History of women and minorities

Can someone help me? 

The First Generation of Women Psychologists
and the Psychology of Women

Katharine S. Milar
Earlham College

A t the end o f the 19th centu~, psychology was among the
most hospitable o f the sciences in admitting women to its
ranks. Among this so-called first generation o f women
psychologists were a number o f individuals who aggres-
sively challenged the prevailing stereotypes concerning the
psychological characteristics o f women and men. Further,
many o f these women actively promoted equal educational
and professional opportunities f o r women.

B etween the beginning and the end of the 19th century, enormous gains were made in the educa- tion of women. Under the leadership of pioneers
such as Emma Willard and Mary Lyon, first a rigorous
secondary education and then a collegiate-level education
became available to women. With the founding of Vassar
College in 1865, full four-year collegiate education for
women was finally accomplished more than 200 years after
both Harvard University and the College of William and
Mary had begun offering college degrees to men (Rossiter,
1982; Solomon, 1985). Although the justification for the
higher education of women was embedded in the notion of
republican motherhood–that is, better educated women
would be better wives and mothers and raise better sons for
the republic–the women who pursued this new college
education had other ideas, and, as graduate education began
to become available, many of them began very quickly to
aspire to advanced degrees (Rossiter, 1982).

At about the same time these major advances in wom-
en’s education were occurring, psychology was becoming
established as an academic discipline. Recruiting and train-
ing more psychologists was an important part of establish-
ing the academic credentials of the new science. Between
1892 and 1904, over 100 psychology doctorates were
awarded, and for the five-year period between 1898 and
1903, psychology ranked fourth among the sciences in
doctorate production (Camfield, 1973; Napoli, 1981).
Some of these new doctors of philosophy were women; in
fact, psychology was among the most hospitable of the
sciences in opening graduate study to women (Rossiter,
1982). Elizabeth Scarborough and Laurel Furumoto (1987)
have suggested that the admission of women to graduate
programs in psychology was an advantage for the disci-
pline because women could “swell the numbers and gen-
erate studies that would establish the legitimacy of the new
science” (p. 136). The picture was not entirely rosy: A
number of women who pursued graduate study in psychol-

ogy were not awarded the degree, among them Mary Whi-
ton Calkins and Lillien Jane Martin. However, women with
and without the formal doctoral degree were nevertheless
admitted to the professional ranks through election to mem-
bership in the American Psychological Association (APA).
Eight women were elected by 1900; the first to be elected
were Calkins and Christine Ladd-Franklin in 1893, the year
alter the founding of the association (Scarborough, 1992).

Furumoto and Scarborough have sketched the collec-
tive portrait of this “first generation” of American women
psychologists (Furumoto & Scarborough, 1986; Scarbor-
ough & Furumoto, 1987). They identified 25 women who
had entered the field by 1906, as evidenced either through
their listing as psychologists in the first edition of American
Men o f Science (Cattell, 1906) or through their election to
membership in APA. Because the collective biography and
a number of beautifully detailed individual sketches of
these women have been provided by these authors (e.g.,
Furumoto, 1980, 1992; Goodman, 1980), to avoid repeti-
tion I instead examine the way in which some members of
this cohort exerted their personal and professional influence
in addressing the question of the psychological character-
istics and proper social and professional roles of women.

By the time APA was ~bunded in 1892, some 20
psychology laboratories were operating, but the emphasis
of the American model differed somewhat from the Ger-
man laboratories’ emphasis on the normal human adult
male mind. As Sokal (1992) has asserted, “From the start
• . . this science [of American psychology] was functionally
oriented and deeply concerned with d e v e l o p m e n t – –
especially with individual differences” (p. 46). The study of
individual differences logically included the question of
sex differences.

In one of the earliest comparisons of sex differences,
Joseph Jastrow (1891) examined “the unconscious and
natural mental processes” (p. 559) of his students at the
University of Wisconsin by having them write a list of 100

Editor’5 note. Almost two dozen of the leading historians of psychology
agreed to write “snapshots” of various aspects of psychology circa 1900.
The articles appear in serial form throughout Volume 55. The series was
edited by Donald A. Dewsbury.

A u t h o r ‘ s note. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Katharine S. Milar. Earlham College, Department of Psy-
chology, Richmond, IN 47374. Electronic mail may be sent to
kathym @ earlham.edu.

