The article uses three case studies from the 1920s to explore how psychologists and elementary school teachers employed psychological techniques to gain knowledge about elementary school children and their milieu. It begins by describing the role of the elementary school and the elementary school teacher in the Weimar Republic. It then discusses the so-called “observation sheets” that were used in elementary schools in the 1920s to gain insights into the mental and moral characteristics of pupils. Third, it examines psychological experiments undertaken in elementary school classrooms based on the exemplar case of a single teacher/experimenter, before concluding with a comparison of the two practices. I argue that psychology gained in standing through this history, becoming recognized as a foundational science in the context of education. Teachers used the professionalization of observation techniques in school to enhance their socio-epistemic status.

Historians have claimed that the two closely related concepts of animism and natural teleology were both decisively rejected in the Scientific Revolution. They tout Robert Boyle as an early modern warden against pre-modern animism. Discussing Avicenna, Aquinas, and Buridan, as well as Renaissance psychology, I instead suggest that teleology went through a slow and uneven process of rationalization. As Neoplatonic theology gained influence over Aristotelian natural philosophy, the meaning of animism likewise grew obscure. Boyle, as some historians have shown, exemplifies this uneven process. There is an unresolved tension between his religious convictions and the implicit animism of his empirical practice.

The American psychologist and philosopher William James drew inspiration from British evolutionary theory, neurology, psychiatry, psychology and philosophy. Trained in anatomy, physiology and medicine, he developed a physiological psychology that offered acute analyses of consciousness and of the relations between mind and brain, habit and thought, cognition and emotion and other aspects of psychology. One of his insights, regarding the relation between attention and will, was based upon his own experience of panic anxiety, which was resolved through his reading of several British authors. The story of his psychiatric experience, practical response and later theoretical conclusion offers a potential contribution to contemporary therapeutic practice.

The pragmatist theory of history, action, and sociality can be understood as the result of a specific interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution, which has nothing in common with teleological, reductionist, or social Darwinist evolutionary models. This historical claim will be developed in three steps. First, I will show why Darwin’s theory was so attractive to the classical pragmatists and how their conception of history was affected by their reading of Darwin. Second, I will illustrate how the pragmatist understanding of individual action was influenced by contemporary discussions in evolutionary theory, physiology, and psychology. Third, I will discuss pragmatism’s “cultural naturalism” (John Dewey), according to which a new, autonomous level of sociocultural change emerges as a result of the process of biological evolution. The reconstruction of pragmatist evolutionary thought not only aims to achieve a better historical understanding of pragmatism but also implies a systematic and theoretical claim. As will be argued in the last section of this paper, the timeliness and continuing relevance of pragmatism is largely due to the fact that it took shape in a transdisciplinary context and remained an “empirically responsible” theory (Erkki Kilpinen). Currently, various innovative developments within psychology, the cognitive sciences, neurophysiology, and ethology are connected with the core insights of pragmatism, thereby supporting the argument that pragmatism is still evolving.

William Horsley Gantt is well known as one to the principal proponents of Pavlovian methodology in the U.S. After a long stay at Ivan Petrovich Pavlov’s laboratory in Leningrad from 1925 to 1929, Gantt was invited by Adolf Meyer to join the Henry Phipps Psychiatric Clinic, where he founded and directed the Pavlovian Laboratory from 1930 to 1964. Soon after his arrival at Phipps Clinic in 1931, Gantt began a Pavlovian research program that included the investigation of nervous disturbances in dogs and clinical researches with psychiatric patients. In these studies, Gantt combined a physiological method (the conditional reflexes approach), with a psychiatric problem (nervous disorders) in the context of Meyer’s psychobiology that established the person or individual as unit of analysis. This fact, concentrating upon a single individual, made Gantt studies with dogs recognizable and interesting to physicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists who also worked on individuals. In this paper, we use archival materials –including correspondence, notebooks, and unpublished autobiographical material- to present a case study, that of William Horsley Gantt and his dog Nick. We will explore the reasons why Gantt’ studies on nervous disturbances with this dog captured the interest of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

This work analyses the evolution of the scientific visibility of the neurophysiologist José Manuel Rodríguez Delgado. It examines the longitudinal evolution from 1955 to 2013 of an article (Delgado, Roberts, & Miller, 1954) studying the neurological basis of learning and motivation and compares it with a coetaneous article (Olds & Milner, 1954) with a similar subject and methodology. Both studies have been essential in Psychology. This work analyses the number of times each article has been cited between 1955–1984 and 1985–2013. The results show that the visibility of James Olds and Peter Milner’s article (expressed in number of citations between 1955–1984 and 1985–2013) has longitudinally increased (p < .001), whereas the number of citations received by José Manuel Rodríguez Delgado et al.’s article has significantly reduced (p < .001). The results are discussed and the low visibility of Delgado’s article is explained through historical and social factors, including the growing concern about compliance with bioethical and research guidelines and the controversial media projection of the Spanish scientist, not by the intrinsic value or the scientific repercussion of the compared articles.

This paper provides landmarks for the study of the historical development and current expansion of academic psychology and clinical psychology education in Australia and three countries of the Malay Archipelago (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore). It reviews literature on the history of clinical psychology, and information from universities and psychological associations, and includes an overview of the current providers and forms of psychology education programmes and their curricula. A critical analysis informed by cultural anthropology indicates that psychology has only to a small extent been adjusted to different cultural contexts, while ‘western’ models of the discipline remain dominant. The neglect of attention to culture in psychology and clinical psychology raises important questions about the future of the discipline in the tropical regions of Australia and the Malay Archipelago.

In this work, we present a new way of understanding psychology, which emerges as a result of relating it to the three principles of the theory of fashion of Gilles Lipovetsky: “the principle of the ephemeral,” “the principle of the marginal differentiation of individuals,” and “the principle of seduction.” We relate the first principle to the plurality of the diverse and changing “schools and systems” that have existed throughout the history of psychology. We apply the second to the figure of the psychologist, considered individually, revealing his or her leading role in the generation of the changing plurality of the systems. By means of the third principle, we point up that the diverse psychologies are forms of seduction. We conclude by stating that psychology has the form of fashion and we analyze how this form can help us to better understand it.

Fechner's conception of psychophysics included both “outer psychophysics” the relation between stimulus intensity and the response reflecting sensation strength, and “inner psychophysics” the relation between neurelectric responses and sensation strength. In his own time outer psychophysics focussed on the form of the psychophysical law, with Fechner espousing a logarithmic law, Delboeuf a variant of the logarithmic law incorporating a resting level of neural activity, and Plateau a power law. One of the issues on which the dispute was focussed concerned the appearance of contrasts if the overall illumination was increased or decreased; another issue was the question of whether a sensation of a “just noticeable difference” established for one value of a sensory dimension appeared the same for a value elsewhere on the dimension. The development of “inner psychophysics” led through the works of Delboeuf, Solomons, Jastrow, and Thurstone to modern signal detection theory. A third line of research, devoted to the question of what was meant by the “measurement” of sensation strength, stemmed from the criticism of Fechner's work by von Kries (1882) and others. Although a valid body of science could be built up without the intervening variable called “sensation strength,” such a science might be a cumbersome representation of reality. When an optical contrast is set up, and its overall illumination is increased or decreased, subjective contrasts involving medium levels of lightness vary little as illumination varies (as a power law based on sensation ratios or a logarithmic law based on sensation differences predict), but subjective contrasts involving extreme levels of lightness might be subject to the effects of other variables.