Watson & Cover Jones a Review of

J. Behav. Ther. & Exp. Psychiat. Vol. 6, pp. 181-187. Pergamon Press, 1975. Printed in Great Britain.

A 1924 PIONEER LOOKS AT BEHAVIOR THERAPY*

MARY COVER JONES'I"

Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley

THE CITY of Philadelphia is about to com- memorate the 200th anniversary of the founding of our country. We are here to observe 50 yr of behavior modification therapy. It is appropriate for us to review the spirit of the times when the basic theoretical model for this movement germinated. I t was in 1913 that John B. Watson, the founder of behaviorism, published in the Psychological Review what Woodworth termed "the Behaviorist Manifesto". The same year Watson's Psychology from the Standpoint o f a Behaviorist appeared. Art article in the Scientific Monthly, coauthored in 1921 by Watson and his wife, Rosalie Rayner Watson, first described his observations and experiments with children.

What was going on outside the psychological laboratory at this time? Henry Ford put in his first assembly line for the model T in 1913. World War I broke out in Europe in 1914. In 1917 the United States joined what Woodrow Wilson termed the crusade to make the world safe for democracy. Young women rejected corsets, shortened their skirts, shingled their hair, smoked cigarettes, joined men in mixed- group drinking at speakeasies, were frank about their petting, and advocated more tolerance toward divorce (Allen, 1952). Their mothers worried about the Freudian influence.

THE T H E R A P E U T I C EXPERIMENTS ON C H I L D R E N ' S FEARS: WATSON'S ROLE

I entered Vassar College in 1915 and, although I had no way of knowing it at the time, it was an

outcome of this event which led to my professional association with John Watson 5 yr later. Our weekends away from the campus were limited by edict, but postwar New York, only 2 hr away by train, was an exciting place. I t was on one of these weekends in 1919, the spring of my senior year, that instead of the usual theater outing, a friend steered me to Watson's lecture and films reporting his work with infants. He told us that infants at birth could respond with three basic emotions fear, rage, and love--which were called out by specific but limited stimuli. More elaborate emotional responses were learned by association or conditioning. Watson had chosen 11-month- old Albert, "a child with a stolid and phlegmatic disposition" as the subject o f a conditioning experiment which demonstrated his thesis. As is well known to you, a loud sound which called out the fear response was coupled with Albert 's positive response of reaching interestedly for the white rat of which he showed no fear. After several associations of the startling sound with the presentation of the rat, Albert not only withdrew in fright from the rat but this negative reaction to the rat eventually persisted without reinforcement of the loud sound. So far as we know, this was the first laboratory attempt to condition an emotion in a child. Transference has also occurred: to a white rabbit, to other furry objects, even to a Santa Claus mask with a white fuzzy beard!

The possibility of using the learning approach in the modification of behavior appealed to me.

*This paper is a somewhat shortened version of the keynote address delivered at the 1st Temple University Conference in Behavior Therapy and Behavior Modification, 14-17 November 1974, Philadelphia, Pa. The conference title w a s

Behavior Therapy--50 Years of Progress. j'Requests for reprints should be addressed to Mary Cover Jones, University of California, Institute of Human Development, 1203 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, California 94720.

181

182 MARY COVER JONES

If fears could be built in by conditioning, as Watson had demonstrated, could they not also be removed by similar procedures? I well remember the excitement with which we doctoral candidates at Columbia greeted Watson's textbook, Psychology fi'om the Standpoint of a Behaviorist (1919). It pointed the way from armchair psychology to action and sold Be- haviorism to us.

I believe I was the last graduate student fortunate enough to work with Watson. If there is any value in having me here today, it is to illustrate how events may shape lives and how one's dignity, in the Skinnerian sense, evaporates when the fortuitous causes of one's destiny are revealed.

John Watson, after his "sensationally pub- licized divorce" (Woodworth, 1959), had left Johns Hopkins University and was associated with the J. Walter Thompson Advertising Company in New York City. I was at Columbia. Rosalie Ranyer Watson, the second wife, a student and assistant of Watson's, who figured in the divorce, had been a Vassar classmate and friend of mine. It was through our association that I met and had the opportunity to work with John Watson.

