Ms. Pilgrim's Progress - APA PsycNET

Ms. Pilgrim's Progress The Contributions of Leta Stetter Hollingworth to the Psychology of Women STEPHANIE A. SHIELDS Pennsylvania 'State University

To be' a true woman means to be yet more mother than wife. The madonna conception expresses man's highest comprehension of woman's real nature. (Hall, 1918, p. 297) Not only the probability and the desirability of marriage and the training of children as an essential feature of woman's career, but also the restriction of women to the mediocre grades of ability and achievement should be reckoned with by our education systems. The education of women for such professions as administration, statesmanship, philosophy, or scientific research . . . is far less needed than education for such professions . . . where the average level is the essential. (Thorndike, 1906, p. 213) The greater variational tendency of man is a fact of the widest significance . . . . Psychologically the greater variational tendency of men, as likewise the greater conservative tendency of women, radiates to every distinctive aspect of their contrasted natures and expressions. (Jastrow, 1915, pp. 567-568) Undoubtedly one of the most difficult and fundamental problems that today confront thinking women is how to secure for themselves the chance to vary from the mode of their sex, and at the same time to procreate, in a social order that has been built up on the assumption that there is and can be little or no variation in tastes, interests, and abilities within the female sex . . . . At times it seems well-nigh insoluble. But to affirm that it is insoluble is at the same time to affirm that there will always be a hard choice confronting women whose tastes vary from the mode; that there will be restlessness, unhappiness, and strife with the social order on the part of these individuals; and that society must tend to lose the work of its intellectual women or else lose their children. (Hollingworth, 1914b, p. 528) Individuals who are now striving for the development of an objective psychology of women have, for the most part, remained unaware of the long history of their endeavor. It is easy to regard this as the first generation of feminist psychologists, because the insistence that theory be based on fact rather than opinion seems an innovation in the study of female psychology. Earlier gener/ations of women in psychology, however, have not only contributed to the mainstream of psychology

The author is grateful to Carolyn W. Sherif for her careful reading of an earlier version of this article and for her many helpful suggestions. The author would also like to thank Zena G. O'Connor, Lillian G. Portenier, and Glenn M. Blair, Hollingworth's one-time students, for sharing their impressions of Leta Hollingworth as a person. Requests for reprints should be sent to Stephanie Shields, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802. 852 • AUGUST 197S • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

but also to the psychology of women (e.g., Calkins, 1896; Thompson, 1903). One individual's efforts stand out particularly. Unable to accept a mere embellishment of popular prejudices about sex roles and differences as "theory," she demanded that psychology, if striving to conduct itself as a true science, apply similar scientific rigor in investigating social questions. Leta Stetter Hollingworth (1886-1939) decided early in her career to focus on issues relevant to a psychology of women. Although better known for her work with exceptional children and adolescents, she first devoted herself to the study of the more persistent, untested generalizations concerning female behavior and ability. This article examines three areas of her work that are particularly relevant to the contemporary psychology of women: (a) mental and physical performance during the menstrual cycle, (b) the then-significant hypothesis

of greater male variability, and (c) women's social sex role. Few others attempted to challenge the well-established prejudices that dominated psychology's beliefs concerning women and their ability, None challenged them as boldly as she did. It took Leta Stetter little time to become personally aware of the arbitrary societal restrictions placed upon female achievement and active participation in extrahousehold activities. After graduating from the University of Nebraska in 1906, she taught school in Nebraska while her fiance, Harry Hollingworth, went to Columbia University to take a position in the Department of Psychology. She later joined him, they married, and she took up the duties of a housewife. Now, by all the accepted laws of society and of the fiction writers she should have been perfectly happy. She had love, a cozy little home, and a husband whose career she was helping to advance. But she was not happy . . . . Up to the hour of their marriage she and her husband had worked together and had done the same things. Then they separated, she stopped and he went on. Why was this? . . . Marriage had not changed his status, except to improve it. Marriage had taken her out of intellectual work and made her into a domestic earning about $25 a month. Her position seemed wholly irrational. (Dorr, 1915, p. IS)

