America's psychologists : a survey of a growing profession

Citation preview

AMERICA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS A Survey of a Growing Profession

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS A Survey of a G r o w i n g Profession

KENNETH E. CLARK Professor o f Psychology University of Minnesota

7957 WASHINGTON, D.C.

American Psychological Association, Inc.

Copyright 1957 by the AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, INC. 1333 Sixteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D. C.

All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER,

56-12942

CONTENTS

I

Preface

V

Review of the Development of Plans for the Survey of Psychologists

3

z Development and Present Status of American Psychology

'3

3 Indices of Eminence

26

4 Present Status of Significant Contributors to Psychological Science

62

5 Background and Early Training of Psychologists 6 Graduate Training and the First Five Years After the Doctorate 7 Differences Between Psychologists in Various Areas of Specialization

I 06 I22

I37

8 Follow-up Study of Persons Receiving BA and MA Degrees in Psychology

158

g The Utilization of Psychological Techniques in the United States I77 10

Survey of First-Year Graduate Students in Psychology

209

II

Summary Thoughts : Implications for Psychology's Problems and Future

227

Index

241

...v . . .

PREFACE

IF D O N E W I T H O U T V A N I T Y , IT IS W O R T H W H I L E , from time to time, to take a critical and searching look at one’s self. Such self-examination is as worthwhile for organizations and professions as for individuals, for it helps to identify major problems, to see what the members are like, to appraise the state of development of the field represented, to review educational procedures, and, in general, to try to see where the group is going and what progress it is making in getting there. When the American Psychological Association went through a major reorganization at the end of World War 11, the members established a Policy and Planning Board, and instructed that board periodically to review the major problems and trends that affected psychology and psychologists. The Policy and Planning Board decided in 1952 that it was time for a major investigation of a number of interrelated questions of psychological personnel, education, and employment, and an appraisal of the state of development of the science of psychology. Happily, the National Science Foundation agreed upon the desirability of such a study, and granted funds to the American Psychological Association so that the study could be carried out. From the very first thinking about the matter, it was apparent that the study had two distinct aspects. One, which quickly came to be known

. . . vii . . .

PREFACE

as Project A, dealt with substantive questions about psychology as a scientific discipline. Professor Sigmund Koch of Duke University was engaged to direct this half of the study. He, his advisors, and many collaborators have been reviewing the nature, the state of development, and the points of agreement or disagreement among the theories, the partially formed theories, and the systematic points of view that have been developed in the several branches of psychology. They have also been examining methodological problems and have been reviewing the basis of empirical knowledge upon which theories or systematic positions rest. This ambitious effort resulted in a series of monographs that will be published over the course of the next few years by the McGraw-Hill Company. The other half of the total investigation naturally came to be known as Project B. Under the direction of Professor Kenneth Clark of the University of Minnesota, and with the help of a staff and a panel of advisors, Project B has been devoted to matters of psychological personnel and training. Some psychologists have been outstanding in research productivity. What are they like? How do they differ from their less productive colleagues? Are there major differences-other than the particular field of special interest-among productive psychologists in, say, experimental psychology and those in, say, industrial psychology? To answer such questions, Dr. Clark and his collaborators have studied the undergraduate education, the family backgrounds, the types of jobs held, and the attitudes and values of different groups of psychologists. Other questions were taken up: How many persons in the United States are engaged in predominately psychological work ? Are recent recipients of P h D degrees similar to or different from those who received that degree 10or 20 years ago? Where are psychologists employed? What do they read? These are samples of the questions that are discussed and on which substantial amounts of factual data are given in the following pages, for this book is the report of Project B. Because the studies are about psychologists, the report will be of greater interest to psychologists than to any other group. It provides a factual background that will be helpful in reaching decisions concerning many practical problems faced by psychologists and their organizations. But nonpsychologists may also find some things of interest. Some readers may merely want to find out what psychologists are like. Others will be interested in the methods used in the study. The study of a professional group poses a number of interesting methodological problems, and Dr. Clark and his colleagues have used a good deal of ingenuity in handling some of these problems. An outstanding example is the technique

. . . ... . . . Vlll

PREFACE

used to identify a group of psychologists who were judged to be outstanding research contributors. Essentially the same method would appear to be equally usable in physics, or political science, or many other fields. Organizational patterns and customs being what they are, the appointment of a committee to steer the activities of Project A and Project B was inevitable. The members of that committee were Clarence H. Graham, Lyle Lanier, Robert MacLeod, Eliot Rodnick, M. Brewster Smith, and Robert Thorndike. I had the pleasure of serving as chairman of the committee. The steering committee helped to make the initial plans. From time to time it advised the project directors. The committee also appointed panels of consultants who could work much more closely with the project directors than the committee was able to do. For Project B, these consultants were Raymond A. Bauer of the Russian Research Center of Harvard University, M. Brewster Smith, then of the Social Science Research Council and now of New York University, John Stalnaker, then of the Association of American Medical Colleges and now director of the Merit Scholarship Foundation, Robert L. Thorndike of Teachers College, Columbia University, and (for part of the time) Milton Wexler of Beverly Hills, California. We are most appreciative of the help given by these valued advisors. We wish also to record our appreciation to the National Science Foundation for its financial support and for the counsel and support of John T. Wilson, Assistant Director for the Biological Sciences. The persons named, and others who are not here named, all helped, generously and effectively. But Kenneth Clark planned the details, developed most of the methods employed, directed the staff, and wrote the report. The project was his. The credit is his.

DAEL WOLFLE June 1956

...i x . . .

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS A Survey of a Growing Profession

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

CHAPTER

1

REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR THE SURVEY OF PSYCHOLOGISTS

AMERICAN SCIENCE IS TODAY UNDERGOING searching self-scrutiny, as the demands of an expanding technology, the pressures of a government working to maintain its international position, and a shortage of high-level talent converge. These are not so much “agonizing reappraisals” as they are healthy concerns with the needs for intelligent planning for the future and efforts to compete with the other sciences for the apparently too-small pool of high-level talent. Psychologists are well in the forefront of the groups who are interested in engaging in this sort of stock-taking. This is not surprising, for psychologists have tended to be somewhat more introspective than have other disciplines, both as individuals and as a scientific group. Also, such an interest in human aspects of a science fits the general interests of psychologists, and becomes an appropriate area for study as a matter of course. The series of studies which are reported in this volume were conducted as a result of strong feelings of need for more information on which to

. . . 3...

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A M E R I C A ' S PSYCHOLOGISTS

base the many decisions which face the leaders of American psychology today. That a need to stop and take a look should be felt is understandable; just what should be looked at during this stop is sometimes not too easy to determine. A survey of the status of psychology as a science must include as an integral part of its work a review of the composition of the research force in psychology and the research potential of those in training and those being recruited. A better understanding of factors which have operated to produce trends in psychology, such as those which have resulted in a great upsweep in recent years in the number of persons engaged in clinical psychology or in applied military research, is needed as well. Investigation of the attitudes and values of psychologists and a study of preferences for various ways of planning research studies or for analyzing research data may yield insights into factors which either have produced, or have resulted from, research trends of recent years. With the feeling that such information would be of real interest and value to psychology, plans for the survey were oriented toward the study of individual psychologists, mature and embryonic, to discover their individual characteristics, social origins and motivations for entering psychology; the nature of their education and training; the sort of output they had achieved; their own beliefs about what their characteristics ought to be, and what previous contributors they want to emulate in their research; and the cultural factors that influenced them in their research and professional work. Within the confines of this rather broad charter, a survey of psychology and psychologists could have proceeded in many different directions. Obviously, some limitation on the variety of enterprises to be considered of high priority needed to be made; the scope of the project would otherwise have become so broad as not to be a project any more, but a lifetime of programs for many persons. While such limitation seemed essential, it was hoped that this survey might still retain some usefulness in providing guidance on many of the major professional problems in the field, such as future needs for psychologists, relationships between psychologists-as-scientists and psychologists-as-practitioners, the degree of recognition to be accorded the psychologist with less than a PhD, and factors attracting research psychologists into other types of activities in or out of psychology. The reconciliation of these two types of objectives-one essentially a study of scientists, the other a study of a profession-was a matter involving a great deal of work and planning. The procedures followed in planning a balanced study, and the nature of final plans are described in this chapter. The designation of this project as a study of Occupational, Educational,

...4 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR THE SURVEY

and Institutional Relations of Psychology was made by the Policy and Planning Board of the American Psychological Association, and was intended to convey a general feeling that this part of the study (called Project B to differentiate it from the other part of the study, Project A, which is under the direction of Dr. Sigmund Koch) should concern itself primarily with those environmental factors that influence the productivity of psychologists, whereas Project A should concern itself with the subject matter of psychology. As already indicated, however, Project B was also to examine a number of related issues, such as the factors influencing the recruitment and training of psychologists with various interests and backgrounds and the nature of the employment opportunities available to such persons when trained. How Project B could attain these rather generally stated objectives was discussed at considerable length by the Advisory Committee for the total survey at a meeting in January, 1953. At this time much more concrete proposals were made. The general guidance given by this committee was then made more specific by conferences with a panel of consultants to the Director of Project B. The panel was appointed in early February, 1953.Members were: Raymond A. Bauer of the Russian Research Center, Harvard University, M. Brewster Smith of the Social Science Research Council, New York City, John Stalnaker of the Association of American Medical Colleges, and Robert L. Thorndike, Columbia University. These consultants met with the project director at regular intervals, with the addition of other consultants as seemed desirable. Milton Wexler, a clinical psychologist in private practice in Beverly Hills, California, was added to the panel in early 1954. The function of this panel of consultants was to discuss the plans for surveys and studies to achieve the general objectives outlined by the central advisory committee, and to advise the project director on specific procedures to be followed in carrying out this program. It became apparent at the outset that a program could not be devised to meet all the needs of the Policy and Planning Board and other boards and committees of the American Psychological Association or even to satisfy the curiosity of each panel member, although it was felt desirable to consult with such important groups in the American Psychological Association as the Education and Training Board, since Project B was concerned in part with some of the problems faced by this group. Even so, in order to make best use of the resources at its disposal and insure that the project did not merely collect large amounts of fragmentary bits of information which could not be integrated or interpreted, the plans for the project were

...5 . ..

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

made in terms of a limited set of objectives, with hopes that any fruitful results of these studies would stimulate support for additional investigations in other problem areas. It was the intent of the project to focus its attention primarily on one central problem, the nature of the personal and environmental factors influencing the research productivity of psychologists. Two subsidiary problems then needed to be studied: What influences prevent high quality students from continuing their training through to the PhD in psychology? And, what attractions draw potential research psychologists into other areas of endeavor, as, for example, into clinical or counseling service functions?

OUTLINE OF PROGRAM The program of the project has had five parts. These were: I . A study of research psychologists. The population of APA members receiving a doctoral degree in the interval 1930-44 was carefully examined to permit the division of this group into several smaller groups. One of these was a group of persons considered by their peers to be significant contributors to research in psychology. The second group was made up of persons who failed to make the first list but who had made substantial contributions to the printed literature in psychology. The third group was made up of persons drawn at random from the remaining, or nonsignificant contributor, list to serve as controls. To each person in these samples was sent a mail questionnaire inquiring about many factors in their backgrounds and training and about characteristics of jobs held currently as well as immediately after receipt of the doctoral degree. 2. A study of recent entrants into psychology. The population of persons who are members of the APA and who received doctoral degrees in the year 1950 was selected as a group which permits comparison of the characteristics of postwar PhD’s with prewar PhD’s in psychology. In addition the future research contributions of the members of this age bracket might be predicted from the findings of the study of 1930-44 PhD’s. This group was not sampled but was used in its entirety. It received the same mail questionnaire as the 1930-44 PhD group. 3 Comparative study of PhD’s in various areas of psychology. It was apparent from a preliminary examination of persons in various subgroups in our study that the research contributions of persons in various areas of specialization within psychology vary considerably. This is a point which has received attention before in APA discussions of professional aspects of psychology and is generally recognized. This study aimed to provide

...6 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR THE SURVEY

some additional insight into this state of affairs by comparing data on job activities, interests, and motivations of persons identifying themselves with various areas of psychology, using the mail questionnaire developed in the studies already described. 4. Follow-up s.tudies of BA and M A students in psychology. Each year many more students complete BA or MA degrees in psychology than complete PhD’s. This is not unexpected, partly because the BA is frequently earned as a liberal arts degree by people who have no professional ambitions and partly because there do exist subsidiary positions for which BA or MA training is considered adequate. Some of these persons might well have continued for P h D training and become competent research psychologists. Some of these, indeed, have gone into psychological research without a PhD. A better understanding of the potential supply of trained research psychologists requires increased information about the later experiences of these non-PhDs. Accordingly, a follow-up study was made of persons who received the BA or MA, who may or may not have a higher degree, in the years 1930, 1935, 1940, 1945, and 1951 at Brown University, Wayne University, University of Minnesota, Brooklyn College, Oberlin College, University of Oregon, and Stanford University. 5. Survey of support for psychological services in various communities. The field of psychology has become in recent years much more of a service profession. The rapid growth of clinical psychology as a field, the increased use of industrial consultants, and of psychologists employed in industry, the increased attention to mental health problems in various welfare agencies, have been in large part responsible. This growth with its accompanying offers of high financial reward has probably drawn off from research activities persons who might otherwise have become significant contributors to psychological science. In addition, this increased professionalization has required a re-examination of training programs in psychology. Project B has obtained information on this source of support for psychological services by intensive surveys of specifically selected communities. The first of these was the County of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the second was the metropolitan area of Greater Providence, Rhode Island. Los Angeles then was surveyed but, because of its size, received attention only with regard to the persons engaged in private practice in clinical psychology. The fourth and last community survey was Greater Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Survey of first-year graduate students. Some of the questions asked of P h D psychologists required them to recall their attitudes and interests as they had been in the early part of their graduate training. The responses

...7

. . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSYCH 0 LOG ISTS

obtained would perhaps have been more meaningful if collected while these persons were in graduate school. With this in mind, a survey of the current crop of new graduate students was made. It was also hoped that these data would aid in forecasts of the future of psychological personnel. Some of the questions used were drawn from the schedule used with PhD psychologists. Two inventories were added : The Thorndike Psychologists’ Values Inventory, and the Gough Psychological Vocabulary and Information Test. A set of booklets was sent to each of approximately 75 graduate schools for distribution to persons just completing their first year of graduate work at that school. Students completed the booklets and returned them individually to the project for analysis. The completion of the various parts of this project has been possible only because of the interest and cooperation of substantial segments of the population of America’s psychologists. Over two thousand of these persons have filled out one or another of the questionnaires used in our surveys. Almost six hundred have submitted to intensive personal interviews inquiring about their backgrounds and current activities. Another six hundred participated in the nominating procedures that lead to the identification of Significant Contributors to psychological science. The American Psychological Association has participated actively and officially in a variety of ways: through use of publication channels to publicize activities of the project and thus to enlist the cooperation of the membership; through provision of ofice space; through provision of data in the APA files, thus reducing the amount of information that needed to be obtained by new questionnaire surveys. As an individual, Fillmore Sanford, the Executive Secretary of the Association through the period of the project, provided suggestions, guidance, and strong moral support. The publication of this report incorporates many of the ideas and suggestions about format, style, and content made by Lorraine Bouthilet, the Managing Editor of APA publications. A number of persons have made contributions far beyond the amount that might reasonably have been expected. The Project B Committee, already mentioned, has donated many hundreds of hours to the work of this project. Dael Wolfle and John T. Wilson, while not members of the Committee, have nonetheless attended most sessions and contributed a great deal of time and energy. The seven directors of the school follow-up studies have provided through their efforts data that make a unique contribution to our knowledge of later activities of psychology students; these persons are Lawrence E. Cole, Wayne Dennis, Howard P. Longstaff,

...8 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR THE SURVEY

Quinn McNemar, Wilson McTeer, Harold Schlosberg, and Norman D. Sundberg. The community surveys required hard work from persons with unique capabilities. That they were uniformly successful, and that they yield data that is important and useful to American psychology speaks well for the devoted efforts of the directors of the community surveys: Sadie M. Shellow for Milwaukee, Genevieve 0.Rogge for Providence and the survey of clinical psychology in Los Angeles, and Paul F. Secord for Atlanta. Norma Metzner has served as the chief staff person on the project, and thus has contributed to all parts of the study. Her scholarly work and careful research analyses have added a great deal to the scope and adequacy of this report. She has also contributed substantially to the writing of various sections of this report, especially Chapters 2 and 9. Genevieve 0. Rogge has written the report on clinical psychology in LOS Angeles that appears in Chapter 9. Diane Albitz has served as supervisor of the mammoth task of analyzing the large numbers of questionnaire returns which form a base for our study of the characteristics of America’s psychologists; her skill in such work has kept errors and necessity for re-analysis almost to zero. Kenneth MacCorquodale has attempted to liven up the writing style of this report, and has succeeded in making the reader’s task a little less trying. The contributions of such a large number of able persons should insure that the report that follows have some merit, and commands some attention from the reader. Let us hope that what follows does provide some basis for psychology to resolve some of the problems it faces today.

EXPECTED OUTCOMES The program for Project B had two general types of objectives. In the first class the major emphasis was placed upon the determination of those variables which relate to the research productivity of psychologists, with additional study of the ways in which these variables differ between psychologists who specialize in different areas of the field, ways in which these variables reflect change over a period of time, and ways in which these variables are related to different loci of employment of psychologists. In the second class of objectives the primary emphasis was placed on factors of motivation, preferences, and values as these related to the likelihood of an individual’s making a significant research contribution in psychology. T h e current trends in psychology which are indicated by the very rapid growth of clinical psychology, of industrial and consulting psy-

...9 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A M E R I CA’S PSY C H 0LOG I STS

chology, and of counseling have produced a considerable amount of overlap of the activities of research psychologists and those of the psychologist with a service orientation. The primary purpose of this survey has been to attend to the psychologist as a scientist. However, it is impossible to understand this individual without also looking at the psychologist as a professional person providing a service to clients, the community, or industry since the service functions tend to attract some persons into psychology and to reduce the amount of time these persons have for research activities. One of the major problems in the planning of Project B was in providing a program that would yield useful information in both of these general areas and provide some insights into the manner in which one type of function influences the other. It should not be assumed that it has been taken for granted that a person either is a research psychologist or is a person in a service job. Actually, in many instances the same psychologist performs both functions and is faced continually with the problem of deciding which type of function ought better to occupy his time. Accordingly, the plans for this project were aimed at collecting information on general preferences for various kinds of activity in psychology. It has asked about the way in which persons spend their time; it has asked about factors which have facilitated or interfered with the doing of research; it has inquired about the relative financial remuneration for activities in each of these areas; and it has examined the differential characteristics of persons who have ended up spending the bulk of their time and energy in one or the other of these areas. It also should not be assumed that we have taken it for granted that the service function and the research function do not in many respects facilitate each other. W e have tried to make some progress in providing information on this point. The area in which it is easiest to ask this sort of question is in the area of teaching-“To what extent do you find that teaching facilitates your doing of research; to what extent do you relate one to the other?” Likewise, in talking with a clinician it is a fairly straightforward task to ask what the role of research is in his clinical activities and to get at least his perception of the way in which these two relate. This task of determining the way in which service and research support each other is a most challenging one. Considerable attention has been given in this study to the comparison of various subgroups in psychology. The presentation of percentage responses to specific items in our questionnaire or the presentation of a given distribution on some variable or other does not in itself provide very much

... l o . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

DEVELOPMENT OF PLANS FOR THE SURVEY

insight about the problems of psychology or about the direction in which we are moving. It seems more meaningful to compare significant contributors with their contemporaries, to compare clinical psychologists with educational psychologists or industrial psychologists, or to compare older persons in the field with younger persons in the field. These comparisons provide opportunities for interpretation of responses to items and of characteristics of groups that would not be provided if the particular group’s percentage stood alone. This study has accomplished less than it might in the comparison between psychologists and persons in other fields. For many of the kinds of information that we have collected in this study comparable data for other groups are not readily available. Probably much more significant than the comparison of physiological psychologists with social psychologists would be the comparison of our total group of psychologists or of physiological psychologists with physiologists or mathematicians or physicists or astronomers or political scientists or socialists or educators. Such comparisons would be particularly appropriate as we examine the factors that influence the entry of persons into the field of psychology, or the factors that influence the way in which they spend their time in psychology, and as we examine the differences in the training of psychologists in various areas. We are able to explore only a very small part of the total area of professional and scientific endeavor in this country and thus can provide only a small increment to the understanding of processes in American science. The efforts of this project have been directed primarily toward the accomplishment of those objectives that might best be met by a national survey of this sort. We planned not to engage in those activities which might be carried on more efficiently at a single institution (prediction studies, for example). The fact that this project is in a sense an experiment in method has meant that it has been necessary not merely to decide how to design the study but also to develop the instruments which would permit the collection of relevant data. Thus the Psychologists’ Values Inventory, developed by Thorndike, is a major contribution in this area. The Activity Preference Blank, which he also developed, was essential to our understanding the differential characteristics of psychologists. The questionnaire which was mailed to the persons in our study and the community surveys which were conducted required the development of procedures which had not been carefully tried out in prior studies. The process of planning the activities of this project included the review of discussions of various agencies of the American Psychological

...l l . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S P S Y C H O L O G I S T S

Association which have been concerning themselves for years with problems in the field of psychology. It was astonishing to discover the degree to which various groups have scrutinized the general problem areas in psychology and thought about desired directions in which psychology should move. The Policy and Planning Board, for example, has a long record since its inception in 1946 of thinking through the major problems facing psychology. The Education and Training Board with its many committees has concerned itself with various basic issues. Individual leaders in psychology have written at considerable length on subjects in this field. Some of those who are best known for their writings in this area are E. G. Boring, Samuel W. Fernberger, Dael Wolfle, Donald Marquis, and Fillmore Sanford. Furthermore, it was also apparent very early that the American Psychological Association already knew much more about its members than is likely for any of the other major professional scientific groups in the United States. The attention to problems of the profession has been quite considerable. These have been supported by a wide variety of studies. Considerable guidance was given, for example, by studies by George Speer and Wilson McTeer of non-APA psychologists, by John Darley and Ralph Berdie in a nationwide survey of the number of psychological jobs, by Carroll Shartle in his outline of various occupational titles held by psychologists. The great wealth of prior investigations made it possible for this study, which aimed at a fairly integrated survey of psychology, to skip some of the exploratory steps that might otherwise have been necessary. In spite of this great variety of activity, it was quite clear in the planning of this study that we had many new decisions to make and many new areas to examine for which there were not adequate prior studies. It seems to us that more nationwide surveys would be desirable not merely to provide other occupational groups with the kinds of information that they need for appropriate national planning and policy making but also to increase the value of the present study. Since some of the persons who read this volume may not be well acquainted with the field of psychology and with psychologists today it seems appropriate to provide a brief review of the development of modern psychology and to describe the characteristics of the population of American psychologists to which particular attention has been paid in this study. Accordingly, Chapter 2 devotes itself to these points.

...12.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

CHAPTER

2

DEVELOPMENT AND PRESENT STATUS OF AMERICAN PSYCH0 LOGY

THE G R O W T H A N D D I V E R S I F I C A T I O N OF A M E R I -

can psychology during the last sixty-five years is a phenomenon that surely would not have been predicted at the time of the founding of the American Psychological Association in 1892. The organization began with 31 members; a short 64 years later there were almost 15,000.The increase has not been sudden, or primarily postwar; the number of members has doubled every seven or eight years, on the average, since its founding. The rate of growth of the Association has led to some predictions as to its future size, some of them serious, some humorous. Boring, for example, extrapolating the growth curves for both the APA and the world's population, has suggested that in the year 2100,the number of APA members will just equal the world's population of 10,700 million persons. That the per capita number of psychologists is increasing is apparent: in 1920 there were 3.7 psychologists per million U.S. inhabitants; this number was 5.9 in 1928,and 48.4 in 1950.Dennis, in a report to the Policy and Planning

... 13...

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10031-002 America's Psychologists: A Survey of a Growing Profession, by K. E. Clark Copyright © 1957 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S P S Y C H OLOGl STS

Board of the APA, predicted in 1951 that there would be 106 psychologists per million in 1960. Currently this looks like an under-estimation. American psychology during this time has not merely increased in numbers; its essential character has changed to an extent that might well make it unrecognizable to the founding fathers. In the 1890’s psychologists were pioneers working in problems growing out of physiology or philosophy; their more conformist predecessors had been concerned with rational or moralistic treatments of the soul. In the year of the founding of the APA psychology was already on its way as an experimental science: nineteen American psychological laboratories had been established; two psychological journals were being published; two major textbooks having some resemblance to the content of modern texts were available in English-Ladd’s Elements of PhysiologicaZ Psychology and James’ Principles of Psychology; this was the year that Titchener and Miinsterberg came to America. Even at this time there were signs of some of the divisive forces that have concerned psychologists in recent years. The role of philosophy in the APA was never directly resolved-the philosophers met the problem by forming the American Philosophical Association in 1g01. The difficulty in relating a broad perspective and understanding of human motives to detailed laboratory experimentation was accented by William James as he referred to the wealth of studies in psychophysics as “that dreadful literature,” and to Ladd’s work as “tedious.” These differences in approaches to psychological problems have become increasingly noticeable as the subject matter of psychology has grown. Citation of some of the ways in which methods and knowledge have developed may aid in putting the present problems of American psychology in perspective. These changes can be seen both in the progress made in areas originally identified for study, and in the completely new approaches to various problems. Great advances in statistical knowledge have provided opportunities to study several variables simultaneously, yielding information on the influence of each and on the interaction among them. Improvements in surgical techniques and the development of new and synthetic drugs have enabled psychologists to test hypotheses formerly thought not to be approachable experimentally. Developments in electronics have provided opportunities for improved apparatus designed to control the stimulus situation and to measure responses that are relatively free of artifacts; thus, animals may be placed in problem boxes for any desired interval of time, receiving any desired pattern of stimulation and reinforcement, with responses automatically measured and recorded. In addition to these kinds of changes, whole fields have emerged to enjoy

...14.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

D E V E L O P M E N T A N D PRESENT S T A T U S

the effects of a major segment of the APA membership, such as clinical, testing, and various applied fields of human engineering, public opinion polling, and market research. Interdisciplinary approaches to broad crosscultural problems and to basic behavioral investigations are certainly a modern phenomena. (The impact of methodological advances and an appraisal of the current state of knowledge in psychology is being examined by Dr. Sigmund Koch in his work on the companion survey to this one.) Perhaps the most unexpected development characterizing present-day psychology is the widespread availability of financial support for research. T h e effect of this program on psychology has been widely discussed both formally and informally and many appraisals of its influence have been offered. T h e total amount of financial support being given to psychological research across the country is, of course, quite difficult to estimate, since funds come from many sources and are spent in many places. Even if one examines only the research support provided in colleges and universities the task is overwhelming. As part of the activities of the program of research described in this report a pilot study was made of research support provided psychology in one large midwestern university during the fiscal year 1952-53. Significant features of the study were:

45 staff members who were APA members reported research in progress. 18 agencies outside the university were contributing a total of $151,000in

direct support of this research, while agencies within the university were contributing $80,000 in direct support of this research. In addition, the university contributed almost $I 1,000 in indirect support through provision of supplies and clerical aid, and an estimated $79,000 of indirect support in terms of the proportion of staff time spent in research. Thus, a total of $321,000 was being spent in support of psychological research in this one university. 87 different graduate students received at least partial support through funds spent in these research activities. The total amount of support is the equivalent of over 35 full-time positions. Each of the staff persons engaged in research spends on the average 15 hours per week in research, making a total of almost 700 hours of research activity per week being supported by this one university. 94 separate studies are in progress to account for this expenditure of time and money. Similar estimates, covering all colleges and universities, and including research being supported by various government agencies, by business and industry, by schools, hospitals, and social agencies, would reach staggering proportions. Then to these amounts must be added those that

... 1 5 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AME R I C A‘S P SY C H 0L 0GI STS

support the training of persons in clinical and counseling psychology, and the funds derived from the fellowship and scholarship programs of various foundations. Each of these varied programs involving sums of money for research, service, or training has had its own unique influence on the direction in which psychology has moved. The regular reports of Young and Wilson, of the National Science Foundation, provide a measure of the support of psychological research by the federal government. The total amount ranged between eight and eleven million dollars for each of the years 1953 through 1955. If the data of our case study of one institution are typical, we can hazard the guess that at least 25 million dollars per year are being spent on research in psychology-this estimate being made on the basis of the observation that less than one-third of the total of $321,000previously reported was federal money. There are other evidences that psychology in the 1950’s is a large, growing, and diverse enterprise. The APA is a major publisher of professional journals. In 1956journals owned and published by the APA are: American Psychologist Contempormy Psychology Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology Journal of Consulting Psychology Journal of Experimental Psychology Psychological Abstracts Psychological Bulletin Psychological Monograph 5 Psychological Review That these represent only a small portion (but the most significant one) of all of the sources for periodical publication of psychologically related materials is indicated by the report of the editor of the Psychological Ab-

stracts that his journal searches 465 different periodicals in selecting materials for abstracting. The current preoccupation of the Association with its problems, and with the provision for democratic process in attacking these problems is indicated by a few items drawn from the report of the 1955 annual meeting held in San Francisco in September. The new oficers of the Association are listed: APA Oficers and Division Officer rosters list 253 namessome, of course, repetitions. Listing the members of APA Standing or

... 16.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

D E V E L O P M E N T AND PRESENT S T A T U S

Special Committees involves a total of 219 names. This list still omits representatives to other organizations, and officers of state and regional associations (of which there are 53 affiliated with the APA). In this confusion of divisions, local, state and regional associations, committees, boards, and councils, it becomes easy for one person to find that the APA meets his needs in many ways, while another finds it meeting his needs in few ways. The APA has reorganized in a manner designed to serve varied functions; since World War I1 it has been primarily a federation of divisions, in which the division meets the scientific OY professional needs of its members, while the Association as a whole meets other needs, again either professional or scientific. Each member of the APA decides individually which regional, state, or local associations and which divisions of the APA he wants to join, and which journals he will subscribe to. Divisional membership reflects quite well the differences in interests of members of the APA, and this in spite of the fact that there is currently considerable dissatisfaction with the APA divisional structure because it mixes content of fields with types of employment. The number of division members are presented in Table I. Table 1 NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN EACHDIVISION OF Division Division of General Psychology Division on the Teaching of Psychology Division of Experimental Psychology Division of Evaluation and Measurement Division of Developmental Psychology Division of Personality and Social Psychology The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues Division of Esthetics Division of Clinical Psychology Division of Consulting Psychology Division of Industrial and Business Psychology Division of Educational Psychology Division of School Psychologists Division of Counseling Psychology Division of Psychologists in Public Service Division of Military Psychology Division of Maturity and Old Age

THE

APA (1955)

No. of Members 490 260 612 49 7 448 846 672 75 1711 233 514 453 348 757

177

249 204

Almost three times as many of today’s APA members identify with clinical psychology as with experimental psychology; contrasted to the early days of the APA, this is a startling shift, with many effects on the

...17...

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

nature of the field and of the APA. Add to this picture the interests reflected by members of the four most popular divisions, and we see a heavy concentration in the more applied and social areas. It would seem unwise to use these data alone for this purpose of reflecting interests, however, in view of the lack of clear-cut separation of fields implicit in even the titles of the Divisions, and in view of the common practice of many persons, either Fellows or Associates, of belonging to several different Divisions sometimes only remotely related to their research or employment. A better reflection of the distribution of psychologists in various fields of specialization may be obtained by examining an analysis of preferences for division membership conducted by Fillmore Sanford as part of the work of the APA’s Policy and Planning Board. A sample survey of opinions of APA members included a question proposing that the APA be organized around thirteen areas more or less representing the content of psychology and more or less ignoring the work places (such as Public Service, and Military). These thirteen areas were the ones evolved by John Flynn for the APA-NSF Scientific Register questionnaire in 1954. The sample of APA members was asked to select only one of these areas; the resulting choices are summarized in Table 2, with an extrapolation to the total APA membership. These data support the earlier generalizations, and in fact suggest that persons whose interests resemble those of the founders of the APA (Developmental, Experimental and Physiological, Table 2 FIRSTCHOICESOF AREASOF SPECIALIZATION OF 988 APA MEMBERS, WITH EXTRAPOLATION OF DISTRIBUTION TO TOTAL APA MEMBERSHIP* Area of Specialization Clinical Counseling DeveloDmental Educadonal School Experimental and Physiological Human Engineering General Industrial Personnel Personality Quantitative Social

Extrapolated to

% Selecting Total APA Membership 36.7 10.7 3.3 3.8 3.8 12.8 1.5 3.0 4.7 5.7 5.1 2.7 5.8

4954 1444 445 513 ~ _ 513 1728 202 405 634 7 69 688 364 783

.

* From SANFORD, FILLMORE H., Annual report of the Executive Secretary: 1955. American Peychologirt. 1955, 10, 778-792.

...18.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

DEVELOPMENT A N D PRESENT STATUS

General, Personality, Quantitative, and Social) are now outnumbered two-to-one by persons whose interest are in more recently developed applications of psychology (Clinical, Counseling, Educational, School, Human Engineering, Industrial, and Personnel). Some of the other evidences of significant changes in the development of psychology and its growing professionalization are : the development of a code of ethical practices, the APA’s appraisal programs designed to approve graduate training facilities in clinical and counseling psychology, the crowded annual conventions (approximately 6500 persons attended the 1954 meetings), the appointment of a specialist to develop a good public relations program, and the national certification procedure by The American Board of Examiners in Professional Psychology for specialists in clinical, counseling, and industrial psychology. Shifts in interests can be revealed in another way also: in terms of the place of employment of psychologists. The academic setting no longer accounts for almost all members. The use of psychologists in both the military and civilian branches of the government in all kinds of capacities ranging in nature from administrative to technical demonstrates a significant change in the public perception of the status of psychology, as does the presence of psychologists in industries, schools, social agencies, hospitals, and in private practice. An unpublished study by Robert Nichols, Locus

OF

Table 3 EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF SOCIAL SCIENCEORGANIZATIONS DURING SELECTED YEARS* American American American American American Political Psychological Economic Statistical Sociological Science Association Association Association Society Association (1948) (1949) (1945) (1950) (1948)

N Employed in: Education Business Government

2516 480 851

%

%

N

N

%

N

%

N

6 5 . 4 1895 5 8 . 2 523 2 0 . 3 1755 8 3 . 4 1482 6 9 . 0 8.6 12.5 645 19.8 930 3 6 . 2 140 6 . 7 184 9 . 9 482 2 2 . 4 2 2 . 1 715 2 2 . 0 1120 4 3 . 5 208 __ __ 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ~

~

Total per cent Employment not identifiable Total N

1200 5047

%

5880 9135

1270 3843

1138 3241

2679 4821

N o t e y e a r given in parentheses represents directory used. “Total” represents total membership for year studied. Adopted from Nichols, unpublished report to the APA Policy and Planning Board.

