Chapter 21

Utility in Psychology:

The Rise of Applied Psychology


            The orthodox psychologies, those psychologies that made use of or at least recognized the value of experimentation in the study of mind, were purist in their prescriptions.  Wundt, Titchener, Brentano, James as well as Angell, all sought to understand the nature of mental life.  While they differed on the details of how this was possible, they all agreed that psychology was a scientific discipline, for better or worse.  The utility of the knowledge obtained in this pursuit was of little concern.  The belief, exemplified by Titchener, was that once the scientific facts of mind were understood, the applications would come of themselves. 

            Because of Titchener's intention for psychology to become a fundamental science, along with physics and biology, he pressed for a model in academic psychology similar to that found in the academic physics and biology of his day.  Those fundamental sciences, made careful distinction between their pure, theoretical function and that of utility.  Applied physics was not a significant part of the physicist's work.  Applied physics was studied as engineering, not only a different department in the academic structure but even a different school or college.  The same was true of chemistry and biology.  Applied chemistry was typically taught as chemical engineering or even home economics; applied biology as medicine or animal husbandry, or agriculture.  Titchener, and many early experimental psychologists, believed that there should be a separate discipline or disciplines for the applications of psychology, leaving the "pure," experimental psychologist alone to plumb the depths of the mind scientifically, without regard to utility.  Educational psychology is an example of an applied psychological discipline that came about in line with this model.  Child development was seen as an appropriate study for a department of home economics; psychopathology for psychiatry, and so forth. 

            In some respects, the development of the functionalist movement, both at Chicago and Columbia, aided in the development of applied psychology.  Although Angell at Chicago still emphasized the scientific enterprise, he was not prejudiced against studies that could be considered applied.  At Columbia, utility was even more acceptable, as the growth of the testing movement there demonstrates.  Even so and even in the functionalist academic circles, during the first decade of this century, there was still a stigma attached to the experimental psychologist who "sold out" to strictly applied work.

            The applications of psychology were recognized by groups outside of psychology quite early in the new discipline's institutional history.  Madison Bentley, Titchener's successor at Cornell, labeled these overtures by outside groups to get psychologists to apply their discipline with the pejorative phrase, "the Great Invasions" of psychology.[1]  While we may not wish to accept the prejudicial tone of Bentley's terminology, he was correct in identifying the first overtures to the new, scientific psychology on the part of other academic disciplines, including education, business and medicine. 


With education came the child and came testing, scoring and scaling; ...with medicine came the clinic, the case-history, and the individual variant; with business came short-cuts to the selection of employees and quick means of manufacture, advertising and sale.[2]


Alfred Binet and The Intelligence Test


            Although applied psychology would become closely identified with American psychology, it had its beginnings as much in Europe as in America.  It is always difficult and perhaps relatively useless to claim "firsts," particularly in the applied area.  Hermann Ebbinghaus with his completion test, was doing applied work.  The psychologist turned psychiatrist, Emil Kraepelin, produced applied work.  Perhaps the best known of all early applied psychologists, however, was Alfred Binet.

            In early fall of 1904, the French Minister of Public Instruction appointed a committee to recommend what should be done about the education of subnormal children in the schools of Paris.  The decision to place them in special schools necessitated the development of some means of identifying them.  It was to Alfred Binet, then a man of forty-seven, and considered the founder of French experimental psychology, that the Minister of Public Instruction turned for aid in this task.[3]  The result was the first widely used intelligence scale.[4]  Binet, as we shall see,  can hardly be cast as an experimental psychologist who was wooed away from his experimental work by the siren song of education.  To appreciate properly the nature of Binet's contribution, it is necessary to say something about the years of preparation for the task and the status of psychological testing prior to that time.


Life of Binet


            Alfred Binet was born in Nice in 1857.[5]  He was educated at Paris in law, a subject in which he received his degree in 1878; but his interests in the sciences and in medicine came to the fore and he abandoned law.  While still a law student, he had been attracted to the Salpétrière teaching hospital where the French neurologist Charcot was the center of attention.  Binet's predilection for psychological problems became evident to Charcot, particularly in respect to that burning question of the day, hypnotism.  Binet became an enthusiastic, and, for a time, uncritical, follower of Charcot.  He took a doctorate in natural science in 1894 with a thesis on the nervous system of insects, but not a degree in medicine.  While still working on his degree, Binet had written a book on hypnosis, with Féré,[6] giving a detailed account of its history.  This book appeared in 1886.  He had studied hypnosis, using such devices as the dynamometer (a device used to measure strength of grip), and the pneumograph (for the recording of breathing rate).  These measures were taken in the normal state, in the hypnotic state, and under the effect of various suggestions and compared.  The devastating criticism of Binet's work by members of the Nancy School of hypnotism made him lose enthusiasm for the investigation of hypnosis thereafter.

            Another book by Binet, also appearing in 1886, was concerned with reasoning.[7]  This volume was prophetic of his life-long interest in higher mental processes.  In writing it, however, he depended for his sources on a general theory of association, on some incidental findings in hypnosis, and on his knowledge of logic, rather than on research data.  Meanwhile, events were making him a psychologist, perhaps partly because of these books.

            Henri Beaunis, professor of physiology on the faculty of medicine at Nancy, became the first director of the psychological laboratory founded in 1889 at the Sorbonne.[8]  Although in the Sorbonne, the laboratory was administratively not part of the Faculty of Letters but of the École Pratigue des Hautes Études.  Ribot, who had previously been in charge of the course in experimental psychology but who had no laboratory, moved from the Sorbonne the same year to the chair of experimental and comparative psychology at the College of France.  Binet, who was associated with Beaunis during these years, was asked in 1892 to be adjunct director.  On the retirement of Beaunis in 1894, Binet became director of the laboratory, a post he held until his death in 1911 at age fifty-four.

            Some of Binet's early work stressed the abnormal; he wrote a book on The Alterations of the Personality33 in 1892 and one on Suggestibility[9] in 1900.  In the same period he carried on studies in tactile sensibility and optical illusions in a fashion similar to that of his German contemporaries.  He studied handwriting, using blind analysis to increase his objectivity.  He investigated the thinking of chess players.  He carried on a series of studies of suggestion.  It was these studies of suggestibility--within the tradition of medical psychology--for which Binet was best known up to this time.  Collaborating with Beaunis, he established in 1895 L'Annee psychologique, which became the leading French psychological journal and one of the first journals in Europe to accept publications on the applications of psychology.

            About 1900 Binet began to study thinking by the use of introspection.  His previous book on reasoning had been written without the hindrance of research data.  Now in his new work, published in 1902, he depended for data on the reports of the thinking of his two daughters, then of high school age.[10]

            As happened later with his studies of intelligence, he failed to be impressed by the necessity of working with minute elements of psychic life and believed that psychological problems of thinking may be attacked globally.  In fact, it is only in keeping with contemporary usage that this may be called a study of thinking.  Actually, Binet referred to it as a study of "intelligence."  He asked his daughters to solve problems and then to report to him the steps they took to reach a solution.  Often the girls specifically denied the presence of images.  In general, these results anticipated and supported the research of the Würzburg School.  Like those at Würzburg, Binet found much thinking that could not be reduced to sensory or ideational elements. 

            Although the girls were similar in their thinking in regard to matters so far described, it also happened that they differed strikingly in their particular ways of thinking and in their personalities--differences to which their father's account devotes considerable attention.  Undoubtedly, this study strengthened Binet's interest in individual differences.

            Binet evinced a greater interest in laboratory research than was characteristic of his fellow Frenchmen and wrote a textbook of experimental psychology.  Generally, Binet's career with its interest in abnormal phenomena was quite in keeping with the tradition of psychology in his country.[11]  Busy as all this work kept him, however, his claim to greatness rests primarily on his contribution to the measurement of intelligence.


Measurement of Intelligence


            In 1905 Binet urged that it was necessary to establish an accurate diagnosis of intelligence if the recommendation of the committee concerning placement of feeble-minded children in special schools were to be carried out adequately.[12]

            He was sharply critical of medical diagnosis of this condition.  Previously, diagnosis of mental deficiency was considered analogous to diagnosis of physical disease.  It is not surprising that errors occurred, since no one invariable sign of mental deficiency was known, then or later.  For this purpose, Binet drew attention in copious detail to the errors that physicians had made in diagnosis by showing that the same child could carry different diagnoses when evaluated by different physicians, just a few days apart.  It was thus that the work of the Parisian committee precipitated the development of the Binet Scale and centered Binet's interest on the problem of the diagnosis of the feeble-minded.  It did not create his interest in the problem of intelligence.

            For many years before the establishment of the Paris committee of 1904, Binet had had an interest in the measurement of intelligence and individual differences.  From 1887, his principal source of subjects for study had been the school children in and around Paris upon whom he had tried out various tests.[13]

            With his collaborator and assistant, Victor Henri (1872-1940), Binet published seven papers on individual differences.  The crucial paper on tests appeared in 1896.[14]  First Binet and Henri reviewed the literature, which was already quite extensive.  Without confining discussion to the specific tests they reviewed, it will suffice to say that they were presumably familiar with the work of Galton and perhaps also with the contribution of Ebbinghaus on the completion test to be published in 1897.  Also available to them was considerable literature on elementary sensory, perceptual, and motor measures.  Narrow phases of mental activity, such as sensory acuity, reaction time, attention span, speed of movement, and the like, had been studied during preceding years.  Binet and Henri pointed out that too limited and too specialized abilities were being utilized for a measurement of so complex a matter as intelligence.  Moreover, with a problem such as the relation of memory to intelligence to be studied, it would be necessary to examine various kinds of memory, rather than one kind alone.  Several variations of memory must be tapped.  Binet and Henri proposed that visual memory of a geometrical design, memory of a sentence, memory of musical notes, memory of color, and memory of digits should all be included as tests of intelligence.  Recognition of the differences in endowments among individuals indicated the need for tests covering a wide scope.  They urged for this purpose tests, not of elementary functions but of the higher mental processes.  Among the ten mental processes they proposed to study were 1) memory, as already noted; 2) images, measured by recalling twelve randomly selected letters exposed to view long enough for two readings at a "natural" rate; and 3) attention, divided into duration (reproduction of the length of a line of a given length shown only once) and scope (the ability to count the total number of strokes of two metronomes set for slightly different speeds with gradual increase of the speeds on successive trials until the subject's limit is reached).  The other tests were for measurements of imagination, comprehension, suggestibility, esthetic appreciation, moral sentiments, strength of will, and motor skill.

            During the years between 1897 and 1905 Binet and his collaborators busied themselves with developing new tests, particularly for the higher mental processes.  Theodore Simon (1873-1961), a new collaborator, also collected anthropometric measurements.

            In 1905 the first intelligence scale appeared as the joint effort of Binet and Simon.[15] It consisted of a long series of tests they had given to what was for the time a rather large sample of children.  Their guiding concept was that of a scale--a series of tests of increasing difficulty starting with the lowest intellectual level and extending to that of the average level.