616 June 2000 • American Psychologist
Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/00/$5.00

Vol. 55, No. 6, 616 619 DOI: 10.10371/0003-066X.55.6.616

w o r d s as r a p i d l y as p o s s i b l e . His r e p o r t that w o m e n p r o –
d u c e d lists w i t h m u c h less v a r i e t y than t h o s e o f m e n was
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h v i e w s o f the p e r i o d that m e n w e r e the m o r e
v a r i a b l e sex in b o t h p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
G r e a t e r v a r i a b i l i t y was v i e w e d as a p o s i t i v e trait, b e c a u s e it
was seen as the m e c h a n i s m for e v o l u t i o n a r y p r o g r e s s (see
S h i e l d s , 1975, for d i s c u s s i o n ) . J a s t r o w ‘ s findings w e r e
c h a l l e n g e d b y M a r y W h i t o n C a l k i n s (1896; N e v e r s &
C a l k i n s , 1895), w h o s e s a m p l e o f W e l l e s l e y w o m e n s h o w e d
no such l a c k o f o r i g i n a l i t y in w o r d p r o d u c t i o n . C a l k i n s
c r i t i c i z e d J a s t r o w and s e x o l o g i s t H a v e l o c k Ellis, s u g g e s t –
ing that their a t t e m p t s to c h a r a c t e r i z e a ” m a s c u l i n e and
f e m i n i n e i n t e l l e c t . . . [ s e e m e d ] futile and i m p o s s i b l e be-
c a u s e o f our entire i n a b i l i t y to e l i m i n a t e the effect o f
e n v i r o n m e n t ” ( C a l k i n s , 1896, p. 430).

H e l e n B r a d f o r d T h o m p s o n was the first p s y c h o l o g i s t
to u n d e r t a k e an e x t e n s i v e and s y s t e m a t i c e x p e r i m e n t a l
e x a m i n a t i o n o f the p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the
sexes. H e r d i s s e r t a t i o n , c o m p l e t e d at the U n i v e r s i t y o f
C h i c a g o in 1900 and l a t e r p u b l i s h e d as The Mental Traits’
o f Sex (1903), was an a n a l y s i s o f the p e r f o r m a n c e o f 25
w o m e n and 25 m e n on tests o f m o t o r a b i l i t y , sensations,
intellect, and affect. C a r e f u l , d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f the results
l e d to her c o n c l u s i o n that,

The psychological differences of sex seem to be largely due, not
to difference of average capacity, nor to difference in type of
mental activity, but to differences in the social influences brought
to bear on the developing individual t¥om early infancy to adult
years. (Thompson, 1903, p. 182)

H e r l a t e r r e v i e w o f the l i t e r a t u r e on sex d i f f e r e n c e s written
u n d e r h e r m a r r i e d n a m e , H e l e n T h o m p s o n W o o l l e y , was
s h a r p l y c r i t i c a l o f authors such as H a v e l o c k Ellis, asserting,

There is perhaps no field aspiring to be scientific where flagrant
personal bias, logic martyred in the cause of supporting a preju-
dice, unfounded assertions, and even sentimental rot and drivel,
have run riot to such an extent as here. (Woolley, 1910, p. 340)

D e s p i t e the p u b l i c a t i o n o f T h o m p s o n ‘ s r e s e a r c h and the
i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r s o f w o m e n a t t e n d i n g c o l l e g e , the d e b a t e
a b o u t the a d v i s a b i l i t y o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n for w o m e n had
n o t b e e n q u i e t e d . P s y c h o l o g i s t s w e r e c a l l e d on to j o i n in
the d e b a t e . T h e a s p i r a t i o n o f the f o u n d e r s to e s t a b l i s h the
scientific and p r o f e s s i o n a l status o f their f l e d g l i n g d i s c i –
p l i n e g e n e r a t e d an i n t e r e s t in p r o v i n g p s y c h o l o g y ‘ s p r a c t i –
cal v a l u e as w e l l ( C a m f i e l d , 1973; S o k a l , 1992). B e g i n n i n g
in 1896, m u c h o f e a r l y c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e was d i r e c t e d at
c h i l d r e n w i t h l e a r n i n g p r o b l e m s ( F a g a n , 1992; W i t m e r ,
190711996). T h e e x p l o r a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l a d j u s t m e n t to
e d u c a t i o n led n a t u r a l l y to the q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r e d u c a –
tion n e e d e d to be d i f f e r e n t for m e n and w o m e n e i t h e r
b e c a u s e o f i n h e r e n t i n t e l l e c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s o r b e c a u s e dif-
ferent e d u c a t i o n was n e e d e d for d i f f e r i n g s o c i a l roles.

