Early Influences on the Development of Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Early Influences on the Development of Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Industrial and organizational psychology began as applied psychology. Hugo Münsterberg was well-known for his applications of psychology to forensics, psychotherapy, and industrial efficiency. James McKeen Cattell pioneered mental testing and argued for an applicable, if not applied, psychology. Walter Dill Scott and Walter VanDyke Bingham were devoted to the application of psychological principles to the problems of government and industry. The lives and accomplishments of these four figures are detailed as a way of examining the development of the subdiscipline between the years eighteen eighty and nineteen twenty. The focus of the discussion is on how their efforts peculiarly changed the science and practice of industrial and organizational psychology. Each made a unique contribution in a unique time period. The field continues to benefit from their individual and collective influence.

The subdiscipline of industrial and organizational psychology is almost as old as the parent discipline, psychology. Psychology had its start in the rooms of William James at Harvard and in the laboratory of Wilhelm Wundt in Leipzig, Germany, in the late eighteen seventies. The first American journal devoted to psychology did not appear until eighteen ninety-two, the same year the American Psychological Association was formed. The first text applying psychological principles to problems of business and commerce appeared in nineteen oh three, and the first text in industrial psychology appeared in nineteen ten. Thus, it would appear that industrial and organizational psychology existed at the beginning. In fact, the core of psychology was experimental psychology, and all other "specialties" or subdisciplines were extensions or outgrowths of those first basic principles.

This article covers the period from eighteen seventy-six through World War One. In an attempt to present a coherent description of those early years, consideration is limited to the contributions of four leading figures in the early days of industrial and organizational psychology: Hugo Münsterberg, James McKeen Cattell, Walter Dill Scott, and Walter VanDyke Bingham. In his own way, each contributed significantly, but uniquely, to the development of the field. It was through their efforts that other names began to emerge during that period, including Harold Burtt, E. K. Strong, Donald Paterson, and Bruce V. Moore. Although others began to contribute to the growing body of industrial and organizational knowledge by the end of World War One, the tone and structure of the field had been developed by these four men. As a result, by concentrating on them, we have a rather complete view of the early days of the field.

One might reasonably ask why is the consideration limited to only American (although Münsterberg was adamant about being seen as a German American) psychologists? Industrial and organizational psychology was peculiarly American at its inception. That is not to say that psychologists in other countries were irrelevant. In fact, there was substantial interaction between American and non-American applied psychologists both before and after World War One. But certainly during the period from eighteen ninety-five to nineteen twenty, special attention was being paid to American scientists and practitioners. This was understandable because America had spawned alternatives to the rather formal and restrained European structuralist paradigm. These alternatives were differential psychology and functionalism. Both of these influences, individual differences and functionalism, are cornerstones of industrial and organizational psychology, so it is not surprising that the subdiscipline arose in America rather than in Europe. Thus, for all practical purposes, industrial and organizational psychology was peculiarly American during the period in question.

Finally, consideration is limited to industrial and organizational psychology rather than to the broader topic of applied psychology. The emergence of the broader arena of applied psychology has been addressed by others in substantial detail, and although there may be some disagreement regarding the founders of applied psychology, there is less disagreement about the earliest industrial and organizational psychologists.

In keeping with a goal of making this early history both coherent and interesting, I have kept references to a minimum. Other sources provide substantial detail and documentation for the material presented here. Rather than simply reproduce those early treatments, I have extended those earlier discussions to include new material and inferences. Many of these extensions are deconstructionist in temper, but I believe that they are reasonable expansions and not at odds with earlier work. Those interested in the details and primary sources might examine a recent treatment of Münsterberg and a recent chapter on the early influences in the development of industrial and organizational psychology, as well as smaller pieces that have appeared in The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist over the past decade.

An Overview

In eighteen seventy-nine, Wilhelm Wundt formed a new discipline from an older one: Philosophy gave way to psychology. The transformation had been a long and careful one and was almost inevitable because philosophy alone could not handle the mind-body debate. In addition, philosophy was increasingly influenced by the writings of the positivists and empiricists. By eighteen seventy-nine, the time had come to create more room and new tools for the debate, and as a result, the discipline of psychology emerged. The discipline appeared almost simultaneously in both Europe, in the laboratory of Wundt, and America, in the experimental rooms of William James at Harvard. This might have been expected, because both James and Wundt were both philosophers and physicians. Both were fascinated by the interplay of the mind and the body, and both were familiar with the same philosophical writings.

There was an interesting symbiosis between the two initiatives. Because the German branch of the discipline developed relatively quickly, with specific methods and instrumentation, budding psychologists truly interested in learning about the new discipline would spend one or more years with Wundt learning technique. After such an internship, they would then return to their home country and either teach what they had learned or use that foundation to develop a paradigm of their own. Three of the four persons we consider (Münsterberg, Cattell, and Scott) did much more than serve an internship. They spent extended periods of time working under Wundt and completed a dissertation under his direction. The fourth of our figures of interest, Bingham, began his graduate career when American universities were fully established with well-developed psychology programs. As a result, it was not necessary for Bingham to travel abroad to receive his training. In some senses, Germany was to developing psychologists what France was to developing painters. Painters from all over the world converged on France in the latter part of the nineteenth century and used impressionism as a foundation for developing individual styles and schools of painting. Psychologists went to Germany to learn structuralism and would use that knowledge base as a point of departure for developing new paradigms.