            The scale was avowedly a test to be applied rather than just a means of research, for they encouraged others to use their instrument for the measurement of intelligence.  They urged prospective testers to secure training from them, stressed the need for uniformity of administration, and warned against permitting coaching of the children tested.

            In 1908 they revised and improved the scale.[16]  The tests were arranged, not merely according to level of difficulty but according to the age at which presumably normal children could pass them successfully.  If on the tryout of a test being evaluated for possible inclusion, it was found that all or nearly all the children six years old failed, the item was obviously too hard for that age; whereas if practically all eight-year-olds passed it, it was too easy.  The only possibility remaining would be to place it at the seven-year level provided it met the general criterion for placement of a test.  The rule was that if 60 to 90 percent of the children at a given age passed a particular test, it was to be considered standard for that age and included in the scale.  Thus the first age scale was launched.  In this way it came about that children of all levels of intelligence were brought into focus of attention, and the feeble-minded were left merely as a deviant from the normal.  A shift away from the relatively specific problem of the detection of feeblemindedness to the more general problem of the measurement of intelligence at all levels had taken place.

            Tabulated below are the tests at both ends of the scale grouped according to the age at which the majority of children succeeded on them:

Age 3 Years

1.  Points to nose, eyes, mouth.

2.  Repeats sentences of six syllables.

3.  Repeats two digits.

4.  Enumerates objects in a picture.

5.  Gives family name.

Age 4 Years

1.  Knows sex.

2.  Names certain familiar objects shown to him;

    key, pocketknife, and a penny.

3.  Repeats three digits.

4.  Indicates which is the longer of two lines five and six cm. in length.

Age 12 Years

1.  Repeats seven digits.

2.  Finds in one minute three rimes for a given word--obedience.

3.  Repeats a sentence of twenty-six syllables.

4.  Answers problem questions--a common-sense test.

5.  Gives interpretation of pictures.


Age 13 Years

1.  Draws the design that would be made by cutting a triangular piece from the once-folded edge of a quarto-folded paper.

2.  Rearranges in imagination the relationship of two triangles and draws the results as they would appear.

3.  Gives differences between pairs of abstract terms, as pride and pretension.[17]


            By means of the 1908 scale one could find the mental age of the child, irrespective of his actual chronological age.  If he passed the tests of eleven years, but not those of twelve years, he had a mental age of eleven years.  However, very few children were so obliging as to pass all tests at one level and fail all of them at the next, so inherent difficulties of scoring existed that were not cleared up until the next and last revision.

            Binet and Simon applied the scale to feeble-minded children and on the basis of their results, set limits for three degrees of feeble-mindedness; idiot, two years mental age or below; imbecile, between two and seven years; and moron, above seven years.  They recognized that the classification lacked prognostic value, since they were dealing with absolute limits.43  That is to say, their definitions did not take into account the actual or chronological age of the child.  Hence, as the child with the passage of years could continue to grow mentally (although more slowly than the average child), he might pass from an idiot to an imbecile to a moron.

            After Binet's death this problem was solved by William Stern44 who suggested the use of an Intelligence Quotient or IQ, to be found by dividing a subject's mental age (MA) by his actual or chronological age (CA).  Since the resulting IQ is a ratio, it removed the difficulty of MAs as an absolute measure being used to define degrees of intelligence, including feeble-mindedness.  Using the IQ, a child CA four with an MA of two would have an IQ of 50 (2/4), as would a child eight with a mental age of four (4/8).  (The use of a decimal result is eliminated by multiplying by 100.)  The IQ was adopted by Terman in the United States in his 1916 Stanford Revision of the Binet Scales for which he provided a classification of degrees of intelligence in terms of IQ, not MA Mental age as an absolute measure was still useful; it was supplemented by the IQ, which placed the individual's intelligence relative to his age.

            Considerable interest was shown in the United States in using the 1908 version of the Binet-Simon Scale, as we shall see.  However, Decroly and Degand performed an early significant study in Belgium.[18]  They tested a group of boys and girls in a private school in Brussels to find that, on the average, their subjects were one and a half years in advance of the expected standards or norms published by Binet.  After a certain amount of understandable confusion, it was realized that what had been found was the effect of superior social status, since the Belgian children were the sons and daughters of professional men, while the Parisian children on whom Binet's norms were based were from poorer sections of the city.  This finding opened up the whole problem of the relation of intelligence to social class.

            In 1911, the year of Binet's death, the last of his revisions appeared.[19]  He had profited from the research done with the test, re-standardized the placement of tests, added some new tests, and discarded others, particularly because they were too dependent upon school information.  He also took care of the difficulties of scoring the 1908 revision by making each test at each year worth a certain fraction of a year of mental age, expressed as months of mental age, so that all the tests passed, irrespective of the years at which they were placed, could be added together to get the mental age.

            Binet had not attempted to analyze intelligence into parts and then devise tests based on this analysis; rather, he used the combined efforts of a series of promising complex tasks selected as generally relevant to intelligence.  Naturally he had devoted some thought to the nature of intelligence.  Throughout the years, he offered, withdrew, and amended a whole series of definitions.  We have already seen that he related intelligence to judgment.  Probably the most characteristic definition and certainly the definition most commonly associated with his name is that intelligence is a combination of capacities to make adaptations in order to attain a desired end, to maintain a mental set, and to be self-critical.[20]




            Speaking generally, Binet advanced objective measurement in psychology.  His work and that of others, with his or similar instruments, demonstrated the superiority of objective measurement over clinical diagnosis carried on without such instruments.  Binet was not asking the children what they felt or sensed.  They were given specific, often behavioral tasks.  Either they could do them or they could not.  The Binet Scales and the later instruments derived from them were quickly demonstrated to be of practical value in educational, social, and medical settings.  He also contributed to the more theoretical aspects of psychology by developing a concept of intelligence as a combination of cognitive abilities, and, in the process of doing so, he distinguished intelligence from the specific sensory and motor abilities with which it had earlier been confused by Galton and others.

            One criterion of the greatness of a psychologist is the fruitfulness of his contribution in leading to other research.  In this regard Binet stands very high.  Only one or two other psychologists have stimulated as much research as he did.


William Stern and Angewandte Psychologie. 


            We have already encountered William Stern (1871 - 1938) in this chapter because of his involvement with the formulation of intelligence quotient (IQ) for Binet's test.  This was only one of Stern's contribution to applied psychology, however, and not necessarily his most important.

            Trained at Berlin, working with Hermann Ebbinghaus and Carl Stumpf, William Stern accepted a call to the University of Breslau.  He was interested from the beginning of his career in the psychology of change.  It was only a short step to individual differences.  In 1900, Stern published Ueber Psychologie der individuallen Differenzen, (On the Psychology of Individual Differences) in which he declared individual differences to be "the problem of the twentieth century."[21] Stern tells us that it was aspects of individual differences that led him into work in applied psychology.[22] His work on individual differences in memory seemed to have applications to the legal profession, a study that would become the psychology of testimony, a problem still considered in legal psychology.  Stern's articles appeared in 1902 as "Zur Psychologie der Aussage," ("On the Psychology of Testimony").[23]  The reception of this work motivated Stern to establish a publication, Beiträge zur Psychologie der Aussage (Contributions to the Psychology of Testimony) which appeared between 1903 and 1906.  Stern's article in this publication, "Angewandte Psychologie," ("Applied Psychology") appeared in the 1903 volume of the Beiträge.[24]  This was Sterns call for a careful, scientifically based psychology, but one concerned with the applications of scientific knowledge to the world at large.  Stern used the word "Psychotechnique" in that publication, which predated the use of the parallel term "Psychotechnics" usually believed coined by Hugo Münsterberg in 1914.[25]

            In 1906 the Institute of Applied Psychology was founded at Berlin.  It was privately established but put at the disposal of the German Psychological Society.  Stern was its first director, along with Otto Lippmann, but relinquished the position to Lippmann after Stern moved to the University of Hamburg.  In 1907, Stern founded the  Zeitschrift für angewandte Psychologie, (Journal for Applied Psychology) which was the first psychological journal devoted to applied work.

            Although Stern's most significant work was in child psychology, including intelligence testing, and his psychological position called personalism, the initial work he did to encourage applied psychology was extremely important to the development of that field, first in Europe and later in America.

            Meanwhile in France applied psychological work was being carried out that would change the nature of the psychological discipline.


The Testing Movement in America.

            The push for applied psychology in America did not begin with the importation of Binet's intelligence test or with Stern's psychology of testimony.  As early as 1895, J. McKeen Cattell, then president of the American Psychological Association, had arranged for the establishment by the Association of a committee "to consider the feasibility of cooperation among the various psychological laboratories in the collection of mental and physical statistics."[26]  The studies initiated by Cattell were primarily anthropometric tests in the tradition of Francis Galton's London laboratory.  When the report of the committee was presented in 1897, it was not unanimous.  J. Mark Baldwin argued that the emphasis on senses and motor abilities, while important, were too heavily emphasized in the majority report.  He believed that psychological measures of the higher mental processes, such as memory, would be more in line with an initiative of the American Psychological Association than the basically physiological measures proposed by the committee.[27] 

            The use of anthropometric tests had drawn the fire from Titchener as not being psychological as early as Joseph Jastrow's use of them in the Columbian Exposition at Chicago in 1893.[28]  In Titchener's laboratory, one of Titchener's students, Stella Sharp studied the question of mental tests.  Sharp compared the elementary sensory and motor measures being promoted by the anthropometrists with the more complex, but more psychological tests employed in Europe by Binet and Henri.  Sharp concluded that:


The theory was provisionally accepted that the complex mental processes, rather than the elementary processes, are those the variations of which give the most important information in regard to the mental characteristics whereby individuals are commonly classed.  It is in the complex processes, we assumed, and in those alone, that individual differences are sufficiently great to enable us to differentiate one individual from others of the same class.[29]


Sharp used college students as her subjects and used tests of memory, mental images, imagination, attention, observation and description and taste and tendencies.  The last, taste and tendencies, was a test about works of art, music and literature.  Her findings for Binet and against Cattell were a significant blow to the anthropometric method.  It should be added, that there were also a list of improvements on the method of administering the more complex tests of Binet and Henri to make them methodologically more acceptable but which would make them fairly impractical to administer to masses of subjects.  It was damning with faint praise.

            Titchener and Sharp's criticisms of the anthropometric methods were not alone, however.  Clark Wissler (1870 - 1947) used the newly developed Pearson correlation coefficient to correlate the results of Cattell's anthropometric and psychological tests with the academic performance.  A total of 250 freshmen and 35 seniors of Barnard College were used in the study.[30]  The results demonstrated that correlations among the various psychological tests were barely above chance.  While the physical tests were shown to correlate among themselves, there was little correlation with the psychological measures.  Neither correlated with academic performance reliably or significantly above chance.

            These two reports appear to have retarded the growth of American psychological testing movement, at least in academic settings, for a decade. 