O n e p s y c h o l o g i s t w h o a r g u e d that the d i f f e r i n g b i o –
l o g i c a l roles o f w o m e n and m e n d e m a n d e d s e g r e g a t e d
e d u c a t i o n was G. S t a n l e y Hall. In his b o o k Adolescence
(1904/1937), H a l l p r o f f e r e d the v i e w that a p p r o p r i a t e r o l e s
for w o m e n w e r e t h o s e o f w i v e s a n d m o t h e r s . T h e n o t i o n
p r o m o t e d in 1873 b y E d w a r d C l a r k e , that h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n

for w o m e n w o u l d j e o p a r d i z e t h e i r r e p r o d u c t i v e c a p a c i t y
and t h r e a t e n the future o f the s p e c i e s , was w h o l e h e a r t e d l y
e n d o r s e d b y Hall, w h o b e c a m e o n e o f the l e a d e r s o f an
a n t i c o e d u c a t i o n m o v e m e n t in the 1900s (Diehl, 1986).

H a l l u s e d d a t a g a t h e r e d b y p s y c h o l o g i s t M i l l i c e n t
S h i n n ( w h o had e a r n e d her d o c t o r a t e o f p h i l o s o p h y at the
U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y , in 1898) on m a r r i a g e
rates o f c o l l e g e – e d u c a t e d w o m e n to b o l s t e r his c l a i m that
h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n was h a z a r d o u s for the f e m a l e sex. I n
s u m m a r i z i n g S h i n n ‘ s r e p o r t on the s u b s t a n t i a l l y l o w e r m a r –
r i a g e rates o f m e m b e r s o f the A s s o c i a t i o n o f C o l l e g i a t e
A l u m n a e ( A C A ) , H a l l a c c u r a t e l y r e p o r t e d s o m e o f her d a t a
but not lhe q u a l i f i c a t i o n s she p l a c e d on that d a t a nor her
c o n c l u s i o n s . In a s k i n g w h y the m a r r i a g e figures w e r e l o w e r
for c o l l e g e – e d u c a t e d w o m e n , S h i n n first p o i n t e d to the
y o u t h f u l n e s s o f the w o m e n in the s a m p l e : N e a r l y 50% w e r e
r e c e n t g r a d u a t e s still in t h e i r 20s. M a n y a l u m n a e w e r e
r e s i d e n t t e a c h e r s in g i r l s ‘ s c h o o l s , an o c c u p a t i o n S h i n n
c h a r a c t e r i z e d as s e c o n d o n l y to the life o f a nun as a c a u s e
for c e l i b a c y . B e y o n d this, she p r o v i d e d two a d d i t i o n a l
reasons: T h e c o l l e g e – e d u c a t e d w o m a n h a d h i g h e r s t a n d a r d s
for a m a r r i a g e p a r t n e r and, b e c a u s e she h a d the t r a i n i n g
n e c e s s a r y to s u p p o r t herself, was u n d e r less p r e s s u r e to
a c c e p t a p a r t n e r w h o d i d not m e e t t h o s e standards. S h i n n
a l s o a d m i t t e d , “I h a v e no d o u b t t h a t . . , m a n y m e n d i s l i k e
i n t e l l e c t u a l w o m e n , – – w h e t h e r b e c a u s e such w o m e n are
r e a l l y d i s a g r e e a b l e or b e c a u s e m e n ‘ s taste is at fault, I shall
not try to d e t e r m i n e ” (Shinn, 1895, p. 948).

H a l l ‘ s v i s i o n o f a p p r o p r i a t e e d u c a t i o n for w o m e n in-
c o r p o r a t e d not o n l y e v o l u t i o n a r y b i o l o g y and p s y c h o l o g y
but a l s o r e l i g i o n :

Biological psychology already dreams of a new philosophy of sex
which places the wife and mother at the heart of a new world and
makes her the object of a new religion and almost of a new
worship. (Hall, 1904/1937, p. 562)

K a t e G o r d o n ( w h o h a d e a r n e d her d o c t o r a t e o f p h i l o s o p h y
at the U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o in 1903) s c o f f e d at H a l l ‘ s
n o t i o n s o f m a k i n g w o m e n r e l i g i o u s o b j e c t s in a s p e e c h
g i v e n in 1905: ” T h i s attitude t o w a r d w o m e n d i d v e r y w e l l
in the M i d d l e A g e s , but, to tell the truth, the m o d e r n
w o m a n is m a d e a little bit ill b y the i n c e n s e ” ( G o r d o n ,
1905, p. 790). G o r d o n c h a r a c t e r i z e d H a l l ‘ s w o r k as t o o
” b i z a r r e ” to b e literature and too ” u n c r i t i c a l in m e t h o d ” to
b e c o n s i d e r e d s c i e n c e (p. 790).

