John B. Watson

John B. Watson was an American psychologist who founded behaviorism, the idea that psychology should focus on observable actions rather than thoughts or feelings.

He showed that emotions like fear could be learned through conditioning, most famously in the Little Albert experiment, and his work shaped psychology, education, and advertising.

How did J. B. Watson contribute to behaviorism?

John Broadus Watson (1878–1958) was a pioneering American psychologist best known as the founder of behaviorism.

His work, particularly his research on conditioned emotional responses with Rosalie Rayner and his later innovations in advertising, reshaped the direction of psychology in the early 20th century.

While some of his views were considered extreme and have been reassessed over time, Watson’s vision of a psychology grounded in the objective study of behavior remains influential today.

1. Founding Behaviorism:

Behaviorism is a psychological approach that focuses on observable behavior rather than thoughts or feelings.

It suggests that all behavior is learned through interactions with the environment, mainly via conditioning — where actions are shaped by rewards, punishments, and associations.

In 1913, Watson published Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It, often called the “behaviorist manifesto.”

This groundbreaking article rejected the then-dominant method of introspection, arguing instead that psychology should study only observable actions and measurable responses.

His stance challenged traditional approaches and marked the official launch of behaviorism as a school of thought

2. Promoting Scientific Rigor:

Watson insisted that psychology adopts the rigorous scientific methods of natural sciences.

This meant relying on objective observation and measurement of behavior rather than subjective introspection, which he considered unreliable and unscientific.

His emphasis on objective observation and measurement helped to establish psychology as a scientific discipline.

3. Emphasizing Learning and the Environment:

Watson argued that behavior is primarily shaped by experience and the environment, rather than innate factors like instincts.

This emphasis on nurture over nature led him to believe that behavior could be modified through conditioning, paving the way for the development of behavioral therapies.

4. Prioritizing Prediction and Control:

Watson believed that the ultimate goal of psychology was to predict and control behavior.

To truly understand human action, psychologists needed not only to describe it but also to manipulate environmental factors and observe resulting changes.

5. Pioneering Research in Classical Conditioning:

Ivan Pavlov’s classical conditioning is the process by which a neutral stimulus comes to trigger a response after being paired repeatedly with one that already does.

Watson extended this principle from Pavlov’s dogs to human emotions. His most famous example, the Little Albert experiment, demonstrated that fear could be learned the same way, providing compelling evidence for his theories.

6. Practical Applications:

Watson envisioned psychology as a tool for solving real-world problems.

He saw its potential in fields such as education, child development, and advertising, where behavioral principles could be applied to shape learning, habits, and consumer behavior.

7. Lasting Legacy and Influence:

While behaviorism in its pure Watsonian form is no longer dominant, his ideas shifted psychology’s focus from the study of consciousness to the study of observable behavior.

This transformation paved the way for later developments in learning theory and behavioral therapy.

His legacy is complicated. Watson’s personal life, and his often extreme views on environmentalism, generated considerable controversy.

Even so, his contributions to psychology remain significant, and he is still considered one of the most important figures in its history.

Little Albert Experiment

Watson and Rayner’s (1920) most famous experiment involved conditioning a fear response in a young child known as Little Albert.

The experiment demonstrated that emotional responses, specifically fear, could be learned through classical conditioning.

Procedure:

Initially, Little Albert showed no fear towards a white rat.

However, Watson and Rayner paired the presentation of the rat with a loud, startling noise (an unconditioned stimulus that naturally elicited a fear response).

After repeated pairings, Little Albert began to exhibit a fear response (crying and attempting to move away) at the sight of the rat alone, even without the noise.

This indicated that the fear response had become conditioned to the rat.

Stimulus Generalization:

Albert’s conditioned fear did not remain specific to the white rat.

It spread to other furry objects, including a rabbit, a dog, a fur coat, cotton wool, and even a Santa Claus mask.

Crucially, the fear did not spread to everything. Albert showed no fear of his own wooden building blocks or of the observers’ hair, which suggested a specific, learned response rather than blanket anxiety.

This generalization showed that learned emotional reactions can transfer to similar stimuli, a concept still central in behavioral psychology.

Ethical Concerns:

The Little Albert experiment has been widely criticized for its ethical implications.

Watson and Rayner deliberately induced a lasting fear in an infant with no informed consent to the study’s true purpose and no attempt at debriefing.

