Rosalie Raynor/Rayner/Raynar
Here is a photo of her with James Watson:
How Was Her Last Name Spelled?
I have seen is spelled Raynor sometimes, Rayner other times, sometimes both within a single document. Which is correct?
From: sblack@ubishops.ca
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:24 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: Re: Raynor or Rayner
On 29 Aug 2005 at 8:54, Joel S. Freund wrote:
Rayner is the correct spelling.
Not so fast, history breath. This may be a case in which there is no correct spelling (and we've been through this before).
---------------------------------------------------------
It seems there's a fair bit of confusion concerning the correct spelling of her name even if, in the famous Watson and Rayner paper, that's the way it appears. According to Thorne and Watson (Watson's son!) (1999), her obituary in the New York Times spelled it "Raynor". Thorne and Watson call this a misspelling but, honestly, has the New York Times ever been wrong about anything? And the APA Monitor also spells it that way.
It gets worse (or better). Thorne and Watson also say that on her marriage certificate, it's spelled "Raynar".
-------------------------------------------------------
So presumably it was Watson who spelled it "Rayner". The definitive answer would be to ask how the Raynors/Rayners/Raynars spelled it.
Reference
Thorne, B., & Watson, J. (1999). When was Rosalie Rayner born? PsychologicalReports, 85, 269-270.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Bishop's University, Lennoxville, Canada
How Was Watson’s Affair With Rosalie Uncovered?
I have often heard that John Watson and Rosalie were “conducting research” on the physiology of copulation at a time that Watson was married to someone else. As the story goes, Watson’s wife obtained the records of the data and used them in divorce proceedings. There is some controversy regarding whether this is truth or just rumor.
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 97 11:15:32 EST
From: Brian Metcalf <
BMETCALF@uga.cc.uga.edu
Subject: The Watson Affair - Revisited
To: TIPS <tips@fre.fsu.umd.edu
***************************************************************************
For the benefit of those interested, I have included the original text from
several replies. This is somewhat lengthy and I apologize. Delete if
uninterested.
****************************************************************************
I was away for the holidays and when I returned the other day, I stumbled upon
a thread about J.B. Watson's departure from academia and some supposed details
regarding his affair with Rosalie Raynor and
some kymograph recordings
(the first "original message" below). I asked our local psych
historian, Roger K. Thomas, about this (the second message). He made an inquiry
on the CHEIRON (Society for the History of the Social and Behavioral Sciences)
listserve.
Lastly, you will find Peter Harzem's clarification of
the alleged "kymograph affair" (original message #3).
Happy New Year!
Brian Metcalf
Department of Psychology
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
(706) 542-3100
----------------------------Original
message #1 ---------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 1997 19:56:58 -0600
From: mike_ehlert@byu.edu
(Michael B. Ehlert)
Subject: The Watson Affair, etc.
To:
TIPS@FRE.FSU.UMD.EDU
Watson didn't really leave academia
because of his relationship with his lab assistant did he????
From: "David G. Likely" <likely@unb.ca
Subject: The Watson Affair and some
Famous Firings
Message-ID: <199701051656.MAA14373@romulus.sun.csd.unb.ca
John Watson did, indeed, leave academia
after being caught with Rosalie Raynor. It
was not perhaps clever of the lovers to have make kymograph recordings of their
responses during copulation - Ickes, Watson's brother
in law, got
hold of them and appears to have tried a little blackmail. The
records were produced in evidence
at the divorce, after which the first Mrs.
Watson had them burned. (I have no idea just
what exactly was recorded, but
the defence
that all this had been done in the name of science did not
impress the court.)
I assume all know that Rosalie
became the next Mrs. Watson. By all credible reports, it was a happy marriage
whereas the first one was not.
The research alluded to antedated by a
couple of decades what Master's & Johnson did with prostitutes. As the
consumate scientist, Watson wanted to understand the
physiological processes of sexual behavior. He approached
his first wife a number of times and,
understandably, she refused to be "wired up". Eventually he
approached Rosalie.
Webster's writes that a kymograph
measures motion or pressure. I'll leave it to your imagination to determine how
such a record might be scandalous.
enjoy,
mike
___________________________________________________________________
Michael B. Ehlert,
Assistant Professor
Brigham Young University Phone: (801)
378-6357
Department of Psychology, 1130 SWKT Fax:
(801) 378-7862
PO Box 25378 Email: mike_ehlert@byu.edu
Provo, UT 84602-5378
==============================================================================
----------------------------Original
message #2 --------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 97 13:43:04 EST
From: Brian Metcalf <BMETCALF@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU
Subject: The Watson Affair, etc. (fwd)
To: Roger Thomas <rkthomas@uga
I just got this message from the
Teaching in Psychology (TIPS) listserve and wanted to
know if you could verify its accuracy. I've heard/read about John Watson and Rosalie
Raynor's affair and that was the primary reason for
his departure from academia, but I never heard about the kymograph incident
described below. Heard/read anything about this yourself?
- Brian
----------------------------Original message #3 ---------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 08:31:02 -0600
Reply-To: Society for the History of the Social and Behavioral Sciences
<CHEIRON@YORKU.CA
From: Peter Harzem <harzepe@MAIL.AUBURN.EDU
Subject: Re: The Watson Affair, etc. (fwd) (fwd)
To: Multiple recipients of list CHEIRON <CHEIRON@YORKU.CA
On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Roger Thomas wrote:
I know nothing about the alleged kymograph anecdote (see below).
>Any truth to it?
There is no truth whatever to any of that. Watson and Rosalie were not
'caught' by anyone, the 'evidence' Mary's brother Ickes
(not the influential Harold but his younger brother) had was some copies of
love letters Watson had written to Rosalie which Mary had removed from Rosalie's
room when the Watsons were on a week-end visit to the
Raynor family, there were (and are) no kymograph
records associated with Watson, Watson's departure from Johns Hopkins was
initiated by Watson going to the President of the University and telling him
about his affair with Rosalie which was generating gossip at the time
and asking for advice, Watson and Rosalie were a happily married couple,
and so on... (I have on my study wall a photograph of the happy couple, Rosalie
and John Watson, because it pleases me, but also to remind me of the treachery
and viciousness that can be generated even in academia, especially when
assertions are made about matters without reading the original sources.
Spreading rumors is a bad thing in any circumstance, but it is particularly
disgraceful when it is inserted under a scholarly umbrella.)
Peter Harzem
PS My book on the lives and times of Rosalie
and John has taken a life of its own, growing well beyond what I anticipated.
It will probably take another six months -if other matters leave me be- to a
year.
Contact Information for the Webmaster,
Dr. Karl L. Wuensch
This page most recently revised on 16-July-2023.