Watson suggested that for my Ph.D dissertation I extend his observations of infants' developmental activities to a larger and more representative sample in order to provide normative data. This research culminated in The Development of Behavior Patterns in Young Children (Jones, 1926), in which I compared my measures based on data for over 300 children from well-baby clinics in New York City with those of baby biographers--from Pestalozzi in 1784, Darwin, 1877, and Shinn, 1900, to Gesell's tests on 24 children published in 1925. Many of these behaviors have continued to figure in developmental schedules. My concurrent work, under Watson's supervision, reported in The Elimination of Children's Fears and A Laboratoo, Study of Fear: The Case of Peter (Jones, 1924a, 1924b) was not considered by my Columbia doctoral committee to be suitable for a Ph.D. thesis because of the limited number of cases.

They shared the opinion recently expressed by one of my students who commented in regard to a case history, "l am not impressed with a N of one". On the other hand, a case study does provide the opportunity to try out a principle in a new way.

With reference to the treatment of Peter, Watson wrote in Behaviorism (1924, p. 132), "Finding that emotional responses could be built in with great readiness (Albert) we were all the more eager to see whether they could be broken down and if so, by what methods". Watson paid us a professional visit on many Saturday afternoons throughout the conduct of the therapeutic experiments with Peter. The experiments occurred in a natural setting, since Peter lived in the institution where the study was carried on, as did l, with my husband and daughter. (This was the Hecksher Building on Fifth Avenue over the door of which was the inscription, "The Children's Home for Happi- ness". An admirable sentiment, but it carried no guarantees!) The patient, meticulous, pain- staking procedures used in the experiments with Peter reflected the methodological style of John B. Watson, who faithfully followed Peter's progress, reverses, and final freedom from his fear.

WATSON'S T H E O R E T I C A L POSITION

Watson's position on theoretical aspects of behaviorism, which he began to construct as early as 1904 at the age of 26, was less carefully formulated. His psychological background had been enriched with work in biology and in medicine, especially with Loeb, Jennings and Adolph Meyer. He first asked the question: "Can ' t I find out by watching (their) behavior everything that other students find out by asking subjects to introspect?" In 1913 his "Behaviorist Manifesto" (Woodworth 1959) burst upon the world. The study of behavior was not only to be free from the domination ol consciousness but was to take entire possessi~ n of the field of psychology. This and later statements provoked torrents of angry criticism. Titchener, a classical

A 1924 PIONEER LOOKS AT BEHAVIOR THERAPY 183

psychologist, vigorously attacked behaviorism in a 1914 paper as "crude" and accused Watson of asking us to exchange a science for a tech- nology (Larson and Sullivan, 1965). However, Titchener's psychology, a science of consciousness, led to boring and sterile experiments, as I can well attest from my exposure to laboratory courses using his manual at Vassar under Margaret Floy Washburn. Tolman (1952, p. 326) reported similar reactions, and went on to state that this was "perhaps one reason why my introduction in Yerkes' course to Watson's behaviorism came as a tremendous stimulus and relief."

In spite of Titchener's objections to Watson's theories he very fairly described the positive side set forth by Watson as "the working out of general and specific methods for the regulation of behavior." Titchener considered a paper of Watson's in the Psychological Review (Watson, 1924) to be "one of the most important of the year" (Larson and Sullivan, 1965).

Another kind of objection to Watson's flamboyant statements came from those who resented his being credited with a new and unique theory. McDougall contrasted Watsonian Behaviorism with Sane Behaviorism, saying, "I, rather than Watson, am the Arch-Behaviorist (Watson and McDougall, 1928)." The Frenchman Pieron in 1958 wrote:

"I had renounced the subject study of the pheno- mena of consciousness and affirmed the validity of the biological science of behavior for man and animals well before the spread of that psychological 'Behaviorism' which Watson claimed as uniquely American and about which the only thing unique was his often puerile exaggerations (Hirsch, 1973, p. vi)."

Actually, Watson might have built upon the work of an American, Twitmeyer, whose doctoral dissertation in 1902 was "the first strictly experimental observation concerning the conditioned motor ref lex. . . (Hull, 1934, p. 382)."