Worse, no deconditioning was ever attempted. Albert’s mother withdrew him from the hospital before the researchers could try to remove the fear, and their four planned strategies for doing so were never carried out.

That unfinished business anticipated later work. Mary Cover Jones (1924) used a similar approach to treat a fearful child known as “Little Peter,” and decades later Wolpe (1958) formalised the idea as systematic desensitisation.

Modern ethical guidelines for research involving human subjects would prohibit such an experiment.

Historical Significance:

The experiment significantly impacted psychology by providing empirical support for Watson’s behaviorist theory and demonstrating the power of classical conditioning in shaping human emotions.

It also sparked new thinking about how conditioning principles could be applied to understanding and treating phobias, which Watson argued were learned and therefore could be unlearned.

That logic reached far beyond Watson’s own lab. It fed directly into B. F. Skinner’s later radical behaviourism, and through it, into applied behaviour analysis and behaviour therapy.

As the psychologist Hans Eysenck later argued, the study became the applied proof of concept for Watson’s whole programme. It showed, in his words, “how all phobias are acquired in everyday life” (Eysenck, 1965).

That reputation would not survive closer scrutiny.

Was Little Albert Really Conditioned? Later Doubts

Watson and Rayner’s (1920) design had real weaknesses.

It included no control subject and no check for ordinary maturation, since fear responses often emerge naturally around Albert’s age. It also had no control for pseudoconditioning, in which repeated loud noises alone create general sensitisation rather than a specific learned fear.

Later attempts to reproduce the effect failed outright.

Bregman (1934) could not condition fear of household objects in fifteen infants, and English (1929) reported the same negative result.

A frame-by-frame re-examination of the surviving film footage found Albert’s reactions “well within the normal range for an infant.” This offers little clear evidence that robust conditioning ever actually took place (Powell & Schmaltz, 2021).

A separate controversy surrounds who “Little Albert” really was.

For decades his fate was unknown.

Researchers eventually identified him as Douglas Merritte, a child who died young of hydrocephalus (Beck et al., 2009). A later analysis argued from the film that he was neurologically impaired rather than the healthy infant Watson described (Fridlund et al., 2012).

A rival identification followed.

It proposed a healthy child named William Albert Barger, which removes this particular objection but leaves the study’s methodological and ethical problems fully intact (Powell et al., 2014).

Personal Life

Watson’s personal life was as complex and contested as his career.

Alongside his professional success in psychology and later advertising, his divorce and its aftermath became a lasting subject of scholarly debate.

Early Life and Upbringing:

Born in 1878 in rural South Carolina, Watson grew up in a family of limited means.

His father abandoned the family when Watson was young, leaving his devout Baptist mother to raise him.

She moved the family in search of better opportunities.

Her strong religious influence may also have shaped Watson’s later rejection of subjective, introspective psychology in favor of a strictly objective, scientific method.

Marriages and Relationships:

Watson’s first marriage to Mary Ickes, a former student, was strained from the beginning.

Family tensions deepened when Mary’s brother, Harold Ickes, became a prominent political figure, later serving as U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

In 1920, Watson’s career at Johns Hopkins University collapsed amid a publicized divorce scandal involving his romantic relationship with graduate student Rosalie Rayner.

The Johns Hopkins Scandal:

This scandal, described above, ostracized Watson from academia and forced him to rebuild his career outside traditional academic settings.

Unable to secure another university position, he turned to advertising, a new field where he would later apply his behaviorist ideas with remarkable success.

Personality and Public Persona:

Watson was known for his charisma and commanding presence, traits that set him apart from many of his academic peers.

Admirers described him as confident and dynamic, while critics pointed to his ambition, strong ego, and willingness to make extreme statements to promote his ideas.

These qualities helped him attract public attention but also fueled controversy around his work.

Later Years and Reflections:

After leaving academia, Watson found success and financial security in the advertising industry, where he applied his behavioral principles to marketing, consumer behavior, and personnel management.

Despite this successful second career, Watson seemed to regret his expulsion from academia and continued to engage with psychological topics, writing, and lecturing until his retirement in 1945.

Rayner’s sudden death in 1935 deeply affected Watson, leading to depression and withdrawal from public life.

Watson’s Perspective on Child-Rearing

Watson is best known for founding behaviorism, but his views on child-rearing also sparked lasting controversy.