            In 1910, Guy Montrose Whipple (1876 - 1941), a student of G. Stanley Hall at Clark, then in the College of Education at Cornell University, not in Titchener's Psychology Department, published his landmark, two-volume Manual of Mental and Physical Tests.[31]  Whipple's Manual was as significant for psychological testing as Titchener's experimental manuals had been for experimental psychology.  The first volume covered the "simpler processes," the anthropometric measures and the sensory and motor capacities.  The second volume, the "complex processes" dealt with the more complex tests, emphasizing the higher mental processes.  Whipple's Manual would remain a staple in the training of psychological testers for twenty years or more.

            The reassertion of psychological testing in America, however, came through the appearance of English language revisions of Simon and Binet's test of intelligence.  Its initial applications in America was by workers in institutions for subnormal populations, however, rather than in academic settings.[32]

            Simon and Binet's Intelligence Test of 1906 was translated into English in 1908 by Henry H. Goddard (1866-1957), the same year Binet produced his "1908 revision."[33]  Goddard, a student of G. Stanley Hall, was at the Vineland Training School in New Jersey.  He also produced an English version of the 1908 scale in 1910.[34]  Goddard is best known for his writings on the feebleminded, particularly his now controversial Kalikak family study.  Goddard's version of Binet's test was immediately popular.  Between 1910 and 1914, 20,000 test booklets and 80,000 record blanks of the test were printed and distributed from Goddard's Vineland Laboratory alone.[35]  E. B. Huey also  published a revision in 1910[36] and Whipple included a translation of the test and a criticism in the first edition of his Manual in 1910, but oddly enough, not in the second edition of 1914.  Frederick Kuhlman at Clark University also issued a revision of the test in 1912.[37] The major revision, however, was Lewis Terman's Stanford Binet Revision which appeared in its complete form in 1916.

            It is interesting that the five individuals who first promoted the Binet intelligence tests, Goddard, Whipple, Huey, Kuhlman and Terman had all been students at G. Stanley Hall's Clark University.  It is particularly noteworthy since Hall, at the time, was not in favor of psychological tests and even urged Terman against doing his thesis on a testing topic.[38]  It should be noted, however, that while these students are usually credited with working with Hall, the individual who ran the day-to-day affairs of the Clark University psychology department was not Hall but Edmund C. Sanford.  Sanford was one of the members of the American Psychological Association committee on psychological tests in 1895 and who supported the notion of tests.  Terman, after much soul-searching, shifted from Hall as his major advisor to Sanford.[39]

            Terman was introduced to the Binet test by H.B. Huey after they both had graduated from Clark.  Terman was not positively impressed by the test when he first encountered it.  It was only after he tried it on children that he found it to be useful.  "The more I used it the more amazed I was at its accuracy," Terman wrote.[40]

            Terman first published on his use of the scale in 1911.[41]  He found problems with the scale, however.  The two ends of the scale were not accurate; younger children were rated too high and older children were rated too low.  Still, Terman held that by use of the test, "it is possible for the psychologist to submit, after a forty-minute diagnostication, a more reliable and more enlightening estimate of the child's intelligence than most teachers can offer after a year of daily contact in the schoolroom."[42]

            Terman and Childs published an interim revision of the Binet test in 1912.[43]  In the meantime, the final version of Binet's test had appeared in 1911.  Terman researched on the Binet scales until finally, in 1916, he published The Measurement of Intelligence, subtitled An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale.[44] Terman's version of the Binet test would be revised in 1937 with Merrill and again in 1960 after Terman's death.  Terman adopted the intelligence quotient of William Stern for generating a single number to stand for intelligence rather than the mental age (MA) alone.  It was a significant change in that it allowed intelligence, as represented by IQ, to be correlated by means of the new correlational statistics with other behaviors and traits.  It also opened up the Pandora's box of inappropriate uses of IQ as a predictor of future performance.  The appearance of the Stanford-Binet scale was a significant step in the establishment of the psychological test as a diagnostic tool, not only in education but in many other areas.


The Intelligence Test Goes to War: Robert M. Yerkes


            With the entry of the United States into World War I, psychological tests were used on a mass basis for the first time.[45]  Robert M. Yerkes (1876 - 1956) became the head of the military testing service.  Most of Yerkes' research had been in comparative psychology and he is still perhaps best known for his comparative work, in particularly his work on chimpanzees.  Yerkes was also interested in the concept of intelligence.  He had created his own intelligence test in 1915, called the point scale.  Now he and Terman and several other psychologists interested in testing developed the Army Alpha and Army Beta tests.  Alpha was developed for individuals who could read and write while Beta was for illiterates. In a little over two years, beginning in September, 1917, 1,726,966 soldiers were tested.[46] To a much lesser degree, use was also made of a form of Terman's Binet and of Yerkes' Point Scale.[47]  During the war, hundreds of young psychologists, experimentalists and those with applied interests alike, volunteered or were drafted into military service and served in psychological testing, which was then part of the Sanitary Corps.  For many of them, it was their first introduction to applied psychology in general and psychological testing in particular.  Applied psychology could not have asked for a more intensive education program for young psychologists than the testing service supplied.  E.G. Boring, who, before he volunteered for service in the Testing Corps, was an instructor at Titchener's Cornell. The effect of the testing experience on him is a good example of that on many young experimental psychologists:


Titchener's in-group at Cornell had appreciated mental testers in much the same way that the Crusaders, gathered around Richard Coeur-de-Lion, appreciated Moslems, but this First World War gave me a respect for the testers.  I saw clearly that good, honest, intelligent work in any field merits respect and that testers closely resemble the pure experimentalists in habits of work, in enthusiasm, and in thoroughness.[48] 


 American academic psychology would never be the same again.

            With the war over, Yerkes continued to promote the use of intelligence tests and other sorts of psychological tests in schools and in industry.[49] While there would be controversy over testing, the 1920's and 1930's saw a rapid expansion of psychological testing of all kinds, but particularly intelligence testing.


Hugo Münsterberg and the Beginnings of Industrial Psychology in America


            Madison Bentley's second "great invasion" of orthodox psychology came from business.  Business and industry recognized rather quickly the possibilities of psychology for the solution of their problems.  What Binet was for the testing movement, Hugo Münsterberg (1863 - 1916) was for industrial psychology in America.  E. G. Boring in his classic history claims for Münsterberg the title of "founder" of applied psychology.[50]  He was certainly one of the founders, but must share title with Walter Dill Scott (1869 - 1955) in America and, as we have seen, William Stern in Europe. 

            Münsterberg, working and writing from his prestigious position in the psychology program at Harvard was perhaps the best known psychologist in America after the death of William James and was very influential in promoting many forms of applied psychology.  His premature death in 1916 did not allow him to see the result of his work, however.  We will emphasize the developments in America.


Life of Münsterberg


            Hugo Münsterberg was born in Danzig, then in Prussia, in 1863.[51]  His father was successful in the lumber business.[52]  Münsterberg graduated from the German Gymnasium to prepare for a medical career.  He enrolled at the University of Leipzig.  In his second year, however, he attended the lectures of Wilhelm Wundt.  Münsterberg delayed his medical training and received his doctoral degree from Wundt in psychology in 1885. Two years later, he received his MD degree from Heidelberg.  Like Wundt's students, Titchener and Külpe, who would come after him, Münsterberg held to a more positivistic position than did Wundt, a fact that led Münsterberg to criticize Wundt in print on several occasions.

            Münsterberg became a Dozent at Freiburg in 1887 and established his own laboratory there.  His laboratory, funded largely out of his own pocket, quickly came to rank among the best in Europe, rivaling even Wundt's establishment.  At the age of 28 he was given the rank of Extraordentlicher Professor at Freiburg.  This was the equivalent of a tenured associate professor in an American university.  It guaranteed him a permanent position and salary.  Münsterberg's publications gained him recognition, not only in Germany but also in America.  Best known was his three-volume Beiträge zur experimentellen Psychologie (Contribution to Experimental Psychology) published between 1889 and 1892.  A very young E. B. Titchener, still at Leipzig, criticized Münsterberg's work for his  misunderstanding of Wundt's ideas and for general superficiality.  Titchener's assessment of Münsterberg's book was that "whether the theories of the Beiträge stand or fall, their experimental foundation has very little positive worth."[53]  William James, however, welcomed Münsterberg's results, perhaps, as Titchener suggested because they were anti-Wundtian.  James, by then tired of experimental psychology, sought to find a director for the psychological laboratory at Harvard so he could return to the more comfortable realms of a professor of philosophy.  Münsterberg came to Harvard for a trial appointment between 1892 and 1895.  He was offered a permanent appointment and went back to Germany for two years, accepting for 1897.  He would remain at Harvard for the rest of his life, dying while lecturing to the students at Radcliffe in 1916.

            Münsterberg in America was very different from the experimentalist he was in Freiburg.  His interests in experimental psychology appeared to wane, turning to other pursuits such as telepathy, international affairs and applied psychology.  He was also deeply concerned that there be understanding between his German homeland and his adopted country.  He worked very hard for international understanding, founding an American Institute in Berlin.  When he died, however, at the height of American anti-German sentiment, his positions and statements supporting Germany gained for him only a suspicion in some quarters as being a German spy.[54] 


Münsterberg and Industrial Psychology


            In his early criticism of Münsterberg, E. B. Titchener acknowledged that Münsterberg wrote easily.  This was certainly reflected in the number of books he produced after coming to America.  Even now, a perusal of a second-hand book store in any large American city will uncover one or two of his books.  This ability to write not only books but articles and pamphlets, many based on talks given before a bewildering variety of groups, made him ideal to promote applied work. 

            Hale tells us that as early as 1891, Münsterberg had devised a set of mental tests for school children, yet in his Grundzüge, Münsterberg argued against broad applications of psychological principles, particularly widespread applications of psychology to education.[55]  Münsterberg was, at first, cautious.  He, like Stern, wanted an applied psychology to be based on sound experimental and scientific principles.  He was perhaps more cautious than Stern, since even Stern criticized Münsterberg's Grundzüge for "rejecting" the possibility of application on a broad scale."[56]  Later, however, Münsterberg would be heavily criticized for carelessness and overblown assertions in his applied work.  This criticism came not only from Titchener and his allies but also from other early applied psychologists such as Lightner Witmer.[57]  Much of Münsterberg's work was overblown, particularly his claims for his clinical work[58].  But the two areas he is best remembered for, his legal psychology and his industrial psychology, stand on a firmer basis.