Skinner summarized the weaknesses in Wat- son's theoretical platform in these words:

"And so it came about that Watson was to be remembered for a long time by both laymen and psychologists alike for a too narrow interpretation of self-observation, for an extreme environmentalism, and for a coldly detached theory of child care, no one of

which was a necessary part of his original program. His brilliant glimpse of the need for, and the nature and implications of, a science of behavior was all but forgotten (Skinner, 1959, p. 2)." Had Watson continued his psychological

observations (he left Hopkins and academia at the age of 41), I am sure that his theoretical position would have become more dynamic, more mellow. He would have modified an over- simplification of his concept of native disposition in the light of more complex aspects of human development and functioning which were coming to his attention in our studies. He saw my own daughter in our home placidly playing through a loud noise, when he expected a traumatic response like that of Albert, alone in a strange situation. The conclusions based on observations published by Harold Jones and myself in 1928 could have been h i s I t h a t children tend to show timidity or fear of the unexpected and unusual and that fears develop when the individual knows enough to recognize his inadequacy to cope with a strange or sudden experience (Jones and Jones, 1928).

It is fitting to close this evaluation of Watson- ian Behaviorism by quoting the American Psychological Association's 1957 citation:

"To Dr. John B. Watson, whose work has been one of the vital determinants of the form and substance of modern psychology. He initiated a revolution in psychological thought, and his writings have been the point of departure for continuing lines of fruitful research (Skinner, 1959, p. 2)."

JOHN B. WATSON--THE MAN

Now let us look at John B. Watson as a person. Henry Murray labelled him "charis- matic" and that he was ! Handsome, self-assured, able, ambitious, a Southerner with persuasive manner, he readily carried the role of innovator. Watson reminisced about his boyhood in these words: "At 9 yr of age ! was handling tools, half-soling shoes, milking cows. At 12 I was a pretty fair carpenter. This manual skill has never lost its charm. (In my early thirties) l built a 10-room house from blue prints (p. 271)." And in the same exulting vein, "At the University of Chicago I wired the lab with my own hands,


built partitions, animal yards and much apparatus (Watson, 1936, p. 275)."

On the other hand, recollections of his early schooling are mostly negative. He wrote, " I have few pleasant memories of these years. I was lazy, somewhat insubordinate, and so far as I know, I never made above a passing grade." And later (of Furnam University), "Little of my college life interested me . . . . Those years made me bitter, made me feel that college leads to softness, laziness and a prolongation of infancy with a killing of vocational bents (p. 272)."

At last, graduate work at the University of Chicago was a highly rewarding educational experience. He says, " I enjoyed these years, worked night and day and established work habits that have persisted the rest of my life (p. 273)." He received his degree magna cure laude " . . . at the time the youngest Ph.D. turned out at that institution [Chicago] (p. 274)." He stayed on at Chicago to teach and do research until in 1908 he was invited to Johns Hopkins as a professor. After 11 yr of what he considered to be fruitful associations at Johns Hopkins he moved to New York City and a career in advertising. In the eyes of Watson's detractors this was a predictable sequitur. "Given Watson's commitment to pecuniary standards, it was inevitable that behaviorism should be most useful for an outlook in which the standards of Madison Avenue were domin- ant. Consciousness has no place in such a body of thought (Seligman, 1970, p. 26)." Watson himself wrote in his autobiography: " I began to learn that it can be just as thrilling to watch the growth of a sales curve of a new product as to watch the learning curve of animals or men (p. 280)."

But his old interests endured. In response to a recent article of mine (Jones, 1974), Myrtle McGraw of the famous Johnny and Jimmy twin study wrote to me of her contacts with Watson:

"Once our Normal Child Development Study was off to a good start, Dr. Tilney set about appointing an advisory council to our research including notables such as Dewey, Woodworth, Thorndike and others. Although Watson had long since been in adverstising, I asked Dr. Tilney to invite John Watson. After all,

Watson was the pioneer in infant research. When he first saw my films of swimming newborns, he jumped out of his chair, put his arm around my shoulder and exclaimed, 'Girl, you just had more courage than 1 had' ! It was probably a soft spot in his heart that, being on our advisory council, had brought him back just a wee tiny bit into the area of infant research."