He applied environmental influence and conditioned learning to child development, arguing that strict emotional control and limited affection would shape a resilient adult.

That advice drew heavy criticism. Understanding its historical context, and how Watson’s own thinking evolved, helps explain why.

Key Ideas

1. Extreme Environmentalism

Watson firmly believed that a child’s personality and behavior were determined almost entirely by environmental influences, not heredity.

He minimized the role of genetic factors and argued that with the right environment, any child could be molded into any type of adult.

This radical stance, known as extreme environmentalism, was central to his approach to child development.

Watson once made a bold claim about nurture.

Given “a dozen healthy infants” and complete control over their upbringing, he claimed he could train any one of them to become a doctor, lawyer, or artist.

He even claimed he could produce a thief, regardless of natural talent or family background.

2. Conditioned Learning and Emotional Control

Applying principles from classical conditioning, Watson argued that emotions like fear, love, and anger were not inborn but learned through association.

His Little Albert experiment was, in his view, proof that emotional responses could be conditioned.

Extending this idea to parenting, he advised parents to maintain strict emotional control, avoid excessive physical affection, and use structured routines to shape children’s behavior.

3. The Psychological Care of Infant and Child

In 1928, Watson and Rosalie Rayner published Psychological Care of Infant and Child, a guide for parents based on behaviorist principles.

It promoted a regimented schedule, independence, and self-reliance, while discouraging cuddling, rocking, or other forms of physical comfort.

At the time, experts saw it as progressive science.

However, later research and modern parenting experts criticized the approach as emotionally detached and potentially harmful to healthy emotional development.

Despite this, his son James later recalled Watson as a warm and charming father.

Points of Contention and Later Reflections

1. Criticism and Controversy:

Watson’s views on child-rearing, particularly his emphasis on emotional control and limited physical affection, were met with considerable criticism, both during his time and in subsequent decades.

Critics argued that his approach was overly rigid, lacked warmth, and failed to acknowledge the importance of emotional bonding in a child’s development.

2. Watson’s Later Regrets:

Interestingly, Watson himself later expressed regret over some of the advice in Psychological Care of Infant and Child.

He acknowledged that his understanding of child development had evolved since its publication.

This suggests a potential softening of his earlier rigid stance and a recognition of the complexities involved in raising children.

3. A Product of His Time:

Watson’s child-rearing views reflected his era.

The early 20th century was a time of rapid change, marked by industrialization, urbanization, and a growing faith in scientific progress.

Watson’s behaviorism, with its focus on objectivity, control, and predicting behavior, fit that mood well.

This helped make his child-rearing advice popular, despite its controversial aspects.

Watson’s Second Career in Advertising

After a very public divorce scandal in 1920, John B. Watson was forced to resign from his position at Johns Hopkins University at the peak of his academic career.

Unable to secure another academic appointment, Watson transitioned into the world of advertising, where he applied his behavioral principles with great success.

Entry into Advertising

Through the help of sociologist William I. Thomas, Watson joined the J. Walter Thompson advertising agency.

He reportedly started at the bottom of the business.

This included door-to-door market research, to learn the trade from the ground up.

His scientific understanding of human behavior, particularly the prediction and control of actions, translated seamlessly into marketing strategy.

By applying research-based insights to consumer habits, he was able to craft persuasive campaigns grounded in psychological theory.

Rapid Advancement

Watson’s innovative approach quickly made him indispensable.

In 1924, he was promoted to vice president of J. Walter Thompson. Later, he took on the same role at the William Esty advertising agency.

His work included:

• Brand Appeal Research – Studying consumer preferences to enhance product positioning.
• Consumer Choice Testing – Pioneering “brand X” tests to compare products directly.
• Product Marketing – Designing behavioral sales campaigns, such as those for Johnson & Johnson baby powder and cosmetics.
• Pioneering Radio Advertising – Recognizing the potential of radio as a mass-market platform and leveraging it for effective campaigns.

Continued Involvement in Psychology

Even while working in advertising, Watson stayed connected to psychology.

In the 1920s, he taught at the New School for Social Research and conducted infant behavior experiments at Columbia University.

He also continued refining and popularizing his theories through books, articles, and radio broadcasts.

Legacy in Advertising: A Lasting Impact

Watson’s work in advertising went beyond simply applying his theories to marketing campaigns; he also made significant contributions to personnel selection and management within the industry.

