John B. Watson
Criticism

Critics determined that Watson's ideas mainly stemmed from his beliefs. How much Rosalie Rayner agreed with her husband's child-rearing ideas has also been an important question, as she later penned an article entitled "I am a Mother of Behaviorist Sons", in which she wrote about the future of their family.

R. Dale Nance (1970) worried that Watson's personal indiscretions and difficult upbringings could have affected his views while writing his book. This would include having been raised on a poor farm in South Carolina and having various family troubles, such as abandonment by his father. Suzanne Houk (2000) shared similar concerns while analyzing Watson's hope for a businesslike and casual relationship between a mother and her child. Houk points out that Watson only shifted his focus to child-rearing when he was fired from Johns Hopkins University due to his affair with Rayner. Laura E. Berk (2008) similarly examines the roots of the beliefs that Watson came to honor, noting the Little Albert experiment as the inspiration of Watson's emphasis on environmental factors. Little Albert did not fear the rat and white rabbit until he was conditioned to do so. From this experiment, Watson concluded that parents can shape a child's behavior and development simply by a scheming control of all stimulus-response associations.

Watson's advice to treat children with respect but relative emotional detachment, has been strongly criticized. J. M. O'Donnell (1985) deems Watson's views as radical calculations. This discontent stems partly from Watsons' description of a 'happy child', whereby a child can only cry when in physical pain, can occupy himself through his problem-solving abilities, and whereby the child strays from asking questions. Other critics were more wary of Watson's new interest and success in child psychology.
startend:quotation, length_constraints:number_paragraphs[5]