E. B. Titchener, Women Psychologists, and the Experimentalists

E. B. Titchener, Women Psychologists, and the ExperimentalistsAuthor(s): Robert W. Proctor and Rand EvansSource: The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 127, No. 4 (Winter 2014), pp. 501-526Published by: University of Illinois PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.4.0501 .

Accessed: 11/11/2014 11:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheAmerican Journal of Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.216.195.208 on Tue, 11 Nov 2014 11:17:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.4.0501?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


American Journal of Psychology

Winter 2014, Vol. 127, No. 4 pp. 501–526 • © 2014 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, women faced con-siderable obstacles in most areas of academia (see Rossiter, 1982). The new discipline of psychology was no exception (Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987). Examples of women precluded from advanced de-grees include Christine Ladd-Franklin and Mary Whiton Calkins, two well-known psychologists who became the first women members of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1893, the year after it was formed. Ladd-Franklin completed a dis-sertation on logic in the early 1880s at Johns Hopkins

University and went on to become a prominent vi-sion scientist, yet she was not awarded her PhD until 1926, as a consequence of the university’s policy of admitting only male students. Calkins took classes with William James at Harvard University, worked with Edmund Sanford at Clark University, and con-ducted pioneering research in human memory. She was recognized within the APA, becoming its first woman president in 1905. Yet Calkins never received a PhD because those universities had policies of not awarding graduate degrees to women. Despite the

History of PsychologyAlFred h. Fuchs, editor Bowdoin College

E. B. Titchener, Women Psychologists, and the Experimentalistsrobert W. Proctor Purdue university

rAnd eVAns east carolina university

A well-known fact is that e. b. titchener, a major figure in psychology in the first quarter of the 20th century, excluded women from the group known as the experimentalists, which he formed in 1904. this fact provides the basis for depicting him as a misogynist. less well known and publicized is that he was arguably the strongest advocate for women psychologists in the united states throughout his academic career. he supervised the graduate study of margaret Washburn, the first woman to receive a Phd in psychology in the united states, directed more than 20 dissertations for women psychologists, most of which were published in the American Journal of Psychology, and influenced and befriended others who were not his Phd students. the purpose of this article is to make psychologists more aware of the prominent role titchener played in the education of early women psychologists and to reconcile this contribution with his position that the experimentalists should be restricted to men.

AJP 127_4 text.indd 501 10/7/14 8:52 AM



502 • PRoCtoR and evans

hardships faced by the early women psychologists, it is heartening to note that their academic work was accepted within the field of psychology itself and specifically by The American Journal of Psychology (AJP). As notable examples, Ladd-Franklin’s initial study in vision science, “A Method for the Experi-mental Determination of the Horopter,” was among the four articles in the first issue of the of AJP in 1887, and the fifth volume (1892–1893) contained three articles by Calkins: “Experimental Psychology at Wellesley College,” “Statistics of Dreams,” and “A Statistical Study of Pseudo-Chromesthesia and of Mental Forms.” Numerous other articles by women authors appeared in AJP during the first quarter of the 20th century. Cornell University was one of the institutions that enrolled women at all levels from its inception, giving them equal standing for fellowships and ad-vanced degrees. Many of the articles on psychology by women during this period were by students in the psychology laboratory at Cornell University, headed by eminent psychologist Edward Bradford Titch-ener (1867–1927). Indeed, Titchener was responsible directly or indirectly for training many of the early women psychologists. Titchener’s role as a mentor and advocate for women psychologists is not typically highlighted in historical accounts. For example, Scar-borough and Furumoto’s (1987) chapter 5, “‘A Little Hard on the Ladies’: Christine Ladd-Franklin’s Chal-lenge to Collegial Exclusion” (pp. 109–129), focuses largely on Ladd-Franklin’s challenge to Titchener about women being excluded from the Experimen-talists, a small, informal club for discussion of ex-perimental research that he organized, and is highly critical of him in that regard. It includes in passing the phrase “some of Titchener’s many women gradu-ate students” (p. 119), without further elaboration of this fact in the chapter or book. In most treatments of Titchener, his positive contributions toward the education and mentoring of women in psychology are passed over in silence. The seemingly contradic-tory fact that he barred women from membership in the Experimentalists is well publicized and often criticized. In this article we attempt to balance the record by detailing Titchener’s teaching and mentoring of women psychologists. In doing so, we provide per-spective to the irony that despite his being the leader

in educating women psychologists, Titchener is often portrayed as a misogynist. Also, we present another irony, which is that other psychologists who are often praised for their support of women in education pro-moted in their writings the “variability hypothesis” and other beliefs about the supposedly biologically determined physical, emotional, and intellectual in-feriority of women. These writings were not only theoretical essays but also calls for policy changes in education and society in general that would bar most women from any form of higher education. Unlike Titchener, these men are rarely, if ever, criticized for the damage their work did to women’s advancement in education and the professions.

titchener’s lifeTo give more context so as better to understand E. B. Titchener as a person, we preface the discussion with a personal history of Titchener, because the rarely mentioned details of his early life are significant to understanding his later life in America and his at-titudes toward women. Titchener was born in Eng-land on January 11, 1867. His father, John Titchener, and his mother, Alice Field Habin, both came from prominent families in Sussex. They created a scandal by eloping and getting married in a county registry of-fice. The Habin family opposed the match, and only John Titchener’s family was present at the wedding. Alice Habin’s immediate family disowned her, pro-viding no help to her in her later adversity (A. F. H. Titchener, ca. 1913). Edward Bradford Titchener was born a little over a year later in Chichester, Sussex, England. John and Alice had five children who lived beyond infancy, Titchener being the only boy. Titchener’s father, John, was listed as a merchant clerk at the time of his marriage, then as a clerk in a railway clearing house when E. B. Titchener was born. In the 13 years between the date of his marriage in 1866 and his death in 1879, John Titchener held various positions, usually in accountancy of some sort, moving from job to job, which required him and his family to change residences at least 10 times, as shown on marriage, birth, and death certificates. By 1878 he was listed as a “commercial traveler.” He had shown signs of a form of tuberculosis for at least 2 years before he died in October 1879. Before this, in 1876, when “Braddy,” as he was then called by his family, was 9 years old, he was sent

AJP 127_4 text.indd 502 10/7/14 8:52 AM



e. b. titCheneR and Women PsYChologists • 503

to live with his namesake grandfather in Chichester. Edward Titchener had risen very high in the social strata. He had been mayor of Chichester and had a successful legal practice, as well as being an investor in agricultural commodities such as corn. Edward Titchener’s home, called Pallant House, was one of the finest in Sussex. It was from his grandfather that E. B. Titchener learned the values of the “English gentleman,” a set of social behaviors that were a little old-fashioned even then. It was this concept of the English gentleman that was ingrained in Titchener and determined his social demeanor for the rest of his life. In Pallant House, Titchener had his grand-parents and two doting aunts to look after him. One of these, Emma Titchener, impressed the young boy because she was a “walking encyclopedia,” always having a ready to response to any question he might ask (M. Titchener, 1952). It was something Titchener was later called by his students (Dallenbach, personal communication to R. B. Evans, 1966). Titchener’s grandfather provided for his gram-mar school education. There is no indication that, at the age of 9, he had received any formal education outside the home. The frequency of moves probably would have precluded anything but home schooling. His grandfather sent him to a local Anglican vicar who tutored him well enough to bring him up to the level of the other students at the Prebendal School in Chichester, the Anglican cathedral school. His sisters were not so fortunate. When Titchen-er’s father died, his mother had no source of income and no family to fall back on except for the Titchener family, until their own fortunes turned. She obtained a position as matron at a boys’ school that included housing for her but not for her children. Her daugh-ters were put in an orphanage for a time and then into domestic service. Once Titchener obtained his position at Cornell, he was able to provide support for his mother for the rest of his life and had his son, John, continue the support for the rest of her life (J. B. Titchener, 1970). Young Bradford Titchener progressed well in the grammar school, gaining many awards and honors. The year before he graduated from the Prebendal School in 1882, however, his grandfather’s invest-ments collapsed, leaving the family in reduced cir-cumstances. This, in turn, lost him the great house and forced his family to move to a smaller house. The

grandfather died only a few months later, on August 13, 1881. E. B. Titchener by then was set, funded by scholarships, to enroll at Malvern College, one of the new “public” schools in England. From that time he had to earn his own way to gain an education by means of scholarships, jobs outside school, and entrepreneurial activities. Titchener’s progress and performance there led to his being ac-cepted to both Cambridge and Oxford. He chose Oxford’s Brasenose College. At Oxford Titchener followed the honors program of classical studies, gain-ing a rare “double first,” a first-class score in both of the two major Oxford honor exams. He gained his AB degree in 1889. During his time at Oxford his initial interest in classics shifted to the new biology of Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley. He was for a time a follower of Herbert Spencer, being drawn to the philosophical wing of Darwinism (Titchener, 1918). He was attracted to comparative animal psychology, where he came to know John George Romanes (Titchener, 1894). Titchener later wrote to Robert Yerkes that he found a “lack of scaffolding in the work; and an entire absence of foundation: and so I swung gradually over into experimental psychology of the strictest and most human sort” (Titchener, 1907). The psychology he found was Wilhelm Wundt’s systematic, experimen-tal psychology. Titchener sought advice from T. H. Huxley and Francis Galton as to what he should do, and they recommended, as did Wundt himself, that Titchener spend a year in a physiological laboratory to learn the scientific method (Wundt, 1889). He spent an extra year at Oxford to work and study under John Scott Burdon-Sanderson, a noted physiologist who had the first physiological laboratory in England and who argued strongly for laboratory methods in the study of physiological processes. He did research for Galton’s (1892) fingerprint studies while at Leipzig. Besides obtaining scholarships to further his edu-cation, Titchener took various jobs during the long summer breaks. He also was an entrepreneur, mount-ing and selling bird skins and bird eggs. He mounted exhibits in the Oxford Museum under E. B. Tylor, the noted anthropologist. By the time he completed his AB degree, Titchener had enough money from a scholarship and saved from his many jobs not only to spend a year in the physiological laboratory of John Scott Burdon-Sanderson but also to go to Wilhelm Wundt’s institute at Leipzig for a PhD in psychology.

AJP 127_4 text.indd 503 10/7/14 8:52 AM




In the fall of 1890 Titchener began taking courses and conducting research in Wundt’s institute, where he made good use of laboratory instruments and ex-perimental methods (see Angell, 1928). Titchener graduated with a PhD in 1892 with a dissertation on binocular vision (Titchener, 1892b). He was selected to summarize the research conducted in Wundt’s laboratory since J. McKeen Cattell’s similar article in 1888 (Cattell, 1888; Titchener, 1892a). Titchener spent the summer back at Oxford. There, he taught, through Burdon-Sanderson’s sponsorship, a course called “Mind and Body” and one called “Death as a Biological Problem,” in the Oxford Summer School, the first classes of any sort he had taught (Anony-mous, 1892, pp. 76–77). In the fall of 1892, Titchener joined the faculty of the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University, teaching courses in both philosophy and psychology. The position he held in the Sage School was that of untenured lecturer with a 1-year, renewable contract. There was no psychology department at the time, only courses taught in the Sage School of Philosophy. There was only the beginning of a laboratory that Frank Angell had started during the year he was at Cornell before going to Stanford University. One of Titchener’s first tasks was to complete and expand the laboratory. In 1892 Titchener was appointed the American editor of Mind, a position he held until 1920. In 1895, he was appointed by G. Stanley Hall as associate editor of AJP (Anonymous, 1895), a po-sition that gave him complete control over a sizable number of the pages of any given issue. In 1920 he became sole editor, remaining until 1925. His position with AJP allowed Titchener not only to supervise the dissertations carried out by his graduate students but also to see that their work was published. By 1895 Titchener gained permission to form a department of psychology independent of the Sage School. With it he also gained tenure and a full pro-fessorship, all at the age of 28. The year before, in the summer of 1894, he married Sophie Bedloe Kellogg. She had been a public school teacher in Portland, Maine, and was taking courses in history at Cornell when they met. They had four children, three girls and one boy.

titchener’s Women PhdsA steady string of women received the PhD under Titchener’s tutelage during his career at Cornell,

many of whom went on to successful careers in psy-chology and most of whose dissertations were pub-lished in AJP. In his obituary of Titchener, Boring (1927) listed 56 students as having received the PhD degree under Titchener’s supervision, 21 of whom were women. Technically, the number of women should be at least 23, because Boring did not include two (discussed later) who completed their work for the PhD but never received the degree; one died of pneumonia before defending her dissertation, and the other moved away to join her husband. In the following, we introduce Titchener’s women PhDs for each of the decades he was at Cornell and describe their many accomplishments.