• Selection and Management: Watson advocated for personality testing in personnel selection, a practice that remains widespread today.
• Enduring Influence: He helped establish consumer behaviour analysis and market research, showing that behaviourism could shape marketing, hiring, and public perception far beyond the laboratory.

Although some contemporaries saw his shift to advertising as abandoning pure science, Watson’s later career reinforced his belief that psychology should be practical and applicable.

In many ways, his work in advertising was a continuation of his central mission: to use the science of behavior to predict and influence human action on a large scale.

Critical Evaluation

1. What aspects of Watson’s behaviorism were influenced by his contemporaries and predecessors?

John B. Watson’s development of behaviorism was significantly shaped by the ideas and research of his contemporaries and predecessors.

While he is recognized for popularizing behaviorism, his work was deeply rooted in earlier scientific and philosophical currents.

Rejection of Introspection and Emphasis on Objectivity:

• Watson’s behaviorism emerged as a direct response to the dominant schools of psychology at the time, particularly structuralism and functionalism, both of which relied heavily on introspection – the subjective observation of one’s own mental states.
• He viewed introspection as inherently unreliable and unscientific, advocating for a more objective approach focused solely on observable behavior.
• This emphasis on objectivity aligned with the broader scientific trends of the early 20th century, which favored empirical observation and measurement over subjective interpretation.

Influence of Comparative Psychology and Animal Research:

• Watson’s interest in studying behavior, rather than consciousness, was cultivated during his time at the University of Chicago, where he was drawn to comparative psychology – the study of animal behavior.
• Working with animals, particularly rats, allowed Watson to focus on observable actions and develop experimental methods that minimized subjective interpretation.
• This experience likely solidified his belief in the applicability of animal research findings to human behavior, a stance that was further supported by Darwin’s theory of evolution, which posited a continuity between species.

Building on the Legacy of Classical Conditioning:

• Watson’s most significant contribution to behaviorism was his application of classical conditioning principles, initially discovered by Ivan Pavlov, to human emotions and behavior.
• While Pavlov focused primarily on physiological responses, Watson saw the potential of conditioning to explain a wide range of human actions, from simple reflexes to complex emotions.
• His famous “Little Albert” experiment, while ethically controversial today, demonstrated the power of classical conditioning to shape fear responses in humans, further solidifying Watson’s conviction in the power of environmental influences.

Engagement with Psychoanalysis, Despite Later Rejection:

• A perhaps surprising influence on Watson’s early work was psychoanalysis, particularly the work of Sigmund Freud.
• Watson initially saw potential in psychoanalysis, appreciating its emphasis on early childhood experiences as shaping adult behavior, a concept he later integrated into his own theories.
• However, he ultimately rejected psychoanalysis for its reliance on the unconscious mind, which he considered unscientific and immeasurable.
• Despite this rejection, some scholars argue that Watson’s focus on the influence of early experiences on personality development stemmed, at least in part, from his engagement with psychoanalytic ideas.

The Role of Functionalism and Habit Formation:

• Although Watson ultimately rejected functionalism, he was initially influenced by its emphasis on studying the purpose and function of behavior. This is evident in his early focus on habit formation as a key mechanism of behavioral development.
• He viewed habits as learned associations between stimuli and responses, shaped by the principles of contiguity, frequency, and recency – concepts rooted in functionalist thought.
• While Watson later shifted his emphasis from habit formation to classical conditioning, his early work reflects the influence of functionalist principles in understanding learned behavior.

Watson’s ideas did not emerge in a vacuum.

The early 20th century prized objectivity, measurement, and the search for universal scientific laws, and his behaviorism fit that mood.

Yet Watson was no passive follower.

He engaged actively with his predecessors and contemporaries, adapting and refining their ideas, and at times rejecting them outright to forge his own distinct behaviorism.

He combined comparative psychology, classical conditioning, and elements of psychoanalysis, while rejecting introspection and any notion of an immeasurable mind.

The result was a paradigm shift: groundbreaking, controversial work that made behaviorism a dominant force in psychology for decades.

2. What were J. B. Watson’s beliefs about nature versus nurture?

John B. Watson is known for his extreme environmentalist stance on the nature-nurture debate.

This means he firmly believed that environmental factors play a far more significant role in shaping an individual’s behavior and personality than inherited traits.

