John B.

Watson and the Study of Human Sexual Behavior

Author(s): H. W. Magoun
Source: The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Nov., 1981), pp. 368-378
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3812328
Accessed: 15-11-2017 09:33 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Sex Research

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Journal of Sex l:lesearch Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 368-378 November, 1981

John B. Watson and the Study of

Human Sexual Behavior
H. W. MAGOUN

Abstract

This article reviews the steps in John B Watson's career from his initial
experiments in rat learning through studies of reflexes in newborn and infant
children, to his exploration of adult human sexual behavior. The latter began
with questionnaire studies of World War I fillms on sex hygiene. Watson was
next reported to have engaged in laboratory studies of hllman sexual behavior
at The Johns Hopkins University. Subsequently, "a set of small instruments
for measuring the female sex response," stated to have been Watson?s, came
to light A photograph and descriptions of these instruments are presented.
Other indications of Watson's interests in human sexual behavior and the
early hazards of undertaking such research in academia, are briefly surveyed.

Experimental Psychology from Rats to Human Infants

At the turn of this century experimental psychology-as we know it

today was initiated in the U.S. by a small number of young psycholo-
gists, typically in research for their doctorates. One of the most notable
of this group was John B. Watson, whose dissertation? in 1903, popularized
use of the white rat in experimental studies of animal learning, first at
the University of Chicago and therl at Johns Hopkins.
Watson's accomplishments were such that, in 1913, he was invited to
present a series of lectures at Columbia University (Watson, 1913a). In
the Elrst on "Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It' he introduced
"behaviorism" to American psychology. Two years later, as President of
the American Psychological Association Watson advocated extension of
the objective methods used in investigating animal behavior to research
with human subjects and, himself began the study of innate reflexes in
newborn babies and conditioned emotional reactions in year-old infants.
H. W. Magoun is a Professor Emeritus from the Brain Research Institute at the
University of California, Los Angeles. This work was supported in part by NIH Grant LM
03069 from the National Library of Medicine. The author is deeply indebted to Reg B.
Bromiley, James V. McConnell, and C. Roger Myers for their essential help in the
preparation of this paper.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to H. W. Magoun, Professor Emeritus, Brain
Researeh Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90024.
368

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOHN B. WATSON 369

Questionnaire Studies of War Films on Sex Hygiene

With the advent of World War I, Watson joined the military and spent
most of his service time developing methods for selecting pilots for air
combat. While in the service, he had seen anti-VD fillms in which young
American soldiers, "shipped to sinful Europe," had succumbed to the
temptation of prostitutes, with substantial footage then depicting lesions
of the genital organs caused by venereal disease. As the war ended,
Watson proposed to show these Ellms to civilian audiences and, after
extended negotiations, they were presented to some 5,000 persons. Wat-
son, with the help of young Karl Lashley, observed the audiences,
distributed questionnaires to all attending, and analyzed the responses
returned, with follow-up interviews of selected samples.
As Watson's biographer, David Cohen, has recently written:

This experience convinced Watson of the importance of investigating

sexual behavior in more detail. He began to argue that psychology needed to
take a frank look at how people behave sexually.... Watson proposed to
study the attitudes of doctors toward sex and, especially, toward sex education
as a means of preventing venereal disease.... A lengthy questionnaire was
prepared for the doctors, most of whom with pious morality appeared to
view sex itself as a kind of disease. Their replies convinced Watson that sex
was too important to be left to the medical profession. He began to argue
forcefully that psychologists should study sex behavior to filnd what people's
sexual relationships were like and what part this played in their lives. He
hoped gradually to extend these studies so that, finally, psychology would
study sex directly. He had deElnite plans. (pp. 125-142)

Laboratory Study of Human Sexual Behavior at Johns Hopkins

It was at this point that indications have since come to light that
identified Watson as "one of the first Americans to investigate the
physiological aspects of adult human sexual responses." The initial pub-
lished account appeared in James V. McConnell's lively book, Under-
standing Human Behavior (1974):

Since the medical sciences had studiously ignored the subject, Watson set
out to investigate the matter himself ... by connecting his own body and
that of his female partner to various scientific instruments while they made
love. He fathered what were probably the very first reliable data on human
sexual responses and . . . acquired several boxes of carefully annotated rec-
ords. Unfortunately . . . his wife . . . eventually discovered why her husband