Her husband agreed, but prospective employers were not sympathetic. A school teacher before moving East, she sought such a position in New York only to find that married women would not be hired. If her role as housewife had given her food for thought, this new development filled her with questions for which, it seemed, society had no reasonable answer. All of her questions centered on a single theme, one that was to recur throughout her subsequent study of the psychology of women: Why was it that women were forced to choose between children and personal achievement? Although this question stemmed from the personal dilemma which she faced, her perspective led her to a critical examination of woman's social role in the broader context of its social causes and consequences. Seeking some creative professional outlet, Hollingworth began graduate work at Columbia University. Her first real opportunity to deal with the issues of the "woman problem," however, came in the form of a job in which she was not only able to ask questions, but she could begin to answer them. At about the time she received her MA, a city-employed psychologist took her annual vacation and Hollingworth substituted in the job of administering Binet intelligence tests to charity cases that passed through the Clearing House for

Mental Defectives. To regard the work as a grand opportunity requires that we grasp the perspective of turn-of-the-century scientific thought concerning woman. Social science at that time was clearly engaged in scientific "validation" of existing social structures by means of theoretical pronouncement (Shields, 1975). Remnants of the Victorian moral ethic coupled with the Spencerian notion of survival as proof of excellence bolstered the prevailing system of white male dominance of social, political, and intellectual endeavor. Many theories purported to explain the origin of female inferiority in those spheres. The most acrid originated in Germany (cf. Mobius, 1901; Weininger, undated). Those obtaining most support in this country steered a more moderate course by stressing the complementarity of the sexes (cf. Burt & Moore, 1912; Geddes & Thomson, 1890). Such theories typically contended that the mental life of the male was dominated by his sophisticated perceptual and reasoning abilities, while the female's intellect was subordinate to her sensory experience and emotion. The greatest female defect was seen as emotionality, an attribute that also enabled her to excel in her maternal, comfort-providing social role. On the other hand, the male was believed to suffer much from his aggressive instincts that, nevertheless, facilitated intellectual achievement and all forms of social progress. When the first efforts of the testing movement at the turn of the century did not bear out the popular belief that the average level of female ability was less than the average of males, a hypothesis derived from evolutionary theory gained popularity. Charles Darwin (1871) had noted that in many species the male exhibited a greater degree of differentiation of secondary sex characteristics than did the female. Without knowledge of sex-linked genetic characteristics that could account for such a difference, Darwin proposed that the male was simply the more variable sex. Males, as a group, seemed to vary a great deal in terms of physical characteristics, while females appeared to be a more homogenous group. Because variation from the average had already been proposed as a primary evolutionary mechanism, the alleged greater variation among males was seen as a distinct advantage and a sign of the superiority of their sex. The Darwinian hypothesis concerning physical traits of the sexes was soon extended by psychologists to account for apparent sex differences in AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • AUGUST 1975 • 853

intellectual ability. As J. McKeen Cattell (1903) explained it: "The distribution of women is represented by a narrower bell-shaped curve" (p. 375). Assuming a normal distribution of ability within the population, proof of greater male variation typically consisted of citing figures which showed that a higher proportion of males than females inhabited institutions for the feebleminded and that a higher proportion of males than females achieved social eminence. The importance placed on "eminence" should not be underestimated. In that era it was believed that high ability naturally found expression in achievement of social power and prestige. The real impact of the variability hypothesis lay in its logical corollaries: If women were less likely to have above-average ability, it would not be reasonable to expect achievement from them. Their education should, therefore, be geared to preparing them for the activities in which they were more likely to engage. Thorndike's (1906) opinion that women students should be channeled into lesser endeavors was not considered unreasonable. G. Stanley Hall (1918) proposed an entire curriculum devoted to the preparation of women for their special calling as wives and mothers. Because of the vast social implications of the variability hypothesis, it was natural for Hollingworth to turn her attention first to its critical examination. The hypothesis was not without critics (cf. Pearson, 1897; Thompson, 1903), but none had successfully countered the proponents' major arguments. In her work at the Clearing House, Hollingworth (1913) noted that although there was a sex difference in the absolute numbers of institutionalized males and females, the ratio of male to female admissions decreased as a function of age. There seemed no need to resort to a hypothesized sex difference in order to explain the situation, when a more parsimonious one could be found by examining social sex roles. She reasoned that since men were expected, to take their place in society as competitive and economically-independent individuals, their deficiencies would be noted earlier. Women, on the other hand, "belong to a non-competitive and dependent class and are not so readily recognized as defective since they do not have to compete mentally to maintain themselves in the social milieu" (Hollingworth, 1913, p. 7S3), Women would, therefore, be more likely to be institutionalized as defectives at an older age than men, when they had become too old to be "useful" or self854 • AUGUST 1975 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