While acknowledging the existence of inherited physical structures and a few basic instincts, Watson posits that experience and learning are the primary drivers of human development.

Several key points highlight his stance:

• Minimizing Inherited Traits: Watson distinguished between the inheritance of physical structures and the inheritance of functions, arguing that while the former is undoubtedly heritable, the latter is not. He believed functions arise from how the environment shapes inherited structures, a process that begins even before birth. He rejected attributing behavioral differences to race or other hereditary variables, attributing them solely to environmental experiences.
• “Give Me a Dozen Healthy Infants”: Watson’s (1924) famous assertion, ‘Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select… ‘ (p. 10) epitomizes his extreme environmentalist view. This statement reflects his belief in the infinite plasticity of human nature and the power of environmental control to shape individuals into virtually anything, regardless of their inherited predispositions.
• Emphasis on Learning and Conditioning: Watson viewed learning and conditioning as the primary mechanisms through which the environment shapes behavior. He championed classical conditioning, inspired by Pavlov’s work, as a powerful tool for understanding how environmental stimuli become associated with specific responses, even emotional responses like fear, as demonstrated in his Little Albert experiment.
• Rejection of Instinct: Initially, Watson did recognize the role of instincts in behavior. However, he later completely dismissed the concept, asserting that what was previously labeled as instinct was merely a product of learning and environmental shaping. This shift towards a more absolute environmentalist position further solidifies his belief in the dominance of nurture over nature.
• Social Implications of Environmentalism: Watson’s environmentalist stance held significant social implications, particularly in challenging the eugenics movement prevalent during his time. While eugenics emphasized heredity as the primary determinant of traits, including intelligence and criminal behavior, Watson argued against such genetic determinism, emphasizing the power of environmental interventions to shape individuals and address social problems.

However, it is important to note:

• Extreme Environmentalism Critiqued: Even strong proponents of environmental influence, such as B.F. Skinner, considered Watson’s environmentalism extreme and potentially detrimental to the field of psychology. They acknowledged the importance of considering both environmental and hereditary factors in shaping behavior.
• Simplification of Watson’s Views: Later interpretations of Watson’s work often presented an overly simplistic view of his ideas, portraying him as believing that all behavior is learned. While he strongly emphasized learning and environmental influence, it’s important to remember that his views were more nuanced and evolved throughout his career.

3. What were Watson’s main criticisms of psychoanalysis?

John B. Watson explored psychoanalysis and even used some of its methods early in his career.

Despite this, he developed several criticisms of it, focusing mainly on its lack of scientific rigor and its reliance on unverifiable concepts.

• Mentalism and the Unconscious: Watson dismissed the Freudian concept of the unconscious as vague, untestable, and unscientific. He argued that psychology should focus exclusively on observable behavior rather than hypothetical mental processes. In his view, behavior could be explained without invoking an unseen mental realm.

Surely we gain nothing by this concept. We can study the visible and tangible effect of suppressions, tangles, conflicting habits and the like without positing a ‘subconscious’.

• Subjective Methods: Watson criticized the subjective methods used in psychoanalysis, particularly introspection and dream analysis, for lacking objectivity and reliability. He argued that these methods were prone to bias and that they could not be independently verified. He believed that only objective methods, such as those used in the laboratory to study behavior, could provide a valid basis for understanding human psychology.
• Lack of Experimental Validation: While acknowledging that Freud and others had described interesting psychological phenomena, Watson argued that psychoanalysis failed to back up its claims with rigorous experimental testing. For Watson, psychological theories had to be supported by empirical evidence collected under controlled conditions.
• Focus on Sex: Freud’s emphasis on sexuality, particularly in childhood, struck Watson as excessive. Although he acknowledged the existence of sexual instincts, he believed that learning and environmental conditioning played a far greater role in shaping emotional and behavioral problems.
• Limited Applicability: Watson envisioned psychology as a discipline capable of solving everyday problems in education, business, and mental health. He criticized psychoanalysis for being too focused on internal conflicts and past experiences, which he believed limited its ability to produce practical, real-world solutions.

Despite these criticisms, Watson acknowledged that psychoanalysis had made some valuable contributions, such as highlighting the importance of early childhood experiences and recognizing the influence of unconscious processes on behavior.

However, he maintained that these insights needed to be reinterpreted within a behavioristic framework that emphasized observable behavior and the role of learning and conditioning.