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
370 H. W. MAGOUN

was spending so much time . . . in his laboratory, (and) not only sued him for
divorce, (but) also confiscated the scientific records!
Watson's academic career was ruined . . . He had to resign his professorship
at Johns Hopkins University and most of his friends and colleagues deserted
him. The Baltimore newspapers reported the divorce in lurid detail, and the
judge ... gave Watson a tongue-lashing calling him ... an expert in mis-
behavior. After the divorce, Watson married his assistant.... In desperation,
he took a position with a large advertising agency, and stayed with them the
rest of his professional life. (p. 345)

McConnell recently (Note 1) expanded on his earlier account, drawing

on his conversations with Loyd Ring (Deke) Coleman, a colleague and
friend of Watson.

In 1958, when Deke retired, I spent many delightful hours listening to him
reminisce about John B. Watson.... Needless to say, he spent a fair amount
of time on Watson's troubles at Hopkins. He had met Mary Ickes while still
a graduate student at the University of Chicago, and they were married in
1904. But Watson was an experimentalist in the broadest sense of the word.
Prior to the divorce proceedings his wife instituted in 1919, he had become
enamored of a young lady graduate student. That much is public record.
However, according to Coleman, the precise details of the love affair
involved 'records' of a different kind. Coleman explained things to me thusly:
First of all, Mary Ickes Watson had intercepted some rather poetic love
letters Watson had sent, that were eventually quoted in the newspapers. The
unspoken secret of the divorce, however, had to do with experimental
psychology. Deke insisted that Watson had become interested in the physi-
ology of the sexual response, and that he actually 'took readings' and 'made
records' of sexual arousal in his laboratory at Johns Hopkins. Supposedly,
Mary Ickes discovered these records and introduced them in court which
would explain the judge's reaction and the intensity of the scandal but then
destroyed the data after she destroyed Watson's reputation.
In 1974, after I had used this story in my textbook, Cedric Larsen one of
our foremost Watson scholars had written asking for evidence. I told him
what Coleman had told me and, although doubtful about the matter, Larsen
set out to look for more evidence. Both the New York Times and the
Baltimore Sun had given the divorce extensive coverage but, aside from
veiled hints, their accounts had little to offer. Furthermore, the court records
themselves were missing. Mary Ickes' brother was a noted politician. Larsen
speculated that through some political sleight-of hand, the written record of
the case was made to vanish. (Note 1)

Watson's Instruments for Measuring Female Sex Responses

Reg Bromiley, in a personal letter, described the instruments of Wat-

son, which he had acquired at Johns Hopkins and, later, donated to The
Canadian Psychological Association Archives.

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOHN B. WATSON 371

APPARATUS: I examined the apparatus when I got it in 1945 and since

then have glanced at it probably 20 times. As shown in the photo, it included
a simple vaginal speculum (upper right), such as obstetricians use. One device
(upper left) was obviously a tambour sensor which would transmit (intrava-
ginal) pressure changes in (an inflated) condom, to be recorded via a manom-
eter.
The duplicated second devices (lower) were a pair of contacts designed to
be inserted into a lacuna to count contractions. This gave me difficulties. My
experience with adjusting the separation between contacts made this un-
practical. Also it was spring-loaded, but the spring worked at a mechanical
disadvantage and was much too light to separate the contacts against the
passive resistance of the mass of smooth muscle involved (Bromiley, Note 2).
Later, Bromiley (Note 3) commented further on these latter instruments,
How they were to work was not clear to me. Presumably the whole thing
would be insulated from vaginal fluids by a condom how Elxed? Because of
the obvious terminal points, I have always assumed the instruments were
electrical, but there were no adjustable contacts, and no insulation between
the two arms at the junctional screw, so they were not isolated electrically.
AUTHENTICATION: In the spring of 1936, Roy M. Dorcus (then #2 in
the JHU Department of Psychology) showed me a cigar box with four bits
of equipment which he stated were Watson's.
Hiatus: 1939-45, Canadian Army.... Returned to Bard's department (of
Physiology at Hopkins) as an instructor. Made my number with the new staff
in (the Department of) Psychology ... in which all the old lab equipment,
some brought over from Germany to equip the first psychology lab in North
America, was piled in a storeroom awaiting a junk man. I found this out one
evening by talking with Eliot A. Stellar, who took me down to the storeroom
and we pawed over all those wonderful jumbled brass instruments. I found
the Watson box, took it and kept it (Bromiley, Note 3).

