WHEN PSYCHOLOGISTS WERE NATURALISTS: QUESTIONNAIRES AND COLLECTING PRACTICES IN EARLY AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY, 1880-1932 JACY L. YOUNG A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PSYCHOLOGY YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO December 2014 ©Jacy L. Young, 2014 ii Abstract This dissertation reshapes our understanding of the earliest years of American psychology by documenting the discipline’s methodological plurality from its very inception. In tracing the use of questionnaires over the first half century of the discipline’s existence as a science, I argue that a natural historical orientation, wherein collection, analysis, and categorization are central to the scientific enterprise, has been a persistent facet of the field. Manifested in a recurrent interest in collecting information on mental life, this natural historical perspective facilitated a moral economy of data, wherein the discipline’s affect-laden norms and values sanctified the objects and practices of mass data collection. This in turn lent itself to the adoption of statistical analyses as a central component of psychological science. Although, at first glance, falling outside of the bounds of the mechanically objective practices that characterized the new psychology’s laboratory endeavours, with their use of standardized instrumentation, projects with this orientation adhered to this form of objectivity in their own way. Seeking precise accounts of mental life, including information on its physical correlates, these enterprises engaged the public in collection practices in the field. Taking up subjects with widespread interest outside of purely scientific spheres – including child study, psychical matters, and dreaming – questionnaire projects had broad appeal. Undertakings with less popular allure deliberately and necessarily confined themselves to more restricted university populations. Issues of social relevance remained mainstays of this kind of research, but by the 1920s the public’s relation to questionnaire research shifted so that they were no longer active participants in collecting activities. Instead, questionnaires were circulated in more restricted circumstances and their findings served as the basis for broad claims about the state of the public’s mind. To do so effectively, I argue, practices of collecting with questionnaires shifted from thick to thin iii description; no longer were rich descriptive accounts of mental life the aim of these endeavours. Rather, increasingly restricted ranges of information were accumulated, a process that culminated in the development of numerical Likert scales and the use of more sophisticated statistical analyses. Scales of this kind continue to dominate questionnaire research today. iv Acknowledgements First, and foremost, I would like to offer my deepest thanks to my dissertation committee. Alexandra Rutherford and Michael Pettit, your commentary, support, and mentorship in the context of this project – and numerous others over the course of my graduate career – have been invaluable. To my advisor Christopher Green, I can only extend my profound appreciation for the many years of encouragement, advice, and assistance. This project, and all the rest, would not have been possible without your guidance. My thanks as well to the other members of my examining committee: John Eastwood, Kenton Kroker, and Kieran O’Doherty. You were not only kind enough to read this beast of a dissertation, but braved the season’s first big snowfall to attend the defence. Your wonderfully stimulating comments and questions will, undoubtedly, serve this project well in the future. Over the years I have been extremely fortunate to receive generous funding for this project from a number of sources. These include the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Ontario Graduate Scholarship program, as well as York University’s Professional Development, Research Cost, and Field Work Cost Funds. I am indebted to the staff at a variety of institutions for their assistance while undertaking research for this project. Many thanks to the librarians and archivists at the University College London Special Collections, the Clark University Archives, the American Museum of Natural History Archives, the Boston Public Library, the University of Chicago Library, the Harvard University Archives, the Houghton Library at Harvard University, and the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan. I would also like to offer my gratitude to the staff at the Resource Sharing Department at York University for their assistance with my many requests for material. v During my time at York I have benefitted greatly from generous, insightful, and lively conversations with my fellow graduate students, especially Laura Ball, Jennifer Bazar, Arlie Belliveau, Jeremy Burman, Cathy Faye, Shayna Fox Lee, Elissa Rodkey, and Kelli Vaughn- Johnson. Special thanks to Jennifer Bazar and Kelli Vaughn-Johnson for lending an ear and a shoulder, more times than I can count, throughout the dissertation process. I am especially fortunate in that my time in Toronto also provided me with the opportunity to get to know members of my extended family, including two exemplary scholars. John and Germaine Warkentin, it has been my pleasure to learn from your example. To the entire Warkentin family, thank you for your time and your care. Finally, I would like to offer my appreciation to my family for their unwavering support, especially Mom, Dad, Nikita, Lennox, and Grandma. Thanks for the love. vi Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents vi List of Figures vii Introduction 1 Chapter 1 Verifying Variation: Collecting Accounts of Mental Imagery 34 Chapter 2 Enumerating Mental Associations 64 Chapter 3 Interrogating the Mind of the Child: Child Study, Collecting, and Female Educators 104 Chapter 4 Child Study, Objectivity, and Scientific Styles 145 Chapter 5 Researching the Limits of Experience: Data Collection and the Nature of Evidence 183 Chapter 6 Psychical Research, Probability, and Scientific Styles 226 Chapter 7 Naturalizing Unconscious Mental Functioning 261 Chapter 8 Numbering the Mind: Thurstone, Likert, and the Re-Design of Questionnaires 305 Conclusion 339 Archival Collections Consulted 344 References 345 vii List of Figures Figure 1: The 10 exaggeration for various groups. 70 Figure 2: Reproduction of some of the most common types of drawings. 191 1 Introduction Questionnaires are ubiquitous. Regular components of contemporary psychological research, they have also moved beyond scientific spheres to feature regularly in our everyday lives. Whether used to assess perfectionism or attitudes toward political candidates, these instruments now pervade the many domains of our existence. How is it that the questionnaire is now our preferred means of gathering information on any and everything? When and why did psychology adopt this mode of inquiry? What shape did early research with the method take? And what are the intricacies of practice that attended the use of this method? This project tracks the use of questionnaires within American psychology over the first half century of the discipline’s existence as a science. In tracing the questionnaire’s early trajectory, I argue that a natural historical orientation, wherein collection, analysis, and categorization are central to the scientific enterprise, has been a persistent facet of the field from the very beginning. Manifested in a recurrent interest in collecting information on mental life, this natural historical perspective facilitated a moral economy of data, wherein the discipline’s unspoken affect-laden norms and values sanctified the objects and practices of mass data collection. This in turn lent itself to the adoption of statistical analyses as a central component of psychological science. Although, at first glance, falling outside of the bounds of the mechanically objective practices that characterized the new psychology’s laboratory endeavours, with their use of standardized instrumentation, projects with this orientation adhered to this form of objectivity in their own way. Seeking precise accounts of mental life, including information on its physical correlates, these enterprises engaged the public in collection practices in the field. Taking up subjects with widespread interest outside of purely scientific spheres – including child study, psychical matters, and dreaming – questionnaire projects had broad appeal. Undertakings with 2 less popular allure deliberately and necessarily confined themselves to more restricted university populations. Issues of social relevance remained mainstays of this kind of research, but by the 1920s the public’s relation to questionnaire research shifted so that they were no longer active participants in collecting activities. Instead, questionnaires were circulated in more restricted circumstances and their findings served as the basis for broad claims about the state of the public’s mind. To do so effectively, I argue, practices of collecting with questionnaires shifted from thick to thin description; no longer were rich descriptive accounts of mental life the aim of these endeavours. Rather, increasingly restricted ranges of information were accumulated, a process that culminated in the development of numerical Likert scales and the use of more sophisticated statistical analyses.1 In documenting the collecting practices of