Early Historians of psychology and their texts (1870s-1921)

Paul F. Ballantyne

December, 2002

Ribot, T. (1886). German Psychology Today: The empirical school. (2nd ed.). [J.M. Baldwin, Trans.). New York: Scribners. [Originally published 1879 and translated 1880].

Ribot, T. (1892). English Psychology. (3rd ed.). [J.M. Baldwin, Trans]. New York: Appleton. [Originally published 1870 and translated 1874].

Hall, G.S. (1912). Founders of Modern Psychology. New York: Appleton.

Rand, B. (Ed.). (1912). Classical Psychologists: Selections form Anaxagoras to Wundt. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Baldwin, J.M. (1913). History of Psychology: A sketch. New York: Putnam.

Dessoir, M. (1912). Outlines of the History of Psychology. (Trans. D. Fisher). New York: Macmillan.

Klemm, O. (1914). A History of Psychology. New York: Charles Scribners.

Brett, G.S. (1912-21). A History of Psychology. Vols. 1-3. London: George Allen. (Abridged ed., by Peters, 1953).

Warren, H.C. (1921). A History of the Association Psychology. New York: Scribners.

"In the preceding pages the reader must have been struck by two things--the agreement of the philosophers whom we have passed in review, upon the chief questions of psychology, and their disagreement upon certain secondary points. If, then, laying aside personal opinions and disputed solutions, we bring forward the points on which they are agreed, we shall thus procure a summary of the labours and results of the experimental school of Psychology" (Ribot, 1874, p. 323).

Theodore Ribot (1839-1916)

To give this book a little further context, consider the following points. Ribot's English Psychology predates the first English psychological journal Mind which was established by Alexander Bain in 1876. The book also predates the first encyclopedic article on "psychology" (written by James Ward and published in the 9^th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1886).

Ribot's wider role in establishing the discipline of psychology should also be recognized. For example, he founded a journal called Revue Philosophique in 1876 (the same year as Mind) and he was also the prime organizer of the 1^st International Congress of Physiological Psychology (held in Paris in 1889).

According to Hilgard (1987), Ribot's account of English psychology was widely read in the recently reunited American states (p. 24). Young (1968), however, rightly notes a "limitation" of Ribot's book. It does not make a "serious attempt at analyzing or criticizing" the works it considers.

While Young is technically correct it should be emphasized that such critical analysis often takes the perspective of time to develop. Secondly, any work which reports accurately the current state of affairs during a given period will continue to be useful as a description of that scientific ethos if not a history of psychology per se. Ribot's analytic contribution was one of teasing out the psychological content from the then published philosophical literature and in this effort, he was quite successful.

The other similarly motivated book by Ribot was called Psychologie allemande contemporaine published in English as German Psychology of Today (1880). I just found out about it while reading J.M. Baldwin's autobiographical chapter in the Murchison series and don't know enough about it to make any comment on its content. It is important to note here that Baldwin is the one who translated both works into English for the American audience. Before moving on to Baldwin, however, we will first consider a book by G. Stanley Hall called Founders of Modern Psychology (1912).

The Texts by Hall and Baldwin

What was the context for the texts by Hall and Baldwin? Well, as Michell Ash points out, in the 19^th century American college courses in psychology were often taught by ordained Protestant ministers who emphasized moral philosophy. This was the sort of standard American training which James, Hall, and Baldwin aimed to transform into psychological science by their efforts.

G. Stanley Hall (1844-1944)

Hall received his PhD at Harvard University, 1878 (under W. James and a physiologist by the name of H.P. Bowditch). Baldwin (1861-1934) received his PhD at Princeton University, 1889, in philosophy (under the university president James McCosh). Baldwin reports that it was McCosh's course of readings in Wundt's Physiological Psychology (in German) that put him onto psychology as a profession.

It was this generation of essentially philosophical psychologists who made a point of learning physiological and experimental methods that made it possible for a later American "professional generation" to be trained (this latter group included both R.L. Thorndike and J. Mck. Cattell).

The setting up of laboratories was one means by which the older generation promoted the disciplinization of psychology. Another way was the writing of pedagogically oriented (introductory or history) textbooks. These texts, in turn, set the stage for more detailed textbook "histories of psychology" which came later.