1894–1899.

Titchener’s first and only graduate student in his first year at Cornell was Margaret Floy Washburn, who went on to have an extremely successful academic career. Washburn received the first PhD awarded by Titchener in 1894, becoming the first woman to receive a PhD in psychology in the United States. Titchener thought sufficiently highly of her doctoral thesis that he submitted it to Wilhelm Wundt’s Phi-losophische Studien, where it was published in 1895. As Woodworth (1949, p. 277) emphasized in his bio-graphical memoir of Washburn, “Her dissertation . . . had the honor (at the time a distinct honor) of being accepted by Wundt for publication along with the output of his own laboratory.” Following her degree, Washburn received a po-sition at Wells College, where she remained as pro-fessor of psychology until 1900. While at Wells she was able to visit Cornell on a regular basis, including often attending Titchener’s weekly graduate seminar. Washburn returned to Cornell as warden of Sage Col-lege, where she served from 1900 until 1902. In 1901, “with Titchener’s very kind and cordial consent” (Washburn, 1932, p. 344), she became lecturer of psy-chology at Cornell for the 1901–1902 academic year. Washburn taught a course in social psychology and one in animal psychology. She then went to the Uni-versity of Cincinnati for the 1902–1903 academic year and finally to Vassar College in 1903, where “she soon built up one of the strongest undergraduate depart-ments of psychology in the country” (Woodworth, 1949, p. 277). At Vassar, Washburn rose to professor of psychology and stayed until her retirement. During her career, Washburn held associate edi-

AJP 127_4 text.indd 504 10/7/14 8:52 AM




tor positions for AJP, Psychological Bulletin, Jour-nal of Animal Behavior, Psychological Review, and the Journal of Comparative Psychology. For AJP, she served as cooperating editor starting in 1903, taking over as one of four co-editors (with Karl Dal-lenbach, Edwin G. Boring, and I. Madison Bent-ley) when Titchener resigned in 1925, a position in which she served until her death in 1939. Among other achievements, Washburn served as the second woman president of the APA in 1921 and was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1931. The relationship between Titchener and Washburn has been the subject of discussion in recent years, and we consider that in some detail later. Of the six people to receive their doctoral de-grees in psychology from Titchener before 1900, four were women, including Washburn. In 1896 Titchener awarded two PhDs, one to Alice Julia Hamlin. An article based on Hamlin’s dissertation, on the topic of attention and distraction, was pub-lished in AJP in 1896, as was an earlier research note by her in 1895. She also published an article on the psychology of instinct in 1897 in Mind. Hamlin was a professor at Mount Holyoke College in the 1896–1897 academic year, and in 1897 she married Edgar L. Hinman, who had received his PhD in philosophy from Cornell in 1895 and had become a faculty member at the University of Nebraska in 1896. Hamlin moved to Lincoln, Nebraska, that year and was an instructor and lecturer at the university and its School for Nurses through 1932. Hamlin was listed in the first edition of American Men of Science in 1906, along with 21 other women identified as psychologists. In 1898, Eleanor Acheson McCulloch Gamble and Stella Emily Sharp received their degrees. Gamble spent her subsequent career on the faculty of the De-partment of Psychology and Philosophy at Wellesley College until her death. Her prominence as an experi-mental psychologist was such to warrant a three-page obituary in AJP (Ruckmick, 1934), which stated,

While her career in psychology has left its impress largely on students in her elementary classes in psychology and while she was vitally and personally interested in them, both outside and in the classroom as is evidenced by the numerous influential collegiate committees on which she served, she has to her credit almost a

score of articles in the professional psychologi-cal journals. (p. 155)

Beginning with Gamble’s (1898) dissertation re-search, her publications were mainly on the topics of smell (and taste) and memory. Sharp also published her dissertation research in AJP in 1899, an influential article on individual differences. Sharp’s findings led her to argue the superiority of the German method of measuring individual differences over that of the French. Her dissertation differed from those that had come before because it dealt with what Titchener considered to be an applied psychological topic. In the 1976 book A History of Clinical Psychology, Reis-man described Sharp’s study as “an exhaustive and exhausting review of the area of mental tests” (p. 47).

1900 –1909.

During the period from 1900 to 1909, 12 people re-ceived PhDs under Titchener’s tutelage, and one other person, Florence Winger Bagley, completed the research on her doctoral thesis in 1901. Bagley was married to William Chandler Bagley, who received his PhD in 1900. She took a job in St. Louis to be with him for a year in 1901, after which they moved to what was then Montana State Normal School, later called Montana Normal College. Florence Bagley left to join her husband before completing the writeup of her dissertation. Nevertheless, Titchener saw to it that her work on Fechner’s colors was published in AJP. With it, he included a note stating, “The author of this paper was, unfortunately, seized with illness at the conclusion of her experimental work, so that she has been unable to give the article its intended form. Chs. I–IV have received some revision; ch. V is little more than a rough draft of the discussion as originally planned. Since the author cannot return to the work in the near future I have thought it best to publish her MS. as it stands” (E. B. Titchener in F. G. Bagley, 1902, p. 488). Among the 12 PhDs supervised by Titchener dur-ing that decade, three were women: Carrie Ransom Squire, Margaret Everitt Schallenberger, and Elsie Murray. Squire’s dissertation research on the genetic basis of rhythm was published in AJP in 1901. She took a position at Montana Normal College, where she later became college president (Worrest, 1968). There is not much record for Squire beyond that point, although she was the author of a substantial three-part series of articles on graded mental tests in

AJP 127_4 text.indd 505 10/7/14 8:52 AM




the Journal of Educational Psychology (1912a, 1912b, 1912c). This research, conducted in the School of Education at the University of Chicago, developed age norms of mental development for tests for pupils from ages 6 to 13. Schallenberger published two articles in 1897 on the color perception of children, one with James Mark Baldwin and one about his research. She received her PhD in 1902 and then became prin-cipal of San Jose Normal School, which she had attended as a youth and had taught at before at-tending Cornell (Weiler, 1998). She held this posi-tion until 1914, when she was appointed as the first commissioner of elementary schools of California, a position she held until retirement in 1923. Soon after taking the commissioner position, she married John McNaught and subsequently went by Margaret Schellenberger McNaught professionally. Among other accomplishments, she wrote a 1917 booklet, Training in Courtesy: Suggestions for Teaching Good Manners in Elementary Schools, published by the U.S. Bureau of Education. Murray received her PhD in 1906, and her doc-toral thesis research was published in 1909 with the title “Organic Sensation.” Upon receiving her PhD, Murray went to a position at Vassar College. Her pub-lications show affiliations with Sweet Briar College in Virginia in 1919, University of Illinois in 1927, and Cornell University from 1931 onward. Among other areas, Murray published continuously on the topic of color vision, from an article published in AJP in 1906 through a book review published 55 years later, in 1961. Another woman Titchener inspired in the first decade of the 20th century was June Etta Downey, who received her PhD in psychology from the Uni-versity of Chicago in 1906, working with J. R. Angell. But Downey became interested in psychology by way of Titchener. According to Bazar (2010a, par. 4), “In 1901 she attended a summer course taught by Edward Bradford Titchener at Cornell University. The expe-rience piqued her interest in psychology, a discipline she would pursue research in for the remainder of her career.” Downey spent her subsequent career at the University of Wyoming, where she became the first woman in the United States to head a psychology department at a major state university (Bazar, 2010a). Her publications included nine articles and two book

reviews in AJP. Downey’s publications were primar-ily in the area of handwriting and experimental aes-thetics. Her 1929 book Creative Imagination: Studies in the Psychology of Literature was reprinted in 1999, in the prestigious International Library of Psychology series. Titchener’s influence during this period is per-haps illustrated most clearly by the fact that American Men in Science (Cattell, 1906) included 22 women who identified themselves as psychologists, 18 of whom had PhD degrees (Furumoto & Scarbor-ough, 1986). Of those 18, 6 were from Cornell, with no other university having more than 2. Moreover, one of the women without a PhD, Celestia Parrish (discussed later), received her baccalaureate degree from Cornell, working with Titchener. Furumoto and Scarborough noted the following with regard to Cornell, without mentioning that those students were Titchener’s:

Cornell was a noted exception to the norm during this period because it not only admitted women as fully recognized students but also considered them eligible for fellowship sup-port. Indeed, four of the women in this sample held the prestigious Susan Linn Sage Fellow-ship in Philosophy and Ethics: Washburn in 1893–1894, Hinman in 1895–1896, Gamble in 1896–1897, and Bagley in 1900–1901. The other two women who studied at Cornell re-ceived graduate scholarships: V. F. Moore in 1897–1898 and Squire in 1900–1901. (Three other women, omitted from the 1906 AMS, had also received PhDs in psychology from Cornell during this period: Ellen Bliss Talbot and Mar-garet Everitt Schallenberger were Sage Fellows in 1897–1898 and 1899–1900, respectively, and Stella Sharp held a graduate scholarship in 1897–1898.) For the men psychologists, howev-er, Cornell placed a poor fifth as an institution for advanced study, running behind Clark, Co-lumbia, Leipzig, and Harvard—each of which, however, denied women access to graduate de-grees in psychology in the 1890s. (p. 38)

Titchener served as the major professor for all of the women psychologists identified in this quota-tion, with the possible exception of V. F. Moore, a student in the Department of Philosophy who pub-

AJP 127_4 text.indd 506 10/7/14 8:52 AM




lished an article in AJP in 1899 in which her affiliation was listed as the Psychological Seminary of Cornell University. In terms of the number of PhD degrees earned and the total number of women in Titchener’s department at any one time, the number of women exceeded that of any other psychology program at the time.

1910 –1919.

The number of women whose theses were supervised by Titchener increased even more during this de-cade. Cheves West Perky received her PhD in 1910. Her dissertation was a detailed study of visual, audi-tory, and olfactory imagery that had considerable im-pact. It is well known for establishing a phenomenon known as the Perky effect, which is cited by name in the title of an article as recently as 2012 (Reeves & Craver-Lemley, 2012). She had trained observers look at a blank screen and try to imagine an object such as a banana. The imaged objects were covertly pro-jected onto the screen at a supra-threshold level, but they were perceived as imaginary. In Perky’s (1910) words, “We find that, under suitable experimental conditions, a distinctly supraliminal visual percep-tion may be mistaken for and incorporated into an image of imagination, without the least suspicion on the observer’s part that any external stimulus is pres-ent to the eye” (p. 422). Perky’s findings sparked later research that led to the slightly different interpreta-tion that the mental image keeps the projected image subliminal (Segal, 1971), and the implications of her findings are still debated (Hopkins, 2012). Three women received their PhDs in 1911 and 1912, all of whom had their dissertations published in AJP. One was Helen Maud Clarke (1911), whose study was on conscious attitudes. Another was Alma deVries Schaub (1911), who studied imagery. Yet an-other was Lucy May Day (1912), whose dissertation research investigated peripheral vision. Upon gradu-ating, Day spent a year at Vassar College as a lecturer in physiological psychology and another year at Wells College as an instructor in psychology, marrying E. G. Boring in 1914 (Bazar, 2010b). Her last publica-tion was a 1917 chapter, coauthored with her husband, “Temporal Judgments After Sleep,” in a book com-memorating Titchener’s 25th year at Cornell, after which she devoted most of her time to raising their family. However, L. M. D. Boring reported that she

continued to contribute by reading all of the articles and books written by E. G. Boring (Bazar, 2010b). Mabel Ensworth Goudge received her PhD in 1914, and her dissertation on Weber’s Illusion was pub-lished in AJP in 1918. She had previously published an article in the Journal of Educational Psychology in 1915. Goudge was an instructor of psychology at Ohio State University from 1915 to 1917 and an as-sistant professor from 1918 to 1922. She was elect-ed to the Ohio Academy of Science in 1919 (Rice, 1919). Goudge obtained an MD degree from Ohio State University in 1922, was associated with Watts Hospital in 1922 to 1928, and then went into private practice in Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Murchison, 1929, p. 94). The Bulletin of Duke University Medi-cal School 1930–1931 lists Goudge as an instructor in psychiatry. Reflecting this later emphasis, she was the author of a 1931 article on abnormal psychology in medical practice in the Journal of Abnormal and So-cial Psychology. In 1964–1965, Goudge was still listed as a member of the North Carolina Mental Health Association, residing in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Josephine Nash Curtis published articles in AJP in 1916 on psychology as science of selves and tem-poral judgments. She also contributed a chapter on the Müller–Lyer illusion to the 1917 commemorative book for Titchener (Curtis, 1917). That book and an-other article published that year show her working at the Psychopathic Hospital, Boston, and a 1919 article lists her as chief psychologist at that hospital. She is described on Findagrave.com as having been profes-sor of primary education at the University of Minne-sota, and a 1939 book review by her in the Journal of Consulting Psychology specifies her as being in the Institute for Child Welfare at that university. Cora Louisa Friedline published her disserta-tion on the topic of visual attention in AJP in 1918 and another article in 1929 on tactual discrimination with Karl Dallenbach. Friedline became a professor of psychology and education at Randolph–Macon Woman’s College in the 1920s and continued in that position throughout the 1960s. Her papers are housed at the Center for the History of Psychology in Akron, Ohio. Among other honors, she was a fellow of the APA in the Clinical Psychology division. Josephine Mixer Gleason received her PhD in 1919, with her thesis research on perceptions of re-lation. In addition to publishing the thesis in AJP,

