The Instruments of Psychological Science

– contributed by Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr.

The collections of the Cummings Center for the History of Psychology are rich with treasures that tell the history of psychology over its roughly 150 years of existence as a science.  One part of the collection contains rare and sometimes unique artifacts and scientific instruments, more than 1,000 of them.  They span the history of psychology.  Some pieces in the collection are more recent such as a B. F. Skinner aircrib from the 1940s-1950s designed to improve infant care and Stanley Milgram’s faux shock box from his famous studies on obedience to authority in the 1960s.  These pieces of apparatus are quite large.  But some of the treasures in the Center’s collection can fit in your hand, and a few are meant to do just that. 

Consider the item below, which is one of the Cummings Center’s latest acquisitions. The ellipse, which is made of steel, measures 5 inches by 2 inches.  And in the middle of the ellipse is a brass plate that has been silvered, with two movable “hands” that are used to mark the numerical readings on the plate.  What is it?  A hint: it was meant to fit in your hand.

In fact, this instrument was one of the earliest to be used in psychological research in the late 1800s.  There were 40 psychology laboratories in existence in the United States by 1900 and most of them would have had this device or a similar one in their collection of apparatus. What purpose did it serve in psychological research?  We will answer that question in a moment.

This object is a hand dynamometer, a device engineered to measure the strength of one’s grip.  The dynamometer pictured above was the most popular instrument in its day, designed around 1867 by Anatole Collin (1831-1923), a French engineer known for the development of surgical instruments.  You can see his name on the brass plate.  The device above would be held in the palm with the long axis of the ellipse laid across the palm.  The hands of the device would be set at zero and then the person would be told to squeeze as hard as possible by making a fist and exerting as much pressure as possible on the two long sides of the ellipse.  Measures might be taken of grip strength in each hand.  And several measures might be taken of each hand to get a more reliable result. 

The dynamometer was invented by a French engineer, Edme Régnier (1751-1825) in 1798.  It was used to test muscular strength in both humans and other animals, particularly horses.  Régnier was an inventor working principally in the design of firearms.  One of the earliest uses of the dynamometer was to measure the pulling strength of horses used by the military in transporting artillery such as cannons (see figure below). Clearly the dynamometers used in these instances were not hand dynamometers.

Regnier, E. (1798). Mémoires explicatifs du dynamomètre et autres machines inventées par le C. en Regnier, etc. Imprimerie de la République.

But Régnier had invented that as well.  Among its earliest uses was the measurement of grip strength in different races by ethnologists.  Below is the Régnier hand dynamometer which measured grip strength in both hands simultaneously.

So why was this instrument of interest to the early psychologists?  Nineteenth-century physiologists and anthropologists believed that chief among human evolutionary achievements was the development of the hand and fingers, and that the control and utility of these movements was related to intelligence.  Sir Francis Galton, an English polymath and half cousin of Charles Darwin, was using the hand dynamometer in the late 1880s as part of a testing program of human cognitive, sensory, and motor abilities, a program of measurement he labeled anthropometry.  Below is an example of the individual records that Galton obtained from each subject who was tested in his Anthropometric Laboratory in London.  This record is dated August 11, 1888 and the subject was a 28-year old psychologist, James McKeen Cattell, who would later establish the psychology laboratories at the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University.  You can see that “Strength of squeeze” was greater in his right hand (89 pounds) than his left hand (82 pounds).

James McKeen Cattell papers, Library of Congress Manuscript Collections.

Cattell was strongly influenced by Galton’s work and included some of Galton’s measures in the mental testing program that he developed in the United States in 1890.  Cattell focused more on sensory and cognitive measures than Galton but one of the tests that he included among the ten comprising his test battery was a test of grip strength using the hand dynamometer. In fact, it was the first test listed in his battery.  Cattell described why this test was important: “The greatest possible squeeze of the hand may be thought by many to be a purely physiological quantity. It is, however, impossible to separate bodily from mental energy. The ‘sense of effort’ and the effects of volition on the body are among the questions most discussed in psychology and even in metaphysics.”

