British Psychology

Born in Shrewsbury, England, Charles Darwin was the 4th of five children of an upper middle class family. His mother (who died when he was 8) was from a family renown for making chinaware (Wedgewood). His father was a physician and wanted Charles to follow in the family business but had little faith in his son’s ultimate success.

Although Darwin attended medical school at the University of Edinburgh, he was not a good student and found operations without anesthesia (which hadn’t yet been discovered) was gruesome. Switching from medicine to the clergy, Darwin transferred to Cambridge, where he spent more time drinking and singing than studying.

In 1831, he graduated from Cambridge but wanted to avoid taking his clergy vows. So at the suggestion of a botanist he met at school, Darwin signed on the HMS Beagle for a 5 year exploration of South American, Tahiti, New Zealand and Australia. Although he was paying his own way, Darwin almost never got to take the trip. The ship’s young skipper, Captain Robert Fitz-Roy, was a phrenologist who (based on the shape of the nose) believed that Darwin was too lazy to be the ship’s naturalist. Despite the captain’s reluctance, Charles was onboard two days after Christmas, 1831, when the Beagle set sail for South America.

Although Darwin collected samples and took notes, he did not immediately write his theory upon his return to England in October of 1836. He had acquired the data but needed an overarching principle to tie his observation together. Darwin found what he needed the following year in an article by Thomas Malthus. An economist, Malthus reasoned that the struggle to succeed in business is the result of resource scarcity. Darwin applied the concept to plants, which grow very rapidly and would overwhelm the Earth if it weren’t for shortages of food, space and other resources. Only the fittest of the offspring survive.

Darwin combined the idea of struggling for survival with Charles Lyell’s dynamic view of the Earth. According to Lyell, the planet is not static but is still in flux. Darwin proposed that the same process of equilibrium is the result of natural forces. Species change by natural selection. Changes in the environment impose circumstances that are conducive for some offspring and unsympathetic for others. Looking over time, changes in species reflect the adaptation needed for the species to survive.

For Darwin, evolution is not a directional or a thoughtful process, it happens as a natural consequence of changes in the environment. Fitness is a function of individual differences and how well they match environmental demands. Changes in a species from one generation to the next are due to the species’ ability to adapt to the environment.

Before Darwin, the world was thought of a series of catastrophes. The last great catastrophic event (Noah’s flood) had wiped out all animals except those on the ark. Darwin’s speculation that related organisms come from common ancestors brought into question the immutability of species and, by extension, the special creation of humans. Darwin’s theory of evolution also replaced Lamarck’s contention that the effects of practice could be seen in one’s offspring. Lamarck’s belief in spontaneous generation was also called into question.

Darwin didn’t invent the concept of evolution. Lamarck and others, including St. Augustine, Sir Walter Raleigh, and Darwin’s grandfather, had alluded to the idea. Darwin brought a tremendous amount of observational data and presented it at time when people were ready to seriously consider the premise. In addition to good data and good timing, Darwin provided an overall rationale for evolution. He noted that diversity helps a species survive. If all members of a species are exactly the same, changes in environment could wipe out the entire species. But with diversity there is a likelihood that some members of the species will be able to function under the new conditions.

In 1839, Darwin married Emma Wedgewood, his first cousin. Darwin’s health was failing and the couple soon moved to Kent (a few miles outside of London) in hopes of improving his condition. Unfortunately, by the time he was forty Darwin was virtually an invalid. Although he still traveled to scientific meetings, Darwin often worked alone at home, surrounded by his 10 children.

In 1842, Darwin wrote a short sketch of his evolution theory and shared it with his friends. In 1844, a longer, unpublished version was created. Then, twenty years after he returned from his trip, Darwin began what he anticipated to be a multi-volume series on the subject of evolution. He was still working on it when the naturalist Alfred Wallace almost stole his thunder in 1858. Wallace sent a copy of an article he had prepared that described a theory of evolution virtually identical to Darwin’s. Together, Darwin and Wallace each presented their papers to the Linnean Society on the same day. The following year, Darwin published his now famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

Although Darwin rarely defended his theory, Thomas Huxley was less constrained. As the primary defender of evolution, Huxley not only argued the merits of the theory but also its implications. Evolution was not merely an unimpassioned collection of data. It was a challenge to the uniqueness of man and the nature of divine intervention.

In contrast to the view of his day, Francis Galton believed that intelligence was inherited. Although most people thought everyone had the same amount of intelligence but that they differed in will and effort, Galton contended that heredity not only played a large role in determining intelligence, it held the primary role.