In an effort to compare Watson's apparatus with that currently used in

this Eleld, the publications of Masters and Johnson (1961, 1966) were
reviewed, but descriptions of their instruments were limited. Attention
was then attracted by a recent abstract on "Polygraphic Survey of the
Human Sexual Response" by Berry Campbell and collaborators (1975).
As a contemporary expert in this Eleld Campbell was kind enough to
examine the photo of Watson's apparatus and wrote as follows:

As for the instruments, the speculum raises no problem. The bent tube
with a cage-like end certainly was a tambour instrument to insert into the
vagina. But these other two gadgets are something else. At first sight they
appear to be electrical apparatus of some sort but, if they go back to 1920,
that is unlikely. And they are not insulated. Technologies at that time used
tambours for many types of studies, the signal being written on smoked-

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 372
H. W. MAGOUN

---
- --Z--
- - -

cr i
- -
l --i
h-h-|-
- -
- -
- -

FIG. 1. Instruments designed by John B. Watson for studies of human sexual resp

paper drums. I would guess that a small balloon was placed between the w
limbs and the narrow limbs held some contractile tissue in a forceps-ty
hold the signal being relayed to the balloon via the leverage system and
from the balloon to the writing arm, by narrow tubing and a tambour wi
scribing straw cemented to it.... Going back to the photo, the knobs wh
look like electrical connections may well have held rubber bands, constrain
the small balloon. The pincer-like gadget could pick up contractions whi
occur during orgasm in the small labia or from the clitoris itself (Campb
Note 4).

Other Indications of Watson's Interest in Human Sexual

Behavior

For reasons given above, Watson's only paper directly concerned

human sexual behavior was the report of his questionnaire sur
"The Opinion of Doctors Regarding Venereal Disease" (Watson &
ley, 1919). Others of his publications and letters, however, conve
familiarity with and interest in this field. In a paper on "Ima
Affection (Affect) in Behavior (1913b), he wrote:

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOHN B. WATSON 373

The filrst question which concerns us is how organic processes have become
integrated into two such well-marked, solid groups known as 'pleasantness'
and 'unpleasantness.' . . . Since my Elrst study of the (Freudian) movement
I have been surprised that no one has connected pleasantness with the
activity of receptors stimulated by tumescence and unpleasantness with
those stimulated by shrinkage of the sex organs.... You will tell me that
expressive methods have already failed to show any constant physiological
processes occurring in conjunction with 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant'
objects.... My present feeling is that we haue taken our plethysmograms
from the wrong organs. Whether there are too many technical difElculties in
the way of the objective registration of the many delicate changes in the sex
organs (circulation, secretion, etc.), remains for the future to decide (Italics
added). (pp. 426-427)

In 1921, a Bureau of Social Hygiene was established in New York City,

with Rockefeller support, to promote and finance a substantial program
of research in problems of sex. After conferences with a number of
eminent scientists, it was decided that the project should be formulated
and administered by a committee of the National Research Council
(NRC). In 1921 Earl F. Zinn (Note 5) of the Bureau of Social Hygiene,
sent a form letter to 22 of the leading psychologists and psychiatrists in
this country, requesting their "support of this plan and help in securing
the endorsement of the NRC." Dr. J. B. Watson's name was the second
on the list and he replied promptly: "It seems to me that things are going
about as they should. Should any opportunity come up to do the plan a
good turn in the NRC, I shall be glad to help it along" (Note 6).
Later in 1921, the NRC hosted a "Conference on Sex Problems" which
recommended a "Committee for Research on Problems of Sex" to ad-
minister the project. Zinn informed Watson of these developments and
he replied: "I certainly congratulate you on the progress you are making
in this investigation and upon the possibility of actually beginning work
upon some of the many problems connected with sex" (Note 7).
The last such reference related to this project, and the most interesting
of all, involved Gilbert Van Tassell Hamilton, Research Director of
Psychobiology at the Bureau of Social Hygiene, who published A Re-
search on Marriage, which reported in detail the sexual behavior of 100
males and females. To make the findings available to general readers, a
young journalist, Kenneth Maegowan, collaborated in a nontechnical
version, published as What is Wrong with Marriage (1929). John B.
Watson accepted their invitation to write its Introduction, and began:

