The Little Albert controversy: Intuition, confirmation bias, and logic.

Digdon, Nancy

doi:10.1037/hop0000055

Cited by 6 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their articles, however, Profs. Harris (2020) and Digdon (2020) both raise issues which they consider dispositive against our proposal that Douglas Merritte was the infant described in Watson and Rayner's (1920) laboratory notes and shown in The Experimental Investigation of Babies (Watson, 13 Prytula, Oster, and Davis (1977) termed this confusion the "rat-rabbit problem" (p. 44), and it typifies the complexities involved in relating the conditioning sequence in the Psychological Care of Infant and Child (Watson, 1928) to actual tests performed by Watson. 1923).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather than responding tit-for-tat and levelling parallel accusations, we have tried to answer the specific points of evidence presented by Profs. Harris (2020) and Digdon (2020) by showing their claims to be incautious and expedient. Although Profs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We deal first with accusations regarding our methods and biases made by Digdon (2020) and Harris (2020), and then turn to counters to their evidential claims.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Convinced that her judgment is categorically correct and the three independent evaluations reported by Fridlund et al (2012) were not, Prof. Digdon (2020) contends that we:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The case for Douglas Merritte: Should we bury what is alive and well?

Fridlund¹,

Beck²,

Goldie³

et al. 2020

History of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2012, we (Fridlund, Beck, Goldie, & Irons, 2012) suggested that a neurologically impaired infant, Douglas Merritte, was the likeliest candidate for John B. Watson's "Albert B." In advancing the case for their alternative candidate, Albert Barger, Harris (2020) and Digdon (2020) both pronounce the Merritte case moribund. Prof. Digdon attributes our differing conclusions to logical error, selective reporting, and "confirmation bias" throughout our research. Prof. Harris goes further, (a) accusing us of withholding evidence, (b) alleging that we charged Watson unjustly with malpractice and preying on a helpless victim, (c) likening our research to that of "many popular accounts" in the history of psychology "that exist beyond the reach of traditional peer review", (d) explaining the publication of our results as failures of peer review and the editorial process, and (e) attributing interest in our findings to gullible media and a guilty readership. We present data which show that the evidential claims Profs. Digdon and Harris advance against the Merritte case are incautious and expedient, and that their criticisms of our methods and allegations of bias arise from problems with their own scholarship. Contrary to their narratives, the neurologically impaired Douglas Merritte remains the closest fit to Watson's "extremely phlegmatic" Albert.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We deal first with accusations regarding our methods and biases made by Digdon (2020) and Harris (2020), and then turn to counters to their evidential claims.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Convinced that her judgment is categorically correct and the three independent evaluations reported by Fridlund et al (2012) were not, Prof. Digdon (2020) contends that we:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The case for Douglas Merritte: Should we bury what is alive and well?

Fridlund¹,

Beck²,

Goldie³

et al. 2020

History of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over-focusing on details about cases and deaths supports the belief that home is the absolute safe place, making it difficult to adapt to other environments. Overconfidence in a belief detracts from reasoning, because logical errors are intuitive and seem reasonable (Digdon, 2020). This underlying mechanism impacts on communication messages, triggering the propagation of misinformation that diffuses from one person to another, resulting either to lack of adherence or to the development of inconsistent theories.…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hesitancy to Return to the Pre-pandemic Routine

Holeva

Parlapani

Nikopoulou

et al. 2021

J Rat-Emo Cognitive-Behav Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of the present study was to explore COVID-19 related hesitancy, which represents the inability of people to return to previous levels of functioning after a major medical crisis like the current pandemic. A new questionnaire was developed to evaluate participants’ hesitancy. The study was conducted online in November, 2020, using convenience sampling. A total of 538 individuals from the general Greek population participated in the study and completed the Hesitancy Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item (GAD-2), the Short Health Anxiety Inventory and a COVID-19-related worry question. The Hesitancy Questionnaire proved to have adequate psychometric properties. Correlation with anxiety as assessed by GAD-2 proved to be significant but low, indicating that the two scales are measuring two different concepts. The greatest hesitancy was observed in older adults for both genders (males, M = 40.86, SD = 15.24; females, M = 49.34, SD = 14.74). Women in general appeared more hesitant than men scoring higher (males, M = 36.13, SD = 15.25; females, M = 42.63, SD = 17.31) with a statistically significant difference [ t (536) = − 3.706, p = .001). This study provided a tool to informed understanding on how citizens perceive the new normality after the COVID-19 pandemic. If not appropriately addressed, hesitancy may increase stress levels and result in mental health or socialization problems.

show abstract

Contextualizing Contemporary Research Ethics Policies and Practices in Significant Historical Events

Mead Jasperse,

Kelly

2023

Behav Analysis Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts (BACB Code; Behavior Analyst Certification Board®, 2020) includes six items in “Section 6—Responsibility in Research'' that cover the protection of human participants in research activities conducted by Board Certified Assistant Behavior Analysts® and Board Certified Behavior Analysts®. This article provides a brief primer regarding significant historical events and foundational documents that have resulted in the contemporary research ethics policies and practices in the field of behavior analysis. This walk through the last century from the Nuremberg Code to the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, and 45 CFR Part 46—Protection of Human Subjects provides a summary of why the codification of requirements such as “informed consent” and “Institutional Review Board” oversight was necessary. The linkages between these historical events and the current BACB Code items are discussed. In addition, situations in which the BACB Code does not provide explicit instruction but foundational documents may provide additional guidance are considered. Finally, opportunities for future data-driven decision making in research ethics are offered.

show abstract

The Little Albert controversy: Intuition, confirmation bias, and logic.

Cited by 6 publications

References 37 publications

The case for Douglas Merritte: Should we bury what is alive and well?

The case for Douglas Merritte: Should we bury what is alive and well?

Hesitancy to Return to the Pre-pandemic Routine

Contextualizing Contemporary Research Ethics Policies and Practices in Significant Historical Events

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About