Hall's major works were Adolescence (1904) and Senescence (1922). So his Founders of Modern Psychology (1912) fell chronologically between those two works. Hall had already founded a lab at John Hopkins (1883) and taught there (holding the title of professor of psychology and pedagogics) until 1889 when he became president of Clark University. He remained active in that capacity until 1920 and died in 1924 without being able to present his second APA presidential address.

His Founders text was devoted primarily to an exposition of German experimental psychology, but my impression is that it was not meant as a glorification of that approach. In fact it is Hall's work and lineage that provides a parallel to that of E.B. Titchener; one being an applied lineage, and the other being experimental in the narrow sense.

In the preface Hall outlines his immediate professional connection with many of the figures covered and states his motive for publishing the book as primarily pedagogical. He describes his history text as being "an amplification of six lectures given early in 1912 at Columbia University to an audience composed of student and the wider public" (whatever a wider public meant in 1912). This history was "designed to give… some general idea of the personality, standpoint, and achievements of each of the men described" (p. v). These men include: Eduard Zeller (1814-1908), Rudolph Lotze (1817-1881), Gustoav Fechner (1801-1887), Eduard Hartmann (1832-1842-1906), Hermann Helmholtz (1821-1894), and Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920).

Hall waists no time, however, in describing his own credentials for writing such a book:

"I do not know of any other American student of these subjects who came into even the slight[est] personal contact… with Hartmann and Fechner, nor of any psychologists who had the experience of attempting experimental work with Helmholtz, and I think I was the first American pupil of Wundt" (Hall, 1912, p. v).

The term "attempting experimental work" is of interest here since Hall published no experimental work dating from his time at Wundt's laboratory and his last experimental paper appeared before he left Johns Hopkins (in 1887). Instead, Hall had learned something about the use of questionnaires during his stays in Germany (where it was being used by school and health authorities) and he utilized this techniques as an alternative for gathering empirical data in the lab. Hall's predilection was for "psychology in the large" (Heidbreder, 1933, p. 205) and this certainly showed in his work in developmental psychology.

The device of publishing full-page photographs of the individuals covered in the book was continued shortly after this date in Hall's Journal of American Psychology which began publishing likenesses of many of the preeminent American psychologists beside their obituaries.

James Mark Baldwin (1861-1934)

Baldwin had founded laboratories at the University of Toronto (1890), Princeton University (1893) and in 1903 he reopened the laboratory at Johns Hopkins which had been closed after Hall had taken the equipment with him to Clark University. Baldwin founded the Psychological Review and also made contributions to a collaborative dictionary of philosophy and psychology (1901-02).

Baldwin's two volume "sketch" of a history (1913) was written after he had resigned his professorship at John Hopkins due to some sort of scandal involving a brothel. After leaving Hopkins, Baldwin spent five years in Mexico City where he helped establish the National University of Mexico before moving on to Paris (where he was at the time his historical sketch was published).

The first volume covered the era of Greek thought up to that of Locke. The second volume includes Baldwin's views on Locke, Condillac, Biran, Rousseau, Herbart, Helmholtz, Spencer, James, Fechner, Ribot. Again, there is an effort to provide representations and photographs of the various figures covered. In fact, the picture of Ribot (referred to earlier) came from this source.

The word "sketch" in the title refers to the fact that Baldwin did not consider his book as a complete or even more than partial account. The word "interpretation" refers to the last part of the second volume called a "Genetic Interpretation of the History;" with the final chapter therein being called "Individual and Racial Thought" ('racial' meaning cultural in this context). It is here that Baldwin explicitly summarizes the logical structure of his history.

His two volumes, that is, rely heavily upon a special application of the doctrine of recapitulation. This doctrine, as applied by Baldwin, suggests that: (1) in social evolution we may see a restatement of the great stages of individual development; and that (2) individual thought may show stages which recapitulate those of the social evolution in which it was written up. His recapitulationism, therefore, is a psychologized analytical parallel to the kind of recapitulation recognized by biologists in the physiological analysis of the development of an organism (see Riley, 1914, p. 342).