G o r d o n s e p a r a t e d w h a t she t e r m e d the s o c i a l q u e s t i o n ,
” S h o u l d a w o m a n ‘ s s c h o o l and c o l l e g e t r a i n i n g b e in any
sense a m a t r i m o n i a l e d u c a t i o n ? ” and the p s y c h o l o g i c a l
question, ” W h e n p u r s u i n g the s a m e s u b j e c t that a m a n is,
m u s t she be t a u g h t b y a d i f f e r e n t m e t h o d ? ” ( G o r d o n , 1905,
p. 790). B a s i n g her a r g u m e n t in p a r t on H e l e n B r a d f o r d
T h o m p s o n ‘ s d i s s e r t a t i o n r e s e a r c h , w h i c h H a l l h a d d i s –
m i s s e d as ” f e m i n i s t i c , ” G o r d o n r e p u d i a t e d the i d e a that
m e n and w o m e n r e q u i r e d d i f f e r e n t m e t h o d s o f instruction:

There is an old superstition that women’s minds work by feeling
and men’s by reason. Surely it is time to give that up. Does a
woman solve the binomial theorem by feeling, or a quadratic
equation by intuition? Does [a man] appreciate a sonnet by logical
deduction’? (p. 793)

June 2000 • A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t 617

To Hall’s and others’ claim that coeducation would coarsen
women and make men effeminate, Gordon responded that
if they were fit to marry each other, they were certainly fit
to go to school together (Gordon, 1905, p. 794).

On the question of designing a woman’s education for
marriage, Gordon argued that because marriage was only
one of many possible occupations for a woman, to educate
her only for a domestic career would unfairly limit her
freedom of choice. Further, a woman’s “social equality
with men is conditioned by her ability to do the same work,
and this ability is largely dependent upon her having the

, same school and college training which a man has” (Gor-
don, 1905, p. 793).

Kate Gordon’s argument for social and educational
equality for men and women would have been heartily
endorsed by fellow psychologist Christine Ladd-Franklin,
who had been engaged for some time in promoting the
entry of more women into the professorial ranks. In 1878,
Ladd-Franklin applied for admission to graduate study at
Johns Hopkins University and was admitted as a special
student. Her work at Hopkins was sufficiently distin-
guished to merit the award of a stipend in 1879 that was
renewed yearly thereafter, but the stipend was recorded
only in a note to avoid setting any precedent with regard to
the admission of women (Furumoto, 1992; Hurvich, 1971).
She completed work for the degree in 1882, but because of
the university’s policy she did not receive her doctorate
until 1926, when it was finally awarded to the 79-year-old
psychologist as part of the celebration of the 50th anniver-
sary of the university (Rossiter, 1982).

Perhaps partly in response to her experience, Ladd-
Franklin was one of the prime movers behind the A C A ‘ s
establishment of a European fellowship to provide Amer-
ican college women with an opportunity to spend a post-
graduate year studying in Europe. The fellowship was
designed to give women the opportunity to do postgraduate
research that would l e a d t o their being hired to teach at
the college level–and not just at women’s colleges but
at men’s colleges and coeducational institutions. Ladd-
Franklin argued that increasing the numbers of women
teaching at the college level would have an important
psychological effect, improving the status and salaries of
women teaching at the lower levels: “As long as women are
thought to be not worthy of being college professors, it will
be impossible for them to receive equal pay with men in the
secondary schools” (Ladd-Franklin, 1890, p. 4).

By 1904, Ladd-Franklin was pressing the ACA to
establish special endowed professorships for women. She
noted that the doctoral degree or an equivalent course of
study was now being required for college professorships,
and that although women were earning the degree, they
were not being hired for academic positions “in proportion
to their attainments” (Ladd-Franklin, 1904, p. 54). Her
argument was valid. Comparison of the first generation of
women psychologists with their male counterparts showed
that 65% of the men but only 50% of the women had
professorial rank. All of the women who held professorial
rank were single and were teaching predominantly in wom-
en’s colleges. Among this cohort, only Lillien Jane Martin

held the position of full professor at a coeducational insti-
tution: She was promoted to that rank at Stanford Univer-
sity in 1911 (Furumoto & Scarborough, 1986).