*

... 1 9 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A M E R I CA’S P S Y C H 0 LOG 1 STS

conducted under auspices of the Policy and Planning Board of the APA, surveyed the place of employment of members of various social science organizations. Table 3 presents these figures, giving some idea of the differential needs of these fields. Looking a t psychology as it exists today and as it existed a t the time of the founding of the APA omits the description of the development of knowledge and the struggles over methods that have characterized the intervening years. These years have seen both complete reliance on introspection and the complete abandonment of it; a rejection of thinking as a proper part of psychology, and the claim that it is critical to understanding behavior; a complete faith in tests and other objective measures, and a swing away from all measurement; a bandwagon for the conditioned reflex and a strong plea for putting purpose back into the animal; a stress on use of large Ns, and a strong swing to studies of small group behavior; a strong antipathy to the idea of the unconscious, and development of projective tests, hypnosis, and other depth analytic methods; a one-time preference for laboratory work has shifted as psychologists now predict presidential elections and run daily columns on child development, obtain information on racial and religious differences, and conduct action research. Certainly psychology has had its fads and fancies-at least in some fields-and the pendulum has swung in a wide arc. The list of controversies in psychology is certainly no shorter than the list in any other field-it may well be longer, for the subject matter is one that attracts the attention and arouses the emotions of many groups. Any novel ideas about human behavior tend to be evaluated as much in terms of one’s own preconceptions as they are in terms of their merit. But the controversies ought not to be attended to as characterizing the period; rather, the interval between the founding of the APA and today has witnessed a great growth in empirical knowledge, with better understanding of physiological functioning, a development of much more refined mathematical and statistical techniques, a great increase in understanding of problems of learning, a vast literature on social processes, the development of many techniques for working with individuals, a far greater understanding of processes of development from prenatal states to senescence, a substantial set of techniques and principles for applications in industry, and education, and a much better understanding of the many human frailties that emerge in the study of normal and abnormal behavior. This progress, while substantial, is far less than society demands and expects; that it has been great speaks for the dedication of the relatively small numbers of psychologists who have truly pioneered in the field, and to the

...20.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

DEVELOPMENT A N D PRESENT STATUS

vigorous support society has given them and their followers; that it has not been enough suggests the need for examining the processes by which progress occurs, and the nature of the setting in which major advances occur. The APA has considered one of its major problems to be that of assaying the directions in which psychology is moving, and attempting to influence them. This is evident in the kinds of actions taken regularly by the leaders of the APA. Thus it may be that a brief sampling of items considered by the Board of Directors at a recent meeting will give some idea of the kinds of problems facing psychology today, some of which have troubled psychologists since its beginnings and some of which are rather distinctly mid-twentieth century phenomena. The Board discussed at its May 1955 meeting: the problem of the kind of state legislation for accreditation of psychologists it should endorse; proposals for six grants of funds from the Federal government; needs for additional editorial help in maintaining the APA journals; a proposal for a new journal; the state of financial health of the organization; the possibility of producing educational T V programs on psychology; the perennial problem of appropriate size of dues and journal subscriptions; the nature of action in ethics cases and in academic freedom cases; professional liability insurance; the mathematical training of social scientists; proposals for new divisions of the APA; recommended policies for selecting graduate students; changes in page allotments for the year 1956 for the eleven journals published by APA; the content and cost of the APA Directory; relations with the clergy; action with regard to congressional legislation to provide additional pay for commissioned scientists; participation in an adequate overseas U.S. information program; the reduction of non-respondents to nomination and election ballots; placement activities of the central office; and the problem of segregation in relation to conventions. The sampling of items discussed by the Board of Directors serves to suggest the variety of activities psychology currently is participating in and the pressures to widen the scope of its activities. These items also highlight the current split in functions between the APA as a scientific organization owning and publishing journals and supporting research, and the APA as a professional society protecting the status of its members, and enforcing its standards for their conduct. It is easy to attend primarily to the problems of the psychologist, and to forget that other associations have had similar problems, and that their solutions or attempted solutions have had their impact on the way in which psychology has developed. During the time that psychology has

...2 1 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA'S PSYCHO LOG1 STS

been growing, other sciences and professions have been growing as well. IS psychology unique? O r does it merely pay more attention to these problems because it has tended to be somewhat more introspective, and to collect self-survey data a bit more than other groups? In terms of size alone the APA certainly is not unusual. Dennis, in a 1951 report for the Policy and Planning Board of the APA, compared the size of the APA with that of several other groups. These data are presented in Table 4, and indicate that in 1951, the APA was seventh in order of size of the major national professional associations. At that time, of course, it was only slightly more than half as large as it had become by 1956. Even in 1956, however, it could not have moved up more than one position. Table 4 APPROXIMATE NUMBEROF MEMBERSI N VARIOUSNATIONAL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND THE APPROXIMATE RATIOOF NATIONAL POPULATION TO MEMRERSHIP I N EACH GROUPI N 1951* Association

American American American American American American American American American American American American

Medical Association Chemical Society Federation of Radio Artists Library Association Association of Social Workers Veterinary Medical Association Psychological Association Economics Association Psychiatric Association Statistical Association Occupational Therapy Association Sociological Society

Approximate No. of Members

Approximate Nat'l. Pop./Member

146,000 60,000 28,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 8,500 7,000 5,000 4,500 3,500 3,000

1,000 2,500 5,100 7,500 10,000 15,000 17,500 21,000 30,000 33,000 43,000 50,000

* Adopted from Dennis, unpublished report t o the Policy and Planning Board of the APA. The Policy and Planning Board of APA also collected information on the rate of growth of various natural and social science organizations. This study was made by Robert Nichols, working under the direction of Darley at the University of Minnesota. These data, and some collected since, are presented in Table 5. In attempting to evaluate these data on the growth in membership of various groups, it should be remembered that requirements for membership vary considerably. Anyone interested may, for instance, join the American Historical Association, the American Statistical Association, the American Political Science Association, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among others.

. . .2 2 . . .

D E V E L O P M E N T AND PRESENT S T A T U S

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Furthermore, requirements for membership within an organization may have changed considerably, becoming either more or less rigorous since 1920. The American Psychological Association has tended with time to become progressively more demanding in terms of formal education and experience, except that in 1922 a doctoral degree requirement was established, and then dropped in 1924. Currently an applicant must have the equivalent of a master’s degree in psychology at a recognized graduate school and be devoting full time to work or study primarily psychological in character. Table 5 COMPARATIVE SIZEOF MEMRERSHIPS OF VARIOUS NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, WITH 1920 USEDAS BASEFIGURE Association

1920

1930

1940

1950

American American American American

Psychological Association Historical Association Economics Association Statistical Association

100 100 100 100

280 147 135 229

697 142 156 322

1850 218 326 438

American American American American

Sociological Society Political Science Association Anthropological Society Mathematical Society

100 100 100 100

185 139 192 265

123 218 218 311

386 393 586 554

Geological Society of America American Physical Society American Chemical Society Fed. of Societies for Experimental Biologists

100 100 100 100

121 191 116 180

157 289 163 309

272 (1948) 694 404 735 (1949)

American Association for Advancement of Science American Psychiatric Association American Bar Association

100 100 100

165 144 224

183 259 253

290 (1947) 625 352

Despite the restrictive effect of the more and more stringent requirements for membership, the American Psychological Association, it can be seen from the above tables, far outstrips all other organizations in its rate of growth. The APA had over 18 times as many members in 1950as in 1920. The Federation of Societies for Experimental Biology is in second place, with 7.35 times as many members in 1949 as in 1920.Thus, the rate of growth of APA is more than twice as great as that of the second most rapidly growing group. Still another way of reflecting the growth of psychology is to consider student interest in the field. Fischer and Hinshaw report that the percentage

. . . 23...

AMERl CA‘S PSYCHOLOGISTS

of undergraduate majors choosing psychology at the University of Illinois increased from I per cent in 1925 to 13 per cent in 1944, and from a rank fifteenth in frequency as a major subject in 1925 to third place in 1944, exceeded only by sociology and English. Presumably other schools have had similar experiences. That this rate of growth is not at the expense of quality may be shown by data collected by Wolfle on graduates of 41 colleges and universities, presented in Table 6.

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Table 6 MEDIAN SCORES ON ARMY GENERAL CLASSIFICATION TESTOF STUDENTS SPECIALIZING IN DIFFERENT FIELDS OF SCIENCE Field

Median Scores

Natural Sciences AB Graduate students PhD

123 128 133

Chemistry AB Graduate students PhD

125 129 135

Physical Sciences AB Graduate students PhD

127 131 138

Earth Sciences AB Graduate students PhD

121 124 134

Biological Sciences AB Graduate students PhD

121 126 129

Psychology AB Graduate students PhD

123 132 137

Wolfle also presents, for the country as a whole, figures on the numbers of doctors’ degrees granted in psychology; Table 7 is prepared from his data. The number of PhD’s in psychology has increased markedly since the war, although the proportion of degrees has not risen as greatly. Even so, Wolfle shows that psychology’s rank has risen from eleventh in 194145 to fifth in 1951-53.The large number of PhD’s in the 1951-53 period

. . . 24 ...

DEVELOPMENT A N D P R E S E N T S T A T U S Table 7 NUMBEROF DOCTORS’ DEGREESGRANTED I N PSYCHOLOGY AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NUMBER OF DOCTORS’ DEGREESGRANTED I N ALL FIELDS FOR EACH OF SPECIFIED INTERVALS

Number of Doctors’ Degrees in Psychology

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Percentage of Total Number of Doctors’ Degrees in All Fields Combined

1911-15

1921-25

1931-35

1941-45

1951-53

120

220

540

520

15.50

5

5

4

4

7

suggests the marked increase in demand for psychologists-a demand still being only partially met. The picture of present-day psychology that may be drawn from the types of materials reviewed in this chapter is thus one of a rapidly growing and vigorous profession: a profession that is busy, and one that is being called upon to serve many needs. For many of the demands of society psychology seems poorly prepared-especially when the call is for the solution of such problems as “human relations” or “international cooperation,’’ or when it is resolved that a frontal attack be made on mental illnesses, or even, at a more individual level, when a troubled person expects to find some relief by seeking the counsel of a psychologist. These demands must somehow be met by someone, and the basic research must also be done to provide better understanding of the nature of humans, so that demands of this sort may better be met in the future. Every meeting of major policy groups in the American Psychological Association finds many of the agenda items related to the problems of a growing professional group. Many decisions have been made that, intentionally or not, commit the future of psychology to new directions. Little wonder that the time comes when it seems desirable to stop and take a look at the activities of psychologists around the country, to inquire about their aspirations, their needs, and the nature of the demands upon them as individuals. From such a scrutiny, made with as much objectivity as possible, some more rational bases may emerge for making the many decisions that, with or without such data, must nonetheless be made. It is the hope of those who have worked toward completing the report encompassed within the pages of this volume that this review of the education and training and current activities of psychologists provides at least some items of data pertinent to these problems.

...25.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

CHAPTER

3

INDICES OF EMINENCE

A N E C E S S A R Y P A R T OF THE PLAN F O R T H E S T U D Y of American psychologists, particularly our examination of research psychologists, was the identification of those considered to be eminent scientists. This chapter reviews various procedures used in the selection of persons considered to be outstanding or making the most significant contributions to research, and outlines the procedures used to obtain our panel of eminent psychologists. The relationships of our criterion of eminence to a number of possible alternative indices are then examined. Eminence is usually defined in such a way as to require the identification only of a very small proportion of the total group of persons involved. The advantage of such a procedure is obvious; the person who is included in the list is readily accepted by his colleagues as an outstanding person. The person who is omitted need feel no great loss since the list is so short and so highly selective. Many of the studies of eminence which appear in the published litera-

...26.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

INDICES

OF E M I N E N C E

ture have avoided the problem of defining their criterion by selecting as their subjects persons whose names appear in Who’s Who in America, American Men of Science, or some similar listing. Therefore, it seems appropriate to review the procedures used in these selections. Who’s Who selects persons on either of two bases. One is by virtue of occupying certain designated positions, without regard to any other aspect of prominence. These include members of Congress, Ambassadors, Federal judges, Cabinet members and other Federal department heads, members of the National Academy of Sciences, heads of large universities, and living authors of books receiving considerable recognition by the general public or by special groups. The second group consists of persons selected because of “special prominence in creditable lines of effort, making them the subjects of extensive interest, inquiry or discussion.” The former category would, if used for purposes of our study, pick up a certain number of psychologists who were, for example, members of the National Academy of Sciences or heads of departments in large universities or colleges. Since this category would account for very few psychologists, a careful examination of the nature of the second standard of admission is warranted. In the first edition of Who’s Who in America, published in 1899, the acknowledgements make note of the valuable aid given by Dr. W. J. McGee of the Bureau of American Ethnology whose “painstaking and judicious selection of about one thousand names of scientific people has made that feature of the book especially strong.” Later editions indicate that this class is confined to persons “ S O identified with American affairs as to be subject to wide inquiry or discussion.” The general aim as stated is to include the names not necessarily of the best, but rather of the best known, men and women in all lines of reputable achievement, except for the arbitrary reasons already designated. Perhaps for purposes of greatest clarity, the statement appearing in Who’s Who, 1954-55 edition, should be quoted in its entirety:

The first of these two classes comprises persons who have accomplished some conspicuous achievement-something out of the ordinary, so to speaksomething which distinguishes them from the vast majority of their contemporaries. This class is confined to those so identified with American affairs as to be subject to wide inquiry or discussion. Since selection is entirely guided by reference interest thus delimited, individual details of residence and the like are not determinative; while, additionally, in the compilative routine “American” does not apply only to those technically Americans because of allegiance to one of the twenty-one Republics of America, but as well to citizens of Canada and the other associated or contiguous Pan American areas, and as

...27. ..

AME R I CA’S PSY C HO LOGISTS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

well those overseas, who are, in the Editors’ estimation, subject to American reference interest. Names frequently appear of those who are broadly prominent in some special field, but who are little known in their own communities. The man of significant achievement may be scarcely known in the particular locality in which he lives. He is often a person whose work is better known than himself, and it is pertinent information concerning such an individual that Who’s Who aims to gather and dissemble. The first edition of the American Men of Science was edited by J. McKeen Cattell and appeared in 1906. It included records of more than four thousand persons in “the natural and exact sciences.” Names of persons were included because they were contributing to the achievement of pure science or because they were found in membership lists of certain national societies. T h e difference in membership requirements of different societies thus played a role in the selection of persons for this list. To these names were added names collected by the examination of catalogs of institutions of learning, other reference books, such as Who’s W h o in America, by analysis of contributions to scientific journals, and by request for names which ought to be added, these requests being printed in Science, Popular Science Monthly, and in the Nation. In addition, Cattell acknowledges “much assistance from individuals.” Blanks for listing of biographical information were sent to about ten thousand persons and, on the basis of replies, four thousand entries selected. In this volume a star was prefixed in about one thousand cases for those persons whose work was judged to be the most important. In each of the twelve principal sciences names were arranged in order of merit by “ten leading students of the science.’’ Average positions and probable errors were calculated. The number of names taken from each science was then determined in such a manner as to provide a number of stars approximately proportionate to the total number of workers in that science. In this volume psychology had fifty men whose names were starred. The procedures used in each of these two volumes are quite similar to those which have been used generally for such listings. T h e opinions of a very small number of raters have been used as the essential criterion except in those instances where a person’s position in itself requires recognition. This kind of procedure has many advantages since it is not influenced merely by the quantity of production of an individual but in addition by the quality. Since the factors making for eminence of an individual are not merely in terms of research but also in terms of leadership in education or in professional activity, these factors tend to be considered at least to some extent. However, the disadvantage of this sort of procedure

...20.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I N D I C E S OF E M I N E N C E

is that it does not permit the consideration of various types of quantitative indices which might well be examined nor an appraisal of the weight of each on selection. Thus a judge ought, in making an evaluation of a person’s contribution, to know something about the quality and the number of P h D students he has turned out. He should also know something about the nature of the person’s publication activities, and the degree to which he has contributed to professional activities. In asking a small number of judges to cast votes we cannot ask them to scrutinize carefully the entire life history of each one of these persons although it is assumed that some of these factors are taken into account. Since membership in the National Academy of Sciences is frequently alone a sufficient reason for inclusion in such listings as Who’s Who in America, it is well to consider the method of election to this society. ACcording to the bylaws of the Academy, nominations of new members are initiated at the section level (composed of persons in a particular field of science) each section then voting, on two separate occasions, on the names submitted by its own group. The first of these ballots, considered informal, is based on written suggestions of names, accompanied by a description of the achievements and contributions of each, and is voted on by the section membership in terms of the member’s willingness or unwillingness to endorse each name for election. The second ballot, termed the formal ballot, lists the names and gives the number of votes received previously. Those persons supported by two-thirds of the voting membership of one section or one half of those voting in two sections are automatically nominated. After the section has completed these two ballots, the list of nominees, together with the summaries pertaining to them, is distributed to the members of the Academy for a preference ballot; each voting member indicates a minimum of one-third and a maximum of one half of the persons on the list preferred by him. Finally, a list of names is prepared and ranked by frequency of votes received. At this time, the president may request that one or more nominees be advanced to a higher place, and the chairman of a section may request that the position of the nominees of his section be interchanged without altering the position of nominees from other sections. A vote is then taken on the nominee in first position on the preference list. H e is elected if he receives two-thirds of the votes cast and a minimum of thirty votes in all. This voting continues until a maximum of thirty persons, the limiting number for the entire Academy per year, have been elected. If judgments of qualified persons are replaced by more objective measures, we find the easiest quantitative index to use is the number of publica-

...2 9 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSY C HO LOG1STS

tions. A great deal of attention is given this index in the employment of academic psychologists and certainly in academic promotions. The mere fact that one applicant for a job has fifteen publications while another has four is generally interpreted as giving the first candidate a marked advantage over the second. Other kinds of quantitative indices besides this have been used, however, as indices of eminence. The number of lines devoted to one’s obituary, the scholastic honors obtained at college, the length of the biographical description appearing in various dictionaries and encyclopedias, membership or level of membership in various national societies, number of page entries in the author index of histories of certain fields, number of times one’s work is cited in Annual Reviews in a field all have been investigated as possible indicators of eminence. Salary has on occasion also been used as an indicator of achievement. Among the most interesting of the recent studies of eminent scientists is that of the American Physiological Society. This study required as part of its work the identification of a group of physiologists who were considered to be outstanding in their research contributions. Eminent persons were defined as those who met at least two different criteria from the following list of eight items: I . Officer or councillor, past or present, of one or more of the following societies : American Physiological Society; Society of General Physiologists; American Society of Plant Physiologists; Canadian Physiological Society; Society of American Bacteriologists (Section on Physiology) ; Botanical Society of America (Section on Physiology); or the APA (Physiological Psychology Section). 2. Editor or editorial board member of Physiological journals such as Physiological Zoology, Journal of Neurophysiology, etc. 3. Annual Review Citations-two or more citations for the period 1950-52in any Annual Review publication for any member of APS, SGP, or American Society of Plant Physiologists. 4. Starred in American Men of Science (1944edition). 5. Department chairman or rank comparable, such as division chief, director of laboratories, etc. 6. Faculty rank of professor or associate professor or comparable position. 7. Author of textbook or monograph-determined from publications listed in Hawkins’ Scientific, Medical, and Technical Books published in the United States. 8. Membership in the National Academy of Sciences or Nobel Laureate.

.. .3 0 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I N D I C E S OF E M I N E N C E

As a check on the above procedure members of the Central Committee which was concerned with the direction of the American Physiological Society study were asked to nominate eminent physiologists. All the persons they nominated (number unspecified) were found present on the list established by the procedures outlined above. These procedures provided 402 names of whom 15 were deceased. Thus, the Physiological Society roster of eminent physiologists has 387 names. In the American Physiological Society report, consideration was given to the use of a nominating procedure, but this plan was later abandoned as being not feasible, partly because other selection methods could be developed that would be more appropriate in view of the nature of the group under study, and partly because it was anticipated that a number of physiologists who would be solicited to make nominations might not be sympathetic to the idea.

PROCEDURES EMPLOYED IN SELECTING EMINENT PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THIS STUDY A two-stage process was employed to identify the eminent psychologists studied in this project. The first stage involved the selection of a group which would be likely to include all persons who might by any standard be considered as potential candidates for an eminent psychologist list; the second required the use of nominating procedures for the selection from this group of the persons who would be considered as the most significant contributors to psychological science. Only those members of the American Psychological Association who received their doctoral degrees in the interval 1930-44, inclusive, were considered. APA membership is fairly inclusive of doctorates in psychology so that this is a minor restriction. Requiring the PhD, MD, EdD, or DSc was considered as no great restriction, since almost all outstanding research scientists in psychology have doctoral degrees. The restriction to the 1930-44 interval was imposed in order to keep our group within manageable size, and to provide a sample of persons with approximately equal opportunity to have become eminent. The choice of particular years was not wholly arbitrary; probably the most active leaders in psychology today received their degrees during this interval. A roster of all APA members receiving doctoral degrees in the interval 1930-44was prepared, and a count of the total number of Psychological Abstracts entries for each name was made. (This index is one of publication rate; it counts only articles in which a person is first author, which were abstracted in this journal before the spring of 1953.) From each of

...3 1 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A M E R I C A’S PSY C H 010GISTS

the lists of persons receiving doctoral degrees in each five-year period (1930-34;1935-39; 1940-44) the top 150 persons in terms of these entry counts were selected as “high producers” in psychology. Separate listings of the 150 high producers and of the remainder of the samples from which they had been selected were submitted to 22 judges (editors of APA journals, members of the Policy and Planning Board of the APA, and members of the Project B committee). These judges nominated persons from the remainder of the list who, in their estimation, should have been included in this high-producer group. Any person who received at least two votes from these 22 judges was added to the high producer list. This new list we have called a “highly visible” list. Size of these various lists for each five-year period is shown in Table I. Table 1

SIZESOF GROUPSUSEDI N RESEARCH PSYCHOLOGIST STUDY Year of Degree 1930-34 1935-39 1940-44

Total

Total N

‘‘HIghly Visible”

598 673 735

206 217 201 624

2,006*

* Omitted are four names of persona intimately associated with the project, which, if included would make 8 total of 2.010. Lists of the names of the highly visible psychologists in each of the three five-year periods were prepared and sent to all persons whose names appeared on them, with the instruction that the recipient was to nominate not more than 25 psychologists, who, in his opinion, had made the most significant contributions to psychology as a science, either through their own research, or in their work in training P h D s in psychology. The rater was also asked to select one of five areas in psychology as the one with which he was most familiar, and to select the best ten persons in that area, in terms of their research contributions to this part of the field of psychology. These five areas were: Social and Personality; Experimental, Comparative, and Physiological; Clinical; Educational and Developmental; and Industrial and Vocational. This additional nominating was requested lest there be omitted from the list of significant research contributors any persons who had made a notable research contribution which was well recognized in one area of psychology, but would not be well known to psychologists in other areas.

. . . 32.. .

I N D I C E S OF E M I N E N C E

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

More than go per cent of the recipients returned these nominating ballots. Votes were analyzed to determine the most significant contributors by a two-step process. First, the top five persons in each of the five areas of psychology in terms of the number of votes received as being “among the best 10 in area” were selected as significant contributors. This gave a total of 25 persons for each of the three five-year periods. Another 25 persons were selected as those receiving the largest number of votes as “among best 25 in psychology” who had not already been selected in the first step. Table 2 NUMBEROF VOTES A S “BEST 25 I N PSYCHOLOGY’’ RECEIVEDBY PERSONS I N SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR GROUP(A) AND IN REMAINDER OF HIGHLY VISIBLEGROUP(B) Year in Which Degree Was Received Number of Votes Received

1930-34

1935-39

1940-44

A

A

A

B

B

B

Totals

A

140-144 130-139 120-129 110-1 19 100-1 09

1

1

2 3 2

2 1

90-99 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59

5 1 6 6 1

2 2 4 5 6

2 4 5 2 4

15 13 11

8

4

6

18

5 5 1

7

10 7 3

2; 19 6

40-49 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24

1 1 2

.Z

4

7 2

4 11

2 1

7

12 12 5 4 5

15 28 7 12 11

6 5 4 3 2

6 6 10 11 19

1

5 18 8 8 14

1 0

31 30

18 8

8

N

50

156

50

9

7

1

1 4

15-19 10-14 9

B

167

1 1

8

3 9 9 16 4 4 11

3 1

36 56 16 20 27

6

1

14 16 22

17 31 32 35 55

16 14

65 52

7

50

8

24

151

1

150

474

... 3 3 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA‘S PSYCHOLOGISTS

The manner in which this procedure operated to give results different from those that would have been achieved if only the votes for “Best 25 in Psychology” were used is reflected in the distributions presented in Table 2. The distributions of numbers of votes as one of the “Best 25 in Psychology” received by each of the persons finally designated as Significant Contributors and by each of those not so selected are shown. It is immediately apparent that the bulk of the significant contributors group would have been selected either by the procedure used or by the simpler process of using “Best 25” votes only. Whether one procedure is better than the other for balancing “Best in Area” with “Best in Psychology” votes is of course impossible to determine. In defense of the procedure used, it should be noted that this decision was made by the Project B Committee members after examining the list of names of persons who would be differentially included or excluded by each procedure. The use of the “Best in Area” votes for picking the first 25 of the 50 persons in each group appeared to select persons of greater eminence than the alternative procedure of using the “Best in Psychology” votes exclusively. The selection of the three groups of 50 significant contributors for each five-year period provides a total of three categories of persons, in terms of eminence : 150 “significant contributors” 474 other “highly visible” persons not selected as significant contributors 1,382 persons not included in either of the first two groups. These three groups are distributed among the three five-year periods as shown in Table 3. The procedures just outlined permit the further examination of ways in which significant contributors to psychological science differ from Table 3

SIZESOF GROUPSUSED IN STUDY OF INDICESOF EMINENCES, DIVIDEDACCORDING TO TIME OF RECEIVING DOCTORAI. DEGREE Group

Significant Contributor Other Highly Visible Persons Group Remaining Totals

...34.. .

Year in Which Degree Was Received 1930-34

1935-39

1940-44

Totals

50 156 392

-

50 167 456 -

50 151 534

-

150 474 1,382

598

673

735

2,006

-

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I N D I C E S OF EMINENCE

other highly visible psychologists, and from a cross section of contemporary APA members. Succeeding parts of this report present such comparisons. These have most meaning only when the nature of the significant contributor group is fully understood. One obvious way of describing how the nominating procedures actually operated would be to list the names of significant contributors. This is not being done, partly to avoid possible misuse, partly to direct attention to procedures, not personalities? Another major factor leading to omission of the list of names is the desire to make this report fully as meaningful to persons not well acquainted with leaders in psychology as to persons who are knowledgeable in the field. 1 No release of these research data was made prior to publication of this report; qualified workers who wish access to these data may write the Executive Secretary of the American Psychological Association for information.

Table 4 VOTES AGAINST“BEST 10 I N AREA”VOTES FOR 1930-34 SAMPLE

P L O T O F “BEST 25”

Total Votes on “Best 10 in Area” Total Votes, Best 25 125-129 120-124 115-119 110-1 14 105-109 100-1 04 95-99 90-94 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 50 52 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 51 53

I

1

1 1

1

1

1

I 11

I 1

I

1

1

1

l 1

I1 1

1

1

1

1 1

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1

1 1 3 i 2 1 1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1

122 2 3 1 381 58444 2 1 93 8 2 2 1

... 3 5 . . .

1

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A M E R I C A’S

P SY C H 0 L 0 G ISTS

A rather detailed analysis of the nominating procedure has been made, and is summarized here. The obvious first point necessary for examination is the relationship between the votes received by highly visible psychologists as in the “Best 25 in Psychology” as against the number received as “Best 10in Area” of psychology. Tables 4,5, and 6 present scatter diagrams showing these relationships. It is clear that the relationship is substantial. A product-moment correlation coeffcient has not been computed; it is obviously enough below 1.0 to indicate that somewhat different samples would be selected if one procedure were used rather than the other. The amount of difference in samples drawn, however, would not be very great. As can be seen by the placement of the critical lines horizontally and vertically, in the sample for each five-year period a shift of from five to PLOT OF

Table 5 “BEST 25” VOTES AGAINST “BEST 10 I N AREA”VOTES 1935-39 SAMPLE

FOR

Total Votes on “Best 10 in Area” Total 0 2 4 6 8 Votes, 1 3 5 7 9 Best 25 125-1 29 120-124 115-1 19 110-114 105-109 100-104 95-99 90-94 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24

0 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 1 1 3 15 17 1 9 2 1 2 3 2 5 2 7 2 9 3 1 3 3 35 37 3 9 4 1 4 3 4 5 4 7 4951 1

1 1

1

1

3

1

2

1

13

. . . 36..

1

1

1 1

15-19 4 51 3 2 2 10-14 4 7 5 1 2 4 5-9 12 20 13 9 1 0-4 49 16 2 3

1

1

1

I N D I C E S OF E M I N E N C E

fifteen persons would occur if one method were used rather than the other. As we move from the 1930-34 sample to the 1940-44 sample the relationship between the two kinds of votes decreases. This is in line with various evidences that the identification of significant contributors in the PLOT OF “BEST

25”

VOTES AGAINST

Table 6 “BEST 10 I N

.kREA’’ VOTES FOR

1940-44

SAMPLE

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Total Votes on “Best 10 in Area” Total Votes, Best 25 115-119 110-1 14 105-109 100-1 04 95-99 90-94 85-89 80-84 15-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

0 2 4 6 8 110 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 1 9 2 1 2 3 2 5 27 2 9 3 1 3 3 3 5 37 3 9 4 1 4 3 4 5 4 7

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1

1

2 1 2 2 2 2 1

1

1 1 1

1

1

2 3 2 2

3

1 1

1

1

2 1 1

1

1

1 1 1

1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 1 1

1

56 23 4 1

1930-34group was done with greater precision than in the 1935-39group, or in the 1940-44group. Whether this is due to the increased interval of time which permits a better assessment of the qualities making for eminence or whether the 1930-34 group included persons who have made a different kind or a more significant contribution is difficult to determine. A second type of vote analysis is possible, a comparison of voting patterns of persons in various areas of psychology. The relationship between votes given by experimental psychologists, for example, as against those given by clinical or industrial psychologists is worthy of examination since one might expect that persons in a given area of specialization presumably

. . .37.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA'S PSYCHO LOGISTS

would tend to vote for persons of his kind. This analysis is presented in two ways. The correlations between number of "Best 25" votes for a particular individual by persons in each of the five areas of specialization, the total number of "Best 25" votes, and the number of "Best 10 in Area" votes are presented in Table 7. In this table three separate correlation matrices are presented, one for each of the three five-year subgroups under investigation. In the 1930-34 sample each one of the correlations of the subgroups with the total number of votes as in the Best 25 in Psychology is of a magnitude of .88 or higher. In the 1935-39 group the lowest correlation is .76. In the 1940-44 sample the lowest is .79. Thus all the correlations indicate very substantial positive relationships. The correlations seem to be lowest when the groups voting in the clinical, educational and deTable 1 CORRELATION BETWEEN VOTESGIVENBY HIGHLY VISIBLERESEARCH PSYCHOLOGISTS IN VARIOUS AREASOF PSYCHOLOGY

1935-39 Sample

1930-34 Sample

1 2

1

2 .89

3 4 .93 .85 .87 .80

5 6 7 .78 .95 .85 .74 .94 .86

1 2 3 4 5 6

1

2

.71

3 .83 .61

4 5 .65 .69 .48 .76 .75 .67 .68

7

1

2 .75

3 .85

4 .71

2

.74 .65

3

.77

4

5 .61

6 .91

7 .81

.54 .88 . 7 7 .75

.94

.84

.78

.85

.72

5

.79 .68

6

.88

7

7 .80 .78 .82 .71

.78 .90

Definition of Variables

1940-44 Sample

1

6 .89 .88 .86 .76 .88

1-"Best 25" votes received from persons in Social and Personality. 2--"Best 25" votes received from persons in Exp., Comp., and Physiol. 3--"Best 25" votes received from persons in Clinical. 4-"Best 25" votes received from persons in Educ. and Developmental. 5-"Best 25" votes received from persons in Industrial a?$ Vocational. 6-Total number of Best 25" votes received. 7-Total number of "Best 10 in Area" votes received.

Note-Variables are all in terms of votes received by an individual, not in terms o! votes given by each. Data are based on returns from the first 70 per cent of the total group. approximately.

...3 8 . . .

.

25% 33 21 7 7 7

A 15% 47 18 7 5 8

B

7

7

19% 32 25 10

C 16% 29 22 16 10 7 1

D 13% 30 21 10 14 2

E 14% 30 25 13 10 8

F

T

A

B

C

E

20% 19% 18 25 22 10 17 8 16 29 7 9

D 22% 24 19 8 19 8

F

T 21% 29 17 8 18 7

Rec’d Doctoral Degree 1935-39

17% 31% 15% 23% 26 43 21 36 19 9 31 21 10 6 7 6 8 13 17 14 8 5 9 5

Rec’d Doctoral Degree 1930-34

Groups Casting Votes

B

C

31% 14% 24% 22 26 52 26 16 33 11 8 13 2 2 3 4 8 5

A

7

8

21% 21 23 20

D

21% 15 20 18 19 7

E

25% 25 28 13 4 5

F

T 22% 29 24 13 6 6

Rec’d Doctoral Degree 1940-44

A-Persona specializing in Social Psychology and Personality. B-Persona specializing in Experimental and Physiological Psychology. &Persons apecializing in Clinical. Psychology. D-Persona specializing in Educational and Developmental Psychology. E-Persons specializing in Industrial and Vocational Psychology. F-Persona whose specialty is General Psychology, or is not defined. T-Total group.

Number of Votes 506 1074 754 742 487 427 3990 665 1135 662 557 603 374 3996 601 895 817 374 585 285 3557

A B C D E F

Groups Receiving Votes

Table 8 MANNERI N WHICH MEMBERSOF VARIOUSAREASOF SPECIALIZATION IN PSYCHOLOGY DISTRIBUTED THEIRVOTESFOR “AMONG BEST25 I N SIGNIFICANCE OF CONTRIBUTION TO RESEARCH I N PSYCHOLOGY,” SHOWN SEPARATELY FOR SEMI-DECADE GROUPS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

rn

n

rn Z

Z

-

n

0

v,

rn

U n Z

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERl CA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

velopmental, and industrial and vocational areas are considered, although these groups still seem to be voting in somewhat the same manner as are persons in the other areas of psychology. Perhaps an even better way of looking a t the problem of the degree to which voting for significant contributors is influenced by area of specialization is to look at the total numbers of votes cast by persons in each area of specialization for persons in their own area, as against persons not in their own area. Table 8 presents such information separately for the groups receiving doctorates in the interval 1930-34, 1935-39, and 1940-44. The largest number of votes received by experimental and physiological psychologists was from persons in their own area; this phenomenon can be observed in each area of specialization. The magnitude of the increase in number of votes so received ranges from about 25 to 50 per cent, when the increase in each subgroup is compared with the distribution of total votes. This amount of increase is sizable, but has only a moderate amount of influence on the final percentages. The largest number of votes cast for any group is the number cast for persons in experimental and physiological psychology. This again is true for each of the subgroups. Even though the “own-area” bias is large, the amount of voting for persons outside one’s own area is quite substantial. It is interesting to note, for example, that the distribution of votes cast by persons in clinical psychology does not differ appreciably from the distribution of votes cast by the total group. This is also true for persons in educational and developmental areas and for persons in industrial and vocational areas of psychology. These analyses suggest that the amount of fission in psychology is not quite so great as many people believe, at least insofar as an evaluation of competence and eminence in psychology is concerned.

RELATIONS TO OTHER INDICFS OF EMINENCE The appropriateness of the procedures for selecting significant contributors may also be assessed by comparing our index of eminence with independent indices which are frequently accepted as being evidence of a person’s achievements in a given science or area of knowledge. The most obvious of these are election to the National Academy of Science and inclusion in Who’s Who. The list of persons who belong to the National Academy of Science who are psychologists is very short. The number of persons in the Academy who fall within the limits of our study-that is, who receive doctoral degrees in the interval 1930-44-i~ even smaller. It is noteworthy, however, that each person in this age range who is a mem-

...40.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I N D I C E S OF E M I N E N C E

ber of the National Academy of Science is also a member of our significant contributor group. A count of the membership in Who’s Who can be done without any great difficulty. This count has been made for persons who are identified as significant contributors in psychology for each of the three five-year periods and for a random sample of 200 persons in each of the three fiveyear periods, this random sample being drawn from the total group of doctoral degree recipients who are APA members excluding the significant contributor group. The results of these counts are presented in Table 9. They are rather striking. Of our significant contributors who received their degrees in the interval 1930-34, 74 per cent are included in Who’s Who; of the 1935-39 group of significant contributors, 48 per cent; of the 1940-44 group of significant contributors, 24 per cent; of the three groups combined, 49 per cent. For the sample of random controls a similar dropping off with the later receipt of P h D is observed, but the percentages are much lower. There is a substantial difference between the two groups, suggesting that whatever the criteria for inclusion in Who’s Who, such Table 9 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN WHO’SWHO (1954 Ed.) Five-year period in which PhD degree was received

1930-34 1935-39 1940-44 Total group

Significant Contributqrs

% *n

N

Who’s Who

50 50 50 150

74 48 24

49

Random Controls % in N Who’s Who 200 200 200 600

18 9 6 11

criteria do relate to our method of estimating eminence. Also of interest is the strong influence of age on inclusion in Who’s Who. Since the number of persons in our significant contributor group who were not included in Who‘s Who is about the same as the number who were, it seemed a matter of interest to make an analysis of the number of “Best 25” votes received by significant contributors in Who’s Who and those not in. This analysis is presented in Table 10.These distributions do differ to a very substantial degree, suggesting again, that whatever the index of eminence used to include a person in Who’s Who, it does have some relationship to the nominating procedure used in this study even within the restricted range of our significant contributor group.