AJP 127_4 text.indd 507 10/7/14 8:52 AM




Gleason was coauthor of a 1915 minor study from the Psychological Laboratory of Vassar College, with Louise N. Garver and Margaret Washburn, on affec-tive reactions to sounds. She also published articles on human learning and memory in Psychological Bulletin in 1920 and 1921, and book reviews in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology as late as 1944 and 1945. Gleason had originally joined the Vassar faculty in 1914, and she returned there to a professorship after receiving her PhD from Cornell. She remained at Vassar for most of the rest of her ca-reer, retiring in 1958 (Vassar Miscellany News, 1958). Gleason was a charter member of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. In 1918 Titch-ener appointed Gleason as an instructor in psychol-ogy, even though there were male graduate students available. Her past teaching at Vassar probably gave her more teaching experience than her male counter-parts. An instructorship at Cornell, unlike a lecture-ship, was considered a regular appointment.

1920 –1927.

During this decade students receiving PhDs under Titchener included several other women. Claire Comstock received her PhD in 1920, and her dis-sertation on imagery and thought processes was published in AJP in 1921, as was another article on children as observers, with Helen Kittredge, in 1922. She married Forrest Lee Dimmick, who had received his PhD in psychology with Titchener in 1920, and subsequently published an article on auditory mem-ory afterimages with him in 1923 under her married name, C. C. Dimmick. Alice Helen Sullivan published her thesis on kin-esthetic imagery in 1921. She also published an article, with Lillian West Cobbey as first author in 1922, on the perception of oiliness. Anna Kellman Whitchurch received her PhD in 1921, with her research on illu-sory perception of movement on the skin, published the same year. In addition, she published in 1922 a short note on synesthesia in a child 3.5 years old. Mabel Florence Martin received the PhD in 1922, with her thesis on film, surface, and bulky colors pub-lished in AJP the same year. In 1937, Martin published on the topic of lexicographic behavior in AJP. She also wrote six-book reviews for AJP from 1933 to 1942 and published an obituary for Margaret F. Washburn in AJP in 1940. Martin worked at Northampton State

Hospital near Northampton, Massachusetts. In 1942, she was working as an associate professor of clini-cal and mental hygiene at Richmond Professional Institute, a predecessor of Virginia Commonwealth University. Grace Kinckle Adams, about whom we have more to say later, received her PhD in 1923, publishing her dissertation on memory color that same year. Eliza-beth Fallin Möller received her PhD in 1924. Möller published two articles in AJP, one on the upper limit of hearing in 1922 and the other on the “glassy” sensa-tion in 1925. Additionally, Titchener supervised Catherine Braddock, a graduate student from New Zealand who was to graduate in 1922. Braddock worked “under the personal direction and influence of Professor E. Brad-ford Titchener in the Research School of Psychology. Her training had just been completed and she was on the eve of presenting her thesis for the PhD degree, when she was attacked by pneumonic influenza, and died . . . after a brief illness of three days” (Obituary, 1922). Although she had not yet completed fully writ-ing up this work on visual negative afterimages for publication, Titchener, with the assistance of another graduate student, Grace Adams, completed it and published it under Braddock’s name in AJP in 1924. This was Braddock’s second publication in AJP; the first was on cutaneous imagery in 1921.

examples of titchener’s Aiding Women in PsychologyThe prior section makes clear that Titchener men-tored many early women psychologists who went on to make a variety of substantial contributions to the field. There are many minor examples of Titchener aiding women psychologists by allowing them to sit in on his weekly seminar or arranging for fellowships, but we describe in this section three major examples of Titchener going out of his way to aid or attempt to aid women in their psychological careers.

celestiA suzAnnAh PArrish.

Celestia Parrish was a woman 16 years older than Titchener who had struggled against significant odds to gain an education in Virginia and Georgia, much of it self-taught, by reading borrowed books and attend-ing summer school classes when available in local colleges. She attended the State Normal School in Virginia and in 1886 was offered a place on the faculty

AJP 127_4 text.indd 508 10/7/14 8:52 AM




there in charge of mathematics. Later, a year’s leave allowed her to study astronomy, history, mathematics, and physics at the University of Wisconsin. In 1893, Parrish was offered a position at the new Randolph–Macon Woman’s College in Lynchburg, Virginia. Her duties included giving courses in pedagogy and psychology, even though she was a complete novice in psychology. To make up for this deficit she attended the 1893 summer school at Cornell. This was the first summer after Titchener’s arrival at Cornell, and he was teaching the class in introductory psychol-ogy. During that summer session Parrish persuaded Titchener to give her some individual instruction between the end of the summer session at Cornell but before her fall term began at Randolph–Macon (Rowe & Murray, 1979; Thomas, 2005). After returning to Randolph–Macon, Parrish wrote to Titchener asking him to allow her to take correspondence work under his supervision. At first Titchener refused because such a course of study was not authorized at Cornell. The next year Parrish ap-pealed to him: “You must help me. A man who sits down to the rich feasts which are spread before you has no right to deny a few crumbs to a poor starveling like me” (Parrish, 1925, p. 3). Her appeal succeeded, and she later remarked that Titchener gave her “the most generous assistance then and afterwards became my very kind friend” (p. 3). As part of this assistance, Titchener arranged for Parrish to come to Cornell during the summer of 1895. Her progress was suf-ficient for her to be allowed to do research in his laboratory. The result of her work was a publication in AJP, “The Cutaneous Estimation of Open and Filled Space” (Parrish, 1895). The subjects for the study were three Cornell professors and their wives, including Dr. and Mrs. Titchener. She was allowed to return for a half year in the spring of 1896. This allowed her not only to take courses and pass exams toward a degree but also to work in the laboratory under Titchener’s supervision. The research work she did in that half year resulted in a second publica-tion in AJP (Parrish, 1897). Parrish had another goal, that of obtaining a bachelor’s degree from a major university. She had to carry a heavy courseload and finally had to get the 1-year residency requirement waived, but at the end she was given a Cornell undergraduate degree. It was not a BA degree (AB in those days) but a BPhil

degree, a bachelor of philosophy. From that point on she continued to make use of her considerable energy and powers of persuasion to establish a laboratory in psychology at Randolph–Macon Woman’s College, the first in the southeastern United States (Rowe & Murray, 1979). She left Randolph–Macon in 1902 to join the faculty of the State Normal School in Athens, Georgia, and in 1911 she became a supervisor of state schools in Georgia, where she was active in updat-ing and improving curricula. These and many other accomplishments in Virginia and Georgia resulted in Parrish being listed, as noted, with only 21 other women in the first edition of American Men of Science. It is worth emphasizing that through his work with Parrish, Titchener played a major role in Ran-dolph–Macon Woman’s College being the first edu-cational institution in the southern United States to have a psychology laboratory. But his influence did not end with the laboratory’s founding, as in subse-quent years Titchener also placed some of his doc-toral graduates on the faculty at Randolph–Macon, including Ludwig R. Geissler and Cora Friedline. This influence is the subject of Rowe and Murray’s (1979) article “Note on the Titchener Influence on the First Psychology Laboratory in the South.” In 1938 Celestia Parrish was honored through dedica-tion of the Parrish Laboratories of Psychology at Randolph–Macon (Peak, 1939).

grAce kinckle AdAms.

We mentioned Grace Adams earlier among the list of Titchener’s women students. She graduated with a PhD from Titchener’s program in 1923 and obtained a position at Goucher College in Baltimore, Mary-land. Sometime in late May of 1924 Adams allowed two students to smoke in her rooms. This violated college policy against smoking, and when discovered the students were expelled (Anonymous, 1924). Ad-ams resigned her position in protest. Titchener thought very highly of Adams’s poten-tial. When he found out about the situation, he wrote to her with his condolences. He pointed out that

this event may be a stumbling block in your way that we may find it a little difficult to overcome. If nothing else turns up I suggest you come back here (Cornell) for a year, if your father can afford it; as honorary fellow; I think that under that title I can secure for you remission of tuition and free

AJP 127_4 text.indd 509 10/7/14 8:52 AM




use of the laboratory. You would then undertake some bit of work that we could publish at the end of the year and you would be in the running again as though from a new start. (Titchener, 1924c)

Adams seemed to have accepted Titchener’s idea of working in the Cornell laboratory for the year, but after Titchener had things set up, she decided to go to New York instead to find some sort of work to support herself and do psychology “on the side” (Titchener, 1924d). Titchener did his best to have Adams reconsider and not throw away an academic career. Adams stood by her decision, however, and Titchener replied, “I suppose we shall have to give you up” (Titchener, 1924e). Titchener did not turn his back on Adams, though. When he knew she was to arrive in New York, Titch-ener wrote to John B. Watson, then with the J. Walter Thompson advertising agency, asking him to look af-ter her as best he could. Watson put her into contact with Boni and Liveright, then a major book publishing company (Watson, 1924). She became a writer of popu-lar psychology articles and books, writing initially for The American Mercury in the days when it was edited by H. L. Mencken as a literary and cultural magazine. After Mencken left The American Mercury she wrote for Harper’s Magazine and others. Adams also wrote books on psychological topics for a general audience. She married Edward Hutter, and they wrote books into the 1950s. Titchener failed to keep Adams in academ-ics, but it was not for lack of trying.

lillien JAne mArtin.

A less dramatic but telling interaction by Titchener with a woman psychologist was that with Lillien Jane Martin. She was not one of Titchener’s stu-dents but was on the faculty of Stanford University, having studied in Germany at Göttingen, Bonn, and Würzburg (Furumoto & Scarborough, 1986, pp. 189–191). Martin (1912) published an article critical of Perky’s (1910) experiments on imagery, conducted in Titchener’s laboratory. Titchener responded to her article with a critical note in AJP (Titchener, 1913a). Martin then wrote Titchener a letter on his criticisms as a rejoinder. Rather than just respond-ing privately, he published, at her request, the texts of their correspondence in AJP. He countered her

arguments with his own and defended his position. Even so, her position as well as his were presented without being edited and on an equal basis (Titch-ener, 1913b). Martin, an author of at least four other articles in AJP, is regarded as a pioneering woman in psychology (Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987).

titchener’s historical imageTitchener died in August 1927, and by the 1930s he and his systematic psychology had become largely of historical interest but with structuralism treated as one of the major positions in the history of modern psychology. The textbooks pertaining to Titchener and structuralism, then and for at least 50 years later, were histories of psychology emphasizing psycho-logical positions (Boring, 1929, 1950; Murphy, 1929; Watson, 1978) or textbooks devoted to the classical schools of psychology (Heidbreder, 1933; Marx & Hillix, 1963; Woodworth, 1948). These texts were written, in general, from an internalist perspective of what was then present-day psychology, with so-cietal contexts largely ignored. It was only later, in the 1980s, that more emphasis started being placed on the societal context, and the women’s movement influenced historians to include considerations of dis-crimination against women and the conditions that allowed such discrimination as part of the context (see Stocking, 1965; Thorne & Henley, 2005). Even so, with the prevailing biased attitude against women in Titchener’s time and the facts we have summarized regarding his advocacy of women psychologists in that cultural context, one would think that Titchener’s reputation concerning women in psychology would be positive. Nevertheless, Ste-vens and Gardner (1982a, 1982b), in their two-volume The Women of Psychology, brought up Titchener’s name in their discussion of “women haters”:

Some male psychologists have, in fact, been known women-haters. They have been quoted as having expressed, in speeches as well as writ-ings, the idea that women are innately inferior, and are, moreover, unequipped to be profes-sionals due to deficiencies of temperament and motivation. (Stevens & Gardner, 1982a, p. 41) They included among their woman haters G. Stanley Hall, who “felt that it was inadvisable, even dangerous, to educate women”; E. G. Bor-

AJP 127_4 text.indd 510 10/7/14 8:52 AM




ing because he “felt that women may be lacking in certain qualities necessary to good experi-mental psychologists”; George Romanes be-cause he “said that women’s inadequate cranial capacity prevented them from being intellectu-ally creative”; and Titchener because he “actu-ally refused women entrance to the vaunted So-ciety of Experimental Psychologists” (Stevens & Gardner, 1982a, p. 41).

Hall received no further criticism in the book, nor did Romanes. Boring was mentioned in fairly neutral terms for his History of Experimental Psychology and from republication of the tables from one of his ar-ticles. However, Titchener was singled out by Stevens and Gardner as “a dogmatic, eccentric misogynist” (1982a, p. 97). Published the same year as Stevens and Gardner’s book but much more influential was Margaret Ros-siter’s (1982) Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940. Rossiter described Titchen-er’s founding of his Experimentalists as a “striking example of the prevailing misogyny and deliberate discrimination against even the top women in psy-chology in these years” (Rossiter, p. 279). However, Rossiter represented the American psychologists in Stevens and Gardner’s woman-haters list differently, with the exception of Titchener. G. Stanley Hall and Edward Thorndike were described by her not as mi-sogynists but merely as men who held “tenaciously to the ‘variability’ theory of male superiority” (p. 105). We present variability theory in more detail later. Rossiter added another name to those promoting the variability theory: James McKeen Cattell. Scarborough and Furumoto’s (1987) Untold Lives: The First Generation of American Women Psychologists retold much the same story found in Rossiter concerning Titchener and the Experimen-talists. They did not explicitly label Titchener as a misogynist, but their statements implied that he was. In recent treatments of the history of psychol-ogy, authors continue to single out Titchener as a misogynist, without always using the word. Titchen-er’s policy toward women in the Experimentalists has drawn the most criticism but not the only criticism. In general, the charges made against Titchener are based on his perceived power in American psychol-ogy. They can be summarized as follows:

1. Titchener was a misogynist, that is, literally, a woman hater.

2. His misogyny is demonstrated by his refusal to allow women into the Experimentalists.

3. The Experimentalists was a powerful group, the exclusion from which had devastating effects on women’s careers.

4. Titchener mistreated Theodora Mead Abel while she was a postdoctoral researcher in Titchener’s department.

5. Margaret Washburn had suffered from not being allowed in the Experimentalists or from ill treat-ment by Titchener, which led her to be alienated from Titchener.

titchener as misogynistThe word misogyny is defined by Merriam-Webster.com (2014) as “a hatred of women,” from the Latin miso gyne, as it has been since the 17th century. Recently, some dictionaries, including the Oxford Dictionary, have changed the meaning to “an en-trenched prejudice toward women” (Davies, 2012). This redefinition makes misogyny basically synon-ymous with “sexism,” throwing doubt as to what word replaces the original, literal meaning of the word for men who truly hate women while implic-itly conveying this charge when someone is called a misogynist. Titchener most definitely was not a woman hater. His view of women, both inside and outside of academics or science, was not about intellectual inferiority or limiting their access to higher educa-tion. It was consistently one of encouragement and support, as we have shown. There is no evidence that Titchener held negative attitudes toward women in higher education or in psychology. In fact, all evi-dence shows that he was a strong supporter of women gaining advanced degrees. His own three daughters all got advanced degrees, two with PhDs and one an MA. Two of them went into academics, in classics and modern languages. The third wanted to marry with “only” her master’s degree. Titchener insisted that the man who was to become her husband take out what was then a sizable insurance policy with his wife as beneficiary in the event of the husband’s death. Titchener wrote to his daughter, “You ought to have a lump sum that would support you for the two academic years for the doctorate in case he died suddenly” (Titchener, 1924b). Given Titchener’s

AJP 127_4 text.indd 511 10/7/14 8:52 AM




own family history, it is not surprising that he would not want his daughters to have to depend solely on a husband for her livelihood. Titchener’s paternal feelings toward his graduate students, both men and women, are shown clearly in his statements about Helen Maud Clarke. After receiving her PhD from Titchener in 1911, Clarke had to take care of her ailing parents and could not accept the regular appointment Titchener was arranging for her. She was able to work in the extension depart-ment of the University of Kansas, where she had re-ceived her BA and MA degrees. Thinking back on her change of plans and its consequences, Titchener wrote,

she was a girl of very good ability, and I greatly regretted that she was obliged to give up the straightforward psychological career that I had planned for her. (E. B. Titchener, Letter to Bry-ant Teachers Bureau, April 10, 1924a; see also Boring, 1927)

Titchener often went out of his way to help students of either sex who had monetary or other personal problems obtain their degrees. Some of these were small and simple, such as arranging to get them remission of tuition or special admission to his courses. Other times he did much more.

titchener’s experimentalists and the society of experimental PsychologistsThe most commonly repeated reason for labeling Titchener as a misogynist is that he did not allow women into his group commonly called the Experi-mentalists. Some who have written on the topic have confused Titchener’s small, informal club, the Ex-perimentalists, with the prestigious Society of Ex-perimental Psychologists that grew out of the club after his death (Rossiter, 1982, p. 279). Part of the confusion is due to E. G. Boring, Titchener’s former student, who wrote as the “official” Titchener schol-ar. In his 1938 article titled “The Society of Experi-mental Psychologists: 1904–1938,” Boring used the name of the later incorporated organization to stand for both groups. The small, informal unincorporated group, which met annually from 1904 until 1928, was called “the Experimentalists” or “the Experimental Psychologists” but most commonly “Titchener’s Ex-perimentalists.” It was under Titchener’s direct con-

trol, and he did not invite women to the annual meet-ings. The second group, properly called the Society of Experimental Psychologists, was incorporated in 1928 and has met annually since 1929. It is a more formal organization, functioning as an academy, and has always, at least nominally, admitted women (see Goodwin, 1985, 2005). Titchener’s Experimentalists was organized in 1904 as a way to have a small group, made up largely of laboratory directors in psychology, department chairs, and junior instructors in major experimental programs in psychology in the northeastern United States. It went from one campus to another in the Northeast, eight in all, not counting repeat visits. What Titchener wanted was some alternative to the APA where there could be frank and lengthy discussions about research and developments in ex-perimental psychology. His complaint, made in print in 1896, had to do with a decline in the number of papers given at APA meetings that were experimental in nature. He used the example of the 1895 meeting of the APA held in Philadelphia:

Of the fourteen communications . . . only three were taken from the field of experimental psy-chology, in the strict sense of the term. One of the others was anthropometrical; four patho-logical, and one gave a research in comparative psychology. The rest dealt with problems of what is ordinarily called “general” psychology, i.e., with questions of system. (Titchener, 1896, p. 448)

Titchener was concerned that the number of ex-perimental psychologists attending the APA meet-ings was diminishing because of the fewer number of experimental papers compared to applied and other areas. He expressed the opinion that

to devote a certain amount of the time of each meeting to philosophical enquiries,—cannot but be regretted. At the same time, it is prob-ably inevitable. The understanding of an ex-perimental investigation, and the appraising of its results, demand careful and repeated read-ing; it is hardly possible to follow intelligently, or to offer intelligent criticism, when method and results are thrown into lecture form and the lecture reduced to a compass of twenty min-

AJP 127_4 text.indd 512 10/7/14 8:52 AM




utes. Unless the meetings are allowed to take the form of a conversazione, the apparatus em-ployed shown in their working, and the results made to speak for themselves in charts and diagrams arranged near the apparatus, it would seem that the drift of the Association must continue in the non-experimental direction. It is not that the systematic psychologists are forcing their way unduly to the front, but rather that the plan and restrictions of the meetings are of a kind to favor them, and to debar their experimentally inclined colleagues from playing any large part in the session. (Titchener, 1896, pp. 448–449)

What Titchener had in mind was a small informal group based loosely on the “smokers” he recalled with nostalgia from Oxford days, which were still fairly common at professional societies of the time (Rossiter, 1982, pp. 92–94, 280). Titchener wrote about his idea to Hugo Muensterberg:

For many years I wanted an experimental club—no officers, the men moving about and handling [apparatus], the visited lab to do all the work, no women, smoking allowed, plenty of frank criticism and discussions, the whole at-mosphere experimental, the youngsters taken in on an equality with the men who have arrived. (Letter, Titchener to Muensterberg, February 1, 1904, Titchener Papers, Cornell University Archives, cited in Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987, p. 113)

Titchener got his wish, and the group had its first meeting at Cornell in 1904. It was not an incorporat-ed organization, and it had no official head (although Titchener dominated the group). It had no fixed mem-bership, but the size of the group’s meetings was kept small. As E. G. Boring (1927) noted, “Nothing could have been more informal in organization” (p. 498). What the members of the group seem to have wanted was “oral reports that could be interrupted, dissented from and criticized, in a smoke-filled room with no women present—for in 1904, when the Ex-perimentalists was founded, women were considered too pure to smoke” (Boring, 1967, p. 315). It seems naive, even ridiculous, to us today to read Titchener saying he could not have women

in his group because the men would not be able to smoke around them. One reason for this requires delving into the cultural context we described earlier that ruled a great deal of Titchener’s life: the code of the English gentleman. It was ingrained in Titch-ener’s value system and was as rigid as it was old fashioned, more a code of the 1840s than even of the 1880s. An example is related by Titchener’s nephew, Raymond Howes. He accompanied Titchener to a dinner with the president of what was then Western Pennsylvania College for Women, now Chatham Col-lege. After dinner the African American maid came into the room to serve coffee. When she entered the room Titchener stood up. Howes recalled, “Some-what embarrassed Dr. Davis also rose. So finally did I. The same scene was repeated later, when the maid, on her way home, had to go through the living room to reach the outside door” (Howes, 1969, p. 20). Howes explained, “That Code, carried out to the point of brusqueness, dictated, at one extreme, absolute intellectual integrity, and at the other rigid rules of etiquette” (p. 20). Titchener’s rules were sufficiently rigid that, when he first came to Cornell and the president of the university sent him an invitation by mail inviting him over for tea, Titchener declined because he be-lieved that it was customary for people living in the community to call first on the newcomer. He wrote that it would be sufficient for the president to send his card by way of his coachman if the invitation was not delivered by hand (p. 21). Those were the rules of personal behavior he lived by, old fashioned or not. Even informal ones, such as calling close associates by their last names rather than their first names, may have been part of the exaggerated cultural behaviors one often finds with expatriates separated from their homeland. Whatever they were, they were not trivial. That a gentleman did not smoke in the presence of a lady was part of the code to Titchener. Smoking was a significant issue with Titchener for another reason. He was a chain smoker of cigars and purchased them a thousand at a time. In 1917, when the president of Cornell ordered that there be no smoking in the offices or classrooms, Titchener ceased coming to campus except to teach his classes. All the professional and departmental business he carried out at home, including interviews with his graduate students. It should not surprise us that a

AJP 127_4 text.indd 513 10/7/14 8:52 AM




man who was addicted to cigars to this degree would organize a group that would allow smoking. Rossiter (1982, p. 92) assumed that men who planned smokers did so to keep women out of their meetings, but there is no evidence that Titchener had such a motive.

Power of titchener’s experimentalists in American PsychologyOne of the reasons why the repetition of the story of Titchener’s exclusion of women from the Experi-mentalists has taken on such significance has to do with the exaggerated estimate of Titchener’s power and the perceived influence of his Experimentalists during his lifetime. To Scarborough and Furumoto (1987), the effect of exclusion of women from the Ex-perimentalists was clear; his proposal “cut them off from an immensely important resource for advancing their careers as scientists” (p. 115). Writing separately, Furumoto described Titchener’s exclusion as taking “a heavy toll on women’s participation and advance-ment in experimental psychology” (Furumoto, 1988, pp. 108–109). Lewin, characterizing exclusion from Titchener’s group, held that “the effect on women’s entry into experimental psychology was devastating” (Lewin, 1988, p. 59). From our present standpoint, any exclusion of women from professional settings is unacceptable. However, the question is whether exclusion from Titchener’s Experimentalists cut women off from interactions that would further their careers or proved devastating or even harmful to their future careers. Let us compare the Experimentalists and the APA over the lifetime of Titchener’s original group, 1904–1927, in terms of the availability of con-tact with colleagues. Titchener’s Experimentalists first met in the spring of 1904 at Ithaca, New York, with 13 men from 6 laboratories attending. Of those, 7 were from Cornell—5 from psychology, 1 from education, and 1 from philosophy. The laboratories represented aside from Cornell were Yale, the University of Pennsylva-nia, Clark University, the University of Michigan, and Princeton (Boring, 1938, p. 411). In December 1904, the APA met at Philadelphia for its 13th annual meet-ing. That was the year when William James of Har-vard served as president, and Mary Whiton Calkins of Wellesley College was elected to be president for 1905. The APA met in joint session with the American Philosophical Association (APhilA), the American

Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the American Society of Naturalists (ASN). The APA listed 17 new members that year, includ-ing 1 woman, Kathleen Carter Moore. Also listed were Titchener’s former student and assistant professor in his department, I. Madison Bentley and a former student, John Wallace Baird. There was no list of those attending but not presenting at the meeting, but there were 32 papers abstracted in the annual report, including one by Margaret Washburn (Far-rand, 1905, pp. 37–38). In 1905 the Experimentalists met at Clark Uni-versity with E. C. Sanford as host. Six labs were represented, with 13–15 participants. That year the APA met at Harvard in recognition of the opening of Emerson Hall, which was then devoted to psy-chology, sociology, and philosophy. They again met in conjunction with the APhilA and the ASN. One of the evenings there was a joint smoker after din-ner, presumably for men only, in the Harvard Union. There were approximately 100 in attendance at the meetings, 65 of whom were psychologists. Twenty-four new members were announced, including five women (Sanford, 1906). Papers were presented in person or by title, and there were two round-table discussions, one on the relationship of psychology with philosophy and with natural science. Another had to do with feeling, in which Margaret Washburn participated. The president’s address was given by Mary Whiton Calkins. Other papers were given by Christine Ladd-Franklin, Helen B. Thompson, and Kate Gordon (Sanford, 1906). In 1906 the Experimentalists’ meeting at Yale was small enough to be held in C. H. Judd’s study (Boring, 1938). By contrast, the APA met at Columbia University that year with the AAAS, the ASN, and the APhilA, with approximately 100 of the attendees being members of the APA (Davis, 1907). Over the 23 years from 1904 to 1927 the Experi-mentalists ranged in attendance from less than 10 to 85. The average meeting size was perhaps 20. Both groups attained what they sought. The Experimentalists had small groups congenial to lengthy discussions and demonstrations; the APA had many more papers with some discussions and demonstrations. The number of women continued to grow at APA meetings, especially after World War I. The APA meetings got sufficiently large that they met less often with other groups.

AJP 127_4 text.indd 514 10/7/14 8:52 AM




The Experimentalists met at 10 locations over those 23 years, five times at Cornell, four times at Clark University, three times at Harvard, twice each at Yale, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Wesleyan, and once each at Johns Hopkins and Columbia. There was no meeting in 1918 because of World War I. So the area they covered was no farther east than Cambridge, Massachusetts; no farther south than Baltimore, Maryland; and no farther west than Ithaca, New York. The APA over those 23 years met at 13 separate institutions, as far north as Chicago, as far west as Madison, Wisconsin, as far east as Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts, and as far south as Washington, DC. By 1927 the meeting of the APA at Columbus, Ohio, had 483 members present from 35 states and 6 foreign countries (Fernberger, 1928). That one APA meeting had a total number of attendees approximately equal to all the attendees at all the meetings of Titchener’s Experimentalists from 1904 to 1927 combined. In 1901 the APA voted to allow local and regional groups associated with the APA to be formed. The Chicago Branch of the APA formed in 1902 and had annual meetings until 1908. It was also known as the Western Psychological Association. In 1926 it became the Midwestern Psychological Association (Benja-min, 1979). The New York Branch was established in 1903 with E. L. Thorndike as chair. It later changed its name to the Eastern Branch of the APA and finally, in 1938, to the Eastern Psychological Association. In 1904 the Southern Society for Philosophy and Psy-chology was formed (Pate, 2000). Most of the same “senior psychologists” involved with the Experimentalists were also present at the APA meetings, with the exception of Titchener him-self. Even though up to the early 1960s the student’s major professor usually arranged for job placements, if someone about to get a PhD wanted to improve his or her hiring prospects, the APA or one of the regional organizations was much more likely to supply those contacts than would the small Experimentalists group. None of these facts make Titchener’s refusal to accept women into the Experimentalists any more acceptable from our present vantage point. However, the facts do not support the contention that being unable to join the Experimentalists appreciably ham-pered a woman’s career in psychology. Titchener never intended the Experimentalists to be a place

where job hunters went to be seen. In fact, it could be argued that an up-and-coming psychologist of either sex would be significantly disadvantaged if he or she attended only meetings of the Experimentalists and not those of the APA or one or more of its branches. None of this is meant to trivialize anyone’s per-sonal disappointment for being excluded from Titch-ener’s Experimentalists or denying it may have had some negative effect on some individuals, but there is simply nothing to indicate the kinds of extreme effects that have been attributed to the exclusion. To the degree that it happened at all, however, it was not because Titchener hated women or was prejudiced against them or meant to disadvantage them.

specific charges: Abel and WashburnTwo individuals who have been used as specific ex-amples of Titchener’s misogyny are Theodora Abel and Margaret Washburn.

theodorA meAd Abel.

Stevens and Gardner used as their only evidence for calling Titchener a misogynist, aside from his posi-tion on women in the Experimentalists, the story of Theodora Abel. Abel had received her PhD in 1925 from Columbia University. She was awarded a National Research Council Fellowship for 1926–1928 and spent the 1926–1927 academic year, the last year of Titch-ener’s life, at Cornell doing research on the galvanic skin reflex. Stevens and Gardner (1982b, p. 7) used the story of Theodora Abel as an example of the dis-crimination faced by women in the 1920s. They wrote, “Although the women were not barred outright from schools, there were nevertheless insidious obstacles to success. Theodora Abel’s research interests, for ex-ample, were made the focal point of E. B. Titchener’s jokes” (p. 12). As Stevens and Gardner told the story,

Theodora also had personal problems with E. B. Titchener, the authoritarian misogynist who headed Cornell’s psychology department. He had no interest in the galvanometer and tended to ridicule Columbia’s brand of psycho-logical research and made Theodora herself the brunt of nasty jokes. (Stevens & Gardner, 1982b, p. 12)

This negative depiction does not conform with what Theodora Abel herself wrote in a paper pub-lished in the American Psychologist in 1978, in which

AJP 127_4 text.indd 515 10/7/14 8:52 AM




she provided an account of her time with Titchener. After writing that she moved to Cornell with a fellow-ship, Abel wrote, “Professor Titchener said I could work in his laboratory” (p. 768) on her research but that because nobody in the department was interested in that topic, she would have to carry out the research herself. Therefore, Abel set up her galvanometer with the help of a graduate student in physics and carried out her research. She reported working very hard on her project because she did not want to let Colum-bia University down. One expectancy for her being in the department was that she attend Titchener’s introductory psychology lectures. She marched into the lecture hall along with the other assistants and junior faculty, which is the way things were done in Titchener’s department. Because Abel had a PhD degree, Titchener had her march in behind the fac-ulty but before graduate students. She also attended the graduate seminar and gave a paper, as did all the other members of the class. She reported finding the experience very demanding but did not mention any negativity from Titchener. However, Abel recalled from the seminar,

Several times during the semester Professor Titchener would remember that I came from Columbia University and would ask, “Does anyone know the kind of dissertations they do at Columbia?” Everyone replied “no,” although the story had been heard before. “At Colum-bia,” Professor Titchener explained, “a bunch of pins are thrown on the ground and a subject is timed while he picks up the pins. Then the subject drinks a glass of beer and an equal num-ber of pins are thrown on the ground. Again he is timed on his speed in picking the pins up. The object of this experiment is to see what effect beer has on the subject’s motor coordina-tion.” We all politely laughed. (Abel, 1978, p. 768)

At the end of the term Titchener recommended Abel for membership in Sigma Xi, along with only one other of his regular students. She closed her pa-per with, “I am glad I had the experience of knowing him” (Abel, 1978, p. 768). Note that in Abel’s telling of her own story, Titch-ener is given credit for allowing her to work in his lab and for recommending her membership in Sigma Xi,

and there is no mention of his making her research interests the brunt of nasty jokes. Titchener’s telling the Columbia joke over and over again was a symp-tom, as was his loss for words at times in his lectures, also noticed by Abel, of the brain tumor that killed him a few weeks after the term ended (Abel, 1978).

mArgAret Floy WAshburn.

Another woman often given as an example of the effects Titchener’s misogyny is Margaret Washburn. As we noted earlier, Washburn received her PhD under Titchener in 1894 and went on to a distin-guished academic and scientific career. For this reason, Scarborough and Furumoto, referring to Titchener’s exclusion of women from the Experi-mentalists, stated that she had “perhaps the most grounds to be offended by Titchener’s exclusionary policy” (pp. 126–127). They admit, “How she felt about Titchener’s exclusion of women from the Ex-perimentalists cannot be determined from her cor-respondence, but she was clearly alienated from the man” (pp. 127–128). They assume a causal connec-tion between her exclusion from the Experimental-ists and the feelings she expressed about Titchener without any evidence to support it. To describe her attitude toward Titchener, they quote from a note from Washburn to Christine Ladd-Franklin on Washburn’s declining to write an obitu-ary of Titchener.

I never had any quarrel with him or any griev-ance against him, but I neither ever liked or admired him, and have had for years little agreement with his views. I have not seen him, I suppose, for over twenty years, nor corre-sponded with him. I can think of few persons to whom I have felt less near than I have always felt for him. (Scarbrough & Furumoto, 1987, p. 128)

Scarborough and Furumoto also cite from a letter by Washburn to another of Titchener’s early students, Walter B. Pillsbury, that “E.B.T. wasn’t a friend” (Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987, p. 128). It is certainly true that Washburn did not like Titch-ener, but she clearly states that he did nothing to her to cause her attitude. Moreover, in contradiction to Washburn’s memory, there were cordial letters be-tween her and Titchener as late as 1925, and she regu-

AJP 127_4 text.indd 516 10/7/14 8:52 AM




larly sent Vassar students to Titchener for graduate work. She also hired several of Titchener’s PhDs to the faculty of Vassar. It is clear from her writings that Washburn and Titchener diverged in their psychological views after 1900. She disagreed with the elaborate form of intro-spection he used, but there is no sign of acrimony in their correspondence about their differing theoreti-cal positions. Walter Pillsbury, Titchener’s second student with her at Cornell, wrote in his obituary of Washburn (Pillsbury, 1940),

Miss Washburn’s attitude towards Titchener and his theories offers some phases of interest. At first there was a close sympathy between them in point of view, possibly because neither had as yet developed the position that was later regarded as characteristic. Titchener had not formulated his structuralism at that time. . . . His main aim was to establish psychology as a science. . . . When the more rigid system developed, Miss Washburn showed a lack of sympathy with the more extreme tenets. . . . They never came to a break but Miss Washburn published several articles which showed a di-vergence in the point of view. (Pillsbury, 1940, pp. 100–101)

Although this difference in point of view may have been an issue with Washburn, it seems not to have been with Titchener. Titchener thought highly enough of Washburn’s animal work to cite her Ani-mal Mind (1907) several times in his Textbook of Psy-chology (1910, pp. 43–44, 57, 182, 514). He listed her book alongside of those of C. L. Morgan and Wilhelm Wundt as good examples of comparative psychology (p. 44). However, we can look to Washburn’s own writ-ings for an explanation of her negative feelings. She recalled of the Titchener of 1892, at the time she en-tered Cornell,

He was twenty-five, but seemed older at first sight because of his square-cut beard; the illu-sion of age vanished upon acquaintance. There was nothing about him at that time to suggest either his two greatest gifts or his chief failing in later life. The gifts, in my opinion, were his comprehensive scholarship . . . and his genius

as a lecturer. In his first two years at Cornell his lectures were read, and were frankly after the German fashion: we regarded him as a brilliant young man who would give us the latest news from Leipzig, rather than as one to be heard for his own sake. The failing that later grew upon him was that of remaining isolated so far as his immediate surroundings were concerned from all but subordinates. In these first years he was entirely human. (Washburn, 1932, p. 340)

In the first year she was his only student, and so the instruction was an informal tutorial. Even when Walter Pillsbury came the next year, the interactions would be on an informal and personal level. When Washburn came back to Cornell in 1900–1902 she found a very different Titchener. By then he was wearing his Oxford master’s gown for his undergraduate lectures and giving well practiced “extemporaneous” lectures that would become his hallmark. She attended his graduate seminar and found the students in awe of him. He had made the transition that one still sees at times of someone go-ing from an inexperienced first-year faculty member to becoming a “great man,” and he had the change of attitude that so often comes with such rapid rec-ognition. One can argue that this transition in his demeanor may well have contributed to her coming to dislike him because she was someone who “knew him back when.” Another situation that may have put a sharper edge on Washburn’s alienation from Titchener can be traced to events between 1926 and Titchener’s death in 1927. In late 1925 Titchener resigned as the editor of AJP, severing all connections with the journal over a dispute with Karl Dallenbach, then an assistant pro-fessor in Titchener’s department, over the ownership of the journal (see Boring, 1958, p. 15; Evans, 1972, pp. 468–469). Although Dallenbach demonstrated with documentation that he had bought AJP with his own money and that the arrangement had been clear from the beginning, Titchener suddenly found it intolerable to think of himself working for a junior in his own department. He not only resigned from AJP but joined with Carl Murchison to start a rival journal, The Journal of General Psychology. Titchener believed that AJP would fold without him as editor. Perhaps to help that along, he wrote

AJP 127_4 text.indd 517 10/7/14 8:52 AM




to members of the board, colleagues, and former stu-dents announcing his resignation and representing the events that led up to it in a way that made him seem to be a victim. This and other actions split for-mer students and colleagues, and those who were still close to Titchener stopped publishing in AJP. Dissertations of Titchener’s graduate students were sent elsewhere for publication. Dallenbach, who had invested everything he had and more into the purchase of AJP, turned to former Titchener PhDs Madison Bentley, then at the University of Illinois, E. G. Boring at Harvard, and Margaret Washburn at Vassar, to help him edit AJP and, with their combined reputations, keep it afloat. Titchener attempted to damage Dallenbach’s reputation and the reputation of AJP, which alienated all of them from him. Dal-lenbach later attributed Titchener’s atypical behavior to the effects of his then undiagnosed brain tumor. Washburn apparently never forgave Titchener for his behavior, and this probably colored her feelings and attitudes toward Titchener thereafter. In Washburn’s (1936) biographical article on Titchener in the Dictionary of American Biogra-phy, her only mention of the Experimentalists was, “Because the American Psychological Association refused to expel one of its members for a mild pla-giarism of one of his translations, he [Titchener] at-tended only one of its meetings after 1895, and formed a group of his own” (p. 565). Simply disliking someone or not feeling close to them is hardly supporting evidence of misogyny. Pillsbury wrote of Washburn that she was “inclined to be rather acid in her comments on men and things” (Pillsbury, 1940, p. 100). In fact, Washburn wrote Titchener on November 21, 1925, just after he resigned from the AJP but before he tried to destroy it, complimenting him on his editorship but also com-menting negatively about G. Stanley Hall (Washburn, 1925):

My dear Dr. Titchener, the news of your res-ignation is a great surprise and needless to say a highly disagreeable one. You know I never shared your admiration for the late G. S. Hall, and so it is ridiculously inadequate for me to say that your five volumes are on a plane miles above his. And they were getting better and bet-ter. It is a great pity you are going.

It is not possible to know for sure the source of an individual’s specific motivations, but there is no documentary evidence of Titchener’s supposed mi-sogyny or exclusion from the Experimentalists as the reasons Margaret Washburn felt alienated from him.

Why has titchener been singled out for criticism?The question arises, then, as to why Titchener was singled out for such criticism when men like Hall, Thorndike, and Cattell, who were far more influential than he in the educational world and who argued in print for altering the educational system to allow for the physical or intellectual inferiority of women, were not. One reason may be that the story of Titch-ener and the Experimentalists’ exclusion of women makes a good, simple, dramatic narrative to illustrate the situation faced by many educated women at the time. With all the colorful stories repeated about him and his eccentricities, Titchener makes for a good vil-lain. He is perceived as having had great power in the psychological world of his time. Edwin Holt called him “the dean of American empirical psychology” (p. 25) in 1911, when Titchener was only 44 years old. E. G. Boring, Titchener’s self-appointed promoter and chronicler, referred to him in Holt’s phrase as “dean of experimental psychology in America” and even more, a “cardinal point” in psychology:

The death of no other psychologist could so alter the psychological picture in America. Not only was he unique among American psy-chologists as a personality and in his scientific attitude, but he was a cardinal point in the national systematic orientation. The clear-cut opposition between behaviorism and its allies, on the one hand, and something else, on the other, remains clear only when the opposition is between behaviorism and Titchener, mental tests and Titchener, or applied psychology and Titchener. His death thus, in a sense, creates a classificatory chaos in American systematic psychology. (Boring, 1927, p. 489)

This and other of Boring’s descriptions of Titchener in his many articles and in his A History of Experi-mental Psychology (1929, 1950) created a Promethean image that generations of psychologists grew up on and that exaggerated Titchener’s real power and in-fluence.

AJP 127_4 text.indd 518 10/7/14 8:52 AM




Anecdotes that seemed positive or humorous at an earlier time detracted from and damaged Titch-ener’s reputation by the 1980s and afterward. The exaggerations simply made him a bigger target. An ex-ample of conclusions derived from an exaggeration of Titchener’s influence and power comes from Stevens and Gardner (1982a, p. 97), who represented Titch-ener at Cornell as “already at the age of 25 years old (in 1892), one of the most powerful figures in psychol-ogy.” They gave no examples of this presumed power in 1892. As we have shown, in 1892 Titchener was newly arrived at Cornell, an inexperienced instructor with his Leipzig PhD. Titchener’s self-imposed isola-tion from the rest of the psychological world limited his influence outside of a small group who made up his Experimentalists and his own students. There is some question as to how influential he was even with these groups, especially in the latter part of his career. Another plausible reason Titchener was singled out is that he carried out a specific act that could be interpreted as the actions of a misogynist. Cattell, Hall, Thorndike, and others merely wrote on their beliefs and theories and published them. It was the actions by educational policy makers who read their books and articles and acted on their admonitions who were the source of the disadvantages imposed on women. Titchener’s actions allowed a simple nar-rative that, on its face, was convincing and provides a villain.

cattell, thorndike, and hallEarlier in this article we showed that Rossiter (1982) labeled Titchener a misogynist while giving men such as Cattell, Thorndike, and Hall a brief mention and then, because they were merely “naive” about accepting the variability theory of male superiority, passed them by. The history of variability theory, or the variability hypothesis, has been well told else-where (see Rosenberg, 1982). Briefly, the doctrine gained popularity due to a book published by Har-vard physician Edward H. Clarke (1873), ironically titled Sex in Education or a Fair Chance for the Girls. There, Clarke stated that because men show greater variability in their abilities than women, men make up the greater proportion of intelligent people. Women, because they vary less, rarely attain the heights of the intellect found in men and fall into the middle range of mediocrity. Further, and more damaging, Clarke

wrote that women were endangered by education be-cause it damaged their reproductive organs and could make them “manly” and even sterile. Clarke’s thesis laid the basis for the ideas repeated and embellished by Cattell, Thorndike, and Hall, just to name a few. One could argue that the difference between men such as Cattell, Thorndike, and Hall on one side and Titchener on the other was that Titchener acted in a discriminatory way based on deeply ingrained social etiquette, even if just in that one context of the Ex-perimentalists. His actions had nothing to do with a woman’s intellectual capacity and had no relevance to any social policies. Cattell, Thorndike, and Hall, on the other hand, proposed radical changes in educa-tion that would prepare women to stay in the roles of wives and mothers and not exercise their abilities in the world of men. Cattell, Thorndike, and Hall were just a few of the noted psychologists who held and propagated this theory. They have been represented as merely presenting the variability hypothesis as a possible explanation of the lack of women at the high-est levels of science and other similar endeavors, but there was a clear agenda behind the use of the theory. These psychologists directly linked variability theory to policy issues in society. One of these issues had to do with concern over the declining birth rate and a fear of depopulation.

James mckeen cattellCattell is considered by some in a positive light be-cause of his support for women, but that was after his “conversion” in 1910. Before 1910 Cattell’s posi-tion was quite different. Cattell’s (1909) article titled “The School and the Family” considered more than the inability of women successfully to participate in higher education or strive for excellence. Cattell saw higher education and the independence it afforded women as a threat to the male-dominated status quo:

When spinsters can support themselves with more physical comforts and larger leisure than they would as wives; when married women may prefer the money they can earn and the excite-ment they can find in outside employment to the bearing and rearing of children; when they can conveniently leave their husbands should it so suit their fancy—the conditions are clearly unfavorable to marriage and the family. (p. 92)

AJP 127_4 text.indd 519 10/7/14 8:52 AM




Cattell saw education outside the home as a force weakening the family, even kindergartens. High schools he saw as an even greater threat:

Girls are injured more than boys by school life; they take it more seriously, and at certain times and at a certain age are far more subject to harm. It is probably not an exaggeration to say that to the average cost of each girl’s education through the high school must be added one un-born child. (Cattell, 1909, pp. 91–92)

Cattell laid out a romantic agrarian model for edu-cation that came down to a sort of communal home schooling, built around the concept of a small village (pp. 94–95). Another important consideration to Cattell, which seems contradictory to a belief in women’s inferiority, was a concern of the competition women would bring to the academic marketplace. Cattell complained that “men who must compete in the mar-ket with women can not afford to marry and support a family” (p. 92). This problem, Cattell found, was due to so many women becoming school teachers. But this was only one of several reasons why Cattell believed that women should not be teachers outside the home: “This vast horde of female teachers in the United States tends to subvert both the school and the family” (p. 92–93). This subversion would come about, Cattell reasoned, because among the teachers, “attractive and normal girls and the few able men, tend to drop out, leaving the school principal, nar-row and arbitrary, and the spinster, devitalized and unsexed, as the dominant elements” (p. 93). Cattell’s subsequent conversion away from this view and his later general support of women’s issues gained him a reputation as one of the “eminent psy-chologists who have been supportive and helpful in encouraging women to pursue successful careers in psychology” (Stevens & Gardner, 1982a, pp. 41–42). This conversion did not come about until 1910, however (see Benjamin, 1975; Shields, 1975a, 1975b; Shields & Mallory, 1987).

edward l. thorndikeWe include E. L. Thorndike, a student of Cattell and also his colleague at Columbia, because he held to variability theory as well, although he admitted that differences between men and women appear only at

the “highest levels of giftedness” (Thorndike, 1910). Thorndike also considered the policy ramifications of the theory. Thorndike wrote in 1906:,

Not only the probability and desirability of marriage and the training of children as an es-sential feature of woman’s career but also the restriction of women to the mediocre grades of ability and achievement should be reckoned with by our educational systems. The educa-tion of women for . . . professions . . . where a few very gifted individuals are what society requires, is far less needed than for such educa-tion professions as nursing, teaching, medicine or architecture, where the average level is the essential. (Thorndike, 1906, p. 213, cited in Shields, 1975a, p. 747)

g. stanley hallHigher education as a factor in desexing women was also part of concern expressed by G. Stanley Hall at Clark University. In what Cynthia Eagle Russett calls “Hall’s romanticism,” Hall held that women “were designed to be racial conduits” (1989, p. 61). As such, girls should be educated “primarily and chiefly for motherhood” (Hall cited in Russett, p. 61). He be-lieved that education should help a girl develop her natural intuitions and not attempt to educate her to compete with men. Hall held that women, particularly young wom-en, were constitutionally unable to stand the stress of education, particularly during menstruation. He believed education in adolescence could damage maternal instincts. Hall believed that women should trust in their instincts rather than knowledge from education. In his romanticized language he wrote,

The body and soul of womanhood, which is larger and more typical, more generic . . . than that of man, is nearer the child and shares more of its divinity than does the far more specialized and narrow and narrowed organism of the man. (Hall, quoted in Contratto, 1984)

Hall opposed coeducation and education for women generally. Like Edward Clarke, he believed that education would destroy a woman’s reproductive ability and would lead to depopulation or weak off-spring at best. He wrote about these topics in popu-

AJP 127_4 text.indd 520 10/7/14 8:52 AM




lar magazines, spreading these ideas to the general population (see Diehl, 1986; Hall, 1904). The influence the books and articles written about variability theory had on girls and women considering higher education was very real, however. Ehrenreich and English (2005) cite the example of Martha Carey Thomas, second president of Bryn Mawr College be-tween 1894 and 1922. She reported that as a young woman, after reading Clarke’s pronouncements, “she had been ‘terror-struck’ . . . lest she ‘and every other woman . . . were doomed to live as pathological invalids . . . as a result of their education’” (p. 143). However, the effect of these publications on policy decisions by educators who also “naively” ac-cepted the ideas contained in the pronouncements of these highly recognized leaders of mental testing and education continued to linger and to reemerge periodically, even up to recent times (see Feingold, 1992). Maxine Seller, writing of Hall and Thorndike, summarized the effects:

It is not possible to know how many teach-ers and administrators actually read Hall and Thorndike and, were directly influenced by their ideas, or, indeed, by the ideas of any edu-cational theorists. It is clear, however, that their views, along with others, who supported the growth of separate and unequal educational programs for women, were reflected in the educational policies of the Progressive Era and the decades that followed. While education for women continued to expand during that period, high school and college women were increasingly found in less demanding, low sta-tus, specialized “feminine” fields, such as home economics, . . . nursing, social work, clerical areas, and teaching. . . . The entrance of middle and upper class women into traditionally male professions remained stable or actually de-clined. . . . As American occupations became more professionalized in the early twentieth century, economic opportunity tied itself to educational credentials. Thus, the growth of separate and unequal educational programs for women hindered women’s access to higher sta-tus employment. (Seller, 1981, p. 371)

The fear engendered by threats of women becom-ing “de-sexed” or “manly” made some women think

twice about pursuing higher education. The most strident of these views and their recommendations gradually lost favor, but the damage was done. So, the question remains, were Cattell, Thorn-dike, Hall, and others misogynists because they were influential in promoting a theory that repre-sented women as intellectually and constitutionally inferior to men, promoting the restriction of women from higher education, and reserving for them only roles of wives and mothers? If prepared for anything beyond the home it would be for nothing beyond mediocre occupations. Rossiter (1982) held that they were not misogynists, merely naive. Indeed, in their ordinary lives and in dealing with women students as individuals, there is little to show that these men intentionally sought to damage women’s prospects in work outside the home (see Diehl, 1986). Inten-tionally or not, their recommendations did damage those prospects. Titchener also had no intention of damaging the careers of women in psychology and, moreover, there is no evidence of significant damage to women’s academic careers in psychology by their not being inducted into the Experimentalists. This did not make their exclusion right, but the cultural mores Titchener acted on were no less naive than those that influenced Cattell, Thorndike, and Hall. If one labels Titchener a misogynist, then Cattell, Thorndike, Hall, and other major psychologists of the time deserve the same label.

conclusionE. B. Titchener was a complex individual, and a simple characterization of him or his views with re-gard to women will not suffice. It is fair to criticize Titchener for his exclusion of women from the Ex-perimentalists, even though his reasons show no in-dication of malicious intent. In this regard, Christine Ladd-Franklin’s comments in a letter to Titchener seem quite apropos: “So mediaeval!—such an indig-nity!—well meant, I know—you have told me so—but such a mistaken kindness!” (cited in Rossiter, 1982, p. 280). However, it is not fair to characterize Titchener as a misogynist and to ignore the fact that from the first year of his appointment at Cornell to his last he was in the forefront of educational and professional efforts for women psychologists. When the history of psychology in the United States through the first quarter of the 20th century is examined, there seems

AJP 127_4 text.indd 521 10/7/14 8:52 AM




little doubt that Titchener was the single person most responsible for the entry and rise of women in the field. Many of the women who received PhDs from him, as well as others whose lives he touched, went on to be successful academic psychologists, profes-sional psychologists, and educators. In fact, we hope that this article brings to light the many contributions made by those women and the significant role that AJP, in large part due to Titchener’s editorial roles, played in this process.

note

We thank Dr. Roger Thomas for pointing out the contributions of Celestia Parrish and the role of Titchener in her education. Address correspondence about this article to Robert W. Proctor, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907 (e-mail: [email protected]).

reFerences

Abel, T. M. (1978). An experience during the last year of the life of E. B. Titchener. American Psychologist, 33, 767–768.

Adams, G. K. (1923). An experimental study of memory color and related phenomena. American Journal of Psychology, 34, 359–407.

Angell, F. (1928). Titchener at Oxford. Journal of General Psychology, 1, 195–198.

Anonymous. (1892, April). The Oxford summer meeting of 1892. The Oxford University Extension Gazette, 3, 76–77.

Anonymous. (1895). Title page. American Journal of Psychol-ogy, 7.

Anonymous. (1924, June 2). Teacher quits: 2 students out in Goucher row: Instructor resigns. Baltimore Sun, p. 20.

Bagley, F. W. (1902). An investigation of Fechner’s colors. American Journal of Psychology, 13, 488–525.

Baldwin, J. M., & Schallenberger, M. (1897). Color perception of children. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 61–62.

Bazar, J. (2010a). Profile of June Etta Downey. In A. Ruther-ford (Ed.), Psychology’s feminist voices multimedia inter-net archive. Retrieved from http://www.feministvoices.com/june-etta-downey-3/

Bazar, J. (2010b). Profile of Lucy May Day Boring. In A. Rutherford (Ed.), Psychology’s feminist voices multime-dia internet archive. Retrieved from http://www.feminist voices.com/lucy-may-day-boring/

Benjamin, L. T. Jr. (1975). The pioneering work of Leta Hol-lingworth in the psychology of women. Nebraska History, 56, 493–505.

Benjamin, L. T. Jr. (1979). The Midwestern Psychological Association: A history of the organization and its anteced-ents, 1902–1978. American Psychologist, 34, 201–213.

Boring, E. G. (1927). Edward Bradford Titchener 1867–1927. American Journal of Psychology, 38, 498–506.

Boring, E. G. (1929). A history of experimental psychology. New York, NY: Century Company.

Boring, E. G. (1938). The society of experimental psycholo-gists: 1904–1938. American Journal of Psychology, 51, 410–423.

Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Appleton Century Crofts.

Boring, E. G. (1958). Karl M. Dallenbach. American Journal of Psychology, 71, 1–49.

Boring, E. G. (1967). Titchener’s experimentalists. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 3, 315–325.

Boring, L. D., & Boring, E. G. (1917). Temporal judgments after sleep. In Studies in psychology: Titchener commemo-rative volume (pp. 255–279). Worcester, MA: Louis N. Wilson.

Braddock, C. C. (1921). An experimental study of cutaneous imagery. American Journal of Psychology, 32, 415–420.

Braddock, C. C. (1924). An experimental study of the visual negative after-image. American Journal of Psychology, 35, 157–166.

Calkins, M. W. (1892). Experimental psychology at Wellesley College. American Journal of Psychology, 5, 260–271.

Calkins, M. W. (1893a). A statistical study of pseudo-chrom-esthesia and of mental-forms. American Journal of Psy-chology, 5, 439–464.

Calkins, M. W. (1893b). Statistics of dreams. American Jour-nal of Psychology, 5, 311–343.

Cattell, J. M. (1888). The Leipsic school of experimental psy-chology, Mind, 13, 37–51.

Cattell, J. M. (Ed.). (1906). American men of science: A bio-graphical directory. New York, NY: Science Press.

Cattell, J. M. (1909). The school and the family. Popular Sci-ence Monthly, 74, 84–95.

Clarke, E. H. (1873). Sex in education or a fair chance for the girls. Boston, MA: James R. Osgood & Company.

Clarke, H. M. (1911). Conscious attitudes. American Journal of Psychology, 22, 214–249.

Cobbey, L. W., & Sullivan, A. H. (1922). An experimental study of the perception of oiliness. American Journal of Psychology, 33, 121–127.

Comstock, C. (1921). On the relevancy of imagery to the processes of thought. American Journal of Psychology, 32, 196–230.

Comstock, C., & Kittredge, H. (1922). An experimental study of children as observers. American Journal of Psychology, 33, 161–177.

Contratto, S. (1984). Mother: Social sculptor and trustee of the faith. In M. Lewin (Ed.), In the shadow of the past: Psychology portrays the sexes (pp. 226–255). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Curtis, J. N. (1916). Duration and the temporal judgment. American Journal of Psychology, 27, 1–46.

Curtis, J. N. (1917). Tactual discrimination and susceptibility to the Müller–Lyer illusion, tested by the method of single

AJP 127_4 text.indd 522 10/7/14 8:52 AM




stimulation. In Studies in psychology contributed by col-leagues and former students of Edward Bradford Titchener (pp. 308–322). Worcester, MA: Louis N. Wilson.

Davies, L. (2012, October 17). Julia Gillard speech prompts dictionary to change “misogyny” definition. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/17/julia-gillard-australia-misogyny-dictionary

Davis, W. H. (1907). Proceedings of the fifteenth annual meet-ing of the American Psychological Association, New York City, December 27, 28 and 29, 1906. Psychological Bul-letin, 4, 201–205.

Day, L. M. (1912). The effect of illumination on peripheral vi-sion. American Journal of Psychology, 23, 533–578.

Diehl, L. A. (1986). The paradox of G. Stanley Hall: Foe of coeducation and educator of women. American Psycholo-gist, 41, 868–878.

Dimmick, C. C. (1923). The auditory memory after-image. American Journal of Psychology, 34, 1–12.

Downey, J. E. (1929). Creative imagination: Studies in the psychology of literature. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.

Ehrenreich, B., & English, D. (2005). For her own good: Two centuries of the experts’ advice to women (rev. ed.). New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Evans, R. B. (1972). Karl M. Dallenbach: 1886–1971. American Journal of Psychology, 85, 463–476.

Farrand, L. (1905). Proceedings of the thirteenth annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Uni-versity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, December 28, 29 and 30, 1904. Psychological Bulletin, 2, 37–38.

Feingold, A. (1992). Sex differences in variability of intellec-tual abilities: A new look at an old controversy. Review of Educational Research, 62, 61–84.

Fernberger, S. W. (1928). Proceedings of the thirty-sixth an-nual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, Columbus, Ohio, December 28, 29, 30, 1927. Psychological Bulletin, 25, 125–139.

Friedline, C. L. (1918). The discrimination of cutaneous pat-terns below the two-point limen. American Journal of Psychology, 29, 400–419.

Friedline, C. L., & Dallenbach, K. M. (1929). Distance from point of fixation vs. intensity as a determinant of attention. American Journal of Psychology, 41, 464–468.

Furumoto, L. (1988). Shared knowledge: The experimental-ists, 1904–1929. In J. G. Morawski (Ed.), The rise of ex-perimentation in American psychology (pp. 94–113). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Furumoto, L., & Scarborough, E. (1986). Placing women in the history of psychology: The first American women psychologists. American Psychologist, 41, 35–42.

Galton, F. (1892). Finger prints. London, England: Macmillan.Gamble, E. A. M. (1898). The applicability of Weber’s law to

smell. American Journal of Psychology, 10, 82–142.Garver, L. N., Gleason, J. M., & Washburn, M. F. (1915). The

source of affective reactions to articulate sounds. Ameri-can Journal of Psychology, 26, 292–295.

Gleason, J. M. (1919). An experimental study of “feelings of relation.” American Journal of Psychology, 30, 1–26.

Goodwin, C. J. (1985). On the origins of Titchener’s experi-mentalists. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sci-ences, 21, 383–389.

Goodwin, C. J. (2005). Reorganizing the experimentalists: The origins of the society of experimental psychology. History of Psychology, 8, 347–361.

Goudge, M. (1915). A simplified method of conducting McDougall’s spot-pattern test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 73–84.

Goudge, M. E. (1918). A qualitative and quantitative study of Weber’s illusion. American Journal of Psychology, 29, 81–119.

Goudge, M. E. (1931). Abnormal psychology in general medi-cal practice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 26, 333–337.

Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion and education (Vols. 1 & 2). New York, NY: Appleton.

Hamlin, A. J. (1895). On the least observable interval between stimuli addressed to disparate senses and to different or-gans of the same sense. American Journal of Psychology, 6, 574–575.

Hamlin, A. J. (1896). Attention and distraction. American Journal of Psychology, 8, 3–66.

Hamlin, A. J. (1897). An attempt at a psychology of instinct. Mind, 6(21), 59–70.

Heidbreder, E. (1933). Seven psychologies. New York, NY: Century.

Holt, E. B. (1911). Titchener’s psychology. Psychological Bul-letin, 8, 25–30.

Hopkins, R. (2012). What Perky did not show. Analysis, 72, 431–439.

Howes, R. (1969). Recollections of E. B. Titchener. Cornell Alumni News, 71(9), 20–22.

Ladd-Franklin, C. (1887). A method for the experimental determination of the horopter. American Journal of Psy-chology, 1, 99–111.

Lewin, M. (1988). Early women psychologists challenge sex-ism. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 16(3/4), 58–67.

Martin, L. J. (1912). Die projektionsmethode und die Lo-kalisation visualler und andere Vorstellunsbilder [The projection method and the visual localization and other induced imagery]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physi-ologie der Sinnesorgane, 61, 321–323.

Martin, M. F. (1922). Film, surface, and bulky colors and their intermediates. American Journal of Psychology, 33, 451–480.

Martin, M. F. (1937). Mind, mechanism, and lexicographic behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 49, 310–313.

Martin, M. F. (1940). The psychological contributions of

AJP 127_4 text.indd 523 10/7/14 8:52 AM




Margaret Floy Washburn. American Journal of Psychol-ogy, 53, 7–18.

Marx, M. H., & Hillix, W. A. (1963). Systems and theories in psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

McNaught, M. S. (1917). Training in courtesy: Suggestions for teaching good manners in elementary schools. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, Bulletin 54. Wash-ington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Merriam-Webster.com. (2014). Misogyny. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

Möller, E. F. (1922). The effect of change of intensity upon the upper limit of hearing. American Journal of Psychology, 33, 570–577.

Möller, E. F. (1925). The “glassy sensation.” American Jour-nal of Psychology, 36, 249–285.

Moore, V. F. (1899). The psychology of Hobbes and its sources. American Journal of Psychology, 11, 49–66.

Murchison, C. (1929). Mabel Ensworth Gouge. The Psychologi-cal Register, 3. Worchester, MA: Clark University Press.

Murphy, G. (1929). Historical introduction to modern psychol-ogy. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.

Murray, E. (1906). Peripheral and central factors in memory images of visual form and color. American Journal of Psy-chology, 17, 227–247.

Murray, E. (1909). Organic sensation. American Journal of Psychology, 20, 386–446.

Murray, E. (1961). News from the color front. PsycCRI-TIQUES, 6, 181–182.

Obituary. (1922, June). Catherine C. Braddock. The Spike: or, Victoria University College Review, p. 31.

Parrish, C. S. (1895). The cutaneous estimation of open and filled space. American Journal of Psychology, 6, 514–522.

Parrish, C. S. (1897). The localisation of cutaneous impres-sions by arm movement without pressure upon the skin. American Journal of Psychology, 8, 250–267.

Parrish, C. S. (1925). My experience in self-culture. (Pamphlet published by J. O. Martin, State School Supervisor). At-lanta, GA: State Department of Education.

Pate, J. L. (2000). Psychological organizations in the United States. American Psychologist, 55, 1139–1143.

Peak, H. (1939). The Parrish laboratories of psychology at Randolph–Macon Woman’s College. Journal of Experi-mental Psychology, 24, 551–553.

Perky, C. (1910). An experimental study of imagination. Amer-ican Journal of Psychology, 21, 422–452.

Pillsbury, W. B. (1940). Margaret Floy Washburn (1871–1939). Psychological Review, 47, 99–109.

Reeves, A., & Craver-Lemley, C. (2012). Unmasking the Perky effect: Spatial extent of image interference on visual acuity. Frontiers In Psychology, 3. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00296

Reisman, J. M. (1976). A history of clinical psychology. New York, NY: Irvington Press.

Rice, E. L. (1919). Report of the twenty-ninth annual meeting of the Ohio Academy of Science. Ohio Journal of Science, 20, 1–16.

Rosenberg, R. (1982). Beyond separate spheres: Intellectual roots of modern feminism. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer-sity Press.

Rossiter, M. W. (1982). Women scientists in America: Strug-gles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Rowe, F. B., & Murray, F. S. (1979). A note on the Titchener influence on the first psychology laboratory in the South. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 15, 282–285.

Ruckmick, C. A. (1934). Eleanor Acheson McCulloch Gamble: 1868–1933. American Journal of Psychology, 46, 154–156.

Russett, C. E. (1989). Sexual science: The Victorian construc-tion of womanhood. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sanford, E. C. (1906). Report of the secretary, proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the American Psycho-logical Association, Cambridge, Mass., December 27, 28 and 29, 1905. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 37–39.

Scarborough, E., & Furumoto, L. (1987). Untold lives: The first generation of American women psychologists. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Schallenberger, M. (1897). Professor Baldwin’s method of studying the color-perception of children. American Journal of Psychology, 8, 560–576.

Schaub, A. de Vries. (1911). On the intensity of images. Ameri-can Journal of Psychology, 22, 346–368.

Segal, S. J. (1971). Processing of the stimulus in imagery and perception. In S. J. Segal (Ed.), Imagery: current cognitive approaches (pp. 69–100). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Seller, M. (1981). G. Stanley Hall and Edward Thorndike on the education of women: Theory and policy in the pro-gressive era. Educational Studies: A Journal of the Ameri-can Educational Studies Association, 11, 365–374.

Sharp, S. E. (1899). Individual psychology: A study in psy-chological method. American Journal of Psychology, 10, 329–391.

Shields, S. A. (1975a). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth. American Psychologist, 30, 739–754.

Shields, S. A. (1975b). Ms. Pilgrim’s progress: The contribu-tions of Leta Stetter Hollingworth to the psychology of women. American Psychologist, 30, 852–857.

Shields, S. A., & Mallory, M. E. (1987). Leta Stetter Holling-worth speaks on Columbia’s legacy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 285–300.

Squire, C. R. (1901). A genetic study of rhythm. American Journal of Psychology, 12, 492–589.

Squire, C. R. (1912a). Graded mental tests. Part I. Attention,

AJP 127_4 text.indd 524 10/7/14 8:52 AM




perception, comprehension and memory. Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, 3, 363–380.

Squire, C. R. (1912b). Graded mental tests. Part II. Associa-tion, construction, and invention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 430–443.

Squire, C. R. (1912c). Graded mental tests. Part III. Judg-ment, conclusions, and summary of results. Journal of Educational Psychology, 3, 493–506.

Stevens, G., & Gardner, S. (1982a). The women of psychol-ogy (Vol. 1: Pioneers and innovators). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

Stevens, G., & Gardner, S. (1982b). The women of psychol-ogy (Vol. 2: Expansion and refinement). Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

Stocking, G. W. Jr. (1965). Editorial: On the limits of “pre-sentism” and “historicism” in the historiography of the behavioral sciences. Journal of the History of the Behav-ioral Sciences, 1, 211–218.

Sullivan, A. H. (1921). An experimental study of kinaesthetic imagery. American Journal of Psychology, 32, 54–80.

Thomas, R. K. (2005, Winter). Celestia Susannah Parrish (1853–1918): Pioneering psychologist, native Virginian, and “Georgia’s Greatest Woman.” Feminist Psychologist, 16, 28. Retrieved from http://rkthomas.myweb.uga.edu/CSPBW.pdf

Thorndike, E. L. (1906). Sex in education. Bookman, 23, 211–214.

Thorndike, E. L. (1910). Educational psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Thorne, B. M., & Henley, T. B. (2005). Connections in the history and systems of psychology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Titchener, A. F. H. (ca. 1913). Fragment of letter from Alice Field Habin Titchener to E. B. Titchener. In R. B. Evans’ collection.

Titchener, E. B. (1867). Birth certificate for E. B. Titchener, Somerset House, London.

Titchener, E. (1881). Death certificate for Edward Titchener, August 13, 1881. Somerset House, London.

Titchener, E. B. (1892a). The Leipsic school of experimental psychology. Mind, 1(2), 206–234.

Titchener, E. B. (1892b). Ueber binoculare Wirkungen mon-ocularer Reize [About binocular effects of monocular stimuli]. Philosophische Studien, 8, 231–310.

Titchener, E. B. (1894). George John Romanes and Walter Pater. Philosophical Review, 3, 766–767.

Titchener, E. B. (1896). Notes and news: American Psycho-logical Association. American Journal of Psychology, 7, 448–449. (This note is unsigned but the content and Eng-lish spelling indicate it unquestionably to be by Titchener.)

Titchener, E. B. (1904). Letter to Hugo Muensterberg, Feb. 1, 1904. Titchener Papers, Cornell University Archives, cited in Scarborough and Furumoto, p. 113.

Titchener, E. B. (1907). Letter to R. M. Yerkes, January 6, 1907. Titchener Papers, Cornell University.

Titchener, E. B. (1910). A textbook of psychology. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Titchener, E. B. (n.d., but after 1912). Brasenose College Reg-ister. Collection of R. B. Evans.

Titchener, E. B. (1913a). Professor Martin and the Perky ex-periments. American Journal of Psychology, 24, 124–131.

Titchener, E. B. (1913b). Professor Martin and the Perky ex-periments. American Journal of Psychology, 24, 579.

Titchener, E. B. (1918). Letter to Adolf Meyer, April 29, 1918. In R. Leys & R. B. Evans (Eds.), Defining American psy-chology: The correspondence between Adolf Meyer and Ed-ward Bradford Titchener (pp. 214–215). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Titchener, E. B. (1924a). Letter, Bryant Teachers Bureau, April 10, 1924. Titchener Papers, Cornell University Ar-chives.

Titchener, E. B. (1924b). Letter from E. B. Titchener to Clel Titchener, May 10, 1924. Collection of R. B. Evans.

Titchener, E. B. (1924c). Letter to G. K. Adams, June 5, 1924. Titchener Papers, Cornell University Archives.

Titchener, E. B. (1924d). Letter to G. K. Adams, September 22, 1924. Titchener Papers, Cornell University Archives.

Titchener, E. B. (1924e). Letter to G. K. Adams, October 1, 1924. Titchener Papers, Cornell University Archives.

Titchener, J. (1879). Death certificate for John Titchener, Somerset House, London.

Titchener, J. B. (1970). Personal communication to Rand Evans.

Titchener, M. (1952). Letter from Margaret Titchener to Frances H. T. Baird, March 17, 1952. Collection of R. B. Evans.

Vassar Miscellany News. (1958, 21 May). Retiring faculty: Jo-sephine Gleason. Volume XXXXII, 27.

Washburn, M. F. (1895). Ueber den Einfluss der Gesichtsas-sociationen auf die Raumwahrnehmungen der Haut [On the influence of Gesichtsassociationenface associations to the spatial perceptions of the skin]. Philosophische Stu-dien, 11, 190–225.

Washburn, M. F. (1917). The social psychology of man and the lower animals. Studies in psychology: Titchener com-memorative volume (pp. 11–17). Worcester, MA: Louis N. Wilson.

Washburn, M. F. (1925). Letter to E. B. Titchener, November 21, 1925. Titchener Papers, Cornell University Archives.

Washburn, M. F. (1932). Margaret Floy Washburn: Some rec-ollections. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. II, pp. 333–358). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

Washburn, M. F. (1936). Titchener, Edward Bradford. In A. Johnson (Ed.), Dictionary of American biography (Vol. 18, pp. 564–565). New York, NY: Scribner.

AJP 127_4 text.indd 525 10/7/14 8:52 AM




Watson, J. B. (1924). Letter to E. B. Titchener, October 3, 1924, Titchener Papers, Cornell University Archives.

Watson, R. I. (1978). The great psychologists: Aristotle to Freud (4th ed.). New York, NY: Lippincott.

Weiler, K. (1998). Country schoolwomen. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.

Whitchurch, A. K. (1921). The illusory perception of move-ment on the skin. American Journal of Psychology, 32, 472–489.

Whitchurch, A. K. (1922). Synaesthesia in a child of three and a half years. American Journal of Psychology, 33, 302–303.

Woodworth, R. S. (1948). Contemporary schools of psychology. New York, NY: The Ronald Press.

Woodworth, R. S. (1949). Biographical memoir of Margaret Floy Washburn 1871–1939. National Academy of Sciences Biographical Memoirs, 25, 275–295.

Worrest, H. N. (1968). The Montana days of William Chan-dler Bagley. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 5(2), 41–42.

Wundt, W. (1889). Letter, Wilhelm Wundt to E. B. Titchener, August 14, 1889, Titchener Papers, Cornell University Archives.

AJP 127_4 text.indd 526 10/7/14 8:52 AM



E. B. Titchener, Women Psychologists, and the Experimentalists

Documents

Transcript of E. B. Titchener, Women Psychologists, and the Experimentalists