A critical review of the two volumes by Woodbridge Riley appeared in Psyc Bull the following year. It outlines quite clearly how the volumes are pervaded by Baldwin's logical conceptualization of the recapitulation of thought across history. In particular the reviewer argues against Baldwin's underestimation of the sophistication of Greek thought and suggests instead that "the doctrine of … recapitulation [i.e., of a reoccurring "orbit" or cycle of thought] can find no better illustration than in the Greek thinkers" who "anticipated the path of later speculation" (p. 345). The reviewer goes on to suggest that Baldwin's book "might be called a first reader for students of psychology" which should be supplemented with Max Dessoir's anthology of ancient thinkers. And further, Riley suggests a revised edition to enlarge the chapters dealing with modern trends.

It is important to note here that even though Baldwin was the founding editor of the Psyc Rev (itself the organizational overlord to Psyc Bull) the reviewer (Woodbridge Riley) was free to evaluate the book on both its shortcomings and its merits. This particular case, however, does not stand alone in its contradiction to the claims of Richards (1988) regarding "unquestioned belief in presentist concepts," etc. during these early years of the psychological discipline.

In fact, throughout this period, the reviews of textual publications in psychological history took a front and center space in Psyc Bull. Riley, that is, had an annual series of articles in that journal headlined as "Historical Contributions" which ran between 1911 up to at least 1919. His annual report was located conspicuously at the front of each of these volumes as a special section above and beyond the normal book review section.

To appreciate the strengths of Baldwin's approach, itself, you really have to consider what he was up against; the narrow view of psychological method put forward by E.B. Titchener in particular. Hence Riley's comment that:

"In the recent attempt to divorce philosophy and psychology--which has gone so far in America and is threatened in Germany--it may be well to remember that there is such a thing as the metaphysics of psychology. Now in tracing the speculative connections between different psychological schools…. Baldwin has performed a notable service" (Riley, 1914, p. 344).

Addressing the University Market

The next development in terms of textual production was the publishing of a group of texts designed to serve the new market for courses in American universities. The Ash article mentions that the typical course in history of psychology taught around this time used two sources Klemm's History of Psychology (1914) and Benjamin Rand's anthology of writings called Classical Psychologists: Selections from Anaxagoras to Wundt (1912). These two texts were reviewed in the same articles as those by Brett and Dessoir with the inevitable comparisons being made in terms of their suitability for American classrooms.

Max Dessoir (1867-1947)

The Dessoir text called Outlines of the History of Psychology (1912) was not favored in these reviews. As Weld (1913) pointed out, Dessoir ends off his account with the "third quarter of the last century" (p. 290) whereas Klemm and Rand included "contemporary work" in their texts.

Rand's text was a basic readings anthology including translations of old and more current writings. It was not replaced in its pedagogical use until 1948 when Wayne Dennis came out with a similar volume of updated materials. By then Dessoir was long out of print. Amusingly enough, for us, Weld (1913) actually criticized Rand for overdoing the contemporary content in his anthology:

"It seems hardly necessary to give space in such a book to James Mill, Bain, Spencer, Lotze..., Mach…, James, and the current translations of Wundt: are not these things in every library, at the call of the student?" (Weld, 1913, p. 290).

Similar teaching considerations came into the professional analysis of Brett's (1912) volume 1 which ended too soon (Augustine) to be useful and was reportedly a relatively dry read as compared with Klemm's (1914) history. Brett's later volumes (appearing in 1921) remedied the previous temporal limitation but there were also historiographic issues that come into the fray at this point.

Firstly, in comparison to Baldwin's book which was "confined" by its attempt to demonstrate his "genetic development of theories of mind" (i.e., the various historical and societal views of mind), Klemm's book was a "critical and topical study of the concepts and theories of psychology" (Riley, 1916, p. 1).

Secondly, whereas Brett had claimed that the "business of the historian is to record rather than interpret," Klemm, as one reviewer put it, "has our current psychology always in mind [in his] attempt to trace the genesis of current doctrine" (Weld, 1913, p. 289). Finally, the relative bias toward German literature in Klemm's work did not escape criticism in the American reviews and they suggested other contemporary literature to fill in the gaps (Riley, 1916, p. 2).

My point in mentioning these historiographic reviews is that the distinction between the 'history of the discipline' (including its varying national varieties) and the history of the 'subject matter' was being made at the time (cf. Richards).

Biographical aspects

Reference to biographical accounts of these textbook writers have tended to be very scarce in the previous historiographic reports by Young (1966) or Ash (1983). George Sidney Brett (1879-1944) was educated at Oxford, receiving his M.A. in philosophy in 1902. Of particular interest to us, however, is that Brett taught at the University of Toronto from 1908 onwards (serving as head of the psychology department between 1926-32). For biographical articles on Brett see Irving (1947) or Brown (1947).