We do not know what dynamometer Cattell used in his work but a most likely candidate would be the Collin hand dynamometer pictured at the beginning of this blog.  In their excellent article on the history of the hand dynamometer, Serge Nicolas and Dalibor Voboril (2017, L’Année Psychologique, 117, 173-219) wrote:

…the instrument that was to become most firmly established was the one made by Collin and used, in particular, in the experimental work of [Alfred] Binet and other psychologists of renown. This instrument was to become an indispensable tool not only for psychologists but also for physicians, physiologists, anthropologists and medical doctors within the context of their work … The various lists of equipment available in the psychology laboratories [in the 1890s and early 1900s] … always have dynamometers close to the top, and in particular the Collin dynamometer. It enjoyed global success…

The hand dynamometer has continued to be used in a variety of fields since its inception and remains a popular scientific and medical instrument today.  Many modern versions resemble the model shown below, manufactured by the Charles Stoelting Company of Chicago in the 1960s and 1970s.  This instrument is also in the apparatus collections of the Cummings Center.

Today, one of the principal uses of this instrument is to understand the relationship between mental and physical processes in aging.  Pictured below are two current devices that can be purchased online or from medical suppliers.  The one on the left sells for about $20. The one on the right purports greater precision and is sold for psychological, physiological, and medical purposes.  It’s price is around $250.

But if you long for the ways things used to be, you can still purchase a brand new Collin Dynamometer in 2024    from GerMedUSA, a surgical instruments company in Garden City Park, NY.  They manufacture one for children and one for adults and they sell for around $240. Here is the image from their catalog. It is doubtful that Mr. Collin ever imagined that the device he developed in 1867 would still be manufactured in virtually identical form 157 years later!

There are multiple reasons why these devices continue to be used.  For example, they are used in rehabilitation programs for individuals suffering hand injuries to measure recovery of function.  Another very important use of the device is to study changes in grip strength in human aging.  There are more than 50 articles published in the last ten years that support the value of testing grip strength as a window into understanding cognitive decline in aging, especially forms of dementia. 

It isn’t just about horsepower anymore.

Read Full Post »

Psychology, Ouija, & Unconscious Thoughts

– contributed by Tony Pankuch.

Our collections contain a range of unusual artifacts, but one that might surprise you is that we have our very own Ouija Board. Ouija Boards and similar tools have a long history in the field of psychology.

We’d like to share a few fun facts for the Halloween season.

^{Ouija Board. Artifacts collection, Archives of the History of American Psychology, The Cummings Center for the History of Psychology, The University of Akron.}

Most may associate the Ouija Board with the supernatural, but it has been used as a tool for the psychological study of the unconscious mind. In 1957, Frank X. Barron included the Ouija Board in a battery of tests used to study well-known creative writers. Barron’s research notes include detailed descriptions of his subjects’ interactions with the Ouija Board:

^{Research notes, 1957. Box M5426, Folder 13, Frank X. Barron papers, Archives of the History of American Psychology, The Cummings Center for the History of Psychology, The University of Akron.}

[redacted] tried to recall the name of a man who had been a school teacher of his. He was not clear about what grade he had had this teacher in, nor was he able to remember his name, though he could visualize the person quite well. The Ouija board traced the following path:

Q P O 1 P T C Q U V W 9 8

When the table paused over 8, [redacted] with some excitement interrupted to report that something extraordinary had happened. He was aware that the pointer had rested over W and then moved to 8. When it came to 8 he remembered all of a sudden that the teacher whose name he was trying to recall had been his teacher in the 8^th grade, and it was at the same moment he remembered that his teacher’s name began with W; was, indeed, Weaver.

Barron wasn’t looking to have his subjects communicate with spirits—rather, he and other psychologists who used the Ouija Board hoped that the words and patterns created by their subjects’ hand movements might reflect their unconscious thoughts, feelings, or desires.

Similar to the Ouija Board, this Spirit Writing Board, donated to the Cummings Center by Hobart-William Smith College, was used by researchers to produce “automatic writing”—writing which allegedly comes from the unconscious thoughts of the writer.

^{Spirit Writing Board. Artifacts collection, Archives of the History of American Psychology, The Cummings Center for the History of Psychology, The University of Akron.}

Then there’s the Automatograph. Historian Arthur Blumenthal described the Automatograph as a “scientific-instrument version of the Ouija board.” It doesn’t record writing or messages, but its free moving ball bearings make it ideal for documenting the slightest involuntary movements.

^{Marietta Apparatus Company Catalog, undated. Instruments, Apparatus, and Other Manuals and Catalogs, Archives of the History of American Psychology, The Cummings Center for the History of Psychology, The University of Akron.}

The automatograph records involuntary movements of the arm. It consists of two horizontal glass plates separated by ball bearings. The lower glass is framed and provided with grips for holding the record paper. The subject’s forearm rests on the paper which moves freely on the ball bearings. The slightest involuntary movement of the subject’s arm is recorded by a stylus which moves with the upper plate. Complete with storage case.