In 1907, Ladd-Franklin successfully secured the funds
for what became known as the Berliner Fellowship of the
ACA. The recipient received a salary to pursue her research
at the college or university of her choice. The university
only had to permit her to give a series of lectures during the
year she was in residence. Ladd-Franklin assumed that
once women had demonstrated their ability to give lectures
to coeducational classrooms, the universities would want to
retain them and hire other qualified women:

All we ask for our sex is that positions in colleges to which
women are admitted as students should be filled . . . by the
brilliant and the distinguished among existing Doctors of Philos-
ophy without regard to sex, or with very little regard to sex–with
the understanding that whenever the woman applicant for the
position is distinctly superior to the man she shall have the
position. (Ladd-Franklin, 1908, p. 144)

Ladd-Franklin herself held the title of lecturer at Columbia
University, but it was an unpaid position. In a 1917 letter to
a colleague she resentfully reported that she had never
refused a salary, but “lacking a better option, had offered to
lecture for nothing” (cited in Furumoto, 1992, p. 180).

Despite such fellowships and the activism of women
like Gordon and Ladd-Franklin, women who found aca-
demic employment were segregated primarily to women’s
colleges and to the lower academic ranks. Married women,
like Ladd-Franklin, were doubly disadvantaged: W o m e n ‘ s
colleges would hire only single women. In a 1897 letter to
Ladd-Franklin, Helen Ridgely wrote that a woman “ought
to be taught that she cannot serve two masters, that if she
chooses the higher path of learning and wants to do herself
and her sex justice, she must forgo matrimony” (cited in
Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987, p. 71). This dilemma
faced Ethel Puffer, who had graduated from Smith College
in 1891 and completed her doctoral work with Hugo Mtin-
sterberg at Harvard in 1898, supported by an A C A Amer-
ican fellowship. Like Johns Hopkins, Harvard did not grant
degrees to women, but Puffer accepted a Radcliffe doctor-
ate in 1902; Mary Whiton Calkins, who completed her
doctoral work at Harvard in 1895, declined the Radcliffe
degree (Furumoto, 1980). When Puffer married Benjamin
Howes in 1908, she forfeited her chance for an academic
position at Bamard, and she struggled the rest of her life
with the marriage-career dilemma. She found making time
for scholarship while managing a home a difficult task.
Puffer Howes wrote later that it was not only the job
discrimination but the lack of “the possibility of mental
concentration, of long-sustained intensive application, of
freedom from irrelevant cares and interruptions” that mar-
riage brought to the woman professional and that prevented
her from achieving career success (Howes, 1922, p. 446).
Her attempt in the 1920s to establish programs for women
to help them manage marriage, motherhood, and profes-
sional activities did not succeed (Scarborough & Furumoto,
1987).

618 June 2000 • American Psychologist

P s y c h o l o g y ‘ s f i r s t g e n e r a t i o n o f w o m e n p r o f e s s i o n a l s
m a d e i t s p r e s e n c e f e l t i n a n u m b e r o f w a y s . T h e s e w o m e n
c o n d u c t e d r e s e a r c h t h a t c h a l l e n g e d p r e v a i l i n g n o t i o n s o f
s e x d i f f e r e n c e s i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T h e y u s e d
t h e i r k n o w l e d g e as w o m e n a n d a s p s y c h o l o g i s t s t o p r e s s f o r
e q u a l e d u c a t i o n a l a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r
w o m e n . P r o f e s s i o n a l c a r e e r s f o r p s y c h o l o g i s t s w e r e a l m o s t
e x c l u s i v e l y f o u n d i n a c a d e m i a u n t i l a f t e r W o r l d W a r I.
D e s p i t e t h e i r e f f o r t s , w o m e n p s y c h o l o g i s t s c o n t i n u e d t o
e x p e r i e n c e d i f f i c u l t y i n o b t a i n i n g a c a d e m i c p o s i t i o n s e x –
c e p t i n w o m e n ‘ s c o l l e g e s . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , as t h e 2 0 t h
c e n t u r y m a r c h e d o n w a r d , m o r e a n d m o r e w o m e n w e r e t o
m o v e i n t o t h e b u r g e o n i n g a r e a o f a p p l i e d p s y c h o l o g y ,
w h i c h w a s t o h a v e c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r b o t h t h e i r s t a t u s
w i t h i n t h e p r o f e s s i o n a n d t h e s t a t u s o f s o m e a p p l i e d a r e a s
o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n ( F u r u m o t o , 1 9 8 7 ; N a p o l i , 1 9 8 1 ) .