There was some tension between Wundt and his American colleagues, however. Wundt and his associates intended to build the new science of psychology on a protocol intended to identify the underlying elements or building blocks of behavior, a protocol he called structuralism. In forming this new science, Wundt believed that its legitimacy would be furthered by developing general laws of behavior rather than a multiplicity of principles, theories, and exceptions. Such an approach was compatible with the existing natural and physical sciences. As a result, he tended to diminish the fact and the importance of individual differences. There would be time for exceptions and modifications later. At its inception, psychology needed to appear as much like existing sciences as possible. This desire to conform to "normal science" also explains, to some extent, the devotion to the brass instruments of the early experimental laboratories. Wundt and his colleagues developed very precise devices for measuring reaction time, the loudness of noises, the brilliance of colors, the variety of smells, and the intensity of pressure applied to various portions of the body. They concentrated on understanding how sensation became perception. Chemists, biologists, and physiologists would be more accepting of a science based on the observable measurements taken to the second decimal place using scientific-looking devices. These precise brass instruments might have also served to make the technique of introspection, a defining parameter of the new experimental psychology, less objectionable.

In contrast, William James and his colleagues had a different foundation and protocol in mind. They believed that the solution to the riddle of behavior could be found in understanding the function of behavior and articulated the precepts of functionalism or pragmatism. They had less interest in brass instruments and the method of introspection and greater interest in individual differences and teleology. They were not so radical as to cast out the instruments of the structuralist laboratory, but they were inclined less to use those instruments to study themselves, as did the structuralists through introspection, and more to study variations in "subjects" as a way of mapping the mind. James had never studied with or under Wundt. In fact, James was largely intolerant of the constraints of German experimental psychology and expended considerable effort to develop a paradigm that was different from structuralism.

Even though three of the four leading figures in the formation of I/O psychology -Münsterberg, Cattell, and

Scott-had studied with Wundt, each departed significantly from the structuralist paradigm. Münsterberg and Cattell acknowledged the importance of individual differences early in their graduate training and developed research programs around differential phenomena and the functionalist paradigm. Scott also acknowledged the importance of individual differences and incorporated this interest into the study of persuasion and eventually motivation. But in each of the three cases, there appears to be an external event or force that strengthened this move away from structuralism. Cattell encountered Sir Francis Galton and was greatly influenced by Galton's attempts to verify the evolutionary principles of his cousin, Charles Darwin. Münsterberg appears to have simply given up his efforts at classic experimentation and theory building because of a lack of acceptance by his American colleagues at Harvard. Instead, he turned his creative efforts toward application. Walter Dill Scott seemed destined to become an academic who would train others in the new discipline of psychology until he was asked to apply these new principles to advertising. Each had an encounter that changed the direction of their lives. The fourth leading figure, Bingham, also experienced an event that changed the course of his professional life. Shortly after Münsterberg underwent his applied transformation, Bingham spent a year at Harvard, initially to study philosophy but, instead, to become one of the first converts of Münsterberg to application. By the time Bingham had received his doctor of philosophy degree from the University of Chicago in nineteen oh eight, he was already in the third generation of I/O psychology. Münsterberg, Cattell, and Scott were already well established in the new science. Nevertheless, Bingham was a product of the foremost functionalist training program in existence and had spent time at Harvard, receiving the influence of both William James and Hugo Münsterberg.

From nineteen oh eight until nineteen fifteen, these four emerging I/O psychologists worked relatively independently. They were certainly well known to each other and, on the occasion of a conference or a university visit, would talk with each other about various developments in the field. Their correspondence files document a keen interest in the work of their fellow practitioners. But they did not collaborate with each other in any palpable way. Geography may have played a role: Münsterberg was in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Cattell in New York City, Bingham at Dartmouth, New Hampshire, and Scott in Evanston, Illinois. But more significantly, each had the temperament of a lone wolf -a single contributor.

By nineteen fifteen, the four leading figures in I/O psychology were well established with national reputations, the respect of their colleagues, and a bright future. Although they did not collaborate with each other on theory building, research, practice, or writing, they did share an appreciation for the two primary building blocks of this new science: individual differences and the functionalist perspective. World War I presented a dramatic opportunity to collaborate in further establishing the foundation of this new science, but two of the four would not participate in the war effort. Cattell was an isolationist-pacifist and would have nothing to do with applying the new science to the art and practice of war, and Münsterberg died on the eve of America's involvement in the "great war," and, thus, played no role in this grand experiment. It was left to Scott and Bingham to demonstrate what I/O psychology could accomplish in the "real world." Before we consider the role of WWI in the development of I/O psychology, it is best to consider, one at a time, the individuals who had brought the field to this point.