supporting. Analysis of statistical and interview data showed that women were, in fact, institutionalized at older ages than men (Hollingworth, 1913, 1922; Schlapp & Hollingworth, 1914). With her earnings from the Clearing House, Hollingworth paid for further graduate study in education at Columbia Teachers College. Not a little of her determined study of the psychology of women and the variability hypothesis must have been a response to the attitude of her mentor, Edward Thorndike, an avid proponent of the variability hypothesis. Under his direction she completed her doctoral dissertation on the bete noire of objective female psychology: "Functional Periodicity: An Experimental Study of the Mental and Motor Abilities of Women During Menstruation" (Hollingworth, 1914a). After discovering that the available literature was generously laced with superstition and prejudice, she decided to put to an empirical test the question of cyclical fluctuations in ability. Six women (and two male "controls") were tested daily for three months on a series of perceptual motor and "mental ability" tasks (e.g., tapping test, color naming, naming opposites). In addition, the progress of three of the women in learning to type was monitored throughout- the three months of testing. Hollingworth found no evidence of decrements in performance associated with phases of the menstrual cycle. (This has been the general finding of more recent studies of performance; cf. Sommer, 1973.) She attributed the disparity between her results and the earlier literature to the taboos associated with objective study of menstrual function, the clinical nature of most previous reports, and the fact that: The tradition emanating from the mystic and romantic novelists, that woman is a mysterious being, half hysteric, half angel, has found its way into scientific writing. Through the centuries gone those who wrote were men, and since the phenomenon of periodicity was foreign to them, they not unnaturally seized upon it as a probable source of the alleged "mystery" and "caprice" of womankind. (Hollingworth, 1914a, p. 95)

It was, however, the variability hypothesis that continued to gain most of her attention. Turning to the issue of physical differences in variation from the mean, she determined that the best way to resolve the issue was to investigate those differences before social and environmental factors could exert their influences. With Helen Montague she examined the hospital records of 2,000 neonates (1,000 of each sex) for birth weight and length. They found that if greater physical variation were

claimed to "favor" either sex, it was the female who won out (Montague & Hollingworth, 1914). Her efforts obtaining evidence of greater female physical variability and descriptions of social forces affecting sexual segregation of the feebleminded were not ends in themselves. They were bits of evidence to be used in a larger assault on the cultural meaning of the variability hypothesis. In an extensive critique of the variability literature, Hollingworth (1914b) examined point by point the faulty assumptions upon which social application of the variability hypothesis had been based. Greater variability had typically been used to imply greater range, an inference justifiable only if the distribution of any given trait or set of traits within the population is Gaussian. Because this had not been adequately demonstrated, there was no force to the argument that women were biologically barred from the highest levels of ability. Even if greater physical variation could be demonstrated in one sex, this would say nothing about variability of intellectual traits. Likewise, even the demonstration of greater male intellectual variability would prove nothing concerning inherent variation. Hollingworth suggested that if the social sciences were genuinely seeking the cause of female nonachievement, they should abandon purely biological theories and objectively examine social impediments to female success. For Hollingworth the crux of the problem was obvious: Women bore children and for centuries had been trained to, expected to, and, if need be, forced to devote themselves to the care of their offspring. Although noting that "such statements as these are very likely to be construed as an attack on maternity" (Hollingworth, 1914b, p. 527), she clearly indicated that this was not her intention. She argued that we should simply recognize that women's many and varied talents have traditionally been channeled away from social achievement and into childrearing and housekeeping, fields "where eminence is impossible" (Hollingworth, 1914b, p. 526). Hollingworth's efforts did not go unrecognized. She was hailed by feminists as the much-needed scientific pillar of their cause (Dorr, 1915; H. L. Hollingworth, 1943). The feminist movement (then primarily concerned with gaining the franchise) had been met from all sides with vituperation of woman's capacity for intelligent behavior. In one effort to confront these popular "theories," Hollingworth collaborated with the prominent anthropologist Robert Lowie (then at the American