There is a translated autobiographical chapter by Otto Gustav Klemm (1884-1934) in the Murchison series (see also Hartmann, 1939). Klemm was a young Privatdozent at Leipzig at the time of publishing his text. In the later Murchison chapter, Klemm mentions his own state of intellectual development at the time:

"One thing is certain: a youthful mind approaches its studies with far more desire for insight into the subject matter than for any critique of existing theories. It is actually obsessed by a thirst for wholeness, and too much critical contemplation serves only to abrogate such a desire. Thus Wundt, the positive man of psychological theories, impressed me far more than Wundt the critic, who repudiated practically all other tendencies in psychology" (Klemm, autobiography, p. 160).

Otto Gustav Klemm (1884-1934)

Clearly what made Klemm's text appealing to the university classroom market was precisely this spirit of wholeness. This was an effort to strike a balance between recognizing the manifestations of both progress in empirical methods and of the existing restrictive assumptions or aspects of the discipline. In particular, Klemm suggests that he was seeking out the "history of psychological theories" as "the surest index to psychological development" (p. 160).

"I organized it as a history of psychological tendencies, psychological basic concepts, and psychological theories. This division was conceived in a perfectly systematic spirit" (Klemm, auto, p. 160).

Max Dessoir (1867-1947) being primarily a philosopher is listed in Paul Edwards' Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967). He earned his PhD in philosophy at the University of Berlin in 1889 under Wilhelm Dilthey and also received an M.D. from the University of Wurzburg in 1892.

Dessoir was interested in both the philosophy of aesthetics and parapsychology. He propounded five primary aesthetic forms; the beautiful, the sublime, the tragic, the ugly and the comic. As for the powers of unconscious speech and writing of mediums, they were merely more extensive cases of a condition at least potentially present in normal persons. I am not sure, however, if these philosophical and parapsychology beliefs were carried over into his Outlines (1912).

The odd man out here in terms of biographical coverage is Benjamin Rand. He was associated with Emerson Hall at Harvard University but that's about all we know. Even after looking in all of the usual places (e.g., Dictionary of National Biography, American Men & Women of Science, International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, National Cyclopedia of American Biography, etc.), I found no dates, no biography and no published photo of this early historian of psychology.

Warren's Text on Associationism

Certainly knowing a little bit about Howard Warren's career makes all the difference in assessing the place of his text in early American historiography of psychology. The best such source is his own chapter in the Murchison series but obituaries were also written (see Woodworth, 1934; Langfeld, 1934, and Fernberger, 1934).

Howard Crosby Warren (1867-1934)

As I noted earlier, Howard C. Warren was APA president in 1913. But he didn't actually receive his PhD until 1917. In 1892, Warren's PhD studies in Germany had been interrupted because he was called back to the U.S. by Baldwin who needed someone to assist in establishing the laboratory at Princeton.

Between teaching, running the Psyc Bull and his other publishing contributions, Warren did not have much time left for writing his history of association psychology text. It was begun, however, in 1903, just around the time when Baldwin abandon Princeton for Johns Hopkins (leaving Warren to head a 15 year battle for supremacy with the philosophical forces at Princeton).

It was not until the academic year of 1916, that Warren was officially registered at Johns Hopkins as a doctoral candidate. He was already a full professor at Princeton, so, instead of attending classes at Hopkins, Warren taught them as part of the requirements for his degree. With the cooperation of J.B. Watson and the Hopkins administration, the first few completed chapters of his eventual History of Association Psychology (1921) doubled as his dissertation.

Warren's book clearly demonstrates how the concept of association changed over time. The part that I have found particularly relevant is contained in the two chapters called: "Evolutionary Association" and "Summary of English Association." This was an era in which the term association was being progressively stretched to cover more and different aspects of psychological discourse and subject matter. Warren carefully traces the expansion of the term from Bain to Spencer and then G.H. Lewes (Warren, 1921, pp. 118-175). When one reads his final product, it is clear that it was many years in the making. The level of detail and expression of finite differences in opinion between the figures covered is unsurpassed up to the present time.