Watson had some characteristics which served his empirical behaviorism less well. Murray labelled him "a one-tracted, timely, publicist". Skinner more understandingly explains: "Wat- son's taste for and skill in polemics led him into extreme positions from which he never escaped (1959, p. 1)." As an example we have Watson's oft-quoted environmentalistic hyperbole: "Give me a dozen healthy infants, well formed and my own specific 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--doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and yes, even beggarman and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors (1924, p. 82)". This statement sounds less flamboyant if put in context. Watson continued: " I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years".

In his autobiography Watson was apologetic about two books which were published after he left the academic field, Behaviorism, 1924, and Psychological Care of Infant and Child, 1928. But his willingness to acknowledge errors is an admirable quality which should recommend him to us. He refers to the latter as a book " I feel sorry about, because I did not know enough to write the book I wanted to write (1936, p. 279)." This is the book for which generations of mothers, including my own, have flayed Watson. He himself quotes one parent, "a dear old lady," who said, "Thank God, my children are grown and that I had a chance to enjoy them before I met you (Watson, 1928, p. 69)." One reason for the distress which mothers expressed was Watson's advice: "Never hug and kiss them (your children), never let them sit on your lap. I f you must, kiss them once on the forehead when they say good night. Shake hands with


them in the morning (1928, p. 81-82)." Watson was generous in giving credit to

others. He would not co-author my papers because, as he said, his name was well known, while I still had my reputation to make. He wanted me to have all the recognition. In his book Behaviorism he writes: "While I spent considerable time as consultant and helped plan the work, Mrs. Mary Cover Jones conducted all of the experiments and wrote up all of the results (1924a, p. 132)."

BEHAVIORISM IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF THE TWENTIETH

CENTURY Dr. Wolpe has asked me to "reflect on some

technicalities of the state of the science of behaviorism in 1924 and the reasons for the doldrums of the ensuing quarter of a century." Once before, he pointed out to me that in my professional career I had neglected an opportunity to align myself with innovators in the field of behavior therapy and with disciples of behaviorism. Why was this? Primarily, because I did not see the significance of my small beginning in relation to a possibly developing field of therapy. And secondly, while some of the great, like Watson, have exhibited single-tracted motivation in pursuit of their professional goals, others have found that personal events and associations have weighted their careers.

For example, Thorndike (whose influence on Behaviorism Eysenck and Beech (1971) say has not been sufficiently recognized) in his autobiography, which immediately precedes Wat- son's in Murchison's Volume 3, says this of his life history (1936, p. 266): "I have recorded my beginning as a psychologist in detail because it illustrates what is perhaps the most general fact about my entire career as a psychologist later, namely its responsiveness to outer pressures or opportunities rather than to inner needs . . . . Within certain limits set by capacity and interest, I did in those early years and have done since what the occasion seemed to demand." On a lower plane my modest career has followed this pattern. Marriage, children, a move across the

continent, and an association with a longitudinal project directed by my husband, Harold E. Jones, determined my path. I made this personal digression in order to acquaint you with my trepidation in approaching tonight's assignment.

Now to the doldrums. I have discussed the tremendous impact of Watsonian behaviorism in the twenties. Perhaps the sensationalism of this early "breakthrough," as his protagonists view it, is responsible for some of the later eclipse. As Skinner has written about Watson: "From all this exceptional stimulation which he received (as a graduate student and young instructor) Watson emerged with a burning recognition of the need for a science of behaviorism (Skinner, 1959, p. 1)." Aspects of this zeal that were negative were noted by Hull (1952, pp. 153-4):

"Personally, while I inclined to be sympathetic with Watson's views concerning the futility of introspection and the general views of objectivity, I felt very un- certain about many of his dogmatic claims. I recall the semi-fanatical ardor with which at the time some young people, including a few relatively ignorant undergraduates would espouse the Watsonian cause with such statements as, 'Behaviorism has made a greater contribution to science than has been produced by psychology in its entire previous history.' This attitude on the part of some precipitated equally violent opposing claims (Hull, 1952, pp. 153-154)."

