Abstract
In the history of Psychology, women and the Rorschach ink blot test have had some surprising commonalities; both have been constructed as unscientific, emotional, and invalid. In this chapter we explore the history of women’s involvement with the Rorschach, and demonstrate how the conceptualization of legitimate science has negated women’s contributions in revealing ways. In particular, we will correspond this history with the related trajectory of the use of statistics in Psychology and examine key moments within this history where women in Psychology, the Rorschach, and statistics, have come into contact. In doing so we distinguish between Psychology the discipline and psychology the subject matter (see Richards, 2002), but play with this distinction by making the discipline itself the subject matter under examination. By historically contextualizing Psychology and considering the feminist ramifications of its history, it is possible to shine a light on how Psychology has constructed itself as a legitimate science. Our goal is not to locate legitimacy and subjectivity, since these concepts can be applied to all parts of psychological history and science. Instead, by utilizing a Science and Technology Studies perspective we are able to examine how attributions of subjectivity are strategically applied to de/legitimize certain people and certain knowledge. Entrenched within such explorations of gender, scientific legitimacy, and construction of knowledge, is power. Therefore, this chapter will provide a short analysis of the power dynamics at play within these histories and highlight the historically gendered nature of prestige within Psychology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See http://www.feministvoices.com/ a project which provides first-hand accounts of feminist psychologists and highlights women’s contributions to Psychology’s past and recognizes the voices of contemporary feminist psychologists.
References
Amâncio, L., & Oliveira, J. M. (2006). IV. Men as individuals, women as a sexed category: Implications of symbolic asymmetry for feminist practice and feminist psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 16(1), 35–43.
American Psychological Association. (2000). Women in academe: Two steps forward, one step back. Washington, DC: APA.
Bernstein, M. D., & Russo, N. F. (1974). The history of psychology revisited: Or, up with our foremothers. American Psychologist,29(2), 130.
Bohan, J. S. (1990). Contextual history. A framework of re-placing women in the history of psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14 (2), 213–227.
Brunner, J. (2001). “Oh those crazy cards again”: A history of the debate on the Nazi Rorschachs, 1946–2001. Political Psychology,22(2), 233–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00237.
Buchanan, R. D. (1997). Ink blots or profile plots: The Rorschach versus the MMPI as the right tool for a science-based profession. Science, Technology and Human Values,22(2), 168–206.
Buchanan, R. D. (2010). Playing with fire: The controversial career of Hans J. Eysenck. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burfoot, A. (2016). First ladies of running. New York: Rodale.
Buros, O. K. E. (Ed.). (1959). The fifth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Causadias, J. M., Vitriol, J. A., & Atkin, A. L. (2018). Do we overemphasize the role of culture in the behavior of racial/ethnic minorities? Evidence of a cultural (mis) attribution bias in American psychology. American Psychologist,73, 243–255.
Cronbach, L., & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin,52(4), 281–302.
Fancher, R. E., & Rutherford, A. (2012). Pioneers of psychology. New York: W. W. Norton.
Furumoto, L. (2003). Beyond great men and great ideas: History of psychology in sociocultural context. In Teaching gender and multicultural awareness: Resources for the psychology classroom (pp. 113–124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Furumoto, L., & Scarborough, E. (1986). Placing woman in history of psychology: The first American women psychologists. American Psychologist,41, 35–42.
Grob, G. N. (1991). Origins of DSM-I: A study in appearance and reality. American Journal of Psychiatry,148(4), 421–431.
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,26(2), 309–320.
Gasser, C. E., & Shaffer, K. S. (2014). Career development of women in academia: Traversing the leaky pipeline. Professional Counselor,4(4), 332–352.
Guthrie, R. V. (1990). Mamie Phipps Clark (1917–1983). In A. N. O’Connell & N. F. Russo (Eds.), Women in psychology: A bio-bibliographic sourcebook (pp. 66–74). New York: Greenwood Press.
Hall, J. (2007). The emergence of clinical psychology in Britain from 1943 to 1958, Part II: Practice and research traditions. History and Philosophy of Psychology, 9(2), 1–33.
Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies,14(3), 575–599.
Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. London: Cornell University Press.
Harding, S. (1992). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity?” The Centennial Review,36(3), 437–470.
Hegarty, P. (2003a). Homosexual signs and heterosexual silences: Rorschach research on male homosexuality from 1921 to 1969. Journal of the History of Sexuality,12(3), 400–423.
Hegarty, P. (2003b). Contingent differences: A historical note on Evelyn Hooker’s uses of significance testing. Lesbian and Gay Review,4(1), 3–7.
Hegarty, P. (2007). Getting dirty: Psychology’s history of power. History of Psychology,10(2), 75–91.
Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques,21(1), 18–31.
Hubbard, K. (2017). Treading on delicate ground: Comparing the lesbian and gay affirmative Rorschach research of June Hopkins and Evelyn Hooker. Psychology of Women Section Review,19(1), 3–9.
Hubbard, K. (2018). Queer signs: The women of the British projective test movement. Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences,53(2), 265–285.
Hubbard, K., & Hare, D. (2015). Psychologists as testers. In J. Hall, D. Pilgrim, & G. Turpin (Eds.), Clinical psychology in Britain: Historical perspectives. History of Psychology Centre Monograph No. 2. British Psychology Society. Leicester: Blackwell.
Hubbard, K., & Hegarty, P. (2016). Blots and all: A history of the Rorschach ink blot test in Britain. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences,52(2), 146–166.
Hyde, J. (1990). Meta-analysis and the psychology of gender differences. Signs,16(1), 55–73.
Lemov, R. (2011). X-rays of inner worlds: The mid-twentieth-century American projective test movement. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences,47(3), 251–278.
Lewis, A. J. (1934). Melancholia: A clinical survey of depressive states. The British Journal of Psychiatry,80, 277–378.
Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., & Martin, R. C. (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology,94(6), 1591–1599.
McCarthy Woods, J. (2008). The history of the Rorschach in the United Kingdom. Rorschachiana: Journal of the International Society for the Rorschach, 29(1), 64–80.
Mignolo, W. D. (2011). The darker side of western modernity: Global futures, decolonial options. London: Duke University Press.
Milar, K. S. (2000). The first generation of women psychologists and the psychology of women. American Psychologist,55(6), 616–619.
Minton, H. L. (2002). Departing from deviance: A history of homosexual rights and emancipatory science in America. London: University of Chicago Press.
Mohanty, C. T. (2003). Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practices solidarity. Durham: Duke University Press.
Morawski, J. G., & Agronick, G. (1991). A restive legacy: The history of feminist work in experimental and cognitive psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly,15(4), 567–579.
Rees, T. (2011). The gendered construction of scientific excellence. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews,36(2), 133–145.
Richards, G. (2002). Putting psychology in its place: A critical historical overview. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Rorschach, H. (1921). Psychodiagnostics: A diagnostic test based on perception (P. Lemkau & B. Kronenberg, Trans.). New York: Grune & Stratton.
Rovenpor, D. R., & Gonzales, J. E. (2015, January). Replicability in psychological science: Challenges, opportunities, and how to stay up-to-date. Psychological Science Agenda, 29(1). Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/01/replicability.aspx.
Rutherford, A., Vaughn-Blount, K., & Ball, L. C. (2010). Responsible opposition, disruptive voices: Science, social change, and the history of feminist psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly,34(4), 460–473.
Rutherford, A., Vaughn-Johnson, E., & Rodkey, E. (2015). Does Psychology have a gender? The Psychologist,28(6), 508–510.
Scarborough, E., & Furumoto, L. (1989). Untold lives: The first generation of American women psychologists. New York: Columbia University Press.
Shields, S. A. (2007). Passionate men, emotional women: Psychology constructs gender difference in the late 19th century. History of Psychology,10(2), 92–110.
Spears, R., & Smith, H. J. (2001). Experiments as politics. Political Psychology,22(2), 309–330.
Stevens, G., & Gardner, S. (1982). The women of psychology. Cambridge, USA: Schenkman Publishing.
Tyler, B., & Miller, K. (1986). The use of tests by psychologists: Report on a survey of BPS members. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society,39, 405–410.
Valentine, E. R. (2008). To care or to understand? Women members of the British Psychological Society 1901–1918. History and Philosophy of Psychology,10(1), 54–65.
Valentine, E. R. (2010). Women in early 20th-century experimental psychology. The Psychologist,23(12), 972–974.
Wheeler, W. M. (1949). An analysis of Rorschach indices of male homosexuality. Rorschach Research Exchange and Journal of Projective Techniques,13(2), 97–126.
Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2013). Representing our own experience: Issues in “insider” research. Psychology of Women Quarterly,37(2), 251–255.
Wylie, A. (2004) Why standpoint matters. In S. G. Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 339–352). Hove: Psychology Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hubbard, K., Bharj, N. (2019). A Gendered Prestige: The Powers at Play When Doing Psychology with Ink Blots/Statistics. In: O’Doherty, K.C., Osbeck, L.M., Schraube, E., Yen, J. (eds) Psychological Studies of Science and Technology. Palgrave Studies in the Theory and History of Psychology. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25308-0_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25308-0_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25307-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25308-0
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)