Sexual Research: A Brief Summary Of Watson's Article
This article discusses Watson’s alleged sexual research. The information about Watson’s sexual research in this article comes from McConnel, who was very curious about Watson’s life and research. He found it odd that a man like Watson lost his position at John Hopkins because of an affair and divorce. McConnel set out to find the truth and found that Watson had been conducting studies of actual sexual intercourse, measuring physiological responses during the sexual act. These studies were conducted these using himself and his graduate assistant, Rayner, as the participants. This story made much more sense to McConnel for why Watson lost his job. McConnel got this information from two sources. Furthermore, some sexual instruments were also found
in Watson’s lab at John Hopkins. Other factors such as Watson’s good looks and his interest in human sexuality (that he was not private about) also made this story believable. However, these evidences are not strong enough to conclude that Watson have been conducting sexual research using himself and his graduate student. This could be why many psychology books have left this part out from the Watson chapter.
I agree with the authors that it was right for many introductory psychology textbooks to leave this part out from psychological textbooks. I am sure there were many “gossip” worthy events in many great men/women’s life, but that shouldn't be conveyed to students (to read or to be tested on). In the case of Watsons, firstly, the evidences were not strong enough to support the story. Without clear evidence, it just looks like a gossip printed in textbooks (unless the stronger evidence provides details about research that can be used for future research). Secondly, even if stronger evidence was available it still shouldn’t be part of textbooks. When discussing influential people, the focus should be about what they did professionally and what it has to do with their field. If the goal is to provide examples of ethical violations/ research misconducts in the past, one can simply give general examples of the types of misconduct done without providing names.
As for Watson’s story, I am not sure what to think about the story – weather I believe it or not. There really doesn't seem to be any strong evidence that it happened. Then again, he did burn a several of his personal documents toward the end of his career.
in Watson’s lab at John Hopkins. Other factors such as Watson’s good looks and his interest in human sexuality (that he was not private about) also made this story believable. However, these evidences are not strong enough to conclude that Watson have been conducting sexual research using himself and his graduate student. This could be why many psychology books have left this part out from the Watson chapter.
I agree with the authors that it was right for many introductory psychology textbooks to leave this part out from psychological textbooks. I am sure there were many “gossip” worthy events in many great men/women’s life, but that shouldn't be conveyed to students (to read or to be tested on). In the case of Watsons, firstly, the evidences were not strong enough to support the story. Without clear evidence, it just looks like a gossip printed in textbooks (unless the stronger evidence provides details about research that can be used for future research). Secondly, even if stronger evidence was available it still shouldn’t be part of textbooks. When discussing influential people, the focus should be about what they did professionally and what it has to do with their field. If the goal is to provide examples of ethical violations/ research misconducts in the past, one can simply give general examples of the types of misconduct done without providing names.
As for Watson’s story, I am not sure what to think about the story – weather I believe it or not. There really doesn't seem to be any strong evidence that it happened. Then again, he did burn a several of his personal documents toward the end of his career.