. . . 41 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERl CA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

Still another set of analyses may be made to reflect on the nature of our criterion of eminence. In the process of collecting data for the work of this project, a number of variables frequently mentioned in evaluating scientists were selected, and indices relating to these variables were obtained for our psychologists. These variables are described in the following paragraphs. I. Total number of Psychological Abstract citations. This index is used as our best estimate of the widely used and oft-maligned “number of publications” count. It was obtained by counting for each person in our sample the number of titles of published articles in the Columbia University library card index of PsychoZogicaZ Abstracts. All entries appearing in the Psychological Abstracts prior to early 1953 were counted. This index differs somewhat from total publication counts partly because nonpsychological articles are omitted, and partly because it excludes from the count publications in which a person is a secondary author. This citation count, therefore, underestimates publication rate. 2. Number of Annual Reuiew citations. This index is used as our best estimate of the worth of the most recent publications of an individual. Table 10 DISTRIBUTION OF VOTESAS “SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS” RECEIVED BY PERSONS INCLUDEDOR NOT INCLUDED I N WHO’SWHO Number of Best

1930-1 934

1935-1939

Not in Who’s Who

1940-1944

Not in Who’s Who

25

In Who’s Who

140-149 130- 139 120-129 110-1 19 100-109 90-99 80-89 70-79 6049 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10-19

1

1

2 3 2 5 1 3 6

1 1

1

1 1

1 1

Votes

4 7 5

3 1 4 2 1

0-9

N Median

39 64.5

.. .42.. .

11 45.8

In Who’s Who

2 2 3 2

5

2 2 1

24 49.5

2 3 3 2 5 7 1

26 39.5

In Who’s Who

1 1 3

1

2

2 2

12 49.5

Not in Who’s Who

1 1

2 4 3 2 3 3 9 8 1 1

38 39.5

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I N D I C E S OF EMINENCE

This index was obtained by counting the number of different citations an individual had in the Ahnual Reviews of Psychology, Vols. I through IV. This index tends to reflect somewhat the quality of a person's work since reviewers are instructed to include only items they consider noteworthy. It is also influenced by the fact that the Annual Reviews are divided into various subject-matter areas. A person's contributions may cut across several areas, and so be cited more frequently, even though it might not be any more noteworthy than an article which falls only in one area. O n the other hand, an article which fell into none of these areas would be carried not at all even though most persons might consider it a particularly significant contribution. 3. Journal citation counts. This index is the number of times an individual's work is cited in the published literature by other research workers. Through the use of IBM equipment it was possible without great effort to determine the number of times an individual's works were cited in articles of a research nature written in various journals. All citations are not included in the counts used here. The restrictions are as follows: a. Intact volumes either published in the calendar years 1949 through 1952or approximating this interval were used. b. No citations of one's own works were counted. c. Citations were counted only in those articles which presented at least some evidence of data collection and presentation (this criterion being aimed at the elimination of articles primarily of a review nature.) These counts do include citations of more than one work by the same researcher which appear in a single article. They also include secondary authorships and include all types of articles cited, whether empirical or not. It should also be apparent to anyone who thinks about the differential characteristics of various journals of the American Psychological Association that the relative contribution of each journal to the total number of journal citations may vary a great deal. This point can be demonstrated quite easily by presenting the number of different persons cited and the total number of citations for each of the 19 journals studied. These figures are presented in Table 11. 4. '950-53 PsychoZogicaI Abstract Citations. This index is a measure of the current publication activity of each of the persons in our study. The number of different entries in the four volumes of Psychological Abstracts was counted for each person. 5. Number of APA Ofices Held. This index is intended as a reflection

...4 3 . . ,

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERl CA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS

of the degree to which the individual is contributing to work on professional problems of psychologists and of the degree to which he is recognized as a status figure in psychology and thus collects votes for various elective offices. The number of ofices held was obtained by scrutinizing publications of the American Psychological Association for names of committee members, committee chairmen, division presidents, division officers, members of the council of representatives, members of the Board of Directors, and so on. A preliminary effort was made to assign values to each one of these offices so that a weighted composite score might be obtained. This was finally rejected as being far too subjective to have merit. Instead, each office was given a unit weight for each year held. The score an individual obtains is thus merely a count of the number of different offices he has held with those held longest automatically receiving more weight. The interval during which these offices were held runs from approximately 1946 through 1953.It should also be noted that certain offices are held by virtue of holding others. For example, the President of the Association is also a member of the Board of Directors. H e would then receive an additional point for each ex oficio position held for each year. 6. 1953-54 total professionaz income. This index is a simple economic one and was obtained from the 1954 National Scientific Register questionTable 11

LIST OF PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNALS STUDIED AND NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PERSONS FOUND TO BE CITED I N EACHAND TOTAL NUMBER O F CITATIONS COUNTED I N EACH Journal

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology American Journal of Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Clinical Psychology Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology Journal of Consulting Psychology Journal of Educational Psychology Educational and Psychological Measurement Journal of Experimental Psychology Journal of General Psychology .Tournal of Genetic Psychology Genetic Psychological Monographs Personnel Psychology Journal of Psychology Psychological Monographs Psychometrika Journal of Social Issues Journal of Social Psychology Public Opinion Quarterly

... 4 4 . . .

No. Different Persons Cited

Number of Citations

1578 985 1056 1005 1155 1073 784 727 1652 839 1118 1031 310 966 871 355 72 697 281

3578 1784 2215 1911 3131 2647 1238 1273 5644 1486

1858 ~.~~

1732 443 1560 1484 785 79 1240 458

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I N D I C E S OF EMINENCE

naire which asked the person to record his total professional income for the preceding twelve months. The question asked was as follows: “What is your present annual income from all professional work?” This index was included as a means of determining the degree to which income reflects status and eminence, particularly within the academic setting. The usual assumption is that a person whose merits are exportable, that is, whose qualities are known not only at the local institution but also across the country is able to command at the local institution a higher salary than can a person whose qualities are not as well known. By using this index it is possible to test the limits of this assumption. A comparison of significant contributors with other highly visible psychologists may be made on each of these six variables. Table 12 presents the distributions of total Psychological Abstracts counts for the sig-

Table 12 TOTALPsychological Abstracts COUNTSOF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTERS AND OTHER HIGHLYVISIBLEPERSONS Total Psycholqical A bstrad Counts 100-104 95-99 90-94 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34

A*

1935-39

B*

A

1940-44

B

A

B

1 1 1 2 1 4

1

1 1

1

2 3 1 9 10 i4 27 40 21 16 11

1 1 1 2 6 5 10 5 9 8 1

14 9 28 54 38 12

1 1 1 5 5 6 16 6 6 1

1 1 2 1 10 19 49 42 26

N

50

156

50

167

50

151

Median

36.5

20.5

12.6

18.3

10.3

30-34 ~. ~.

25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4

* A-Significant

6 3 4 5 1 8 4 4 5

18.3

i

5

7

Contributors to psychological science; B-other Highly Visible pemom.

...45.. .

AMERICA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS

nificant contributor group and other highly visible persons for the three five-year periods. The number of publications for the significant contributor group is substantially larger than that for the residual members of the highly visible group, suggesting that at least part of the variance in a person's eminence in psychology is the degree to which he has published.

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Table 13 Annual Review CITATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS AND OTHERHIGHLY VISIBLEPERSONS Year in Which Doctoral Degree was Received

Annual Review

Citations

1930-34 A*

1935-39 B*

32

A

194044

B

A

B

1

27 26 25 24 23

1 1

1 1

18

1

1

1 1 2

13 12 11 10

1 2 3 2 1

9

8 7 6 5 4 3

1

3 6

3

6

1 2 2 1

4 3 7 9

19

1 1 1 5 2

7 6

13

4 1 4 7 3 4 6

1

1

4 4 5 4 9 10 14 34 32 32 ~~

28

77

N

50

156

50

167

50

151

Median

5.2

0.5

3.2

1.0

6.1

1.8

* A-Significant

Contributors t o psychological science; B-other

...46.. .

Highly Visible persons.

I N D I C E S OF EMINENCE

However, the distributions of numbers of publications shows a very substantial degree of overlap. JOURNAL

Table 14 CITATION COUNTSOF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS AND OTHER HIGHLY VISIBLEPERSONS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Journal Citation Counts

185-189 180-184 175-179 170-174 165-169 160-164 155-159 150-154 145-149 140-144 135-139 130-134 i25-129 120-124 115-119 110-114 105-109 ioo-104 95-99 90-94 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 ~25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 ~~

N Median

* A-Significant

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

1930-34 A*

1935-39

B*

A

1940-44 B

A

B

1

1 1

2

1

1 1 1 1

1

3 1 3

1

1

1

2 4 5

3 4 5

3 4 1 50

34.5

2 4 2

1 1

1 1 2 2 3 1 4

12 18 35

2 2 5 7 13 8

8 19 16 88

156

50

167

6

75

4.9

12.4

Contributors to psychological science; B-other

1

3 1

4.2

1 6 3 4 7 9 5

50

19.5

Highly Visible persons.

1

1 3 6

9

10

42

79

151

4.3

...47.. .

AMERICA’S P S Y C H O L O G I S T S

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Table 13 presents the same comparative distributions for the number of Annual Review citations. These distributions again show substantial differences, especially in terms of the medians, and also show a considerable amount of overlap. The outstanding characteristic of Table 13 is the very large number of zero entries in the residual high-visible group as compared to the number in the significant contributor group. The distributions of scores on journal citation counts are presented in Table 14. The differences between the significant contributor group and Table 15 PSYCHOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS COUNTS(1950-53) OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS AND OTHERHIGHLYVISIBLEPERSONS Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Psychological Abstract Counts 1950-1953

1930-34

A*

1935-39

B*

A

1940-44

B

A

B

1 1

27 26 25 24

1

23 22

1

1

21 20 19

1 1 2

18 17 16

15 14 13

1 2

1 2

12 11

1

5 3

10

9 8 7 6 5 4

2 1

6 2

4

10

6 3 4

7

4 11

11 15

6

9

15

25

16

N

50

156

50

167

50

151

Median

1.8

2.5

5.0

2.8

7.5

3.4

* A-Significant

Contributors to psychological wience; B-ether Highly Visible peraone.

...4a.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I N D I C E S OF E M I N E N C E

the other highly visible group is a very marked one with regard to this index. Those persons who were voted as significant contributors to psychological science are persons whose works are cited in the psychological literature three to seven times as frequently, on the average, as their contemporaries. These distributions suggest that knowing the degree to which a person’s work is cited is a much more valuable item of information than knowing how much he has published insofar as making an estimate of the degree of eminence a person has attained in psychology is concerned. An index of current level of publication is presented in the count of entries in 1950-53volumes of Psychological Abstracts. The distribution of Table 16 NUMBER OF AP.4 OFFICESHELDBY SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS AND OTHERHIGHLY VISIBLEPERSONS Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Number of APA Offices Held 43 30-34 25-29 20-24 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8

7

1930-34

A*

1935-39

B*

1 3

2 4 1 4 2 1

1

A

1940-44

B

A

B

1

1 1

2

1 2 3 1 2 2 6 4 6 4 6

1 5 2

3

1 1

1 2

4 1 8 5 4 15 112

1 1 3 2 2 3

1 1

7

7

16 98

6 1 2 1 1 2 15

11 15 120

4 1 2 6 4 6 5 12

N

50

156

50

167

50

151

Median

7.5

0.3

6.0

0.2

3.0

0.2

6 5 4 3 2 1 0

* A-Sipnificant

5

3

1 4 2

5

Contributors to psychological acience; B - o t h e r Highly Visible persons.

...49.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS

these scores for each of our various groups is presented in Table 15. These distributions show much less differentiation between significant contributors and other highly visible APA members but still maintain a sizable difference in the expected direction. Current rate of publication is not, however, one of the best ways of identifying significant contributors to psychological science. Number of offices held in the American Psychological Association and its divisions are reported in Table 16 for the significant contributor and other highly visible groups. This index seems to be one that is fairly closely related to significance of contribution. The difference in medians of the three pairs of distributions is particularly striking. The interesting thing about this index is that it works best for separation of the two groups for those persons who have held no APA offices. These persons are quite likely not to be in the significant contributor group. The fact that a person holds many offices is a fairly good indication that he would belong in the significant contributor group. Perhaps a part of this close relationship is due to the fact that offices like the presidency of the APA give very substantial scores since the president by virtue of holding ofice as president-elect, president, and past-president, with their associated ex o@cb offces, accumulated a total of nine points on this index. Even so, in the middle ranges there is a fair amount of overlap between the two distributions. This index, however, is one that is fairly closely related to our index of significance of contribution and suggests that holding offices in the APA is to a considerable extent honorific. An interesting question that one might ask is the degree to which distribution of incomes of significant contributors exceeds those of other highly visible APA members. These data are presented in Table 17. For the 1930-34 group it apparently is worth about $2,000 a year to be a significant contributor. For the 1935-39 group the differential drops to about $1,600. And for the 1940-44 group the difference is about $1,000. Income is related to the significance of a person's contribution but the amount of overlap between the two income distributions is such as to suggest that within the highly visible group at least, this influence is not as great as we might expect. The number of persons making $15,000a year or more is over twice as large for the other highly visible psychologists than it is for the significant contributors to psychological science. This may be explained in part by the larger number of persons in applied areas of psychology in the residual high-visible group. Applied psychologists probably have a greater chance of earning salaries in the higher ranges than do academic psychologists. However, the academicians more frequently are

...50.. .

I N D I C E S OF E M I N E N C E Table 17

1953-54 TOTALPROFESSIONAL INCOMESOF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS AND OTHERHIGHLY VISIBLEPERSONS Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

1953-54 Total

1930-34

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Professional I ncorne

A*

$20,000and over 19.OOO l8;OOO 17,000 16,000 15.000 14;OOO 13?000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4.000

3;ooo

2,000 1 ;000 No Data

B*

A

2 1 2 2 1 2

7 4 7 3 6

3 1 1

10

N

50

Median

$10,860

* A-Significant

1935-39

1 1

6 12 17 20 19 16 4

B

B

A

1

4

1

4 1 3

1940-44

1

1

2 2 4 4

7

3 5

1

1 1 4 5

4

1 1 1

2 8 4 13

3 3 7

7

10

17

21 18 15

7

11

9 1 1

2

1

1

44

13

44

10

156

50

167

50

$8,700 $10,125

$8,500

$9,330

1 37

151

$8,350

Contributors to psychological science; B-other Highly Visible penrons.

specializing in the areas which tend to lead to nomination as eminent psychologists. Having presented the various indices which have relationship to the number of votes received as significant contributors, it seems profitable to report the degree of relationship among these different variables. Any index of relationship will be at best a somewhat dubious one because of the rather peculiar nature of all of the distributions. Even though the distributions are markedly skewed, it seemed most meaningful to compute product-moment correlations between each of these variables. This has been done and the matrix of intercorrelations is presented in Table 18. All the correlations are positive. The highest correlation with number of votes received is the journal citation counts with a correlation of .67. Number of APA offices held is a close second, with a value of .64. Annual

. . . 51 . . .

AMERICA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS INTERCORRELATIONS OF INDICES OF

Table 18 EMINENCE FOR TOTAL SAMPLE ( N = 624)

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

1930-53 Psychologzcal Abstract Counts Total Psychological Abstract Counts 193C-53 Psychological Abstract Counts Annual Peview Citations Journal Citation Counts APA Offices Held Number of Votes Received

.52

OF

HIOELYVISIBLE

PERSONS*

Annual Review Citations

Journal Citation Counts

APA Offices Held

Number of Votes Received

.41

.45

.30

.44

.63

.36 .60

.19

.31 .38

.43 .58 .67 .64

* These correlations are markedly influenced by the direct selection of the large part of this group on the variable.Tota1Psychologicul Abslracts Counts, and the effect this hss on the restnction in the range of all vanables. Review citations also has a fairly large correlation with number of votes received. The lowest correlations with number of votes are total Psychological Abstract counts and 1950-53Psychological Abstract counts, both of which are indices of the amount of publication. These relationships are undoubtedly lowered by our use of the Psychological Abstracts counts in the first step of selecting significant contributors. The interrelationships of these variables are fairly low, suggesting that a multiple correlation between number of votes received and the other five variables would be high. An optimum combination yields a multiple correlation of $2, using four of the five variables. The fifth variable, total Psychological Abstract counts, was dropped since the beta coefficient obtained was not significantly different from zero. The beta weights for each of the remaining four variables are presented below: Variables 1. 1950-53 Psychological Abstract counts 2. Annual Review citations 3. Journal citation counts 4. APA offices held

Beta Weights

.0965 .1524

,3636

,4262

In examining the beta weights for each of the four variables in the multiple-regression equation, it is interesting to note that the number of APA offices held has the largest weight. This variable is thus contributing the greatest amount to the prediction of the number of votes a person would receive in our nominating procedure for significant contributors to psychological science. This is not too surprising, since APA offices and our nominating procedures have in common a voting element. The journal citation count which reflects the degree to which a person's works

. . .5 2 . .

.

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I N D I C E S OF EMINENCE

are referred to in the publications of others is second, with the number of AnnuaZ Review citations and current publication rate contributing only a small amount to the multiple R. As a matter of fact, if we use just two variables, APA offices held and journal citation counts, for the purpose of predicting our number of votes, we get a multiple correlation of .79, which suggests that these two indices alone will do about as well as any combina. tion in predicting the number of votes a person would receive in our nominating procedure. The four variables with beta weights significantly greater than zero may be used in combination to predict our criterion of number of votes received. The multiple-regression equation which was used to make this prediction is presented below :

-Y = .7402 + ,6587 + .9078 + .4482 xa + 2.1056 XI

~1

XI,

where subscripts to the x-values refer to the numbers of the variables in the table of beta weights.

These weights were used to compute the predicted number of votes for each of the persons in our group of 624 highly visible psychologists. The scatter plot of predicted against actual votes was made (the correlation computed on the basis of this scatter plot was .81)and names of persons were determined who fell some distance from the regression line. These were persons whose number of predicted votes differed from their actual number of votes received by a value of 30 or more. Those persons whose number of actual votes was considerably greater than would have been predicted (i.e., who are perceived as more eminent than their number of APA offices, journal citations, Annual Review citations and recent publications would suggest) were primarily in experimental areas. Seven were in areas of experimental, physiological, and comparative psychology, five were in social psychology (with four of the five being identified as experimental social psychologists), and two were in measurement. A dozen persons received many fewer votes than one would have predicted from the quantitative indices. Nine of these persons were in the area of clinical psychology or counseling psychology, two were in industrial psychology, one was in educational psychology. Thus this sort of superficial scrutiny suggests that the voting procedure tended to favor persons in experimental areas at the expense of persons in applied and service areas. These general descriptions of the discrepant groups do not provide enough of the information one would like for a better understanding of the outcome of this voting procedure. The reader of the list of names for these two discrepancy groups is not so much impressed by the area of

...53.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

specialization in which these persons are but rather by the nature of the contribution to psychology. Persons who received many more votes than would have been predicted are persons who have made substantial contributions with a very small number of articles. Persons who received many fewer votes than would have been predicted are persons who publish a great deal and yet have not published any articles which have attracted a great deal of attention. Also in this latter group are a number of persons who have held a very substantial number of offices in the APA at an intermediate level, but whose general contribution to psychology as a science has frequently not been as great as others who have held far fewer offices. Thus the voting procedure has added an element of quality to the selection of significant contributors. The same kinds of procedures which have been employed in the examination of discrepant cases with the predicted number of votes from a combination of the four variables were followed for each one of our variables independently. These analyses may yield some insight into factors which are characteristic of our population of highly visible members of the American Psychological Association. For convenience and simplicity, each variable has been reduced to a trichotomy for this analysis. The relationship between total PsychoZogicuZ Abstract count and the number of votes received is presented in Table 19. It should be noted that Table 19 NUMBER OF VOTESVERSUS TOTAL Psychological Abstracts COUNT Total Psychological Abstract Count No. of Votes

0-1 1

12-19

20 and over

15 & over

4-14

0-3

there are 44 cases in one discrepancy cell (persons receiving 15 or more votes who have 11 or fewer PsychoZogical Abstract entries), and 34 entries in the other (persons having zero to three votes and 20 or more publications). Persons who fall in the cell with the entry 44 are highly esteemed in terms of their research contributions but have a low publication rate. Some of these are persons who have published a significant textbook. Others are persons who have conducted a particular experiment which has attracted a great deal of attention. Others are persons who hold positions which

...54.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I N D I C E S OF E M I N E N C E

draw attention to themselves, these are generally positions which contribute to a total research effort. Thus this group as a whole appears to be a very impressive one. The group of 34 persons who publish a great deal but receive a very small number of votes is rather surprising, in that many of the names are not at all well known in psychology as a whole. Many of these are persons who work in a fairly narrow area-withiny perhaps, industrial psychology or clinical psychology, or they have published a substantial number of articles in a fairly narrow area in experimental or social or counseling psychology. In a sense this list is rather melancholy reading, since these persons have probably worked hard, contributed a great bulk of published literature in psychology, but in so doing have not added to the esteem in which they are held by their colleagues. The examination of the relationship between 1950-53 PsychoZogicaZ Abstracts counts and number of votes yields a somewhat smaller number of discrepant cases. There are 34 persons who have published little and yet have received a substantial number of votes and 25 persons who have published a substantial amount and received fewer than three votes. Table 20 presents this analysis. The descriptions given to the discrepancy cateTable 20

NUMBEROF VOTESVERSUS 1950-53 Psychological Abstracts COUNTS 1950-53 Psychological Abstracts Counts

No. of Votes

0-2

3-5

6 and over

15 or more 4-14 0-3

34 84 114

63 69 68

118 49 25

gories in the preceding paragraph fit fairly well for these also. As a matter of fact many of the names which showed up in the discrepancy categories with the preceding variable show up with this one as well. A comparison of the relationship between Annual Review citations and number of votes provides a moderate number of cases in the discrepancy categories. There are 24 persons who received 15 or more votes who were not cited at all in the Annual Review. All o f these are well established in the field of psychology. Several are directors of programs or heads of departments; some are persons who have made substantial contributions through publications of textbooks or monographs. All, however, are persons whose current research activities are at a fairly low level in

... 5 5 . . .

A M E R I C A’S PSY C H 0L 0G I STS

terms of their own immediate publications. They are concerned to a considerable extent either with the direction of research programs or with the direction of graduate departments. Some are known to be working on long-range programs which are not yet being published or reviewed. The 33 persons who received three or more Annual Review citations but who received zero to three votes are generally in areas of applied psychology or are working in an area which has not commanded a great deal of

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Table 21 NUMBER OF VOTESVERSUS Annual Review CITATIONS Annual Review Citations

No. of Votes 15 and over 4-14 0-3

0

1-2

3 and over

24 65 104

54 76 70

137 61 33

attention from psychology as a whole. Three Annual Review citations in four years is a fairly low criterion; it is thus not too surprising to find a number of names that are not particularly well known. Many of these persons may be doing work of considerable significance; their current work has not, however, been recognized as yet in terms of eminence within psychology as a whole. Table 22 reflects a fairly substantial relationship between journal citation counts and number of votes and thus provides only 24 persons who receive a large number of votes but have very few journal citations. These names are well known in psychology; about half of them are directors of research programs of one sort or another; several are engaged in work at Table 22 NUMBEROF VOTES

VERSUS JOURNAL

CITATION COUNTS

Journal Citation Counts No. of Votes 15 and over 4-14 0-3

0-3

4-1 1

12 and over

24 78 116

54 81 72

137

~~

43 19

the periphery of psychology; the remainder are persons whose research programs are known and who are respected but who have not published

...5 6 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I N D I C E S OF E M I N E N C E

a great deal about the things that they have done. (One person on this list is an individual whose name apparently was confused with that of another person not in the age range for our study; on this borrowed reputation he received a large number of votes even though he probably is not well known in the field of psychology.) The persons who have many journal citations and a small number of votes are again difficult to describe. Several are clinicians, several are industrial psychologists; none of them holds or has held a position of importance in the American Psychological Association. They may perhaps represent overlooked talent that is not being recognized as much as it might be. The relationship between the number of APA offices held and the number of votes is fairly high. Thus Table 23 has only a moderate number of discrepancy cases. The vast bulk are persons who are in the upper lefthand cell. These 63 persons are fairly well known in view of the fact that they receive a large number of votes. They perhaps are less gregarious or organization oriented than their contemporaries and thus have not been Table 23 NUMBER OF VOTES VERSUS APA OFFICES HELD

APA Offices Held No. of Votes 15 and over

4-14 0-3

0

1-4

5 and over

63 135

57 42

95 25

166

34

7

motivated to participate as much in Association activities. Every scientific organization must have many members like these. Of much more interest are the seven people who have held five or more APA offices (or one office for five years) but who receive a very small number of votes. These persons are fairly well known to psychologists; their names appear fairly frequently in the American Psychologist in connection with their professional activities; but presumably their research contributions to psychology are not well known or are considered less significant than the contributions of their contemporaries. Thus they are perceived not in their dual roles as professional persons in the Association and as research psychologists but only in terms of their former function. The method of presentation of relationship in terms of the trichotomy on one variable plotted against the trichotomy on the other may also be

...57.. .

AME R I CA‘S PSYCHOLOGISTS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

employed to examine the relationship between 1954 income and these various indices. Table 24 presents such an analysis. It is apparent that the number of APA offices held and the number of votes a person receives as a significant contributor are important factors in relation to salary. The person who holds no APA offices is quite likely to be in lower income brackets; a person who has many votes as a significant contributor is quite likely to be in the upper income brackets. However, all the indices show a positive relationship with income. An interesting set of entries are those in the “No data” column. The persons who fall in these cells are of two kinds; either they did not return Table 24 AND VARIOUSINDICES OF EMINENCE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN1954 INCOME 1954 Income

Indices of Eminence

$10,000 & over No Data

$100-$7499

$7500-$9999

33 54

51 61

51

68 45 47

54 41 62

34 48 62

46 63 54

69 37 54

43 52 62

45 46 53

65 .. 53 45

70 46 44

51 55 51

39 47 58

51 63 49

61 51 48

48 46 63

14 27 103

36 46 81

57 32 71

20 28 109

4-14 0-3

31 47 66

62 51 50

50 33

77

45 54 58

N

144

163

160

157

Total Psychological Abstract Count 20 and over 12-19 0-1 1

57

1950-53 Psychological

Abstract Count 6 and over 3-5 0-2

Annual Review Citations 3 and over 1-2

0

Journal Citation Counts 12 and over 4-1 1 0-3

Number of APA Offices Held 5 and over 1-4 0

Number of Votes as “Significant Contributor” 15 and over

...5 8 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

I N D I C E S OF E M I N E N C E

to the APA office their 1954 National Scientific Register questionnaires or they did return the questionnaire but did not indicate their incomes in the space provided (since this particular response was optional). The persons holding zero offices in the APA for whom there are no data on 1954 income are very much like the persons in the lowest income group; both of these groups are relatively nonparticipating in the APA. It might be appropriate to examine the rate of return of questionnaires to the APA office as an index of the degree to which a person identifies himself with the national organization. The nonreturn of questionnaires from such inactive members may be producing biases that are sizable with regard to those issues relating to activities of the national association. One final analysis of these various indices of eminence seems appropriate at this point. Later sections of this report analyze responses to a fairly detailed questionnaire sent out early in 1954 to various samples of our 1930-44 P h D group. All members of the highly visible samples were sent this questionnaire. On it were asked questions about the number of current P h D students and the total number of students carried through to the doctorate. These two indices may now be added to those we already have and presented in a correlation matrix for that part of our sample returning the 1954 questionnaire. This matrix is presented in Table 25. Thus it is possible to add productivity measured by training P h D students Table 25 MATRIXOF INTERCORRELATIONS OF VARIABLES RELATING TO EMINENCE FOR 566 HIGHLY VISIBLEAPA MEMBERSWHO RECEIVED THEIRDOCTORAL DEGREES IN THE PERIOD1930-44. (1) (1) APA Offices Held (2) Total Psych. Abstracts Counts (3) 1950-53 Psych. Abstracts Counts (4) Annual Review Citations ( 5 ) Journal Citation Counts (6) Composite of 1, 3, 4, 5 (7) No. of votes received (8) Current PhD Students (9) Total PhD Students

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

,32 .20

.52

.31

.42

.63

.39

.47

.36

.61

.SO

.53

.52

.71

.82

.64

.47

.43

.58

.68

.81

.ll

.19

.23

.18

.18

.20

.23

.23

.25

.17

.29

.32

.35

.34

.63

... 5 9 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AME R I CA‘S PSYCH 0 LOGISTS

as an additional index of eminence. The number of cases used in this table is now 566 instead of 624, the 58 missing cases being those who failed to return the 1954 questionnaire. Included in this matrix is a composite score obtained by weighting and adding together the values for APA offices held, 1950-53 Psychological Abstracts counts, Annual Review citations, and journal citation counts, using the multiple-regression equation presented earlier in this chapter. The composite of these four variables correlates 81with number of votes received. (This value was .82 when computed from the regression equation. The difference results from rounding errors.) It also correlates quite high with journal citation counts and APA offices held but this correlation is spurious since these variables entered into the composite. It is apparent that the number of PhD students is a poorer index of eminence than any of the other variables that we have used. Eminence as we have implicitly defined it through the procedures employed in this study apparently does not automatically attract graduate students; likewise, the mere number of P h D students does not contribute very much to this eminence. It is perhaps more realistic to assume that the quality of one’s P h D students and the number of such P h D students is determined by eminence than to assume that a person becomes an outstanding member of the community of psychological scientists by virtue of leading through to a degree a substantial number of P h D students. It may be that this index is under-representing the eminence of individuals since the advisees who are in the best position to say whether or not a man is an outstanding adviser of P h D students cannot vote in the procedures employed here, since voting was done by contemporaries only. It would be most appropriate if the persons turning out the largest numbers of P h D students and thereby having the greatest effect on the future careers of these persons were those who were held in highest esteem by their colleagues. With the correlation being this low, one assumes that many of the persons who are getting PhD’s in psychology are being trained by persons who are not considered to be leaders in the field. Data that bear directly on this point are presented in later chapters of this report. It is hoped that this fairly detailed analysis of the manner in which the procedures for selecting significant contributors to psychological science have operated has given the reader a better understanding of the nature of the significant contributor group and provides a basis for an appropriate understanding of the materials presented in the succeeding chapters. In the following chapters primary attention is given to the way in which our significant contributor group differs from a random cross section of their

...6 0 . . .

INDICES OF EMINENCE

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

contemporaries in the American Psychological Association. Many of these differences reflect characteristics of significant contributors which probably are independent of the specific methods employed in drawing our sample of eminent psychologists. However, it is undoubtedly true that these differences would have been perhaps greater, and perhaps of different character if the manner of drawing the significant contributor group had been modified to any appreciable degree.

. . . 61 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

CHAPTER

4

PRESENT STATUS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS TO PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

T H E PROCEDURES DESCRIBED I N T H E PRECEDING chapter were aimed toward the identification of significant contributors to psychological science from a selected sample of members of the American Psychological Association, They also were aimed at determining the manner in which the significant contributor samples differed from other highly visible psychologists. One of the major purposes of this study, however, was to compare these significant contributors not with other highly visible members of the APA but with a random cross section of APA members holding PhD degrees, and to compare persons in differing areas of specialization in psychology. Such comparisons could be made only on a fairly small number of variables at the time the various samples were first drawn. These variables had been included in prior questionnaire surveys of the APA membership, particularly the one sent out in the spring of ISI for use in making

...62..

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10031-004 America's Psychologists: A Survey of a Growing Profession, by K. E. Clark Copyright © 1957 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

S T A T U S OF S I G N I F I C A N T C O N T R I B U T O R S

up a new directory of membership, and the national scientific roster questionnaires, sent out in 1951 and 1954 under the auspices of the National Science Foundation. All of these data were made available to this study and were of great value in supplementing information collected directly under the sponsorship of this project. However, the purposes of this project, aiming as they did toward a better understanding of environmental factors affecting productivity, were quite difierent from the purposes of these other surveys. Therefore, it was necessary to prepare a special questionnaire to be sent to persons in the samples we wanted to study. A preliminary form of a questionnaire was prepared early in 1954 and mailed to a sample of 242 members of the APA who received their P h D s in 1929 or 1945. Using their responses as a guide, a final questionnaire was prepared and mailed in April of 1954 to various samples of psychologists. The mailing list included the following groups: A . APA members receiving doctoral degrees 1930-1944: 150 who were nominated as Significant Contributors to psychological

science 601 randomly drawn from the group not designated as Significant Contributors 308 Highly Visible Psychologists not falling in either of the preceding groups

B. 473 APA members receiving doctoral degrees in 1950

C. 192 APA members not appearing in any of the preceding groups who did

appear in a drawing of random samples of 25 Fellows from each of 13 APA Divisions.

Thus a total of I724 questionnaires were mailed. Procedures to maximize returns to this mailing were used as follows: some publicity was given the project and the questionnaire mailing through an article appearing in the American Psychologist; a postcard reminder was sent approximately two weeks after the original mailing of the questionnaire; a second card was sent about a month after the original mailing, composed and signed by Fillmore H. Sanford as Executive Secretary of the APA; a second copy of the questionnaire with an attached note of appeal was sent about seven weeks after the original mailing to those persons who still had not replied, excepting persons in the significant contributor group, who were sent individual letters. About three months after the original mailing an individual letter was sent to each nonresponding member of the 1930-44 random sample requesting that the questionnaire be completed. As a result of all these influences the following rates of return were obtained :

. . . 63.. .

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS Total N

Category

% Return Received

1930-44 Significant Contributors Random Controls Residual Highly Visibles

150 60 1 308

145 494 273

97% 82 % 89%

1950 Doctoral Degree Recipients

473

450

95 %

Random Fellows not in any of the preceding groups

192

158

82 %

1724

1520

88 %

Total Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Number of Returns

It is possible to make some estimates of the degree of bias resulting from nonreturn of questionnaires by means of data obtained in the 1951 Directory questionnaire. This will, of course, be an underestimation since persons who failed to respond to both questionnaires would be omitted from the analysis. Tests of bias in return were made using chi square. When the expected frequencies in cells were quite small, cells were combined for purposes of computation. No tests of significance were made for the significant contributor group since the return was so close to 100 per cent. For the other groups it was possible to make comparisons between return and nonreturn groups in terms of the year in which degree was received, year of birth, field of specialization, number of publications, locus of major professional employment, total professional income in 1951,number of Annual Review citations in Vols. I-IV of the Annual Reviews in psychology, sex, and type of APA membership. These analyses indicated that the highly visible psychologists who returned our questionnaire had a slight but significant excess of younger persons and of persons who were Fellows rather than Associates of the APA than did the high visibles who did not return the questionnaire. In the random sample of 1930-44PhD’s those who returned the questionnaire were somewhat different from those who did not in terms of the year in which they received the doctoral degree, had somewhat fewer publications, and somewhat fewer citations of their works in Vols. 1-4of the Annud Reviews of psychology. These differences are not large but do need to be considered in interpreting the results of the questionnaire survey. If we make the extreme assumption that the nonrespondent group is markedly different from the respondent group on a given variable, it is possible to make a computation of the maximum possible effect of these differences in biasing the responses presented in later parts of this report. Since our percentage return is so high, such computations indicate that

...64.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

S T A T U S OF S I G N I F I C A N T C O N T R I B U T O R S

the biases in responses are very unlikely to distort our percentage results by more than three percentage points. The analysis of responses to the questionnaire was made using IBM equipment. The first step in the process of analysis was the coding and punching of those responses which were indicated in categorical form. The responses which were open-end in form were then coded and these results punched into IBM cards. Cards into which responses were punched were identified in such a way as to permit ready separation of the total group into meaningful subsamples. T w o major types of separations were made. The first provided a summary of persons in the following groups with numbers in each group as shown: N

Group Received degree 1930-34: Nominated as Most Significant Contributors

47

Other Highly Visible APA Members 84 (Neither Significant Contributor, nor member of Random Sample of Nonsignificant Contributors) Random Sample of PhD Psychologists who 155 were not Significant Contributors Received degree 1935-39: Nominated as Most Significant Contributors Other Highly Visible APA Members

50 102

Random Sample of Psychologists who were 165 not Significant Contributors Received degree 1940-44: Nominated as Most Significant Contribu- 48 tors Other Highly Visible APA Members

87

Random Sample of PhD Psychologists who 174 were not Significant Contributors Received degree 1950

450

The second separation was by areas of specialization, as indicated in the ISI APA Directory questionnaire, or, if this were lacking, as inferred from responses to our own questionnaire (item 32 of the questionnaire asks for the name of their “own area of specialization”). The groups were: Area of SDecialization

Year of Deeree

N

General

1930-44 1950

77

Experimental and Physiological

1930-44 1950

158 64

52

...6 5 . . ,

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AME R I CA‘S P S Y C H O LOG1STS Personality and Social

1930-44 1950

101 44

C1iniMI

193044 1950

276 211

Educational and Developmental

1930-44 1950

177 55

Industrial

1930-44 1950

97 14

Responses to each of the questions in the questionnaire were completed and presented in percentage form in a preliminary report of this project titled, “Basic Tables for the APA Study of Psychologists” prepared February 15, 1955.These tabulations were published in limited form for discussion and scrutiny by persons associated with the project and persons concerned with policy problems in the American Psychological Association. The next four chapters summarize the data obtained from the analysis of these questionnaires.