In his book (Hereditary Genius, 1869), Galton attempted to show that greatness (in law, medicine, etc.) was a function of family heredity, not environment. It was survival of the intellectually fittest. He believed that a highly intelligent race of people could be established if individuals didn’t select their own mates. Galton wasn’t favoring the old fashioned idea of parents selecting mates for their children; he was promoted the value of science as a matchmaker. Couples should be selected scientifically. The government should pay for the marriages of “desirable” matches and for the education of their offspring. He coined this plan for selective breeding “eugenics.”

Ironically, Galton didn’t need create an aristocracy of intelligence, wealth and influence, he was already part of it. Born in Birmingham, England, his father was a banker, his mother the half-sister to Robert Darwin (Charles Darwin’s father). His family wanted him (the youngest of 7) to become a doctor but Galton wanted adventure. He did attend medical school but took time off to travel through Austria, Turkey and Greece. When he father died, Galton inherited enough money to be financially independent and set off for a two year expedition through Africa.

It was in Africa that Galton mapped uncharted lands, learned survival skills, and came to the conclusion that the native population was not capable of acting “civilized.” He didn’t blame their poverty or lack of education; they had inherited survival and hunting abilities, not cultural and intellectual abilities. Unfortunately, the arrogance of his racist views were an expression of the culture of the time, not an isolated opinion of one person. Although his views are abhorrent, Galton reminds us that the misapplication of science to prove preconceived notions remains a danger today.

Although Galton’s conclusions have been rejected, his contributions to methodology are remarkable. It was Galton who devised the first weather charts and the use of “high”, “low” and “front.” He pioneered the use survey questionnaires, fingerprints for identification, the study of twins and word association. He also developed scatterplots and the “co-relation” (correlation), and discovered “regression toward the mean.”

Galton developed a number of tests to measure intellectual giftedness. For him, intelligence was a single factor that could be measured by sensory capacities (allowing the best adaptation to the environment). Intelligence would be evident in any task, so Galton put together a collection of disparate tasks, including standing height, sitting height, weight, arm span and strength (pulling, squeezing, etc.). In 1884, Galton had a booth at London’s International Health Exhibition where he measured nearly 10,000 people. Later, at his lab in the South Kensington Museum, people paid to have their reflexes tested and reaction time recorded (return customers received a discount). To analyze his large collection of data, Galton created methods to rank order, group and graph his findings. His findings (e.g., that arm length and leg length are correlated) are less important than his emaphsis on quantification and the analytical methods he developed.

Morgan took sort of a semi-experimental approach but is best known for his “cannon.” Morgan’s cannonis that higher level inferences should not be made if a lower level inference can explain the behavior. That is, scientific explanations should use the difficult explanations only when needed.

Best known for the Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease, Howard Tooth was an English neurologist. He did his undergraduate work at Cambridge, and received his medical training at St Bartholomew’s Hospital. Much of his work was in military hospitals, rising to the rank of colonel, and serving in London, Malta, South Africa,

Best known for his work on the psychology of economics, politics and law, Wallas advocated for a revision of classical logic. He maintained that people are often irrational. Nearly a hundred years later, Tversky & Kahneman experimentally show that human irrationality is predictable, and introduced the discipline of behavioral economics.

Born in Chichester, England (with a well known family name and no money), Edward B. Titchener attended college (Malvern College and then Oxford) on scholarships. He studied in Wundt’s lab, then moved to Cornell where he stayed for the rest of his life.

Titchener translated Wundt’s work into English, and in the process stripped it of all but its elementalism. Titchener reinterpreted Wundt as being interested only in the structure of the mind, and in how elements are combined together. Under Titchener, structuralism became a major school of thought in psychology.

Titchener proposed that there are 3 elements of consciousness: sensations, images and affections. He rejected Wundt’s tridimensional theory of emotion in favor of a single dimension of pleasure-unpleasure.

For Titchener, the basic elements of experience included quality (its distinguishing characteristics), intensity (amount), and duration (length of sensation). In addition, he held that a sensation could be judged on its clearness. Titchener proposed that there are 3 general stages of attention: involuntary (e.g., sudden noise), secondary (direct, voluntary attention to an object), and derived (i.e., a habit is formed by the repetition of a stimulus).

 

Born in Lancashire, England, William McDougall was a major opponent of Watson’s behaviorism. Trained as a medical doctor, his interest in psychology was sparked by William James.

McDougall’s basically animistic philosophy (there is a bit of soul in everything) was in stark contrast to Watson’s mechanistic approach. According to McDougall, behavior is not simply a response to a stimuli but is goal seeking and purposive. Calling his approach “hormic psychology,” McDougall viewed behavior as being spontaneous, persistent, and goal directed.

