The case for Douglas Merritte

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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Appeal · Art · Audience measurement · History of psychology · Literature · MEDLINE · Narrative · Political science · Psychoanalysis · PsycINFO · Scholarship · Watson · Computer Science · Law · Psychology · Traumatic Brain Injury Research