Oddly enough, R.M. Young suggests that Warren only covered the "major works of the major figures" (Young, 1966, p. 22). But this point is true only of the summary chart at the back of the book and is not true at all of the book itself. In fact, Warren provides extensive coverage of classification schemes of figures right up to the early 1900s including Claparede, Bryant, Arnold, and Wreschner. With regard to a lesser work, one might be able to argue that 'it all depends on how one defines major figures' but with regard to Warren's careful analysis, this argument holds no water at all.

The analysis which Warren presents, in itself, is challenging and incredibly complex. The fact that Warren has done such a good job at this task is witnessed by the continued interest in his book shown in the later historical literature (e.g., Hearnshaw, 1964). Hence the great irony of Young's suggestion that Warren makes "no attempt to analyze or criticize the books [he] is considering" (p. 22).

As mentioned previously with regard to Ribot, full-bodied critique of the works under consideration often requires the perspective of time. Warren certainly had lots of time to do so. Secondly, however, and more relevantly in the case of Warren, such critique would require some significant difference in the standpoint of the author from those whom he is analyzing. This is, in fact, not the case with Warren. Indeed, why should he criticize associationism? For as he states outright in his autobiographical account for Murchison, he [and most general psychology at the time] was very much part of that tradition!

"Toward the configuration psychology I have taken a receptive attitude. I can see no real conflict between its standpoint and that of associationism. The notion of Gestalt does not seem essentially different from the conception of qualitative synthesis which I have held for thirty-five years" (Warren, auto, p. 468).

It should be mentioned here, though, that Warren's particular definition of association is a very broad one and is informed by all of its historical nuances. Other folks, later folks, may want to provide a serious critique of association (even broadly defined), but we need not fault a writer for not having transcended the limitations of his own generation to the extent that we would like. On that note, I find that Young was guilty of a little presentism in his specific assessment of both Ribot and Warren. This minor fault, however, pales in comparison to the more problematic recent Neo-Kantian forays of lesser works in the modern historiographic line of inquiry and I applaud Young for his historical realism (a necessary starting-point I believe for all serious efforts to address the issue of historical progress in the discipline).

Conclusion

While Robert Young may have been correct that by 1966 the historical subdiscipline in psychology was still not sufficiently "self-conscious," I have tried to point out that in the early years of psychological historiography (1910-1920s) there was a sophisticated "other-consciousness" which worked via the normal review process in key psychological journals.

An important series of critical reviews of these early texts by figures such as Woodbridge Riley, Harry Porter Weld, and Coleman Griffith served to highlight the progressive aspects and possible disciplinary uses of these texts as counter-arguments to the eras' "reigning paradigmatic ideology" -narrowly defined physiological psychology. In other words, neither these early texts nor the reviews of them were as self-serving or non-reflective as later reviews (by Ash 1983; Smith, 1988) have made them out to be.

This is the reason why Coleman Griffith (1922) in his review of over 100 historical works published between 1916-1921 could say the following:

"We still have, however, no history of psychology. An historical survey which spends four-fifths of its space in getting as far as 1860 is but a prolegomenon to the history of the science. The science needs, however, a general history which will do for the whole science what Warren has done for the Association Psychology" (Griffith, 1922, p. 418).

Colemann R. Griffith (1893-1966)

It is clear that by 1922 the stage was set and the call was out for the production of even more general and detailed histories of psychology. That call was of course eventually picked up by Boring (1929), Murphy (1929), Woodworth (1931), -and to a lesser extent by Flugel (1933) and Heidbreder (1933). These texts in turn were critically reviewed in due course (e.g., see Griffith, 1932 on Murchison's Psychologies of 1930). This later more eclectic period of "history and systems" writing is, however, much better known by contemporary psychologists than those efforts which went before to bring it about (see Hilgard, Leary & McGuire, 1991).

Bibliography:

Ash, M. (1983). Self-presentation of a Discipline. In L. Graham, W. Lepenies, & P. Weingart, (Eds.). Functions and uses of Disciplinary History. Vol. 7, 143-189.

Baldwin, J.M. (Ed.). (1901-1902, 1905). Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology. (Vols. 1-3). New York: Macmillan.

Baldwin, J.M. (1913). History of Psychology: A sketch. New York: Putnam.

Baldwin, James Mark. (1930). Autobiography of James Mark Baldwin. In C. Murchison (Ed.), History of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 1, pp. 1-30). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.