McDougall opposed the use of introspection for studying mental processes. He held that behavior is instinctive and composed of cognitive, conative, and affective aspects. Cognition includes the perception and recognition of a stimulus. The predisposition to goal seeking action is the conative process. The affective aspect of behavior is what occurs between cognition and goal attainment. It is the “emotional core” of the individual.

For McDougall, a person’s emotional core was stable and unimpacted by learning. Learning can change perception (i.e., different stimuli can be used) and/or it can change action (i.e., improved performance) but a person’s emotional core remains untouched.

If McDougall’s emphasis on action as a discharge of energy is reminiscent of Jung, perhaps it reflects the fact that McDougall was personally psychoanalyzed by Jung. In any event, McDougall lists of basic instincts (which varied over time) included: hunger, curiosity, escape, self-assertion and sex. Later, McDougall differentiated between seven basic instincts (e.g., rejection, curiosity, escape, etc.) and their corresponding “emotional cores” (e.g., disgust, wonder, fear, etc.). Still later, the list was expanded to include 17 instincts.

Behavior was the result of individual and groups of instincts. If two or more instincts become attached to the same object, the tendency toward action is called a “sentiment.”

McDougall proposed that group behavior also was the result of instinctive behavior. Socialization is not a single instinct but is composed of instinct combinations. According to McDougall, emotions become stronger in groups. Coining the term “group mind,” McDougall applied his model of individual motivation to group process. Group action and emotion are essentially the same as for individuals but more intense.

1882–1960, Melanie Klein

Melanie Klein (1892-1960) was one of the founders of object relations theory. Although she believed aggression is an important and common force in children, Klein modified Freud’s drive theory. She maintained that drives are psychological forces (not biological) that seek people as their objects. That is, we are driven to interact with people, and to use those interactions to fulfill our needs.

According to this view, children construct an internal representation of people. These representations are rough estimates of reality. A young child doesn’t have to capacity to understand complex relationships, so they create simple images of the people in their world. Then, they apply these rules to real people (she’s like Mom; he’s like Uncle Fred).

This approach works well when you’re young but these early stereotypes make it hard to relate to people as they actually are. Because of these images, children are slow development realistic relationships with the world. They find it difficult to give up their unconscious fantasies; they prefer the fantasy that Mom is all good and Dad is a superhero. The truth is more difficult to accept. It’s harder to understand that Mom is good and sometimes mean, or that Dad can be dependable and strong yet not able to jump over tall buildings in a single bound.

Klein also believed that the superego developed before the Oedipal complex. Consequently, even young children can experience guilt, shame and complex emotions. To avoid the anxiety over mixed feelings (or aggressive impulses), children learn to separate their emotions from the target person (object). Objects tend to be good and feelings bad. This disconnect causes problems in later life.

In addition to traditional techniques (free association, analysis of defenses, etc.), she introduced innovative therapeutic interventions that are now considered standard practices. For example, Klein was the first to use play therapy. She had children play with toys, and used those sessions to get a better understanding of their drives and emotions.

Klein was strongly opinionated and a forceful advocate for her point of view. She was part of an on-going battle of words that threatened to destroy the British Psychoanalytical Society. Some of the conflict was over how to discover and interpret a child’s ego defenses. But much of the drama was not about the use of fantasy, projection and regression. It was a battle of personalities. It was the battle of giants: Melanie Klein vs. Anna Freud.

In this corner, was Melanie Klein: the first to apply psychoanalysis to children (beating out Anna Freud by four years). Klein was a radical, daring to challenge the ideas of Sigmund Freud. And in this corner, there was Anna Freud: youngest daughter of Sigmund Freud and heir to the Freud legacy and upholder of classical psychoanalysis. Joining Anna Freud group was Melitta Schmideberg, Melanie Klein’s daughter (with whom she never reconciled).

Each camp offered a training program, and held that their approach alone should be the official training program of the organization. More than that, each wanted the other expelled from the society.

The winner? Actually, the winner was a third group: the independents, whose primary concern was compromise. In the end, the Society did what all organization do: they solved the issue politically. Each side was asked to make formal presentations of their theories. A panel listened to all concerned and decided the Society would offer both training programs. A simple solution that only took 5 years to reach

Russian Psychology

Want to jump ahead?

• Philosophical Roots of Psychology 
• Waves & Schools of Psychology
• Old Philosophers, New Ideas
• Hobbes, Galileo & Descartes
• Experimental Physiology
• American Psychology
• Japanese Psychology
• German Psychology
• Russian Psychology
• Five Paths To Truth
• Birth of Psychology
• British Empiricism
• British Psychology
• French Psychology
• Wundt

 

Resources

Photo by Heidi Fin on Unsplash