Back to the directoryFind in the timeline
Watson's behaviorist manifesto
In a lecture published in Psychological Review in 1913, John B. Watson argued that psychology should be an objective natural science aiming at the prediction and control of behavior, with introspection set aside.
- Where it sits
- Academic psychologyResearch published for other researchers and students.
- Evidence level
- DocumentedThe event or practice is documented by primary or authoritative sources.
- Sources inspected
- 2 of 22 with the relevant text, company document or archive item checked, 0 as an abstract or reference article, 0 not verified.
What happened
On 24 February 1913 John B. Watson, then at Johns Hopkins University, gave a lecture at Columbia University, the first in a series on animal psychology organized by James McKeen Cattell. It was published in the March 1913 issue of Psychological Review (volume 20, pages 158 to 177). The historian José María Gondra reports that Watson was impressed by an attendance of between 150 and 200 people.
The psychological idea
Watson argued that psychology should be a purely objective experimental branch of natural science, whose goal is the prediction and control of behavior. Introspection, he wrote, forms no essential part of its methods, and the behavior of humans and animals should be considered on the same plane. He criticized functional psychology for using the same terms as the structuralists and presented behaviorism as the more consistent functionalism.
In practice
The paper states a program rather than reporting an experiment. Gondra summarizes its theory as adjustment of the organism to its environment through heredity and habit, with behavior determined by environmental stimuli. He adds that Watson discussed method only in general terms, because Watson could not offer a specific method for studying feelings and thinking. Gondra covers Watson's later turn to children and to advertising separately, and this site gives them their own records.
Why it mattered
Gondra says Watson proclaimed the birth of a new school of psychology in this lecture, which is known as the behaviorist manifesto. The proposal was not received with general applause. A silent majority of psychologists working in applied areas supported behaviorism, partly because it broke down the division between theoretical and applied science.
Limits and qualifications
The paper sets out a goal and a stance. According to Gondra, the psychological establishment was reluctant to give up consciousness and introspection, and Watson offered it little beyond vague promises of a better future. This record rests on Gondra's account of the reception, not on contemporary reviews. Watson's text was read as extracted passages on the Classics page, not line by line.
Evidence behind the claims
Watson's Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It appeared in Psychological Review, volume 20, 1913, pages 158 to 177.
Watson wrote that psychology as the behaviorist views it is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science, that introspection forms no essential part of its methods, and that the behavior of man and of animals must be considered on the same plane.
Watson argued that functional psychology uses the same terms as structuralism (sensation, perception, affection, emotion, volition) and presented behaviorism as the more consistent functionalism.
Gondra reports that Watson, then at Johns Hopkins, proclaimed the birth of a new school of psychology on 24 February 1913 in a lecture known as the behaviorist manifesto, the first in a series on animal psychology organized by Cattell at Columbia, published in the March issue of Psychological Review.
Gondra summarizes the theory as organism adjustment through heredity and habit with behavior determined by environmental stimuli, so that the goal of psychology was to predict and control behavior, and says Watson talked about method in general terms because he could not offer a specific method for studying feelings and thinking.
Gondra says Watson was impressed by an attendance of between 150 and 200 people, that the proposal was not received with general applause from an establishment reluctant to give up consciousness and introspection, and that a silent majority of psychologists in applied areas supported behaviorism because it broke down the division between theoretical and applied science.
People involved
- John B. Watson. Author, then professor at Johns Hopkins University
- James McKeen Cattell. Organiser of the Columbia lecture series
In the Psy101 course
- OpenStax Psychology 2e, section 1.2: History of PsychologyChapter 1, Introduction to Psychology. Context. The section discusses this topic.The section presents Watson as a leading proponent of shifting psychology's focus from the mind to observable behavior.
This is course relevance only. It is not evidence for the historical or corporate claims on this page.See the full course map.
Sources and inspection
2 of 2 sources were opened and read at the level shown. A source marked as not verified supports no claim on this page by itself.
- [1]Psychology as the Behaviorist Views ItWatson, J. B.. Psychological Review 20, 158-177; Classics in the History of Psychology, York University, 1913. Journal article. Primary source.Relevant text checkedOpened the Classics page. The fetch tool returned the bibliographic header, the opening sentence and quoted passages on introspection and on animal and human behavior, plus a summary of the critique of functional psychology. The paper was not read line by line.
- [2]Behaviorist, publicist and social critic: the evolution of John B. WatsonGondra, J. M.. Revista de Historia de la Psicologia, 35(1), 13-36, 2014. Journal article. Secondary account.Relevant text checkedRead journal pages 15 to 18 and 20 to 24 of the PDF as page images, including the section on the manifesto, the move to J. Walter Thompson and the child-care period. The abstract and pages 13 to 14 and 19 were not read.
Access note: Watson's text was read as extracted passages from the Classics page. No contemporary reviews of the lecture were opened.
Independent source review: Claude review agent, independent of the research agent, 2026-10-21. Verdict: pass-with-edits.