The Automatograph was developed by psychologist Joseph Jastrow in the mid-19th century. Jastrow was an strong opponent of spiritualism, and his Automatograph was designed to debunk spiritualism by documenting a psychological, rather than spiritual, basis for unconscious movements.

So, while the Ouija Board may initially seem disconnected from psychological science, the concept of automatic movement—either by spiritual intervention or unconscious impulse—has fascinated psychologists for well over a century. Thus explaining its place in the Archives of the History of American Psychology.

Read Full Post »

Know Thyself

~ contributed by Nicole Orchosky based on her Capstone project for completion of the Museums & Archives Studies certificate. Know Thyself serves as an intro to an online exhibition Nicole has also prepared.

Toward the end of the 1700s, a young Franz Joseph Gall sat in a schoolroom and glanced around at his fellow classmates. Gall caught on to a trend that fascinated him–he noticed that the students with excellent memorization skills often had prominent eyes and large foreheads. This discovery led Gall to hypothesize that the physical structure of one’s head may correspond to one’s personality traits in consistent and predictable ways. As Gall grew older he began to lecture on the subject, he expanded his theory into the science of phrenology, which quickly gained traction in Europe before spreading overseas to America by way of Gall’s own student Johann Kaspar Spurzheim [1]. 

Franz Joseph Gall, credited as the creator of phrenology.
Image credit: Smithsonian Institution Archives, Smithsonian Institution. “Smithsonian Learning Lab Resource: Franz Joseph Gall 1758-1828).” Smithsonian Learning Lab, Smithsonian Center for Learning and Digital Access, 25 Nov. 2016.

Phrenology, now considered pseudoscience, was widely popular in the 19th century among the general public as a way to make sense of human behavior. Middle class Americans were drawn to phrenology as one may be drawn to the predictions of astrological horoscope. They took comfort in the notion that something as unpredictable and subjective as the human psyche could now be quantified by a series of cranial measurements. The skull was divided into regions called “organs,” and the physical measurement of an organ would determine if you exhibited more or less of the personality trait corresponding to that organ. Gall theorized that the more developed the trait, the larger the organ, and the larger a protrusion it formed in the skull [1].

Phrenological bust from Fowler and Wells’ Phrenological Cabinet showing the “organs” of the brain and labelled with corresponding characteristics. Visit the National Museum of Psychology to see a phrenological bust up close.
Image credit: National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution. “Smithsonian Learning Lab Resource: Phrenology, By L. N. Fowler.” Smithsonian Learning Lab. 29 Jan. 2020. Smithsonian Center for Learning and Digital Access. 06 Dec. 2020.

As soon as brothers Orson and Lorenzo Fowler learned of the theory from visiting lecturer Spurzheim, they turned Phrenology into their life’s passion and joined with fellow phrenological enthusiast Samuel R. Wells to establish America’s most prominent phrenological hub, The Phrenological Cabinet in New York City [2]. The storefront functioned as a museum, medical office, and publishing house all in one. Busts, both real and replica skulls, and phrenological diagrams and literature were displayed and sold here. Anyone could walk in and have their own skull measured and examined to gain a better sense of self as well as discover ways in which they could correct their negative behaviors. Magazines like The Phrenological Journal and Life Illustrated were published and distributed here, including writings by the Fowlers themselves, who spent much of their time lecturing about their theories all over the country.

Samuel R. Wells, Charlotte Fowler Wells, and Lorenzo N. Fowler stand in the doorway of S.R. Wells & Co., The Phrenological Cabinet, with two other men.
Image credit: Fowler and Wells families papers, #97. Division of Rare and Manuscript Collections, Cornell University Library.

While the Fowlers gallivanted around America on lengthy lecture tours, who was left to take care of the family business? Samuel R. Wells oversaw the publishing side of The Phrenological Cabinet, but it was primarily the three men’s wives who took on the managerial and sometimes medical responsibilities within the office. Phrenology allowed women a sense of autonomy by allowing them a better understanding of their own mind and body, and for many women phrenology was a socially acceptable entry point to begin to seek out scientific knowledge.  Abigail Fowler-Chumos, wife of Orson Fowler, became “Orson’s business manager, property manager, publisher, and phrenologist-in-training” [3]. Charlotte Fowler Wells, wife of Samuel Wells and sister to the Fowlers, “was the firm’s longstanding and highly respected business manager” and was even known as the “Mother of Phrenology” [3]. Lydia Fowler Wells, wife of Lorenzo Fowler, “was the second woman to receive an M.D. in the USA, after [British] Elizabeth Blackwell,” making her the first American woman to receive an M.D. [4]. When it came to the business of phrenology, middle-class American women were not only the number one consumers; they ran the show. 