CURRENT STATUS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS AND OF A RANDOM SAMPLE OF OTHER APA MEMBERS The procedures outlined in the preceding chapters have provided a group of 150 significant contributors to psychological science. Fifty of the 150 received their first doctoral degree during the interval 1930 to 1934, another fifty during 1935 to 1939,and the last fifty between 1940and 1944. It should be recalled that these persons are considered to be significant contributors not primarily on the basis of a large amount of publication, nor on the evaluation of published work. Rather these persons were selected by a series of steps. First, they were required to be members of the American Psychological Association. Second, it was necessary that they had obtained a doctoral-level degree (their first, in the case of two doctoral degrees) during the interval 1930 to 1944. Third, they needed to have published a considerable amount or else to be known to leaders in the profession, and finally they needed to acquire a substantial number of nominations from their colleagues who were asked to indicate persons they thought to be significant contributors to psychological science. The definitive part of this screening process was, of course, the last step, the nominating of significant contributors. The preceding chapter dealt with the correlates of the criterion of significance of contributions in considerable detail. Publication rate, alone, was not particularly related to the significant-contributor nomination criterion. Having one’s work cited in the literature by others did have a

,

..66.. ,

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

STATUS OF S I G N I F I C A N T CONTRIBUTORS

fairly high relationship to our criterion, as did holding various APA offices. Thus our criterion is not one of publication so much as it is being highly regarded in the field. This criterion of eminence might perhaps be improved somewhat if it were permitted to stand the test of time, but this is obviously impossible in view of the nature of this particular study. The intentional omission of the list of names of Significant Contributors has prompted us to supply data to replace the personalized feeling one would otherwise get by scanning a list of names. Personal characteristics of members of the Significant Contributor group compared with those of the random sample of their contemporaries seem to fulfill this function. Table I, for example, presents the current places of employment of persons in the Significant Contributor group, divided into three groups on the basis of the time of receiving the doctoral degree. It should be noted that a higher percentage of members of the Significant Contributor group than of the control (or Psychologist-in-General) group are employed in academic settings. The Significant Contributor is likely to be a person in a college or university, probably in a department which offers a substantial program of graduate training. Table 1 TYPE OF EMPLOYER OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR A N D CONTROL GROUPS, SPRING 1954 Year in Which Doctoral Degree was Received Type of Employer

College or University Other Educational Institutions Federal Government Private Industry, Selfemployed Private Industry, Employee Nonprofit organizations, including hospitals Stateand Local Government Total

N for data given N for no data

* A-Significant

1930-34

1935-39

1940-44

A * B * A

B

92%

55% 84%

0 4

47%

70%

5 18

2 10

0 1 0 2 6

8 6

2

0

9 5

9 14

7 5

4 0

4

7

A

B

0 4

0 6

Total

A

55% 82% 4 11

6

7

6 1 1 0 6

1 6

3 4

B

53% 6 14 7 6

4 0

8 6

150

452 149

--

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

50 0

152 48

50 0

129 66

Contributors;B-Psychologists-in-General.

50 0

171

35

0

...6 7 . . .

A M E R l CA‘S P S Y C H O L O G I S T S

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

The colleges and universities currently employing members of our group of eminent psychologists are shown in Table 2 . These data were obtained by using the 1955 Membership Directory of the American PSYchological Association. They therefore reflect the location of persons during the academic year 1954-55.Also presented in Table 2, partly as a matter of convenience, and partly to highlight differences between the two sets of data, are the numbers of members of the Significant Contributor group who received their degrees at each of the schools listed. Only those universities having a frequency of three or more in either column are listed. T o provide some basis for comparison, we have also listed the Table 2 UNIVERSITIES PRODUCING LARGEST NUMBERS OF PHD’s IN THE APA, AND PRODUCING AND EMPLOYING LARGEST NUMBERS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS TO PSYCHOLOGY Number of Degrees Awarded Institution

Columbia University State University of Iowa Ohio State University Yale University University of Minnesota New York University University of Chicago Harvard University University of Michigan Stanford University Northwestern University University of California (Berkeley) George Peabody College University of Pennsylvania Duke University University of Illinois University of Southern California University of Wisconsin Cornell University University of Pittsburgh Purdue University Pennsylvania State University University of California (Los Angeles) Western Reserve University Clark University Brown University University of Rochester

* Fewer than 25

C+

Fewer than 6

1Fewer than 3

.,.68.. .

Number of Significant Contributors Among On Current past PhD’s Staff

1930-44

1950

303 138 108 95 90 88 86 78 52 51 46 38 34 31 27 27 27 27 25 25

49 25 20

20 9 8

15 34 35 13 24 27 11 25

8

* * * * * *

*

7

**

11

**

8 28 6 8 15 13 12 11 10

** ** **

17

8

19 § 11 §

6 § § §

J

§

3 § §

1 0 6 5 5

6 3 4 8 6 4

7

5 8 4 4 4 § §

1 §

4

§ § § § § § § § §

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

STATUS O F S I G N I F I C A N T CONTRIBUTORS

number of persons who are members of the American Psychological Association who received degrees from each of these schools during the period 1930to 1944,and 1950. The provision of all these items of information in one table permits a study of growth of departments, as reflected in the number of degrees awarded, and an index of quality, as reflected in the later achievements of their PhD’s and in the reputations of the current staff. The estimate of quality, it must be remembered, is somewhat imperfect, since it relates only to the eminence of those staff members or former students who received doctoral degrees in the thirties and early forties. A very good but quite young, or very good but quite old, faculty would have its quality seriously underestimated in Table 2. Columbia University is obviously the largest producer of P h D psychologists, both in the prewar and postwar periods. It has also provided the largest single number of significant contributors to psychology. It must yield to other schools in terms of the current number of significant contributors on its staff, and in terms of the ratio of eminent PhD’s to total number of PhD’s. Clark University, Brown University, and the University of Rochester are the leaders in the quality of their PhD’s, by such a ratio, followed by Harvard University, Stanford, Yale, California, and Wisconsin, in that order. If our count of the number of eminent psychologists currently on the staff is any index of the contemporary merit of a department, we should conclude that the most rapid rise of departments has occurred at the University of Michigan, at the University of Illinois, and at New York University. These schools, plus the West Coast schools, Stanford, California, USC, and UCLA, are the ones which also show the greatest increases in the rate of producing P h D s in the postwar period. Returning to our description of significant contributors, it has been shown that they tend to be employed in colleges and universities, and that they tend to cluster at particular schools. Currently, they may be found in greatest number at Yale, Michigan, Chicago, Illinois, Columbia, Minnesota, and Harvard. These schools, plus New York University, Stanford and Iowa, are also those which produced the largest number of P h D s who became members of our significant contributor sample. The Significant Contributor is not often found in a service position or engaged in an applied area of psychology such as clinical practice or industrial consulting. Whether or not this is due to the fact that a person in a service position has less time to make a research contribution is difficult to say. It seems more likely that differences in locus of employment result

...6 9 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A M E R I C A'S P SY C H 0LOG I STS

from differences in the area of specialization which, in turn, affects the probability of being nominated as a significant contributor. Table 3 indicates that more of the significant Contributors are in experimental psychology, more in physiological psychology, than are the random controls. The Psychologists-in-General, on the other hand, tend to be more frequently in clinical psychology and in educational psychology. Another way of looking at the areas of specialization of psychologists is through study of the divisions of the APA they select for membership. The M A structure permits members to belong to any number of divisions that will accept them, including none. The number of divisions to which members of our various groups belong is shown in Table 4. Significant Contributors belong to more divisions than their contemporaries; this may reflect a greater support of APA activities and a willingness to spend the extra dollar per year that each division membership costs, or may reflect a greater breadth of interest among persons who are making significant contributions. Table 3 MAJORFIELDSOF SPECIALIZATION OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR AND CONTROL GROUPS Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Fields

1930-34 B*

A* Psychology (general) Behavior Deviations Clinical Developmental Educational Experimental General Industrial Personality Physiological Social VoCitional Other (in Psychology) Anthropology Education Psychiatry Sociology Other (not Psychology) No Data

1

10 2

4

12 3 3 5 3 4 1 1

17 7

13 3 4 6 6 7

2

1 26

200 ~~

* A-Signifiasnt Contributora:B-Psyohologists-in-General. 70..

...

.

7

2 9 57

4

20 23 4 21 6 2 11 11 2

2

1 4 8 1 6 2 5 6

2

50

Total

13 53 10 31

1935-39 A B

7

1940-44 A B

1 10 3 4 11 1 3 1 2

7

3

1

1

3

50

2

17

195

4

50

1 8 68 15 35 10 6 20 4 6 5 6

7

1 3

1 10

206

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

S T A T U S OF S I G N I F I C A N T C O N T R I B U T O R S

The divisions selected for membership are shown in Table 5. These data parallel to some extent those shown in Table 3, except that the striking effect of the difference between the two groups in numbers of division membership has resulted in the Significant Contributor group’s having a higher proportion of its members belonging to all divisions except the Divisions of Esthetics, School Psychologists, and Counseling and Guidance. A much higher proportion of Significant Contributors than of other psychologists are male, as shown in Table 6. More, also, are Fellows of the American Psychological Association. Fellowship status is, perhaps, another measure of eminence, operating somewhat less discriminately than our index of significance of contribution. The greater publication rate of Significant Contributors has already been noted. Data on the size of differences are presented in Table 7. The differences between the distributions when Significant Contributors are compared with the control group are very substantial. This is to be expected. Some insight into factors producing this large difference may be obtained by examining the differences in the way in which the average work week is spent by the Significant Contributors and by Psychologistsin-General. This information is somewhat limited in meaning, since a Table 4 NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DIVISIONS OF THE APA TO WHICHMEMBERS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR AND CONTROL GROUPS BELONG Year in Which Doctoral Degree was Received No. of Division Memberships

1930-34 A* B*

8 7 6

2 2 2

3 2 1

No Division Membership

5 4

Total N

* A-Significant

1935-39 A B

1

2 4

1 1

22

31

28

35

2

28

4

28

100% 100% 50

195

1940-44 A B

34

1

1 1 2

1 1

36

28

33

21

2

26

100% 1 0 0 7 ~ 10070 10070 50

193

Contributors: B-Psycbologiata-in-General.

50

Total A B

201

100% 100% 150

589

. . . 71 . . .

AMER I CA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS Table 5 APA DIYISION MBMBERSEIP OF VARIOUSSUBQROUP~ Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 193&34 A* B*

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Divisions

1 General 128% 2 Teaching of Psychology 3 Experimental Psychology 30 5 Evaluation and hleasurement 16 7 Childhood and Adolescence 10 8 34 9

Esthetics Clinical,and Abnormal Consulting Psychology Industrial and Busineau Psych. Educational Psychology School Psychologists Counseling and Guidance Pa chologiatg in Public gemice 19 Military Psychology 20 Maturity and Old Age Nc1 Division Mentioned

N

* A-Significant

28

0

28 6

12 12

9.3 24.0

5.8 7.3

8% 2 36

10.7% 3.9 7.8

4.0 5.0

10 20

5.6 7.7

8 18

7.8 9.2

9.5 2.0 13.5 6.0

22 0 24 12

16

8.7 .5 21.8 2.4

22.0

1.0 1.9 5.3 20.4

2.0 16.0 8.0 2.0

6.0 3.5 28.0

zn

_.

200

8

18 10 2 12 4 22 8 4

50

8.2

4.6 0.5 19.5 6.2

9.7 7.7 2.1 9.7

2.6 6.7 2.1 27.7

195

20

0

28 2 6

14.7

8.7

0.0

26.7 6.7

6.3 7.3 4.4 9.2

6

4 8

0

6 6 0

50

206

B

7.7% 4.3 7.7

4.1 6.7

5.5

Total

9.3% 4.7 32.0

4.6%

20 10 2

50

A

8% 4 30

10

z

1940-44 A B

7.5% 5.0 8.5

2.5 7.0 4.0 11.5

0

1935-39 A S

12.0 9.3 2.0 10.0

150

7.5

7.7 1.0 18.3 4.8

6.1 7.3 3.5 10.2

1.8 4.8 3.7 25.3

601

Contributors; B-Psychologists-in-General.

Table 6 LEVELOF APA MEMBERSHIP AND SEXOF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR AND CONTROL GROUPS Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received Status

1930-34

Total A B

B*

1935-39

1940-44

A*

A

B

A

B

49 1

106 94

47 3

97 98

47 3

87 119

143 7

290 311

Male Female

49 1

144 56

45 5

148 47

48 2

151 55

142 8

443 158

N

50

200

50

195

50

206

150

601

Fellow Associate Sex

* A-Significant

Contributors; B-Psychologists-in-General.

composite picture of the average work week is typical of no single member of the group. Even so, such an analysis does give an indication of the differences in total activities of persons in our two samples. Table 8 presents this analysis. The Significant Contributor group spends somewhat less time in

...7 2 . . .

STATUS OF S I G N I F I C A N T C O N T R I B U T O R S

the teaching of undergraduate students, spends more time in the teaching of graduate students, spends a higher proportion of time in research, spends somewhat less time in counseling and consulting, spends considerably less time in clinical practice than does his contemporary in the Psychologists-in-General group. Both groups spend a substantial part of their time in administrative activities. Table 7

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

DISTRIBUTION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ABSTRACTSCITATIONCOUNTSFOR SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR AND CONTROLGROUPS Citation Counts

100- 104 95-99 90-94 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 4044 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0 4 Total

Medians

Year i n Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

A

1940-44 B

1 1 1 2 1 4

6 3 4 5 1 8 4 4 5

1 50 37.0

4 6 2 11 19 15 40 100

1 1 1 1 2 6 5 10 5 9 8 1

200 4.5

50 20.5

2

1 1

2 2 4 9 30 41 107

1 1 1 5 5 6 16 6 6 1

4 8 20 31 143

195 4.0

50 18.3

206 3.1

* A-Significant Contributors; B-Psychologists-in-General, Perhaps more significant than the distribution of time is the general attitude of a person toward the various activities comprising his work week. In our questionnaire the question was asked, “At the present time about what per cent of each work week is spent in each of the following activities?” The next question was, “How important is each?”l For the l T h e rating of importance is diflicult to interpret, even though observed differences are large, since the basis for rating was not specified by our question, nor indicated in any way by the respondent.

. . .73.. .

AMERICA’S PSYCHO LOG ISTS Table 8 AVERAGEPERCENTOF TIMESPENT I N EACH ACTIVITYBY SICNIFICAYT CONTRIBUTORS AND BY PSYCHOLOGISTS-IN-GENERAL Year in Which Doctoral Degree L a s Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Activities

Teaching Undergraduates Teaching Graduate Students Research Counseling & Consulting Local Committee Work Administrative Responsibilities Clinical Practice Other

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

9% 21 34 3 3 22 1 7

10% 18 25 8 3 26 3 7

8% 21 35 5 3 19 1 8

17% 10 14 13 3 24 15 4

100% 100%

Total

* A-Significant

1930-34 A* B*

17% 13 14 13 2 21 14 6

100% 100%

17% 13 14 14 3 22 9 8

100% 100%

Contributors;B-Psychologists-in-General.

I930 to 1934 group 65 per cent of the Significant Contributors said that teaching graduate students was very important; 83 per cent said doing research was very important; 37 per cent said administrative responsibilities were very important. The four activities ranking highest in importance for the Psychologists-in-General in the 1930 to 1934 group were administrative responsibilities at 41 per cent, research at 35 per cent, teaching undergraduates at 34 per cent, and counseling and consulting at 32 per cent. Somewhat the same sort of picture is provided by examination of the 1935 to 1939 and the 1940 to 1944 samples. These distributions of responses are presented in Table 9. What are the reading habits of our Significant Contributors and the Psychologists-in-General ? Table 10 contains distributions of the number of different professional journals cited in response to open-end questions asking for a listing of professional journals read regularly, or scanned frequently. The mean number listed by Significant Contributors is substantially greater than the number listed by Psychologists-in-General. It would appear that Significant Contributors have a greater contact with psychological literature. The definition of reading in terms of “read regularly and scan frequently” was used in this fashion in order to include journals which a person contacts regularly in order to keep up in his own area of specialization. It seemed a bit unlikely that a very substantial number of journals would be read regularly in the ordinary sense of these words by any substantial number of APA members.

. . .74 . .

STATUS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS Table 9 PERCENTAGES OF PERSONS I N EACHGROUP RATINGEACHACTIVITY OF THEIR WORK WEEKAS “VERYIMPORTANT” Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Responses

1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

Teaching Undergraduates Teaching Graduate Students Research Counseling and consulting Local Committee Work Administrative Responsibilities Clinical Practice No Answer

28% 65 83 13 4 37 4 4

24% 52 74 22 12 58 10 4

23% 62

N

46

* A-Significant

34% 27 35 32 9 41 24 14 152

50

29% 34 32 36 11 39 22 6

77

10 6 35 2 8

160

48

30% 41 42 42 7 42 28 6

171

Contributors; B-Psychologists-in-General.

Table 10 NUMBER OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALS “READREGULARLY OR SCANNED FREQUENTLY” BY SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR A N D CONTROL GROUPS Number of Titles Listed by Respondents 9 or more 8

7

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 No Usable Response N

Median

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34 A* B*

A

28% 11 13 4 4 9 9 2 6 2 13

30% 10 6 8 16 14 4 0 2 4 6

47 7.1

12% 10 10 12 12 10 10 3 3 8 11

155 5.4

1935-39

50 6.4

B 13%

7

14 13 12 13 9 4 1 4 10 165 5.7

1940-44 A B 44% 10 6 19 2 6 0 2 2 0 8 48 8.4

17% 9 13 11 14 12 6 3 3 2 9 174 6.0

* A-Significant Contributora; B-Psyebologista-&General. The particular journals that were listed by the two groups are also of interest. These data are presented in Table 11 for the most frequently named journals. That journal which is read most frequently by all groups

... 7 5 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSYCHO LOG ISTS

is the American Psychologist. It was listed by about two out of three of all respondents. Also quite high on the list was the Psychological Bulletin, named by very substantial numbers, As a matter of fact, this journal was listed more frequently by Significant Contributors in the 1935 to 1939 group than any other journal was by any of the subgroups. Number three on the list of readership is Psychological Abstracts. It should be noted that all three of these journals were provided with the membership dues to all members of the APA. The other front-ranking journals are Journal of Experimental Psychology and Psychological Review, both of which were listed much more frequently by the Significant Contributors than by their controls. The same thing can be observed for the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, and American Journal of Psychology. One finds substantial readership for the Journal of Applied Psychology, the Journal of Consulting Psychology, the Journal of General Psychology, and Psychological Monograph. The entire list of journals which was compiled from responses of members of various groups is not presented here; however, it is a very

JOURNALS

Table 11 LISTEDMOST FKEQUENTLY A S “READ REGULARLY OR SCANNED FREQUENTLY” Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Journal

American Psychologist American Journal of Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology n f Cnmbnratiue and Phvsio_.Tnurnal _ logical >sych&gy Journal of Consulting Psychology Journal of Exberimental Psychology Journal if Abiormal and Sicial Psychology Psychological Abstracts Psychological Review Psychological Monographs Psychological Bulletin Educational and Psychological Measurement Journal of Clinical Psychology Journal of Personality Journal of Social Psychology Psychometrika

I_

1930-34 A* B*

A

B

64% 34 30

66% 10 19

54% 36 38

78%

36 28 49

10 28 21

53 30 51 21 62 19 9 15 17 15

1940-44 A B

20

73% 42 29

75% 10 25

44 34 60

8 26 15

33 33 50

13 ~. 32 20

32 48 14 6 66

38 38 50 22 82

33 53 21

62 37 67 27 73

37 49 24 8 67

9 14 4 11 4

4 6 12 18 10

5 23 5 8 4

17 8

11 19 10 4

* A-Signifiosnt Contributors; B-Paychologista-in-General. 7 6 . . .

...

1935-39

7

7

72

27

10 12

4

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

STATUS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS

impressive list and reflects the wide variety of interests of the membership of the American Psychological Association. Thus there are members of the Association who read widely in mathematical journals; others who read widely in biological journals; many who read in psychotherapy and psychoanalytical literature and in the literature of psychiatry, or who are attending to new developments in clinical neurology, education, or in anthropology and sociology. Such a listing reflects a great catholicity of interests of members of the American Psychological Association. Respondehts were asked to describe themselves in terms of the extent to which they kept up with current developments in their own area of psychology. This is a subjective rating which was given after the person listed journals which he reads regularly or scans frequently. A summary of responses is presented in Table 12. It is of interest to note that the Significant Contributors rate themselves only slightly better informed than the Psychologists-in-General. There is a very slight difference but not of sufficient magnitude to warrant any generalizations. Thus it would appear that the greater variety of reading and the coverage of a larger number of journals which was evidenced by the Significant Contributor group does not result in their feeling any more content as far as their level of information is concerned. Table 12

LEVELOF INFORMATION IN AREAOF SPECIALIZATION I N PSYCHOLOGY Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received ~

Self-Rating of Level of Information

Very Well Informed Fairly Well Informed Somewhat Informed Rather or Quite Uninformed

* A-Significant

1930-34

A*

B*

28% 21% 45 50 21 15 11 6

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

22% 50 26 2

40% 42 10 8

22% 51 19 8

22% 47 19 10

Contributors: B-PsychologisC-in-General.

RESEARCH AND TEACHING ACTIVITIES OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS The preceding section has reflected the nature of employment and the general areas of interest of significant contributors to psychology compared with their contemporaries. The former tend to be more frequently in academic positions; they tend to be more frequently interested in such areas of psychology as experimental, physiological, personality and social

...77.. .

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

psychology and less frequently in clinical psychology or vocational psychology. They tend to be more frequently Fellows of the American Psychological Association; a higher proportion of them are male; they publish considerably more than their random controls. This section outlines the ways in which they differ in current research and teaching activities. A substantial number of members of each of our groups have considerably changed their patterns of research activities as shown in Table 13.The SigTable 13 CHANGES IN DEGREE OF RESEARCH ACTIVITYSINCETHE FIRST FIVEYEARSAFTER THE DOCTORATE Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34 B*

Responses

A* Much more active now Somewhat more active now About as active as ever Somewhat less active now Much less active now No answer

* A-Significant

17% 20 35 13 13 2

16% 12 14 18 28 11

1935-39 A B

194044 A B

16% 18 24 22 20 2

15% 25 35 15 8 2

18% 13 11 16 29 13

25% 20 15 9 20 11

Contributors;B-Psychologists-in-General.

nificant Contributors tend to be about as active as ever, while members of the control group report being much less active now. Another evidence of a maintained interest in research activities on the part of the Significant Contributors is provided by responses to a question about summer employment. No appreciable difference between Significant Contributors and their controls exists in terms of their needing or not needing to work during summer months. However, the Significant Contributor group spends its free summers to a much greater extent in research, building apparatus, and writing books, articles, and research reports than does the control group. Tables 8 and 9 indicated a substantial commitment on the part of Significant Contributors to the training of graduate students. One of the questions asked was, “How many graduate students who are within one year of their doctorates are you now supervising directly?” The distribution of responses is presented in Table 14.The differences between the Significant Contributor and the Psychologists-in-General group are substantial. Within the 1930 to 1944 PhD group, about 425 graduate students are currently being given direction during their last year of their doctoral work by the 145 responding members of the Significant Contributor

...7 8 . . .

S T A T U S OF S I G N I F I C A N T C O N T R I B U T O R S Table 14 NUMBERS OF GRADUATE STUDENTS WITHINONE YEAROF THE DOCTORATE BEING BY MEMBERS OF EACHGROUP SUPERVISED DIRECTLY

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Responses

30 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 9

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 No answer

* A-Significant

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34 A* B* 2 0 0 0 4 2 4 0

7 7

11 9 22

9 15 9

0 0 1 0 0 0

b

0 1 3 2 4 1 4 32 53

1935-39

194044 B

B

A

0 0 0 2 2

0 0 1 0 1 0

0 4 6 8 8 12 10 16 30

2 1 2 3 1 1 6 28 53

2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 10 17 12 8 6

A

0 2

i

17 15

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 3 6 1 5 32 48

Contributom; B-P6ychologist6-in-Ganeral.

group, and about 435 students by the 494 members of the Psychologists-inGeneral group. Thus although the size of the control group is almost three times the size of the Significant Contributor group, the Significant Contributor group is directing the work of the same number of PhDs. Much of this difference results from the greater number of “no answers” from the control group; these are generally persons who have no graduate teaching responsibilities. It was noted in an earlier chapter that the number of graduate students being directed by a person did not differentiate Significant Contributors from other highly visible psychologists. The persons who are in universities where there is opportunity to direct the work of graduate students tend to be at least highly visible, and are persons who, according to our data, are contributing a very substantial amount of their energy to the direction of the work of graduate students in psychology. A more striking picture is presented when one examines the total number of doctoral degrees which have been attained under the direction of members of each of our various groups. The total number of P h D students who have completed their work under the 145 members of the Significant Contributor group is almost I 100, for the Psychologists-in-General group

... 7 9 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AME RI CA‘S PSYCHO LO GISTS

the corresponding number is about 565. The Significant Contributors average 7.5 PhDs; the Psychologists-in-General I .I PhD’s. Currently, the former group is carrying 2.9 PhD’s in their last year, the latter, 0.9. These figures are rather reassuring in giving a picture of our graduate training as being heavily influenced by the persons whom we consider to be essentially highly eminent members of the profession, although the current impact is not so great as in the past. The statistics take on more meaning when we recall the information on the locations in institutions of higher education of these Significant Contributors as compared with their controls, since it is in the graduate departments of universities around the country that the leaders in research have a chance to influence personally the development of new PhDs. Table 15 NUMBEROF PERSONSWHO HAVERECEIVEDDOCTORAL DEGREESUNDERDIRECT SUPERVISION OF MEMBERS OF VARIOUS GROUPS Responses

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34 A* B*

51-60 41-50 31-40 21-30 16-20 11-15 9-10 7-8 5-6 3-4 1-2 0 No answer

0

2 2 4 9

0 0

7 15

20 0 13 9 0

7

13

1 1 1 1 0 5 3 3 24 61

1935-39

1940-44 B

A

B

A

0 0 0 0 4 10 2 4 14 12 14 10 30

0

0

1 0 0 1 2 4 0 2 3 4 26 56

0 4 4 4 6 8 8 15 10

17

4 19

0 0 0 0 0 1 1

1 2 9 6 32 48

~~~

* A-Significant

Contributors: B-Psycholopiatkin-General.

COMMUNICATIONS PROBLEMS One of the critical current issues in all areas of science is that of communication among scientists. This problem evinces itself most generally with regard to publication, particularly the lack of adequate channels to permit as much publication as is desired by many members of the scientific organizations. Associated with this problem however is the need to keep the amount of publication down to a point which permits adequate coverage of the journals by the recipients of them. Closely related are such

...80.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

STATUS O F SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS

problems as the abstracting and indexing of journals and the provision of adequate bibliographic sources for a searching of the literature. While publication is the main area of communication, many other channels of contact are open and used widely by psychologists. One of these is, of course, the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, a six- or seven-day meeting devoted to presentation of research papers, symposia, invited addresses, and business meetings. Regional meetings of a shorter duration are also held annually. In addition, a large number of sessions each year are planned under auspices of the Department of Defense, the National Science Foundation, or the National Institutes of Health; others are subsidized by universities or private foundations for discussion of specific problems. In addition there are frequent interchanges of psychologists among universities, some on a temporary basis, many on a permanent basis. Since the end of World War I1 the mobility among psychologists has been especially great. The number of changes in address of members of the Association has been so large in fact that it constitutes one of its major clerical problems. The study of problems of communication needs to include not only persons located at geographically distant points, it also needs to review the amount of interchange of ideas and the degree of influence exerted among themselves by colleagues at a particular locality. The degree to which a member of a graduate department uses his graduate students as means of communication, as a sounding board, or for help in generating ideas, is worth study. In addition the amount of communication with workers in other disciplines is a point which deserves to be scrutinized. These are areas which were discussed at considerable length in the planning of this study, since it seemed worthwhile to provide at least some insights into communications problems as one of the features of this project. We asked our respondents to indicate the degree to which they had discussions of psychological problems with persons in other disciplines or professions and under what conditions such discussions were held. The largest source of such contacts with other disciplines are colleagues in one’s own academic setting or in the local community. Discussions of this sort were mentioned somewhat more frequently by Significant Contributors than by their associates, although the difference is not pronounced. Contacts with persons not in the local community are made more frequently by Significant Contributors than by others, but such discussions of psychological questions are referred to by only about 10 per cent of our Significant Contributor group. Significant Contributors confer less frequently than their contemporaries with psychiatrists, neurologists, and other medi-

. . . 81 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSYCHO LOGISTS

cal persons, and more frequently with statisticians, mathematicians, and psychometricians. They confer to about the same degree with sociologists, anthropologists, social workers, and the like. Although the Significant Contributors reside in an academic setting more frequently than do their contemporaries, this difference is not so great as the difference which is revealed by the question: “DOyou have opportunities to discuss psychological problems with a colleague or colleagues, or with a person or persons acquainted with the field?” Adequate opportunity is the response given by between 80 and 85 per cent of the Significant Contributors. This same response is given by only 45 to 54 per cent of the controls. Thus it is apparent that the perception of the amount of opportunity available is considerably different for these two groups. It is a matter of conjecture whether or not these differences result Table 16 ATTENDANCE AT LOCAL,STATE,AND NATIONAL MEETINGS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

Attend regularly: Amer. Psychological Assn. Regional psychol. assn. State psychological assn. Local psychological assn.

76 50 28 2

28 18 24 14

66 56 28 4

22 21 29 12

83 50 12 4

32 27 30 11

Sometimes attend: Amer. Psychological Assn. Regional psychol. assn. State psychological assn. Local psychological assn.

13 28 24 15

29 31 26 12

28 30 22 16

39 30 23 17

15 29 33 12

36 30 34 19

Rarely attend: Amer. Psychological Assn. Regional psychol. assn. State psychological assn. Local psychological assn.

11 22 37 20

32 22 22 12

4 12 28 22

24 20 23 15

2 19 42 29

22 21 15 16

0

7

0

0

0

4

57 9 2 0 33

30 9 9 4 49

46 20 2 0 32

45 10 5 2 38

65 19 0 0 17

38 12 8 3 39

No answer Meetings considered most projitable : Amer. Psychological Assn. Regional psychol. assn. State psychological assn. Local psychological assn. No answer

* A-Significant

Contributors; B-Psychologists-in-General.

...82.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

STATUS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS

from the eminence attained by our Significant Contributors or whether it is one of the factors which produces the eminence. Attendance at local, state, and national meetings is of interest in understanding the degree of association of our Significant Contributors and contemporaries. Regular attendance at meetings of the American Psychological Association by Significant Contributors far exceeds that of their controls. These data are presented in Table 16. About three out of four of our Significant Contributors attend these meetings regularly; only about one out of four of our Controls do. This very sizable difference suggests that the meetings serve different purposes for eminent psychologists than for their controls. The Significant Contributors earned somewhat more money per year and perhaps are better able to attend these meetings. It is also possible that by virtue of their eminence they are better able to tap sources to pay their expenses to these meetings than their contemporaries are. Some better insight into motivations, however, is provided by examining responses to questions concerning attendance at regional psychological associations (such as the Eastern Psychological Association, the Midwestern Psychological Association, and the Western Psychological Association). These meetings serve approximately the same purpose as the American Psychological Association meetings in that they are devoted primarily to the presentation of research papers or symposia on professional and research problems. T h e percentage of Significant Contributors who attend these meetings regularly is considerably less than the percentage attending the national meetings, but there is still more regular attendance by members of this group than by the controls, with about 50 per cent or so of Significant Contributors attending these sessions, and about 20 per cent of the controls. The state psychological association and local psychological associations tend to be organized primarily for applied and professional purposes rather than for research purposes. Attendance at state psychological associations is not particularly different for the Significant Contributors and for the Psychologists-in-General. For local association meetings the Significant Contributors actually attend regularly to a lesser degree than do the controls. This last point suggests that Significant Contributors may find the key group, whose opinions they esteem, less in the local than in the national setting. For this reason they prefer to attend the national and regional meetings. Our respondents were asked to indicate which meetings they considered most profitable. The modal choice of Significant Contributors was the American Psychological Association meetings with somewhere between

. . . 83 . . .

AMERICA'S PSYCH 0 LOG I STS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

46 per cent and 65 per cent of people in these groups making this response. The most frequent response made by the Psychologists-in-General was also the American Psychological Association meeting, although the percentage response was considerably less than for the Significant Contributors. This difference in proportion is due to a considerable extent to the high proportion of "no answers" from all groups, these being somewhat more frequent for the Psychologists-in-General group than for the Significant Contributor group. If these responses are translated into the percentage of those giving opinions, then the difference between Significant Contributors and controls remains, but becomes much smaller. With such an analysis the Table 17 ATTENDANCE AT NATIONAL CONVENTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE STRICTLY PSYCHOLOGICAL (MULTIPLE RESPONSES PERMITTED) Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34 A* B*

General Scientific-Philosouhv AAAS. ' Sigma Xi, Academy of S&&ce Education-AERA, NEA, ICEC, SRCD StatisticsTesting conferences. IMS. Natl. Comm. on"Meas. Used in Education Industrial, Business, Military, Amer. Market. Assn.. Amer. Management Assn., etc. Clinical-psychiatric groups, mental deficiency, mental hygiene or health, projective techniques Experimental-Acoustic Society Biological science groups, medical, gerontology, physiology, EEG, optical neurology, zoology, etc. Social Science group-sociology, public opinion, SSRC, SPSSI, family and marriage relations groups, semantics, etc. Physical Science group-ngineers Personnel and guidance-APGA, NVGA, ACPA, Rehabilitation Assn. Other-foreign psychol. assn., Lang., Torch., Religion No local association None-no answer I

17%

1940-44 A B

10%

8%

15%

11%

6

19

8

10

17

18

13

2

6

2

8

4

9

1

10

5

0

5

15 15

17 0

16 16

15 1

10 6

12 1

0

3

8

5

8

5

6 0

4 1

8 2

5 0

6 2

5 1

4

10

4

7

6

10

2 38 38

4 32 45

0 24 34

5 27 52

2 33 40

5 32 42

* A-Significant Contributors; B-Psychologkists-in-General. 84...

...

1935-39 A B

9%

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

S T A T U S OF S I G N I F I C A N T C O N T R I B U T O R S

very strong preference for the American Psychological Association meetings then becomes quite clear. An attempt was made to provide some sort of picture of the attendance of psychologists at local, state, or national meetings of organizations other than those that are primarily psychological. Some reflection of the degree of attendance at such sessions can be obtained from Table 17. In this table are listed various types of organizations with national meetings attended by members of our groups. Significant Contributors attend general scientific sessions, statistical sessions, and sessions in experimental and physiological areas, and sessions in the social science area somewhat more frequently, and sessions, in personnel and guidance and in miscellaneous associations somewhat less frequently. The nature of “reference groups” for psychologists has been suggested in the preceding discussion. This issue was examined by the question: “What is the crucial reference group for you whose opinions of your work you care about?” The responses to this question are shown in Table 18. CRUCIAL

Table 18 REFERENCE GROUP(“WHOSE OPINIONS OF YOUR

WORK YOU CARE ABOUT”)

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Local colleagues Immediate superiors in your present position Your image of professional models of work Top-people here and in other countries Other No answer

A*

1930-34

B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

15%

34%

12% 30%

19% 32%

0

14

2

16

4

17

52 37 15 2

28 23 12 13

40 52 18 6

40 20 16 11

37 54 23 0

35 19 11 8

* ASignificant contributors; B-Psycholopiats-in-General. The proposition stated previously-that Significant Contributors tend to care more about persons at other locations than their own-is borne out by this question. The Significant Contributors refer less frequently to local colleagues and to immediate superiors in the present position; they respond somewhat more frequently to images and professional models of work; and quite a bit more frequently in terms of top people here and in other countries; they give no answer less frequently than the Psychologists-inGeneral.

... 8 5 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AME R I CA‘S PSY C H 0 1O G I STS

It seems reasonable to assume that the Significant Contributor group is oriented toward their own national esteem. Their energies are directed to a considerable extent in those channels which will command attention and will permit them to write or present papers. It very well may be that this is one of the attitudes learned during graduate work at the small number of graduate departments which are producing most of these Significant Contributors. Following this line, it would seem profitable for future studies to scrutinize the impact of graduate departments on attitudes and values of their graduate students, and to determine the degree to which research productivity and national eminence are stressed as important goals of a lifetime of activity in psychology. A question was directed toward the manner in which the respondent used his contemporaries as a means of trying out ideas for research. The specific question asked was: “DOyou have a ‘sounding-board) for your research ideas; that is, do you talk them over with some person or groups of persons? If so, with whom?” Eminent psychologists use students, classes, and trainees more frequently as a sounding-board, use employees and staff somewhat more frequently, use colleagues in psychology somewhat more frequently, and use colleagues not in psychology somewhat less frequently than do their contemporaries. They less frequently use superiors, department heads, and other such persons, suggesting less reliance on authority for support or direction of their activities. A somewhat similar question was asked, oriented toward the difference between consulting graduate students and staff. The specific question was: “Do you like to discuss your professional and research work with graduate students? How often do you have such discussion?” The most frequent response here was “no-answer,” produced by the large difference between the number of Significant Contributors to psychology who hold academic positions in graduate departments and the number of such persons in the control group. When responses are adjusted for these differences, there is a small but probably not significant difference between our contrasted groups, with most persons having at least some discussion of research with graduate students. Frequently suggested as an aid in resolving problems of communication between psychologists and persons in other disciplines is the use of research teams, or use of an interdisciplinary group for the conduct of research. During the past 20 years, psychology has been characterized by the existence of a wide variety of group research projects. As a means of providing some insight into the way in which group research was used, a number of questions were asked. Responses are shown in Table 19.The first question

. . .8 6 . . .

STATUS O F S I G N I F I C A N T CONTRIBUTORS Table 19 EXPERIENCES AND ATTITUDES REGARDING GROUPRESEARCH

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Have you ever worked in a setting where research is done in a group of colleagues rather than as an individual process? Yes, present job Yes, in past No No answer

If yes, what was the nature of the group process? Group coordination of individual projects Group working together under my direction Group working on someone else’s project Collaborative project with several contemporaries Other No answer Do you like doing research this way? Yes, very much Yes, somewhat No No answer

1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

48% 32% 57 30 13 39 2 6

54% 28% 56 38 12 38 0 4

44% 30% 54 43 21 33 2 4

35%

13%

30%

12%

33%

15%

65

26

54

26

48

23

11

13

14

13

21

15

39 2 13

22 3 45

42 8 16

27 7 41

46 4 23

29 1 37

37% 26% 39 26 3 11 11 45

40% 26% 36 29 10 4 14 41

33% 32% 25 27 19 5 23 36

* A4ignificant Contributors; B-Paychologiata-in-General. asked whether or not persons had ever worked in such a setting. A vast majority of our Significant Contributors have either current or past experience in a group research setting, as do a majority of the control groups. The chief difference between the Significant Contributor group and control groups is that a much larger number of the Significant Contributors have been directors of such research projects or have engaged in projects of a collaborative nature in which there are several persons of equal status. These are real differences but need to be interpreted in part in relation to the proportion of no answers, which differed considerably between the Significant Contributors and the Psychologists-in-General. A substantial proportion of each of our samples who have done work in a group setting report having liked it, with a less enthusiastic response coming from the Significant Contributors than from the Psychologists-in-

...0 7 . . .

A M E R 1 C A’S P SY C H 0LOG I STS

General. Respondents were asked to suggest on the basis of their experience the best features of group research. The free responses given to this question are summarized in Table 20. The primary difference between the Table 20 BEST FEATURES OF GROUPRESEARCH (MULTIPLE ANSWERS PERMITTED) Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

1930-34 A* B* Can see and attack big questions which can’t be attacked otherwise Can get different points of view, catch weaknesses Human relations (get stimulation) More skills can be represented, can get people’s best More work is done-work more apt to be done Can be more systematic Speed None Cross-disciplinehelp No answer

* A-Significant

15%

4%

1935-39 A B

8%

6%

1940-44 A B

6%

5%

38 15

23 24

34 40

28 22

33 29

36 26

11

12

14

13

15

13

2 6 2 4 11 19

2 3 2 1 1 48

8 4 2 2 0 12

3 2 4 0 2 47

4 2 2 2 4 23

5 2 2 1 2 37

Contributora: B-Psychologists-&General.

Significant Contributors and other psychologists are again reflected in the “no answer” category, indicating a more frequent lack of experience with group research among the latter group. Other differences, as reflected in specific responses, are not appreciable from one group to the other. The most frequent responses given are: that through group research it is possible to get different points of view and to catch weaknesses in a research design, that working together somehow or other stimulates research, that more skills are represented and that larger issues can be attacked through the use of group research. The same form of question was presented to our respondents to discover the weakest features of group research. Again differences between groups do not appear to be particularly significant (see Table 21). The chief criticisms of group research are that it inhibits the maximum creativity of the individual by enforcing a compromise, that it was too time consuming, and that there were too many conflicts of ideas. Some also mention problems in human relations such as jealousies or the inabilities of good persons to get along well with others. A somewhat more general question was also asked: “What do you

. .. 8 8 . . .

STATUS OF S I G N I F I C A N T CONTRIBUTORS

Table 21 WEAKEST FEATURES OF GROUP RESEARCH (MULTIPLEANSWERS PERMITTED)

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

1930-34 A* B*

Too many conferences-too much talk Time consuming-inefficient-not everyone works a t same pace Levels of individual ideas inhibit maximum creativity of individual-too much compromise Human relations (jealousies, guilt, etc.) One or two persons can dominate all efforts Too many ‘conflicts in ideas-no coordination of different viewpoints Not everyone accepts his responsibility -not all equally interested Credit not fairly distributed Too much administrative and paper work or poor administration Some members of the group are incompetent Divided responsibility-or responsibility not defined Loss of identification with the research-low motivation No answer-don’t know

6%

3%

1935-39

1940-44

A

A

6%

R 3%

12%

B

7%

17

7

14

11

8

13

21

11

16

9

23

10

6

8

10

7

17

4

2

4

6

2

2

1

13

4

4

7

2

7

2 2

2 1

6

4

5 1

4 0

5 2

6

4

4

2

12

4

4

3

4

2

0

3

2

1

4

1

4

3

4 19

5 50

6 18

1 50

6 23

2 44

* A-Significant Contributors; B-Peychologista-in-General. think is the ideal setting for doing research?” A summary of responses to this open-end question is presented in Table 22. Summarizing the description obtained from these responses yields a picture somewhat as follows: the setting is in a university or is at least a place with stimulating co-workers where there is an opportunity to consult experts in other fields and where the researcher is free to choose his own kind of research problem; the researcher wants enough time, that is, he wants to be released from other activities and he wants to have enough money to do the sorts of things he chooses to do. Much more popular than a group setting is a setting where one has freedom to choose one’s own work and where he has independence. Apparently pschology is still an area in which individualism is prized. The Significant Contributor group mentions the university setting, having enough money, enough time, and stimulating co-workers more frequently than the Psychologists-in-General. However, these differences

...0 9 . . .

A M E R I C A’S P SY C H 0 LOGI STS

Table 22

IDEAL SETTINGFOR DOINGRESEARCH Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34*

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A* Full-time research; research institute Group setting Enough time; relief from other responsibilities Enough money University Well-equipped lab-also a quiet one Stimulating co-workers-opportunity to consult experts in other fields Capable enthusiastic administrator or good organization Good lab staff-good assistants No teaching responsibilities or light teaching load Contact with enough subjects Depends on the job to be done or the researcher Individual work on specific problem A t least some teaching; preferably advanced students Security on the job-no obligation to sponsor Graduate students or undergraduates Freedom to choose own work No answer or none

* A-Significant

4% 9

B

5% 8

1935-39 A B 4% 6

1940-44

A

B

8% 12

10%

11%

8

12

15 23 26 19

12 13 12

7

16 16 32 10

13 15 12

7

33 29 23 21

14 12 14

21

14

20

14

35

17

2 9

1 2

2 6

4

7

12 15

3 4

9 2

2 3

0 4

1 5

2 2

1 2

2 6

6 3

8 4

3

7

2 8

3 4

6

1

4

1

8

2

2 0 23 13

2 1 10 43

2 8 6 22

2 1 9 35

6 6 23 8

1 2 10 30

7

Contributors; B-Psychologists-in-General.

again need to be discounted somewhat since the proportion of “no answers” is larger among the controls than among the Significant Contributors. Even among those answering the questions, these differences remain, although they are reduced in size. ACTIVITY PREFERENCES OF PSYCHOLOGISTS

It seems natural after presenting these results to move to an examination of the preferences for various other kinds of activities indicated by members of our various groups. These responses were obtained from an activity-preference blank incorporated in our questionnaire. This blank has been described by its originator, Robert L. Thorndike, in an article in the American Psychologist? The activity-preference blank has 50 items; THORNDIKE, ROBERTL. The structure of preferences for psychological activities among psychologists. American Psychologist, 1955, 10, 205-207.

...9 0 . . .

STATUS O F S I G N I F I C A N T C O N T R I B U T O R S

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

each item is a description of a kind of activity in which psychologists might engage; instructions are to mark each item as L (like), D (dislike) or ? (can’t decide). These 50 items were selected from a considerably larger pool so as to form five fairly homogeneous scales. Those five scales are: (I) Helping individuals; (11) Experimenting; (111) Working in Industry; (IV) Scholarship; (V) Administering. Table 23 presents means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and interTable 23 MEANS,STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITIES AND INTERCORRELATIONS OF 10-ITEMCLUSTERS (STANDARDIZATION GROUP)

I ntercorrelations Cluster

I I1 111 IV V

Helping individuals Experimenting Working in industry Scholarship Administering

I1

111

IV

V

Reliability

Mean

SD

- .38

.29 -.09

- .21 .39 -.14

.15 -.01 .23 .27

,90 .84 .83 .83 .78

5.79 5.07 4.88 5.32 4.62

3.54 3.06 3.13 3.02 2.72

correlations of these ten-item scales as determined by Thorndike in his original study. Table 24 presents the same data without reliability indices, Table 24 MEANS,STANDARDDEVIATIONS, AND INTERCORRELATIONS OF 10-ITEM CLUSTERS FOR 566 HIGHLY VISIBLEPHD MEMBERS OF AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Intercorrelations Cluster

I I1 111 IV V

Helping individuals Experimenting Working in industry Scholarship Administering

I1

I11

IV

V

Mean

SD

-.27

.25 -.03

.I3 .25 .05

.23

2.82 5.85 3.12 5.76 3.85

3.03 2.54 2.96 2.60 2.63

.01

.38 .31

for 566 highly visible psychologists in this study. The values in Table 24 are somewhat different from those in Table 23 since they are based on a different kind of sample. The sample used by Thorndike for purposes of getting normative data and making his analyses was composed of undergraduate psychology majors, graduate students, and staff members. Such a group is a fairly heterogeneous population. Our sample, on the other

. . . 91 . . .

AME R I CA’S PSYCHO LOGISTS Table 25 PERCENTAGE RESPONSES OF “LIKE” FOR EACHOF THE 50 ITEMSOF THE ACTIVITY PREFERENCE BLANKFOR PSYCHOLOGISTS PORTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

1930-34 B*

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A* Plan the statistical analyses for a set of data Interview applicants for jobs in a factory or business Analyze the characteristics and requirements of jobs Present a paper a t a meeting of a professional group of psychologists Work on a faculty curriculum committee Be president or chairman of a regional or divisional psychological organizazation Plan the design of an experiment Interview the parents of problem children Persuade a n executive to introduce a program of selection research Appear on a television program with a psychological theme Work with a group of delinquent adolescents Be secretary of a regional or divisional psychological organization Plan the procedures for a laboratory experiment Interview patients about their psychological problems Participate as a panel member in a round-table discussion of a psychological problem Talk over radio or television Participate in meetings of a n administrative committee for some aspect of psychology Plan a n industrial on-the-job training program Write a report of a statistical study Have administrative charge of a psychology department Write a report of a laboratory experiment Conduct sessions of group therapy Write a book review Plan a program of psychotherapy for a disturbed patient Plan the content for a course which you are going to teach

...9 2 . . .

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

61

47

52

44

56

40

13

42

14

43

19

43

22

46

46

46

27

51

87

61

82

68

85

67

15

45

28

43

33

43

54 98

34 78

34 88

33 78

48 100

30 80

20

61

22

59

25

61

33

34

36

39

23

43

24

31

26

36

23

39

13

36

10

36

12

43

11

15

10

13

25

12

76

53

80

53

71

52

39

67

28

69

35

67

76 33

78 39

64 34

75 51

83 31

85 47

48

52

56

53

40

58

11 48

20 33

26 40

36 35

21 46

36 32

30

47

40

46

40

47

59 11 37

43 34 48

70 8 40

38 41 48

67 19 42

43 46 46

17

47

18

52

25

37

74

74

66

80

73

81

(continued on next page)

STATUS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS Table 25 (Continued) Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

1930-34 A* B* Give and analyze projective tests, such as the Rorschach or TAT Do exit counseling in industry, to study employees’ reasons for quitting their jobs Develop a new statistical technique for handling data Review manuscripts in psychology for a publisher Conduct play therapy with young children Evaluate executives for a n industrial concern, on the basis of tests and interview Run animals in a research study in a laboratory Systematically abstract the psychological literature on some topic Design a new piece of apparatus for a psychological experiment Make arrangements to get needed data from a factory or other industrial concern W r i t e a theoretical article for a psychological journal Study a child with a reading disability t o diamose the causes of the disabilitq Serve a s consultant at a mental hygiene clinic Give aptitude tests to groups of students or job applicants Build apparatus for a psychological experiment Act a s chairman of a committee Prepare a questionnaire to survey community needs for psychological services Serve on a committee lobbying for passage of a good licensing or certification law for psychologists Write a text for a course in psychology Review and evaluate research papers submitted for publication in a psychol. journal Make editorial revisions on articles submitted for publication in a psychol. journal Lead discussions on family problems or similar topics a t PTA meetings

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

9

38

14

42

23

46

13

36

14

44

10

53

52

23

50

28

52

26

46

32

36

33

42

37

15

28

12

35

19

35

20

43

24

56

21

56

37

22

34

21

29

21

46

38

40

38

42

44

61

34

54

37

46

39

28

32

44

31

21

46

78

41

76

51

90

51

15

59

20

53

17

56

20

65

24

64

37

70

13

46

18

40

6

41

57 35

30 56

46 40

31 56

31 46

34 53

22

44

28

48

17

50

15 43

24 35

10 50

23 43

8 50

20 42

61

33

52

35

58

42

41

32

32

33

31

36

11

47

8

54

21

47

(continued on next page)

. . .9 3 . . .

AMERICA’S PSYCHO LOG ISTS Table 25 (Continued) Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

1930-34

Supervise students carrying out psychological research Write a critical review of some field of psychology Conduct a study to determine the causes of absenteeism in a large office

* A-Significmt

1935-39

1940-44

A*

B*

A

B

A

B

89

72

94

66

96

74

70

39

66

49

77

45

33

41

34

48

29

54

Contributors;B-Peychologists-in-General.

hand, is highly restricted in that it is composed only of persons whose publication record or reputation within a small nominating panel caused them to be a research-productive group. The fact that the matrices approximate each other as closely as they do is somewhat surprising under the circumstances. Table 25 presents the percentage of “like” responses to each of the 50 items of the Thorndike Activity Preference blank. Items which are marked “like” far more frequently by Significant Contributors than by Psychologists-in-General are the following: Plan the design of an experiment; plan the procedures for a laboratory experiment; develop a new statistical technique for handling data; write a theoretical article for a psychological journal; review and evaluate research papers for publication in a psychological journal; write a critical review of some field of psychology. A much larger number of items show differences of equal or greater magnitude in the opposite direction i.e., less frequently selected by Significant Contributors. These are: interview applicants for a job in a factory or business; interview the parents of problem children; work with a group of delinquent adolescents; interview patients about their psychological problems; conduct sessions of group therapy; plan a program of psychotherapy for a disturbed patient; give and analyze projective tests such as the Rorschach or T A T ; evaluate executives for an industrial firm on the basis of tests and interviews; serve as consultant at a mental hygiene clinic; give aptitude tests to groups of students or job applicants; prepare a questionnaire to fulfill community needs for psychological services; lead discussions on family problems or similar topics at P T A meetings. A study of the item-responses of these contrasted groups reveals that

...94.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

STATUS OF S I G N I F I C A N T C O N T R I B U T O R S

one of the major differences between the preferences of Significant Contributors and other psychologists is in an experimenting and scholarship interest for the former group, as against applications of psychology and working with individuals for the latter. This generalization is supported by the data in Table 26 which presents the distributions of scores on each of the five scales on the Thorndike blank. These distributions are indeed most interesting, since they show the greatest difference between Significant Contributors and their colleagues to be on Scale I, Helping Individuals. A person who shows considerable interest in helping individuals, by marking “like” at least five times on this scale, is exceedingly unlikely to be a significant contributor to psychological science; this scale differentiates between the two groups better than do any of the other scales. This may be due in part to the general value for scholarship and experimenting held by all psychologists, a value which students generally acquire during their graduate training, if not sooner. A desire to help individuals is not so universally held, nor is it stressed as much in the indoctrination of graduate students nor in their initial selection. In the face-to-face situation many psychologists probably find the application of their principles rather unsatisfying and prefer to work in a more theoretical setting. This is not a preference that is considered undesirable professionally, whereas a lack of interest in scholarship or research is generally considered as a reflection on a person’s professional standards. It should be recalled that in the earlier parts of this report it was shown that a substantial number of psychologists, whether in the Significant Contributor group or not, entered psychology with a strong motivation with regard to human problems. Apparently the way in which this motivation manifests itself for the Significant Contributors is through the development of principles which may be applied by others. The psychologists who do not achieve eminence have the same sort of motivation for service to society but express this to a much greater extent through faceto-face contact with individuals and helping persons achieve solutions to personal problems. Any great expenditure of time in this kind of enterprise would prevent a person from engaging in activities which would call him to the attention of other psychologists around the country. Thus it very well may be that what we observe are differences in manner of achieving a solution to human problems rather than differences in attitude about the need for such solutions. Some attempts were made to get a picture of the style or the pattern of activities of psychologists. This admittedly is an extremely difficult task, particularly since it seems safe to predict that each psychologist is more or

...9 5 . . .

AMERICA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS Table 26 DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES ON EACHOF FIVESCALES OF THE THORNDIKE ACTIVITY PREFERENCE BLANK Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34

I Helping Individuals Scores: 10 Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

9 8

7

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 No data Mean SD

I1 Experimenting Scores: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

2

1

0

No data Mean

SD

I11 Working in Industry Scores: 10 9 8

7

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 No data Mean

SD

...9 6 . . .

A*

B*

1

13 13 16 15 15 11 9 12 12 13 18 5 5.0 3.27

1 1

1 1 3 5 5 6 22

-

1.7 2.29 4 6 3 11 5

7 7

1 2 6.4 2.23

2 2 3 1 2 2 7

4 6 11 23 11 18 15 18 15 16 10 5 4.5 2.72

7

11

7 8 10 14 17 15 20 7 21 20 17 5 2.1 4.0 2.76 3 . 0 0 (continued on next page)

1935-39 A B

1 1

2 2 1 3 5 2 3 30 1.6 2.49

3 5 7

10

7

8 5 2 2

1

-

6.1 2.46 1

12 16 21 20 10 14 11 11 8 13 22 2 5.1 3.30

6 12 10 11 17 16 19 16 21 15 15 2 4.4 2.88

7 13 1 12 15 2 3 11 6 12 17 3 6 19 8 16 17 7 12 19 2 2.8 4.4 2.60 3.06 1

1940-44

A

1

4

2 4 5 3 1

7

B

14 20 19 23 16 13 11 9 5 13 28

21

-

-

2.3 2.83

5.2 3.37

4 7

6 7 13 24 11 20 16 24 21 14 15

10

7

11 3 3 2 1 -

-

_

5 . 9 4.4 1.94 2.78

3

1

2 4 5 7 7 19

10 12 19 18 17 13 14 18 13 21 16

-

-

1.9 2.30

4.7 3.09

STATUS

OF S I G N I F I C A N T C O N T R I B U T O R S

Table 26 (Continued)

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

1930-34 A* B*

IV Scholarship Scores: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1 0 No data

Mean

SD

1 7

8

6 9

9

1935-39 A B

2 2 9

10

14 16 6 2

5

15

4

3 2 -

19 21 6 5

6

5.8 4.5 2.56 2.78

2 -

-

10 12

13

5 . 4 4.8 2.38 2.79

194044 A B

4 4 8

6 11 17 21

-

21 15 2

2

-

-1

-

5.9 4 . 9 2.39 2.65

V Administering Scores: 10 9

8

.7 6 5 4

3 2 1

0 No data

Mean

SD

4

5

3

4 4 6 ~~

6 6

8

-

13 14 13

22

16 26 16 12 8 5

3.4 4.4 2.64 2.48

3 2 6 5 5 5 12 4

5 22 16 18 23 21 16 19

-

2

7

7

3.4 4 . 4 2.47 2.54

2 5 4 9 3

7

5

9 3

-

lo

17 20 37 21 23 12 14 12

_

3.8 4.3 2.42 2.35

* A4ignifieant Contributors: B-Psychologists-in-General. less unique in terms of the manner in which he combines teaching, service, and administrative activities with the ongoing teaching activities in an academic job or the normal responsibilities he holds in a non-academic job. To provide some such insights, a number of questions were included in various parts of our questionnaire. Some of these, such as distribution of time, have already been reported. One question not yet described inquired about the activity of colleagues in research, and another about the position held by the respondent in his first five years after receiving his doctoral degree. The specific question asked was: “Do the colleagues with whom you now

...9 7 . . .

AMERICA’S

P S Y C H 0 LOG1 STS

work publish?” A checklist provided for the following responses: A great deal, a moderate amount, a little, and none. Distributions of responses are presented in Table 27. The response “A great deal” was made by a Table 27 EXTENT TO WHICHCOLLEAGUES PUBLISH Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

1930-34 A* B*

I n Current Position:

A great deal A moderate amount A little None No answer

1935-39 A B

ti% 3;% it% 3;%

1940-44 A B

3;%

14

10

14 2 0

36 14 9

33% 44 21 2 0

39 12 3

11 29 35 17 7

36 42 16 6 0

12 27 44 12 4

27 42 23 4 4

9 33 42 12 4

9 0 0

38

39 35 24 2 0

I n Position(s) Held During

First Five Years after Doctorate: A great deal A moderate amount A little None No answer

* A-Significant

Contributors; B-Psychologists-in-General.

third or more of the Significant Contributors, by less than ten per cent of the Psychologists-in-General in describing their current circumstances. Either “A great deal” or “A moderate amount” was given as a response by about 80 to go per cent of the Significant Contributor group, by about 40 per cent of the control group. Thus in current jobs the proportion of persons whose colleagues are active in publication is much higher for the Significant Contributor group. This same pattern existed in the jobs held in the first five years after receiving the doctoral degree but the differences are not quite as large. Unfortunately, our data do not permit us to assess the effects of earlier or later experience, or the effects of factors of selective perception and recall. Another question inquired about major sources of financial support for research, if any (see Table 28). This question was asked both for the period five years immediately after receiving the doctorate and for the present. By far the largest proportion of support for research during the first five years comes from sources within the organization employing the individual. This source is mentioned by about 45 per cent of the Significant

. . .9 8 . . .

STATUS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Contributor group and by about 20 per cent of the Psychologists-in-General group. Foundation support and government support is mentioned to a considerable extent, primarily by the 1930-34 group, with military coming in to some extent for the 1940-44 group. Current research support follows a very similar pattern except that military support has increased considerably, so that for the 1930-34group and the 1940-44 group it is mentioned as frequently as support from employer. Information on the level of support in terms of the amount of dollars available for research was not Table 28 MAJORSOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

1930-34 A* B*

Current Sources Learned societies and professional organizations Employer (university, hospital or business) Own resources Business association grants (univ., hosp. or bus.) or business research organizations Foundation (includes full-time research jobs) Government, state or Federal (include full-time research jobs) Military (include full-time research jobs) No answer or none First Five Years After Doctorate Learned societies and professional organizations Employer (university, hospital or business) Own resources Business association grants (univ., hosp. or bus.) or business research organizations Foundation (includes full-time research jobs) Government, state or Federal (include full-time research jobs) Military (include full-time research jobs) No answer or none

* A-Significant

9%

1%

1935-39 A B

0%

2%

1940-44 A B

2%

2%

30 0

15 8

32 12

20

7

42 0

22 4

13

6

10

8

8

7

23

5

24

3

27

3

32

11

24

8

31

12

30 15

6 55

24 16

5 56

40 10

6 53

6

1

2

3

4

0

43 6

17 16

54 8

19 14

29 8

21 8

2

1

0

2

4

3

23

8

12

2

6

1

30

6

12

9

17

9

0 13

0 56

2 18

2 55

15 25

4 59

Contributors: B-PByohologiste-in-General.

... 9 9 . . .

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

requested. It would be of interest to be able to attach a dollar value to this amount of support particularly for intramural sources. The fact that the Significant Contributors were receiving substantially greater support even immediately after receipt of their degree is a point well worth attending to. Another question asked in the hope of revealing difference between research styles of Significant Contributors and others was : “Where did you get your ideas for research studies you have done?” The alternative answers to the question are included with the presentation of results in Table 29. These alternatives were obtained partly on the basis of results Table 29 SOURCES OF IDEASFOR RESEARCH STUDIES Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

1930-34

Incidental observation of interesting problems Questioning published results or generalizations Logical next steps to follow preceding work done Outgrowth of development of a theoretical position Observation of discrepancies between studies From colleagues or professors in department or leaders in field Observation of opportunity to collect interesting data Noting the availability of subjects or apparatus Interest in evaluating a particular technique Other No answer

* A-Significant

A*

B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

50%

41%

56%

47%

52% 46%

33

26

32

33

44

27

52

34

50

43

60

32

50

22

40

28

40

24

13

13

32

15

31

13

13

25

30

24

25

27

24

34

46

34

35

36

2

20

14

14

15

12

33 13 2

26 6 11

40 18 2

28 9 8

23 17 2

26

8 8

Contributors: B-Payohologists-in-General.

of our pretest questionnaire and partly on the basis of a series of personal interviews conducted with research psychologists throughout the country. The alternatives seem to be those which highlight differences in ways of planning research among different psychologists and produce some sizable differences in responses of Significant Contributors and Psychologists-inGeneral. These differences are sometimes not consistent between five-year periods. For instance, note especially the frequency of responses to alternatives “observation of opportunity to collect data” and “noting the availa-

. . . 100 . . .

STATUS OF SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

bility of subjects and apparatus.” The largest difference, and perhaps the one that has the greatest significance for understanding differences between Significant Contributors and Psychologists-in-General is the item : ‘‘outgrowth of development of a theoretical position,” this response being selected more frequently by Significant Contributors than by Psychologistsin-General. Another item which shows the same direction of differences consistently from group to group is “logical next steps to follow preceding work done”. The individuals were also asked to indicate the one most frequent source of ideas for the research studies that they had done. These results are presented in Table 30. This table highlights the importance of Table 30

THEONE MOSTFREQUENT SOURCE OF IDEASFOR RESEARCH STUDIES Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34

Incidental observation of interesting problems Questioning published results or generalizations Logical next steps to follow preceding work done Outgrowth of development of a theoretical position Observation of discrepancies between studies From colleaeues or Drofessors in department-or leaders in field Observation of opportunity to collect interesting data Noting the availability of subjects or apparatus Interest in evaluating a particular technique Other No answer

A*

B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

15%

11%

12%

11%

4

3

4

1

8

1

9

9

22

7

23

12

20

1

18

9

25

11

0

2

0

1

0

1

0

5

0

5

0

4

7

9

6

4

4

5

0

1

0

1

0

2

2 17 26

7 9 43

4 8 26

4 10 48

6 4 23

5 8 40

6%

11%

* A-Significant Contributora; B-Psychologkiats-in-General. “the outgrowth of development of a theoretical position” as a response differentiating Significant Contributors from their controls, and also shows “logical next step to follow preceding work done” as the item which comes with closest in describing the differential pattern of research of Significant Contributors. It would appear from the differential selection of these responses that there is a somewhat different approach in planning research for Significant Contributors than for Psychologists-in-General.

... 101...

AMERICA‘S PSYCHOLOGISTS Table 31 SELF-DESCRIPTIONS OF RESEARCH STUDIES Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

1930-34

Generally independent of each other One developing as a result of findings in a preceding study Related facets of a long-term planned research program Similar to each other in terms of methods and techniques used Other No answer

* A-Significant

A*

B*

1935-39 A B

A

B

24%

41%

20%

45%

17%

36%

43

24

38

29

50

24

54

18

44

24

62

22

37 4

22 7 15

20 10 2

17 5 10

15 12 0

23 8 10

0

1940-44

Contributora; B-Psychologists-in-General.

Some additional insight on this point is presented in Table 31 in which individuals are asked to indicate how their research studies might be best described. The Significant Contributor group tends to describe their research more frequently as being related to a long-term planned research program than does the control group. This group selects as its modal response the description that research studies are generally independent of each other. Table 32 presents another kind of information indicating a difference in the general attitude toward publication and attention to research on the part of Significant Contributors and Psychologists-in-General. This is an analysis of respondents’ estimates of the consistency with which research on which data are collected and analyzed is written up and submitted to professional journals for publication. This question was asked with regard to present practices and with regard to practices in the first five years after receiving the doctorate. The difference between the two contrasting groups is substantial, particularly in the 1930-34 period and the 1940-44 period, with the Significant Contributors writing up for publication two or three times as much of their research work as do the controls. The answer “Only a small part of the studies I do” is of considerable interest, as is the “No answer” category, indicating that perhaps an important difference between the two groups is in the quality of the work done or the amount of the work done, as much as differences in general desire to reach publication channels. The difference between the responses for the present and for the first

. . . 102 . . .

S T A T U S OF S I G N I F I C A N T C O N T R I B U T O R S Table 32 PROPORTION OF RESEARCH ON WHICHDATAWERECOLLECTED AND ANALYZEDTHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO PROFESSIONAL TOURNALS Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34 B*

A*

1935-39

A

B

194044

A

B

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

In Present Job Writes LJfi and

Submits: “Almost every piece of work I do” “More than half of the research studies I do” “About half of the research studies I do” “Less than half of my research studies” “Only a small part of the studies I do” No answer

In the First Five Years after PhD, Wrote Up and Submitted: “Almost every piece of work I did” “More than half of the research studies I did” “About half of the research studies I did” “Less than half of mv research studies” “Only a small part of the studies I did” No answer

* A-Significant

22%

11%

18% 16%

17% 10%

46

13

20

12

33

13

7

5

6

6

19

8

9

10

22

10

12

13

13 4

30 32

24 10

26 30

10 8

34 23

36

19

30

21

37

18

28

20

30

16

31

13

17

9

8

12

8

4

9

4

18

6

8

10

7

21

8

19

10

32

0

28

6

26

4

23

Contributors; &Psychologistsin-General.

five years after the doctorate are particularly interesting in that more of the Significant Contributors report that they were submitting for publication in the early days “almost every piece of work done” than report that they are now doing so. This is an interesting point for conjecture; it may be that these persons now feel less of a need to publish practically everything done, or it may possibly be that respondents as they recall their activities of earlier days tend to forget about those research activities which did not lead to publication. These responses involve errors in recall, and so suggest the value of some further examination, preferably longitudinal, of research activities of fairly recent PhD’s such as our 1950 doctoral group. Some indication of the research values and feeling of need to do research among psychologists may be indicated by the responses to an inquiry about

. . . 103 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AME R I CA’S PSY C H 0 LOG1 STS

techniques or skills or areas of knowledge that the individual lacked to such a degree that it interfered with his professional work. Deficiencies were explained most often in terms of new developments in psychology since the time these individuals received their doctoral degree, or as a result of lack of time or opportunity to acquire the desired skill or knowledge. The most serious deficiency felt by our samples of psychologists is in the area of mathematics and statistics. The Significant Contributor group and other psychologists cite with equal frequency statistical skills and understandings; the Significant Contributors, however, mention much more frequently a deficiency in mathematics, matrix theory, differential calculus, geometry, and the like. These differences are the largest differences observed in Table 33. There are some differences which are in the Table 33

TECHNIQUES OR SKILLS OR AREASO F KNOWLEDGE LACKED TO SUCH A DEGREETHAT IT INTERFERES WITH PROFESSIONAL WORK (MOSTSERIOUS DEFICIENCY) Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

1930-34 A* B*

Areas

Math, matrix theory, differential calculus, geometry, etc. 30% Physics, electronics, chemistry, engi2 neering, physical sciences Clinical training, clinical experience, psychotherapy, psychopathology, personality, development of per2 sonality theory, family relations, etc. Projective techniques, projective tests, 0 Rorschach, TAT Learning theory 0 Physiological psychology, genetic 0 psychology Skills in reading, writing, speaking, 4 teaching Statistics, mathematical statistics, experimental design or techniques, factor analysis, psychometric meth32 ods Sociology, economics, political science, 0 labor problems, law, anthropology Medical training, neuroanatomy, neurology, biological sciences, phy4 siology, biochemistry 19 None-no answer

* A-Significant

9%

24%

B

7%

1940-44

A

B

29%

10%

3

2

1

2

1

7

2

12

2

8

6 1

2 0

7 0

0 4

9 1

1

4

0

2

0

3

2

2

2

2

26

24

22

31

26

0

4

1

2

0

3 32

6 18

4 27

2 17

2 22

Contributors; B-Psychologistkin-General.

. . . 104 . . .

1935-39

A

STATUS O F S I G N I F I C A N T CONTRIBUTORS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

opposite direction. The Significant Contributors feel less of a deficiency in clinical training, clinical experience, psychotherapy, psychopathology, personality development, and the use of projective techniques, such as the Rorschach and the TAT, than is true for Psychologists-in-General. One of the surprising factors in this table is the absence of any frequently cited needs in areas other than mathematics and statistics. Apparently psychology has moved so rapidly in the direction of increased use of these types of quantitative methods that this deficiency far outweighs in attention any other single area of training.

. . . 105 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

CHAPTER

5

BACKGROUND AND EARLY TRAINING OF PSYCHOLOGISTS

EVERY PSYCHOLOGIST C A N PROVIDE A N ANECdote purporting to indicate how he happened to get into the field; many of our respondents did so in their replies to our inquiries about factors leading to their entry into psychology. Attempts to categorize such responses have not been too successful; our classes have been crude and numerous. Yet, while our study of individual responses emphasizes uniqueness, a bit of sense seems to emerge as we examine the composite. This in spite of our having devoted a relatively small part of our schedule to these factors. A few questions about family background were included in our questionnaire in order to provide some kind of adequate information of the sources of psychologists. Table I presents the occupations of the father of persons in our Significant Contributor and Psychologists-in-Generalgroups. It will be observed that there are no substantial differences between the two groups in terms of father’s occupation and also that the only appreciable

. . . 106 . . .

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10031-005 America's Psychologists: A Survey of a Growing Profession, by K. E. Clark Copyright © 1957 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND AND EARLY TRAINING Table 1 OCCUPATION OF FATHER

(Classified According to Dictionary of Occupational Titles Categories) Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Responses: Professional Semi-Professional Managerial and Office Clerical Sales Service Agricultural, fishery, forestry Skilled labor Semi and Unskilled labor No answer

* A-Significant

1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

35% 0 26 11 9 2 13 4 0 0

42% 41% 2 1 30 28 2 2 14 4 0 1 4 9 4 10 2 1 0 1

40% 36% 0 2 35 29 4 5 4 4 2 5 0 6 8 9 4 4 2 1

37% 1 28 2 4 1 18 4 1 4

Contributors; B-Psychologists-in-General.

trend from 1930-34 to 1940-44 concerns farm occupations. There is a dropping off in the number of persons entering psychology from families in which the father was employed in agriculture, fishery, and forestry occupations. This drop is matched to some extent by an increase in the number of persons coming from skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled occupations, and may be as much a reflection of the change in the composition of the American work force as of changes in the nature of the backgrounds of persons coming into psychology. The amount of education of the father and the mother is presented in Table 2. These distributions do not differ particularly between the Significant Contributor and control groups, and reveal little influence of family educational background on decisions to enter psychology or to make particular kinds of contributions within the field. These tables might take on more meaning if comparative data from other occupational groups were available. The data of Table 3 suffer from the same lack. In this table are presented data on the religious affiliation of father and mother. Here there is a difference in time, with an increase in number of persons of Jewish faith and a decrease in the number of persons of fundamentalist Protestant beliefs or affiliations with the passage of time. (Our responses from 1950 P h D s show that this trend continues into postwar years.) The need for comparative data for other occupational groups is quite obvious here. T o what extent is psychology able to capture the imagination of a person at a fairly young age, to lead him to think about psychology consistently

. . . 107 . . .

A M E R I C A'S P SY C H 0 LOG I STS

Table 2 EDUCATION OF PARENTS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34 B* A*

1935-39 A B

Father's Education Grade school or less Some high school High school graduate Some college College degree Some graduate work Doctoral degree No answer

35% 11 13 11 13 11

0

28% 19 12 9 10 11 11 1

18% 31% 10 13 11 6 15 20 10 9 24 9 12 11 0 1

M o t h ' s Education Grade school or less Some high school High school graduate Some college College degree Some graduate work Doctoral degree No answer

24% 26 17 17 13 2

30% 20 26 11 10 1

22% 12 32 12 18 2

* A-Significant

7

28% 18 21 19 11 3

1940-44 A B

% ;:

19 8 10 15 6 0

25%

8

33 19 12 2

% :!

12 12 9 12 8 1

33% 16 18 19 9 4

Contributors: B-Psychologista-in-General.

Table 3 RELIGIOUSAFFILIATIONOF PARENTS Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34 A* B*

A

B

A

B

Father's Religion Catholic Jewish Fundamentalist Protestant Liberal Protestant Other

2% 15 24 54 4

5% 11 24 55 3

8% 14 28 46 0

11% 18 22 44 2

2;%

ti%

27 37 0

25 42 2

Mother's Religion Catholic Jewish Fundamentalist Protestant Liberai Protestant Other

2% 15 33 48 2

5% 11 29 53 2

4% 14 26 52 2

10% 17 24 45 2

10% 13% 23 15 21 26 42 42 2 2

* A-Significant

Contributora; B-Paychologiata-in-General.

. . . 108 . . .

1935-39

1940-44

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

BACKGROUND A N D EARLY T R A I N I N G

as preparation to enter the field, and to what extent does psychology eventually capitalize upon a long-standing dedication to this area of investigation? As a fairly young profession, psychology has had less opportunity to fire the imaginations of younger persons. Since it is only infrequently taught below the college level, it perhaps suffers from a lack of information about the duties and areas of activity of psychologists. An examination of motivations and of early vocational plans thus seems desirable. The question asked first of our respondents was, “At what period in your life did you first think of psychology as a career?” The analysis of responses to this question are presented in Table 4. Obviously even thinking about Table 4 TIMEOF FIRSTTHINKING ABOUTPSYCHOLOGY AS A CAREER Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

In high school In first 2 years of college In last 2 years of college Shortly after college graduation During war or work experience At another time No answer

* A-significant

1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

2% 6% 15 20 59 33 20 21

2% 26 44 14 2 12 0

0 4

0

9 11 1

5%

21 29 28 5 11 2

1940-44 A B

8% 6% 29 19 42 36 12 22 2 9

6 0

7 1

Contributors; €3-Psycbologista-in-General.

psychology does not occur very early. Less than 10 per cent of any of our groups began thinking about psychology in high school; the undergraduate program in colleges does the most to stimulate interest in psychology, especially the last two years, and with particular effect on Significant Contributors. Furthermore, there is evidence of an increase over the passage of time in the number of Significant Contributors who thought about psychology as a career in the first two years of college. No such trend exists for the control group. If the trend in these tables continues, we would expect that persons who first think about psychology as a career during their freshman and sophomore years would be more likely to become Significant Contributors to psychological science than persons who think about this a t a later time. Responses in Table 4 also indicate that war or work experiences have a differential influence, in that those persons who first think about psychology in the context of a job or at some time after college graduation tend to be less likely to become significant contributors. This point needs

. . . 109 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

to be related to a set of data which will be presented somewhat later, having to do with the amount of time between receiving a bachelor’s degree and receiving a doctoral degree for our Significant Contributors and the Psychologists-in-General. The evidence points clearly to the fact that a person who has a long interval between his BA and P h D is quite unlikely to be a significant contributor to psychological science. The persons who first think about psychology as a career after college graduation or during war experience or work experience are persons whose elapsed time between bachelor and PhD degree is likely to be considerably increased. It may well be also that these are people who are interested in psychology not as a science but as a profession or technology; that, in other words, they desire to use psychology in its applications in business or industry or to the solution of personal problems rather than to work in psychology to develop a science of behavior. Certainly if it is our desire to stimulate the training of larger numbers of significant contributors to psychological science, these data suggest that the recruiting process ought to occur in the undergraduate college and that opportunities should be provided for students to continue directly into graduate work. While it may be quite profitable to attract the attention of able persons who are otherwise vocationally engaged after completion of college work for further training in psychology, the likelihood that they will make substantial break-throughs in knowledge and will thereby merit the esteem of their colleagues is not very great. It is frequently stated that psychology draws as students a considerable number of unsuccessful medical school applicants. The better understanding of the potential resources for research personnel in psychology requires some examination of the career possibilities rejected or discarded by people who finally decided to enter psychology. It should be noted that this presents only half of the picture, since it does not sample the opinions and experiences of persons who at one time thought about entering psychology as a profession and then decided against it. The results presented in Table 5, which have to do with the careers rejected by persons who did enter psychology, would yield much more understanding of the process of career choice if they also showed which occupations or careers were accepted at the time psychology was rejected. Those who obtain PhDs in psychology are obviously not, on the whole, persons who failed to get into medical school or who decided against it. Table 5 suggests that there is no single major source of persons who enter psychology. As many as any other single group were those who wanted college teaching (and who perhaps found it unnecessary to discard this

.. .110.. .

BACKGROUND A N D EARLY TRAINING Table 5 CAREERPOSSIBILITIES REJECTEDOR DISCARDED WHEN RESPONDENTS FINALLY MADEDECISION TO ENTERPSYCHOLOGY

(FIRSTANSWER

ONLY)

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

1930-34 A* B*

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Career

Grade school or high school teaching College teaching Education. Miscellaneous Business and related activities Fine arts and music Physical and biological sciences Medical sciences Mathematics and statistics Social science and social welfare Law, gov’t. and politics Engineering and architecture Farming and forestry Skilled trades Miscellaneous None or undetermined

* A-Significant

4%

11

0

13 4 6 11 2 2 9 13 4 0 11 11

10%

8 7

14 3 3 8 1 5 9 5 0 1

7

19

1935-39 A B 6%

10 4

22 4 6 16 2 0 12 10 0 0 0 10

8% 13 7 8 4 4 11 1 4

7 5

0 0 9

16

1940-44 A B 10%

17

2 19 6 8 10 0 4 10 4 0 0 4 2

12% 11 1 13 3 3 16 1 6 3 8 2 0 3 11

Contributors; B-Psychologists-in-General.

possibility when entering psychology). Grade school or high school teaching had previously attracted a fair number. Business and related activities are about the most frequent of the discarded career possibilities. These data do not indicate any consistent trends with time nor any meaningfully consistent differences between the Significant Contributors and Psychologists-in-General. They do, however, emphasize the point that the sources for psychologists are very diverse indeed. One question related to factors considered by the respondent to be most important in leading him to decide to enter psychology. This question had been asked in a pretest form of our questionnaire with a series of responses to be checked and with an opportunity for the person to add additional categories of response. As a result, at the time the final questionnaire was prepared it was possible to present a fairly long list of motivational factors which might have influenced a person to enter psychology. (Since these data are retrospective they permit only conjectures about the types of statements a person might have made at this earlier date.) This list is presented in Table 6, with the percentage of each group who checked each item on the list. The proposition being examined in using a question of this sort is that

. . . 111 . . .

AMERICA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS Table 6 FACTORS CONSIDERED AS MOSTIMPORTANT I N LEADING TO THE DECISION TO ENTER PSYCHOLOGY Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Factor

Being influenced by a particular teacher of psychology Courses were easy for me Becoming interested in the field through reading books in psychology Hearin or reading about research in this aeld Need to understand myself Influence or example of relative or friend Desire to work with individuals or groups Interest in human behavior as a field for scientific investigation Doing research in this field Interest in the application of psychological techniques in such areas as clinical, educational, or industrial psychology Inability to get training in an area that interested me more Having a field recommended to me by a counselor or friend The prestige of psychology Becoming interested in the field through the content of courses in psychology Having been helped in personal problems by a psychologist Desire to solve society's problems Someone offered a job or assistantship Desire to enter a profession of some type Interest in the quantitative analysis of psychological data Difficulty in getting support for work in another department Desire to enter a field which seemed to offer fairly lucrative rewards Wanting to know more about human beings and their behavior Other

* A-Significant

1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

59 % 60 % 20 17

48% 24

48% 28

58% 31

54% 29

37

36

38

32

40

44

26 17

22 12

30 10

25 21

44 17

23 19

9

13

16

6

15

9

15

34

10

29

10

32

59 37

55 26

62 28

59 22

52 48

47 25

15

46

30

44

35

43

4

2

2

3

4

5

4 2

11 2

14 0

4

6

4 4

9 5

43

47

50

46

50

46

2 22 17

4 11 20

0 10 22

2 11 18

6 19 35

4 16 18

15

13

26

13

12

14

26

13

28

12

29

12

0

1

6

3

6

2

2

2

2

4

2

1

52 13

52 18

44 0

54 22

40 21

56 17

Contributors: Ei-Psychologists-in-General.

a psychologist who enters the field because of strong motivations in sciences is much more likely to become a significant contributor than is a person

...112.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

BACKGROUND AND EARLY TRAINING

who enters with motivations primarily of a service nature. A number of specific items of Table 6 tap these particular points. Thus the item, “Desire to work with individuals or groups,” is probably more service than science oriented, whereas the item, “Interest in human behavior as a field for scientific investigation,” is a science item with very little service overtone. It is quite interesting to note that the former item differentiates quite well between the Significant Contributors and the Psychologists-in-General, whereas the latter item is one which is subscribed to by substantial, and about equal, numbers of both groups. Furthermore, items having to do with applications of psychology in various areas make sharp differentiations between the Significant Contributors and the Psychologists-inGeneral. An item doing this particularly well is “interest in the application of psychological techniques in such areas as clinical, educational, or industrial psychology.” If we may summarize the contents of Table 6 in terms of the motivations of Significant Contributors, it would be approximately as follows. A person was more likely to become a Significant Contributor if he entered the field of psychology with a desire for doing research in the area, with an interest in quantitative analysis of psychological data, and if he had been influenced by having heard or read about research in this area. H e need not have had any particular desire to work with individuals or groups, nor have had an interest in the application of psychological techniques in such areas as clinical, educational, or industrial psychology and perhaps ought not to have had as a major factor of influence having the field recommended to him by a counselor or friend. It also appears that among persons getting degrees in more recent years it is desirable for someone to have offered him a job or an assistantship and for this, and a desire to do research in this field, to have been important factors in leading him to his decision. These motivational factors need to be reviewed not only in terms of the differential responses of the Significant Contributors and the Random Control group but also in terms of the general level of percentage response to each. One of the most important of the factors leading persons to select psychology as a field is being interested in human behavior as a field for scientific endeavor. Another is having become interested in the field through the content of courses in psychology, and hearing or reading about research in the general area. Another is wanting to know more about human beings and their behavior. Thus psychologists, whether Significant Contributors or not, have as primary motivation an interest in people, and a desire to work with problems of human behavior. They seem to learn about psychology primarily through teachers, through courses and

...113.. .

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

through general reading. Very little of their contact seems to be through having been helped with personal problems by psychologists, having the field recommended by a counselor or friend, or by need to understand themselves. “Desire to enter a field which seems to offer fairly lucrative rewards” is an item which is not selected by very many persons, nor were the items, “Diffculty in getting support for work in another department,” and “Inability to get training in an area that interested me more.” The importance of being offered a job or an assistantship as a differential factor in the recruitment of Significant Contributors to psychological science has already been mentioned. Table 7 presents more specific eviTable 7 WASA JOB OR A N AWARDOFFERED AT THE TIME OF FIRST APPLICATION FOR GRADUATE WORKIN PSYCHOLOGY? Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

1935-39 A B

A

B

52% 39% 48 56

60% 34% 40 65 0 1

29 0

71%

42% 57 1

23

16

12

10

27

9

17

19

36

18

29

22

6 2 0

2 1 1

4 0 6

3 2 1

10 20

2

4

1

2

0

2

2

1930-34

A* Yes NONo answer

B*

0 . 5

1940-44

If “yes”, kind of award: Scholarship or fellowship Teaching assistantship or fellowship in psychology Research assistantship or fellowship in psychology Related outside work Unrelated outside work Clinical or counseling appointments (not VA)

7

* A-Significant Contributors;B-Psychologists-in-General. dence on this point. Each respondent was asked to indicate whether or or not at the time he made first application for graduate work in psychology he was offered a job or an award, and the nature of the award. A considerably greater proportion of the Significant Contributors were subsidized on their entry into psychology. Furthermore, the extent of subsidy apparently increased from the period 1930-34 to the period 1940-44 so that by the last period 71 per cent of the Significant Contributors and almost half of the controls received some kind of financial support for their graduate work. The nature of this support is also indicated. Scholarships, fellowships, and teaching assistantships were the most popular means for

. . . 114.. .

BACKGROUND AND EARLY TRAINING

subsidizing graduate students in psychology through all of the fifteen-year period. Our respondents were also asked a more general question about their means of support while in graduate work. The more frequently listed means of financing this study are presented in Table 8. Support tasks show

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Table 8 How GRADUATE WORKWAS FINANCED (Major Sources of Support Only) Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34 A* B* Honorarium (professional) Support from family (incl. wife) or npn-professional organiz. Savings Support from unrelated work by himself Support tasks (assistantships, clerical work) Instructorships Research or statistical assistantships Loans Fellowship Full-time work in related area Part-time work in related area (tutoring, testing, etc.)

* A-Significant

19% 20%

1935-39 A B

8% 18%

194044 A B 15%

11%

23 19

23 30

28 30

21 24

25 21

29 25

21

27

16

24

8

23

36

27

58

54 8 18 8 35 4

43 14 9 6 10 10

12

11

11 __

21 11 23 13 6

6 5 14 6

8 10 26 0

39 14 8 8 13 13

10

12

12

15 -.

8

~~

Contributors: B-Paychologista-in-General.

up as the most frequent means. Fellowships, honoraria, support from the family, savings, and support from unrelated work all play substantial roles. The significant differentiation between the eminent psychologists and their controls occurs for fellowships and for research assistantships. There is a differential also in support tasks, assistantships, and clerical work. None of the other means of support show any consistent trends. Presumably the degree to which it is possible to identify very early the potential significant contributors to psychological science sets the upper limit on the degree to which these various means of support will differentiate between our groups, unless we assume that such work in itself increases the promise of a person. It is likely that many of the factors which determine who gets these appointments are related to undergraduate scholarship and ability to perform particular kinds of tasks. These factors may not be very closely related to the indices of eminence used in this study. Fellowships,

...115.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSYC HOLOGISTS

on the other hand, are given primarily on the basis of an individual’s promise for research, and hence provide a fairly substantial differential in favor of the significant contributors. The value of this kind of work experience was indicated by persons in the various groups. There were no marked differences between the Significant Contributors and the Psychologists-in-General in assessing the value they attached to this work. The modal response is that this work was very valuable. The second most frequent response is that it was rather valuable. Combining both of these gives a figure approximating 75 to go per cent of the total group. The 1940 to 1944 group was somewhat more enthusiastic about the value of its support work in graduate school as compared with the 1930 to 1934 group. This may be a result of the increased shortage of labor during that period with its provision of greater opportunities for choice of type of work. Certainly the 1930 to 1934 period was not one which was characterized by a wide variety of occupational opportunities, especially for students wanting to work on a part-time basis. Over half of the total group of Significant Contributors and the Psychologists-in-Genera1 indicated that a factor that was very important in leading them to enter psychology was the influence of a particular psychologist. A second question asked whether an individual psychologist was particularly influential in determining the direction of interest in psychology and the nature of the respondents’ career development. Approximately two out of three of the psychologists in our sample indicated that there was such a person who was particularly influential whom they know personally; about one out of four were influenced by writings of particular psychologists. There was a tendency, particularly in the later years, for Significant Contributors to indicate a greater degree of influence of both sorts than do Psychologists-in-General. This influence was felt predominantly when the respondents were college undergraduates. Since the respondent was also asked to name the person who had influenced him, it is possible for us to present a roster of names of persons who had a substantial influence in attracting entrants to psychology or affecting the nature of their career development in psychology. If we pool all the questionnaire data which we have, it is possible to rank the names in order of frequency of citation for this kind of influence. The largest number of votes received by any one individual was in the low forties; i t . , his name was listed by slightly more than forty persons out of about 1350 persons. This was Sigmund Freud. The names, in order of number of mentions, of the first twenty persons in this list were as follows: Freud, Gardner Murphy, L. L. Thurstone, D. G. Paterson, Kurt Lewin, Carl

. .. 116.. .

BACKGROUND A N D EARLY TRAl N I N G

Rogers, Lewis Terman, Clark Hull, Gordon Allport, R. S. Woodworth, E. C. Tolman, Walter S. Hunter, Lee Travis,, William James, Carl Seashore, E. G. Boring, Edwin R. Guthrie, E. L, Thorndike, Leonard Carmichael, and Max Hutt. Are persons who are attracted into psychology outstanding students as undergraduates? Table 9 provides rather reassuring data on this point,

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Table 9 PRESENT ESTIMATE OF STANDING I N UNDERGRADUATE COLLEGE WORK Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received Standing

In Major Subject TOP5% Next 20% Next 30% Bottom 50%

1930-34

A*

B*

1935-39

A

B

1940-44 A B

76% 55% 20 34 4 5 0 1

70% 66% 22 24 2 4 4 1

85% 6 32 62%

57% 35 4 2

52% 32% 32 54 8 9 4 1

65% 37% 19 46 11 8 4 2

2 4

4 1

In all Courses TOP5% Next 20% Next 30% Bottom 50%

* A-Significant

34% 45 14 1

Contributors; B-Peychologkts-in-General.

although it is only a retrospective self-evaluation. Three out of four of our Significant Contributors rate themselves as having been in the top 5 per cent in their undergraduate major subject. This proportion is somewhat lower for the controls. Somewhat more than 50 per cent of our Significant Contributors rate themselves as having been in the top 5 per cent of their college undergraduate class in all courses. Only about one out of three of the controls so rate themselves. Thus while we remain in ignorance about the actual undergraduate record, the achievement as recalled now by our research psychologists and their contemporaries was substantially different for the two groups. Both groups rate themselves well above average for general college undergraduate populations. This may be due, of course, to a somewhat “mellow” recall and interpretation of one’s undergraduate record. Even so, it seems unlikely that these groups as a whole were anything like an average college group, since each one of these persons did receive a doctoral-level degree.

..117.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A M E R I C A’S PSY C H 0LOG 1 STS

A question frequently asked is whether or not a psychologist can prepare himself better by taking an undergraduate major in mathematics, or biology, or zoology, or philosophy, or sociology rather than taking an undergraduate major in psychology. Many persons make such recommendations or hold such beliefs. Obviously it is impossible to give any kind of definitive answer to questions of this sort or to make a general statement that would apply to any substantial and identifiable group of undergraduate students. However, we can say that a very substantial proportion of our PhD groups had undergraduate majors in psychology. This amounts to a percentage between 47 and 60 for our Significant Contributor group and between 29 and 37 for their random controls. There is a larger number of persons with undergraduate majors in psychology in our samples than in any other single area. The Significant Contributor group is made up to a much larger extent of persons who did have undergraduate majors in psychology. If these historical data have any predictive value, they would indicate that a person has a greater likelihood of attaining eminence in psychology if his undergraduate major is psychology. On the other side of the coin, a person whose undergraduate major is in the humanities is less likely to become a Significant Contributor than he is if his major is in almost any other field. These data are shown in Table 10. No support is given for the freTable 10 UNDERGRADUATE MAJORSUBJECT Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received Major Subject

1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

194044 A B

Psychology Humanities Social Sciences Natural Sciences Mathematics Business Engineering Education Mix. or No Answer

47% 29% 21 30 9 10 9 10 4 4 4 2 2 1 4 6 0 7

48% 37% 14 25 4 7 8 3 6 8 2 5 2 0 8 6 8 7

60% 37% 19 26 4 9 10 4 4 4 4 2 0 2 4 9 0 3

* A-Significant

Contributora; B-Psychologists-in-General.

quently stated proposition that the ideal undergraduate major is mathematics. Only a small proportion of either the Significant Contributor group or the control group has such an undergraduate major, and there is no differential in favor of the Significant Contributors as far as this variable

... 118.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

BACKGROUND A N D EARLY TRAl N ING

is concerned. Likewise Table 10does not lend any support for the feeling that a substantial number of PhD’s in psychology started out as premedical students. The number of persons who were either in medical sciences or in premedical programs is infinitesimal. An additional feature worth noting is the especially high (60 per cent) figure for psychology majors in the 1940-44 Significant Contributor group. This increase suggests that as psychology majors become more frequent, and psychology more conspicuous, fewer ultimate potential Significant Contributors will fail to be caught as undergraduates. It may be that we can find differences between Significant Contributors and the controls not in the major subject but in other work taken as undergraduates and in the degree of liking or appreciation for these outside fields. Some evidence for such differentiations can be found in Table 11. A larger proportion of Significant Contributors enjoyed underTable 11 PERCENTAGES OF PERSONS ENJOYING VERYMUCHTHEIRUNDERGRADUATE WORK I N VARIOUS SUBJECTS Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received Subject

EZ2kKcience Natural Science Mathematics English & Literature Foreign Languages Philosophy Social Science Fine Arts Music

1930-34 B*

A*

74% 50 54 41

41 ~~

20 50 26 4 11

78% 43 35 38 50 30 57 51 13 14 ~~

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

68% 32 44 28

77%

38 ~~

18 32 26 10 12

74% 49 33 29 44 ~~

22 51 49 12 12

52 33 31

so .. 15

37 42 8 15

76% 47 33 27

49 -.

23 48 42 12 18

* A-Significant Contributora: B-Psychologista-in-General. graduate work in natural sciences and in mathematics than did the controls, although the difference in enjoying mathematics is small. The difference, in the opposite direction, is enjoying English literature and foreign languages is also small. Rather unexpected are the results for philosophy and social science, indicating that those persons who eventually become Significant Contributors rate these areas as much less to their liking than did the controls. This item is of some interest since our Significant Contributor group has a substantial number of persons specializing in the area of social psychology.

... 119.. .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AME R I CA’S PSYCHO LOG ISTS

The responses to this question about enjoying undergraduate work in various areas were subjected to a somewhat different analysis. Those areas in which a person did not enjoy undergraduate work at all and those in which he took no work were studied. More of the Significant Contributors than Psychologists-in-General disliked undergraduate work in foreign languages, philosophy, social sciences, fine arts, and music. A higher percentage of Significant Contributors than the controls took no undergraduate work in the fine arts, in music, and in foreign languages (this last difference is quite small). Respondents also reported the names of the schools from which they received baccalaureate degrees. The geographic location of these institutions was determined, and is provided in Table 12. It is interesting to note that a higher proportion of Significant Contributors come from New England than is the case for the controls, that a larger proportion, over all, come from the Far West, and that, somewhat contrary to the findings Table 12 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF INSTITUTION GRANTING FIRST BACCALAUREATE DEGREE Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34 A* B*

Location

New England: Maine, N. H., Mass., R. I., Conn., Vermont Middle Atlantic: N.Y . , N. J., Penn., Dela., Md., D. C., W. Va.

15%

6%

1935-39 A B

194044 A B

12%

10%

17%

6%

23

20

8

24

31

29

Southeast: Va., N. C., S. C., Ga., Fla., Ky., Tenn., Ala., Miss., Ark., La.

2

8

12

7

4

7

Southwest: Okla., Texas, New Mexico, Arizona

0

4

4

1

0

3

Central: Ohio, Ind., Ill., Mich., Wisc., Minn., Ia., Missouri

28

32

28

30

31

33

Northwest: N. D., S . D., Nebr., Kan., Mont., Idaho, Wyom., Colo., Utah

6

10

8

7

6

8

Far West: Wash., Oreg., Nev., Calif., Hawaii

23

6

9

8

20

9

Foreign

0

8

4

7

4

1

Canada

2

4

2

3

0

3

No Answer or No Information

0

0

2

2

0

0

* A-Sijpificsnt

Contributara; l3-Psychologists-in-General.

. . . 120 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

BACKGROUND AND EARLY TRAINING

of Knapp and Goodrich,' a very slightly lower proportion come from the Central or Midwestern part of the country. However, considering all groups together, the largest single contributor to the population of psychologists is the central region of the United States, including the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri. This part of the country contributes approximately one-third of all of the PhDs in our study. The next largest region is the Middle Atlantic region including New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and the District of Columbia and West Virginia. Other sudies have reported on the per capita production of P h D scientists by various parts of the country. Our results are in line with these in that we find a much smaller proportion coming from the southern part of the country than from the northeastern, north central and western parts of the country. Is there an optimal size of undergraduate college for turning out Significant Contributors to psychology? Our data suggest that there is not. Table 13 indicates the distribution of sizes of colleges attended by SignifiTable 13

SIZEOF INSTITUTION GRANTING FIRSTBACCALAUREATE DEGREE Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received Number of Students in 1940

Less than 1,000 1,000 to 3,000 3.000 to 5,000 $000 to 10,000 10,000 and over Foreign-no information Domestic-no information No answer-no school named

1930-34

1935-39

1940-44

A*

B*

A

B

A

23% 17 23 15 21 0 0 0

26% 18 10 17 21 8 1 0

20%

25% 16 12 10 21 7 2 1

19% 25% 21 28 8 9 27 14 21 22 4 1 0 1 0 0

14 20 16 24 4 0 2

B

* A-Significant Contributors;B-Psychologists-in-General. cant Contributors and the sizes of colleges attended by the control group. There is a disproportionately large number of Significant Contributors coming from schools of the size of about 3000 to 5000, but the difference is not large, and perhaps is not even noteworthy. 1

KNAPP, R. H.,

&

GOODRICH, H. B. Origins of Amm'cun Scientists. University of Chicago

Press. 1952. Pp. xiv+450.

...121...

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

CHAPTER

6

GRADUATE TRAINING AND THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AFTER THE DOCTORATE

THE E X A M I N A T I O N O'F C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF S I G nificant Contributors to psychological science provides an emerging portrait of a person whose backgrounds differ somewhat, and whose current activities differ considerably from those of their contemporaries. Such information is tantalizing without being satisfying or informative unless it is possible to estimate whether such differences were determined at birth, or by pre-college or college experience, or were the effects of graduate training, or of differences in opportunities provided in the period immediately after graduate work. The nature of this study prevents any definitive assignment of variance among these different sources. What it can do is to detect differences in the data collected for different periods of life for the groups being studied. Perhaps most interesting is the graduate training period, and the early formative years, for it is during this interval that the student who later becomes well known is testing out his capabilities and interests, and chart-

. . . 122 . . .

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10031-006 America's Psychologists: A Survey of a Growing Profession, by K. E. Clark Copyright © 1957 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

GRADUATE TRAINING AND F I R S T F I V E Y E A R S

ing his career plans. It is hoped that the items of information that can be presented here may stimulate research on careers of psychologists on a longitudinal basis, using these preliminary suggestions as a means of determining how best such studies might be oriented.

GRADUATE TRAINING

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

The typical Significant Contributor spent a relatively short period of time in residence in a graduate school. The length of time elapsing between the date of receiving the first baccalaureate degree and the first doctoral degree is indicated by the various distributions presented in Table I . The Table 1 NUMBER OF YEARSBETWEEN FIRSTBACCALAUREATE DEGREEAND FIRSTDOCTORAL DEGREE Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34

Years

One year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years 11 or more years No data

* A-Significant

A*

B*

0% 4 32 19 23 13 6 0 0 0 2 0

1% 1 6 16 8 12 11 6 7 2 24 6

1935-39

A

B

0%

0%

0 14 32 10 14 8 6 2

1 8 11

10

26

0 4

io

15 5 8 6

5

5

1940-44

A

% ; 21 31 15 12 6 4 0 4 4 0

B 0% 2 8 13 17

7 7 7

4

5

27 1

Contrihutora: B-Psychologists-in-General.

median number of years elapsing between BA and P h D for the Significant Contributor group is about four. The median number of years elapsing between BA and P h D for the Psychologists-in-General is approximately seven. Though this difference is large, even more noteworthy is the fact that of the Significant Contributors only about 5 per cent took eleven or more years from time of bachelor’s degree to receive a doctor’s degree, whereas about one out of every four of the controls required this interval of time. It seems fairly clear that the person who requires a substantial period of time after his bachelor’s degree to achieve his P h D is not likely to make a significant contribution to psychology. This observation may be related to some of the points made in data presented previously. Those who

. . . 123 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA‘S PSYCHOLOGISTS

require a long time for getting their PhD’s tend to be in applied areas, and to work on a doctoral degree while they are holding another job. This naturally results in a very long delay in their receiving the degree. It also means that these persons are not in the kinds of positions where they have a chance to devote a substantial proportion of time to research and to develop the national reputation that gives them a chance of becoming eminent. They also tend to be persons who do not publish a great deal in terms of research studies. The existence of this group highlights one of the major issues facing the American Psychological Association, that it is not merely an organization of scientists but is also a professional organization, in which the PhD degree is not necessarily a research degree, but is, for many persons, a specialized professional degree permitting them to hold jobs that they could not otherwise, to earn incomes that they could not otherwise earn and giving them the status that permits them to give services they might not otherwise be able to give. The pattern of graduate training of P h D psychologists is shown in Table 2. The number of different graduate schools attended by the SignifiTable 2 PATTERNS OF GRADUATE TRAINING LEADING TO DOCTORAL LEVELDEGREES Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received 1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

56% 49% 32 37 12 11 0 3

42% 48% 54 39 4 13 0 0

Number of Different Graduate Schools Attended 1

2 3 or more Cannot determine number Cannot tell if BA and PhD are awarded by same or different school BA and PhD awarded by different schools BA and PhD awarded by same school

55%

36 9 0

0%

43% 46 11

0

3%

4%

7%

0%

0%

87

76

74

71

83

78

13

21

22

22

17

22

100%

8% ;

96% 90% 0 5 4 6 0 0

Major Subject for Doctorate Psych.,** Mental Hygiene Education, Educ. Sociol. Other No answer

0 0 0

5

3

96% 90% 4 5 0 5 0 1

* A-Significant Contributors.B-Psychologists-in-General. Q; This includes guidance an’d counseling; child development; physiological acoustics; psychometrics.

. . . 124 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

GRADUATE T R A I N I N G A N D FIRST FIVE YEARS

cant Contributors and controls, the major subject for the doctoral degree, and proportions of persons being awarded BA and P h D degrees by the same or by different schools are shown. About one-half of each group attended only one graduate school. Most of the rest attended two; only about 10 to 15 per cent of our doctoral degree recipients attended more than two graduate schools. The predominant pattern is for the BA and the P h D to be awarded by different schools. This perhaps may be a specific policy at many schools; it may also be that many of the persons with BA degrees received them in schools which did not have graduate departments of psychology. The geographic location of institutions granting the doctoral degree is shown in Table 3. The Significant Contributors Table 3 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF INSTITUTION GRANTING DOCTORAL DEGREE Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received Location

1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

New England: Maine, N. H., Mass., R. I., Conn., Vt.

36%

Middle Atlantic: N. Y., N. J., Penn., Dela., Md., D. C., W. Va.

26

30

22

34

19

40

Southeast: Va., N. C., S. C., Ga., Fla., Ky., Tenn., Ala., Miss., Ark., La.

0

5

2

5

0

5

Southwest: Okla., Texas, New Mexico, Arizona

0

2

0

1

0

2

Central: Ohio, Ind., Ill., Mich., Wisc., Minn., Iowa, Missouri

21

35

24

32

44

34

Northwest: N. D., S. D., Nebr., Kan., Mont., Idaho, Wyom., Colo., Utah

0

3

0

2

0

2

17

8

14

7

8

9

Foreign

0

9

8

8

2

1

Canada

0

0

2

2

0

1

Far West: Wash., Oregon, Nev., Calif., Hawaii

8%

28%

9%

27%

5%

* A-Significant Contributors ; B-Psychologists-in-General. come much more frequently from New England schools than do members of the control group. They come somewhat less frequently from the Middle Atlantic schools, less frequently from Southeastern and Southwestern schools. These data, of course, combine within various regions schools of markedly different characteristics and so conceal the influences which are

. . . 125 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AME RI CA’S PSYCHO LOGISTS

operating to attract good students to particular graduate departments of psychology and to stimulate significant contributions by good graduate programs. More insight is provided by a review of the specific schools producing the largest numbers of significant contributors. This information was presented earlier. Columbia, Harvard, and Yale lead in number of Significant Contributors produced in the years 1930 through 1944, followed by Stanford, Iowa, Minnesota, and California. These data support general estimates that might be made by judges acquainted with the program of graduate training carried on by these schools in the thirties and early forties, and do emphasize the absence of such programs in the Southern states. It would be interesting to identify some of the factors that lead students to select the graduate school at which they take their work. It is apparent that either there is a differential factor permitting the fairly small number of schools which produce most of the Significant Contributors to attract and select good graduate students, or else these schools somehow or other have managed to “set on fire” or stimulate in one way or another persons who otherwise would not have become Significant Contributors. Our respondents were asked to recall and report the basis on which they selected the first school at which they did graduate work. The responses are shown in Table 4. All groups cite the nature of the program, geographic Table 4 BASISON WHICH SELECTION WAS MADEOF THE FIRST SCHOOL AT WHICH GRADUATE TRAINING WAS TAKEN Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received Basis

Geographical convenience Desire to work with a particular person Offering of the best program related to my interests Nature of the laboratory and research facilities Suggested to me by one of undergraduate college advisers Offer of financial support High reputation of the dept. Nature of the clinical or consulting facilities Size or versatility of dept. Other

* A-Significant

1930-34 A* B*

A

B

1940-44 A B

39% 26

51% 28

42% 20

58% 22

31% 29

56% 22

17

32

34

26

21

28

20

9

18

11

19

11

24 20 39

11 24 32

22 36 26

9 26 34

40 54 33

15 28 29

2 11 24

7

2 4 26

4 6 26

0 6 35

5 7 20

7

23

Contributors; B-Psychologktu-in-General.

. . . 126 . . .

1935-39

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

GRADUATE TRAINING A N D F I R S T FIVE YEARS

convenience, reputation of the department or a member of it, and offers of financial support as factors in such choices. The Significant Contributors differ mainly in giving greater emphasis to the influence of the undergraduate adviser, and the laboratory and research facilities, and less emphasis to geographic factors. It seems necessary to leave to the historians of psychology the task of describing the kinds of graduate schools attended by our Significant Contributors and by their controls. Certainly it is beyond the scope of this study to make any systematic analysis of the differences between graduate departments that seem to produce significant contributors and those which do not. Already mentioned are such obvious factors as the degree of dedication to research as against a commitment to service activities in the training programs for PhDs. This project has obtained some responses relating to this point, mostly as suggestive data, collected with the hope that some insights might be provided about these graduate departments by collecting opinions from our respondents. Members of our samples were asked to recall the graduate department from which they received their degree, and to rate it in terms of the quality of its faculty, the degree of informality in faculty-student relations, the opportunities for discussion of literature and research ideas with the faculty, the facilities for laboratory work, the facilities for the practical applications in clinics, schools, and hospitals, the quality of other contemporary graduate students in the department at the same time, and the amount of pressure for independent research other than P h D thesis that was exerted by the department. These variables were selected to provide the kinds of information that presumably indicate the nature of the graduate department’s impact on the student’s values and on his motivation for research. The results of our analysis are neither greatly illuminating nor spectacular. Significant Contributors rated the quality of the faculty at the graduate department which they attended somewhat higher than did the random control groups; thus, ratings on the “outstanding” end of the continuum were given by 61 per cent of the Significant Contributors receiving their degrees in 1930-1934as against 47 per cent of the control group. The same direction of differences occurred for the other five-year groups but the differences were somewhat smaller. Ratings on the formality of faculty-student relationships yield no particularly significant differences. The rating on the opportunity for the discussion of research ideas with the faculty likewise fails to differentiate between Significant Contributors and the Psychologists-in-General. Significant Contributors rated their departments as having excellent facilities for laboratory work more frequently than did the control groups. Rating for

. . . 127 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A M E R I CA’S PSY C H 0LOG I STS

facilities for practical application in clinics, schools, and hospitals show very little difference. A considerably higher proportion of the Significant Contributors rated their contemporary graduate students as being “outstanding” than did the control groups. The differences here were quite substantial, with, for example, 55 per cent of the Significant Contributors in the 1930-34 group making such a rating, as against 27 per cent of Psychologists-in-General. For the other two five-year periods the respective percentages were 46 per cent as against 23 per cent, and 30 per cent as against 25 per cent. Thus it would appear that the Significant Contributors felt their contemporary graduate students to be more able than did the members of the control groups. Likewise the Significant Contributors felt more pressure for independent research exerted by the department than did their controls; a great deal of pressure was felt by about 30 per cent of the Significant Contributors as against about 20 per cent of the controls; even so a substantial number of all groups felt either no pressure or only a moderate amount of pressure for independent research. It seems safe to conclude that it is not external pressure by the department for independent research that produces a significant contribution. We might very well conjecture that what we are observing is a differential perception of the amount of pressure, with the Significant Contributors showing an underestimation of the external pressure, since their own drives to produce are already strong. These kinds of generalizations are difficult to make, since this issue is influenced also by the difference between Significant Contributors and the controls in area of specialization. Psychologists-in-General have a higher proportion of persons in applied areas; it may be that all we are doing in this item is reflecting indirectly this difference. In the examination of questionnaires it is quite apparent that persons in all areas of psychology feel a need to do research. The difference between the Significant Contributors and the others is not so much in the value with which research is held as in the nature of the research contribution they have made. The clinical psychologist who feels that he is doing research during the time in which he is engaged in psychotherapy with a single patient is not likely to arrive at a point where his colleagues around the country appreciate and value his research. The psychologist who is engaged in problems of learning theory, however, is much more likely to become known for the research he has done. Thus the relative “exportability” of meritorius work for persons in different areas of specialization is an important consideration. The appraisal of departments referred to in the preceding paragraphs

. . . 128 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

GRADUATE T R A I N I N G A N D FIRST FIVE YEARS

has a major defect in that we have compared departments not in terms of the characteristics which actually differentiate departments from each other at the time these persons in our samples were taking their graduate work, but rather on the basis of the retrospective evaluations of the departments by Significant Contributors and others. It may very well be that two graduate students at the same department at the same time would make differential ratings for that department because of their differential recall of the department, the difference in recall being influenced perhaps by the degree of success attained in psychology since receiving their degrees. O r two different students from the same department may perceive the department in markedly different ways because of the difference in the roles they were playing in the department at the time, and the difference in the degree of success they were attaining in their graduate work.

FIRST FIVE YEARSAFTERRECEIVING THE DOCTORAL DEGREE Significant Contributors to psychological science have somewhat different educational backgrounds than do their contemporaries who are not Significant Contributors. There are differences in undergraduate program, and in the graduate program, in the location of the schools attended, in characteristics of the graduate departments, the amounts of financial support given, in the areas of specialization in graduate work in psychology, and in the time taken to get the P h D degree. In our efforts to identify the various kinds of environmental factors that influence the nature of a person’s contribution to psychology, it seems particularly appropriate to examine the kinds of first jobs after doctoral degree held by persons in our groups. If the employment pattern of significant contributors is in any way different from that of random controls, it would suggest a number of points with regard to the more appropriate utilization of psychological talent to increase the research productivity of psychologists. Accordingly, a section of our questionnaire and a considerable portion of our analytical efforts have been devoted to examination of the experiences of our doctoral groups in the first five years after receiving the PhD. The most obvious question to ask is how many of these persons were employed in academic settings, that is, in colleges or universities. These data are presented in Table 5. The specific question was: “Please answer the following questions in terms of the position or positions you held in the first five yems after receiving your doctorate. If these positions differed so much that you must answer only in terms of one of them, pick the one which you consider most important in determining the pattern of your later activities in psychology.” The persons then wrote out the name of the

. . . 129 . . .

AMERICA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS

institution or employer, which were then classified into the types represented in Table 5. Table 5 NATUREOF EMPLOYMENT I N MOST SIGNIFICANT POSITION HELD I N FIRSTFIVE YEARSAFTER RECEIVING DOCTORAL DEGREE Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Employment

Academic-college or university Secondary school teaching or administration Hospital or clinic Government agency (Federal) Research organization or foundation Welfare and service agencies Business and industry Self-employed Miscellaneous No data

* A-Significant

1930-34 A" B'

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

74%

63%

76%

64%

56% 47%

0 9 6 6 0 2 0 0 2

4 8 5 5 2 1 3 1 8

0 6 6 6 0 4 0 0 2

7 10 4 1 1 1 2 3 7

0 8 19 4 2 4 0 4 2

8 10 18 1 1 5 2 1 7

Contributors; B-Paychologista-in-General.

Most of the P h D s went into college or university teaching. This percentage is greater for the Significant Contributors than for the others. Somewhat more of the Significant Contributors went into research organizations or foundation work. About equal numbers of Significant Contributors and controls went into hospitals and clinics or into business and industry or into Federal agencies of one sort or another. All the differences, however, are fairly small. In this first job it is of interest to know how the time was spent. A summary of the typical work week of each group is presented in Table 6. The Significant Contributor group tends to spend a somewhat lower proportion of time in teaching, in counseling and clinical practice, and in administration, and tends to spend more time in research. As a matter of fact, the number of Significant Contributors during this first job who spent 50 per cent or more of their time in research is quite substantial. About half of the 1930-34group of Significant Contributors embarking on careers in psychology during a depression period recall that they spent half of their time or more in research. Only about one out of eight of the control group spent this much time in research. The 1935-39group was not so fortunate in terms of the proportion of persons spending half time or more in research, but even so in this group the percentage is 40 per cent, whereas for the

. . . 130 . . .

GRADUATE T R A I N I N G A N D FIRST FIVE YEARS

random controls it is only about 10 per cent. In the 1940-44 group the proportion of persons spending half or more of their time in research is 36 per cent, for the control group it is g per cent. These are very substantial differences and suggest that one of the factors differentiating Significant Contributors may very well be the kinds of life-style or pattern of day-to-day, Table 6 AVERAGE P E R CENT OF TIMESPENT I N EACIi OF VARIOUS TYPES OF ACTIVITYI N TYPICAL WORKDURINGFIRSTFIVEYEARSAFTER DOCTORATE

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Year in Which Doctoral .Degree Was Received Types of Activities

Teaching Consulting, clinical practice Administration Research Writing & Editing Clinical analysis, testing Other

* A-Significant

1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

34% 47% 3 11 3 9 45 18 6 3 5 9 4 3

29% 5 6 43 6 6 5

30%

42% 13 10 16 4 11 4

5

13 39 7 5 1

31% 18 13 16 5 12 5

Contributors; B-Psychologists-in-General.

week-to-week activities established during this first job after the doctoral degree. This still would not preclude the fact that many of these persons received these kinds of jobs perhaps in part because of the nature of their graduate training and the promise they showed for research at that time. It is significant that a number of persons in the control group had equal opportunity, in terms of proportion of time spent in research, to have made the kind of significant contribution that our eminent group did. The fact that they did not achieve this suggests that there is some variance not accounted for merely by the amount of time provided for research. This of course is an observation that has been made before both by psychologists and by other scientists. These points are supported also in Table 7 which indicates the emphasis put on the quality of their performances in each one of these activities. The percentage rating each item as being emphasized most are presented in Table 7 . The instructions were to mark the most emphasized activity with a “ I ” and the one next most emphasized with a ‘‘2”. The Significant Contributors marked research as first in importance much more frequently than did the Psychologists-in-General. The modal response for the latter was teaching, with this item getting the second largest number of first-place votes from Significant Contributors. For the Significant Contributors,

. . . 131 . . .

A M E R I C A‘S

P SY C H 0LOG ISTS

Table 7 EMPHASIS PLACED ON THE Quality OF PERFORMANCE I N EACHACTIVITY (Those marking items “ l ” , as emphasized most.) Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

1930-34 A* B*

Teaching Consulting, clinical practice Administration Research Writing and editing, library work Clinical analysis, testing Other No answer

28% 2 4 57 0 4 2 2

45% 11 3 13 1 9 2 16

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

24% 6 8 46 2 4 4 6

25% 4 4 40 8 6 2 10

43% 9 6 11 1 11 3 16

31% 16 14 13 2 6 4 14

A-Significant Contributors;B-Psychologists-in-General.

combining the research and teaching provides a total of 85 per cent of the first-place votes for the 1930-34 group, 70 per cent of the first-place votes for the 1935-39 group, and 65 per cent of the first-place votes for the 1940-44 group. The same percentages for the control group are 58 per cent, 54 per cent, and 44 per cent. Thus while the Significant Contributor group ranks teaching as less important than the control group, the combination of teaching and research heavily outweighs the same combination for the control group, suggesting the greater attention to service activities by the latter group. The values and feelings about research held by the person in his first job were explored by asking: “How did you feel at this time about different parts of the research process?” He then indicated his feelings about planning the study, collecting the data, analyzing the data, writing the report, discussing the studies with others, and the entire research process. Responses were made by checking one of the following categories: Very Satisfying, Somewhat Satisfying, Indifferent, Tedious, Unpleasant. Eightynine per cent of the Significant Contributors found planning a research study very satisfying; 68 per cent of the control groups felt the same way. These percentages are about the same across the three five-year periods. A difference in attitude was observed in regard to collecting the data, and also in regard to analyzing the data. Less consistent difference is found in terms of writing the report. No difference is observed in terms of discussing the report with others. In terms of the entire research process, however, the largest differential is observed, with Q per cent, 86 per cent, or 85 per cent

. . . 132 . . .

FIRST FIVE YEARS of the Significant Contributors finding this very satisfying; and 58 per cent, 57 per cent or 49 per cent of the control groups finding this very satisfying. These data are summarized in Table 8. GRADUATE T R A I N I N G A N D

Table 8

FEELINGS AT TIMEOF FIRST POSTDOCTORAL EMPLOYMENT ABOUTDIFFERENTPARTS OF THE RESEARCH PROCESS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

1930-34 A* B*

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

Planning the study Very satisfying Somewhat satisfying Indifferent Tedious or unpleasant No answer

89% % ;; 4 0 0 0 0 7 21

80% 68% 12 14 0 1 2 1 16 6

a;%

Collecting the data Very satisfying Somewhat satisfying Indifferent Tedious or unpleasant No answer

46 41 2 7 4

38 36 2 4 20

52 28 10 4 6

34 42 5 2 17

50 35 10 2 3

27 42 10 5 16

Analyzing the data Very satisfying Somewhat satisfying Indifferent Tedious or unpleasant No answer

65 24 7 0 4

56 20 1 3 20

66 26 2

6

60 18 3 4 15

81 12 0 2 5

47 29 3 5 16

Writing the report Very satisfying Somewhat satisfying Indifferent Tedious or unpleasant No answer

39 33 4 20 4

33 29 6 11 21

38 28 8 20 6

34 36 2 12 16

54 21 4 17 4

28 35 8 14 15

Discussing the study with others Very satisfying Somewhat satisfying Indifferent Tedious or unpleasant No answer

50 35 11 0 4

53 18 5

56 36 2 0 6

55 24 4 0 17

58 25 12 0

52 25 7 1 15

86 12 0

57 25 1

85 8

49 31 3 1 16

The entire research process Very satisfying Somewhat satisfying Indifferent Tedious or unpleasant No answer

* A-Significant

87 9

0 0

4

0

24 58 18 0 0 24

Contributors: B-Pnychologiata-in-General.

0

0 2

0

17

0 0 5

5

0 0 7

63% 16 4 0 17

. . . 133 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

Any person in an academic job faces the problem of determing how best to spend his time. While this is an obvious problem in the academic setting, it probably is an important part of the decision-making of a new P h D in almost any job. Generally there is an opportunity for a person-by direct or devious means-to influence the direction in which his energies are expended in a particular job. It is true that in some instances the amount of latitude for a short time is not very great, but in the long run it seems reasonable to assume that a person hired in a profession has the opportunity to determine a life-style for himself within very broad limits. We have already looked at the typical time distribution as one way of seeing how this choice of use of time was made. It is possible to examine the drive for research indirectly by inquiring about factors that facilitated and interfered with our respondents’ doing research during these early days. The respondent was asked to indicate whatever factors facilitated or interfered with his doing research. Those items that were listed as being most important in helping him to do research during these first years may be ordered either in the frequency of total mention or in the amount of differentiation between Significant Contributors and controls. The most frequent responses to this question had to do with a general encouragement by others to do research : a research atmosphere, stimulation, encouragement and cooperation of colleagues, interest of colleagues in research. This response was given by a somewhat larger proportion of Significant Contributors than controls. Another set of very frequent responses was interest, drive, curiosity, a need to do it, or just a general desire to learn things and to search out things, given by over 30 per cent of the total group. Excellent supervision, guidance from superiors, including encouragement of the department head, is an item that was listed by around 10per cent of the groups. Enough time available or availability of research funds, of apparatus, or of subjects was listed by some. All in all, an examination of these facilitating factors fails to supply a single key to what leads a person to work hard and develop research programs which lead to eminence among his colleagues. That favorable conditions are helpful is evident; yet no single condition seems much more important than any other. Certainly this table would not suggest that more research money is the answer. T h e responses to the question about those factors which were most important in interfering with doing research during these years need to be examined also. They turn out to be a little more numerous than the factors which aided in doing research. And here there are differentials larger than those that appeared in the preceding section. Pressure of other activities shows a substantial difference between the Significant Contributors and the controls.

. . . 134 . . .

G R A D U A T E T R A I N I N G A N D FIRST FIVE YEARS Table 9

FACTORS MOST IMPORTANT IN FACILITATING RESEARCH (First Five Years after Doctorate) Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Factors

1930-34 A* B*

Available time or light load Research funds available Interest, drive, curiosity, needs Availability of subjects or apparatus Stimulation or encouragement of others Excellent supervision or guidance Held research position Freedom to go about it my own way No answer or no research

* A-Significant

25% 26 53 11 38 11 11 11 6

;% 29 9 35 6

1

3 26

1935-39 A B

1940-44 A B

6% 2 34 10 54 10 12 6 14

10 35 12 54 19 10 12 2

6% 4 29

7

30 14 4 5 20

10%

4% 3 30 6 34 6 6 1 21

Contributore; B-Psychologiets-in-General.

The interference of teaching duties, of administrative tasks, consulting, counseling or just “lack of time” are frequently-given responses. Lack of money, either because of inability to get a research grant or because of the need to do other things in order to earn a living, was a response that was made fairly frequently, and almost as often by controls as by Significant Contributors. Occasionally persons mentioned a lack of faith in their own competence to do research, or lack of appropriate facilities, or subjects, or the fact that he placed emphasis on things other than research, or made a deliberate rejection of research for other kinds of activities. A substantial difference between the Significant Contributors and the controls again turns up in the no-answer category. Those persons who said that there were no factors interfering with their doing research o r few factors interfering comprised a much higher proportion of the Significant Contributor group than of the control group. A word of caution of course needs to be said again about these data in that they are contaminated by differences in recall. These contaminations undoubtedly include certain kinds of personal rationalizations. The person who can look back upon his first five-year period as having contributed a considerable amount to his publications list and as having influenced others to appoint him to positions which enabled him to gain greater eminence is perhaps going to look back on those five years with a somewhat rosier view than will a person whose experiences during this five-year period were relatively unfruitful and did not lead to greener pastures. Thus the differ-

. . . 135 . . .

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

ences we observe are a result of actual differences at that time, plus distortions in recall produced by time and other influences. Table 10 FACTORS MOST IMPORTANTI N INTERFERINGWITH RESEARCH Year in Which Doctoral Degree Was Received Factors

1930-34 B*

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

A* Pressure of teaching duties Pressure of other activities Lack of interest or drive or confidence Lack of guidance or encouragement Lack of money Lack of apparatus or subjects Few or no interferences No answer

* A-Significant

19% 24 29 13 13 9 21 6

32% 62 14 12 12 7 4 10

Contributors: B-Psychologists-in-General.

... 136...

1935-39 A B

26 16% 18 14 18 4 24 4

$% 16 16 10 6 5 10

1940-44 A B

% ;:

18 14 15 4 17 2

% ::

17

14 10 8

5

5

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

CHAPTER

7

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGISTS IN VARIOUS AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION

W E R E T H E F O U N D E R S OF THE A M E R I C A N P S Y C H O logical Association to attend one of the recent meetings of the Association they would be startled and perhaps dismayed by the sheer numbers of psychologists present and by the variety of activities which occupy their time. In particular they would probably be impressed by the vastly increased emphasis on applications of psychology, and the fact that the experimentalphysiological-general psychologists, at one time the exclusive membership, are now a minority in the Association. The current leaders of American psychology are probably as much concerned about the nature of these changes as would be the founders of the American Psychological Association. The diverse character of psychology was recognized in the postwar reorganization of the American Psychological Association, which was designed to take account of the marked differences in interests of APA members by providing a kind of federated society of APA divisions. This divisional structure is designed

. . . 137 . . .

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10031-007 America's Psychologists: A Survey of a Growing Profession, by K. E. Clark Copyright © 1957 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA'S PSYCHO LOGISTS

to permit psychologists to organize and communicate with others whose interests and day-to-day activities are quite similar to their own and yet to provide for psychologists of markedly different interests to associate themselves together in a single association. The characteristics which psychologists must have in common, and those on which they need to differ because of different demands of the psychological specialties are not easily prescribed. Yet this problem relates to many of the issues commanding the attention of the APA today. Having collected the variety of information about psychologists described in our examination of significant contributors to psychological science, it is readily possible for this project to highlight some of the ways in which persons in various areas of specialization differ from each other. Our analysis is presented in summary form in the succeeding sections of this chapter, with major emphasis on those characteristics that differentiate persons in various specialties. Our data permit us to divide the members of the various samples into two groups. First, those who received their PhD's in the interval 1930-44 and, secondly, those who received their P h D degrees in the year 1950. Within each of these groups it is possible then to divide persons into various areas of specialization within psychology. This might have been done in a number of ways. It might be possible, for example, to report separately for the members of each of the different APA divisions. This would permit a comparison, for example, of persons in Division 5 (Evaluation and Measurement) with persons in Division 3 (Experimental Psychology) and those in Division 12 (Clinical Psychology). A total of 17 different groups would thus be presented and comparisons might be made among them. The chief difficulties with this procedure are (I)the heavy overlapping of membership in different APA divisions (see data presented in Chapter 4), and (2) the substantial numbers of persons who belong to no APA divisions. Another procedure might have been to list persons in terms of the area in which they are considered to have made their greatest contributions, or in which they have published. This would involve numerous difficulties, not least of which is the lack of available information on all of the persons in our samples. Our sorting into areas has thus reduced itself to the use of the first area of competence which the individual assigned to himself. This is an item of information obtained from the 1951and 1954APA questionnaire surveys. This procedure means a person might have assigned himself in his first area of specialization to one of the following areas, unless his field of specialization was not psychology:

. . . 138 . . .

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN P S Y C H O L O G I S T S I.

Psychology, general-nonspecialized Behavior deviations 3. Clinical psychology 4. Developmental psychology 5. Educational psychology 6. Experimental psychology 7. General psychology 8. Industrial psychology 9. Personality 10. Physiological psychology 11. Social psychology 12. Vocational psychology

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

2.

In order to provide adequate numbers in each one of our subgroups these areas were further combined: ( I ) general psychology (items I and 7, above) including those who do not specify any area of specialization; (2) experimental and physiological psychology; ( 3 ) personality and social psychology; (4) behavior deviations and clinical psychology; (5) educational and developmental psychology; and (6) industrial psychology. These groupings of areas of specialization raise some difficulties. In the first place, it was difficult to determine where to put vocational psychologists. Some of these persons might well be classified with educational and developmental psychologists. Others, however, ought to be classified with industrial psychologists. For some individuals it was possible to make this kind of sorting. In many instances, however, the decision was so difficult that these persons were not assigned one way or the other, and hence are not included in our analysis. Another area of specialization which caused considerable difficulty was the area of evaluation and measurement. While most psychologists would agree that Division 5, which has this title, is one of the most vigorous and active of the APA divisions, it is nonetheless true that most of its members tend primarily to identify themselves with another subject matter area like industrial psychology, educational psychology, or experimental psychology. As a result it is difficult to pull together a core of persons who would be identified primarily as evaluation and measurement persons. The absence of this specialty group is probably more serious than the omission of the vocational psychologist, for the importance of psychometrics and of mathematical processes in psychology is well recognized and increasing. Even so, there seems to be no alternative than to leave out this as an area of specialization.

. . . 139 . . .

AMERl CA'S PSYCHO LOGISTS

The resulting areas which will then be examined in this chapter and the number of persons falling in each are as follows: Area of Specialization General Experimental and Physiological Personality and Social Clinical Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Educational and Developmental Industrial

-

Year of Degree

N

1930-44 1950 1930-44 1950 1930-44 1950 193044 1950 1930-44 1950 1930-44 1950

77

52

158

64 101 44 276 211 177 55 97 14

Responses from the questionnaire sent out by this project in 1954 and to the questionnaire sent out for the National Scientific Register in ISI and 1954,responses to the APA Directory questionnaire sent out in 1951, and records in the American Psychological Association offices have been available to permit a comparison of the persons in these various areas of specialization. The following sections summarize the general findings of such comparisons. SIMILARITIES AMONGAREASOF SPECIALIZATION The very nature of the process of selecting the samples for our studies will tend to overemphasize similarities among psychologists. In the first place, we are examining only those persons who have become afiliated with the American Psychological Association and who hold doctoral level degrees. Thus, a very substantial number of persons around the country who call themselves psychologists or who engage in activities which we might call essentially psychological are not included in this comparison between areas. Were they to be included we would undoubtedly find greater differences of clinical psychologists, educational and developmental psychologists, and industrial psychologists from general and experimental psychologists. (See Chapter 8 for data on this point.) We probably would not find any greater difference for persons in personality and social psychology since practically all who might be so identified would be in the American Psychological Association with most holding doctor's degrees. The same thing would be true for persons in experimental and physiological psychology. Including only those persons who have a PhD or other doctoral degree and who are members of the American Psychological Association will

. . . 140 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

D I F F E R E N C E S B E T W E E N PSYCHOLOGISTS

tend to ignore one of the major problems in American psychology today: namely, whether or not a person ought to consider himself a psychologist when he has less than a doctoral level degree. This problem can be examined in somewhat more detail in our analysis of the community surveys which were conducted as part of this project and which are reported in a later chapter. It should be recognized that these specialty groupings are to a considerable extent artificial. Psychology, unlike medicine, does not have a series of clearly demarked specialty areas. Rather, psychologists tend to direct their work and attention to a part of the spectrum of psychology that intrigues them most. Were our groupings to give a true reflection of the ways in which these patterns of specialization occur, we would need not six subgroups but perhaps six hundred. It is tempting to say that at least clinical psychology and industrial psychology are well differentiated from each other-but these groups have, in current management development work, become almost indistinguishable in their activities. Keeping these limitations in mind, one still can be impressed with the number of variables on which the psychologists in our study who work in different areas are very much like each other. Our survey data reflect strong communalities in the following areas: a. Amount of professional reading and level of information in area of specialization. Our groups all read the APA literature about equally, and rate themselves on their level of information at about the same points. b. Feelings of deficiencies in training. Statistics, experimental design, mathematics, matrix theory, and the like, are areas which show up most frequently as deficiencies regardless of the particular specialty of the psychologist. c. Professional contacts with the A P A . The frequency of attendance at American Psychological Association meetings, and attitudes towards attendance at APA meetings show little differences between groups. d. Social Bactground factors. For all areas of specialization there is evidence that psychology serves as a source of upward mobility. Only about one out of three of the fathers of persons in our samples are professional persons. About a third are in managerial and office activities, with the next largest group being in the agricultural, fishery, and forestry groups. Likewise, the modal educational level of the father and mother is grade school or less, so that the average educational level of our persons, all of whom have PhD’s, is substantially above that of their parents. For all of our groups the decision to enter psychology was made primarily after entry into college. For all of the groups there are great variations in career possibilities

. . . 141. . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

which were rejected or discarded when the decision to enter psychology was made: our data do not suggest that clinical psychologists are frustrated physicians or that industrial psychologists are primarily persons who might otherwise have gone into business and related activities. e. Quality of undergraduate work. Regardless of later specialization, approximately two out of three of our respondents reported that they were in the top 5 per cent of their college undergraduate class in grades in their major subject, with about 40 per cent reporting that they were in the top 5 per cent of their college undergraduate class in grades in all courses. f. The manner of financing graduate work. Persons in experimental and physiological or in personality and social tended more frequently to get fellowships than did persons in other areas, but other than this no great diflerences occur with the obvious exception, of course, that the postwar groups were more frequently supported either under the GI Bill or, if clinical psychologists, as VA trainees. If we can then summarize in a sentence these similarities between psychologists in various areas of specialization it would be that all groups have characteristics of a profession of recent origin, drawing its members from various sources, providing considerable opportunity for upward mobility, showing substantial activity in their professional organization, the APA, and maintaining equally high levels of information through journal reading and professional contacts.

DIFFERENCES IN EMPLOYMENT

A large majority of all psychologists in our study are employed in academic institutions, especially those who received P h D degrees in the prewar period. Table I distributes persons in various areas according to type of employer (as of 1954). Clinical and industrial psychologists are least frequently found in academic settings. Substantial numbers, though less than half, of prewar clinical PhD’s are employed in the Federal Government, in hospitals, or in private practice. For the postwar PhD’s in clinical psychology the most frequent locus of employment is the Federal Government, presumably in VA hospitals. A substantial number are in private practice, in hospitals, or in state and local government. Only a third are employed in colleges or universities. Industrial psychologists, whether prewar or postwar PhD’s, are as frequently employed in private industry as in colleges or universities. Only a third of them are in academic settings. Other areas of specialization tend to have as a typical pattern a moderate sprinkling of nonacademic employment, with the vast majority of persons in colleges or universities.

. . . 142 . . .

D I F F E R E N C E S B E T W E E N PSYCHOLOGISTS Table 1 TYPEOF EMPLOYER

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Employer

College or University Other Educational Institution Federal Government Private Industry, Selfemployed Private Industry, Employee Nonprofit organizations, including hospitals State and Local Government

Doctoral Degree 1930-44

Exper. Pers. Educ. Gen’l. and and Clinical and Physiol. Social Devel.

74%

% : 4

8

8

82% 8

1 5

1 2

1 7

11

*

-

4 5

-

4

10 1

10 8

1 1

70% 3 11

8;%

18

7

Industrial

35%

-

9 8

36

11 -

Doctoral Degree 1950

Gen’l.

College or University Other Educational Institution Federal Government Private Industry, Selfemployed Private Industry, Employee Nonprofit Organizations, including hospitals State and Local Government

5!% 16

-

9

9 2

Exper. Pers. Educ. and and Clinical and Physiol. Social Devel.

73%

-

13

-

5 7

2

69%

-

10 5

74% 10

36% -

7

-

-

7

2 7

-

36%

40

7

2

-

10

10

Industrial

5

2

14

43

7

These differences in employment patterns influence the way in which the individual psychologist spends his time. This is suggested in Table 2, which shows the proportion of a work week spent in various activities. This table is obtained by averaging the percentages of time spent by each person in each of these activities. (This procedure is quite unsatisfactory as a means of indicating the work week of the typical person in a given area. What it does instead is to present the average of a distribution of proportions of time for each activity.) Substantial differences between groups can be noted. Members of the clinical psychology groups, as might be expected, spend a much greater proportion of time in clinical activities, in clinical private practice, at the expense of time in research. This is true both for the prewar and postwar clinicians, but is accentuated for the postwar group. Persons in educational and developmental psychology tend to have a

. . . 143 . . .

AMERICA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS Table 2

PERCENTAGE OF WORKWEEK SPENTI N EACHACTIVITY Doctoral Degree 1930-44

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Employer

Teaching Undergraduates Teaching Graduates Research Counseling Local Committees Administration Community Service Clinical Out-of-town Conferences Other Total

Gen'l.

Pers. Educ. and Clinical and Social Devel.

20% 11 20 7 3 25 1 4 2

20% 15 31 4 3 18 1 2 2

17% 12 29 4 3 23 1 3 2 6

100%

100%

100%

7

-~

Gen'l.

Teaching Undergraduates Teaching Graduates Research Counseling Local Committees Administration Communitv Servire Clipiral

Exper. and Physiol.

l;%

% ::

20% 15 14 11

Industrial 7% 6 20 13 1

14 13 3 15 2 24 2 5

24 2 2 3 5

1 2 2 21

100%

100%

100%

Exper. Pers. Educ. and and Clinical and Physiol. Social Devel.

Industrial

4

4

27

Doctoral Degree 1950

% ;;

l;%

7%

25 13 4 17 2

36 6 2 8 1

37 9 5 10 1

11 13 14 3 13 1

100%

100%

100%

100%

20% 18 9 16

li%

4 17

39 12 2 14

100%

100%

2

1

oui

Total

greater diversity of activity than is the case for persons in other areas; again, this diversity is at the expense of time spent in research. The greatest amount of time in research is spent by persons in experimental and physiological psychology, and in personality and social psychology, with industrial psychology following close behind. Some general interest may attach to the effects of these variations in activities on the earnings of psychologists. Presented in Table 3 are distributions of the total annual income reported by these psychologists in a questionnaire sent to them in the spring of 1954. These income figures pre-

. . . 144 . . .

D I F F E R E NC ES B ET W EE N PSY C H OLOG I STS

Table 3 ANNUALTOTALPROFESSIONAL.INCOME(1954)

Doctoral Degree 1930-44 ~

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Income

Exper. Pers. Educ. Gen’l. and and Clinical and Physiol. Social Devel.

$15,000 &over $12,000-$14,999 $10,000-$11,999 $ 9,000-$ 9,999 $ 8,000-$ 8,999 $ 7,000-$ 7,999 $ 6,000-$ 6,999 $ 5,000-$ 5,999 d 4 . 0 0 0 4 4.999 $ 3:000-$ 3:999 $ 2,000-$ 2,999 $ 0.000-$ 1$999

Nodata

’

N

1

3 8

11 9

13 8

3 8

9

21 8 2

8 6 3

36 15

21 17 10

9

5

3 1

-

-

16 6 80

-

5

22 23

1 10 13

5 3 51 47

157

101

279

5 1 18 22

177

Industrial 18 8 13 7 12 4 2 3 1

-

17 12

91

Doctoral Degree 1950 Exper. Pers. Educ. Gen’l. and and Clinical and Physiol. Social Devel. $15,000 & over $12,000-$14,999 $10,000-$11,999 $ 9,000-$ 9,999 $ 8,000-$ 8,999 $ 7,000-$ 7,999 $ 6,000-$ 6,999 $ 5,000-$ 5,999 $ 4,000-$ 4,999 $ 3,000-$ 3,999 $ 2,000-$ 2,999 $ 0,000-$ 1,999

No data N

-

-

-

1 1 1 6 8 8 13 12

2 1 2 3 8 7

-

-

2 6 8 9 10 2

-

-

-

-

-

2 3 1 1 24 59 36 28 6 2

7 7

6 7

6 2

13 26

4 -

44

201

42

3 3

5

9 8 7

-

1

50

63

10 3

-

-

Industrial

1

-

1 4 2 2 2 1

2

14

sumably are for the interval beginning approximately April, 1953, and ending March, 1954, or the academic year 1953-54. These data are particularly interesting in comparison with the data presented in Chapter 3 on incomes of highly visible and significant contributor samples of psychologists, since they suggest that a person who is successful in applied areas of

. . . 145 . . .

AMERl CA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

psychology may easily match or exceed the salary of a person who has achieved eminence as a Significant Contributor.

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

NATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY IN PSYCHOLOGY The frequency of attendance at meetings of the American Psychological Association, as already mentioned, is not different for persons in various areas of specialization. There are, of course, substantial differences between prewar and postwar groups in this regard, with the older psychologists attending meetings of the American Psychological Association more frequently than do the younger members. However, our questionnaire inquired not merely about the attendance at meetings of the American Psychological Association but also meetings of state and local societies. The responses suggest that attendance and participation at the state and local level is greater for those persons who are in applied psychology than for those who are in the more general and experimental areas of psychology. T h e question asked was, “Do you regularly attend any local, state, or national conventions of professional organizations ?” State psychological association meetings are attended regularly by 37 per cent of the prewar clinicians but by only 20 per cent of the prewar experimental and physiological psychologists. Among the 1950 P h D s clinical psychologists attend 32 per cent of the time, whereas 23 per cent of experimental and physiological psychologists say they attend regularly. Thirty-one per cent of the 1950 P h D s in experimental and physiological psychology say they rarely attend state psychological association meetings, whereas only 21 per cent of clinical psychologists give this response. Attendance a t local psychological association meetings is described in approximately the same manner. Regional psychological associations (e.g., Midwestern, Eastern), on the other hand, follow the pattern of attendance at APA meetings, with no large differences between groups but with, if anything, a higher proportion of experimental and physiological psychologists attending than do members of the other groups. All groups, however, tend to regard the APA meetings as most profitable. No particular differences emerge in number of psychological journals which are read regularly or scanned frequently by the various groups. The typical list of such journals provided by members of all groups has about six titles in it. There are differences, of course, in the journals listed by persons in different areas. The data on readership of most frequently named journals are presented in Table 4. It is clear that the American Psychologist has high attention value among members of all groups. This might be expected since this journal carries discussions of professional problems and

. . . 146 . . .

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN P S Y C H O L O G I S T S Table 4

JOURNALS

Journal

LISTEDMOST FREQUENTLY AS "READ REGULARLY OR SCANNED FREQUENTLY" General

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

D* E* American Psychologist 71 Amer. Journ. of Psychol. 21 Journ. of Applied Psych. 27 Journ. of Clinical Psych. 1 2 Journ. of Comparative and Physiological Psychol. 19 Journ. of Consult. Psych. 17 Journ. of Exper. Psychol. 38 Journ. of Abnorm. and Social Psychology 26 Journ. of Personality 4 Journ. of Social Psych. 6 Psychomet rika 19 Psvcholoeical Review 42 PS J

Ps

Exper. and Physiol.

D

Pers.

and Social

Clinical

D

E

D

65 21 37 8

59 61 49 44 26 20 3 2

62 13 20 6

66 i4 32 11

70 81 10 5 11 9 36 41

79 82 11 4 24 18 10 15

69 93 15 7 78 86 4 0

13 19 29

58

ii i j 22 27

56

12

14

24 30

8 5 47 70 17 12

8 4 25 40 13 5

13 0 29 14 27 21

21 4 8 25 40

35 30 65 70 6 6 21 34 9 3 2 0 2 3 3 5 3 9 56 70 37 59

51 71 12 18 8 3 1 2 25 35

30 25 7 0 11 0 9 0 17 20

28 36 1 0 19 14 23 21

16 8 71 87 44 31

12 13 68 78 45 41

14 11 73 67 55 49

13 14 67 79 46 57

9 14 69 91 39 41

D

E

Industr.

E

80 77

E

Educ. and Devel.

D

E

7

0

* D-Doctoral degree received during the interval 1930 to 1944, inclusive; E-Doctoral degree received during the year 1950. of problems of management of the American Psychological Association. It is of interest to note that the PsychoZogical Abstructs and the Psycliological Bulletin also tend to be listed by a large proportion of members of all groups. The other patterns of readership match areas of interest as might be expected, except that percentages are somewhat higher than might have been anticipated from the sizes of subscription lists for these journals. Our data also permit us to compare persons in the 1930-44P h D group in terms of the number of APA offices held. These data are given in Table 5, and suggest that the highest level of activity in the American Psychological Association characterizes persons in experimental and physiological psychology. Persons in general psychology, in industrial psychology, and in personality and social psychology are about average; persons in clinical psychology and in educational and developmental psychology have a considerably lower level of activity in Association affairs. This is not the best index of the over-all professional-society activity of psychologists, of course, since for clinicians, for persons in educational and developmental psychology, and for persons in industrial psychology, there are competing

. . . 147 . . .

A M E R I CA’S PSY C HO LOG1STS

Table 5 NUMBER OF APA OFFICESHELD ( 1 9 3 0 4 4 Doctoral Group Only)

Offices Held

General

Exper. Pers. and and Physiol. Social

Clinical

Educ. and Industr. Devel.

~

-

30-34

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14

1 2

-

9 8 7 6 5 4 3

1

1 3

1 1 5

5 8

-

2

1 2 6

3

4 2 4

1 1

7

5 4

9

13

4

5 2 3 1 2

2 3 3 1

1 2 1 2

-

-

4

4

-

3

8 18 212

2 8 142

67

.16

.12

.22

5 2

0 No Data

52

8 91

Medians

.27

.36

.25

1

-

3 6 4

9

4 67

2

2

~

6 5

5 5

6

1 2 1

2 10

professional associations (such as the American Personnel and Guidance Association, the American Marketing Association, the National Education Association, and the American Educational Research Association) to attract the attention and engage the activities of persons in these applied areas of psychology.

MOTIVATIONS AND VALUES OF PERSONS IN VARIOUS AREAS One of the questions asked in our questionnaire regarded factors considered most important in leading to the decision to enter psychology. A summary of responses by area of specialization is presented in Table 6. The striking feature of this table is the marked similarity in motivations of persons in various areas. Some differences do emerge, of course, but it is interesting to note the pervading effects of “the influence of a particular teacher of psychology,” “becoming interested in the field through reading of books in psychology,” “hearing or reading about research in this field,” “having an interest in human behavior as a field for scientific investigation,” “a desire to do research in this field,” “interest in the applications of psychological techniques in such areas as clinical, educational, or industrial psychology,” “being interested in the field through the content of courses

. . . 148 . . .

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN P S Y C H O L O G I S T S Table 6 FACTORB CONOIDERED AB MOBT IMPORTANT IN LEADINQ TO THE DECI~ION TO ENTER P~YCHOLOQY

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Factors

General

Exper. and Pem. and Physiol. Social

Clinical

D

*

D

Being influenced by a particular teacher of sychol. 59% courses were easy P,r me 26 Becoming interested in the field through reading books in psychology 42 Hearing or Feading about research in this field 29 Need to understand myself 7 Influence or example of relative or friend 7 Desire t o work with individuals or groups 18 Interest in human behavior as a field for scientific 54 investigation Doing research in this field 32 Interest in the ap lication of psychologicafteehniques in such areas as clinical, educational, or 32 industrial psychology Inability to get training in an area that interested me more 8 Having a field recommended to me by a counselor or 17 friend The prestige of psychology 3 Becoming interested in the field through the content of courses in sychology 50 Havin been heyped in persona? problems by a 1 psychologist Desire to solve society’s problems 7 Someone offered a job or 32 sgsistantehip Desire to enter a profes14 sion of some type Interest in the quantitative analysia of psychological 26 data Di5culty in getting support for work in another 7 department Desire to enter a field which seemed to offer 4 fairly lucrative rewards Wanting to know more about human beings and 37 their behavior 20 Other

*

*

E

D

E

D

E

28% 15

64% 55% 24 28

46% 40% 19 13

34

32

41

25 11

13

39 10

7

39

30 19

28 21

D

Induatr.

E

D

E

67% 64% 29 43 38

44

31 38

19 27

18 43

30

29

22 24

30 12

14 21

11

12

0

15

9

24

24

31

48

36

58

22

1

53 25

54 46

59 25

61 29

71 42

55 21

55 14

49 21

40 16

47 29

43 21

53

17

16

23

40

45

51

50

55

38

86

6

3

5

5

7

2

8

5

4

13 4

8 4

8 9

8 3

18 0

9 11 5 1 2

10 3

11 5

4 0

29 7

26

49

45

38

33

49

40

45

50

2

6

3

4

5

14

51 4

18

10

42

17

44

13

24 11

9

0

10

45

34

19

9

56

E

Educ. and Devel.

1

2 1 4

1

5

14

13

11

13

16

31

13

20

28

33

13

18

11

13

14

24

11

25

0

8

14

21

21

6

22

19

25

17

18

23

8

9

8

7

23

15

26

14

0

3

0

6

4

1

2

1

4

3

0

2

3

2

4

4

1

7

3

2

1 2 1

53 34

37 22

56 17

56 24

69 11

63 20

67 15

54 16

58 16

19

17

20

41 20

D-Doetoral degree received during the interval 1930 to 1944. inclusive: E-Doctoral received dunng the year 1950.

21

36 21 degree

in the field of psychology,” and “wanting to know more about human beings and their behavior.” There are among this list of items some in which there are sharp differences between groups. Thus, if we examine the persons in experimentaI and physiological psychology as a group we find that they were considerably

. . . 149 . . .

AMERICA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

less attracted by opportunities for working with individuals or groups, and for the application of psychological techniques than were other psychologists, but were somewhat more influenced by hearing or reading about research in this field. Clinical psychologists reverse this picture, being attracted to psychology less by research reports than by prospects for working with individuals or understanding themselves. Interest in the quantitative analysis of psychological data also differentiates psychologists in personality, social and clinical from those in general, experimental, educational, developmental, and industrial. This particular item suggests again our Table 7 CURRENT FEELINO ABOUT ~ DIFFERENT PABWOF General

Exper. and Pers. and Pbysiol. Social

D * E * D E

D

E

Planning the study Very satisfying Somewhat satisfying Indifferent Tedious or unpleasant No answer

78% 68% 8 17 9 2 0 0 1413

84% 83% 8 9 1 0 0 0 7 8

78% 96% 9 2

Collecting the data Very satisfying Somewhat satisfying Indifferent Tedious or unpleasant No answer

29% 34 16 7 14

28% 40 11

31% 25% 45 41 13 19 3 9 8 6

34% 24% 32 49 9 13 1 0 1 1 15 3

Analyzing the data Very satisfying Somewhat satisfying Indi5erent Tedious or unpleasant No answer

45% 62% 29 25 7 0 4 0 15 13

53% 52% 31 34 8 3 2 5 6 6

Writino the r e n d Very satisfying Somewhat satisfying Indifferent Tedious or unpleasant No anewer

42% 23% 25 43 1 1 1 16 9 16 14

Discussing the study with others Very satisfying Somewhat satisfying Indifferent Tedioua or unpleasant No answer The enlire research process Very satisfying Bomewhat satisfying Indifferent Tedious or unpleasant No answer

TEE

RE~EARC PROCEW H

Clinical D

E

Educ. and Devel.

D

E

Industr. D

E

67% 74% 13 13 2 2 1 2 17 9

71% 80% 10 11 2 0 0 0 17 9

87% 86% 7 14 0 0 0 0 6 0

26% 15% 43 10 21 6 1 3 18 8

31% 25% 38 51 8 7 5 7 18 10

21% 43% 43 43 21 7 9 7 6 0

49% 56% 29 31 2 4 6 7 14 2

47% 37% 27 39 5 8 3 7 18 9

53% 60% 24 16 3 7 2 5 18 12

56% 64% 28 36 9 0 1 0 6 0

41% 23% 29 47 10 5 13 19 6 7

46% 31% 30 38 5 4 4 24 15 3

35% 23% 29 41 9 1 2 9 14 18 10

42% 31% 23 42 7 1 3 4 10 18 10

41% 57% 37 36 4 0 11 7 7 0

64% 53% 14 28 5 4 1 0 16 15

62% 62% 24 28 5 2 1 0

60% 62% 19 31 5 4 1 0 15 3

49% 61% 26 23 5 5 1 1 19 10

56% 69% 21 20 4 0 0 0 19 11

73% 86% 18 14 2 0

67% 55% 17 30 0 0

72% 73% 20 22 2 0 0 0 6 5

71% 73% 12 22 1 2 2 0 14 3

50% 46% 26 37 3 3 1 2 20 12

56% 53% 22 33 1 2 1 0 20 12

68% 86% 23 14 0 0 0 0 9 0

0

16

*

8

13

0

15

8

8

0

0 13

0

0 2

40

0

7

D-Doctoral degree received during the interval 1930 to 1944, inclusive; E-Doctoral received during the year 1950.

...150...

0

0

degree

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PSYCHOLOGISTS

difficulty in pulling out as a single group those persons who are interested in evaluation and measurement as an area of psychology. The questionnaire used in the study asked psychologists to indicate their current feelings about different parts of the research process. These data, presented in Table 7, indicate that there are no very large differences between specialty groups in their feelings about the entire research process. Table 8 DIEJTRI~UTION OF SCORES ON EACH OF FIVESCALES OF THE THORNDIKB ACTIVITYPREFER~NCE BLANK

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

General

Exper. and Pers. and Pbysiol. Social

D * E * D E

I.

Clinical

Educ. and Devel.

Industr.

D

E

D

E

D

E

D

E

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Helping Indiriduals:

10 9

Scores:

8

7 6 5 4

3 2 1 0

No Data

0

Mean SD

11. Ezperimenting: Scores: 10 8

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

No Data Mean

SD

111. Working in Industry: Scores: 10 9

No Data

Mean

SD

0

0

0

1.92 2.89 1.25 1.91 2.94 3.96 6.63 7.65 4.30 5.95 2.06 1.93 2.74 2.87 2.02 2.74 2.67 3.23 2.63 2.34 3.11 2.84 2.80 2.71 8 15 14 28 15 11 5 4 1

17 17 22 13 9 9 6 3 6

0

0

0

4 3 5 5 5 5 3 14 16 22 17

9 11

1 1 2

0

7 16 7 21 9 13 7 3 4 3 12 0

8

15 6 9 11 6 19 8

6 2 11

0 0

0 0

4 5

8

14 13 13 13 8 11 5 6

4 11 13 16 11 13 13 9 4 0

4

0

0

1 5 7

0

3 5 5 9 9 10 13 9 13 13 11 0

1 3 5 6 9 13 13 14 16 10 11

2

8 9 10

9 18 12 12 9 8

3

2 5 4 5 5 13 9 22 20 11 4

6 6 6 16 13 13 10 13 6 5

7 21 7 7 21 7 7 14

0

0

0

7 5 9

14 43 0 7 7 7 14 7

0

3

0

0

2 5 4 11 6 10 15 11 13 14

4 7 9 10 8 6 12 11 13 11 9

13 4 11 7 20 9 7

11 13 12 22 6 19 6 1 3 3 3

0

0

0

0

7 0

5.74 5.30 6.96 7.09 4.93 5.82 3.99 3.75 4.88 3.84 5.29 6.14 3.01 3.06 1.80 2.31 2.64 2.48 2.80 2.51 2.58 2.45 2.57 2.61

8

4

4

9

3 3 4 10 14 17 40

0

0

8

8 8 8

17 11

0

3

7

13 19 34

3 7 6 10 13 17 26

7 2 9 13 9 9 16 13 16

0

0

0

6

2 3 6 6

8

3 4 6

6

8 8

12 9 13 14 17 0

8

0

7

0

0 0

3.08 4.64 1.94 2.31 2.96 3.66 3.55 4.00 4.45 4.55 6.52 7.36 2.89 3.32 2.43 2.65 2.93 2.90 2.89 2.68 2.98 3.03 2.52 2.38 (continued on next page)

. . . 151 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA'S PSYCHOLOGISTS

It is interesting to note, however, that clinicians seem to be least interested in writing the report and yet seem to be fully as interested as others in the discussing of the study with others. All groups show least enthusiasm for the collecting of data and the writing of the report in comparison with planning of the studies, the discussing of the study with others, and the entire research project. These differences in the attitudes toward research and the motivation for entering psychology can be characterized much better by use of the Thorndike Activity Preference Blank. The development of the five scales has already been described (See Chapter 4). Table 8 presents the distribuTable 8 (Continued) General

Ex er. and Pera. and P!yaiol. Social

D * E * D E

IV. Scholarship:

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Scores:

4 9 9 8 12 9 17 12 7 7 7

No Data

0

SD

V. Administmino:

10 9

0 1 0

8

7 6

8

8

9 12 12 20 14 16

5

No Data

0

Mean

SD

E

D

0 9 22 2 16 9 16 9 11 4 2

4 7 9 9 11 11

0

8 14 13 17

8

5 3

4 11 12 11 16 11 14 9 4 3 5

0

0

0

0

6

8 11 15

11 4 13

8

3

11

11 9 6

11 12 10 12 4

0

Educ. and Devel.

E

D

4

14 9 10 10 11 14 11 8 7 2 0

6

0

Industr.

E

D

E

4 15 5 7 13 16 13 9 5 5

7

3 7 8 8 14 7 13 13 11 7 6

0 7 7 14 7 14 14 21 7 7 0

0

0

0

4.92 4.92 5.68 5.88 5.57 5.27 4.79 4.65 5.44 4.95 4.66 4.79 2.77 2.98 2.55 2.80 2.59 2.52 2.78 2.75 2.74 2.78 2.72 2.27

Mean

Scores:

D

8 7 9 16 13 16 8 8 8 4 1

8 9

Clinical

8 11

0 2 4 13 7 10 6 13 15 17 13

2 3 5 11 5 11 11 16 9 16 13

0 2 5 10 9 14 10 12 9 15 14

2 2 9 4 9 22 7 16 11 13 4

16 17 12 9 11 7

0

0

0

0

0

0

4 4 8 6

9

6

17 23 6

1 3 7 9

8

5

2 2 7 11 11 18 11 15 11 8 5

4 7 11 16 24 13 7 5 5 5 2

1 7 8 9 16 12 12 7 6 12 7

0

0

0

0

3

8

13 9 13 14 14 7 8 6

7

7

14

0 14 7 0

2.97 4.11 3.43 3.66 3.61 4.18 4.17 5.15 4.44 5.71 4.63 5.00 2.27 2.72 2.59 2.68 2.57 2.50 2.47 2.65 2.39 2.36 2.70 2.95

*

D-Doctoral degree received during the interval 1930 to 1944,inclusive; E-Doctoral received during the year 1950.

degree

tions of scores on each scale with means and standard deviations for various areas of specialization. These data are quite revealing, indicating that there are very marked differences in preferences for activities among the various psychological specialties. As in our Significant Contributor study, the

. . . 152 . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN P S Y C H O L O G I S T S

largest differences occur on the “Helping Individuals” scale, with the clinical psychologists getting very high scores, with persons in general, experimental, and physiological psychology getting very low scores, and with persons in personality, social, and industrial psychology getting fairly low scores. The “Experimenting” scale, likewise, shows substantial differences, though not of the magnitude shown with the “Helping Individuals” scale. These differences are in the opposite direction from those of “Helping Individuals.” The scores for “Working in Industry” are very high for industrial psychologists, as might be expected, but are also fairly high for educational, developmental, clinical and general psychology. “Scholarship” scores do not show marked differences. Items in this scale relate to the reading of research reports, the teaching of psychology, and the writing of research reports. Likewise, the “Administering” score shows a considerable interest in administration for all groups. This scale concerns itself with administration within the field of psychology and does not involve leaving the field of psychology in order to take an administrative position.

TRAINING Table 9 presents the undergraduate major subject of persons in various areas of psychology. As has been reported heretofore, the modal undergraduate major is psychology with something close to half of persons in our study having this as an undergraduate major. Experimental and physiological psychology has the largest, and educational and developmental psychology the smallest proportion having psychology as their undergraduate major. The frequency of Occurrence of humanities as an undergraduate Table 9 UNDERQRADUATE MAJORS U B J ~ C T Subject

General D

Psychology Bueineas Social Sciences Mathematics Biological and Physical Sciences Medical Sciences and Premed. Humanities Engineering Education Mincellaneoua or No Answer

*

*

35% 25% 5 2 4 4 8 6

Exper. and Pels. and Phyeiol. Social E

*

D

53% 70% 1 2 4 2 3 0

E

Clinical

D

E

46% 41% 2 5 11 14 1 0

8

15

15

8

8

5

0 31 0 5

2 15 8 19

2

16

1 3

0 14 5 0

0 23 1 3

2 27 0 2

4

4

2

0

6

4

-

1

D

E

42% 43% 2 5 6 11 4 3 1

Educ. and Devel. D

Induetr.

E

D

E

25% 15% 49% 64% 4 4 5 7 8 7 7 0 8 7 4 7

7

7

15

7

14

1 22 0 5

2 21 0 7

0 29 2 12

0 27 0 25

1 20 1 3

0 0 0

7

0

3

0

2

0

D-Doctoral degree received during the interval 1930 to 1944, inclusive; E-Doctonrl reecived during the year 1950.

7

degree

. . . 153 . . .

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S

PSYCHOLOGISTS

major is perhaps not surprising, although it is interesting to note that this proportion has not dropped appreciably in the postwar period. The distressing point for persons who desire to see mathematics play a heavier role in psychology is the small proportion of persons coming into psychology with mathematical majors. Likewise, the number of persons coming to psychology from the biological and physical sciences is not so great as some might wish. Those who come from medical sciences and premedical curricula are, as already indicated, a very small proportion. It is difficult to use these data to suggest any marked trend. Psychology is not seeming to move farther away from mathematics and biological sciences and closer to social sciences, or the reverse, at least in terms of the origins of the PhD’s included in this analysis. Table 10 presents evidence on the amount of elapsed time between Table 10 NUMRER OF YEARS BETWEEN FIRBT BACCALAUREATE DEQREE AND FIRSTDOCTORAL DEQREE

____

Years

General

Exper. and Pers. and Physiol. Social

D * E * D E

Two years

Three years Four years Five years Six yeara Seven years Eight years Nine years Ten years Eleven or more years Cannottellornoanrcwer

1% 0 % 12 10 17 12 1 7 6 12 4 9 6 5 4 1 6 5 8 17 46 4 0

*

3%1;% 20 25 17 2 0 6 11 5 5 1 7 6 1 3 3 8 1 3 6 13 1 0

D

E

Clinical D

E

i%

2;% ;% % ; 19 11 19 7 1 5 7 1 2 3 8 0 11 5 6 9 8 1 4 4 1 6 5 1 0 2 7 5 1 2 4 9 4 9 15 30 21 36 6 2 5 1

Educ. and Devel. D

E

Industr. D

E

2%

:% l;% 0% 14 16 2 25 29 7 2 1 8 0 15 2 12 14 7 9 8 1 4 8 1 3 4 0 7 2 5 0 3 1 3 4 0 11 29 30 51 1 2 0 0

D-Doctoral degree received during the interval 1930 to 1944, inclusive; E-Doctoral received during the year 1950.

degree

receiving the first bachelor degree and the doctoral degree. These data are presented since they do indicate a substantial difference in the pattern of the degree activities of persons in the applied areas as against those in general, experimental, personality and social. The postwar group shows the effect of the war in delaying their degrees, but still shows substantial differences between areas. It would seem that the persons in the general and experimental fields of psychology tend to continue directly into graduate work and to receive their doctoral degree as part of a continuing program of training and education, whereas persons in applied areas take jobs of one sort or another during the time that they are completing work for their degree and thus prolong their degree work. Support for this point appears in Table 11, where the financing of graduate training is reviewed.

. . . 154 . . .

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN P S Y C H O L O G I S T S Table 11 How GRADUATE WORKWAS FINANCED (Major Sources of Support Only) Source

General

Exper. and Pers. and Physiol. Social

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

D * E * D E Honorarium (professional) Support from family (incl. wife) or nonprofessional organization Savings Support from unrelated work b y himself Support tasks (mistantshipa, clerical work) Instructorships Research or statistical assistantships Loans U. S.PublicHealth Service VA trainee GI Bill (P. L. 346) Rehab (P. L. 10) NYA Fellowship Teaching fellowship Full-time work In related area Part-time work in related area (tutoring, testing, etc.)

D

E

Clinical D

Educ. and Devel. E

Industr,

E

D

D

4%

18% 13%

21%

E

17% 10%

18% 14%

18% 14%

10%

27 25

19 10

25 23

20 13

30 21

9 14

23 21

12 12

17 30

13 24

22 21

0 14

51 18

38 23

50 13

58 17

43 11

45 18

34 12

21 10

41 7

38 15

44 20

29 29

19 9 4 0

0 0 0 0 16 0

17

17

14

17

11

13 13 16 11 23 0 1 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 5 0 0 2 0 1 6 44 0 56 0 57 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 2 0 10 29 22 24 9 0 2 3 1 5

4 1 0

3

0

5

7

5

8

0

9

14

13

25

8 7

15

20

5 4

$ 3 ; 39 0 2 1 0 17 2 1

*

6

4

14

14

1

17

10 5 0 0 1 0 0 14 2

13 9 0 5 45 0 0 9 2

7

11

0

9

32

3 9 0 0 0 0 0 19 5 9

10

* D-Doctoral degree received during the interval 1930 to 1944, inclusive; E-Doctoral received during the year 1950.

0%

7

29 0 0 0

67 0 0 7 7

7

21 degree

The number of persons engaged in full-time work in a related area is greatest for persons in educational and developmental psychology. The data in Table 11 also show the effects of the GI Bill and the VA training program on the nature of the support of psychological training. The pattern of the prewar period is markedly changed for the 1g50 P h D group. Current continued support probably has maintained this new pattern. The area of specialization which was considered of greatest interest to each person at the time he began graduate work, and the area in which he took his doctoral degree are presented in Table 12.Of the prewar 1930-44 P h D s who are currently specializing in clinical psychology, only 42 per cent took their doctoral degree in clinical psychology or behavior deviations; in the postwar group this percentage is 88 per cent. It would appear that those persons now in clinical psychology who received their degrees before 1945 tend to be persons whose training is as often in some other area of psychology as it is in clinical. This kind of crossing of lines in terms of various specialization is more or less characteristic of all the other areas of specialization in psychology, being particularly characteristic of persons in

. . . 155 . . .

AMERICA’S PSY C HO LOGISTS Table 12 AREAOF SPECLALIZATION IN PEXCHOLOQY Area

General

Exper. and Pers. and Physiol. Social

D

*

*

E

D

E

D

E

Clinical D

E

Educ. and Devel. D

Industr.

D

E

4% 14

;%

E

When beginning graduate

work:

chology Educational sychology Experirnentafpsychology General psychology Industrial psychology Personality Physiological psychology Social psychology Vocational psychology Other No answer

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

~

Area of doctoral degree: Behavior deviations Clinical psychology Developmental psychology Educational sychology Expenmentarpsychology General psychology Industrial psychology Personality Physiological psychology Social psychology Vocational psychology Other No answer

3 20 36 14 9 7

6 21 17 13 19 9

3 8 61 15 6 4

11 4 5 21 1

8 8 13 36 0

25 4 1 10 0

0 4

2 2

1 1

3 14 32 13 3 1

7 1 5 20 4

0 8 21 15 8 6 4 2 0

49

0

1 4 68 3 1 1 20 1 1 11 1

0 3 50 13 6 11 19 9 2 3 0

0 5

0 2 70 5 2 2

23 5 0 2 2

7 10 23 10 6

24

6 35 1 6 4 3 6 4

8 21 3 3 13

6 33 0 12 S

0 2 16 4 9

24

4 40 2 9 0 0 13 0

7 4 2 4 20 0 53 2 16 O

14 14 17 8 3 25 9

6 10 11 6 6 22

5 9 1

4 10 8 3 0

6 36

6 82

7 3 2 10 3

0 2 3 2 1

9

8 14 18 6 1 6

2 6 3 2 0 4

14 16 49 53 10 5 1 2 2 3 2 10 20

6

0 7 7 0 71 7

0 4

1 5

0 0

0 4 7 11 0

6 4 4 14 2

0 7 7 21 0

3 10 9 9 1

2 7 9 11 0

0 7

15 50 9 4 1 5 2 3 2 16 2

5 12 22 9 21

3 0 13 0 5 2 1 18 7 1 0

13 6 0 69 11 0 0 2 8 7 2 5 0 0 20 71 4 3 0

D-Doptoral degree received during the interval 1930 to 1944,inclusive; E-Doctoral received during the year 1950.

degree

personality and social psychology both in the prewar and postwar groups. That it is no longer the case for clinical psychology reflects the greater professionalization of this area, with its accompaniment of rigid requirements for training and internships.

RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND Our questionnaire inquired of religious background of the parents of the respondents. These data are presented in Table 13. Substantial differences in the backgrounds of persons in various areas of psychology emerge. The data would be considerably influenced, of course, by any changes in the composition of religious groups in our society, such as a decrease from the prewar to the postwar period in the number of persons whose parents were Fundamentalist Protestants. The increase in persons of Jewish origins cannot be due to any such factors, of course. This increase is most marked

. . . 156 . . .

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN P S Y C H O L O G I S T S Table 13 RELIQIOUS BACKGROUND OF PARENTB Background

General

Exper. and Pers. and Physiol. Social

D * E * D E

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

FalAer Catholic Jewish Fundamentalist Proteetant Liberal Protestant Other

Mother Catholic Jewish Fundamentaliat Protestant Liberal Proteatant Other

D

E

Clinical D

E

Educ. and Devel. D

E

Industr. D

E

2:%

1’% 1 23% 11

1;’

4 % 9 % 9 % 1 1 % 1 0 % 1 5 % 1:% 225% 22 36 22 45 7 9

30 42 8

23 34 9

20 56 3

20 45 6

20 46

18 31

18 47 1

10 29 2

1 3 1 9 8 11

9 11

6 20

4 21

9 36

9 22

9 45

17 45 8

20 55 3

22 48 0

25 47 3

18 36 2

22 44 2

11 30 2

34 38 7

7

7

34 45 3

18 53 5

30 46 2

43 36 0

8 1 5 6 9

6 12

21

32 46 2

36 36 0

34 48 3

25 42 9

* D-Doctoral degree received during the interval 1930 to 1944, inclusive; E-Doctoral received during the year 1950.

7

degree

in clinical psychology, but also is large for experimental, physiological, personality, and social psychology. There is hardly any increase in proportions of Jews in educational, developmental, or general psychology. These increases are matched by decreases in the number of persons whose origins are Protestant, since the change in proportions of persons of Catholic origins are very small.

... 157...

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

CHAPTER

8

FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF PERSONS RECEIVING BA AND M A DEGREES IN PSYCHOLOGY

THE P R E C E D I N G C H A P T E R S H A V E P O R T R A Y E D characteristics of psychologists who are holders of doctoral degrees, and who thus presumably represent the best trained segment of psychologists. A description of psychological activity and the nature of personnel resources in psychology in the United States is not complete unless similar data are given on the nature of activities and of persons who hold less than a P h D degree. Since membership in the American Psychological Association is not restricted to doctoral degree recipients, it would have been possible to draw our desired samples of subdoctoral persons from APA membership. This was not done, since such a sample would omit substantial numbers of subdoctoral persons; a more complete picture of persons trained at a level below the doctoral degree was sought by moving the base for selection of respondents from APA membership to recipients of BA and MA degrees in psychology. Sampling this population has the ad-

...158...

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10031-008 America's Psychologists: A Survey of a Growing Profession, by K. E. Clark Copyright © 1957 American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF BA A N D M A DEGREES

vantage of providing some indication of the types of persons who take such work and the kinds of activities in which they are later engaged. An attempt was made to draw a sample of graduates of different types of schools, in order to give a picture of the varieties of students who earn the degrees of BA and MA in psychology. The schools selected were Brown University, Wayne University, Oberlin College, Brooklyn College, the University of Oregon, the University of Minnesota, and Stanford University. Brown University and Oberlin College represent institutions with a substantial undergraduate program of a more or less traditional sort with a strong flavor of general experimental psychology. Brown University, in addition, has a substantial graduate program, while Oberlin College does not. Wayne University and Brooklyn College represent two metropolitan institutions with a heavy concentration of persons interested in majors which train them for specific kinds of jobs. Wayne University has a substantial graduate program; Brooklyn College does not. The University of Oregon, the University of Minnesota, and Stanford University represent schools which have differing traditions, each of which has a graduate program somewhat different from the others. It was not our intention that this group represent an adequate cross-section of schools of various types around the country. It was, however, hoped that these schools were sufficiently different from each other both in terms of the nature of their offerings and the kinds of students who take these programs so that the discussion of our findings would give some indication of the scope of the problems which are faced in the teaching of psychology in various settings. A population of approximately goo BA's in psychology and 200 MA's in psychology was defined by taking those persons receiving degrees in psychology in the years 1930,1935, 1940, 1945, and 1951.(Some variation in this practice occurred because of special problems in certain of the schools.) With the cooperation of an individual psychologist at each school, a questionnaire identical for each school was sent out to these persons. The cooperating psychologists at these schools were : Harold Schlosberg at Brown University, Wilson McTeer at Wayne University, Lawrence E. Cole at Oberlin College, Wayne Dennis at Brooklyn College, Norman D. Sundberg at the University of Oregon, Howard P. Longstaff at the University of Minnesota, and Quinn McNemar at Stanford University. The questionnaire used inquired about the current employment status of the respondent, including a description of his duties and of his employment history, asked questions about his educational experience since receiving the degree in question, his membership in local and national organizations, the extent of his professional reading in books and journals, and

... 159...

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

questions sampling his current attitude towards the work he took in psy’ chology. A number of studies of this sort have been done before, usually on a local basis by a single institution. Oberlin College, for example, has routinely prepared a mimeographed report to their alumni in psychology summarizing the careers of their graduates. The important study by Dael Wolfle of all persons receiving degrees from Ohio State and Michigan in the years 1930,1940,and 1951was an immediate stimulus to the planning of our set of studies. The discussion of the data obtained in our follow-up study of psychology students is best done by reporting separately for persons who received BA’s and persons who received MA’s with psychology as their major subject.

BA‘s IN PSYCHOLOGY Questionnaires were sent to alumni by a person located at each college with instructions to return the completed form to the college. The numbers of BA’s from whom completed questionnaires were returned are given below, for each school. These represented approximately 60 per cent of the group receiving questionnaires. The size of groups on which each of the subsequent tables is based remains constant. These numbers are presented below. Number of BA’s Who Returned Questionnaires

College or University

83 37 47 103

Brooklyn College Brown University Oberlin College Stanford University University of Minnesota University of Oregon Wayne University

99

65 80 514

Total

A substantial proportion of the persons majoring in psychology as undergraduates are women. These data are shown in Table I . The percentage Table 1 SEX OF RESPONDENT College Awarding the BA Sex

Brooklyn Brown Oberlin Stanford Minn.

Male Female N

53% 47

57% 43

32% 68

83

37

47

. . . 160 . . .

40% 60 103

Oregon Wayne

58% 42

55% 45

65% 35

99

65

80

Total 52% 48

514

FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF BA A N D M A DEGREES

of women varies from 35 per cent in Wayne University to 68 per cent at Oberlin College. The overall percentage is 48 per cent. This variation between schools would affect the results shown in Table 2, indicating the Table 2 Locus OF EMPLOYMENT Locus

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

MC7I

Self-employed, Business and industry Government agency Academic Nonprofit organizations, including hospitals Student, part-time or full-time Clergy Military Unemployed N Women Self-Employed Busineas and industry Government agency Academic Nonprofit organisationa, including hoapitala Student, part-time or full-time Housewife Unemployed

N

College Awarding the BA Brooklyn Brown Oberlin Stanford Minn.

-

23 % 16 11

5% 38 5 9

-

20 % 20 27

7%

19 10 15

4% 17 9 17

Oregon Wayne

;;% 19 19

15% 25 4 17

Total

2:%

11

16

23

5

7

12

-

3

25

12

11

9

20

22

11

10 5

32 2 17 2

6

4 4

3

-

6

16 1 11 3

41

57

36

52

266

3

6% 11 2 19

2% 19 2 12

16

2

2

3

14

7

9 63

5 57

-

7 52

-

4 43

-

5 52 1

42

29

28

248

-

-

-

9 7

24 5

-7

44

21

15

-

-

-

13 25

6

18 5 13 13

6

-

3

-

5 46

50 6

-

3 53 3

39

16

32

62

-

‘7” % 7 14

4% 7 7 21

4% 11 5

15

kind of organization currently employing the person; data are presented separately by sexes to avoid this. A substantial number of persons go into academic work. This is true for all schools. A larger proportion of men end up in business and industry, with no particular difference between schools. A sizable number of persons go into private practice-usually medical private practice, but including private practice in psychology. Government agencies employ sizable numbers of these persons, as do nonprofit organizations, including hospitals. The number of women who are housewives is substantial, yet the professional activities of non-housewives are not greatly different from those of men. The same data on locus of employment are presented in Table 2a separately for persons who had taken further work in psychology beyond the BA, and those who had not. These data are quite revealing. They suggest that employment in academic, government, and hospitals settings goes more frequently to persons whose work extends beyond the BA. Dif-

. . . 161 . . .

. . . 161 . . .

* A-Those

N

14 6

-

_

24 12

33

3 3 9

-

50

6 34 -

_

21% 20% 12 10 15 10

B*

A*

Brooklyn

-

B

9

11

-

11

11

11

-

28

14 28 4

4

-

4% 11% 28 11 7 33 11

_

A

Brown

who took further work in psychology; B-Thm

Self-employed Business and industry Government agency Academic Nonprofit organizations, including hospitals Student, part-time or full-time Clergy Military Housewife Unemployed

Locus

A

31

26

_

35

19 _

16 _ 3 48

4

10

4% 10% 8 11 10 3 19

-

B

A

29

77

70

26 1 13 26 1

7

5 31 5

-

3 3 21 -

_8

6

4 3

B

Minn.

8% 17 10 3 45 17

B

Stanford

College Awarding the BA

who did not take further work in paychology.

16

6% 13 25

A

Oberlin

Table 2a

6

17

6 23 -

-

6

23 18

A

48

2 23 2

10

_

2

10 17

B

Oregon

3

A

4

16

4 16

B

31

49

3 4 10 19 -

-

29

6 23

A

Wayne

Locus OF EMPLOYMENT OF THOSE TAKING AND NOTTAKING WORKBEYONDBA IN PSYCHOLOGY

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

3 17 2

9

161

-

15

12 25

A

1

7 29 2

11

7

6 11

B

353

Total

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF BA A N D M A D E C R E E S

ferences in schools are interesting. Wayne and Brooklyn College have the highest proportions taking additional work; Brown and Minnesota have the highest proportions of persons taking additional work who are now in academic positions. The kinds of duties which the current job involves are presented in Table 3. This table indicates much of the same kind of information presented in Table 28 but gives a somewhat more specific breakdown in terms of the kinds of activities for which psychological training is presumably appropriate. These are summaries of primary job duties, and do not include, of course, all the diAerent duties described by our respondents. This information about job duties is interpreted, in a sense, by the data presented in Table 4, showing the extent to which duties utilize the person’s undergraduate specialization in psychology as indicated by the person himself. There are some slight differences between schools but these are not consistently in the direction one might expect. An analysis of the job duties cited as examples of the ways in which undergraduate psychological training is utilized emphasizes specific skills, such as statistical analysis, techniques of counseling and therapy, testing of aptitudes or interests or attitudes and opinions, the development of teaching skills or interviewing skills or supervisory skills. A substantial part, however, is in terms of such things as human relations, general usefulness, appreciation of scientific method, application to child rearing, or patient relations (for an MD). Thus, responses that deal with specific techniques are balanced by those stressing the more general liberal education aspects of an undergraduate psychology major. The analysis presented in Table 5 shows the proportions of undergraduate psychology majors who become psychologists. These data would suggest that the undergraduate degree in psychology is not primarily a technician degree since such a small number of terminal BA’s are doing primarily psychological work. Wayne University has the highest percentage of persons engaged in work directly related to psychology-Io per cent of their terminal BA students. Only for Wayne University does a majority of the terminal group go into psychology or some related field. Combining groups A and B, we find that, for all schools, 21 per cent of the BA’s are engaged in psychological activities, and 23 per cent are engaged in related activities. These findings are in line with the data collected by Wolfle for Michigan and Ohio State BA’s. Reported in Table 6 are responses to a question on the value of psychological training as it related to nonvocational activities, such as family, parental, social, and recreational activities. Responses suggest that a con-

. . . 163 . . .

. . . 164 . . .

* A-Those

N 33

50

9 28

78

31

26

A

77

7 8 57

29

A

B

Oregon

IN

70

17

48

29 6 6 1 0 47 65

B

31

39 3 16

49

16 4 59

19% 12% 0 2 6 6 6

A

Wayne

p% 1 4

B

353

25 8 9 1 1 35 64

17% 7 3 3

A

Total

161

PSYCHOLOGY

1% 12% 15% 3 6 4 1 4 -

B

21 3 7 2 4 34 64

14% 24% 6 1 4 I 7 -

B

Minn.

who did not take further work in psychology.

16

31 13 12 6 1 6 1 9 38 65 38

4

14 22 6 1 1 68 56

24 12 39

-

2

9 6

A

Stanford

College Awarding the BA

3% 15% 3 1 2 4

B

A

B

A 7% 25% 4 4 4 -

B*

Oberlin

Brown

-9% _10% _11%

A*

Brooklyn

who took further work in psychology: B-Those

Teaching Research Psychological testing Personnel Counseling, clinical or case work Student Other

Duties

Table 3 PRIMARY JOB DUTIESOF THOSE TAKING AND NOT TAKING WORKBEYONDBA

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

VJ

0 0

AMERICA’S PSYCHOLOGISTS

* A-Thoae

N

Often Sometimes Never No answer 30% 42 6 1 21 33

A* A 39% 43 4 14 28

B

Brown

40% 67% 16 2 2 2 32 11 50 9

B*

Brooklyn

who took further work in Dsycho~ogy;B-Those

Degree of Use

DEGREEOF USE OF

29% 32 3 35 31

B 65% 15 4 15 26

A 36% 36 9 18 77

B

Stanford

55% 17 3 24 29

A

46% 35 2 17 48

17 70

B 70% 6 6 18

A

Oregon

24% 43 7 26

B

Minn.

who did not take further work in psycholopy.

56% 19 6 19 16

A

Oberlin

College Awarding the BA

IN

31

64% 23 13

A

A

B 51% 56% 37% 29 21 34 6 5 2 18 18 23 49 161 353

B

Total

PSYCHOLOGY

Wayne

Table 4 PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAINING OF THOSETAKING AND NOT TAKING WORKBEYONDBA

Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

. . . 165 . . .

0 m

3 P

W

Z

~

P P

n

0