Münsterberg's Psychology of Testimony


            In 1907 and 1908, Münsterberg published a series of articles in the a number of popular magazines, all related to what we would call to day legal psychology.  In 1908, these articles were gathered together and published in book form under the title, On the Witness Stand.[59]

            Since the book was made up of popular articles, there was little experimental support.  It is clear that Münsterberg's intent was to promote interest in this applied field rather than contribute scholarly research to it.  The book was thoroughly attacked by psychologists but widely read by the lay public.[60]  In its introduction, Münsterberg called for an applied psychology but not for the attempt to directly apply the theories of experimental psychology to applied situations.  Münsterberg called for an independent discipline of applied psychology.  He said that "What is needed is to adjust research to the practical problems themselves and thus, for instance, when education is in question, to start psychological experiments directly from educational problems.  Applied Psychology will then become an independent experimental science which stands related to the ordinary experimental psychology as engineering to physics."[61]


Industrial Psychology


            Münsterberg's major contribution to applied psychology was his work on industrial psychology.  The volume that best represents that work appeared in English in 1913 as Psychology and Industrial Efficiency.[62]  It had appeared in a slightly different form a few months earlier in German.  The subtitle of the German version perhaps expresses more clearly Münsterberg's intent:  A Contribution to Applied Experimental Psychology.[63]  He had written on the topic as early as 1909 in an article for McClure's Magazine, "The Market and Psychology."[64]  The article argued for an applied psychology and gave particular instances for the steamship and railway companies, whose employees needed to be screened for visual acuity and color blindness as well as the rapidity and accuracy of their perceptions in order to reduce accidents.

            In his introduction to Psychology and Industrial Efficiency, Münsterberg states that his aim is "to sketch the outlines of a new science which is to intermediate between the modern laboratory psychology and the problems of economics: the psychological experiment is systematically to be placed at the service of commerce and industry."[65]  The articles, while popularly written, outlined the kinds of contributions psychology can make to industry.

            Perhaps chastened by the attacks made on him for the broad strokes of his earlier books, Münsterberg undertook for this one a more careful and data based approach.  The result was a series of experiments that made use of what we would now call personnel selection tests. 

            Münsterberg conducted one set of researches on employees of the New England Telephone Company.  The company was concerned because a large percentage of the women hired and trained to be telephone operators were unable to do the job, losing the company large amounts of money in training costs. Münsterberg ran a number of tests on these employees, measuring aspects of "memory, attention, intelligence, exactitude and rapidity."[66]  Some were group tests, others were individually administered.  Averages were taken for each individual on the results of all the tests administered.  A rank ordered list was put together, based on these average scores.  After three months, the success of the operators in their jobs was compared to their test rankings.  Those who were in the lowest ranks on the basis of the tests "in the mean time had either left the company of their own accord or else had been eliminated."  Individuals who ranked at the top had been successful, including experienced operators who, unknown to Münsterberg, the company had mixed in with the new employees for their own check of the accuracy of his results.  While the ranking did not correspond perfectly with performance, they were "satisfactory."[67]

            Münsterberg did similar work in 1912 for the Boston Elevated Railway Company. Not only did he administer standard mental and physical tests, he also created what may have been the first simulator of an industrial task, in this case for trolley motormen, to measure their ability to perform in situations analogous to those that would be encountered in a real trolley.[68]  Münsterberg was able to establish a formula for accepting and rejecting applicants for the motorman's job on the basis of test scores directed toward their specific job.  While Münsterberg warned that such scores were not absolutely accurate in their predictive value, the correlation appears to have been relatively high.  A similar project was carried out for the pilots of ocean-going steamships with similar success.

            Psychology and Industrial Efficiency is a landmark book of its type. Along with the works of non-psychologists such as F. W. Taylor's The Principles of Scientific Management[69] and Frank G. Gilbreth's Motion Study,[70] both published in 1911, Münsterberg's book helped establish the field of personnel management and has given psychology a legitimate claim to industrial and personnel psychology ever since. 


Walter Dill Scott and Business Psychology


            What Münsterberg was to industrial psychology, Walter Dill Scott (1869-1955) was to advertising and marketing. Scott has been called America's first business psychologist.[71]  Born in Illinois, Scott had very little early education.  He never received a high school diploma, although he later attended Northwestern University and received his undergraduate degree there.  He would be attached to Northwestern in one capacity or another for most of his life.  Scott was attracted to psychology and pedagogy.  He was introduced to psychology through William James' Psychology: Briefer Course.  He first believed he had a call to the ministry, however and sought to study to become a missionary after graduating from Northwestern.  He found, however, that  he was not suited for the ministry.  Instead, he went to Leipzig and, like Münsterberg, received his Ph.D. from Wilhelm Wundt.  Returning to the United States in 1900, after graduation, Scott went to Northwestern University where he had been appointed instructor of psychology and pedagogy. 

            In 1901 he was urged by Thomas Balmer, an advertising agent and early promoter of the scientific approach to advertising, to apply his psychological knowledge to the subject of advertising.  Balmer had earlier sought out Hugo Münsterberg, Edward L. Thorndike and others to do the same thing.  Each had refused, apparently because the proscription against applied work in academic settings was so great.  Scott also refused, at first, but finally accepted the offer. He gave his first lecture to the Agate Club in December, 1901.  His topic was the psychology of involuntary attention in advertising.  John Mahin, also an important figure in the advertising world, seeing the positive response to Scott's talk before the Agate Club, offered to start up a journal, Mahin's Magazine, to publish Scott's articles and others in the psychology of advertising if Scott would persevere.  Scott agreed.[72] This offer was not as out of place as it might seem, at first, for a student just out of Wundt's laboratory.  Scott's dissertation with Wundt was on the subject of impulse.  This topic dealt with involuntary attention and was rife with potential applications to advertising.  This involvement led to the beginning of Scott's lifetime involvement in business psychology.

            It is not accurate to say that Scott was the first to do experiments in advertising psychology, however, as he acknowledged himself.[73]  That title, at least in America, should go to another midwesterner who studied not only with Wundt but also Ebbinghaus, Harlow Gale (1862 - 1945).[74] Gale was at the University of Minnesota between 1894 and 1903, a brief and tumultuous academic career. He took over the laboratory left by James Rowland Angell after Angell left for Chicago.  Gale was interested in involuntary attention, a topic that would attract Scott some years later.  In 1896 Gale carried out experiments on involuntary attention using advertisements as his stimuli.  He made use of a form of the order of merit method, apparently before Cattell is credited with inventing it.  Gale made use of the concept of suggestion, part of the law of ideo-motor action, as an explanation for the unconscious effects of advertising.  Gale's studies were published privately in 1900.[75]

            Walter Dill Scott, like Gale had been exposed to Wundtian orthodoxy, but as with so many other of Wundt's American students, Wundtian purism did not survive the trans-Atlantic voyage back to America.  They tended to blend together aspects of Wundt's psychology with ideas from their earlier background in American functional psychology, Gale with Ladd at Yale and Scott with William James' Principles. Their work moved toward questions of what mind does for us, not what it is.  What survived from Wundt was the use of laboratory methods, although not necessarily introspective methods, to explore psychological questions.

            In 1903, as a result of his lectures and articles, most of which were published in Mahin's Magazine, Scott published his first book on advertising, The Theory of Advertising.[76]  The book shows Scott's background in the psychology of mind, since it emphasized apperception, association and other mentalistic concepts applied to the topic.  He held, as Harlow Gale had done earlier, that affecting involuntary attention and using suggestion were the primary methods of advertising. In 1908 he published another book on advertising, the Psychology of Advertising, also from the same perspective.[77] 

            Scott's involvement in advertising did not bring him ill fate in academics, however, although he was careful to promote advertising psychology to the business world but not to attempt to sell the idea to his fellow psychologists.  He did not publish on the topic in psychological journals nor did he give talks at the American Psychological Association on advertising, although he did so for more orthodox psychological topics.  This was true even after other psychologists such as Hugo Münsterberg, Robert M. Yerkes and Edward K. Strong published applied work in mainstream psychological journals.[78]  There is evidence, however, that Scott lectured on business and advertising psychology to his students, both at Northwestern and as guest lecturer elsewhere.  One such visit was to Carl Seashore's department of psychology at the University of Iowa. One student influenced by Scott at that talk was Daniel Starch who would go on to be a major influence in applied psychology.[79]

            In 1909, Scott was appointed Professor of Advertising in the School of Commerce at Northwestern and, in 1912,  he held a joint position as Professor of Psychology in both the College of Liberal Arts and the School of Commerce.  In 1916, Scott took a leave from Northwestern and served as Director of the Bureau of Salesmanship Research at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, commonly called Carnegie Tech, where the Division of Applied Psychology had been formed.  He thus became the first Professor of Applied Psychology in America.  During World War I, he served as Director of the Committee on Classification of Personnel and in 1919 was elected president of the American Psychological Association.  After the war he founded the Scott Company, perhaps the first personnel psychology consulting firm in the world. These developments will be considered later in this chapter.  In 1920, he became President of Northwestern University, a position he held until his retirement in 1939.[80]


Applied Psychology at Columbia:  Hollingworth and Strong


            In chapter 20 we discussed the utilitarian thrust of psychologists in the Department of Psychology at Columbia under the direction of J. McKeen Cattell and at Teachers College, Columbia where John Dewey and Edward L. Thorndike were active.  Students in these programs during the first two decades of this century included many who would become influential in various aspects of applied psychology.  Among these were T.L. Kelley and J.V. Breitwieser in educational psychology, F. L. Wells in clinical psychology and J.F. Dashiell in legal and social psychology.  Two men associated with the program around 1910 were Harry L. Hollingworth (1880 - 1956) and E. K. Strong, Jr. (1884-1963).  They contributed in the 'teens and twenties to applied psychology, and particularly to the psychology of advertising, a motivational approach.  Even at Columbia,  openly applied work was still suspect.  Much of Hollingworth's early applied activities were done without the knowledge of his colleagues in Psychology.  Hollingworth received his undergraduate education under one of G. Stanley Hall's former students at the University of Nebraska, leaving in 1907 for graduate work at Columbia in psychology.  There he worked under James McKeen Cattell and Robert S. Woodworth.  He became a tutor at Barnard College, Columbia, in 1909 and was promoted to Instructor in 1910.[81]  He remained there until he retired in 1946.  In 1910, Hollingworth offered a course in advertising psychology  as an extension course. In that year, he also lectured on advertising psychology in association with the Advertising Men's League of New York City. 

            In the early teens, Hollingworth published two important contributions to applied psychology, Advertising and Selling: Principles of Appeal and Responses (1913) and Advertising:  Its Principles and Practice (1915).  Advertising and Selling was the first presentation in a systematic form of a behavioral approach to advertising.  At Columbia Teachers College, Thorndike was developing his own form of objective psychology, work that would lead to the law of effect and law of exercise. At the same time Woodworth in the psychology department at Columbia was developing his dynamic psychology.  Both Thorndike and Woodworth were moving away from the mentalism of earlier functionalism and toward other models, behavioral and motivational.