Contemporary Research

Little Albert’s status as reliable evidence, rather than founding myth, has been tested again since Watson’s death. The most direct test comes from the film itself.

Aim: Powell and Schmaltz (2021) asked a simple question. Does the surviving film footage actually show the conditioned fear response the written report claims to have produced?

Method: The researchers examined the surviving clips, which show Albert during the baseline and final transfer-test sessions but not the actual conditioning trials. They analysed his reactions to the rat, rabbit, dog, fur coat and mask frame by frame.

Results: Albert’s reactions in the footage were inconsistent and mild. They looked more like ordinary startle, or an innate wariness of looming objects, than a strong, specific learned fear.

Conclusion: Powell and Schmaltz (2021) reached a clear verdict. The film offers little evidence Albert ever acquired the robust conditioned fear the study is famous for.

They suggested the popular belief that the footage “shows conditioning” may owe more to expectation than to what it actually depicts.

This film-based re-analysis sits alongside related historiographical work. Griggs (2015) reviewed the identity dispute over who Little Albert really was.

He found the confusion still uncorrected in many introductory textbooks years after better evidence had emerged. Harris (2020) then traced how journal editors and referees handled the competing identification claims between 2009 and 2014.

Read together, these two strands point the same way. Contemporary scholarship increasingly treats Little Albert less as settled proof than as a disciplinary story reworked with each retelling.

Sources

Beck, H. P., Levinson, S., & Irons, G. (2009). Finding Little Albert: A journey to John B. Watson’s infant laboratory. American Psychologist, 64, 605–614.

Bergmann, G. (1956). The contribution of John B. Watson. Psychological Review, 63, 265–276.

Bregman, E. O. (1934). An attempt to modify the emotional attitudes of infants by the conditioned response technique. The Pedagogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 45(1), 169–198.

English, H. B. (1929). Three cases of the “conditioned fear response.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 24(2), 221–225.

Freud, S. (1923/1927). The ego and the id. In Standard Edition (19) (pp. 88). London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

Freud, S. (1915/1970). The unconscious. In W. Russell (Ed.), Milestones in motivation. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.

Fridlund, A. J., Beck, H. P., Goldie, W. D., & Irons, G. (2012). Little Albert: A neurologically impaired child. History of Psychology, 15, 1–34.

Griggs, R. A. (2015). Psychology’s lost boy: Will the real Little Albert please stand up? Teaching of Psychology, 42(1), 14–18.

Harris, B. (2020). Journals, referees and gatekeepers in the dispute over Little Albert, 2009–2014. History of Psychology, 23(2), 103–121.

Pavlov, I. P. (1897/1902). The work of the digestive glands. London: Griffin.

Powell, R. A., Digdon, N., Harris, B., & Smithson, C. (2014). Correcting the record on Watson, Rayner, and Little Albert: Albert Barger as “psychology’s lost boy.” American Psychologist, 69, 600–611.

Powell, R. A., & Schmaltz, R. M. (2021). Did Little Albert actually acquire a conditioned fear of furry animals? What the film evidence tells us. History of Psychology, 24(2), 164–181.

Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52, 270–2277.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.

Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Knopf.

Skinner, B. F. (1980). Notebooks (Ed. R. Epstein). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Watson, J. B. (1907). Review of Joseph Jastrow, The Subconscious. American Journal of Sociology, 12, 558–561.

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–177.

Watson, J. B. (1914). Behavior: An introduction to comparative psychology. New York: Holt.

Watson, J. B. (1916). The psychology of wish fulfillment. Scientific Monthly, 3, 479–487.

Watson, J B. (1919). Psychology from the standpoint of a behaviorist. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Watson, J. B. (1920). Is thinking merely the action of language mechanisms? British Journal of Psychology, 11, 87–104.

Watson, J B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5,1-14

Watson, J. B. (1922).“The analysis of mind,” Dial, 72, 97–102.

Watson, J. B. (1924). Behaviorism. New York: People’s Institute.

Watson, J. B. (1928). Psychological care of infant and child. WW Norton.

Watson, J. B. (1926). What is behaviorism? Harper’s Monthly Magazine, 152, 723–729

Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism (Rev. ed.). New York: Norton. (Original work published 1924)

Woodworth, R. S. (1924). Four varieties of behaviorism. Psychological Review, 31, 257–264.