A few years ago a fund was collected for the study of sex. I was asked to

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
374 H. W. MAGOUN

help plan a research program. It was quite a sizeable sum. I went to work
eagerly. When the committee met, I asked, more as a pleasantry than
anything else, "Is this to be a real study in sex, or are we going to study rats,
rabbits, and guinea pigs again?" Very solemnly I was assured that it was rats,
rabbits, and guinea pigs, or nothing. I tucked my plan into my pocket and
went back to the office lamenting the fact that, while we were in the 20th
century in science, we were still in the 14th century in folkways.
I might have known it was rabbits and guinea pigs. About 1900, Stanley
Hall began a very valuable study of adolescence. From the appearance of his
first article . . . a whispering campaign began in university circles: "Have you
read what Stanley Hall is putting out? . . . Hall must be a bit queer."
Psychoanalysis had come to this country which it did in 1909 in the
person of Freud and his colleagues and, incidentally, they gave their lectures
at Hall's own college, Clark University before Hall's psychological col-
leagues woke up to the fact that a man may study sex and still be a scientist.
The conventional public has not yet waked up to this fact. The *tudy of tsex
is still fraught with danger. It can be openly studied only by individual.s
who are not connected with universities (Italics added). What a confession
to make! It is admittedly the most important subject in life. It is admittedly
the thing that causes the most shipwrecks in the happiness of men and
women. And yet our scientific information is so meager. Even the few facts
that we have must be looked upon as more or less bootlegged stuff. Those of
us who try to salvage some of the shipwrecks need to have a thousand
questions answered before we can guide other human beings intelligently.
And we want them answered not by our mothers and grandmothers, not by
priests and clergymen in the interest of middle-aged mores, nor by general
practitioners, not even by Freudians; we do want them answered by scientif-
ically-trained students of sex who can approach their problems with human
beings as objectively as they would approach the problem of reproduction in
the amoeba. (pp. xiii-xiv)

Early Hazards of Undertaking Human Sex Research In

Academia

Watson's warning, "The study of sex (in universities) is still f

with danger," was not an idle one. In 1929 in the same year
warning "the productive and dedicated career of Max Meyer, f
years a professor of experimental psychology at the University
souri, came to a sudden crashing end." As described by Erwin A
(1967):

One of Meyer's undergraduate assistants, O. Hobart Mowrer (subsequently

Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois and, in 1954, President
of the American Psychological Association), was in 1929 enrolled in a soci-

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOHN B. WATSON 375

ology class entitled "The Family," taught by Dr. H. O. DeGraf, one of the
most popular teachers at Missouri. (As part of the course, his students formed
small "research" committees to study various topics.) Mowrer's committee
was to study the topic of "The Economic Aspects of Women" (and) con-
structed a questionnaire (distributed to 600 students) in which three of the
eleven questions had to do with attitudes toward extramarital sexual rela-
tions. Meyer's connection with the questionnaire was this: He suggested some
changes in wording and, to save the students' expense, he gave Mowrer
several hundred return envelopes left over from an earlier project. A local
paper (The Daily Tribune of Columbia) discovered the questionnaire and
published an inflamatory two-column, headline story. Townspeople of Co-
lumbia signed a petition demanding dismissal of those responsible.... News-
papers of the state joined in, as did also some members of the state legislature.
The university president . . . recommended to the board that they (the two
professors) be summarily dismissed. This action was actually taken . . . but
. . . was modified: . . . Meyer was suspended for one year without pay but the
. . . dismissal of DeGraf was confirmed. (pp. 115-116)

Coming last to Alfred C. Kinsey, his associate and biographer, Wardell

B. Pomeroy (1966), wrote:

In 1937, when Professor Kinsey, a respected biologist and specialist on gall

wasps, was reluctantly persuaded to give a course on sex education and
marriage to students at Indiana University, he found little information in its
library and decided that, to teach the facts, he would have to gather them
himself. In a remarkably short time, he developed interviewing techniques
that worked and, by the end of his first year, had collected 300 sexual
histories. Clearly, his interest had shifted from wasps to human beings.
When news of his new project got around, the more conservative faculty
members went to the president and urged him to put a stop to such a
disgraceful academic undertaking. President Herman B. Wells had the cour-
age to defend the right of any faculty member to conduct research of his own
choosing, and the board of trustees backed him up.... There were subsequent
flurries of opposition, including speeches in the legislature which supplied
the University's funds, but its support continued. (p. 115)