            The behavioral tendencies of Thorndike appears to have influenced Hollingworth in his first book.  Also, John B. Watson's behaviorism might have been an influence.  It was at Columbia, early in 1913 that John B. Watson gave the lectures that would become the manifesto of his behaviorism.  Both Thorndike and Woodworth appear to have influenced Hollingworth in the development of his own molar behavioral approach in contrast to Watson's more molecular behaviorism.  Kuna suggests that the seeds of Hollingworth's position were already present in his dissertation,  The Inaccuracy of Movement in 1909.[82]  By 1915, however, Woodworth's dynamic psychology appears to have gained in influence.  In his Advertising: Its Principles and Practices, Hollingworth appears to move away from his earlier behavioral approach and toward emphasis on the needs, desire and interests of the consumer.  Kuna demonstrates the difference between Hollingworth's behavioral approach of 1913 and his dynamic approach of 1915 by comparing his list of the four main tasks of advertising in the two volumes.


The former four...involved (1) the ad attracting attention, (2) the ad holding the attention, (3) the ad arousing central associations and (4) the ad evoking a response.  However, the four tasks presented in 1915 involved (1) tabulation of the fundamental needs of men and women, (2) analysis of the satisfying power of the commodity in terms of the consumer's needs, (3) establishing the association between need and  commodity, and (4) making the association dynamic.[83]

            E.K. Strong also developed a dynamic approach to advertising.  Strong came to Columbia in 1909 after receiving a masters degree at the University of California, Berkeley.  He became Hollingworth's assistant at Barnard during 1909-1910 and completed his degree with Hollingworth in 1914.  The Advertising Men's League funded a fellowship of which Strong was the first recipient.  Strong's dissertation was titled  The Relative Merit of Advertisements[84] and appears to be the first of its type in American psychology.  The acceptance of the topic by Columbia, an obviously business-oriented dissertation in an academic department, was a major breakthrough for applied psychology. 

            In 1914, Strong became Professor of Psychology at George Peabody College in Nashville, Tennessee, a position he held until 1919.  He had been involved with the Committee on Classification of Personnel during the first World War.  He left Peabody for a position in the Division of Applied Psychology at Carnegie Tech. where he remained four years before finally settling at Stanford University in 1923.  Strong continued to write on advertising psychology throughout his life, but the later period was mainly devoted to the measurement of interests. 

            In the period we are considering, however, Strong published widely in the psychology of advertising not in esoteric advertising magazines but in mainstream psychological publications.  His "Application of the 'Order of Merit Method' to Advertising," (1911) was published in the Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods.  His "Role of Attention in Advertising" (1912) was published in Psychological Bulletin and "The Effect of Size of Advertisements and Frequency of their Presentation" (1914) appeared in Psychological Review, just to name a few.[85]

            This reflects, to some degree, a difference between the attitude of Strong and Hollingworth toward applied psychology.  To some degree, Hollingworth did applied work to supplement his income.[86]  He appeared, at least in later life, to be embarrassed at his involvement in applied work.  For Strong, it was his primary field, not a sideline to one's "proper" academic work.


Institutionalization of Applied Psychology


            Between 1910 and 1920 there was a dramatic increase in the number of individuals involved in various forms of applied psychology.  The applied psychologists had little or no cohesion, however.  In 1915, the Economic Psychology Association was formed. While short-lived, existing only two years, it was a beginning of the organization of applied psychologists. The organization was founded by J.J. Apatow who was a salesman and promoter who had been stimulated by attending Hollingworth's lectures on advertising psychology.[87]  It involved not only Hollingworth but R. S. Woodworth and Hugo Münsterberg as officers. Unfortunately, a controversy over Apatow's budget for the group led to the resignation of the Columbia psychologists and the collapse of the society.[88] It would be a decade later, in 1927, that the International Association of Applied Psychology would be established and 1937 before the American Association for Applied Psychology came into being.  Applied Psychology would not be recognized as a formal psychological discipline by the American Psychological Association until the reorganization of the Association in 1946.

            In 1917, G. Stanley Hall, psychology's professional founder, founded the Journal of Applied Psychology, providing a reliable outlet for research on applied topics.[89] 

            One of the most significant events related to professionalization of applied psychology was the establishment at the Carnegie Institute of Technology, the Division of Applied Psychology in 1916.  This was the first academic organization dedicated to applying psychology.  The Division of Applied Psychology was directed by Walter Van Dyke Bingham (1880-1952).[90] 

            Bingham had received his doctorate at Angell's Chicago in 1908, although he had studied earlier with Münsterberg at Harvard.  His first academic position after graduating was at Teachers College, Columbia where he came into contact with E. L. Thorndike. He left Teachers College for Dartmouth in 1910 where he remained until he was called to Carnegie Institute of Technology as director of the newly established Division of Applied Psychology in 1916.  The Division included the Bureau of Mental Tests, the Department of Training of Teachers, the Department of Psychology and Education and the Bureau of Salesmanship Research.  As such, it brought together all of the applied disciplines, with the exception of clinical psychology.

            As has already been mentioned, Walter Dill Scott, was called to Carnegie for a year to direct the Bureau of Salesmanship Research and was given the title of Professor of Applied Psychology, the first to receive such a title in an American University.  He directed the Bureau for two years and then returned to Northwestern.  The name of the Bureau is a little misleading, since the research directed there under Scott was personnel selection and not sales related.  A result of this research was the publication of Aids in the Selection of Salesmen, one of the first attempts to develop tests for use in business an industry.[91]

            Scott was replaced by Guy Montrose Whipple, who had produced the early volumes  Manuals of Physical and Mental Tests.  He had been at Illinois after leaving Cornell.  After World War I, Whipple moved to the Department of Educational Research at Carnegie Tech.  E. K. Strong, Jr. became Director of the Bureau of Salesmanship Research.  The Division of Applied Psychology at Carnegie Tech was disbanded in 1924 after a change of administrations. The collapse was a setback for applied psychology in academics, but the scattering of the students and staff to other institutions tended to spread applied psychology into more orthodox institutions.


Personnel Psychology and the War


            World War I, as we have already seen, was significant for the intelligence testing movement.  It also proved to be important in the development of personnel testing.  We have already seen the beginnings of personnel tests with Münsterberg's Psychology and Industrial Efficiency.  When the United States entered the war in 1917, Walter Dill Scott and Walter Bingham, impatient with Yerkes' emphasis on intelligence testing, pushed for and got approval for the Committee on Classification of Personnel in the Army.  Scott was made director and Bingham the executive secretary.  Using the experience at Carnegie, Scott, Bingham and the Committee developed a complete personnel selection system for the Army.[92] 

            The measurement of the recruit's intelligence, already described in this chapter, was only the first step in personnel selection.  It primarily determined the acceptability or unacceptability for military service.  The next step was the classification of personnel in terms of their aptitude for needed jobs in the military effort.  Scott and Bingham's committee had as its job to classify and place enlisted men in duties to which they were best suited.  By the end of the war the value of personnel selection tests had been demonstrated.  The committee developed a trades test, perhaps the first mass use of a personnel selection test.  Tests were devised for different trades.  The most pressing need was a test for truck drivers and auto mechanics "to determine whether the ammunition and supply trains of the divisions that were about to be sent to France really had the skilled personnel necessary to get the supplies up to the front under battle conditions.  By the time that mobilization ceased in November [1918], standardized tests in about eighty of the more important trades were in use."[93]

            These tests provided the basis for the modern use of job analysis and personnel selection tests in the military and in business and industry.  Personnel psychology had been launched.  The years after the war appeared to have great potential for such applications, but there were difficulties ahead.

            After the War, Walter Dill Scott left Carnegie and established the Scott Company.  This was the first consulting firm for personnel selection in industry.  The firm, while it lasted only two years, a victim of the post war depression, set the pattern of private personnel consulting firms that came into existence after the second world war.[94] While the Scott Company failed, Scott continued to promote personnel psychology.  After he became President of Northwestern University in 1920 he was the coauthor of Personnel Management, the classic personnel text.[95]


The Psychological Corporation


            The early period of personnel psychology and, for that matter, all applied psychology closes with the founding in 1921 of the Psychological Corporation.  J. McKeen Cattell, who had initiated that committee of the American Psychological Association on physical and mental tests in 1895 was its founder and its first president.  The Corporation was a non-profit organization to promote applied work, acting as a "holding company" between psychologists with services to give and corporations needing services.[96]  Its services would also include the publication of psychological tests, a service for which it would eventually be best known.  Almost half of the psychologists then in America became stockholders.[97]  Even E.B. Titchener joined the Corporation, although his intention appears to have been to keep an eye on the applied side. 

            Cattell resigned as president in 1926 after several years of disappointment in the Corporation's operation, while he stayed on in the primarily nominal post of Chairman of the Board.  He was  replaced as President by Walter V. Bingham who served for four years.  Paul Achilles (1890-1976) was appointed as Secretary and later rose to General Manager (1931-1942) and finally to President, (1942 - 1946).  It was Achilles who played a major role in establishing the corporation as a free-standing organization with divisions devoted to clinical, industrial, marketing and advertising,  and a test division.  The Psychological Corporation became a major force in the production of tests.  It was purchased by a major publishing house in 1970 but still continues as a publisher of tests.


The Beginnings of Clinical Psychology in America


            The third of Madison Bentley's "great invasions" of psychology during the first part of this century was from medicine and the result was the development of clinical psychology.  Just as with other forms of applied psychology, clinical psychology was met with considerable resistance.  We will treat the history of European thought devoted to abnormal psychology in later chapters, but some mention should be made of the early developments of clinical psychology in America. 

            Institutions for the mentally ill and retarded had existed from the early days of the United States.  As in Europe, the treatment of these populations was left primarily to medical doctors.[98]

            Within academic settings, the first major contribution by a psychologist to clinical populations was primarily educationally oriented and was begun by another of Wilhelm Wundt's American students, Lightner Witmer (1867 - 1956).[99]  Witmer was born in Philadelphia and graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1888.  While at the University, Witmer worked with J. McKeen Cattell, himself just recently from Leipzig.  While Witmer went to Leipzig and received his doctorate from Wundt, he credited Cattell with more influence on his thinking than anyone else.       Returning to America, Witmer became Director of the Laboratory of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, replacing Cattell who had gone to Columbia.

            Witmer had lectured on children's behavior problems at the University of Pennsylvania as early as 1894.[100]  In 1896, Witmer founded at the University of Pennsylvania a clinic of psychology, the first psychological clinic in America and perhaps the world as an indirect result of those lectures.  We are told that the idea of the clinic arose from the case of a child brought to Witmer by a teacher who knew of the lectures. The child could not learn to spell.  A second child was brought who had a speech defect.  His clinic thus began with an emphasis that would epitomize Witmer's career, diagnostic and remedial work with children with intellectual or educational deficiencies.  Witmer's interests remained primarily educational.

            Witmer's students included Edwin B. Twitmeyer (1873 - 1943) who, besides independently discovering the conditioned reflex, specialized in diagnosis and treatment of speech defects.  Morris S. Viteles was also a student of Witmer who became famous for his work in vocational and industrial guidance.  Robert A. Brotemarkle, also a student, was a pioneer in the study of personality adjustments in college students.  It was Witmer who first popularized the use of the term "clinical psychology."

