The John Watson quote privileges nurture over nature; it correlates to several of the observations that Jerf W. K. Yeung and Yuk-Chung Chan make in “Parents’ Religiosity, Family Socialization and the Mental Health of Children in Hong Kong: Do Raters Make a Difference?”

Early in their article, Yeung and Chan remark, “Family environment and the childrearing practices of parents often significantly affect the development and well-being of children.” This view bolsters Watson’s belief that, with the right environment, he could nurture an infant to be a doctor, a lawyer, or even a criminal. Like Watson, Yeung and Chan emphasize the child’s surroundings. Their data shows that “positive family processes can reduce children’s tendency to experience mental distress.”

The findings from Yeung and Chan’s study suggest that Watson’s contention is credible. If Watson was able to effectively implement “positive family processes,” he could, hypothetically, instill the infants with a mindset that would make them amenable to the kind of training that would produce a lawyer, artist, or doctor. Conversely, if Watson wished to nurture a thief, he could intentionally implement deleterious family practices so that the infant would be likely to engage in detrimental behavior as an adult.

Overall, Watson, Yeung, and Chan seem to be on the same wavelength. If a parent’s religion can benefit their children, so can other attributes. Watson’s quote and Yeung and Chan’s study, highlight how parents can impact their children’s lives through multiple forms of nurturing.