Lydia Folger Fowler, M. D, was the first American female doctor of medicine. She was also the first female professor at an American medical college.
Image credit: “The Late Mrs. Lydia F. Fowler, M. D.” Wheaton College, c. 1880. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lydia_Folger_Fowler.jpg#metadata

During the Civil War, women stepped up to run their households in their husbands’ absences. Women were not about to let go of their newfound autonomy during the following Gilded Age, and phrenology was one of the earliest scientific fields in which women could practice and participate. You would be surprised to learn how progressive the Fowlers were as they “combined the business of phrenology with the work of reform, linking the science to temperance, dress reform, diet reform, water-cure and women’s rights” [4]. 

You can learn more about phrenology and women’s role in the field in the “Know Thyself” virtual exhibition.

Thirteen complete issues of The Phrenological Journal and Life Illustrated are now available as digital editions of the Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr. Popular Psychology Magazine Collection.

Sources Used:

1. Morse, Minna Scherlinder. “Facing a Bumpy History,” Smithsonian Magazine, 1997 Oct. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/facing-a-bumpy-history-144497373/
2. “Orson S. Fowler,” The Phrenological Journal and Life Illustrated, Vol. 84-85, pp. 196-198. 
3. Lilleleht, Erica. “‘Assuming the Privilege’ of Bridging Divides,” History of Psychology, vol. 18, no. 4, 2015, pp. 414-432.
4. Bittel, Carla. “Woman, Know Thyself: Producing and Using Phrenological Knowledge in 19th-Century America,” Centaurus, 19 April 2014, pp. 104-130.

Read Full Post »

Care and feeding of your vintage textile collection: Part 2

This two-part post from guest blogger Linda Bussey, Director of the Hower House Museum in Akron, discusses how to care for vintage textiles like linens and table cloths.

Now that your textiles are cleaned, you can safely display or store them. Please be mindful that these vintage items should not be displayed in direct sunlight or in an overly hot or damp area. Otherwise their unhappiness will become evident with fading or mildew.

Also remember that if these pieces are used, they must periodically be gently rewashed. Hand towels will become especially high maintenance. It might be best to have a “do not use” policy for vintage towels.

For safely storing your vintage treasures, you will need a few things:

• Archival tissue paper or 100% cotton muslin fabric
• Acid -free/archival storage boxes or
• Polypropylene plastic storage bin with a lid. Be sure to look for this symbol on the bottom of the bin, indicating it is safe for storing textiles:

The acid-free/archival tissue and storage boxes may be obtained from a museum supply or from a craft supply store. Acid-free photo storage boxes may be used for small items but loosely wrap the contents in acid-free tissue or cotton fabric. Do not store with photos. Cotton fabric may be purchased from a fabric store or online and be pre-washed in unscented laundry soap without fabric softener and dried without use of dryer sheets. The fabric will be a bit wrinkled as a result, but do not despair! You can try out your new pressing skills as outlined here in the quick reference guide!

Regarding storage in a plastic bin, yes, it sounds a bit strange, I know. However, a bin of the polypropylene (PP) variety is fine for fabric storage, and may be obtained at discount stores. There is a long list of other, non-safe plastics that should not be used, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

Now that you have your supplies gathered, let’s discuss how best to package the items to keep them safe and happy. Prepare a large flat surface to fold or roll the item(s). If you plan to fold them, they should be cushioned to avoid creasing, which can stress the fibers. Use acid -free tissue paper or cotton fabric scrunched up to form a small roll where the item is folded. Once folded or rolled, loosely wrap the item(s) in acid -free paper or cotton fabric, particularly if multiple items will be stored together.

Place items in an acid-free archival box or in a safe storage bin (as noted above). If rolled items are too large for a storage container, fold diagonally with the more delicate side of the item to the inside of the packet; this will help alleviate wear and tear on the more fragile stitching and surface embellishments. Make sure the container is slightly larger than needed to avoid overcrowding. Larger items, such as bedspreads, coverlets, or quilts may need to be stored separately. As always, store in a moderately temperate, dry area, away from direct sunlight, extreme cold or heat.