            Witmer reported his clinical approach in the American Psychological Association meeting of 1896, outlining the methods he was using and demonstrating the potential of psychological clinics as a service to the community.  Even though this was the year after the APA created its committee on mental and physical tests, there was little response to Witmer's presentation.

            In 1907, Witmer founded the journal, Psychological Clinic, which edited by him until 1935, would become a significant independent outlet for research in clinical psychology, although at first it was little used by mainstream psychologists.  He was also responsible for the establishment of a hospital school at the University of Pennsylvania in 1907.  Later called the Orthogenic School, it was a place where patients could be treated for extended periods.  It was Witmer's intent that the hospital school would train psychological practitioners whom he termed "psychological experts."[101]

            Work of the Pennsylvania clinic blended into other applied fields as the testing movement began and grew.  Diagnostic tests were a significant contribution of the Pennsylvania clinic.  Witmer was little influenced by the French psychiatry of Janet or the Germanic dynamicism of Freud or Jung.  Those influences would come later and would influence the workers in mental illness more than in the subnormal populations dealt with by Witmer.[102]     Witmer retired in 1937.

            During the first decade of this century, University clinics were begun at the University of Minnesota, Clark University and the University of Iowa.  The clinic founded by Carl Seashore at the University of Iowa around 1910 was modeled after Witmer's clinic.[103]  By 1914, J.E. W. Wallin reported that there were 26 such clinics operating in the United States.[104]


Clinics for the Mentally Ill


            The clinics discussed thus far were primarily for populations with intellectual or educational defects.  While most of the treatment of mentally ill populations were carried out during the first two decades of this century in private or state-supported institutions.  Still, psychologists were beginning to be involved even in these settings.  William O. Krohn  opened in 1897 a laboratory at the Eastern Hospital for the Insane at Kankakee, Illinois for the study of insane populations.  He remained there until 1899 when he left to study medicine and become a psychiatrist. 

            Edward Cowles  (          ) founded a psychological laboratory at McLean Hospital in 1889.  He was a medical man, but had studied psychology at Johns Hopkins with G. Stanley Hall and had contributed an article to the first volume of  Hall's American Journal of Psychology on a clinical topic.[105]  Even before 1894, Cowles encouraged the involvement of psychologists working jointly with medical staff. Cowles believed in the relevance of "the new psychology" to the understanding of mental diseases.[106]  Both Cowles and his associate at McLean, William Noyes, were charter members of the American Psychological Association.  Cowles appointed August Hoch to be psychologist and pathologist at McLean.  Hoch was an MD but was sent to Europe to study psychology before taking the position.  He appears to have studied briefly there with Wundt, Külpe, Marbe, and Kiesow as well as with the psychologist turned psychiatrist, Emil  Kraepelin.[107]  Hoch did work on the ergograph in clinical situations and published a clinical article in the first volume of the Psychological Bulletin.[108] 

            Shepard Ivory Franz  (1874 - 1933) established his psychological laboratory at McLean in 1904.[109]  Franz instituted in 1907 a routine clinical psychological examination of all new patients at McLean.  This is probably the first instance of routine psychological testing of psychiatric hospital patients.[110]  When Franz left for St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, F.L. Wells, who had studied psychology at Columbia, succeeded him and remained there until 1921.

            Worcester State Hospital also had close ties with psychologists at G. Stanley Hall's Clark University.  Adolph Meyer, the Swiss psychiatrist was there between 1895 and 1901.  He had a firm belief in the association of psychologists with clinical psychology.  Meyer, who had been at Kankakee before coming to Worchester, later went to the Phipps Clinic at Johns Hopkins University.  There he developed a moderately behavioral position he called psychobiology, a middle ground between the functionalism of Chicago and the behaviorism of John B. Watson. He was closely associated with John B. Watson but did not share all of Watson's behavioral views. Even before Watson declared behaviorism's goals in 1913, Meyer was calling for a psychology and psychopathology of behavior.  In 1911, in a paper given at the American Psychological Association, Meyer called for a psychological study of psychopathology[111]  Still, Meyer as with most psychiatrists of his day was more interested in how psychologists could help teach psychiatrists psychology rather than the role psychologists could play themselves in psychopathological settings.

            Many psychologists came to believe there was a role for them in psychopathological settings.  In 1909, Hugo Münsterberg published his book, Psychopathology, which outlined the role psychologists could play in psychopathology.  While he appears to have been overexpansive as to the curative powers of the psychology of his time, at least he gave the public the notion that psychologists also had something to contribute.

            Gradually, psychologists began to become involved in mental hospital settings.  Some, like Edwin G. Boring, then a young instructor at Titchener's Cornell who spent the summer of 1912 at St. Elizabeth's hospital working with S. I. Franz on schizophrenia, wanted to find out first hand what psychopathology was about.[112]  Others, like Robert M. Yerkes had longer-term associations and made genuine contributions to the training of psychologists in mental health settings.  Yerkes had a half time position at Boston Psychopathic Hospital between 1913 and 1917, with E.E. Southard, overseeing diagnostic tests for clinical populations.[113]  Still others, like Grace Fernald, who was at the Juvenile Psychopathic Institute at Chicago, were full-time psychological professions in the clinical setting.

            Internships for Psychologists in Mental Health Settings.  Boston Psychopathic Hospital established the first internships for psychologists in a mental hospital, primarily for diagnostic testing.  They were under the supervision of Yerkes.  We have already seen the involvement of Goddard at Vineland.  Even before learning of Binet's tests, Goddard had established a genuine laboratory of clinical psychology at Vineland as early as 1906, which involved not only instruction but research.[114]  Goddard made use of internships at Vineland beginning in 1908.  Goddard's translation  of the Binet intelligence test was of great influence in promoting the use of diagnostic tests in mental institutions, even before the Stanford-Binet was released.

            Like Goddard, the psychiatrist, William Healy began accepting graduate students in psychology for internships at the Juvenile Psychopathic Institute in Chicago.[115]  Healy's Institute had been founded in 1909 and started out with a psychologist on the staff, Grace M. Fernald.  Fernald and later her successor, Augusta F. Bronner, emphasized performance testing and devised many instruments of their own.  Healy had introduced a version of the Binet test the same year as Goddard had done at Vineland.  In 1927, these tests were published as Manual of Individual Tests and Testing.[116]  Other institutions with early internships included Worcester State Hospital, McLean Hospital, the Western State Penitentiary in Pennsylvania and the New York Institute for Child Guidance.[117]  Most psychologists who were involved in clinical settings did so in one form or the other of diagnostic testing.  Their involvement was thus tied up with the growth of the testing movement in general.


Attempts at Professionalization of Clinical Psychology


            As with all the branches of applied psychology, early attempts at professionalization met with only partial success.  In 1915 Guy M. Whipple persuaded the American Psychological Association to go on record "discouraging" the use of mental tests by unqualified individuals, by which he meant non-psychologists.  A niche was beginning to become established in clinical settings for psychologists, and there was danger that other professions or even lay workers might be assigned the job of administering and evaluating psychological tests.  In 1917 the APA formed a committee to study qualifications for psychological examiners and two years later, another committee was formed on qualifications for "consulting" psychologists.  While this was going on, Harry Hollingworth brought together a group of applied psychologists to form the American Association of Clinical Psychology.  Founded in 1917, it had as its members many of the leaders of psychological testing.  The group disbanded in 1919, however, when it looked as though the American Psychological Association was going to accept clinical psychologists as part of psychology.  In 1919 the American Psychological Association formed the Section of Clinical Psychology.  Originally, this was an informal group to set up program topics on clinical psychology at the annual meeting.  By 1921, however, the group had arranged for certification of clinical psychologists.  Unfortunately, so few psychologists applied that an APA policy committee decided that certification was not necessary and the APA membership voted to discontinue certification in 1927.  The matter of American Psychological Association certification for clinical psychologists would lapse for many years.[118]  The hopes for clinical psychology as a recognized entity with the American Psychological Association also seemed to wane.

            The American Orthopsychiatric Association was founded in 1924.  Its ties with child guidance involved a number of psychologists, although it was 1926 before psychologists could become full members.  Its publication, the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry became influential in clinical psychology.

            In 1930, the Association of Consulting Psychologists was formed, actually a reorganization and expansion of a group first organized in New York in 1921.[119]  The organization was formed in dissatisfaction with its representation American Psychological Association.  The Journal of Consulting Psychology was founded as an outlet for publications in the field.[120]  The Association of Consulting Psychologists merged in 1937 with the American Association of Applied Psychology.  Similar dissatisfaction led to the formation of the Psychometric Society and of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, both founded in the 1930's. 

            After their  initial successes in mental institutions prior to World War I, clinical psychology developed only slowly in the 1920's and 1930's.  In 1918 only 15 members or 4 percent of the American Psychological Association listed the field of clinical psychology as a research interest, although the full membership was primarily made up of academic psychologists.[121]  By 1937 the members expressing interest in clinical psychology had risen to only 99 members or 19 percent.  In that year, however,  the American Psychological Association instituted another membership category of associate, which included individuals outside of academic settings.  Of these, 428 or 28 percent were interested in clinical psychology.  During the 1920's and 1930's, most psychologists involved in clinical work were employed outside of academic settings, in hospitals, clinics, school, mental institution, social agencies, homes for the feeble-minded, and other similar locations.  Clinical psychologists in universities did not represent a significant presence until after the second world war.  One notable exception to this was the founding at Harvard of the Harvard Psychological Clinic in 1927. Founded by Morton Prince, the clinic had as its purpose to bring together academic and clinical psychology.  The Clinic was an important source of early research on personality variables.  Henry A. Murray took over the direction of the Clinic in the 1930's.  Collaborators during the 1930's included such notable psychologists as Donald W. MacKinnon, Saul Rosenzweig, R. Nevitt Sanford, and Robert W. White.  In general, however, clinical psychology would have to wait until until the 1940's before playing a significant role in academic settings.[122]

            In 1937 psychologists in applied settings, not just clinical psychologists, formed the American Association of Applied Psychology (AAAP), eventually developing four sections, clinical, consulting, industrial and business, and educational.[123]  This organization would be the primary forum for applied psychology until the reorganization of the American Psychological Association in 1945 and the creation of a division structure that would include the applied professions.




            Applied psychology, while it had its initial beginnings not long after the founding of psychology as an independent academic discipline had initial difficulty being accepted in academic organizations which, by the 1890's was the primary seat of psychological expertise.  Gradually, however, with the growth in the credibility of psychological testing, particularly with the acceptance of the Stanford-Binet test, the various lines of applied work, educational, business and industrial, and clinical began to develop.  While Madison Bentley represented this development as "invasions" by education, business and medicine, and depicts these groups as luring psychologists away from their proper work, it is clear by reviewing the history of the matter that in the cases where outside firms approached psychologists , it took very little persuading and in most cases, it was psychologists who sought to apply their psychological knowledge. 