Boring, E.G. (1929). A History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Century. (2^nd. Ed. 1950).

Brett, G.S. (1912-21). A History of Psychology. (Vols. 1-3). London: George Allen. (Abridged ed., by Peters, 1953).

Brown, J. (1946). George Sidney Brett. ISIS, 36, 110-114.

Dennis, W. (1948). Readings in the History of Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Dessoir, M. (1912). Outlines of the History of Psychology. (Trans. D. Fisher). New York: Macmillan.

Farr, R. (1988). The shaping of modern psychology and the framing of historical accounts. History of the Human Sciences, 1, 113-121.

Fernberger, S.W. (1934). Howard Crosby Warren. Psyc Bull., 31, 1-4.

Griffith, C.R. (1921). Some neglected aspects of a history of psychology. Psychological Monographs, 30, 17-29.

Griffith, C.R. (1922). Contributions to the History of Psychology (1916-1921). Psyc Bull., 19, 411-428.

Griffith, C.R. (1932). Review of Psychologies of 1930. Psyc Bull., 29, 401-424.

Flugel, J. (1933). A Hundred Years of Psychology (1833-1933). New York: Macmillan. (2^nd ed., Flugel & West, 1964).

Hall, G.S. (1912). Founders of Modern Psychology. New York: Appleton.

Hearnshaw, L.S. (1964). A Short History of British Psychology. New York: Barnest Noble.

Heidbreder, E. (1933). Seven Psychologies. Toronto: Prentice-Hall.

Hilgard, E. (Ed.). (1978). American Psychology in Historical Perspective. Washington: APA.

Hilgard, E. (1987). Psychology in America. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hilgard, E., Leary, D., & Mcguire, G. (1991). The History Of Psychology: A Survey And Critical Assessment. Annu. Rev. Psyc., 42, 79-107.

Irving, J.A. (1947). George Sidney Brett. Psyc Rev., 54, 52-58.

Klemm, O. (1914). A History of Psychology. New York: Charles Scribners.

Langfeld, H.L. (1934). Howard Crosby Warren. Amer. J. of Psyc., 46, 340-342.

Murchison, C. (Ed.). A history of Psychology in Autobiography. Vols. I-IV. New York: Russell & Russell.

Murphy, G. (1929). Historical Introduction to Modern Psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace. (2^nd. Ed. 1949).

Rand, B. (Ed.). (1912). Classical Psychologists: Selections form Anaxagoras to Wundt. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ribot, T. (1886). German Psychology Today: The empirical school. (2nd ed.). [J.M. Baldwin, Trans.). New York: Scribners. [Originally published 1879 and translated 1880].

Ribot, T. (1892). English Psychology. (3rd ed.). [J.M. Baldwin, Trans]. New York: Appleton. [Originally published 1870 and translated 1874].

Richards, G. (1987). Of what is the history of psychology a history? Brit. J. for the Hist of Sci., 20, 201-211.

Riley, W. (1912). Historical Contributions. Psyc Bull., 9, 10-12.

Riley, W. (1914). Baldwin's History of Psychology. Psyc Bull., 11, 342-347.

Riley, W. (1916). Historical Contributions. Psyc Bull., 13, 1-3.

Smith, R. (1988). Does the history of psychology have a subject? History of the Human Sciences, 1, 147-177.

Urban, W. (1935). James Mark Baldwin. Psyc Rev., 42, 303-306.

Warren, H.C. (1921). A History of the Association Psychology. New York: Scribners.

Weld, H.P. (1913). Review of Klemm, Dessoir, Brett and Rand. Amer. J. of Psyc., 24, 289-290.

Weld, H.P. (1928). Psychology as science, its problems and points of view. New York: H. Holt.

Woodworth, R.S. (1931). Contemporary Schools of Psychology. New York: Ronald Press.

Woodworth, R.S. (1934). Howard Crosby Warren. Psyc Rev., 41, 105-107.

Vande Kemp, H. (November 2001). History of Psychology Texts: Historical Overview.

Young, R.M. (1966). Scholarship and the History of the Behavioral Sciences. History of Science, 5, 1-51.

Young, R.M. (1968). Mind, Brain, and adaptation in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Yaroshevsky, M. (1990). A History of Psychology. Moscow: Progress Publishers.