A discussant of Kohler's Gestalt Psychology (1947), pointed out that one-third of the book was devoted to attacking Watson (Welch, 1948). But as Boring has said, "There would probably have been no school of Behaviorism had there not been in someone a positive faith strong enough to warrant exaggeration (Boring, 1950, p. 582)."

Woodworth (1959) notes the decline of interest in behaviorism when Watson's vigorous impetus was ended. Some followers of Freud have expressed disappointment in the lessened virility of the psychoanalytic movement since Freud's influence is no longer felt. It is difficult to keep any issue at fever heat.

A further reason for the eclipse of Watson's behaviorism in the 1930's and 1940's, we should admit, is the inadequacies and fallacies of the initial doctrine. These have been discussed. Murray (1960) speaks for many scientists,


therapists and laymen when he summarizes the movement as "shallow", "mechanistic", "phili- stine", "soulless", and views Watson's repudia- tion of subjective experience as "eccentric foibles" (Murray, 1967). Others see behaviorism as being concerned only with prediction and control, the latter, to many, a frightening threat (Seligman, 1970).

Yet another negative influence may have been other developing psychologies at that time, especially that of Freud. Again to quote Murray: "Watson failed to stem the tide of Freudian ideas (1960, p. 6)."

The loss of the founder's leadership, an im- mature theoretical position, the appeal of alternate forms of therapy, an optimistic, self- regulating life style are some of the reasons offered to explain the doldrums in this movement in the 30's and 40's. It does seem remark- able that a practical psychology, as Watson meant behaviorism to be, and one so enthusias- tically welcomed at the time, should have been so slow to recommend itself to therapeutic application. For Watson said, " to have a right to existence, psychology must serve as a foundation for reaching out into human life (1920, p. 247)."

However, we need not see the early years following Watson as unproductive in terms of scientific inquiry. Lashley, a student of Watson's, continued to contribute through the next 30 yr. By the 1930's we had Hull, Hunter, Skinner, Spence, Tolman, and others to enrich behavior theory. Later, came Hebb, Neal Miller, Guthrie, Mowrer, to mention just a few. These men have provided a more sophisticated basis for the behaviorism left by Watson, as well as a sounder underpinning for the practical application of behavior therapy.

I was recently asked whether, if I were to begin my psychological career over again, but with my present background of experience, I would repeat my 1924 research. My answer would be, "Probably, yes," provided John Watson were here to incite me, as he did 50 yr ago, if my husband, Harold Jones, were here to help with interpretations as he did in the early 20's and for 40 yr thereafter, and if Peter, the frightened

child, were here needing help. But my last 45 yr have been spent in longi-

tudinal research in which I have watched the psychobiological development of our study members as they grew from children to adults now in their 50's. I think of what we have learned as we studied these lives in progress. Participants have provided information on somatic, environ- mental, family, attitudinal and behavioral growth and change. It is my one regret that 1 did not have so extensive an association with little Peter of the fear study. With some of our staff members at our institute we have looked at the psychodynamic patterns, with others, upon the effects of the impinging behavior setting, or of rate of physical maturing, with still others we have considered the processes of learning, of perception, of cognition, of motivation. My association with this study has broadened and deepened my conception of the human experience.

Now I would be less satisfied to treat the fears of a 3-yr-old, or of anyone else without a later follow-up and in isolation from an appreciation of him as a tantilizingly complex person with unique potentials for stability and change. This would require a receptive attitude toward various treatment methods in order to select the one, or combination of several, most likely to benefit the individual. Einstein warned us that even in the field of physics there is no privileged position from which to make scientific observations, but that there is a responsibility to be aware of our positions in time and space (Macfarlane, 1971, p. 140).

Behaviorism has come a long way since the days of John B. Watson. I welcome this opportunity to acknowledge with gratitude our indebtedness to this impressive figure in Ameri- can psychology. It is up to his followers who are devoted to its practical application in therapy to keep its standards high, its effectiveness humane, and its future bright.