            The influence of applied psychology on American psychology was very significant.  Looking across all of the applied work we have discussed, it is clear that they were not working with the introspective analyses of the orthodox psychologies of Wundt, Titchener, James or even Angell.  They were dealing with behaviors.  When Binet tested a child, that child did something.  That behavior was either correct or not and so the child could be scaled objectively.  The same was true of the early applied work in industry and clinical settings.  What gradually became evident was that the utility in psychology was to be found in a study of behavior, not the description of conscious processes.  By the beginning of the second decade of this century, that realization appears to have begun dawning on psychologists. 

            When Titchener reviewed the previous ten years in psychology in his talk at the Symposia organized to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the founding of Clark University, he saw what perhaps many in his audience had not, that the previous decade had been marked above all with the rise of applied psychology.[124]  But even Titchener did not see the implications of the use of behavioral data that went along with it. 



[1]Madison Bentley, "The Nature and Uses of Experiment in Psychology,"  American Journal of Psychology, 50 (1937) p.451.

[2]Ibid., pp. 452-453.

[3]Binet is so identified with the intelligence test that the experimental work on psychophysics, perceptual development  and thought processes that made his early reputation has been eclipsed. Many of these studies have been translated to English and republished in Robert H. Pollack and Margaret W. Brenner, eds., The Experimental Psychology of Alfred Binet. (New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1969).

[4]A Binet and T. Simon, "Sur la nécessité d'établir un diagnostic scientifique des états inferieurs de l'intelligence,"  L'Année Psychologique, XI (1905):  163-190, partial trans. W. Dennis, ed., Readings in the History of Psychology (New York:  Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1948),    pp. 407-411.

[5]By far the most authoritative, analytical and complete biography in any language has been provided by Theta H. Wolf.  Alfred Binet (Chicago, Ill.:  University of Chicago Press, 1973).

[6]A. Binet, La psychologie du raisonnement (Paris:  Alcan, 1886).

[7]Dampier, History of Science.

[8]Personal communication from P. Fraisse to E. G. Boring, February 5, 1962, through the kindness of the latter.  There has been some confusion about who had priority in founding the first laboratory in France.  Presumably this is attributable to the fact that three independent institutions of higher education all were involved in the events of 1889.  Ribot moved to the College of France from the Sorbonne, or the College of Letters of the University of Paris.  The same year a laboratory was placed in the Sorbonne under the direction of Beaunis in association with Binet, although it was administered by L'École Pratique des Hautes Études, still a third educational institution.

33A Binet, Les altérations de la personnalité (Paris:  Alcan, 1892).

[9]A Binet, La suggestibilité (Paris:  Schleicher, 1900).

[10]H. Spencer, The Principles of Psychology, 2nd ed. (London:  Williams and Norgate, 1870-1872) (1855).

[11]Binet, Introduction `a la psychologie expérimentale (Paris:  Alcan, 1894).  For a convincing demonstration of the breadth and depth of his experimental interests, see R. H. Pollock and Margaret J. Brenner, eds., The Experimental Psychology of Alfred Binet (New York: Springer, 1969).

[12]Binet and Simon, "Sur la nécessité."

[13]A. Binet and N. Vaschide, "La psychologie a l'école primaire,"  L'Année Psychologique, IV (2898(:  1-14.

[14]A. Binet and V. Henri, "La psychologie individuelle,"  L'Année Psychologique, II (1896):  411-465  Herrnstein and Boring, Excerpt No. 81).

[15]A. Binet and T. Simon, "Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic due niveau intellectual des anormaux,"  L'Année Psychologique, XI (1905):  191-244.

[16]A. Binet and T. Simon, "Le développement de l'intelligence chez les enfants,"  L'Année Psychologique, XIV (1908):  1-94.

[17]Joseph Peterson, Early Conceptions and Tests of Intelligence (New York:  World Book, 1925).

43Binet and Simon, "Le développement."

44William Stern, "Die psychologische Methoden der Intelligenz-prüfung."  In F. Schumann, ed., Bericht über den V. Kongress für experimentelle Psychologie. (Leipzig:  Barth, 1912), pp. 1-102.  Chapter 2, trans. G. M. Whipple as The Psychological Method of Testing Intelligence (Baltimore:  Warwick and York, 1914) (Herrnstein and Boring, Excerpt No. 86).

[18]O. Decroly and J. Degand, "La mesure de l'intelligence chez des enfants normaux d'après les testes de Binet et Simon:  nouvelle contribution critique,"  Archives de Psychologie, IX (1910):  81-108.

[19]A. Binet and T. Simon, A Method of Measuring the Development of the Intelligence of Young Children, trans. Clara H. Town (Chicago:  Chicago Medical Books, 1915) (1911).

[20]Peterson, Early Conceptions.

[21]William Stern, Ueber Psychologie der individuallen Differenzen: Ideen zu einer differentiellen Psychologie.  (Leipzig: Barth, 1900); Stern, "William Stern," in Carl Murchison, ed., History of Psychology in Autobiography. (Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1930), vol. 1, p. 347.

[22]Stern, "William Stern," p. 348.

[23]Stern, "Zur Psychologie der Aussage," Zeitschrift für die Gesammelte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 1902.

[24]Stern, "Angewandte Psychologie,"  Beiträge zur Psychologie der Aussage, 1 (1903), 4-45.

[25]Stern, "William Stern," p. 349.

[26]J. McKeen Cattell and Livingston Farrand, "Physical and Mental Measurements of the students of Columbia University." Psychological Review, 3 (1896): 619.

[27]James Mark Baldwin, James McKeen Cattell and Joseph Jastrow, "Physical and Mental Tests," Psychological Review, 5 (1898): 172-179.  This topic is covered in detail in Michael Sokal, "James McKeen Cattell and the Failure of Anthropometric Mental Testing, 1890-1901," in William R. Woodward and Mitchell G. Ash, eds., The Problematic Science:  Psychology in Nineteenth-Century Thought. (New York: Praeger, 1982), pp. 322-345.

[28]E. B. Titchener, "Anthropometry and Experimental Psychology," Philosophical Review, 2 (1893): 187 - 192.

[29]Stella Sharp, "Individual Psychology:  A Study in Psychological Method,"  American Journal of Psychology, 10, 1898-99: 348.

[30]Clark Wissler, "The Correlation of Mental and Physical Tests," Psychological Review, Monograph Supplement, 3, Whole #6, (1901).

[31]Guy Montrose Whipple, Manual of Mental and Physical Tests, 2 vols., (Baltimore:  Warwick & York, 1910). Second Ed., 1914.

[32]Peterson, pp. 109-110.  Peterson is an excellent source of detailed information on the development of the Simon-Binet scales and their reception and development in the United States.

[33]H. H. Goddard, "The Binet and Simon Tests of Intellectual Capacity."  Training School Bulletin, 5, # 10 (1908): pp. 3-9.

[34]Goddard, " A Measuring  Scale for intelligence." The Training School Bulletin, 6 (1910): 146-155;  "The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale for Intelligence.  Revised"  Training School Bulletin,  8: 1911, 56-62.; "Four Hundred Feeble-Minded Children Classified by the Binet Method,"  Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 15, 1910: 17-30.

[35]Elizabeth S. Kite, "The Binet-Simon Measuring Scale for Intelligence:  What It Is; What It Does; How It Does It; With a Brief Biography of Its Authors, Alfred Binet and Dr. Thomas Simon,"  Bulletin #1 of the Committee on Provision for the Feeble-minded, ND, ca. 1916, p. 24.

[36]E. B. Huey, "The Binet Scale for Measuring Intelligence and Retardation."  Journal of Educational Psychology, 1 (1910):  435-444.

[37]F. Kuhlman, "A Revision of the Binet-Simon System for Measuring the Intelligence of Children."  Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, Monograph Supplement, 15 (1911): 76-92.

[38]Peterson, p. 225-226.

[39]Louis M. Terman, "Trails to Psychology," in Carl Murchison, ed., History of Psychology in Autobiography, Vol. 2, (Worcester: Clark University Press, 1930), p. 318.

[40]Kimball Young, "The History of Mental Tests."  Pedagogical Seminary, 31 (1924), 1-48. Cited in Peterson, p. 226.

[41]Louis M. Terman, "The Binet-Simon Scale of Intelligence; Impressions  Gained by Its Application," Psychological Clinic, 5 (1911): 199-206.

[42]Ibid., 204.

[43]Terman and H.G. Childs, "Tentative Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Measuring Scale of Intelligence,"  Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, (1912), 61-63, 133-135, 198-200, 277-279.

[44]Terman, The Measurement of Intelligence subtitled An Explanation of and a Complete Guide for the Use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale  (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1916).

[45]For other aspects of the topic of psychological testing in World War I, see Franz Samelson, "World War I Intelligence Testing and the Development of Psychology," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 13 (1977): 274 - 282.

[46]Edwin G. Boring, "Robert Mearns Yerkes (1876 - 1956)," Year Book of the American Philosophical Society, 1956, p. 136.

[47]Robert M. Yerkes, J. W. Bridges and R. W. Hardwick, A Point Scale for Measuring Mental Ability (Baltimore:  Warwick & York, 1915).

[48]Boring, Psychologist at Large.  (New York: Basic Books, 1961), p. 31.

[49]Yerkes, "Measuring Intelligence for Schools," in Sargent's A Handbook of American Private Schools, 3rd Ed., 1917, pp. 3-9; "How May We Discover the Children Who Need Special Care?" Mental Hygiene, 1: (1917) 252-259; "Mental Tests in Industry, Transactions of the American Institute of Mining Engineers, 1919, pp. 405-416.

[50]Boring, A History of Experimental Psychology. (New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 2nd ed., 1950), p. 428.

[51]Details of Münsterberg's life are taken from Margaret Münsterberg, Hugo Münsterberg: His Life and Work.  (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1922) and Matthew Hale, Jr., Human Science and Social Order: Hugo Münsterberg and the Origins of Applied Psychology.  (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1980).

[52]Hale, pp. 19-20.

[53]E. B. Titchener, "Dr. Münsterberg and Experimental Psychology," Mind, XVI (1891): 534.

[54]Boring, History of Experimental Psychology.  p. 428.

[55]Hale, Human Science and Social Order. p. 108.

[56]Ibid., p. 108.

[57]Lightner Witmer, "Mental Healing and the Emmanuel Movement," Psychological Clinic, 2 (15 January,. 1909): 241.

[58]Münsterberg, Psychotherapy. (New York: Moffat Yard, 1909).

[59] Hugo Münsterberg, On the Witness Stand:  Essays on Psychology and Crime. (New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1909); Margaret Münsterberg, Hugo Münsterberg. p. 368.

[60]W. W. Woodrow, Münsterberg On the Witness Stand.  ***


[61]H. Münsterberg, On the Witness Stand. pp. 7-9.

[62]H. Münsterberg, Psychology and Industrial Efficiency. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1913).