In his more extended account, Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex
Research, Pomeroy (1972) wrote:

At an early point in the development of our research, Kinsey began to feel

a certain impatience with the fact that the data we were collecting was
necessarily secondhand, . .. it occurred to him that we ought to observe at
Elrst hand some of the behavior we were recording.
In those days . . . this was a revolutionary idea in the field of sex research,

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
376 H. W. MAGOUN

and one not easy to carry out.... He was acutely aware of the seriQus danger
implicit in such work and proceeded cautiously, knowing that he could expect
little understanding of what he was doing if it were ever disclosed. Those
who already believed the project was immoral would be outraged, and not
even many scientists could be expected to condone it.... There was always
in the back of his mind the clear and present danger that the Institute might
be deprived of its support, from the University as well as the (Rockefeller)
Foundation if it were subject to the kind of public attack the revelation of
such activity would certainly provoke
In this conflict between his scientific zeal and the strictures of societyS
Kinsey decided in favor of science Considering that the life of the project
itself might be at stake, the decision took considerable courage. (pp. 172-173)

As Pomeroy (1966) continued:

In the InstituteSs 1948 report for example, it was stated quite bluntly:
"Erotic arousal is a material phenomenon which involves an extended series
of physical, physiologic and psychologic changes. Many of these could be
subjected to precise instrumental measurement if objectivity among scientists
arld public respect for scientific research allowed such laboratory investiga-
tion.'
This was a theme that recurred continually in our staff conferences7 and
Dr. Kinsey was always alert to opportunities to make observations both of
homo- and heterosexual behavior that were made available to us. Also many
thousands of feet of motion picture Ellm, showing a great range of human
sexual activity, came into our possession. In addition to taking advantage of
such ready-made material, Dr. Kinsey began to plan a program of laboratory
observation similar to the one Dr. Masters and Mrs Johnson subsequently
established. Space for a physiological laboratory was set aside in the Kinsey
Institute quarters and when the Institute moved to Jordan Hall in the early
1950's, blueprints were drawn up for a laboratory in which sexual responses
could be observed. During this period Dr. Kinsey began interviewing phys-
iologists who might supervise this work, but the right man was never found.
In spite of our lack of an operating physiological laboratory, we did manage
to accumulate a substantial body of data . . . some of which form the basis for
the chapters on the 'Anatomy of Sexual Response and Orgasm' and 'Physi-
ology of Sexual Response and Orgasm' in the Femule volume (the 1953
report-Sexual Behae7ior in the Human Female). This was the small foun-
dation upon which Masters and Johnson later erected their remarkahle
structure of scientific fact.... In explaining the source of this information,
we simply stated in footnotes that, "We have had access to a considerable
body of data on the continuous nature of the male response and the discon-
tinuous nature of the female response?' or "We have had aecess to a consid-
erable body of observed data on the involvement of the entiIe body in the
spasms leading up to and following orgasm.7 (pp 117-118)
Kinsey and Masters were alike . . in their compelling drive to accomplish

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 JOHN B. WATSON 377

the task at hand.... The two never met, but I am sure l)r. Kinsey would
have been delighted to know that at Washington University, (St. Louis), only
220 miles away (from Bloomington, Indiana), Masters was just then beginning
the laboratory observations that Kinsey himself had hoped to make but was
never able to launch (Pomeroy, 1972, p. 183)

So too, doubtless would have John B. Watson.

Reference Notes

1. MCCONNELL, J. V. Letter to author, July, 1978.

2. BROMILEY, R. B. Letter to author, January 30, 1979.
3. BROMILEY, R. B. Letter to author, August 21, 1978.
4. CAMPBELL, B. Letter to author, March 12, 1979.
5. ZINN, E. F. Letter to tJ. B. Watson (and others)> July 7, 1921
National Academy of Sciences, Archives.
6. WATSON, J. B. Letter to Zinn, E. F., July 9, 1921, Washington, D
of Sciences, Archives.
7. WATSON, J. B. Letter to Zinn, E. F., September 28, 1921, Washin
Academy of Sciences, Archives.