REFERENCES

ALLEN F. L. (1952) The Big Change, Harper Brothers, New York.


BORING E. G. (1950) History of Experimental Psychology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.

EYSENCK H. J. and BEEC~ H. R. (1971) Countercon- ditioning and related methods, Handbook of Psycho- therapy and Behavior Change (Edited by BERGIN A. E. and GARFIELD S. L.), Wiley, New York.

HIRSCH J. (1973) Introduction, Forced Movements, Tropisms, and Animal Conduct (Edited by LOEB J.), Dover, New York.

HULL C. L. (1952) Clark L. Hull, A History of Psycho- logy in Autobiography (Edited by MURCHISON C.), Vol. 4, Clark University Press, Worcester, Mass.

HULL C. L. (1934) Learning: 1I. The factor of the condition reflex, A Handbook of Experimental Psycho- logy (Edited by MURCmSON C.), Clark University Press, Worcester, Mass.

JONES H. E. and JONES M. C. (1920) A study of fear, Childhood Education 5, 136-143.

JONES M. C. (1924a) The elimination of children's fears, J. Exp. Psychol. 7, 382-390.

JONES M. C. (1924b) A laboratory study of fear. The case of Peter, Pedagogical Seminary 31, 308-315.

JONES M. C. (1926) The development of early behavior patterns in young children, J. Gen. Psychol. 33, 577- 585.

JONES M. C. (1974) Albert, Peter and John B. Watson, Am. Psychol. 29, 581-583.

KOHLER W. (1947) Gestalt Psychology, Liveright, New York.

LARSON C. A. and SULLIVAN J. J. (1965) Watson's relation to Titchener, J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 1, 338-354.

MACFARLANE J. W. (1971) Perspectives on personality consistency and change from the Guidance Study, The Course of Human Development (Edited by JONES M. C., BAYLEY N., MACFARLANE J. W. and HONZIK M. P.), Wiley, New York.

MURRAY H. A. (1960) Historical trends in personality research, Perspectives in Personality Research, Springer, New York.

MURRAY H. A. (1967) Henry A. Murray, A History of Psychology in Autobiography (Edited by BORING E. G. and LINDSEY G.), Vol. 5, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York.

SELIGMAN B. B. (1970) Introduction, Molders of Modern Thought (Edited by SELIGMAN B. B.), Quandrangle Books, Chicago.

SKINNER B. S. (1959) John Broadus Watson, Behaviorist, Science 129, 197-198.

SKINNER B. S. (1971) Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Knopf, New York.

THORNDIKE E. L. (1952) Edward Lee Thorndike, A History of Psychology hi Autobiography (Edited by MUReHISON C.), Vol. 3, Clark University Press, Worcester, Mass.

TOLMAN E. C. (1952) Edward Chase Tolman, A History of Psychology in Autobiography (Edited by MURCHISON C.), Vol. 4, Clark University Press, Worcester, Mass.

WATSON J. B. (1913) Psychology as a behaviorist views it, Psychol. Rev. 20, 158-177.

WATSON J. B. (1919) Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist, Lippincott, Philadelphia.

WATSON J. B. (1924a) Behaviorism, People's Institute, New York.

WATSON J. B. (1924b) The unverbalized in human behavior, Psychol. Rev. 31, 273-280.

WATSON J. B. (1928) Psychological Care of Infant and Child, Norton, New York.

WATSON J. B. (1936) John Broadus Watson, A History of Psychology in Autobiography (Edited by MURCHISON C.), Vol. 3, Clark University Press, Worcester, Mass.

WATSON J. B. and McDOUGALL W. (1928) The Battle of Behaviorism: An Exposition and an Exposure, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, London.

WATSON J. B. and WATSON R. R. (1921) Studies in infant psychology, Sci. Mon. 13, 493-515.

WELCH L. (1948) An integration of some fundamental principles of modern behaviorism and gestalt psychology, J. gen. Psychol. 39, 175-190.

WOODWORTH R. S. (1959) Obituary of John Broadus Watson, Am. J. Psychol. 72, 301-310.

Watson & Cover Jones a Review of

Documents

Transcript of Watson & Cover Jones a Review of