Classics in the History of Psychology
An internet resource developed by
Christopher D. Green
York University, Toronto, Ontario
ISSN 1492-3173
(Return to Classics index)
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.
THE FOUNDING
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[1] 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.
MEMBERSHIP
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.
FINANCES
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.
THE CONSTITUTION
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.
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:
ARTICLE I
MEMBERSHIP
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.
ARTICLE II
MEETINGS
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]
ARTICLE III
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.
ARTICLE IV
OFFICERS
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.
ARTICLE V
CORPORATE SEAL
1. The corporate seal of this Association shall be
ARTICLE VI
ELECTIONS
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.
ARTICLE VII
COMMITTEES
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.
ARTICLE VIII
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTIONS
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.
ARTICLE IX
SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS
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]
ARTICLE X
PUBLICATIONS
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.
ARTICLE XI
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]
ARTICLE XII
LOCAL SECTIONS
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.
ARTICLE XIII
CLINICAL SECTION
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.
ARTICLE XIV
AMENDMENTS
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
Association.
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[2]. 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. |
Mitchell, D. |
|
Berry, C. S. |
Myers, G. C. |
|
Crane, H. W. |
Pintner, R. |
|
Dearborn, W. F. |
Poull, L. E. |
|
Downey, J. E. |
Root, W. T. |
|
Fernald, M. R. |
Simpson, B. R. |
|
Gesell, A. |
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