References

CAMPBELL, B., HARTMAN, W. E., FITHIAN, M., & CAMPBELL, I. A polygraphic survey o
human sexual response. The Physiologist, 1975, 18, 159.
COHEN, D. J. B. Watson. The Founder of Behauzorism, London: Routledge & Kega
1979, 122-1261 140-142.
ESPER, E. A. Max Meyer in America, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sc
1967, 3 115-116.
KINSEY, A. C., POMEROY, W. B., MARTIN, C. E., & GEBHERD, P. H. Sexaal Behauior in the
Human Female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1953, 637, 631.
HAMILTON, G. V. A research in marriage. New York: A & C. BoniS 1929.
MASTERS, W. H., & JOHNSON, V. E. The physiology of the vaginal reproductive function.
Western Journal of Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1961. 69, 105-120.
MASTERS, W. H., & JOHNSON, V. E. Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966.
MCCONNELL, J. V. Understanding Human Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,
1974, 344-345.
POMEROY, W. B. The Masters-Johnson report and the Kinsey tradition. In R. & E. Breeher
(Eds.), An analysis of hllman sexual response. Boston: Little, Browr 1966.
POMEROY, W. B. Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, New York: Harper & Rows
1972.
WATSON, J. B. Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 1913, 20, 158-
178. (a)
WATSON, J. B. Image and affection in behavior. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and
Scientific Methods, 1913, 10, 421-428. (b)
WATSON, J. B. The place of the conditioned reflex in psychology. Psychological Reuiea,
1916, 23, 89-117.

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 130 Elmwood Avenue
378 H. W. MAGOUN

WATSON, J. B. Introduction, in G. V. Hamilton & K Maegowan, What is wrong with

marriage. New York: Albert & Charles Boni, 1929.
WATSON, J. B., & LASHLEY, K. S. The opinion of doctors regarding venereal disease. Social
Hygiene, 1919, 4, 769-847
WATSON, J. B., & RAYNER, R. Conditioned emotional reactions, Journal of Experimental
Psychology, I920, 3) 1-14.
WATSON, J. B., & WATSON, H. R. Studies in infant psychology. Scientific Monthly, 1921, 13
493-515.
Accepted for publication October 1S, 1980

AVAILABLE FOR CLASSROOM USE

SPECIAL ISSUES of SOCIAL PROBLEMS

SOCIOLOGY OF POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE: THEORETICAL INQUIRIES, CRITIQUES AND EXPLICA-

TIONS, Volume 27 5 (June, 1980)
ETHICAL PROBLEMS OF FIELDWORK edited by Joan Casseli and Murray L Wax, Volume 27:3, (February,
1 g80)

TtSEORY AND EVIDENCE IN CRIMINOLOGY: CORRELATIONS AND CONTRADICTIONSt Volume 26 4

(April, 1979)
EDUCATION: STRAITIACKET OR OPPORTUbJITYt edited by James Benet and Arlene Kaplan Daniels,
Volume 24:2 (December, 1976)
SSSP AS A SOCIAL MOVEMENT, edited by Richard Colvard, Volume 24:1 (October, 1976)
FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES: THE SOCIOLOGICAL CHALLENGE! edited by Lillian B Rubin, Volume 23:4
(April, 1976)
PAPERS ON WOMEN AND WORK: IN 11ONOR Of CAROLINE B. ROSE, Volume 22:4 lAprit, 1975)
SOCIAL CONTROL OF SOCIAL RESEARCH, edited by Gideon S joberg and W Boyd Littrell, Volume 21:1
(Summer, 1473)

Subscription to SOCIAL PROBLEMS is by membership in the Society tor the Study of Social Problems
Norl-members may subscribe at the individual rate of $25 00 or the library-inttitutional rate oi $35 00 per
annum (Acid $3 00 per year for subscriptions outsicle the U S ) Single copies of issues may be purchased at
the rate of $3 50 each for SSSP members and $7 00 each for ali others (Discount for bulk orders All orders
must be prepaid in U S currency )

For information on these special issues, subscriptions to SOCIAL PROBLEMS and member-
ship in the SSSP, write to:

Si 51 ' The Society for the Study of Social Problems

S State University College at Buffalo
- 208 Rockwell Hall

_ Buffalo, NY 14222

This content downloaded from 210.125.184.85 on Wed, 15 Nov 2017 09:33:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms