Classical Texts in Psychology
(Return to Index)
THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION: A HISTORICAL SUMMARY, 1892-1930
SAMUEL W. FERNBERGER (1932)
University of Pennsylvania
First published in Psychological Bulletin 29, 1-89
Posted May 2000
Some time ago ex-President Coolidge wrote a history of the United States in the compass of 100 words. If such a tabloid history of the American Psychological Association were to be written it would run something like this: Organized in 1892, Incorporated in 1925, and in 1930 it had 530 Members and 571 Associates.
Such a description tells the story of the development of thirty-nine years but it seems worth while to elaborate the account. It seems worth while to do this at the present time (and this is my apologia) because in recent years the character of the Association has changed from that of a very modest organization into that of a "big business," or at least so it appears to the eyes of an academic psychologist. And let me hasten to add that I do not wish to imply that this change has been either good or bad -- it has been a change that had to come if the Association was to keep abreast of the development of psychology in America. If this account does nothing else, I think that it will show that the Association has kept abreast of the general development of psychology in a highly thoughtful and dignified manner, only very seldom anticipating the development and attempting something that was premature and equally seldom lagging behind some well defined movement in psychology. But inasmuch as the character of the Association has so definitely changed it seems worth while to record a picture of the old scheme of things and of the period of change before they are so dimmed from the memory of living man that it would take a real historian to write the account.
Fortunately for the historian, the records of the Association have been well and faithfully kept since its beginning and preserved in readily available form. The Proceedings of the meetings, in which [p. 2] will be found accounts of both the scientific programs and the business meetings were published from the first to the eleventh annual meetings (1892-1903) in the Psychological Review and, since its founding in 1904 (the account of the 1903 meeting) they have appeared annually in the Psychological Bulletin.
At the invitation of G. Stanley Hall, a "group of rugged pioneers" met at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., on July 8, 1892, to discuss the feasibility of having some sort of an organization. There were present at least seven who are specifically mentioned: G. Stanley Hall of Clark University, George S. Fullerton of the University of Pennsylvania, Joseph Jastrow of the University of Wisconsin, William James of Harvard University, George T. Ladd of Yale University, James McK. Cattell of Columbia University, and J. Mark Baldwin of the University of Toronto.
It seems worth while to stop and discover what psychology was like in America at this moment. According to Garvey's list only nineteen laboratories had been established at that time. They were in order of their founding: Harvard (1874), Hopkins (1883, but closed 1887-1903), Pennsylvania (1887), Indiana (1888), Wisconsin (1888), Clark (1889), McLean Asylum (1889), Nebraska (1889), Michigan (1890), Iowa (1890), Columbia (1890), Toronto (1890), Cornell (1891), Wellesley (1891), Brown (1892), Illinois (1892), Kansas (1892), Catholic (1892), and Trenton State Normal (1892). Yale opened its laboratory in the autumn of 1892 just following the preliminary meeting of the Association. It will be noted that five of these laboratories were in existence less than one year, two more for one year only and four more for two years only. Thus only eight of the nineteen laboratories had been founded more than two years before the preliminary meeting and one of these had already closed.
Further details inform us that this year Münsterberg came to Harvard from Germany and Titchener came from England to Cornell. Only two psychological journals were as yet published in America, both founded by G. Stanley Hall, the American Journal of Psychology established in 1887 and the Pedagogical Seminary established in 1891. The Psychological Review did not appear until two years after the meeting. At this period, then, any man with some- [p. 3] thing to publish in a psychological journal had perforce to send his manuscript to Hall as Editor.
When the student of 1892 wanted to consult a textbook, only two major texts were available in English -- G. T. Ladd's Elements of Physiological Psychology (1887) and William James' Principles of Psychology (1890). The student who was competent in German had available the third edition of Wilhelm Wundt's Grundzüge der physiologischen Psychologie (1887). This was a two-volume affair, the first volume of 544 pages and the second of 562 pages. The fourth edition did not appear until the next year.
Some of these other texts which we are in the habit of considering classic had not yet appeared and were, for the most part, not even thought of. Külpe's Grundriss appeared the next year (1893), Titchener's Outline in 1896, Sanford's Course in 1898 and Angell's Psychology not until 1904. It may be of further interest to note that 1892 was the year of the appearance of Fullerton and Cattell's Perception of Small Differences and of the first formulation of the Ladd-Franklin Theory of Vision.
In such an environment of psychology in America, then, these seven men met and decided that it was worth while to form an association for the discussion of psychological matters. They formed themselves into an organization committee of seven and made Fullerton chairman and Jastrow secretary. This committee was to determine the time, place and program for the next meeting and also took upon itself the duty to report at this meeting a plan of organization. The account then goes on to state that this committee of seven were to constitute a Council "to be renewed by frequent elections" and they were instructed to choose from their own number an Executive Committee "to direct the more urgent affairs of the Association." Hall, Fullerton and Jastrow were chosen as the Executive Committee.
Then Hall was chosen President, Jastrow was chosen Secretary and Treasurer and it was decided to hold the first meeting at the University of Pennsylvania on December 27, 1892. And furthermore the Secretary was instructed to ask the members for titles and brief abstracts of papers to be read at this meeting.
It may be pointed out that the actions of this preliminary meeting established several precedents which have never been broken. It placed the technical administration of the Association in the hands of the Council, it emphasized the scientific character of the meetings and it established these meetings at the time of the Christmas holidays. It is further of interest to note that two of the original seven members [p. 4] (Cattell and Jastrow) are still actively engaged in psychology. At the end of the preliminary meeting, Jastrow asked for the coöperation of all members for the Section of Psychology at the World's Fair in Chicago.
Perhaps the most important piece of business at this meeting was the election of thirty-one members including the seven already mentioned. Hence at the end of the preliminary meeting, the membership consisted of Frank Angell, J. M. Baldwin, W. H. Burnham, J. McK. Cattell, Edward Cowles, E. B. Delabarre, John Dewey, G. S. Fullerton, B. S. Gilman (Clark), E. H. Griffin (Hopkins), G. S. Hall, J. G. Hume (Toronto), J. H. Hyslop (Columbia), William James, J. Jastrow, W. O. Krohn (Clark), G. T. Ladd, Herbert Nichols (Harvard), Wm. Noyes (McLean), G. T. W. Patrick, Josiah Royce, E. C. Sanford, E. W. Scripture, L. Witmer, W. K. Wolfe (Nebraska), W. T. Mills (McGill), H. Münsterberg, A. T. Ormond (Princeton), E. Pace (Catholic), and E. B. Titchener. The minutes note that the last four were elected subsequently to the other list, apparently someone subsequently remembered their existence.
Of this group at least ten are still living and six are still members of the Association. When one reviews this list in the light of present-day psychology it seems a very heterogeneous collection indeed, containing psychologists, educators, philosophers and physicians. Under the present standards, it is doubtful if more than 20 of the original thirty-one members could today be elected to full membership in the Association. The other eleven would have to be content with Associateship although all of these would most certainly be elected today to this lower grade. This heterogeneity of the original membership is evident when it is pointed out that only eleven of the original thirty-one members were ever elected to the Presidency of the Association and that, of this eleven, all seven of the Organizing Committee were elected and only four others among the remaining twenty-four. Indeed the author has thought it worth while to add, in some cases, the name of the institution from which the individual was elected so that, in this present day, the list would not be a mere collection of relatively unknown names.
One other fact is worth recording with regard to this preliminary Meeting. All of the business was apparently completed during the morning and the afternoon was given up to a scientific program at which papers were read by Jastrow, Sanford, Bryan, Nichols, Krohn, and Gilman.
It may be pointed out that it is possible to write history in either [p. 5] of two ways: by giving the facts and interpretations chronologically or by developing certain well-defined movements independently. The materials for this history are so heterogeneous that the chronological treatment seems unwise and hence the development by topics will be followed.
Growth of Membership. From the very modest beginning of 31 members in 1892, the membership has increased to 530 in 1930. The growth curve is given in Figure I.
It is curious how nearly a [p. 6] straight line this curve turns out to be when plotted on the present scale. This curve represents the active membership, i.e., the active membership for any year plus the newly elected members and minus the resignations and deaths for that year. There is no record that any member was ever expelled from the Association for any reason other than the non-payment of dues and this has always been considered as a form of resignation rather than expulsion. It is of interest to note that since 1927 the curve for members has come to a standstill, the number of members elected in any one year just about offsetting the resignations and deaths. It will be noted that this change occurs the year following the establishment of the Associate grade in 1926. On this same chart will be found the curve of growth of the number of Associates which rises very rapidly and which, if extrapolated would reach infinity.
In Figure II will be found two curves, that to the left of the [p. 7] number of Members elected each year and that to the right of the number of Associates elected. It will be observed that the two curves are drawn to very different scales. The curve for Associates may be readily dismissed. During these years the curve rises rapidly but now seems to have reached approximately its maximum. The average number of Associates elected in each of the five years is 124.
The course of the curve for the number of Members elected each year is not so readily dismissed. When one discounts the 31 members elected at the preliminary meeting, the curve at first stays at a dead level and reaches a low point at 1900 with only 4 new Members elected. Then it gradually rises in an irregular fashion until in 1926 a total of 38 Members were elected in a single year. This is the year of the formation of the Associate grade and from then on a decrease is to be noted until in 1929 the second low of only 6 new Members is recorded. The year 1910 seems to be a turning point. Up to this year (and disregarding the initial election of 31, the total average of 18 new members per year was reached only three times. Since 1910 (and disregarding the last two years) there are only four times that the average has not been reached or exceeded. It is possible to account for certain maxima in the curve such as the election in 1916 and 1917 of 32 and 33 new Members respectively. This was due to a slight letting down of the requirements for election at the war period. The irregularity of the curve, which is one of its marked characteristics, is undoubtedly due, especially during the last several years, to differences in the attitude of the Council toward qualifications for election. And it will be noted that every maximum, which is slowly built up over a period of several years, is followed by a considerable drop as the Council formulates new criteria for Membership or reinterprets the old criteria.
Of the grand total of 725 members elected to the Association since 1892, 530, or over 73 per cent, retained their membership in 1930. Considering the number of deaths, which could not be ascertained without great labor, the number of resignations would seem to be small for an organization of this sort. Of the total of 622 Associates elected since 1925, a total of 571 remain in the Association, giving a remarkable percentage of almost 92 retaining Associateship. And this percentage is even greater when one considers that of the difference of 51 Associates, a large proportion have been advanced to Membership and are, therefore, still within the Association.
Method of Election and Criteria of Membership. The first mention of membership appears in a tentative ad interim constitution [p. 8] adopted at the first annual meeting (1892) which reads: "The right of nomination for membership is reserved to the Council, the election to be made by the Association." In the first constitution adopted at the third annual meeting (1894) no specific Article is concerned with membership. But, in Article II, which provides for a Council of six members with the President ex-officio, we find as one of its duties that they "shall nominate new members" and also that "the resolutions of the Council shall be brought before the Association and decided by a majority vote." In spite of changes in the constitution with regard to the election of members, the right to nominate (which implies the investigation of the qualifications of) new members has remained with the Council. Any laws which have been formulated with regard to qualifications for membership have therefore been for the guidance and instruction of the Council. At no time is there any evidence that any business meeting of the Association failed to approve nominations of new members made by the Council.
But, from time to time, the Association has wanted to know something of the basis for nomination by the Council. As early as 1896, one finds that Witmer proposed that "all names nominated by the Council, shall be presented to the Association at its opening meeting in written form or visibly displayed upon a blackboard, together with a statement of the contribution or contributions to psychology, in virtue of which the persons named are eligible to Membership, and that the final action upon such names shall be taken by the Association at the final business meeting." For a great many years this principle continued and has gradually gone out of use within the last half dozen years.
Up to this time no definite qualifications for membership are recorded. Perhaps because of Witmer's motion the previous year, it was voted in 1897 "that nomination blanks be provided by the Secretary with spaces for the name, official position and publications of the candidate and the names of two proposers, members of the Association; such blanks to be filled in and sent to the Secretary before the meeting and to be read before the Association when the name of such candidate comes up for election." This motion went a long way toward standardization of qualifications for membership and it emphasized the official position and publications of the candidate. It furthermore provided for the sponsorship of two members to the Council.
Apparently this method was continued until 1906 at which time a maximum of twenty-two members were elected. This number [p. 9] seemed so great, apparently, that the Council decided in the future to define the qualifications and make them more difficult. This was accomplished in 1906 by a formal announcement of the Council to the Association of the principles which guided them in nominating or declining to nominate individuals proposed for Membership. "The Constitution reads that those are eligible for membership who are engaged in 'the advancement of Psychology as Science.' In interpreting the Constitution the Council has, historically and consistently, recognized two sorts of qualifications for Membership: professional occupation in psychology and research. The Council now adheres to a somewhat strict interpretation of the former of these qualifications so that, in the absence of research, positions held in related branches, such as philosophy and education, or temporary positions, such as assistantships in psychology, are not regarded as qualifying a candidate for membership." And this decision was immediately followed by a decrease in the number of candidates elected annually so that recovery to the former maximum in 1905 was not made for six years.
This statement implies two things, of course. Up until now there were elected almost any respectable person who desired membership, men in junior academic positions and presumably without the Ph.D. degree, and more mature men in other fields, such as philosophy and education, who, however, were interested enough in psychology as a side line to be willing to join and pay dues. But once the membership had increased to over 200, the need for these was no longer felt and more homogeneity was desired. This declaration of qualifications had the function of henceforth making eligible for election only individuals who were primarily and professionally interested in psychology and who were sufficiently well placed academically so that there was reasonable assurance that their interest would be permanent.
By 1911 a new maximum had been reached for the number of elections in any one year and again the Council attempted a measure to cut down the numbers. One finds the report that "The Council having for some years back experienced frequent difficulty in securing adequate information regarding applicants for membership in the Association, made public the following announcement: The Council requests that all recommendations for membership in the Association be submitted to the Secretary at least one month in advance of the time of election, and that these recommendations be accompanied by a statement of the candidate's professional position and by copies of his published researches." It would appear that the Council was now [p. 10] taking its job even more seriously and, in possibly doubtful cases, was actually examining the printed research of the candidate rather than merely considering the titles. Also this method enabled the Secretary to gather additional information prior to the annual meeting by writing back to the proposers. This method, which puts upon the Secretary the burden of obtaining adequate information, has been continued up until the present time. By laying greater emphasis upon publication and by forcing the proposal of a nomination more than a month before election, the Council succeeded in again decreasing the number of successful proposals for a period of four years.
In 1915, at the end of this low period, Judd questioned the "Council's interpretation of a statement regarding requirements of candidates for admission to membership in the Association and moved that it be the sense of the Association that the statement appended to Article I of the Constitution defining 'temporary positions' should be interpreted to include under this head the position of instructor." The motion was carried and we see, for the first time, the Association as a whole, rather than the Council, initiating a definition of qualifications for membership. This motion defines an instructorship as a temporary position and hence, for a younger man, throws still greater emphasis on the question of publication. But this motion which might have had the effect of greatly decreasing the number of candidates elected had its effect largely annulled by the lowering of admission during the war period.
In the next year (1916) the Council again initiates a move for greater standardization as follows: "A proposal for membership, signed by at least two members of the Association, must be submitted to the Secretary, for the Council at least one month in advance of the annual meeting. The proposal must be accompanied by (1) a statement of the candidate's professional position and degrees, naming the institutions by which and the dates when, conferred, and (2) by copies of his published researches. In the absence of acceptable publications of a psychological character, or a permanent position in psychology, the conditions of membership will not be regarded as having been fulfilled." This announcement merely still further defined Judd's motion of the year before and for the first time specifically mentions academic degrees.
In the same year (1916) the Council also announced that "Proposals to membership that are unfavorably acted upon by the Council must be renewed for action at a subsequent meeting." Apparently up to this time the Council would hold over some cases to be con- [p. 11] sidered some later year, thus giving the candidate a chance to fulfil the qualifications without the formality of renomination. The Council now throws the burden of renomination back upon the proposers.
Except for the minimum number of members elected in 1918, due to the second war year, these attempts at raising the standards for membership failed to decrease the number of acceptable candidates until 1920. In this year it was voted "that a committee of three, including the Secretary, be appointed by the President to revise the requirements for membership and to report at the next annual meeting of the Association." Boring was appointed chairman with Dunlap and Terman as the committee. It was also proposed and voted that this be referred to the new Committee, that foreign members be not elected to active membership but "that distinguished psychologists in foreign countries be elected, upon recommendation of the Council, corresponding members of the Association and that such corresponding members be not subject to the payment of dues."
In 1921 this committee reported and the report was adopted by the Association in part only. The committee recommended two grades of membership, Members and Fellows. The recommendation was for the creation of 100 Fellows within the membership of the Association and asked for a new committee to consider the mode of election of these Fellows, their qualifications, functions, etc. This part of the report was laid on the table from which it has never been taken. Another section had to do with the committee's report regarding foreign membership. The committee does not recommend the creation of this new class of foreign members. This section of the report was ordered filed.
But the first part of the report, which was adopted and became law, more fully and clearly defines qualifications for membership. In a preamble the committee states: "The Committee believes further that the qualifications should be formulated in accordance with the object of the Association, 'the advancement of psychology as a science' as stated in the Constitution; and they believe that this end will be most readily secured by placing emphasis upon scientific publication. They believe further that the time has come to abandon professional position or title as a basis for election on account of the reason that the multiplication of special positions, especially in non-academic fields of psychology, makes the interpretation of the significance of position impracticable."
In order to enforce this point of view, the Association adopted the Committee's specific recommendations for qualifications for member- [p. 12] ship which were "(1) acceptable published research of a psychological character and (2) of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, based in part on a psychological dissertation." The question of the degree may be waived by the Council in special cases providing it states its reasons when making the nomination. And further "(3) it is also expected that the Council shall assure itself that the nominee is actively engaged in psychological work at the time of the nomination." At the same time, the Council adopted a new form of nomination blank for more readily administering these new provisions. This consisted of an information blank to be filled out by the candidate and nominating sheets to be filled out by the proposers.
This change is highly significant inasmuch as it shifts the emphasis from academic or professional position to training and research contribution. And certainly this makes the qualifications for election considerably higher than they had formerly been. The result was a decrease in the number of candidates elected over a period of five years so that the 1920 maximum was not again reached until the banner year of 1926.
This depression was still further increased in 1924 because at the meeting the year before it was decided that nominations must be made "not later than March 15th of the year in which the nomination is to be first acted upon." This action was necessary for the administration of a new method formulated by the Council by which the Secretary forwarded transcripts of all nominations to all of the members of the Council for their mature consideration during the summer and autumn. The Council is now indeed taking its job seriously! This same year (1923) it was voted that the Council shall have power to defer action upon such proposals for membership as it deems necessary providing, however, that the third annual meeting after the original receipt of the nomination papers, it must decide either to present or not to present the candidate's name to the Association. A proposal for membership cannot be renewed until two years have elapsed after the Council's action upon it." This is evidence that the Council found certain applications for membership which did not comply with the present qualifications, usually with regard to publication, but which, in the opinion of the Council, would mature within the extra two-year period. And the Council, in these cases, did not care either to reject the nomination entirely or throw the necessity for nomination back on the proposers.
In 1923, on the recommendation of the Council, it was voted that a committee of three be appointed "to consider the advisability of [p. 13] the establishment of an 'associate' grade of membership and to report to the 1924 meeting with recommendations." Boring was appointed chairman of this committee with F. L. Wells and Hunter. The report, which was a lengthy one, was presented in 1924 and printed in the Proceedings. The committee "are unanimous in the opinion that the purposes of the Association will be served by the creation of a class of Associates" because the growth of psychology has "created distinct groups of persons engaged in psychological work of a scientific character at less "advanced levels" so that the fundamental requirements of membership can no longer be met by this group.
Hence the Committee proposes a class of Associates eligible under the following qualifications: "(1) any person devoting full time to work that is primarily psychological; (2) any person with the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, based in part upon a psychological dissertation and conferred by a graduate school of recognized standing, or (3) scientists, educators or distinguished persons, whom the Council may recommend for sufficient reason."
The committee then further recommends certain methods of application of the change. The application for Associateship may be made by the candidate rather than by two proposers as for Membership. But two endorsers must be specified by the applicant with whom the Council may (and always did) communicate. The application must be received by October 1 instead of March 15 as for Members. The Council is to consider all applications for Associateship and recommend to the Association which elects. The Associates are to have the right of the floor at the annual meetings and the right to participate in the programs but are not entitled to hold office or to vote. Upon the recommendation of the Council and by the majority vote of the annual meeting an Associateship may be terminated.
The Council and the meeting did little in the way of changing this report. The Council added the word "work" to the phrase "professional work of a psychological character" and the meeting deleted the phrase that Associates "shall have the right of the floor at annual meetings." The necessary by-laws and constitutional changes were passed for the first time in 1924 and received the necessary second passage in 1925. Immediately and at the same meeting these changes in the by-laws became effective by the election of forty-five Associates.
In the administration of these changes one fact is worth noticing which does not appear in the Proceedings. Within a few years the number of applications became so great that the elected members of [p. 14] the Council divided themselves into two sub-committees of three each and each of these two sub-committees considered and recommended to the full Council on only half of the applications. It will be observed in Figure II that with the increase of the number of Associates elected there was a corresponding decrease in the number of members elected in any one year.
In 1925 it was voted, by the Council, that there should be a committee of three (J. E. Anderson, Chairman, E. S. Robinson and Pintner) to consider the relationship between nominations for Associateship and Membership. The committee reported in 1926 to the Council, who had initiated their action, and the Council in turn submitted their report to the Association. The committee found that "no mechanism exists at the present time by means of which Associates can become Members save through a repetition of the entire procedure required of individuals not connected with the Association in any way" and that, under these conditions, nomination of Associates for Membership becomes largely a chance affair. They also point out that the differences in the times of nominations for Members and Associates undoubtedly causes confusion. The committee suggests a form by means of which Associates may apply for Membership. This is to be accomplished by having all Associates asked each year if they care to make application for Membership. The committee also suggested a similar form of application blank for both grades. The changes were passed in 1927 on its second reading. This change had the effect of still further raising the qualifications for Membership by defining a policy of the Council demanding at least two publications beyond the doctorate thesis. It makes the date of application for both grades uniform with a closing on March 15th.
The Council in 1927 were willing to recommend only a relatively few Associates for Membership inasmuch as they were not willing to construe graduate work as "devoting full time to professional work in psychology." Hence in this year a change was made in the by-laws which changed this qualification to read "who have had at least one full year of graduate work in psychology in a recognized graduate school or who at the time of application are devoting full time to professional or graduate work in psychology."
This had the effect of letting in the graduate students, of increasing the number of successful applications for Associateship to over 200 in the next year. This number involved so much labor on the part of the office of the Secretary in transcribing the blanks for consideration of the Council members and on the part of the Council [p. 15] members in considering them, that in 1928 a new mechanism for handling nominations was approved by the Council. According to this new method, which is still in practice, the Secretary first reviews each nomination. For those cases where there is no question that the candidate is eligible for Associateship but not for Membership (and this includes the great majority of the cases) the Secretary himself approves the nomination and writes to so inform the candidate, telling him that if he objects to this ruling and insists upon being considered for Membership, that his case will be presented to the Council. For all other cases, those who seem to be eligible for Membership and those whom the Secretary considers are not qualified for Associateship, the former method of submitting transcripts for the consideration of the Council is followed.
Summary. The development of membership in the American Psychological Association, then, has been a conflict of two forces working against each other -- increased pressure and desire for membership held in check by ever increasingly difficult qualifications for election. These qualifications have increased to the point that today they are higher than those for any other elective (not honorary) scientific society in America. In recent years it had become obvious that the qualifications for Membership were so high that a great many people who should properly be in the Association could not be elected. The first suggestion of two grades was the formulation of a grade of Fellows with even higher qualifications and limited in number and a lower grade of Members for whom, presumably, the qualifications might have been lowered. This suggestion was rejected by the Association, but the general suggestion of two grades actually developed into slightly raising the qualifications for Membership and creating a lower grade of Associateship with considerably less rigorous qualifications for election. The development of this Associate grade cannot entirely be divorced from the Association's acquisition of a group of psychological journals as will appear later.
Certain financial facts are made evident by three figures. In Figure III will be found the total income for each year. This curve rises slowly from 1892 until 1904. It then drops and slowly rises again until 1920; again it rises in 1924 with a very rapid rise in 1927. Each of these fluctuations is dependent upon an increase or decrease in the dues. At the time of the founding of the Association in 1892 the dues were set at $3 per year. In 1902 it was recommended that the dues be reduced to $1 per year and this became effective in 1904. [p. 16] Apparently this proved to be too great a reduction as two years later (1906) a recommendation of the Council that the dues be increased to $2 was referred back to the Council.
In fact the increase to annual dues of $2 was not again suggested until 1917 and was not finally voted until 1919. In 1923 it was voted to increase the dues to $5 per year and the rule was also passed that non-payment for two consecutive years be equivalent to resignation. In 1925 the Association purchased the journals of the Psychological Review Company [p. 17] for which it agreed to pay off the notes yearly and, at the same time, it was considering starting the Psychological Abstracts. Both of these matters presented problems of finance which must be taken care of by increased dues. At the same time the Associate grade was confirmed. It was decided that $3 of the dues of both Members and Associates be earmarked for the Psychological Abstracts and that the dues for Members be increased to $10 per year and those for Associates be set at $6. In this year (1925) the journals of the Psychological Review Company were purchased but it was decided to postpone the appearance of the Psychological Abstracts for one year. Hence this year the $3 for the Abstracts were temporarily removed and the dues set at $7 for Members and $3 for Associates. The complete $10 and $6 scale became effective in 1926 and, at the same time, dues were made payable on the November 1st preceding in order to take care of the subscriptions to the Psychological Abstracts, the year which began on January 1.
Hence all of these fluctuations in the curve of income may be explained by the changes in the dues which have always been the chief or even the sole source of income for the Association. The increase in the number of Members and Associates must also be considered, of course. This chart, even more than those of the growth of membership, gives meaning to the statement in the introduction, that the Association had a very modest beginning and more recently has gone into "big business."
In Figure IV will be found the curves of yearly expenditures. With the exception of certain irregularities this curve rises at first slowly and then more and more rapidly. One of the chief individual expenditures has been that of a stipend to the Secretary. The development of this stipend is not without interest. Up to 1905, the Secretary was allowed whatever he spent for postage and stationery only. In 1905 Thorndike proposed that the "Council be authorized at its discretion, to allow the Secretary traveling and other expenses incident to the arrangement of the program and the preparations for the meetings." In 1913, when the membership was almost 300, the Secretary-Treasurer was voted a stipend of $250 a year for traveling and secretarial expenses. In 1921, when the offices of Secretary and Treasurer were separated, the stipend of the Secretary was continued at $250 and the new Treasurer was given a stipend of $50. In 1922, when the membership has increased to over 450, a stipend of $500 was voted to the Secretary and it was voted at the same time that it was the "sense of the Association that the stipend of the Secretary [p. 18] should be increased to $1,200 whenever funds were available." This was considered a sum necessary to provide adequate clerical assistance to the Secretary and it was considered proper that, when there was no Association business that the Secretary "should have the use of the stenographer for his personal services in order that he may be freed for the scientific work upon which his duties as Secretary would otherwise encroach." In accordance with this policy, the stipend of the Secretary was increased to $750 in 1923 and to $1,000 in 1926, and that of the Treasurer to $100 in 1924.
A comparison of the curves in Figures III and IV indicates that the amount of income and expenditure seldom coincide. In some years the income was greater than the expenses and in other years the reverse relation holds. These relations become evident in the curve in Figure V which gives the balance on hand at the end of each year. This curve starts very low and rises to a maximum of over $3,000 in 1909; indicating that for these years the receipts were greater than the expenditures. From 1910 to 1925 the curve drops at first slowly and then more rapidly, indicating greater expenditures than receipts. From 1923 there have again been greater receipts than expenditures indicated by a rising curve, which rises very rapidly since 1926.[p. 19]
Certain legislative actions are of interest in connection with the Association's balance on hand. In 1905, when the Association found itself with a balance of over $2,600, the meeting instructed the "new Council to consider the whole question of the guardianship and utilization of the Association's accumulated fund."
Although instructed to report at the next meeting, we find in 1906 that no plan had been devised and that the Council merely reported progress. At the 1907 meeting the Council reported, and it was adopted, that a [p. 20] fund of $2,646.74 "be left in the Union Dime Savings Institution of New York; to be drawn upon in future only by direction of the Association at one of its annual meetings." It was reported that the Council could indicate "at present no special activity of the Association for the utilization of this fund." This, which became known as the Permanent Fund, was banked at a different institution from the current funds. It was conceived as a nest egg which might be used for some specific purpose as yet undetermined but which could be expended only by vote of the Association as a whole. Although the principal could be expended only by vote of the Association, provision was made for the Council to have authority to withdraw accumulated interest by a three-fourths vote of the Council to meet any yearly deficit.
The fund remained intact until 1914 when the Association found itself faced by a deficit. The reluctance to touch the Permanent Fund is indicated by a proposal that instead of $1 annual dues, there should be an annual per capita assessment to meet a prepared budget. This motion was lost and $100 was withdrawn from the principal funds.
From this year on the Treasurer has always presented a budget which, in every case, was generous enough to more than cover the actual expenditures. And with the exceptions of 1920 and 1923, the acceptance of the budget has involved the authorization of the withdrawal of sums from the Permanent Fund until that fund was discontinued in 1924. In no case was the sum actually withdrawn as great as that authorized. The fund was slowly cut down. In 1924 the sum of $500 was withdrawn from the Permanent Fund to make payment to Professor Warren for the journals of the Psychological Review Company. At this same meeting it was voted to withdraw the remainder of the principal fund, to place this money in the current funds and to delete the by-law which dealt with the administration of the Permanent Fund.
It will be noted that the dues were kept down so long as there were moneys in the Permanent Fund to meet administrative deficits. The dues remained at $1 until 1919 when they were raised to $2 in order to meet expenses which were increasing at a rate which made it obvious that the Fund would otherwise soon be exhausted. The increase of dues to $5, passed in 1923, was necessitated for payment of the journals purchased from Warren.
The rapid increase of the size of the balance on hand since 1926 is the result of a definite policy on the part of the Council and of the Association to build up a new and large reserve to protect its journals [p. 21] and especially to protect and aid in continuing the Psychological Abstracts when the present subvention for this purpose has run out.
One other fact with regard to finances is worth noting. In 1929 it was voted that a committee of three consisting of the Secretary, the Treasurer and the Business Editor of the Psychological Review Company consider plans for the "more effective management" and the reorganization of the business affairs of the Association. Whether or not this committee decides to combine all of the business functions of the Association in a single office under the charge of an employed Executive Secretary at the present time, one cannot predict. If this committee does not make such a recommendation and if the present trends continue, such an arrangement is bound to occur in the near future. The reasons for this are obvious, the present load on the three executives, the Secretary, the Treasurer and the Business Editor, is too great and too exacting for anyone whose primary interest is psychology and who is doing this Association administrative work as a side line. Very few of the Association members realize how much time and energy has gone into these three administrative positions in recent years and what important contributions to the Association and to psychology in America their occupants have made.
It may seem like putting the horse behind the cart to present a discussion of the constitution at the present place rather than at the beginning of the history. This was done because the constitution can be better understood with the consideration of membership and of finances in mind. One important series of changes, those of the qualifications for membership, has already been discussed.
No constitution was presented for adoption at the first meeting in 1892 but "for the guidance of the Council" (!) it was decided: (1) that the name should be the American Psychological Association; (2) that the government be vested in a Council of seven or more members; (3) that one of the Council be designated as Chairman and another as Secretary; (4) that these with a member from the next place of meeting be an Executive Committee. It was further noted that only one representative from any institution was to have a seat on the Council. (5) That the right of nomination of members be with the Council with election by the Association; (6) that the dues be $3 per year, and (7) that a President, Vice-President, and Secretary-Treasurer be elected annually.
It is possible that the Association expected the first Council to [p. 22] prepare a constitution and gave them these instructions to that end. If so, the Council was delinquent and no such document was presented at the second meeting in 1893. But at this meeting a committee of three consisting of the President (James), the Secretary (Cattell) and J. M. Baldwin was elected to draw up a constitution to be submitted in 1894. This constitution was approved in 1894 apparently without change as submitted. It seems worth while to preserve in the present place the complete first constitution of the Association as adopted in 1894.
CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Art I. Object. -- The object of the Association is the advancement of Psychology as a science. Those are eligible for membership who are engaged in this work.
Art. II. The Council.-- A Council shall be elected from the members of the Association as an executive. The Council shall consist of six members, two being elected annually for a term of three years. The President shall be ex-officio member of the Council. The Council shall nominate officers for the Association, shall nominate new members and shall make other recommendations concerning the conduct of the Association. The resolutions of the Council shall be brought before the Association and decided by a majority vote.
Art. III. Officers. -- There shall be annually nominated by the Council and elected by the Association a President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer, who shall perform the usual duties of these offices.
Art. IV. Annual Subscription. -- The annual subscription shall be $3 in advance. Non-payment of dues for two consecutive years shall be considered as equivalent to resignation from the Association.
Art. V. Executive Committee. -- The President, the Secretary and a member from the place where the meeting is held, shall be a committee to make necessary arrangements for the annual meeting.
Art. VI. Proceedings. -- Such proceedings shall be printed by the Secretary as the Association may direct.
Art. VII. Amendments. -- Amendments to the Constitution must be adopted by a majority vote at two consecutive annual meetings.
This first constitution places the executive power definitely in the hands of the Council. The President is without more executive power than any other member of the Council and the Secretary is not even a member of that governing body. It may be noted that at this same meeting in 1894, although Article III particularly specifies two officers as Secretary and Treasurer, that the Association established the precedent of electing Sanford to the dual office.
The first major change in this constitution occurred by suggestion made in 1897 and passed in 1898, that the Secretary be elected for a [p. 23] term of three years (in an effort to obtain greater continuity of that office) and that he be an ex-officio member of the Council.
In 1903 the Council was "empowered to fill vacancies in office which might arise during the year." Only two such occasions have arisen. In 1907 during the illness of W. H. Davis, Woodworth was appointed Assistant Secretary and Treasurer to fill out the year. Indeed, as a result of this situation an addition was made to the Constitution stating that "in case of the death, disability or resignation of either of these officers, the Council shall appoint a successor to serve until the next annual meeting of the Association." In 1924 Hall died between the time of his election as President and the time of the annual meeting. On this occasion the Council refused to exercise its prerogative and allowed the Presidency to remain vacant until the next election.
In 1906 the Council made a drastic recommendation worded that "by unanimous vote the Council may drop any member of the Association who has not been engaged in the advancement of psychology for a period of five or more years." The reasons for this recommendation are not clear but one suspects that it was an effort to clean out certain individuals rather than to get rid of certain classes of members. Certainly the scheme could not have been adequately or harmoniously administered. In any case, this suggestion was referred back to the Council from which it has never reëmerged.
In 1920 a separate Treasurership was suggested and made law in 1921. The Treasurer was elected for a three-year term and became an ex-officio member of the Council. It was provided that he was to be nominated by the Council and elected by the Association. This change had merely the purpose of lightening the work of the Secretary's office which had already become excessive.
Up to 1920 there had been relatively few changes in the Constitution but there had been a number of motions passed by annual business meetings which had to do with the administration of the affairs of the Association. In 1920 the Council suggests "the adoption of a set of by-laws which embody the various actions of the Association since its organization." It was voted that these proposed by-laws be printed in the Year Book so that they might receive more mature consideration and that they be voted on at the next meeting. Hence in 1921 the Association adopted 13 by-laws. These by-laws covered a great variety of subjects, as follows: 1 and 2, method for Election Committee; 3, 4 and 5, qualifications for membership and election of members; 6 and 7, Local and Clinical Sections; 8 and 9, Program [p. 24] Committee and programs; 10 and 11, Year Book data and Proceedings; 12, Permanent Fund, and 13, Secretary's stipend.
It is interesting to note that in 1928 because of the cancelling of the 1929 meeting in favor of the International Congress of Psychology at New Haven, it was voted that those "portions of the by-laws relative to the annual meeting be suspended for 1929 and that the Council be empowered to proceed with the election of new Members and Associates; the passing of the budget for 1930, arrangements for the 1930 meeting, the receiving of reports of committees and other routine business."
One major constitutional development which resulted in the incorporation of the Association was occasioned by the Association considering the purchase of the group of journals of the Psychological Review Company. The incorporation became necessary, if the Association entered the publishing business, to relieve the individual members of financial responsibility and to have that responsibility vested in the corporate body.
In 1922 the "Council recommended the appointment of a committee of three to consider ways and means of incorporation of the Association and that the committee be authorized to proceed with national incorporation if such a course seemed advisable to the committee." A motion to strike out the second half of the sentence and to substitute a clause "requiring the Committee to report back to the Council and giving the Council power to take any action desirable" was lost. The original recommendation was then passed and the following committee appointed: Cattell, Chairman; Dunlap and Yoakum.
In 1923 this committee reported that the obtaining of national incorporation seemed to be impossible. The committee was then "instructed to proceed with the incorporation in the District of Columbia, reporting for the Council's approval, the proposed draft of the charter." The actual incorporation was completed on January 2, 1925, with W. C. Reudiger, T. W. Brockbank and J. E. Anderson as the incorporators. It seems worth while to preserve the Certificate of Incorporation in this place. The legal acknowledgments have been omitted. The certificate was recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds in the District of Columbia on January 9, 1925.
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
Know all men by these presents, that we, the undersigned, all citizens of the United States, a majority of whom are citizens of the District of Columbia, desiring to associate ourselves for scientific purposes under sub-chapter three [p. 25] (III) of the incorporation laws of the District of Columbia, as provided in the Code of Law of the District of Columbia, enacted by Congress and approved by the President of the United States, do hereby certify:
First: That the name by which this society shall be known in law shall be American Psychological Association.
Second: That the term for which it is organized shall be perpetual.
Third: That the object of this Society shall be to advance psychology as a science;
[SEAL] And the particular business of this society shall be to hold meetings for the presentation of scientific papers, to issue publications containing scientific papers and other material pertinent or necessary to the furtherance of the society's object; and in general to do and to perform every lawful act and thing necessary or expedient to be done or performed for the furtherance of the society's object as authorized by the laws of Congress, and to have and to exercise all the powers conferred by the laws of the District of Columbia upon corporations under said sub-chapter (III) of the incorporation laws of the District of Columbia.
Fourth: That the number of directors for the first year of existence of this society as thus incorporated shall be nine (9).
This society reserves the right to amend, alter, or change any provision contained in this Certificate of Incorporation in any manner prescribed by statute, and all rights conferred on members herein are granted subject to this reservation.
In witness whereof, we have hereunto affixed our signatures and seals, this second day of January, A.D. 1925.
T. W. BROCKBANK [SEAL]
JOHN E. ANDERSON [SEAL]
These three individuals acted as incorporators inasmuch as it was necessary for the majority of the incorporators to live in Washington, D.C. A meeting of the three incorporators was held in Washington, D. C., on March 14, 1925, at which time the seal indicated below was adopted as the common seal, the by-laws were adopted, the election to full membership "in the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, of all those persons now listed in the records of the Secretary as Members of the American Psychological Association, an unincorporated society, the election of the officers and Council and the transfer of the property of the unincorporated to the corporate Association." Thus was the legal transfer completed.
It was found upon incorporation that the then existing Constitution and By-Laws were inadequate for the government of a corporation. In order to meet this situation, therefore, the old constitution and by-laws were thrown into a single series of by-laws with certain necessary additional provisions which had to do primarily with the specification of the duties of officers. The really major [p. 26] change has to do with amendments. Until now these could be made by a majority vote of the members at two successive annual meetings. This was changed so that amendments could be made by a two-thirds vote at any single annual meeting. The purpose of this was to enable the Association to change any provision of the by-laws at the 1925 meeting when they were adopted. Actually the new by-laws were adopted without change.
It seems worth while to preserve this set of by-laws and to indicate the relatively few changes made in them up to the present time rather than to print again the present set of by-laws. The by-laws accepted in 1925 were as follows:
1. The Association shall consist of two classes of persons; first, Members, and second, Associates.
2. Members of the Association shall be persons who are primarily engaged in the advancement of Psychology as a science. Members shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of the Association without restriction.
3. Associates shall be such other persons as are interested in the advancement of Psychology as a science and who desire affiliation with the Association for this reason. An Associate shall be entitled to receive such printed matter and to participate in such scientific meetings as the Association may direct. An Associate shall not be entitled to vote, or to hold office or to any other privileges of Membership except those specifically provided for. An Associateship may be terminated at any time by a
majority vote of the Members at any Annual Meeting upon recommendation of the Council of Directors after investigation.
4. Members and Associates shall be elected by a majority vote of the Members present at any Annual Meeting, upon nomination by the Council of Directors of the Association.
5. An application for Membership must be endorsed by at least two Members of the Association, and must be submitted to the Secretary, for the Council of Directors, not later than March 15th of the year in which it is to be first acted upon. The nomination must contain such information concerning the nominee's academic and professional history as shall be prescribed by the Council, and, except for special reasons stated in the nomination, no nomination that is unaccompanied by copies of the nominee's published research shall be considered by the Council. The conditions for Membership shall not be considered as having been fulfilled in the absence of (1) acceptable published research of a psychological character beyond the doctorate dissertation and (2) of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, based in part upon a psychological dissertation. The Council of Directors is empowered, however, in special cases to waive the requirement of the degree, provided it so states in recommending the nominee to the Association and presents its reasons for the exception. It is also expected that the Council of Directors shall assure itself that the nominee is actively engaged in psychological work at the time of the nomination. [p. 27]
6. The Council of Directors shall have power to defer action upon such proposals for Membership as it deem necessary, providing, however, that by the third Annual Meeting after the original receipt of the nomination papers, it must decide either to present or not to present the nominee's name to the Association. A proposal for Membership cannot be renewed until two years have elapsed after the Council's action upon it.
7. All names nominated by the Council of Directors for Membership and Associateship shall be presented to the Association at its opening session in written form, or visibly displayed together with a statement of the contribution or contributions to psychology in virtue of which the persons named are eligible to Membership; and action upon such names shall be taken by the Association at its annual business meeting. Election to Membership and Associateship shall not be effective unless the initial dues are paid within three months after the action of the Association.
8. Associates shall be elected by the Members after application to the Secretary of the Association. This application shall be made before October first of the year in which it is to be first acted upon and shall contain such information concerning the applicant's professional history as shall be prescribed by the Council of Directors and shall further be supported by the separate endorsements of two Members of the Association in such form as shall be prescribed by the Council of Directors. Associates shall be persons devoting full time to professional work that is primarily psychological, or be persons with the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, based in part upon a psychological dissertation and conferred by a graduate school of recognized standing, or be scientists, educators or other distinguished persons whom the Council of Directors may recommend from sufficient reason. All applications for Associateship shall be reviewed by the Council of Directors, which shall make recommendations to the Annual Meeting which elects.
1. The annual meeting of the Members of the Association shall be held during the last week in December of each year on a date and at a place determined by a majority vote of the Members of the Association present at the previous Annual Meeting.
2. Special meetings of the Members of the Association shall be held at any time upon the call of the Council of Directors or upon the call of one-fifth of the Members of the Association. The Council of Directors shall determine the time and place of such a Special Meeting.
3. Notice of meetings, in writing, for every annual or special meeting of the Members of the Association shall be prepared and mailed to the last known postoffice address of each Member not less than fifteen days before any such meeting, and if for a special meeting, such notice shall state the object or objects thereof, and no business shall be transacted except that stated in the notice for said special meeting.
4. A quorum at any meeting of the Members of the Association shall consist of not less than fifty Members in good standing. [p. 28]
COUNCIL OF DIRECTORS
1. There shall be a Council of Directors, which shall consist of the President, the Secretary, the Treasurer and six other Members of the Association elected by the Association for terms of three years as provided in Section 3 of this article. All officers of the Association, including the Directors, shall serve until the election and acceptance of their successors.
2. Meetings of the Council of Directors may be held at any time on the call of the President or the Secretary. A quorum at any meeting shall consist of a majority of the entire membership of the Council of Directors.
3. Two Directors shall be elected annually by the Association to fill the vacancies on the Council of Directors left by those Directors whose terms have expired; a nominating ballot and an election ballot being successively cast by mail under the supervision of the Election Committee, as provided in Article VI of these By-Laws. Election shall be by plurality in the election ballot, or, in case of a tie, by a majority vote of the Members present at the Annual Meeting.
4. The Council of Directors shall exercise general supervision of the affairs of the Association, shall nominate new Members and Associates and shall make recommendations concerning the conduct of the Association which shall be brought before the Members of the Association at any duly constituted meeting and decided by a majority vote of the Members present at such meeting. The Council of Directors shall have the power to make such contracts and to provide for the delivery of such deeds, documents, and instruments as shall be necessary for the carrying out of all purposes, functions and other business of the Association as shall be authorized by vote of the Members of the Association at any duly constituted meeting, or as may be elsewhere provided by these By-Laws. In general the Council of Directors shall perform such duties as are incident to their office, and such acts as may be properly required by vote of the Members of the Association at any duly constituted meeting.
5. The President of the Association shall be President ex officio of the Council of Directors, and the Secretary of the Association shall be Secretary ex officio of the Council of Directors.
The officers of the Association shall be: a President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer. They shall hold office until their successors are elected and accept office in their stead.
2. The President must be a Member of the Association and shall serve a term of one year. The Secretary and the Treasurer must be Members of the Association and shall serve for terms of three years each.
3. The President shall be elected annually by the Association, a nominating and an election ballot being successively cast under the supervision of the Election Committee as provided in Article VI of these by-laws. Election shall be by a plurality in the election, or, in case of a tie, by a majority vote of the Members present at an annual meeting.
4. The Secretary and the Treasurer shall be elected by a majority vote of [p. 29] the Members present at an annual meeting, upon nomination by the Council of Directors.
5. It shall be the duty of the President to preside at all meetings of the Association, to act ex officio as President of the Council of Directors, to countersign all contracts and other instruments of the Association except checks, to exercise general supervision over the affairs of the Association and to perform all such other duties as are incident to his office or as may properly be required of him by vote of the Members or the Council of Directors at any duly constituted meeting.
6. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep the records of all meetings of the Association and of the Council of Directors in due form as prescribed by law; to have charge of the seal and corporate books; to file and hold subject to call and to direct the publication of such records, reports, and proceedings as are authorized by these By-Laws and by vote of the Members or the Council of Directors at any duly constituted meeting; to bring to the attention of the Council of Directors and the Association such matters as he deems necessary; to conduct the official correspondence of the Association and the Council; to have custody of the bonds which are required to be filed by the Treasurer and such other fiduciary employees as shall be required by the Association to file a bond, holding these bonds subject to the order and direction of the Association; to issue calls and notices of meetings; to assume and perform in case of the death or incapacity of the President the duties of the President of the Association until such time as a successor is elected or appointed; to sign such checks or other drafts upon the funds of the Association as may be necessary in case of the death or incapacity of the Treasurer and the Secretary is hereby authorized to sign such checks or drafts in such contingency; to execute, seal or deliver any contracts, deeds, instruments or other documents which he shall be required to execute, seal or deliver on behalf of the Association by the By-Laws, vote of the Members of the Association or the Council of Directors, and in general to perform all such other duties as are incident to his office or as
properly may be required of him by vote of the Members or the Council of Directors at any duly constituted meeting. In the absence of any specific provision of these By-Laws to the contrary, the Secretary shall have power and authority to represent the Association in the voting or other management of any stock held by the Association in any other corporation or company; and in the event that the performance of such acts by the Secretary becomes impossible or inadvisable, by virtue of law or otherwise, the Secretary shall have the power to appoint any Member of the Association to act as duly authorized agent of the
Association for the performance of said acts.
7. It shall be the duty of the Treasurer to have custody of all funds, deeds, stocks, securities and to deposit the same in the name of this Association in such bank or banks as the Association or Council of Directors may direct; to have custody of all other property of the Association not otherwise expressly provided for by these By-Laws and to hold same subject to the order and direction of the Association; to collect dues and other debts due the Association by all persons whatsoever; and to execute, seal or deliver any contracts, deeds, instruments or other documents which he shall be directed to execute, seal or deliver on behalf of the Association by the By-Laws, vote of the Members, or the Council of Directors. He shall have the authority to sign checks and drafts on [p. 30] behalf of the Association for the disbursement of funds for the duly authorized purposes of the Association as provided by the Constitution, By-Laws, vote of the Members of the Association or Council of Directors. He shall be bonded for an amount fixed by the Council of Directors, the bond to be filed with the Secretary of the Association. He shall, at all reasonable times, exhibit his books and accounts to any Member of the Association. He shall keep a full and complete record of all money received and all money paid out, and shall perform such other duties as may be reasonably required of him by the vote of the Members of the Association at a duly constituted meeting, or by the Council of Directors.
8. In case of the death, disability or resignation of any of these officers, the Council of Directors shall appoint a successor to serve until the next annual meeting of the Association. Vacancies existing at the time of an annual meeting shall be filled by vote of the Members at the meeting.
1. The corporate seal of this Association shall be
At least two months before the date set for the annual meeting, the Election Committee, constituted in accordance with the provisions of Article VII of these By-Laws, shall issue a call for a nominating ballot, which ballot it shall count forty days before the annual meeting, and shall thereupon report to all the Members the names receiving a large number of votes, including at least two candidates for President and at least four candidates for the office of member of the Council of Directors; and at the same time it shall call for the second or election ballot, which it shall count seven days before the annual meeting, and report the election at the meeting. The Council of Directors shall propose not fewer than eight nor more than ten Members for the position of member of the Council of Directors, and the Election Committee shall print these names on the nominating ballots together with two blank spaces in which [p. 31] voting Members can insert other names, requiring the voting Members to vote for two persons on the nominating ballot.
2. The Council of Directors shall nominate for representatives of the Association in Division of Anthropology and Psychology of the National Research Council double the number of Members required. These names shall be printed upon the election ballots and voted upon by the Association. The names of the Members thus nominated by vote of the Association shall be presented to the Division of Anthropology and Psychology of the National Research Council as the Association's nominations for its representatives.
1. The Committees of the Association shall consist of such standing committees as may be provided by these By-Laws and such special committees as may be established by vote of the Members or the Council of Directors at any duly constituted meeting.
2. The Executive Committee shall consist of the President, the Secretary and a Member from the place where the Annual
Meeting is to be held, who shall be elected by the Association on nomination of the Council of Directors. It shall be the duty of the Executive Committee to make the arrangements necessary for the Annual Meeting.
3. The Program Committee shall consist of three Members, appointed annually by the Council of Directors. It shall be the duty of the Program Committee to conduct and supervise the scientific programs of the Association in accordance with the provisions of Article IX of these By-Laws.
4. The Election Committee shall consist, except as the vote of the Members at any annual meeting may otherwise direct, of the three most recently retired Presidents of the Association, the most recently retired President acting as Chairman of the Committee. In case of the death or incapacity of a Member of this Committee, the next most recently retired President, who is not already a member of the Committee, shall become a member of the Committee. It shall be the duty of the Election Committee to conduct and supervise the mail elections of the Association, as provided in Article VI of these By-Laws.
5. The Committee on the Certification of Consulting Psychologists shall consist of five members: one member, to serve for a term of five years, to be annually appointed by the President of the Association with the approval of the Council of the Association. The Committee shall be made up of at least one member of each of the sectional committees established under By-Law VIII with as many members-at-large as may be required to bring its total membership to the authorized number. So far as possible members-at-large shall be so chosen as not to give one participating section a plurality over another in the membership of the Committee. The duties of this Committee shall be to act for the Association as its accredited agent in the granting of certificates to consulting psychologists, to define as objectively as practicable the requirement for certification in the various fields and to keep these requirements commensurate. Upon the recommendation of an applicant by a sectional committee, as constituted under the provision of By-Law VIII, the Committee on the Cer- [p. 32] tification of Consulting Psychologists shall issue a certificate. All certificates shall be of a single form and issued only through this Committee.
6. The Committee on the Relation of Psychology to the Public Welfare shall consist of five members, one member to be annually elected for a term of five years by the Association on the nomination of the Council. The duties of this Committee shall be to represent the Association in matters pertaining to the correlation of medical, hygienic and psychological training; the use of psychological measurements in education; the legislative control of psychology and such other matters as the Association or Council may refer to it.
7. All committees, with the exception of the Executive, Election and Program Committees, shall submit, three weeks in advance of the Annual Meeting, a report in writing to the Secretary of the Association, in order that the Council of Directors may discuss and make recommendations concerning such reports.
1. The annual subscription for Members shall be ten dollars a year, payable November first of the preceding year, and for Associates shall be six dollars a year, payable November first of the preceding year. Nonpayment of dues for two consecutive years shall be considered as equivalent to resignation from the Association.
2. Any Member or Associate shall, upon payment of the subscription prescribed by this article, be entitled to receive, without further charge, the Abstract Journal of the Association, throughout that membership year to which said subscription shall be applicable.
1. The scientific programs of the Association shall be conducted and supervised by the Program Committee, constituted in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of Article VII of these By-Laws. This committee shall have full power in the selection and rejection of papers, for such scientific programs. No title shall be accepted unless accompanied by a summary of the paper giving the main points to be developed; the summary shall be submitted typewritten in triplicate and ready for printing; it shall not exceed one printed page of the Proceedings, and shall contain no tables or drawings. All titles and summaries shall be in the hands of the Secretary on a certain date to be set by the committee and announced to Members of the Association. The titles of rejected papers shall not be listed on the program, nor their summaries published in the Proceedings.
2. In the arrangement of joint programs with sections of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Secretary of the Association shall determine the program of the joint sessions with the exception only of the addresses of retiring vice-presidents of the sections of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. [p. 33]
1. Such records, reports, proceedings and journals containing scientific papers shall be published as are authorized by these By-Laws or by vote of the Members or Council of Directors at any duly constituted meeting.
2. The Secretary shall secure from Members and Associates information concerning the following: (1) their degrees, together with the names of institutions by which the degrees were conferred; (2) the institutions they are serving, including their official titles; (3) their subjects of instruction; (4) their subject of research. The Secretary will print this information, together with the addresses of Members and Associates in the Year Book of the Association. The typographical style of an entry for an Associate shall be distinctly different in appearance from the style of the entry for a Member; moreover, the entry for an Associate shall give a general designation of a field of scientific interest instead of specific subjects of instruction and research.
3. The abstracts of papers presented at the annual meeting together with the report of the Secretary and Treasurer shall be printed annually and distributed to Members and Associates. The address of the President of the Association shall also be printed and distributed to Members and Associates.
DIVISION OF CONSULTING PSYCHOLOGISTS
1. There shall be within the Association a Division of Consulting Psychologists, composed of those Members of the Association to whom certificates have been awarded under the rules of the Standing Committee on the Certification of Consulting Psychologists. The total fee for certification and resultant membership in this Division shall be $35, payable to the Treasurer of the Association. Of the initial fee paid in by an applicant $5 shall be credited to the Committee on the Certification of Consulting Psychologists and the balance shall be credited to the section committee responsible for passing upon the application. Certificates originally granted as of the Section of Consulting Psychologists shall be equivalent to certificates awarded as of the Division of Consulting Psychologists.
2. Each of such sections in applied psychology as is now established or shall hereafter be established by the Association is empowered to institute a committee of not less than three from among its own membership to receive applications for certificates in its field and determine if such an applicant possesses the qualifications for membership in the Division of Consulting Psychologists with certification thereof. Sectional committees, under the provisions of this By-Law, shall be appointed by the President; such appointment being authority for the appointees themselves to be certified, upon application during their term of office. The function of such sectional committees is understood to be the determination whether the requirement for certification, as defined by the Committee on the Certification of Consulting Psychologists, are met by the individual applicant. [p. 34]
Members and Associates of the Association living in any center may, with the authorization of the Council of Directors, organize themselves into a local section for the holding of meetings.
There shall be within the Association a Section of Clinical Psychology which shall determine its own organization and membership, subject only to the approval of the Association as a whole; provided, however, that no person may be a member of the Section of Clinical Psychology who is not also a Member of the American Psychological Association.
The Association at any Annual Meeting may by vote of two-thirds of the Members present adopt such By-Laws or amendments to By-Laws as it deems necessary for the management of the affairs of the Association, prescribing the duties of officers, committees, and employees, and for carrying on all kinds of business within the objects and purposes of the Association.
With the exception of one major series of changes this set of by-laws has been altered very little. The following minor changes may be recorded: In Article I, Section 7, the time for payment of initial dues after election was changed from three to two months. In Section 8 of the same article, the time for application of Associates was changed from October 1 to March 15. A new Section 9 has been added to Article I which indicates the method of transfer from Associateship to Membership. In Article VI, Section 2, which is concerned with the method of election of officers, the name of the Social Science Research Council has been added to that of the National Research Council. And finally in Article XII, Associates of the Association may be elected as Associates of the Clinical Section.
The major changes have to do with the cancelling of the certification of clinical psychologists. For this purpose it was necessary to delete Section 5 of Article VII which established a Standing Committee on the Certification of Clinical Psychologists and Section 6 of the same article which established a Standing Committee on the Relation of Psychology to the Public Welfare. The change also necessitated the complete deletion of Article XI which established a Division of Consulting Psychologists and the renumbering of Articles XII, XIII and XIV. [p. 35]
One series of constitutional changes is worth developing in detail -- that having to do with the election of officers. Up to 1911 the Council was practically a self-perpetuating body even though there was preserved an appearance of democracy. Up to this time the retiring Council nominated all officers including nominees for vacancies in the Council who were then elected by the annual meeting. In 1911 the following recommendation was passed: "The Council, believing that the Members of the Association should consider exercising a more direct control over the choice of its officers, recommends the appointment of a committee of three to consider this question and, in the event of their approving a change in the present arrangements, to submit to the next annual meeting, the necessary amendments to the Constitution." It is interesting that this move toward democracy should have originated in the Council itself. One rather suspects that the move was made either in the face of criticism or to forestall criticism of the existing apparently undemocratic procedure.
A committee consisting of Aikens, Chairman, Miner, and Pierce reported in 1912 and their report was adopted. This report recommended: (1) the suspension of those portions of the constitution dealing with the election of officers for a three-year period; (2) that the President and two members of the Council be nominated by a Nominating Committee elected from the floor without previous nomination by the preceding annual meeting. It was the duty of this committee to canvass all of the members of the Association for suggestions for nomination. The nomination of the Secretary was to remain with the Council as previously. At the end of three years it was to be determined how the plan had worked. A committee consisting of J. R. Angell, Chairman, Thorndike, and Watson was elected as the first Nominating Committee. Two of the three members were ex-Presidents of the Association.
This plan led to no greater democracy for the selection of officers of the Association; it merely changed the personnel of the group that made the nominations. That it was no more democratic is evidenced by the passage of a motion in 1914 instructing the nominating committee to present four nominations for the two vacancies in the Council.
At the end of the three-year period in 1915, the committee recommended an article to the Constitution which proposed: (1) that the Secretary-Treasurer be nominated by the Council (as previously); (2) that for the President and members of the Council, there should [p. 36] be a nominating and an election ballot under the supervision of an Election Committee, and (3) in the case of the death, disability or resignation of an officer, that the Council be empowered to appoint a successor to serve until the next annual meeting. The committee also recommended a by-law regulating the procedure of elections as follows: "The Election Committee shall consist, except as an annual meeting may otherwise direct, of the retiring President, Chairman, and the two other members of the Association who shall have most recently held the office of President. At least two months before the date set for the annual meeting this committee shall issue a call for the nominating ballot, which ballot it shall count forty days before the annual meeting, and shall thereupon report to all the members the names receiving a large number of votes, including at least two candidates for President and at least four candidates for the office of member of the Council; and at the same time it shall call for the second or election ballot, which it shall count fifteen days before the annual meeting and report the election at the annual meeting." The necessary constitutional changes were finally passed in 1916 with a minor change of the count of the final ballot of seven instead of fifteen days before the annual meeting.
This plan was put in force for the year 1916 and the constitution was suspended for that period. The method of having the Election Committee consist of the three most recent ex-Presidents has continued without change. As a matter of fact, as the scheme works out in practice and with few exceptions, the most recent ex-President who is Chairman of the Committee takes the entire responsibility for counting both ballots.
Here finally is real democracy! By a secret mail ballot the members both nominate and elect. Unfortunately, in this case, real democracy failed to work. The failure was due to the great scatter of suggestions on the nominating ballot so that the appearance of a name on the election ballot, for the Council at least, became more or less a matter of the chance nomination by a mere handful of members. In such a scheme it is conceivable that eventually the Council, which continued to be the true executive body, might consist of a group of individuals who were perfectly adequate in psychology but without interest or ability to handle the affairs of the Association.
In 1922 the Election Committee indicated the amount of scatter when they announced that 31 persons had received one or more nominating votes for President and that 105 members had received one or more votes for nomination as Council member. They there- [p. 37] fore recommend that the Council propose six persons for the position of member of the Council; that two blank spaces be provided on the nominating ballot besides these six names and that the members vote for only two. In 1924 the number of names to be proposed by the Council for inclusion in the nominating ballot was raised from 6 to "not fewer than 8 or more than 10." So after a completely democratic period of only twelve years, the Council again becomes self-perpetuating with certain limitations. Since writing the above the Secretary has supplied the author with advance sheets of the minutes of the 1930 meeting at which time it was voted to change from the form of ballot which gave a simple plurality of votes to some form of preferential ballot.
Two special actions with regard to the nomination and election of officers may be of interest. In 1918, due to the war, the ballots were sent out later than the specified time and the election had to be legalized at the annual meeting. In 1925 Fernberger at the end of his first year as a member of the Council resigned to become Secretary of the Association. In order to handle this situation, it was voted that "the individual receiving the third highest number of votes in the election for Directors (Council) be elected for the unexpired portion of Mr. Fernberger's term."
The foregoing discussion regarding election of officers is not without importance. The Council has always been the executive body of the Association. The President has always been without more power than any other member of the Council of Directors. From the beginning until 1912, this Council was entirely self-perpetuating inasmuch as it nominated all of its members even including the President. Since 1912 the President has been democratically nominated by the entire Association. For a period of ten years the complete democratic principle was applied to all members of the Council except the Secretary. After that date the Council has been in fact self-perpetuating again (except in the case of the President) although they were compelled to make more nominations than the necessary vacancies to be filled. Throughout its history, the Council has retained the right to nominate the Secretary and, since the creation of the Treasurership in 1922, that officer as well. The importance of the Secretaryship has increased in these years. In 1892 the Secretary was not even a member of the Council. His duties were to act as clerk and to make arrangements for the scientific program. Gradually the importance of this office has increased so that, today, the Secretary is in fact the real executive officer of the Association in [p. 38] whom, more largely than any other individual or group, the success and continuity of the Association depends.
SECTIONS, BRANCHES AND RELATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
In 1900 the Council recommended "that members of the American Psychological Association living in any center may, with the authorization of the Council, organize themselves into a local section for the holding of meetings." Immediately following the passing of this resolution, sections were authorized in New York, Chicago and Cambridge. There is a record of a meeting of the Western Branch at Chicago in December, 1902.
Section of Clinical Psychology, etc. In 1919 "Mr. Baldwin (B. T.) made a report for the committee which had been called to confer with a committee from the American Association of Clinical Psychologists. It was moved to adopt the report which recommended the establishment of a section for Clinical Psychology of the Association. Thus did the Section of Clinical Psychology have its birth. In 1920 we find this section running its own program for one session of the meetings and that this program was open to all of the members of the Association. The Year Book of the Association has always designated the members of this Section by placing an asterisk before the research data and the names of the Chairman and Secretary of the Section have been placed in the Year Book with the list of officers.
The success of the Section of Clinical Psychology led in 1922 to the formation of two committees to study respectively the advisability of the formation of Sections of Educational and of Industrial Psychology. In 1923 the committee to consider the formation of a Section of Educational Psychology (B. Johnson, Chairman, F. N. Freeman and Whipple) reported that they had received 175 replies to a questionnaire sent out to the members of the Association. They report, "In view of the conflict of opinion represented by the replies, the Committee does not recommend the formation of a Section of Educational Psychology and would leave to the Council decision as to whether the proposition should be presented to the Association." The report was accepted. A motion that the committee be continued was lost. The question of a Section of Educational Psychology has never again been presented.
In the same year (1923) the committee to consider the feasibility of the formation of a Section of Industrial Psychology (Cattell, Chairman, W. V. Bingham and Watson) made their report. They proposed a new by-law which read: "There shall be within the Association a Section of Industrial Psychology (or applied psychology or [p. 39] psychological engineering) which shall determine its own organization and membership, subject only to the approval of the Association as a whole; provided, however, that no person may be a member of this section who is not also a member of the American Psychological Association." The committee also proposed that there be a special session for papers on industrial psychology at the next meeting. Cattell wrote a communication which was read at the meeting suggesting that the matter would better not be decided until the success of the proposed program and the interest of the members had been observed. It was voted to refer the report back to the Council for consideration and report at the next meeting. At this 1924 meeting the Committee on the Section of Industrial or Applied Psychology made no further formal report. The committee was discharged and the matter was apparently closed without the formation of the section.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. The first contact of the American Psychological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (henceforth to be known as A.A.A.S.) was in 1896 when the larger
body invited the Association to join. This the Association refused to do as indicated by the minutes which read: "It was voted that all members who might feel so disposed are recommended to present their names to the Secretary for election to that Association." In 1902 the offer and invitation was repeated, this time "to become affiliated with the Association and to be represented by a delegate upon its council." This invitation was accepted and the President appointed the delegate. In 1906 it was voted that the Secretary of the Association be the delegate to the council of the A.A.A.S.
In these earlier days the American Psychological Association always met with the A.A.A.S. For example, in 1908 it had already been voted to meet the next year at Yale when it was discovered that the A.A.A.S. would meet in Boston. The former motion was rescinded and the matter of the next meeting referred to the Council with power to act. And the next meeting was held in Boston with the A.A.A.S. A change occurred in 1914. This year, a suggestion that the next meeting be held in Columbus with the A.A.A.S. failed for a second. At this time the policy was adopted that the Association meet with the A.A.A.S. only on alternate years. The reason for this change appears to have been largely due to pressure for places on the program as well as the crowding of hotel facilities as the A.A.A.S. increased in size. The first of these aspects -- the crowding of the program -- is emphasized when in 1918 it was voted that when the [p. 40] Association meets with the A.A.A.S., only the Vice-Presidential address of the A.A.A.S. section was to be left to that organization while all joint programs were to be controlled by the Secretary of the Association.
In 1926, at the meeting in Philadelphia, the Secretary came in conflict with the larger organization in regard to the matter of the apparatus exhibit. By this time the larger organization had built up a large general apparatus exhibit for which they sold space. The Association proposed that we hold our own apparatus exhibit in our own laboratories as usual. The A.A.A.S. attempted to prohibit the holding of any exhibit of apparatus outside of the general exhibit. The Program Committee ignored this prohibitory attempt, held its own apparatus exhibit, and were upheld in this action by the annual meeting.
In 1926 in Philadelphia and again in 1928 in New York, the conditions of overcrowded hotel and other accommodations became so difficult that in 1928 the suggestion was approved that "the American Psychological Association do not meet with the A.A.A.S. in 1930." This breaks the alternate meeting sequence and the author would be surprised if the Association ever met again with the larger body.
In the early days of the affiliation of the Association with the A.A.A.S., psychology was grouped with anthropology in what was then known as Section H. In 1908 C. E. Seashore recommended that the President and Secretary "be asked to confer with the council of the A.A.A.S. in reference to the advisability of forming a separate Section of Psychology." This was referred to the Council of the Association for consideration and report. In 1909 the Council reported that "whereas it is the opinion of the Council that the connection of Psychology with Anthropology in Section H of the A.A.A.S. has outgrown its usefulness and does not sufficiently recognize the dignity of Psychology as science, the Council recommends the following resolution: Resolved that the Association instruct its delegate to suggest to the council of the A.A.A.S. that the word 'Psychology' be dropped from the title of Section H and that provision be made for a separate Section of Psychology." This request was granted by the council of the A.A.A.S. and the present Section of Psychology was formed.
At some date undetermined, it was decided that membership in the American Psychological Association entitled an individual to election as Fellow in the Psychological Section of the A.A.A.S. In 1921 it was discovered that the Association included more than 100 [p. 41] Fellows in the A.A.A.S. and was so entitled to a second representative on the Council.
The relation of the American Psychological Association and the A.A.A.S. has never been anything but loose and one in which the Association has played the dominant rôle. The apparent severance of relations, so far as meetings are concerned, has one more contributing factor. Up to a few years ago the Association gained by meeting with the A.A.A.S. by obtaining reduced railway fares for its members. Now the Association has grown to the point that attendance at meetings is great enough to obtain reduction of railroad fares when the Association is meeting alone.
National Research Council. The National Research Council was established in 1916. In 1918 the minutes indicate that "The members then discussed the relation of psychology to the National Research Council and voted to recommend the following: That there be in the National Research Council a division of the sciences of man, such as psychology, medicine, anthropology, sociology and education." The National Research Council subsequently arranged to place psychology and anthropology into a single division and the Association was asked to nominate two members each year for election to that division to serve for a term of three years. These have been regularly nominated by the Association.
Social Science Research Council. In 1923 on the recommendation of the Council it was voted that an invitation to become a constituent society of the Social Science Research Council be declined." The invitation was made again the next year, in 1924, and this time was accepted by the following motion: "To accept the invitation to participate in the organization of a Social Science Research Council and to select two temporary delegates to function until the organization of the S.S.R.C. is completed and the delegates can be selected in accordance with the regulations of that organization." Woodworth and Yerkes were elected temporary delegates. In 1925 the system of one delegate a year nominated for a term of three years was adopted.
The American Philosophical Association. There seems to be evidence that the American Philosophical Association is a legitimate offspring of the American Psychological Association. It has already been pointed out that the original membership of the American Psychological Association was exceedingly heterogeneous and, among others, included many philosophers. Three years after the formation of the Association, in 1895, "the question of the formation of a philosophical society or a philosophical section within the present [p. 42] Association was, after a brief discussion, referred to the Council with full power to act." The cause of this movement seems to have been the purely philosophical and non-psychological character of a large number of the papers submitted and accepted for the program. In 1896 Witmer tried to bring the matter to a head by proposing "That the Council of the American Psychological Association be recommended to present at the next meeting of the Association, a plan for the formation of an American Philosophical or Metaphysical Association, as one of the affiliated or associated organizations with the present Affiliated Societies." This motion had the function, not of segregating the philosophers into a section of the Association, as was proposed the year before, but rather of lopping them off entirely from the Association.
This resolution was referred to the Council who apparently did little or nothing about it, inasmuch as in 1898 Sanford, returning to the older plan, moved that "the matter of the organization of the Association with reference to a possible philosophical section be referred to the Council, to be reported on at the next meeting." Also the Secretary was instructed to circularize the members regarding this question and invite an expression of opinion. Nothing further appears in the minutes of the American Psychological Association regarding the matter. Apparently the plan of the Section within the Association failed and the plan for the formation of a separate society prevailed inasmuch as the American Philosophical Association was founded in 1901.
THE ASSOCIATION AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
One thinks of clinical psychology as a relatively recent development. In this day and age, one thinks of the early group in the Association as a mixture of Wundtian experimental psychologists and of metaphysicians. Clinical psychology seems to us to be of much later date -- the Terman revision of the Binet-Simon Tests being dated 1916. It will be remembered, however, that Witmer established the Psychological Clinic at the University of Pennsylvania in 1896, just four years after the founding of the
The first appearance of anything which might be considered clinical psychology occurred in 1895. At this time, J. M. Baldwin proposed the formation of a committee to consider the feasibility of coöperation among the psychological laboratories for the collection of mental and physical statistics. The committee which consisted of Cattell, Chairman, J. M. Baldwin, Jastrow, Sanford, and Witmer, were instructed to report at the next meeting. They presented a [p. 43] report in 1896 which was printed in the Proceedings. In this report the committee calls itself The Committee on Physical and Mental Tests. They have drawn up a series of tests which they regard "as especially appropriate for college students tested in a psychological laboratory. The same series would also be suitable for the general public and, with some omissions and slight modifications, for school children. The Committee has had in view a series of tests requiring not more than one hour for the record of one subject. In selecting the tests and methods the committee regarded as most important those which seemed likely to reveal individual differences and development, but also took into account ease and quickness in making the tests and in interpreting and collating the results." Each test is initialed by the committee members selecting it. Then follows in outline form almost five printed pages of suggested tests. These are grouped under the following headings: (1) Preliminary data (social and physical); (2) Physical measurements; (3) Keenness of vision; (4) Color vision; (5) Keenness of hearing; (6) Perception of pitch; (7) Fineness of touch; (8) Sensitiveness to pain; (9) Perception of weight or force of movement; (10) Dynamometer pressure of right and left hands; (11) Rate of movement; (12) Fatigue; (13) Will power; (14) Voluntary attention; (15) Right and left movements; (16) Rapidity of movement; (17) Accuracy of aim; (18) Reaction time for sound; (19) Reaction time with choice; (20) Rate of discrimination and movement; (21) Quickness of distinction and movement; (22) Perception of size; (23) Perception of time; (24) Memory; (25) Memory type; (26) Apperception test of Ebbinghaus, and (27) Imagery. And these series of tests are to be accomplished for each subject within the period of an hour!
It seems worth while to include this list of what clinical psychology and mental tests were like 35 years ago (as a matter of historical record). So far as can be ascertained this source has been either unknown to or ignored by the recent authors in the history of mental tests.
"The committee urges that such tests be made, so far as possible, in all psychological laboratories. It does not recommend that the same tests be made everywhere but, on the contrary advises that, at the present time, a variety of tests be tried, so that the best ones may be determined. Those who make tests which they regard as desirable are requested to send these with sufficient description to the committee."
So here, at the very start of clinical psychology, is a real attempt [p. 44] at standardization, not only of the standardization of each particular test procedure but of an attempt to more or less force the acceptance of a standardized battery of test procedures. It is true that this committee believed that the list might be added to but they definitely suggested that all new procedures should first pass through the committee's hands as a clearing house.
In 1897 the Committee was granted $100 by the Association. In 1898 they reported again and the report indicates that, due to Chairman Cattell's absence abroad no meetings of the committee were held but that each individual had been working on particular tests. By this time Witmer had withdrawn from the committee and Warren had been appointed in his stead. Nothing seems to have been recorded for this committee in 1899 but the following year (1900) we find that "Professor Cattell reported briefly for the Committee on Physical and Mental Tests." No further mention is made of this committee. It does not seem to have ever been discharged -- it merely seems to have gone out of existence.
It was certainly out of existence in 1906 because in that year it was voted to form a committee of five, consisting of J. R. Angell, Judd, and Pillsbury, with power to select the other two members. They chose Woodworth and Sanford but the latter refused to serve and C. E. Seashore was selected instead. It is interesting to note the fact, which may have some significance in evaluating the work of the former committee, that the personnel of this committee is entirely and completely different from that of the former committee. This new committee was instructed to "determine a series of group and individual tests with reference to practical application" and also "the determination of standard experiments of a more technical character."
In 1907 this committee reported investigations in progress and was continued. The investigations, so far as tests were concerned, were turned over to Woodworth with the coöperation of F. L. Wells and resulted in the formulation of the Woodworth and Wells Association Tests. Also work is reported by Seashore on pitch discrimination; by Pillsbury on the determination of the auditory limen; by Judd on tests of motor processes; and by Angell on the determination of ideational type. These last seem intermediate problems between clinical and the more purely experimental psychology. Of the latter type is certainly Woodworth's work on the measurement [p. 45] of the threshold for difference in color tone and Yerkes tests in color vision of animals which were also reported. In 1908 the Association granted $150 for publication to this committee and in 1910 an additional $250 was given. In this latter year the committee considered itself a fixture and placed itself on a more permanent basis by suggesting a scheme of rotation of its membership with one new member elected each year. The new member was to be recommended by the Committee and approved by the Council of the Association.
How seriously the Association considered the work of this committee is evidenced by a motion passed in 1911 that this committee "hold itself ready to examine and report on the relative merit of different forms of apparatus designed to serve the same general purpose." Thus was standardization to be accomplished in experimental as well as in clinical psychology. There is no record of this committee ever acting as such a jury. In 1913 and again in 1914 the committee merely reported progress. In 1915 four researches are listed: (1) Woodworth and Wells revision of their Association Tests; (2) Pillsbury continues the study of the means of measuring the intensity of liminal sound; (3) Baird and his associates will study methods of training in the use of introspection; and (4) Yerkes and his associates will attempt to perfect methods for studying comparatively ideational types of behavior. It will be observed that, except for the Woodworth and Wells revision, all the other problems are of a strictly experimental rather than of a clinical type. In this year Waugh suggested that all members of the Association give to the committee any data they may have on mental measurement "in order that a beginning may be made toward the establishment of norms."
In 1916 the committee reported 10 pieces of work in progress but these are not specified in the Proceedings. They ask for an appropriation of $25 in connection with some work undertaken by W. V. Bingham on tests for college students and $400 for the publication of results on a study of vision by H. M. Johnson, Cobb, Troland, Watson, and Yerkes. All of this makes it look as if the committee were exceedingly active. But the whole question of standardization was raised on the floor and at the end of this discussion a motion was made by Franz that the committee be discharged, but it was defeated. The combination of this discussion and the attitude it created plus the advent of the war was the downfall of the committee. In 1917 and 1918 they reported "no progress" [p. 46] because of the war and, when in 1919 the committee made no report at all, it was discharged. Thus ended, with more or less failure, the second attempt at standardization within the Association. It is of interest to emphasize in connection with this committee that, although they were instructed to "standardize mental measurements and tests" that their primary interest always seemed to be in the field of experimental procedure rather than clinical procedure.
The third and final attempt of the Association to control clinical procedure was initiated in 1915. At this meeting Whipple proposed a resolution which was passed and which was apparently carefully prepared beforehand. It read "Whereas: Psychological diagnosis requires thorough technical training in all phases of mental testing, thorough acquaintance with the facts of mental development and with various degrees of mental retardation. And whereas: There is evident a tendency to appoint for this work persons whose training in clinical psychology is inadequate; Be it resolved: That this Association discourages the use of mental tests for practical psychological diagnosis by individuals psychologically unqualified for this work." The motion was a. fine one to be put on the books, it expressed undoubtedly the opinion of the members of the Association, but there was no mechanism for its enforcement. Naturally it was too much to hope that the passing of this motion would change public opinion even within the Association and certainly not outside of it.
Hence in 1917 it was passed "That a committee be appointed by the President to report at the next annual meeting concerning the qualifications for psychological examiners and other psychological experts." The committee consisted of Haggerty, Chairman, M. R. Fernald, Haines, L. S. Hollingworth, Sutherland, Terman, Whipple, and Woolley. In 1918 this Committee submitted a brief report and it was voted to budget up to $150 for the printing of a complete report. And still the matter stood with the action consisting only in a report accepted by the Association but without means of enforcement. However with the report of the "Qualifications Committee" something more definite had been established and hence, in 1919, it was voted that "a committee of five be appointed to consider methods of procedure for certifying Consulting Psychologists." This committee consisted of B. T. Baldwin, Chairman, W. F. Dearborn, L. S. Hollingworth, Ruml, and Woolley.
In 1920 they made their first report which favored certification, with provision for withdrawing the certificate for cause. The report was finally adopted with the deletion of the clause regarding [p. 47] withdrawal of certificates and with the understanding that the expenditures of the committee be restricted to the certification fees collected. This report established a Standing Committee on Certification of Consulting Psychologists and they were instructed that no certificates should be granted until it had rendered a full report to the Association of the procedure it desired to adopt. This committee consisted of five members with staggered terms and the original committee had as its personnel F. L. Wells, Chairman, B. T. Baldwin, Cattell, Strong, and Woolley.
In 1921 this committee reported and the report is printed in full in the Proceedings in the form in which it was amended by the Association and adopted. This report has 11 sections and they are important enough to be completely summarized. (1) The only field in which "certification of consulting psychologists is now practicable is limited to that concerned with the measurement of various types of intelligence, and special abilities therein." (2) The Association seems to be the best agency for taking the initial steps for certification. (3) This may best be accomplished by election to membership in a Section of the Association. (4) The term Clinical Psychology is not properly applicable to this section and should not be used. (5) It is recommended that there be a Section of Consulting Psychologists to which every person now a member of the Clinical Section of the Association shall "have the right to membership" "and certification thereof, upon applying therefor prior to January 1, 1923, and the payment of the requisite fee ($35). Other members may be elected under the rules of the Standing Committee to qualified members of the American Psychological Association." The basic requirement of membership is a doctoral degree in psychology, education or medicine or equivalent qualifications. A member of this section is understood to be a person qualified to make by psychological methods of study independent judgments concerning the mental status and adjustments of individuals; to take proper account of factors derived from other sources of information, as medical, social and educational, in formulating his judgment; and to devise special methods of work adapted for special problems." Election can be obtained only by an affirmative vote of 4 of the 5 members of the committee. (6) Certificates are to be in force only during the continuance of membership in the Section. (7) The total fees for membership in the Section shall be an initial fee of $35. (8) The funds of the committee shall be derived solely from these fees. (9) The financial affairs shall be annually approved by the Asso- [p. 48] ciation. (10) The Committee shall be the sole administrating agency of the details of the work. Finally, (11) a Standing Committee on the Relation of Psychology to Public Welfare is created whose "general duties shall be to represent the Association in matters pertaining to the correlation of medical, hygienic and psychological training, the use of psychological measurements in education and the legislative control of psychology." This committee is to consist of 5 members with staggered terms elected by the Association on nomination of the Council. The original committee consisted of Warren, Chairman, Boring, Dodge, Franz and Yerkes.
Here, at last, is a method which is capable of real enforcement and of control of the members within the Association at least. In all only 25 members of the Association applied for certification before the date of January 1, 1923. Of these, 21 were from the Clinical Section and 4 were other members of the Association. Apparently of this group 13 were elected to membership in the Section of Consulting Psychologists and the fees of the other 12 were "returned to applicants pending action of the Association." This was a disappointing return so far as number of applications was concerned. In order to correct this situation the committee recommended what must be considered a definite lowering of its standards. In spite of their former report which stated that the measurement of intelligence was the only field in which certification seemed practical at that time, they now recommend certification in Educational and Industrial Psychology. This is to be accomplished by the formation of section in these two fields, each having their own committees with coördination of standards. Certification in these new sections is to be obtained at the reduced and bargain price of $5 instead of the former fee of $35. And finally, and this is exceedingly important, it is recommended that these sections "consider the matter of certifying the status of psychologists not eligible to membership in the Association but competent in psychological work under direction."
What did the Association do with these recommendations? In the first place a motion was made to accept the report and adopt its recommendations. Before this came to vote, an amendment to change the reduced $5 fee to the original $35 fee was lost. Then the original motion to adopt the recommendations was lost. It was then moved that the committee be discharged (which would have ended certification then and there) but this motion was lost. It was then moved and adopted that "the Committee be continued for [p. 49] the ensuing year under its old instructions and that it confine its certification to members of the Section of Clinical Psychology." In 1923 the Committee on Certification of Consulting Psychologists submitted a long report. Nine new certificates were granted during the year bringing the number in force to 24. The committee recommended the formation of Sectional Committees in different parts of the country, appointed by the Section of Clinical Psychology, to determine if applicants "possess the qualifications for membership in the Section of Consulting Psychologists, with certification thereof." Thus were boards of examiners to be appointed. The report also again recommends the formation of Sections of Educational and Industrial Psychology. This report was accepted and its provisions adopted, but there is no record that its provisions were ever actually carried out.
In 1924 the title of the Section of Consulting Psychologists was changed to the Division of Consulting Psychologists. The committee reported that one new certificate had been issued during the year but that otherwise its activities had been held "in abeyance pending the readjustment of its relations to sections in applied psychology within the Association." It will be remembered, as noted above, that the proposed Sections of Educational and Industrial Psychology were rejected by the Association. By this time the grade of Associateship was established in the Association. In 1925, the Committee on Certification presented a report which contained a very definite and detailed analysis of the qualifications for certification as Consulting Psychologist. This report was accepted on the recommendation of the Council and placed on file by the Secretary "as a source of information in questions arising concerning consulting psychologists." The question was asked from the floor whether or not the Council contemplated printing the report. The reply was that "it was the sense of the Council's recommendation that the report be not printed." A motion that the report be privately printed and distributed to the members was lost. It is important to note that this report, which for the first time contained detailed qualifications for consulting psychologists was completely pigeon-holed and was not adopted for the instruction and guidance of the committee.
In 1926 this committee presented another report which is printed in the Proceedings for that year. One new certificate has been issued during the year and another application is pending. The committee notes a tendency to discontinue the use of the word "psy- [p. 50] chologist" for persons engaged in routine mental testing and the substitution of "such designations as psychometrist, psychometrician, and psychometric assistant." They then bring up the question of unprofessional conduct and point out that the Association has no policy in this regard. "Circumstances suggest that the Association should either (1) make it plain that it disclaims responsibility for the conduct of its members or (2) provide means by which charges may be brought and appropriate action taken if they are sustained." The next paragraph is so important that it is worth while printing it here in full. "The constituted objects of the Association are scientific, and this places it at a partial disadvantage in the maintenance of professional standards. Scientific men are predominantly schizoid, and while commonly energetic and at times heroic in the pursuit of personal aims and ideals, seldom exhibit the capacity for resolute common action which is observable in professional and more markedly in industrial groups. It is an open question whether the corporate resolution of a scientific group such as this one, without strong personal or professional interests at stake, can be counted for effective opposition to the energy and resources which would be mustered by a colleague charged with misconduct and his professional life to fight for. One can see in this an argument for the organization of the psychological profession into a group distinct from the present one."
This paragraph puts the question of enforcing certification squarely up to the Association and it also voices a misgiving and a doubt, on the part of the Committee, as to whether or not the Association is the proper agency to attempt to control consulting psychology. The answer of the Association was immediate and definite. In the recommendation of the Council it was voted that a committee of five, known as the "Committee on Certification Policy, be appointed by the incoming President to study the effectiveness of the entire plan of certification and to ascertain the sentiment of the Association with regard to certification and to give a report with specific recommendations with regard to the Association's future policy toward certification." The committee appointed consisted of Washburn, Chairman, May, L. L. Thurstone, F. L. Wells, and Woolley.
Up to this time no announcement had ever been made regarding the persons certified. Berry moves that the title "Certified Con- sultant" be placed in future Year-Books after the names of those qualified. Action on this motion was deferred until the report of [p. 51] the Committee on Certification Policy could be considered. So far as the author knows, the list of those individuals who were certified as Consulting Psychologists has never been made public. It seems worth while to preserve the list, which is given below, in the present place.
Bassett, G. C.
Berry, C. S.
Myers, G. C.
Crane, H. W.
Dearborn, W. F.
Poull, L. E.
Downey, J. E.
Root, W. T.
Fernald, M. R.
Simpson, B. R.
Sutherland, A. H.
Heckman, S. B.
Sylvester, R. H.
Hollingworth, L. S.
Terman, L. M.
Johnson, B. J.
Wells, F. L.
Luckey, B. M.
Woolley, H. T.
Martin, L. J.
Young, H. H.
Miner, J. B.
In 1927 the Committee on Certification reported and the report was accepted and filed. There was nothing of moment in this report. The Committee was merely marking time until action could be taken on the findings of the Committee on Certification Policy. This committee then reported that they believed the certification of Consulting Psychologists was not practicable for the Association and that it be discontinued. The Council recommended that the report be accepted and the committee discharged and that the by-laws be changed in accordance with this report so as to eliminate certification entirely. As one would suspect, there was considerable discussion regarding such a radical step and efforts were made to save the certification plan. Miner presented as a substitute motion "that this Association desires some form of certification for consulting psychologists among its members." Mitchell proposed an amendment to Miner's motion which read "that the recommendation of the Council and the report of the Committee on Certification Policy be laid on the table and that for a period of at least three years the articles of the by-laws pertaining to certification be null and void." Miner refused to accept the amendment and then Miner's motion was voted on and lost. The Association thus placed itself on record against the principle of certification of its members. Hunter then proposed a substitute motion "that the Association does desire to certify as consulting psychologists individuals outside of the Association," which was lost. "The recommendation of the Council [p. 52] of Directors was then voted upon with a show of hands and was carried by a vote of 78 to 20, more than the two-thirds required to amend the by-laws." The carrying of this motion had the effect of eliminating completely all certification of Consulting Psychologists by the American Psychological Association. Thus ended this attempt to control clinical work.
One last attempt was made to have such control. Immediately after the elimination of certification in 1927, at the same meeting, it was proposed that there be a committee of three from the Clinical Section "to offer the services of the American Psychological Association to State Civil Service Boards and other similar bodies for the purpose of establishing more effective standards for psychometrists." This motion was laid on the table without consideration and there it has died a natural death. Thus Wells' diagnosis of psychologists and his prognosis regarding their behavior proved to be entirely correct.
Before we leave this general topic, let us determine what happened to the Standing Committee on the Relation of Psychology to Public Welfare. This committee was established by one of the sections of the certification proposal adopted in 1921. The committee of five members was elected by the Association on nomination of the Council with staggered terms. Its general duties were "to represent the Association in matters pertaining to the correlation of medical, hygienic and psychological training, the use of psychological measurements in education and the legislative control of psychology." In 1922 the following personnel was announced: Warren, Chairman, Boring, Dodge, Franz, and Yerkes. Warren refused to serve and Woodworth was appointed chairman in his place. The committee reported in 1923 that no action had been taken during the year. In 1924 they reported that no matters had been referred to the committee and that it had transacted no business. In 1925 they again report that no business had been referred to them during the year and they were discharged at their own request. "The committee recommends further that matters relating to public welfare be specifically referred to special committees at the time of the annual meetings or by the Executive Committee as occasion may arise." Hence this aspect of certification, for which many held high hopes for the development of state acceptance of certification, was eliminated before the rest of the general scheme.
The history of the attempts of the Association to control professional psychology has resulted, then, in more or less total failure. [p. 53] The early attempts involved the collection of materials to establish norms. This movement seemed to fail largely because of lack of coöperation. The second attempt had to do with a proposed standardization of method. This was partly successful and resulted, for the clinical side, in the establishment of the Woodworth and Wells Association Tests. But then the committee became concerned with the standardization of methods in the more purely experimental field. These two propositions must be conceived as attempts to control and standardize material. The last attempt, that of certification of Consulting Psychologists, was a direct attempt to control personnel. It would seem that this failed for two reasons: (1) the standards set were, quite properly, extremely high in regard to training and experience and (2) the group who could qualify under these severe standards did not need certification. Hence only a very small number availed themselves of the opportunity to be certified. And incidentally it was not this advanced group who needed to be controlled anyway -- it was the lower group which subsequently became known as "psychotechnicians." The attempts of the committee to develop certification at this level were defeated by the Association. The reason for this is apparent, although the Association might control the psychometricians within its own membership, there was no possibility of exerting such control outside of the Association. With this background of failure, it is doubtful if the question of the control of applied or professional work in psychology will be attempted by the Association again for some time to come. After all the Association is a scientific rather than a professional body.
THE SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS
The scientific programs of the Association have always been one of the main reasons for its existence. Inasmuch as there was no meeting in 1929 because of the International Congress, the results for 1930 are also not included in the following discussion.
In Figure VI are charted the number of papers presented at each meeting. The totals range from a low of 12 papers in 1892 and again in 1903 to a maximum of 73 papers in 1915. The curve rises rapidly to a miximum [sic] in 1899 and then drops off to a new low in 1903. This drop was due partly to the elimination of strictly philosophical papers from the program and partly due to the geographical location of the meetings. In 1905 a new maximum was reached, followed by a decrease to 1907. Another
gradual increase results in a new maximum in 1911. This is followed by a decrease [p. 54] for three years and the final maximum in 1915. Each of these four successive maxima reach progressively a greater magnitude. In 1917 and 1918 decreases are evident because of the war period. Since 1919 the number of papers on any program have fluctuated but remained relatively high.
The causes of these maxims and minima may be demonstrated as a conflict of several causes: (1) the increased pressure for places on the program; (2) the increasing of the length of the program and the number of sessions; and (3) the increase of the critical restrictions for acceptance of papers. These matters will be discussed later. In this chart the programs that are circles are of meetings held west of Pittsburgh. It will be observed that the first four western meetings are at minima while three of the last five are at maxima. This indicates the growth [p. 55] of psychology in the Middle West so that subsequent to 1910 it was possible to build up a large program for the western meetings. In the lower right hand corner of this chart will be found the curve of the number of papers on the graduate student programs instituted in 1923.
Institutions Contributing Papers. In Table I are listed the 19 universities which have contributed 20 or more papers to the programs, exclusive of the programs of graduate students.
Of the total of 1,381 papers presented from 1892 to 1928, these 19 universities have contributed 726 or almost 53 per cent of the total number of papers. If one adds to this a total of 256 or over 18 per cent of papers presented by individuals with no academic position, we discover that less than 29 per cent of the total number of papers were given from the other 75 institutions who have contributed once or more to the programs. These results are in interesting accord with the recent study of productivity of publication and the place of the professional degree. All of the 10 universities in the productive list of the former study are among the 19 who have most largely contributed to the Association's programs. Columbia and Harvard respectively lead in both lists. Eight of the ten institutions in the former list appear in the first ten of the Association program list. Cornell drops from fifth to twelfth place. This we believe, is largely due to the lack of interest in Association matters exhibited by Professor E. B. Titchener, for years director of the laboratory at Cornell. Stanford drops from ninth to nineteenth place which [p. 56] undoubtedly is to be explained in terms of its isolated geographical position. Bryn Mawr and Ohio State move up into the first ten-- into eighth and tenth places respectively.
In the last column of Table I are given the number of years during which each institution of the upper 19 presented papers for the programs. These may be compared with the table of "consistency of publication" of the former study quoted above. Again eight of the ten institutions in the earlier list maintain their position in the first ten of the list of institutions contributing to the programs. Pennsylvania drops to a triple tie for twelfth place and Stanford to a triple tie for sixteenth place. Bryn Mawr moves up to eighth and Michigan to tenth place. Certain characteristics of an analysis by years regarding consistency may be noted although these results are somewhat obliterated by condensing the table into five-year periods. Yale had a low period from 1910 to 1918 during which time only four papers were presented. Since 1919 Yale has contributed very largely to the programs -- 24 papers in 10 years. Chicago contributed little until 1904 (only 7 papers), while Hopkins contributed only one paper up to the same date. The Hopkins period of major contribution was from 1911 to 1920 during which time 26 papers were on the programs from that institution. For Clark there were periods of inactivity, the most definite being since 1921, since which time only 4 papers have been presented. Pennsylvania was active in the early days up to 1900 and again since 1921. Between these dates only 7 contributions were made. The period of greatest activity for Iowa is since 1918; for Ohio State between 1914 and 1924 with no papers presented from that university prior to 1904. Princeton has been relatively inactive since 1918 with only 3 papers presented. All of Carnegie Tech's contributions were made between the years 1918 and 1923. Stanford made only one contribution prior to 1910. One finds that for Columbia, Harvard, Bryn Mawr, Michigan, Cornell, Illinois and Indiana no general tendency exists and papers have been read with great consistency during the entire period.
An analysis of the total number of universities contributing to the different programs (the detailed data is not here given for lack of space) indicates an increase from 7 contributing institutions in 1892 to above 20 each year since 1911 except for the war year of 1918. The low is 6 universities in 1903 and the high is 35 universities in 1924 and again in 1927. Such a situation would be anticipated [p. 57] because of the growth of the number of laboratories and departments of psychology.
Fields in Which Papers Were Presented. In Table II are analyzed the fields of psychology in which the papers were presented.
Such an analysis is not always easy and straightforward and one cannot trust any given Program Committee not to have slipped a particular paper into a particular program designated as of a certain field not because it especially fit into the subject-matter of that program but because there was room in this session and in no other place to put the paper.
In this table a row is given to the totals for each field and in the first 7 columns appear the number of papers in each field during successive five-year periods. In columns 8 and 9 are the actual number of papers for the years 1927 and 1928 to indicate present trends. Totals are given in the last two columns -- in the next to the last column for the general programs and in the last column the totals for the graduate student programs, which results are not included elsewhere in the table. A consideration of this last column shows an overwhelming percentage of graduate student papers of a purely experimental nature. If the animal papers were added to the other experimental reports, this would be even more evident. In a second group, not very different in magnitude from one another and in rank order are the clinical, educational and animal papers. In a third group, and again in rank order, are papers in the social, abnormal, applied and theoretical fields. It is of interest to note that, in these graduate student programs, only one purely theoretical paper has even been offered and no papers outside of the general field of psychology have been accepted from these younger men and women.
It seems worth while to examine the totals for the papers offered by members (next to the last column in Table II). Again the [p. 58] totals of the purely experimental papers stand clearly in first place. Theoretical and clinical papers, in that order, are closely tied for second place; animal and educational are closely tied for fourth place; followed by abnormal, social, applied and "all others." This order is somewhat different from the findings of the lists of publications of the members of the Association from the study quoted above, although the experimental, clinical, and theoretical fields clearly lead both lists.
It is further of interest to examine the distribution of papers in these fields with regard to the different five-year periods into which these data are divided. Experimental psychology has maintained its position of supremacy throughout the entire time. Relatively few papers were offered in the field of clinical psychology until 1912, when the number suddenly increases more than five-fold over the former five-year period and maintains this position for the subsequent periods. Theoretical psychology starts high, indeed in the first five-year period, there were more theoretical papers than those offered in any other field. But from then on there has been a marked proportional decrease in the number of papers from the theoretical field. Educational psychology starts late with the first paper offered in 1898, rises to a maximum in the 1912-1916 period and then drops off to a certain extent. This decline is probably not due to a decrease in the amount of work in this field but to the fact that papers in educational psychology are frequently presented outside of the Association. The growth of abnormal psychology on the programs has been slow and more or less erratic. Certainly there has been a decline in the proportional number of papers in this field since 1916. Papers in applied psychology appear late on the programs, the first being presented in 1902 and then not another paper in this field until 1908, but since 1917 the growth has been marked. The course of social psychology has remained relatively constant in absolute terms but with a gradual proportional loss. Animal psychology, as represented on the programs, starts rising slowly to a maximum in the 1907-1916 periods. From 1917-1921 relatively little was presented in the animal fields with an increase of interest since 1922 which has been very marked in the last two years. The group marked "all others" is of importance only prior to 1902. Since then it has decreased in magnitude both actually and proportionally. During the last two years no papers can be attributed to this group. Prior to 1902 most of the papers under this heading were philosophical in character without any or with small psychological interest. The more recent papers in this [p. 59] group have been largely concerned with such problems as the teaching of psychology, the content of the elementary course in psychology, and the like.
The Development of Program Making. It seems worth while to outline the first program arranged by the Association at its first meeting on December 27, 1892. There were twelve papers or reports which are listed below:
1. Hall, G. S., The History and Prospects of Experimental Psychology in America.
2. Cattell, J. McK., Errors of Observation in Physics and Psychology.
3. Witmer, L., Some Experiments upon the Aesthetics of Simple Visual Forms.
4. Münsterberg, H., The Problems of Experimental Psychology.
5. Witmer, L., The Chronoscopic Measurement of Simple Reactions in all Classes of Persons.
6. Pace, E. A., Tactile Estimates of Thickness.
7. Nichols, H., Experiments upon Pain.
8. Nichols, H., Certain Illusions of Rotation.
9.Bryan, W. L., Note upon the Controversy Regarding the Relation of Intensity of Stimulus to the Reaction Time.
10. Bryan, W. L., Preliminary Notes upon Psychological Tests in the Schools of Springfield, Mass.
11. Jastrow, J. Experimental Psychology at the World's Fair.
12. Sanford, E. C., Minor Studies at the Psychological Laboratory of Clark University.
a. Clicks -- T. L. Bolton.
b. Reaction Times -- J. F. Reigart.
c. Statistics of Dreams -- M. W. Calkins.
d. Facial Vision -- F. B. Dresslar.
e. Diurnal Variations of Mental Ability -- J. A. Bergström.
f. Physiological Memory -- J. A. Bergström.
Of the twelve papers presented, three individuals (Witmer, Nichols and Bryan) each contributed two.
This program was definitely arranged by the Secretary of the Association under instructions received at the preliminary meeting. The Secretary seems to have had this function unassisted for some time. As we have already noted above, the original membership of the Association was a heterogeneous combination of psychologists and philosophers, although no solely philosophical papers were presented on the first program. Very soon, however, so many philosophical papers were submitted that in 1896 the morning session of a third day was given up to papers of a distinctly philosophical character. Up until this time, the sixth session, there had been only two-day meetings. In this same year Witmer moved, and it was referred to the Council, that there be selected "only such, con- [p. 60] tributions to the program of the annual meeting as are psychological in subject matter."
As early as 1897 we find that for the first time the meetings were divided into simultaneous sections. Will the reader pardon my little jest if I quote directly from the minutes? "In the afternoon, the Association was divided into sections, Section A meeting for the discussion of physical and mental tests and Section B . . . for the reading of psychological papers." (The italics are mine.)
In 1898 Sanford again moves that the Secretary, so far as possible, arrange the philosophical papers in a single program and in 1898 the Council were empowered to appoint a special Secretary "to take charge of the arrangement of papers for the philosophical section." And this year we find that the program was divided into sections for two mornings. Nothing much seems to have happened with regard to program building during the next six years. Members sent titles to the Secretary who arranged the programs and, with the formation of the American Philosophical Association the number of philosophical papers dropped to almost zero.
In 1905 two facts are worth recording. There is a definite statement regarding unification of sessions on the programs by topic and there is the first mention of an apparatus exhibit. Undoubtedly the Secretaries had made attempts to unify the programs by topics and undoubtedly apparatus had been exhibited before this date. But now both features become permanently a part of program building. In 1908 the sum of $20 was authorized to defray expressage on apparatus for exhibit and in 1911 this sum was increased to $25.
In 1912 a previous custom of listing papers as "read by title" was discontinued. Since this time, no paper appeared on the pro- gram unless there was reasonable assurance that it would be read. In the Proceedings of this year, the Secretary complains regarding the size of the audiences and the compactness of the programs as interfering with the amount of discussion following the reading of papers. If the discussion is to be maintained, the Secretary suggests that one of several suggestions must be adopted: (1) extend the period of the meetings to 4 or 5 days; (2) cut the length of time allowed for each paper; (3) increase the number of simultaneous sessions or (4) refuse papers that are submitted. (Italics mine.) Apparently up to this time any paper submitted to the Secretary was included on the program. The Secretary also suggests the formation of small round table conferences on such topics as "investigations of the imageless thought problem" as a method of reducing [p. 61] the number of papers on the programs. This round table idea was formally stated as a principle in 1913.
In 1914 a special session for mental tests was arranged. In this year an administrative step of some importance was taken, namely that in the future, no titles of papers would be listed unless accompanied by summaries or abstracts sent to the Secretary. These, however, seemed to be merely for the purpose of enabling the Secretary to better group the papers in accordance with topic. This rule, however, enabled the Secretary in 1915 to have the abstracts printed and distributed to the members before the meeting. This custom has been continued ever since except during the war period.
In 1915 the maximum number of 73 titles was reached for any program -- apparently all papers submitted to the Secretary still being listed. It was now so evident that this procedure led to complete congestion of the program that some sort of selective process must be set to work. It was also obvious that the Secretary alone should not have the sole responsibility for the selection or rejection of papers for the program. Hence it was voted that the Council annually appoint a Program Committee of three "empowered to select from among the titles submitted, those papers to be read and those to be listed by title only, due consideration being given to the number of papers offered, the character of those desired to constitute an evenly balanced program, and the restriction, if necessary, of papers by non-members and more than one paper by one person." In practice the Secretary, for good administrative reasons, has always been a member of this committee. Also it has been the practice of the committees either to accept or reject papers rather than to list them by title.
The next year the functions of the Program Committee were made more definite by the adoption of four principles: (1) the committee shall have full power in selection or rejection of papers; (2) no title shall be accepted unless accompanied by an abstract in triplicate ready for printing and not exceeding one printed page and containing no tables or drawings; (3) all titles and summaries are to be in the hands of the Committee by a date set by the Committee and (4) titles of rejected papers shall not be listed in the program. These rules, which have in fact remained in force up to the present time, resulted in a smaller program in 1917 and 1918.
In 1921 the number of acceptable papers was again so great that, if all were listed, there would again be no time for discussion. Hence the Committee this year reduced the number of papers for [p. 62] any session from 8 to 6 and introduced competing parallel sessions on three half-days of the meetings. The Committee for 1922 reduced the number of papers per session to 5 and also reduced the number of simultaneous sessions. This resulted in a program with fewer papers than any since 1910 with the exception of the two years of the war period.
Apparently some members objected to the simultaneous programs, but the action of the committee in 1922 reducing both the number of papers per session and also the number of simultaneous sessions, raised objections from other members. So in 1923 the plan of simultaneous but partly staggered programs of from 4 to 6 papers each was introduced and the sessions for the informal reports of graduate students were initiated. How closely the committees adhered to accepting papers only from members is indicated by the special announcement in 1924 that Koffka and H. S. Dennison had been invited to read. But still the programs remained too crowded and in 1924 the Program Committee recommends that all symposia and all joint meetings (except with Section I of A.A.A.S.) be discontinued and that round tables be still further encouraged. They also open the question again of a four-day meeting. The Council approved of all of their recommendations except the four-day meeting, but the matter was laid on the table.
In 1927 the Program Committee made the following announcement of principle which was adopted: (1) that there be no more than two concurrent sessions; (2) that each session be limited to six fifteen-minute papers; (3) that all titles unaccompanied by abstracts be rejected and (4) that the basis for acceptance of papers be (a) they present new material or a new point of view; (b) the probability of provoking discussion and (c) they may be adequately presented in fifteen minutes. This year it is noted that 51 papers were accepted of a total of 64 presented. In 1928 the Program Committee again complains that it finds its task difficult, "if the program is limited to its present size of 9-10 sessions of 5 papers each, one-third of the papers offered cannot be included." The principles for rejection were: (1) lateness; (2) absence of abstracts; (3) vagueness of abstracts; (4) relevance to other papers on the program; (5) frequency with which the writer has recently appeared on programs of the Association; (6) availability of other places to report such as round tables, conferences, etc. After elimination for these reasons the committee must then judge and select in terms of relative importance and interest. [p. 63]
And there the matter stands. In the early days of the Association the only problem confronting the program maker and the Association was the elimination of purely philosophical papers, unless it consisted in obtaining a sufficient number of papers to make an acceptable program. For many years every paper presented was accepted. As the programs become more and more crowded, this congestion was relieved at first by going over from a two to a three-day meeting and then by the adoption of the principle of simultaneous programs. As further congestion was evident, the programs were closed to non-members, more simultaneous programs were created and round tables were initiated. In spite of all this the congestion continued and hence a selection of papers presented had to be made. So that the Secretary alone would not be responsible for selections and especially for rejections of papers, the Program Committee was instituted. Finally an effort has been made to increase the technical requirements (such as presentation of abstracts by a certain date) and the elimination of symposia and joint meetings. It is certain that the motion passed in 1928 that the Association should not meet with the A.A.A.S. in 1930 was partly motivated by the hope that Section I of the A.A.A.S. would draw some of the papers which might otherwise be presented to the Association program. The program question is certainly far from settled in the Association. A solution by increasing the number of days of meeting or the number of simultaneous programs or the size of the programs seems unlikely. Any further reduction would seem, therefore, to be obtained by greater care and higher standards of the Program Committee in the selection of papers.
Joint Meetings. In 1894 an invitation was received to meet with the American Society of Naturalists. It was voted that the Association meet at the same place, if possible, but decision was left to the Council. From 1895-1898 joint meetings were held with the Naturalists and in 1897 a joint session on "Biological Problems of Today'' is recorded. In 1897 Cattell proposed and it was voted "that the American Psychological Association hold a meeting for the reading of papers at Boston, in 1898, at the time of the meeting of the A.A.A.S., the papers to be presented either before the Section of Anthropology of the A.A.A.S. or to the Psychological Association alone as may appear more desirable to the Council." In 1898 the meeting was held with the A.A.A.S. and a special session is recorded with the American Physiological Society. Meetings are recorded with the American Society of Naturalists [p. 64] from 1899 to 1904 with special session in 1899 on "The Position That Universities Should Take in Regard to Investigation." A joint session was held with the Western Philosophical Association in 1901. In 1904 and again in 1905 the Association had joint meetings with the American Philosophical Association. In this latter year, it was agreed to meet with the A.A.A.S. and the Naturalists but only if the American Philosophical Association met in the same place as well. So it would appear that the Association once content with having eliminated the philosophers from their programs and also largely from the Association, still found enough community of interest to continue meeting with them.
In 1907 and 1908 the peak of joint meetings was reached. In 1907 the Association met with the A.A.A.S., the Naturalists and the Western Philosophical Society. Special sessions are recorded with the Naturalists on "Coöperation in Biological Research" and with the philosophers on "The Relation of Ethics to Philosophy" and a second session with them on "Value." In 1908 the Association met with the A.A.A.S., the American Philosophical Association and the Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology. Special meetings are recorded with the Southern Society and with Section L of the A.A.A.S. From 1909 to 1912 the Association met yearly with the A.A.A.S. and also with other organizations as follows: in 1910 with the Western Philosophical Association and in 1911 with the Southern Society. In 1910 there was a special joint meeting on "Consciousness." In 1912 it was decided to meet with the A.A.A.S. only on alternate years. Such meetings were held on the even years from 1914 to 1924; joint sessions being held with the sections of Psychology or Education or both each year of joint meeting. In 1913 a joint session with the American Philosophical Association on "The Standpoint of Psychology" is recorded. In 1915 there was a joint session with Section VIII (Sociological Medicine) of the Pan-American Scientific Congress. In 1919 one finds a session with the American Anthropological Association and in 1924 one with the American Political Science Association. It will be realized from this list that the American Psychological Association has seldom met entirely alone.
Attendance at Meetings. In Figure VII will be found the record of attendance at the meetings so far as this material is obtainable. The solid parts of the line indicate those years for which the data are on hand and the broken lines, those years for which no data are obtainable. During the first several years, a record is printed in the Proceedings of the names of the actual members in attendance. [p. 65] Since 1915 (except for the two years of the war period) the record is of actual registration. It is certain that these registration figures are not complete -- that not every member or guest actually registered.
The curve is fairly regular with only relatively small variations and it rises slowly but steadily until 1923. Since that date, at which time Associates were elected, the curve has risen very rapidly with but a single inversion at 1925, the last Ithaca meeting. [p. 66]
Symposia and Round Table Discussions. It seems worth while merely to list the symposia and round tables inasmuch as the former formed a very important part of the earlier meetings and the latter of the more recent meetings.
1898. Relations of Will to Belief -- Ladd, Hibben, Caldwell, and Armstrong.
1899. How Should Psychology Be Taught? -- Fullerton, Jastrow, Aikins, and Judd.
1905. The Affiliation of Psychology with Philosophy and with the Natural Sciences -- Münsterberg, Hall, Thilly, J. R. Angell, Taylor, and Ostwald.
1907. Relations of Ethics to Philosophy and Psychology -- Judd, Lindley, and Stratton.
1910. Philosophical and Psychological Usages of the Terms Mind, Consciousness, and Soul -- J. R. Angell, Bode, Tawney, and Lindley.
1911. Instinct and Intelligence -- Marshall, Herrick, Yerkes, and Judd.
1911. Psychology and Medical Education -- Franz, A. Meyer, Southard, and Watson.
1913. The Standpoint of Psychology -- Creighton, F. M. Urban, Dewey, and Münsterberg.
1915. The Relations of Psychology to Science, Philosophy and Pedagogy in the Academic Curriculum -- Dodge, M. F. Meyer, Gardiner, Ogden, Judd, Haggerty, B. T. Baldwin, and Ruckmick.
1916. Twenty-fifth Anniversary Program -- Hall, Cattell, Jastrow, and Dewey.
1917. Classification of the Personnel in the Army.
1918. The Future of Pure and Applied Psychology -- Yerkes, Hall, and Thorndike.
1921. Psychology in Its Social Relations -- Cabot, Franz, and C. M. Campbell.
1922. The Application of Psychology.
1923. Contributions of Freudianism to Psychology -- L. L. Thurstone, Leuba, Lashley, and Jastrow.
1924. The Psychological Basis of Conservatism and Radicalism -- Catlin, Moore, and F. H. Allport.
In 1924 it was recommended that Symposia be discontinued. It will be noted that most of the symposia were joint sessions with other societies to which psychologists and individuals in other disciplines contributed to topics which, on the whole, were on the psychological borderline.
1913. Psychological Tests for College Freshmen.
1923. Experimental Psychology.
1924. Experimental Psychology (2), Gestalt, Clinical Psychology, Psychology and Politics, the "Drive," Problems of Highway Safety, Psychological Consultation of College Students. [p. 67]
1925. Experimental Psychology (2), Clinical Psychology, Psychological Consultation of College Students, Measurement of Character and Personality Traits.
1926. Experimental Psychology (2), Clinical Psychology, Psychological Research on the Pre-School Child.
1927. Experimental Psychology (2), Analysis of Mental Traits.
1928. Experimental Psychology (2), Clinical Psychology, Personality, First Course in Psychology, Consciousness and Behavior, Psychophysical Measurement Methods, Esthetics.
In 1928 the Secretary attempted an elaborate scheme of suggesting topics for round tables which was sent out at the time of the Call for Papers and the preliminary announcement of the program. The scatter of the returns was so great as to make them practically useless and the scheme has been abandoned. It will be noted that only two round tables are recorded before 1924 which is the last date for symposia. The round tables, which have usually been well attended and have provoked much discussion, have been definitely adopted as an important part of the program.
Presidential Addresses. Since the very first meeting, the presidential address has been a feature of the formal programs. In the early days it was delivered at an important place in the afternoon session. With the inauguration of the Association's banquet, it was delivered after the dinner. Now that the dinner has been discontinued, the presidential address is to be delivered on the evening of the second day of the meetings. Only twice has there been no presidential address. In 1918 Baird was president and at the time of the meeting he was too ill to attend and just before the meeting he was too ill to prepare an address. In 1924 Hall was elected president for the second time but died between the time of his election and the time of the meeting. In place of his presidential address, a Memorial Meeting was held after the dinner with addresses by Burnham and Starbuck. In 1929, there was no meeting because of the International Congress at New Haven. Arrangements were made, however, to have the presidential address of Lashley given at that time and place. All of these addresses, with the exception of that of Hall in 1892, have been published in full in the Psychological Review. A list of these addresses follows:
1892. Hall -- History and Prospects of Experimental Psychology in America.
1893. Ladd -- The Problems of Psychology.
1894. James -- The Knowing of Things Together.
1895. Cattell -- Psychology and the Other Sciences.
1896. Fullerton -- The "Knower" in Psychology.
1897. Baldwin, J. M.-- Selective Thinking. [p. 68]
1898. Münsterberg -- Psychology and History.
1899. Dewey -- Psychology and Social Practice.
1900. Jastrow -- Currents and Undercurrents in Psychology.
1901. Royce -- Recent Logical Inquiries and Their Psychological Bearings.
1902. Sanford -- Psychology and Physics.
1903. Bryan -- Theory and Practice.
1904. James -- The Experience of Activity.
1905. Calkins -- A Reconciliation of Structural and Functional Psychology.
1906. Angell, J. R. -- The Province of Functional Psychology.
1907. Marshall -- The Methods of the Naturalist and Psychologist.
1908. Stratton -- The Betterment of Rival Types of Explication.
1909. Judd -- Consciousness and Evolution.
1910. Pillsbury -- The Place of Movement in Consciousness.
1911. Seashore -- The Measurement of a Singer.
1912. Thorndike -- Ideo-Motor Action.
1913. Warren -- The Mental and the Physical.
1914. Woodworth -- A Revision of Imageless Thought.
1915. Watson -- The Place of the Conditioned Reflex in Psychology.
1916. Dodge -- The Laws of Relative Fatigue.
1917. Yerkes -- Psychology in Relation to the War.
1919. Scott -- Changes in Some of Our Conceptions and Practices of Personnel.
1920. Franz -- Cerebral-Mental Relations.
1921. Washburn -- Introspection as an Objective Method.
1922. Dunlap -- The Foundations of Social Psychology.
1923. Terman -- The Mental Test as a Psychological Method.
1925. Bentley -- The Major Categories of Psychology.
1926. Carr -- The Interpretation of the Animal Mind.
1927. Hollingworth, H. L. -- Sensuous Determinants of Psychological Attitudes.
1928. Boring -- The Psychology of Controversy.
1929. Lashley -- Basic Neural Mechanisms in Behavior.
Dinners. Since 1913 the Association has annually held a dinner which was followed by the presidential address. Before this date there are records that in 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1907 the psychologists attended the dinner of the Affiliated Societies and in 1906 the dinner of the American Society of Naturalists. In 1913 the Association attempted its own dinner and declared the principle of having it in a private dining room if possible. In 1914 it was noted that dinner was served to 102 and in 1924 to 267 people. In 1928, due to the size of the crowd who desired to attend, there was difficulty in obtaining a dining hall large enough to accommodate them and due to the difficulty of having a reasonably priced dinner served in a room this size it was voted "that the annual dinner be henceforth omitted and that an evening meeting be held for the reception of the presidential address to be followed by a smoker."
Summer Meetings. In 1896 an invitation was received from the [p. 69] Director of the Biological Laboratory at Wood's Hole for the Association to hold an informal meeting during some week of the summer months. This was referred to the Council with the instructions "that the question be favorably considered and that Wood's Hole be regarded as an eligible place for such a meeting." Nothing seems to have been done, however. In 1897 it is noted "with regard to the question of a summer meeting, the following resolution was proposed by Professor Cattell and carried: Resolved that the American Psychological Association hold a meeting for the reading of papers in Boston, in 1898, at the time of the meeting of the A.A.A.S., the papers to be presented either before the Section of Anthropology of the A.A.A.S. or to the Psychological Association alone as may appear more desirable to the Council." Apparently the Council thought it more desirable to let the Section of Anthropology handle the matter. Again in 1899 the Council was empowered to call a summer meeting with the A.A.A.S. in New York in June, 1900, but apparently failed to do so. Finally in 1912 it is noted that the Association was invited for a summer meeting in California in 1915. One may conclude that summer meetings were not very attractive to the Association.
The recent participation of the Association in the Ninth International Congress of Psychology held in New Haven in 1929 was the culmination of an effort extending over a period of nearly thirty years to have the International Congress in America. The Association's connection with Congresses dates from its first meeting. In 1892 a motion for the participation of the Association in a Psychological Congress in Chicago in connection with the World's Fair Congress Auxiliary was defeated. In 1895 it was voted that those members who attended the International Congress of Psychology in Munich in 1896 be empowered to act as delegates of the Association. In 1896 the Association was invited to attend the meetings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science as members of the Section of Physiology (!). It was voted that any member who attended would be authorized as a delegate of the Association. In 1899 James and Ladd were designated as delegates to the International Congress of Psychology at Paris in 1900 and the Council was authorized to appoint additional delegates.
In 1900 the first effort was made to get the International Congress to America. In that year it was voted "That the Committee of Arrangements of Foreign Congresses of Psychology be requested to confer with the American Psychological Association with regard to [p. 70] the American representation at such Congresses and the participation of American members in their proceedings." This was the opening wedge for getting American members on the International Committee of the Congresses.
In 1909 there is a real difference of opinion apparent in regard to extending an invitation to the International Congress to meet in America as is evidenced by a motion in that year. "A resolution to the effect that, in the opinion of the Association, it is inadvisable that the International Congress of Psychology meet in America in 1913, was referred to the Council with power." After consideration of this matter, the Council recommended in 1910 "(1) that the Association extend a hearty welcome to the Seventh International Congress of Psychology for its meeting in 1913; (2) that in place of the regular meeting in December, 1912, the Association meet in the spring of 1913 in conjunction with the International Congress; (3) that a committee composed of Messrs. Cattell, Münsterberg, Sanford, Titchener, Watson, and W. V. Bingham, be appointed to coöperate with the officers of the Congress." In 1911 this committee reported that it seemed inadvisable to hold the Congress in America due to "a lamentable lack of interest in the Congress abroad." The report then continues: "Other members of the Committee have felt that it is important not to abandon the project in spite of the attitude of European psychologists and the difficulties in the way of holding a successful congress of really international character. On motion of Professor Cattell, the Secretary was instructed to secure by mail from the members of the Association, the Southern Society, and the North Central Association, an informal expression of opinion regarding the desirability of having the congress in America." Nothing further was done because, almost immediately, "word was received from the officers of the Congress that the project of holding the Congress in America in 1913 has been definitely abandoned."
The second attempt to get the International Congress to America was initiated by the Council, who in May, 1923, appointed a committee consisting of Cattell, Chairman, J. R. Angell, Boring, Dodge, Pillsbury, Thorndike, Woodworth and Yerkes. This committee reported to the 1923 annual meeting with the following recommendations: "(1) That the American Psychological Association extends a cordial invitation to the Eighth International Congress of Psychology to meet in America during the summer of 1926," and "(2) that the Secretary of the American Psychological Association be instructed to inform the International Committee on the place of meeting of the [p. 71] Congress, that adequate provision can be made for the meetings and that it is hoped that University lectureships can be arranged through which the traveling expenses of a number of European psychologists will be defrayed." The minutes of this meeting go on to say that the Secretary read several documents and "presented a unanimous vote of the Council recommending that the Association should not extend an invitation to the Eighth International Congress to meet in America." The recommendation of the Council was adopted and the committee discharged. Thus, on the recommendation of the Council, the Association reversed the findings of the special committee and the second move to hold the International Congress in America failed.
The third and successful attempt was initiated in 1926 when it was voted "That the American Psychological Association cordially invites the International Congress of Psychology to meet in the United States in 1929 or any year thereafter that the International Committee may select." A Ways and Means Committee was, on motion, appointed by the incoming President, consisting of Boring, Chairman, Dodge, Langfeld, Seashore, and Terman. Also the Council was required to report a plan of organization of the International Congress to the 1927 meeting. The committee not only reported the rather complicated but adequate plan of organization but also reported that election under this plan had already been carried out. The plan was then accepted and the elections ratified. The discussion of this plan is a matter rather of the history of the Congress than of the Association. It will be found printed in full in the Psychological Bulletin, 1928, 25, 136-139. This plan, briefly, called for a democratic election by means of a nomination and then an election ballot for the offices of President, Vice-President, and Secretary and of a National Committee of twenty-one members. With the ratification of this election the conduct of the International Congress passed out of the hands of the Association and into the hands of the officers and of the National Committee. The Association also voted $1,000 to the International Committee for the use of the Congress. At the 1928 meeting it was announced that the Ninth International Congress would meet at New Haven, September 1-7, 1929. It was voted to omit the annual meeting of the Association in 1929, to arrange for the presidential address at the Congress and to suspend the by-laws for this year and empower the Council to pass on all routine business including the election of Members and Associates. It is of interest to note that the Association made an excellent investment when it advanced the National Committee the sum of $1,000. [p. 72]
When the final accounting of the Congress was made this committee had a balance of over $2,000 which in 1930 was paid to the Association.
RELATION OF THE ASSOCIATION TO PUBLICATION
The interest of the Association in psychological publications dates back at least to 1909. In this year, Yerkes wished to obtain the sentiment of the Association regarding the establishment of a Journal of Animal Behavior and asked that the Council consider the appropriation of $1 per member toward its support. This grant was obviously refused inasmuch as it would have established the principle of Association contribution to private enterprise. But this question led, in 1910, to the establishment of a Committee on the Relation of the Association to American Psychological Journals. At this time all such journals in America were privately owned and the editors of these were appointed to the committee, which consisted of Warren, Angell, Woodbridge, Cattell, Sanford, Bell, Yerkes, Prince, and Hall. Their functions were not clearly defined by the motion creating the committee which read that they were "to consider and report on the relations of the Association to American journals concerned with psychological research." In 1911 this committee reported progress and was continued. The next year it reported that it had discussed the question of a Centralblatt (which had been suggested the year before by L. J. Martin) and also the question of club subscriptions but that there had been so much divergence of opinion in the committee that all of these matters had been abandoned. The committee was discharged.
There the matter rested until 1919 when it was voted that the "President appoint a committee of two members to coöperate with the Division of Anthropology and Psychology of the National Research Council for the purpose of arranging for an Abstract Journal in psychology of international character." In 1920 the committee reported a plan which, in brief, was to run abstracts in six of the twelve issues each year of the Psychological Bulletin provided that either the Association or individuals guarantee a maximum of $1,500 subvention to provide against a possible deficit over a two-year period. The committee moved the adoption of the plan but on motion the committee was discharged and it was decided that no final action be taken for a year. It would seem that this motion was defeated because it involved the subsidizing by the Association of privately owned journals. Meanwhile, and without the backing of the Association, Franz as editor of the Bulletin and with the consent [p. 73] of the Psychological Review Company which owned the journal, proceeded with arrangements for the publication of abstracts. The first of these appeared in the January, 1921, issue of the Bulletin and they were continued until the establishment of the Psychological Abstracts in 1927.
In 1920 a new committee on the Relation of the Association to Publications was formed. They reported in 1921 that they were unable to reach an agreement and this second committee was discharged. But the urge for Association participation in psychological journals continued and a third committee was appointed in their stead with a personnel consisting of Washburn, Chairman, Franz, and Langfeld. In 1922 this committee made a very important report. This was a proposal from Professor Warren to give an option to the Association of the entire stock of the Psychological Review Company "consisting of 110 shares at $50.00 a share, plus unpaid dividends at 5 per cent from the date of incorporation (1911). This option will extend to January 1, 1928." The total price of $5,500 was small considering that the Association would acquire the good will, effects, and subscription lists (including very complete sets of back numbers) of five journals including the Psychological Review, the Psychological Bulletin, the Journal of Experimental Psychology, the Psychological Monographs, and the Psychological Index. It was voted in 1922 that Warren's option be taken up and that the committee be authorized to draw up the necessary papers to make the option effective. The next year it was announced that this action had been completed and the Council resolved "to continue the present administration of the Journals." The situation at this moment was somewhat complicated inasmuch as although the Association was administering the journals, it was not possible to dissolve the Psychological Review Company until the Association had met all of their obligations to Warren. Meanwhile the committee, as the result of a mail vote of the members to ascertain their desires, worked out a plan for financing the purchase of these journals. Their plan, as submitted in 1924, was to pay $500 on January 1, 1925, and to give ten notes for $500 each at 5 per cent interest, payable annually at the rate of one note each year from 1927 on. In order to obtain this additional income, it was suggested to increase the dues $2.00 per year. Warren had also suggested to the Committee that the editors be elected for definite periods with staggered terms to be decided by lot. This was a plan to provide, for the Association, the means of discontinuing the editorial policy of any journal of which they disapproved. The report of the committee, [p. 74] including the change of dues, was adopted. It was further voted that the Council of the Association become the Board of Directors of the Psychological Review Company. The plan for tenure of editors was not approved, however, and it was voted that all questions of tenure of editors be stricken from the by-laws and that these matters be left to the Council for the year 1925 with power to act and that, at the 1925 meeting, the Council report a permanent plan for the editorial administration of the journals. The Committee was then discharged. In 1925 it was decided that the matter of the continuation of editors be left to the Council and that the appointment of new editors be made by the Council with the approval of the Association. In 1926 the National Academy of Sciences granted the Association $250 to cover a deficit in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. In the same year, an offer by Murchison to purchase the Journal of Experimental Psychology was unanimously refused.
In 1927 the Board of Editors of the Psychological Review Company were constituted a committee to consider the formulation of plans for discontinuing the Psychological Index (now that the Psychological Abstracts was in existence) with power to act. This Board did not approve of the discontinuance of the Index. In 1929 this committee advised that the "Index be continued at least a year longer" and this recommendation was unanimously approved by the Association.
A total of $3,500 was paid to Warren to reduce the outstanding notes plus some $730 interest on the outstanding notes. The records of the payments are: 1925 -- $500; 1926 -- $500; 1927 -- $1,000; 1928 -- $500, and 1929 -- $1,000. Hence by 1929 the Association was three payments ahead of schedule. In this year Warren very generously presented the rest of the outstanding stock to the Association -- thus cancelling the unpaid notes. This action was especially generous because the original price for the group of journals was lower than the actual value of the journals purchased. With this gift, the Association obtained complete possession of the Psychological Review Company. Inasmuch as there was no longer any reason for the existence of the company, the Secretary was authorized to secure legal advice in reference to dissolving it. It was found that there were legal difficulties and that the best plan was to allow the Psychological Review Company to continue alongside of the Association under the then operative plan of a completely interlocking directorate.
The Psychological Abstracts. It will be remembered that the [p. 75] Association's interest in publications dates back to a proposal made as early as 1910 to establish a journal of psychological abstracts. Several committees handled the matter but came to no conclusion in regard to the project. Meanwhile, in 1920, and without the support of the Association, the Psychological Bulletin began to run abstracts. The Division of Anthropology and Psychology of the National Research Council were also interested in this project and had a committee appointed to further the plan. This committee met with that of the Association in 1923 to discuss ways and means. The report of the Association's committee in 1924, already noted above, which provided for an increase in the Association's dues also recommended a further increase once the Abstract Journal should appear.
In 1925 it was voted that "Provided financial assistance can be obtained toward the editorial expenses of the Abstract Journal for a period of years, the Association will undertake to develop an adequate abstract journal covering the field of psychology, and will attempt further to make the journal self-supporting by the end of ten years. The Association does not wish, however, to obligate itself in any way to continue the enterprise beyond this period if experience should show that it cannot be made to support itself financially." A committee of three, consisting of Hunter, Chairman, Langfeld and Fernberger, was appointed to formulate plans and to seek a subvention. The Council was authorized to accept such a subvention without referring it back to the Association. It was also voted to discontinue the printing of abstracts in the Bulletin after January 1, 1927. In 1926 it was announced that the Psychological Abstracts would appear in January, 1927, with a subsidy of $76,500 over an eleven year period made by the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Foundation. Hunter was appointed editor of the new journal. After a single year's experience it seemed that this subvention would not be sufficient and it was voted that a committee composed of the Editor of the Psychological Abstracts, the Business Editor of the Psychological Review Company and the outgoing President be appointed "to approach the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial with a view to increasing their subvention for the Psychological Abstracts." This request was refused by the Foundation.
The initiation of the Psychological Abstracts had a profound influence on the character of the Association. The author believes that its projected initiation had a considerable influence on the formation of the Associate grade of membership although this was primarily motivated by the desire to take into the Association those [p. 76] psychologists of junior grade without lowering the standards for Membership. With the initiation of the Abstracts, subscription became compulsory for both Members and
Associates and $3.00 was charged on their dues to be turned over to the expenses of this journal. This action led to the present higher dues. Also the possibility that at the end of the eleven-year period, the Association may be unable to acquire a further subvention and may have to assume complete financial responsibility for the Abstracts has led to a policy of building up a large surplus in the treasury.
The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. In 1925 a letter was received from Morton Prince offering to give the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology to the Association. It was voted to accept the journal and further that it be administered by a committee consisting of the Editor of the Journal, the Treasurer of the Association, and the Business Editor of the Psychological Review Company. In 1926 it was announced that the Journal had been transferred to the Association. It has been administered by the editor since that time with the business affairs handled in the office of the Psychological Review Company.
Psychological Handbooks. If the current literature was to be made readily available through the Abstracts, the notion was conceived of making the previous literature available by means of topical handbooks. This idea originated in the Division of Anthropology and Psychology of the National Research Council. In 1925 it was voted to appoint a committee of two (Robinson, E. S., Chairman, and Fernberger) to confer with a similar committee from the National Research Council to determine the "feasibility and means of publishing a series of Psychological Handbooks." In 1926 this committee reported progress, was increased by the addition to its personnel of Boring, Warren, and Woodworth, and was given $100 for expenses. This addition to the personnel of the Association Committee made it the same as that of the N.R.C. In 1927 the
committee reported a plan of a series of handbooks and was again continued and "authorized to proceed with such plans of publication which the Council shall approve, providing no expense to the Association is incurred."
In 1928 the report of the committee was accepted, ordered filed and the committee discharged. The report carried a plan for accomplishing the editing and publication of the Handbooks. The Council moved that the Association approve the Handbook scheme and that a committee of five be appointed to "attempt to obtain the necessary [p. 77] subvention and proceed with the plan of publication." This motion brought forth a great deal of discussion. By this time the National Research Council had lost interest in the project. The Council's motion was lost. But just previously the Conference of Editors and Business Managers of Anthropological and Psychological Journals, called by the Division of the N.R.C., had endorsed the project. By a vote of 43 to 40, the Association also endorsed the Handbook idea in principle and voted that this be transmitted to the Chairman of the Division of Anthropology and Psychology of the N.R.C. It was then voted that the vote be recorded and also transmitted to the Chairman which, of course, had the effect of nullifying the motion. It will be of interest to note that this is one of the few times that the actual vote on any motion was ever recorded in the minutes. Thus ended the Handbook idea.
Publications in Applied Psychology. In 1917 it was voted that the "President appoint a permanent Committee on Publications of Applied Psychology whose duty shall be to consider the general merits of publications in or professing to be in the field of applied psychology and to publish their findings." The committee consisted of Geissler, Chairman, H. L. Hollingworth, Miner, Scott, and Strong. The purpose of the committee was obviously to keep the work in applied psychology free from charlatanism. But how they were to proceed is not clear to the author and, apparently, was not too clear to the committee. In 1918 they made no report and were continued. In 1919 one finds the brief statement "Mr. Geissler made a brief report for the Committee on Publications in Applied Psychology. It was voted that the report be received and the Committee discharged." There is no record of what the report may have contained. Thus concluded another effort of the Association to control the personnel or output of psychology -- ending in failure comparable to the failures of the effort to control clinical psychology noted above.
Summary Regarding Publications. The Association is now in the publishing business on a large scale -- owning seven of the seventeen publications listed in the Directory of Psychological Publications printed on the back page of the journals. Of these, five were acquired by purchase of the Psychological Review Company, completed by gift from Warren when they were little more than half paid for. The Abstracts were initiated in part by support from the Association and in part by subvention from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology was acquired through the gift of Morton Prince. All seven journals have [p. 78] new [sic] been brought into the business office of the Psychological Review Company but the financial affairs of the Abstracts and the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology have been kept separate from the other group of five. It is of interest to note that at no time has the Association or the Council interfered or been anything but sympathetic toward the editorial management of any of the journals.
Awards and Grants. The only award of funds ever made by the Association to individuals was in 1899 when $50 was granted to Bryan and Lindley "to be used in the continuation of their investigation of the mathematical prodigy now under their charge."
In 1913 F. M. Urban addressed the meeting on the function of the Association in the encouragement of research and to this end advocated the founding of a prize to be awarded for meritorious research. It was voted that the President appoint a committee of three "to consider the advisability and the means of advancing psychology by the method of offering prizes." This committee failing to report for two successive years, they were discharged and the matter dropped.
In 1920 the Association consented to administer a prize of $500 offered by Thomas A. Edison for "the most meritorious research on the effects of music." The matter was placed in the hands of a committee consisting of W. V. Bingham, Chairman, Kitson, and Weld, who in 1921 announced the awarding of the prize to M. F. Washburn and G. S. Dickinson for a paper entitled "The Sources and Nature of the Affective Reaction to Instrumental Music."
Psychological Bibliography. In 1900 Leuba applied for financial support in "publishing his catalogue of psychological literature." This was referred to a committee of five consisting of Leuba, J. M. Baldwin, Warren, Newbold, and Judd. The Committee reported in 1901 and, on recommendation of the Council, it was voted that a Committee on Bibliography be appointed and instructed to report at the next meeting" upon the subject of a psychological bibliography including contents, plan of arrangements and publication." Warren was appointed chairman and the committee consisted of Sanford, Creighton, Sneath, and McDougall. The project had thus enlarged from financial assistance to Leuba by the Association to an Association project.
This new committee was impressed with the project and recommended in 1902 that the Association undertake a bibliography of all [p. 79] psychological work published prior to the initiation of the Psychological Index (January 1, 1894). They suggested that as a nucleus for this bibliography, the committee be authorized to purchase Leuba's collection of titles for $200. The compilation of the bibliography was to be left to a committee of five. No definite action was to be taken at once with regard to publication. The committee was continued. In 1903 they reported that Leuba would sell for $150. The committee found that this type of project could not well be carried out by a committee and they recommended the employment of a single competent person whom they believed could be secured for one year for $1,000, to complete the work. They recommended that the Association grant $500 for this salary and that application for a like sum be made to the Carnegie Institution. It was voted that this report be laid on the table and the committee continued for one year. In 1904 the report was taken from the table, discussed, and referred back to the Committee for further report at the next meeting. The report in 1905 estimated a cost of $2,320 for an edition of 500 copies. Meanwhile, however, the Association had heard of the projected bibliography by Rand. It was voted that no action be taken until the appearance of Rand's bibliography and the Committee was discharged. In 1906 the Council, acting as a committee, reported that they had examined Rand's bibliography and that they "regard it as injudicious that anything further be done on the matter."
Library Check Lists. In 1921 a committee of three (Angier, Chairman, Warren, and Weld) was appointed "to consider a plan for the preparation, in conjunction with the Committee of the American Library Association, for a library check list of unusual and infrequently used psychological books and to report upon the feasibility of the plan to the Association, or to act in furtherance of the project." In 1922 the Committee asked that it be continued and that it be authorized to communicate with psychologists and universities to obtain such lists and that, on the basis of such lists, certain libraries be designated as
responsible for obtaining all new material on topics in which they are already strong. That a list of these topics and libraries be prepared for the use of psychologists. The Committee was continued and given $100 for the work.
In 1923 they reported that 85 letters had been sent to individuals and universities. A number of individuals had accepted the scheme enthusiastically and many departments and libraries seemed to be interested. The Committee was continued and given another $100. In 1924 the Committee reports again. Some 104 different institutions [p. 80] were circularized and 45 replies received. Of these "it appears that only 16 are more or less definitely, either at present strong in the literature of some particular field of psychology, or willing to consider further specialization in one or more designated fields." In answer to a request for a list of rare books in the possession of libraries only three replies with a total of 19 titles were received. The Committee concludes that it is not profitable at the time to develop a more comprehensive scheme and, at its own request, was discharged.
Committee on Methods of Teaching Psychology and Teaching Experiments. In 1908 on recommendation of the Council, a committee of five (C. E. Seashore, Chairman, J. R. Angell, Calkins, Sanford, and Whipple) was appointed "to gather materials for a discussion before the Association, presumably at its next annual meeting, on the topic: 'Methods of Teaching
Psychology.'" During the year this Committee sent out three different questionnaires to (1) normal schools; (2) to colleges without laboratories, and (3) to colleges with psychological laboratories. The results were statisticized and presented to the Association in 1909, at which time the Committee was given $150 to publish their findings. The report appears as Number 51 of the Psychological Monographs. The Committee reported again in 1911 and now it appears that their interest had shifted to their second problem of Teaching Experiments. In this year the principle of rotation was adopted for the personnel of this committee. In 1914, three years later, the Committee "showed considerable data" on Teaching Experiments to the members and were instructed to continue their work and to publish a complete list of such experiments. In 1916 two more experiments were reported. In 1917 and again in 1918, although no new work was reported, the Committee was continued. In 1919 no
new work having again been reported for the third successive year, the Committee was discharged.
Committee on Academic Status of Psychology. This Committee was established in 1913 with Warren, Chairman, and Dewey and Judd as members. In 1914 this Committee printed a report which was distributed to the members of the Association in which such topics as the relation of psychology to other academic departments, the first course in psychology and advanced psychological courses were considered. The report recommended that "the Association adopt the principle that the undergraduate psychological curriculum in every college and university, great or small, should be planned from the standpoint of psychology and in accordance with psycho- [p. 81] logical ideals, rather than to fit the needs and meet the demands of some other branch of learning." The Association passed this recommendation. The author wonders how many college and university administrators or heads of departments of psychology changed their policy because of this recommendation and vote. At this time the committee were authorized to investigate cases of apparently improper dismissal of psychologists from academic positions.
In 1915 the Committee held a symposium on the "Relation of Psychology, Philosophy and Pedagogy in the Academic Curriculum." At the same time, a printed report on "The Academic Status of Psychology in the Normal Schools" was presented and distributed to the members. The Committee which prepared this report had been enlarged by the addition of B. T. Baldwin and Washburn. This present report is the result of a questionnaire regarding the training of instructors and the present status of teaching psychology in normal schools. As a statistical summary, this report is excellent. The Committee was continued to attend to matters of academic tenure. The next year, 1916, the Committee distributed copies of "A Survey of Psychological Investigations with Reference to Differentiations Between Psychological Experiments and Mental Tests." In 1917 and 1918 the Committee reported that the war had prevented progress and it was continued, only to be discharged in 1919.
Committee on the Relations of Psychology and Medical Education. This Committee composed of Scott, Southard, and Watson was appointed in 1911. The next year it reported progress and Franz was made Chairman in place of Scott. This Committee presented a printed report in 1913 which appeared in Science (1913, N.S. 38, 555-566). The basis of the report is a questionnaire sent to 116 medical schools in the United States of which replies were received from 71. The general tenor of the replies was that psychology is advantageous for medical education and that a course in clinical as well as general psychology is recommended. The Committee was continued in 1914 and discharged the next year without further report.
Standing Committee on Psychological and Philosophical Terminology. As early as 1898, J. M. Baldwin proposed this committee, composed of himself, Münsterberg, Cattell, Sanford, Creighton, Royce, and Minot. "Their duties shall be: (1) to recommend, from time to time, new terms in psychology and philosophy; (2) to recommend choice of alternative terms in these fields; (3) to recommend foreign equivalents for translating work both into English and into [p. 82] foreign languages, and (4) to keep the Association informed as to the growth of terminology in other departments, especially in Neurology." The Committee was authorized to get help from foreigners not members of the Association and these were to be known as "Associates of the Committee."
This Committee reported in 1900 and nothing further seems to have been heard of it. It will be noted that the J. M. Baldwin Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology appeared in 1901 and it may be that this, in part, represents the work of the Committee. The idea of a standardized terminology was revived in 1915 when Dunlap moved that the Association appoint a committee of five "to consider the matter of uniformity in the usage of psychological terms " and for this purpose they were instructed to confer with a similar committee of the American Philosophical Association. In 1916 the Committee reported progress and hoped to have some tentative results to present the next year. Some terms with definitions were presented in 1917 and 1921 and were printed in the Psychological Bulletin. In 1923 the Committee reported that a number of terms were being considered but that the decision on any term required a great deal of correspondence and labor. Apparently in view of this fact the Committee was discharged. Warren was always the motivating head of this Committee and one wonders whether Warren's projected Dictionary of Psychological Terms was not initiated by his interest in the work of this Committee.
Committee on Precautions in Animal Experimentation. Due to certain unfavorable publicity in the case of certain operative techniques in connection with some animal experimentation in psychology, the President was instructed, in 1924, to appoint a committee of three "to investigate the matter of precautions to be taken in animal experimentation." This committee consisted of Yerkes, Chairman, P. T. Young and Tolman. Young later assumed the Chairmanship. In 1925 they presented a code for such experimental work, which was adopted and printed. In 1926, the Committee made no report. The recommendation of the Council that it be discharged was lost, and instead it was made a standing committee with staggered terms for its personnel. In 1927 they were given $50 with which to print their code, copies of which were to be distributed to the various laboratories
doing animal work. The Committee has been continued until the present without change in personnel.
The Year-Book. The history of the printed list of members may be of interest. This list was first printed at the end of the Proceed- [p. 83] ings in 1896. In 1905 it first appeared as a separate list leaved into the Proceedings. The list in Year-Book form first appeared in 1914 carrying merely the names and addresses of the members. This was enlarged in 1916 by the addition of degrees, titles and subjects of instruction and research, so that, at that date, the Year-Book assumed its present form.
Academic Tenure. In 1912 it was voted that "the Association thinks it inadvisable for members to accept a Summer School position at a rate of payment per week less than he receives during the academic year." This resolution was sent to the Directors of all Summer Schools.
In 1914 the President reported upon "two cases investigated by him during the past year, which concerned dismissal, upon questionable grounds, of psychologists from positions which they had been occupying for a number of years." No action was deemed advisable in either case but, upon recommendation of the Council, it was voted to enlarge the function of the Committee on Academic Status of Psychology to enable it to undertake similar investigations when such cases are brought before the Association and to report upon them.
THE OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION
On the following page will be found the complete list of officers of the Association with the dates of their election to office. The Presidents are in the first column, Secretaries and Treasurers in the next and members of the Council of Directors in the last column. Two individuals have been elected twice to the Presidency -- James in 1894 and 1904 and Hall in 1892 and 1924.
A personnel study of the Presidents is perhaps more amusing than instructive. James and Hall appear only once in the following discussion although each held the Presidency twice. In Figure VIII will be found the dates of birth of the Presidents in the order in which they held office. Ladd and James were the oldest, both born in 1842, with Hall only two years younger. The curve shows that the Association first honored its three senior men. From 1895 to 1905 the Presidents were all of a generation -- the curve is irregular but runs along more or less at a level. From 1907 a new generation is reached with the election of a group of men on the average about ten years younger. This level maintains for some seventeen years. The curve indicates that for the last four years a new generation, again some ten years younger than the last, are being elected to the Presidency. [p. 84]
The place of birth of the Presidents is given in Table IV. Of the 36 Presidents, only 5 were of foreign birth. Of the remaining 31 American born almost half came from four states, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York.
In all 14 states are represented. An analysis gives the following supplementary table of geographical distribution regarding birthplace:
The place from which the President received his first academic degree is given in Table V. Only two Presidents had their elementary college training in foreign institutions. In all 24 American universities are represented.
The place from which Presidents obtained their Doctor of Philosophy degree or their other professional degrees are given in Table VI. This table is very different from the one just preceding of the place of the first degree. Eight of the Presidents received foreign degrees of which five were from Leipzig. The 28 Presidents [p. 86] with American degrees obtained them at one of only eight universities and 21 of the 28 obtained them at one of only four universities (Hopkins, Columbia, Cornell, and Harvard).
The facts of these two tables closely correspond to the analysis of academic antecedents made for the members of the entire Association in 1928. For both the list of the place of first degree is relatively large while that for the Ph.D. degree is small. All but one institution in the Ph.D. list for Presidents (Princeton) falls among the ten highest for degree granting for the entire Association. In both cases it makes little difference where one gets his inspiration to go into psychology, but one gets his Ph.D. degree from one of a relatively few institutions.
The age at which Presidents received their Ph.D. degrees is given in Figure IX. In the several cases in which Presidents did not hold the Ph.D. degree and in the one unusual case of an individual getting this degree many years after his Presidency, the age is assumed to be four years after the taking of the undergraduate degree.
The youngest age for the Ph.D. degree is twenty-two years and the oldest is thirty-three years. The average age for the acquiring of the pro- [p. 87] fessional degree is twenty-eight years. This means that, as a group, these individuals all matured early and were in psychology professionally at a relatively early age.
The age at the time of election to the Presidency varies greatly as is shown in Figure X. Cattell is the youngest man to have been elected to the Presidency -- at the age of thirty-five years.
H. R. Marshall was the oldest to be elected to the Presidency at the age of fifty-six. The average age of election is only forty-six years which is younger than one would expect a priori. Only three individuals have been elected after their fifty-third year, and only eight after their fiftieth year. It would seem to have been the custom in the Association to elect to the Presidency some man or woman at the height of his productive career.
The place at which the candidate for the Presidency was working at the time of his election is given in Table VII. Three individuals did not hold academic positions at the time of election (Marshall, Franz, and Lashley). The last two were in research positions but [p. 88] without full-time academic connection. Of the remaining 34 Presidents, 10, or nearly one-third, came from Columbia or Harvard, and 19, or over 55 per cent, came from five institutions (Columbia, Harvard, Clark, Hopkins, and Princeton). In all, 18 universities have supplied Presidents to the Association. With regard to a further geographical analysis, New England supplied 13, the Middle Atlantic States, l0; the Middle West, 9; the South, 4, and the far West, 1.
And finally it is of interest to note what has happened to the past Presidents. One finds that only 8 have died and 5 others are no longer in academic work. Of the 22 remaining in academic work, 3 are University Presidents; 18 are in academic psychology, and 1 is in education.
The distribution of these with regard to academic institutions is found in Table VIII. Half of the living ex-Presidents who remain in academic work are to be found at one of four institutions (Chicago, Columbia, Yale, or Princeton). In all 15 institutions are included in the list. At the present time, of the living ex-Presidents, 10 are in the Middle Atlantic area; 7 in the Middle West; 5 in New England; 3 in the Far West; 1 in the South, and 1 living abroad.
The Association has done two things exceedingly well. In the first place, it has gathered together the psychologists of the country and has given its members a group self-consciousness which the author believes has done more toward defining psychology in this country and toward giving psychology its place with the other subjects of the academic curriculum, than any other one thing. The Association has consistently maintained a higher and higher standard for Membership so that it is recognized that it is something of an honor to be elected a Member and something of a professional necessity for a psychologist to be within the Association either as Member or Associate. The result is that the Association comprises a surpris- [p. 89] ingly large proportion of the professional psychologists of America. One great factor for the development of this professional self-consciousness has been the high quality of the scientific programs at the meetings. The second thing that the Association has done well is the acquiring and maintaining of the group of journals which it now owns, covering practically the entire field of psychology.
Of these two accomplishments the Association may well be proud. On the other hand, the Association has completely and signally failed at every direct attempt to control psychology or psychologists, whether it has been in matters of terminology, technique, or personnel. Whether this attempted control has involved the acceptance of definitions of psychological terms or the certification of consulting psychologists or what not between, this history indicates that all such attempts at direct action have sooner or later completely collapsed without direct effect. What the effect of these attempts may have been for the moulding of public opinion no one can say. Undoubtedly this effect has been great but it cannot be measured. Perhaps the outstanding thing which the Association could now do for psychologists would be to work for the establishment of some sort of a legal definition of psychologists of the sort that the American Medical Association has accomplished for physicians in this country. In conclusion, one may say that psychology in America could not possibly have gained the position it now holds in the academic and professional world without the effect of the Association, defining the field and bringing the psychologists together for concerted action.