On a final note, be kind to your textile treasures. Remember to “visit” them occasionally to see how they are holding up. Unfurl them and let them air out for an hour or so. Whi le that is happening, be sure to examine the storage container to look for evidence of insect activity. Not my idea of a good time, either, but check anyway. Your textiles might need an intervention and to be freshened up with new wrappings. Wipe out the storage containers with a damp cloth and let air dry before carefully refolding them in a different direction, rewrapping and returning them to the container.

Having vintage textiles is a serious commitment—sometimes tedious—but well worth it . Cared for correctly, they will provide years of enjoyment and given a new lease on life because you put in the effort.

Textile Sachet Recipe

Follow this recipe and instructions for making a sachet that not only smells good, but protects your textiles from cloth-destroying pests.

Sachet ingredients: lavender, spearmint, bay leaves

Filling the sachet bag

Read Full Post »

How Animal Subjects Shaped Psychology: A Student Exhibit

contributed by Rose Stull & Laura Loop, students in the Museums & Archives Certificate Program.

The students in Foundations of Museums and Archives II have been working hard all semester, and invite you to attend our exhibit: How Animal Subjects Shaped Psychology, which opens on May 9 from 2:30-4:30pm.

The term “animal subjects” might make you think of those red-eyed, white rats in a laboratory. The history of animal subjects used in psychology is actually much broader than rats. Psychologists have conducted research using birds, insects, fish, and much more in addition to rats. Animal subjects have played an essential role in understanding “the basic principles and processes that underlie the behavior of all creatures, both human and nonhuman.” (Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in the Care and Use of Animals, American Psychological Association)

The Archives for the History of American Psychology houses many artifacts that were used in research with animal subjects. Some of the objects are part of larger collections with plenty of archival and primary source materials to help us identify them. However, others had very little information to begin with, and it was up to us to figure it out. The hardest part for some of the objects was just figuring out what it was. Are you able to figure out what these objects could be?

What is this rack of droppers?

Meat powder?

We had a general idea what most of the objects were used for but we still needed more. What was the object used for? Who used it? What kind of research were they doing? What were the findings of their research? We started in the archives and found a lot of what we were looking for, then expanded our research elsewhere to fill in the gaps.

Some of us learned about the history of experimental psychology for the first time. There are so many fabulous photographs.

Gilbert Gottlieb ducklings

For example, Gilbert Gottlieb’s work with ducklings in his years of imprinting research has produced a multitude of amazing photographs (such as the photo shown above), which will be on display alongside many other archival materials regarding animal subjects.  A great example of this was the Animal Behavior Enterprises and their IQ Zoo. To learn more about this interesting tourist attraction and to see if you correctly identified these objects, the exhibit will be open through summer 2019.

The fortune-telling chicken of the IQ Zoo

Working alongside our classmates with the wonderful staff at the Cummings Center for the History of Psychology has given us opportunity for hands-on experience that will give us better advantage in our respective fields of study at The University of Akron, and after graduation when we’re job hunting.  We are proud to invite everybody to join us for the opening of How Animal Subjects Shaped Psychology.

Opening Reception:

May 9th, 2019 from 2:30-4:30 pm

Free admission for the opening event. *Regular admission fees for the National Museum of Psychology during opening.

Location:

Institute for Human Science & Culture Galleries, RDWY 4th Floor

Drs. Nicholas & Dorothy Cummings Center for the History of Psychology; The University of Akron Roadway Building; 73 S. College Street Akron, OH 44325-4302

Contact: ihsc@uakron.edu ; 330-972-7285

This project fulfills the requirements for students in 1900:302 Foundations of Museums and Archives II at the Institute for Human Science and Culture. Contact Dr. Jodi Kearns jkearns@uakron.edu for information about the program.

Read Full Post »

A Journey Through Time

– contributed by Kate Gray.

Kate describes the process of designing, researching, and installing an exhibition to fulfill course requirement for 1900:302 Foundations in Museums & Archives II. 

The concept of time has baffled the greatest minds in human history, while timekeeping devices originally left the students of Museums and Archives II equally bewildered. When beginning work on this exhibition, we were each given about seven or eight time pieces from the Cummings Center’s collections.

The artifacts varied greatly in the background information already provided on them. Some of us had a manufacturer, date, and specific classification of the instrument. Others received pieces simply classified as “timers.” At times, this made research very difficult. However, all of us were up to the challenge.

We began by combing over the Cummings Center’s archives for any information on the pieces, manufacturers, or individuals who created them. Once we compiled that material, we then moved on to outside databases to supplement our findings. Our main goals were to track down what psychological experiments these time pieces were used in and who used them. When visiting the exhibit, you will learn about the time pieces themselves, the individuals who created them, and the psychologists who use them in their work.

After discovering the desired information, we then moved on to planning how to display the time pieces and data. We debated artifact groupings, the objects’ placements, exhibit colors, and which display cases to use.

As I write this blog, we are on the homestretch for this exhibit. We have already begun the to install the exhibition, finalize the displays, and have confirmed our color scheme. Through this experience, we learned about  the immense planning that goes into creating a museum exhibit. Everything from the font size to the display case choice impacts the success of the exhibition. This project led us on a challenging yet rewarding journey through time.

Please Join Us for:

The Test of Time: Chronometry in 19^th and 20^th Century Psychological Laboratories

Opening reception:

• May 10, 2018 from 2:30-4:30pm
• Free admission for the opening event

After the opening reception, the exhibit will be open during regular hours of the National Museum of Psychology beginning June 28.  This temporary exhibit will be open June 28 through September 2018.

Location:

• Gallery C / RDWY First Floor
• Drs. Nicholas & Dorothy Cummings Center for the History of Psychology
• The University of Akron
•  Roadway Building
• 73 S. College Street
• Akron, OH 44325-4302

Contact: ihsc@uakron.edu; 330-972-7285

For More Information go to http://www.uakron.edu/chp/education/student-exhibit

Program info: This project fulfills the requirements for students in 1900:302, Foundations of Museums and Archives II at the Institute for Human Science and Culture.  Contact Dr. Jodi Kearns jkearns@uakron.edu for information about the Museums and Archives certificate program.

Read Full Post »

Teaching Children about Ellis Island Intelligence Testing

Contributed by Jodi Kearns & Cathy Faye.

On June 29, 2017, we participated in a teacher workshop on immigration at Stan Hywet Hall & Gardens. Stan Hywet offers an educational program called “Meet the Staff” for middle school students to come with their teachers and learn about the staff who, around a hundred years ago, did the baking, cleaning, groundskeeping, horse training, and other house and garden jobs. Stan Hywet is the name given to the mansion built and owned by the Seiberling family. F. A. Seibering  founded the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.

We prepared a lesson with portable, fabricated test kits to support teachers who bring their students to participate in “Meet the Staff.”

To begin our portion of the workshop, Cathy gave a brief history of psychological testing at Ellis Island and demonstrated with a volunteer each of the four tests we brought with us. Entry into the United States between 1892 and about 1942 required examinations of immigrants, including psychology testing. Cathy told the teachers

To be admitted to the United States in the early 1900s, immigrants had to be free from physical illness. They had to be capable of earning a living. But they also had to be free of “mental defect” and possess adequate mental ability. In the early 1900s, US immigration officials were therefore looking for a way to screen out “mental defectives” among the more than 5,000 immigrants that sought entry into the United States every single day. Congress had passed laws that barred “lunatics,” “idiots,” “imbeciles,” and “the feeble-minded” from entering the United States. These labels, used today as insults, were at the time diagnostic categories, indicating varied levels of intelligence. For example, a “moron” was anyone who scored 70 or below on standard intelligence tests of the day.

After initial inspection, some immigrants were triaged into a separate line for further inspection, which involved a battery of psychological tests that were designed to be useful in cases where language skills were a barrier. The three tests used at Ellis Island that we demonstrated for the teachers are Cube Imitation Test; Form Board Test; and Feature Profile Test.

An Akron-area teacher demonstrating the Form Board Test.

After a brief history and demonstration on the original artifacts, Jodi told the teachers that they would come to their classrooms and teach this lesson on Ellis Island psychological testing. In order to do this, we fabricated each of the tests using foam core and wood. Additionally, we recreated the tests with administration and scoring instructions on paper, so each students can have a turn being both tester and immigrant.

To the left, a teacher works on the Form Board Test. To the top, another works on the Feature Profile Test. In the blue box, notice the edge of the Cube Imitation Test. This test kit shows examples of the fabrications of the original tests.

Teachers working on the Feature Profile Test.

Finally, we wrote a full lesson plan and mapped the learning objectives to the Ohio Department of Education standards for social studies, to the American Library Association standards for information literacy, and to the American Psychological Association standards for teaching high school psychology. Teachers can use the lesson and test kits on their own, or invite us to come join them. Have a look at the lesson plan: EllisIsland_LessonPlan_Final.

Read Full Post »

Glimpses into the History of Psychology through Artifacts

-contributed by Veronica Bagley, undergraduate student in the Museums & Archives Certificate Program.

What do a polygraph kit, ouija board, and Stanford Prison experiment skateboard have in common? They’re all objects in the Drs. Nicholas & Dorothy Cummings Center for the History of Psychology artifact collection, and they’re all going to be on a temporary exhibit in Glimpses into the History of Psychology through Artifacts. These are just a few objects students in the Foundations of Museums and Archives class have been researching for their final project, putting together an exhibit.

Some of the objects that will be on exhibit.

Students in the Foundations of Museums and Archives Class have been spending this semester putting together an exhibit, from start to finish, to be displayed at the CCHP. In the first half of the class during Fall semester, each student selected a few items from the collection that they found interesting. Now during Spring semester, those objects are becoming one exhibit. Students picked objects covering multiple fields of psychology, including paranormal, perception, animal training, education, and popular psychology.

Though the objects in the exhibit are all very different, students have studied how they relate to psychology or how they may have been used by psychologists. Visitors to the exhibit will be able to learn about the history of psychology through a variety of fields. One of the objects I spent a large amount of time researching was a homemade “Spirit Writing Board,” for which we had little information on. I was able to use resources in the archives to research the practice of spirit writing, and through my research I learned about the field of “Parapsychology.” I even contacted an expert from The Parapsychological Association who sent me even more resources about this board and how it may have been used. Before I took this class, I did not even know this field of psychology existed! Visitors to the exhibit will be able to see the Spirit Writing Board on display, along with other objects from the field of Parapsychology. From visiting this exhibit, we hope visitors will be able to learn how broad the field of psychology is, and how it is applied in other fields.

Though the research process could be frustrating at times, especially with objects without much information attached to them, the class had some great finds! An object previously labeled as “Unidentified” became identified as a Polarimeter. Stacy Young, another student in the class, selected this object and had the task of researching it for the exhibit. From the tag on the object, she was able to start some research in the archives and found a journal that described the unidentified object. It was an incredible discovery and required some serious detective work! The Polarimeter will also be on display in the exhibit.

The label Stacy used to start her research on the Unidentified Object.

After spending the first eleven weeks of the semester researching objects and making decisions about exhibit design, the last several weeks will be spent installing the exhibit. The exhibit is also sponsored by the EX[L] Center: https://www.uakron.edu/exl/. We are very grateful for their donation to help us put together this exhibit!

The opening reception for Glimpses into the History of Psychology through Artifacts will be May 6, 2017 from 4-6 pm, and regular open hours will be Tuesdays May 9 through August 15, 2017, from 1-3pm. Admission is free. It will be located at:

Gallery C, First Floor Drs. Nicholas & Dorothy Cummings Center for the History of Psychology

The University of Akron Roadway Building

73 S. College Street

Akron, OH 44325-4302

The final exhibit project for this class fulfills the requirements for students in 1900:302 Foundations in Museums and Archives II at the Institute for Human Science and Culture. The class is a requirement for a Museums and Archives Certificate through the University of Akron. If you are interested in the program, contact Dr. Jodi Kearns at jkearns@uakron.edu for information.

Objects for the exhibit, laid out for research.

Read Full Post »

The Psycho-Phone

– contributed by guest blogger Dr. Ludy T. Benjamin, Jr.

The Cummings Center for the History of Psychology has a large collection of some of the most important apparatus and objects related to psychological science and practice covering the past 150 years.  There are brass chronoscopes from the 1800s that measured reaction time in one-thousandths of a second.  There are a variety of rat mazes, tachistoscopes, and Skinner boxes.  The “shock” machine used by Stanley Milgram in his famous obedience studies is in the Center’s collections as are a Bobo doll from Albert Bandura’s research, guard uniforms from Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison study, a surrogate monkey head from Harry Harlow’s studies of love in monkeys, and one of B. F. Skinner’s air cribs.  The Center is always looking to add to its collections, including items that were of questionable scientific value.  One such item is the Psycho-Phone pictured below.

