown?"

It is very enthralling to see that even 60 years later, Watson & Rayner's (1920) attempted conditioning is still used. The Little Albert experiment is very influential. Seeing that this is one of the most cited experiments, it brings me back to when I was just introduced to psychology as a young girl. One thing I always remembered was Little Albert. Now, I can see why it stuck out so much because classical conditioning was demonstrated. A baby who was previously not fearful was conditioned to fear. I wonder if decades from now, classical conditioning will be relevant.