Museum of Natural History) on a review of contemporary scientific literature. They concluded that where objective evidence existed in crosscultural, biological, and psychological studies, it in no way supported the existence of an innate female inferiority (Lowie & Hollingworth, 1916). They further noted that myths of woman's disability persisted in scientific thinking that attributed to the arbitrary interpretation of fact: "every sex difference that has been discovered or alleged has been interpreted to show the superiority of males" (p. 284). Noting that the disproportionate number of males among institutionalized populations had been used as "confirmatory evidence of greater male variability," they observed: "Had it been found that there were more females among inmates of idiot asylums, how easily it could have been used as evidence of the general inferior quality of female mind" (p. 284). To Hollingworth, exercises in scientific speculation seemed to offer nothing but fuel for inconclusive debates. Hollingworth (1914, 1916c, 1916d, 1927) repeatedly emphasized that the true potential of woman could only be known when society recognized her right to choose career, maternity, or both. It seemed to Hollingworth that this freedom of choice was traditionally denied to women. Through formal and informal education, through society's laws, customs, and beliefs, women were taught to view motherhood as the only legitimate expression of their adult womanhood. Options were obscured to such a degree that most women did not perceive .the freedom to choose. Hollingworth (1916c) outlined the social institutions and ideals that effectively impelled women toward a life geared to rearing children. Some of these forces were obvious (e.g., sanctions against disseminating birth control information); others were subtly built into the existing social structure: Among the most important indirect forces in law which affect women to keep them childbearers and child-rearers only are those provisions that tend to restrain them from possessing and controlling property. Such provisions have made of women a comparatively possessionless class, and have thus deprived them of the fundamentals of power, (p. 24)

She was particularly disturbed by the role that a purportedly "objective" science had played in fostering clearly unfounded beliefs (e.g., that all women were endowed with equal and goodly portions of "maternal instinct"; that infants and children would suffer stunted development without the constant physical presence of the mother; that AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • AUGUST 1975 • 855

the "essential nature" of woman was bound up with a lifetime of maternal concerns). She felt that only when science was willing to rid itself of an over-concern with social values could serious study of pressing issues be undertaken. As far as Hollingworth was concerned, science had no business parading tradition and opinion as scientific fact. She often referred to the value of the behavioral approach in the investigation of female psychology (e.g., Hollingworth, 1918, 1927). In her professional writing she was careful to separate empirical fact from her own speculations. Hollingworth believed that the cause of increasing the opportunity for expression and growth open to women could not suffer if studied objectively. She was confident that the traditional ways of thinking would have to give way to the new and was certain that women could never willingly return to the sheltered and restricted role that they had once played. It would distress her to know how timely her observations and suggestions are SO years later. Hollingworth (1927) firmly believed that as scientific and technological development had allowed the "New Woman" to arise through freeing woman of domestic chores, they would also provide this new woman with the means of realizing her new status effectively. As an example of what science can provide, Hollingworth noted the many questions concerning birth planning and child care that were unresolved at that time: For instance, although she .[the New Woman! is now gaining control of procreation, she does not yet know how to use this power most advantageously in the total management of life. She does not know how many children she should have, nor, all things considered, what years of her life are most suitable for bearing them . . . . She does not know how young children may best be supervised . . . . She does not know what to do about expectant motherhood. Is this a kind of illness, "a delicate condition"? Or is it a normal, healthy state? (p. 20)

After nearly SO years it seems we can do little but add to the questions she raised. Technology has contributed much to facilitate the homemaker and mother roles, but science has added little to the understanding of these roles. Hollingworth saw the role conflicts then facing women as the forced choice between parenthood and career, with social mores obscuring the possibility of choice and impelling women to accept the former without question. She never lost the belief that these conflicts would be resolved. She felt that societal attitudes toward and acceptance of variation in the female role were in the process of 856 • AUGUST 1975 • AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST

change because they had to change. Although she recognized the fact of cultural lag (Hollingworth, 1927), the persistence of psychology in utilizing highly subjective nonempirical methods in investigating sex differences (Hollingworth, 1916b, 1918), and the firmly entrenched prejudices that actively barred women from achievement (Hollingworth, 191.6a), none of these difficulties seemed insurmountable. Perhaps it was her optimism that led Hollingworth to set aside the psychology of women as a primary concern. Not long after receiving her PhD, in 1916 she was appointed to the post that Naomi Norsworthy had held at Teachers College. In an academic setting in New York City it may have been easy to underestimate the persistence of values held by the majority of the population. Science, it seemed, was becoming more objective as witnessed by psychology's emphasis on behavioral study. The feminists' goal of enfranchisement was achieved in 1920. It may have appeared that there was no longer a pressing need for her work in female psychology. In addition, her own interests expanded and the demands of her clinical and educational work left little time for the endeavor that had been her own creation. The study of female psychology was a first step in Hollingworth's productive career. Her early work in testing led to a systematic study of the characteristics of mental deficiency and of special mental disabilities. Children of superior intelligence also became a special concern. Interested in the role of the emotions and attitudes in adjustment, particularly at adolescence, she concentrated on this age group in her teaching and research. The Psychology of the Adolescent, published in 1928, was for many years regarded as the foremost textbook on the subject. Hollingworth was also instrumental in founding a special experimental public school for study of the gifted and the mentally deficient. (She later served as its director.) She vigorously defended the cause of clinical psychologists and led the move to found the American Association of Clinical Psychologists. Pervading each of these areas of interest was a deep sense of personal commitment. Only her closest associates knew that although she had applied for research funds, none were ever granted for the support of her work. Despite her broadening interests, Hollingworth did not abandon the psychology of women but simply intended to set it aside until she could give it full attention in book form. She had even

chosen a name for the work: Mrs. Pilgrim's Progress, reflecting her emphasis on the concept of individual choice (H. L. Hollingworth, 1943). For all her faith in the support that scientific progress would provide, she was convinced that one could not satisfactorily discuss the changing role of woman in terms of women as a class. - Each individual woman who deviated from the norms of her "appropriate" sex role was faced with unique problems and was forced to produce unique solutions to them. It was the sum of these "experimental lives" that would eventually produce new, broader, and more suitable guidelines for the course that a woman's life could take: The New Woman of today is consciously experimenting with her own life to find out how women can best live . . . surely this requires a courage and a genius deserving something better than blame or jeers, deserving at least open-minded toleration and assistance. (Hollingworth, 1927, p. 20) REFERENCES Hurt, C., & Moore, R. C. The mental differences between the sexes. Journal of Experimental Pedagogy, 1912, 1, 3SS-388. Calkins, M. W. Community of ideas of men and women. Psychological Review, 1896, 3, 426-430. Cattell, J. McK. A statistical study of eminent men. Popular Science Monthly, 1903, 62, 3S9-377. Darwin, C. The descent of man. London: Murray, 1871. Dorr, R. C, Is woman biologically barred from success? New York Times Magazine, September 19, 1915, pp. ISIS. Geddes, P., & Thomson, J. A. The evolution of sex. New York: Scribner & Welford, 1890. Hall, G. S. Youth, its education, regimen and hygiene. New York: Appleton, 1918. Hollingworth, H. L. Leta Stetter Hollingworth, A biography. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1943. Hollingworth, L. S. The frequency of amentia as related to sex. Medical Record, 1913, 84, 753-756. Hollingworth, L. S. Functional periodicity: An experimental study of the mental and motor abilities of women

during menstruation. Teachers College Contributions to Education, 1914, No. 69. (a) Hollingworth, L. S. Variability as related to sex differences in achievement. American Journal of Sociology, 1914, IP, 510-530. (b) Hollingworth, L. S. Phi Beta Kappa and women students. School and Society, 1916, 4, 932-933. (a) Hollingworth, L. S. Sex differences in mental tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1916,13, 377-383. (b) Hollingworth, L. S. Social devices for impelling women to bear and rear children. American Journal of Sociology, 1916, 22, 19-29. (c) Hollingworth, L. S. The vocational aptitudes of women. In H. L. Hollingworth (Ed.), Vocational psychology. New York: Appleton, 1916. (d) Hollingworth, L. S. Comparison of the sexes in mental traits. Psychological Bulletin, 1918, IS, 427-432. Hollingworth, L. S. Differential action upon the sexes of forces which tend to segregate the feeble minded. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1922, 17, 35-57. Hollingworth, L. S. The new woman in the making. Current History, 1927, 27, 15-20. Jastrow, J. Character and temperament. New York: Appleton, 1915. Lowie, R. H., & Hollingworth, L. S. Science and feminism. Scientific Monthly, 1916, 3, 277-284. Mobius, P. J, The physiological mental weakness of woman (Trans. A. McCorn). Alienist and Neurologist, 1901, 22, 624-642. Montague, H., & Hollingworth, L. S. The comparative variability of the sexes at birth. American Journal of Sociology, 1914, 20, 335-370. Pearson, K. Variation in man and woman. In The chances of death (Vol. 1). London; Edward Arnold, 1897. Schlapp, M. G., & Hollingworth, L. S. An economic and social study of feeble-minded women. Medical Record, 1914, SS, 1025-1028. Shields, S. A. Functionalism, Darwinism, and the psychology of women: A study in social myth. American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 739-754. Sommer, B. The effect of menstruation on cognitive and •perceptual-motor behavior. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1973, 3S, 515-534. Thompson, H. B. The mental traits of sex. Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1903. Thorndike, E. L. Sex in education. The Bookman, 1906, 23, 211-214. Weininger, O. 0. Sex and character (Trans.). London: William Heinemann, undated.

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST • AUGUST 1975 • 8S7