 

Similar in principle to audio devices today that play messages during a person’s sleep, for example, alleging sleep learning, the Psycho-Phone was the invention of Alois Benjamin Saliger (1880-1969) who patented his machine in 1932 as an “Automatic Time-Controlled Suggestion Machine.”  The device was essentially an Edison-style phonograph with a timer that played the contents from a wax cylinder during the period of sleep.  Saliger believed that the messages delivered during sleep would enter a person’s unconscious and have a powerful influence on the individual’s behavior.

 

The device was first advertised in the June 1927 issue of the popular psychology magazine, “Psychology: Health, Happiness, Success.”

The machine was quite expensive, selling for $235 in 1929.  That would be the equivalent of $3,250 in 2017.  It came with several wax cylinders, each with messages relating to a different theme; one was labeled “Prosperity”, another “Life Extension,” and a third “Mating.”  Eventually Saliger expanded the record library to more than a dozen titles, even one in Spanish.  According to a story in The New Yorker in 1933, the message on the Mating recording included the following statements: “I desire a mate.  I radiate love.  I have a fascinating and attractive personality.  My conversation is interesting.  My company is delightful.  I have a strong sex appeal.”  Saliger was convinced of the effectiveness of the Psycho-Phone noting that 50 of his customers reported finding a mate.  He did not say how many of the Mating recordings had been sold.

Saliger ran monthly advertisements in the popular psychology magazines of the late 1920s touting the remarkable benefits of his Psycho-Phone.  Here is another of his ads.

In looking for expert endorsers of his machine, Saliger might have chosen someone other than Dr. Quackenbos, whose name would not conjure up images of a charlatan.

By 1933, Saliger claimed that he had sold more than 2,500 of the Psycho-Phones.  If such a number is even close to being accurate, a number of these devices should still exist today.  But despite our best efforts, we have not been able to find one to add to our collections at the Center.  If you have one of these or know of the location of a Psycho-Phone we would appreciate your contacting the Center at ahap@uakron.edu.  If you would like to donate one to the Center as a charitable gift, it would be most appreciated.

Read Full Post »

The First (Faux) Shock Felt ’round the World

Contributed by Charity Smith

In July 1961, in a basement in New Haven, Connecticut, newly-minted psychologist Stanley Milgram gave the prod for the first (faux) “shock” felt ‘round the world. Milgram, a first-year professor at Yale, set up shop in the University’s Linsly-Chittenden Hall—home to what would become one of the most famed experiments in the history of American psychology.

Like any good social psychologist, Milgram’s interest in the study of obedience was likely influenced by a healthy mix of both the person and the situation. For Milgram, that meant the combination of his academic heritage and events occurring on the world’s stage. Milgram was a student of pioneering personality psychologist, Gordon Allport, before assisting social psychologist Solomon Asch, in studying “group think” and conformity. From 1959-1960, Milgram watched subject after subject forego their own conclusions and conform to majority rule.

As Milgram’s time with Asch was ending, the 1960 trial of Nazi war criminal, Adolf Eichmann, was just beginning. His defense was the same heard at the Nuremberg trials, over a decade earlier: he was just following orders. For Milgram, the case of Eichmann added a layer of moral complexity not found in Asch’s study—one that begged the question: how far will we go to adhere to authority, even when it violates our moral code? Thus, at the intersection of Asch and Eichmann, Milgram’s Obedience to Authority study was born.

In Obedience and Authority, Milgram (1974) wrote: “Could it be that Eichmann, and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” Ostensibly, this frames Milgram’s research questions as centering on the motivation that drove the Nazis to commit the horrific atrocities of WWII—questions that ask about what those people did, why they were driven to savagery. However, the crux of these questions has less to do with them and more to do with us. What Milgram (and the rest of the world) really wanted to know was: Are we really all that different?

As it turns out, we’re not. And, as for the original “how far?” question, the answer is: too far. Using a simulated shock generator—which participants believed would deliver actual current to an unseen person (also simulated) when they flipped the switch—Milgram added an important variable to the study of conformity: human suffering. Of participants, 100% were willing to obey authority, even when doing so meant causing physical harm; 65% were willing to continue to obey, knowing the consequences could be grave.

Fifty-five years later, both psychology and the world-at-large remain fascinated with Stanley Milgram’s study of obedience. In fact, his simulated shock generator is likely our most photographed artifact. In 2009, Dr. Jerry Burger, social psychologist at Santa Clara University, posed essentially the same question as Milgram’s initial query: Are we any different? With findings in-line with those observed in 1961, Burger’s replication of Milgram’s work yielded a succinct answer which, hopefully, gives us all cause for pause: No. No we are not.

 

Read Full Post »