[63] H. Münsterberg, Psychologie und Wirtschaftsleben: Ein Beitrag zur angewandten Experimental-Psychologie. (Leipzig: J.A. Barth, 1912).

[64]H. Münsterberg, "The Market and Psychology,"  McClure's Magazine, November, 1909.

[65]H. Münsterberg, Psychology and Industrial Efficiency. p.3.

[66]Ibid.,p. 101.

[67]Ibid., pp. 108-109.

[68]Ibid., pp. 66-77.

[69]F. W. Taylor. The Principles of Scientific Management. (New York: Harper, 1911).

[70]Frank G. Gilbreth.  Motion Study. (New York:     ,1911).

[71]Jacob Z. Jacobson, Scott of Northwestern (Chicago: Louis Mariano, 1951), p. 75.

[72]Leonard  W. Ferguson.  The Heritage of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 1. (Hartford, Conn.: Finlay Press, 1962); Jacobson, pp. 70-73..

[73]Walter Dill Scott, "The Psychology of Advertising -- `Nothing New,'" Mahin's Magazine 2 (April, 1903): 44-45.

[74]The best source of information on Gale is David Kuna, The Psychology of Advertising, pp. 93-141.

[75]Kuna, pp. 95-96, 98-117.  Harlow S. Gale, "Psychology of Advertising," in Gale, ed., Psychological Studies.  (Minneapolis: Harlow Gale, 1900).

[76]Walter D. Scott, The Theory of Advertising (Boston: Small, Maynard & Co., 1903).

[77]Scott, The Psychology of Advertising.  (Boston:  Small, Maynard, & Co., 1908);  Kuna, p. 145. A good review of Scott's early researches is found in Kuna, pp. 148 - 191.

[78]Hugo Münsterberg, "The Field of Applied Psychology, " Psychological Bulletin 6 (1909): p. 49; Robert M. Yerkes, "The Class Experiment in Psychology with Advertisements as Materials," Journal of Educational Psychology 3 (1912): pp. 1-17; Edward K. Strong, Jr. "Psychological Methods as Applied to Advertising, " Journal of Educational Psychology 4 (1913): 393-404.  It should be noted, however, that the Journal of Educational Psychology would not have been considered a mainstream psychological journal at the time.

[79]Daniel Starch, Measuring Advertising Readership and Results (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966) pp. v-vi, cited in Kuna, p. 209.

[80]There are a number of publications on Scott that may be consulted for more details.  Besides Jacobson's book and the general history by  Ferguson, see Edmund C. Lynch, "Walter Dill Scott: Pioneer in Personnel Management," Studies in Personnel Management, No. 20 (Austin, Texas:  Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas, Austin, 1968), pp. 15-23; Edward K. Strong, Jr. "Walter Dill Scott, 1869-1955," American Journal of Psychology 68 (1955), 682-683; David P. Kuna, The Psychology of Advertising, 1896 - 1916.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of New Hampshire, 1976.

[81]There is not yet a detailed treatment of Hollingworth's life and work.  His unpublished autobiography, dated 1940  is titled "Years at Columbia," and is in the Hollingworth papers, Nebraska State Historical Society, Lincoln, Nebraska.  This treatment of Hollingworth and Strong is derived primarily from Kuna's dissertation The Psychology of Advertising 1896- 1916, pp. 262 - 284. 

[82]Kuna, p. 290.

[83]Ibid., p. 322-323.

[84]E.K. Strong, Jr., The Relative Merit of Advertisements.  Columbia Contributions to Philospohy and Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3 (New York: The Science Press, 1911).

[85]Strong, "Application of the 'Order of Merit Method' to Advertising," Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 8 (1911) 600-606;  "Role of Attention in Advertising" Psychological Bulletin 9 (1912): 66-67; "The Effect of Size of Advertisements and Frequency of their Presentation," Psychological Review, 12 (1914) 136-152.

[86]A.T. Poffenberger, "Harry Levi Hollingworth: 1880 - 1956,"  American Journal of Psychology, 70, (1957): 138; Kuna, pp. 266-267.

[87]Kuna, p. 354.

[88]Ibid., 355 - 356.

[89]Henryk Misiak and Virginia S. Sexton, History of Psychology: An Overview.  (New York:  Grune & Stratton, 1966) p. 192.

[90]Walter V. Bingham, "Walter Van Dyke Bingham." in Carl Murchison, ed., A History of Psychology in Autobiography, (Worcester:  Clark University Press, 1953), pp. 1-26.

[91]Kuna, pp. 358 - 359.  For more details, see Ferguson, The Heritage of Industrial Psychology, Vol. 5:  Bureau of Salesmanship Research: Walter Dill Scott, Director (Hartford, Conn.: Finlay Press, 1963), pp. 55-63.

[92]Robert M. Yerkes, "Man-power and Military Effectiveness:  The Case for Human Engineering," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 5, (1941): 205.  Yerkes leaves out the matter of Scott's disagreement with him.  See, however, Ernest R. Hilgard, Psychology in America, pp. 709-710.  The involvement of psychologists in applied work during the war was considerable.  For more details, see Yerkes, "Psychology and National Service," Science, N.S. 46, No. 1179 (1917), pp. 101-103; "Psychology in Relation to the War, Psychological Review, 25 (1918) pp. 85-115; "How Psychology Happened Into the War," New World of Science (New York:  Century Company, 1920), pp. 351-389; Thomas Camfield, Psychologists at War:  The History of American Psychology and the First World War.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1969.

[93]W. V. Bingham, "Measuring a Workman's Skill; the Use of Trade Tests in the Army and Industrial Establishments," quoted in Yerkes, "How Psychology Happened Into the War." p. 380.

[94]Hilgard, pp.711-712.

[95]Scott and R. C. Clothier.  Personnel Management. (Chicago: Shaw, 1923).

[96]Michael M. Sokal, "The Origins of the Psychological Corporation, "Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 17, 1981, 54-67.

[97]Paul S. Achilles, "The Role of the Psychological Corporation in Applied Psychology," American Journal of Psychology 50 (1937): 229- 247.

[98]There is an enormous literature on this topic, but a few include F. G. Gosling, Before Freud: Neurasthenia and the American Medical Community, 1870 - 1910 (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1987); Gerald N. Grob, Mental Institutions in America:  Social Policy to 1875 (New York: Free Press, 1973); Grob, Mental Illness and American Society, 1875 - 1940.  (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983); Grob, The State and the Mentally Ill:  A History of Worcester State Hospital in Massachusetts, 1830 - 1920 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966); Franz G. Alexander and Sheldon T. Selesnick, The History of Psychiatry: An Evaluation of Psychiatric Thought and Practice from Prehistoric Times to the Present. (New York: Harper and Row, 1966; Gregory Zilboorg and G. W. Henry.  A History of Medical Psychology (New York: Norton, 1941).

[99]Biographical details are drawn from Robert I. Watson, "Lightner Witmer: 1867 - 1956," American Journal of Psychology, 69 (1956): 680 - 682.

[100]Misiak and Sexton, p. 200.

[101]Ibid., p. 201.

[102]A review of the case records of Witmer's clinic is discussed in Murray Levine and Julius Wishner, "The Case Records of the Psychological Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania (1896 - 1961)," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 13 (1977), 59 - 66.

[103]Seashore, Pioneering In Psychology (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1942), quoted in R. I. Watson, "A Brief History of Clinical Psychology," in Josef Brozek and Rand B. Evans, eds., R.I. Watson's Selected Papers on the History of Psychology. (Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, 1977), pp. 224-229.

[104]J. E. W. Wallin, The Mental Health of the School Child.  (New Haven:  Yale University Press, 1914).

[105]G. Stanley Hall, "Laboratory of the McLean Hospital." American Journal of Insanity, 51, (1894), 358 - 364.; Edward Cowles, "Insistent and Fixed Ideas," American Journal of Psychology, 1, (1887-88), pp. 222-270. 

[106]R.I. Watson, "A Brief History of Clinical Psychology," p. 207.

[107]Ibid., p. 208.

[108]A. A. Hoch, "A Review of Psychological and Physiological Experiments Done in Connection with the Study of Mental Diseases," Psychological Bulletin, 1, 1904, 241-257.

[109]S.I. Franz, "Shepard Ivory Franz," in Carl Murchison, ed., A History of Psychology in Autobiography. (Worcester: Clark University Press, Vol 2, 1932), pp. 89-113.

[110]R.I. Watson, "A Brief History of Clinical Psychology," p. 208.

[111]Adolf Meyer, "The Value of Psychology in Psychiatry," Journal of the American Medical Association, 58 (1912): 911; reprinted in Alfred Leif, ed., The Commonsense Psychiatry of Dr. Adolf Meyer.  (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1948), pp. 383-385;  See also, Meyer, "Objective Psychology or Psychobiology: With Subordination of the Medically Useless Contrast of Mental and Physical," Journal of the American Medical Association, 65 (1915), 860, reprinted in Leif, pp. 397-405.

[112]Boring, Psychologist at Large, p. 26.  The result of Boring's summer were three articles:  "The Course and Character of Learning in Dementia Precox," Bulletin of the Government Hospital for the Insane, 5 (1913): 51 - 79; "Introspection in dementia Precox," American Journal of Psychology, 24 (1913), 145 - 170; Learning in Dementia Precox.  (Princeton , N.J.: Psychological Monographs, 1913, vol. 15)

[113]Ernest R. Hilgard, "Robert Mearns Yerkes 1876 - 1956)," Biographical Memoirs 38 (1965), p. 388.

[114]Misiak and Sexton., p. 203.

[115]William Healy and Augusta F. Bronner, "The Child Guidance Clinic : Birth and Growth of An Idea," In L.G. Lowrey, ed., Orthopsychiatry, 1923-1948: Retrospect and Prospect. (New York: American Orthopsychiatric Association, 1948), pp. 14-49.

[116]Augusta F. Bronner, William Healey, Gladys M. Lowe, and Myra E. Shimberg, A Manual of Individual Mental Tests and Testing. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1927).

[117]R.I. Watson, A Brief History of Clinical Psychology,"  pp. 210-211.

[118]Ibid., p. 210; Samuel W. Fernberger, "The American Psychological Association, 1892-1942,"  Psychological Review, 50, 1943, pp. 33-60.

[119]R.I. Watson, "A Brief History of Clinical Psychology," p. 218.

[120]J.P. Symonds, "Ten Years of Journalism in Psychology, 1937-1946: First Decade of the Journal of Consulting Psychology," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 10 (1946), 335-374.

[121]R.I. Watson, "A Brief History of Clinical Psychology,"  p. 211; Fernberger, "The Scientific Interests and Scientific Publications of the Members of the American Psychological Association," Psychological Bulletin, 35 (1938), pp. 261-281.

[122]R.I. Watson, "A Brief History of Clinical Psychology," p. 215.

[123]E.R. Hilgard, Psychology in America, p. 633.

[124]Titchener, "The Past Decade in Psychology,"  American Journal of Psychology, 21 (1910), 404-421