REFERENCES

Calkins, M. W. (1896). Community of ideas of men and women. Psycho-
logical Review, 3, 426-430.

Camfield, T. M. (1973). The professionalization of American psychology,
1870-1917. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 9,
66-75.

Cattell, J. M. (Ed.). (1906). American men of science: A biographical
directory. New York: Science Press.

Diehl, L. A. (1986). The paradox of G. Stanley Hall: Foe of coeducation
and educator of women. American Psychologist, 41, 868-878.

Fagan, T. K. (1992). Compulsory schooling, child study, clinical psychol-
ogy, and special education: Origins of school psychology. American
Psychologist, 47, 236-243.

Furumoto, L. (1980). Mary Whiton Calkins (1863-1930). Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 5, 55-68.

Furumoto, L. (1987). On the margins: Women and the professionalization
of psychology in the United States, 1890-1940. In M. G. Ash & W. R.
Woodward (Eds.), Psychology in twentieth-century thought and society
(pp. 93-113). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Furumoto, L. (1992). Joining separate spheres–Christine Ladd-Franklin,
woman-scientist (1847-1930). American Psychologist, 47, 175-182.

Furumoto, L., & Scarborough, E. (1986). Placing women in the history of
psychology. American Psychologist, 41, 35-42.

Goodman, E. S. (1980). Margaret F. Washburn (l 871-1939): First woman
Ph.D. in psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 69-80.

Gordon, K. (1905). Wherein should the education of a woman differ from
that of a man. School Review, 13, 789-794.

Hall, G. S. (1937). Adolescence (Vol. 2). New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts. (Original work published 1904)

Howes, E. P. (1922, April). ‘Accepting the universe.’ Atlantic Monthly,
129, 444-453.

Hurvich, D. J. (1971). Christine Ladd-Franklin. In E. T. James, J. W.
James, & P. S. Boyer (Eds.), Notable American women, 1607-1950
(Vol. 2, pp. 354-356). New York: Belknap Press.

Jastrow, J. (1891). A study in mental statistics. The New Review, 5,
559 -568.

Ladd-Franklin, C. (1890). The usefulness of fellowships. Publications o/
the Association of Collegiate Alunmae, Series 11(31), 1-4.

Ladd-Franklin, C. (1904, February). Endowed professorships for women.
Publications (~f the Association of Collegiate Alumnae, Series Ill(a),
53 61.

Ladd-Franklin, C. (1908, February). Report of the committee on the
endowment of fellowships. Publications of the Association of Colle-
giate Alumnae, Series Iil(17), I43-146.

Napoli, D. S. (1981). Architects of adjustment: The history of the psycho-
logical profession in the United States. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat
Press.

Nevers, C. C., & Calkins, M. W. (1895). Wellesley College psychological
studies: Dr. Jastrow on community of ideas of men and women.
Psychological Review, 2, 363-367.

Rossiter, M. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and stategies
to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Scarborough, E. (1992). Women in the American Psychological Associ-
ation. In R. B. Evans, V. S. Sexton, & T. C. Cadwallader (Eds.), The
American Psychological Association: A historical perspective (pp.
303-325 ~. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Scarborough, E., & Furumoto, L. (1987). Untold lives: Thefirst genera-
tion of American women psychologists. New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press.

Shields, S. A. (1975). Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of
women. American Psychologist, 30, 739-754.

Shinn, M. W. (1895). The marriage rate of college women. Century
Magazine, 28, 946-948.

Sokal, M. M. (1992). Origins and early years of the American Psycho-
logical Association: 1890 to 1906. In R. B. Evans, V. S. Sexton, & T. C.
Cadwallader (Eds.), The American Psychological Association: A his-
torical perspective (pp. 43-71). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.

Solomon, B. (1985). In the company of educated women. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.

Thompson, H. B. (1903). The mental traits of sex. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Witmer, L. (1996). Clinical psychology. American Psychologist, 51,248-
251. (Original work published 1907)

Woolley, H. T. (1910). A review of recent literature on the psychology of
sex. Psychological Bulletin, 7, 335-342.

J u n e 2 0 0 0 • A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t 6 1 9