Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Of Psychometric Means: Starke R. Hathaway and the Popularization of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

  • Rebecca Schilling (a1) and Stephen T. Casper (a2)
Abstract
Argument

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was developed at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in the 1930s and 1940s. It became a highly successful and highly controversial psychometric tool. In professional terms, psychometric tools such as the MMPI transformed psychology and psychiatry. Psychometric instruments thus readily fit into the developmental history of psychology, psychiatry, and neurology; they were a significant part of the narrative of those fields’ advances in understanding, intervening, and treating people with mental illnesses. At the same time, the advent of such tools also fits into a history of those disciplines that records the rise of obsessional observational and evaluative techniques and technologies in order to facilitate patterns of social control that became typical during the Progressive Era in the United States and after. It was those patterns that also nurtured the resistance to psychometrics that emerged during the Vietnam War and after.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Anon. 1986. “Starke Rosecrans Hathaway (1903–1984).” American Psychologist 41 (7):834835.

Roderick D. Buchanan 1994. “The Development of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30:148161.

Roderick D. Buchanan 1997. “Ink Blots or Profile Plots: The Rorschach versus the MMPI as the Right Tool for a Science-Based Profession.” Science, Technology & Human Values 22 (2):168206.

Roderick D. Buchanan 2002. “On Not Giving Psychology Away: The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and Public Controversy over Testing in the 1960s.” History of Psychology 5 (3):284309.

John C. Burnham , ed. 2012. After Freud Left: A Century of Psychoanalysis in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

James H. Capshew 1999. Psychologists on the March: Science, Practice, and Professional Identity in America, 1929–1969. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Deborah J. Coon 1993. “Standardizing the Subject: Experimental Psychologists, Instrospection, and the Technoscientific Ideal.” Technology and Culture 34:757783.

W. Grant Dahlstrom . 1992. “The Growth in Acceptance of the MMPI.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 23 (5):345348.

Kurt Danziger . 1990. Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Paul Forman . 2012. “On the Historical Forms of Knowledge Production and Curation: Modernity Entailed Disciplinarity, Postmodernity Entails Antidisciplinarity.” Osiris 27 (1):5697.

Delia Gavrus . 2011. “Men of Dreams and Men of Action: Neurologists, Neurosurgeons, and the Performance of Professional Identity, 1920–1950.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 85 (1):5792.

Robert E. Gibby , and Michael J. Zickar . 2008. “A History of the Early Days of Personality Testing in American Industry: An Obsession with Adjustment.” History of Psychology 11:164184.

Stephen J. Gould 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.

Starke R. Hathaway 1939. “The Personality Inventory as an Aid in the Diagnosis of Psychopathic Inferiors.” Journal of Consulting Psychology 3:112117.

Starke R. Hathaway 1964a. “MMPI: Professional Use by Professional People.” American Psychologist 19:204211.

Starke R. Hathaway , and John C. McKinley . 1940. “A Multiphasic Personality Schedule: I. Construction of the Schedule.” Journal of Psychology 10:249254.

Sarah Elizabeth Igo . 2007. The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass Public. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Daniel J. Kevles 1968. “Testing the Army's Intelligence: Psychologists and the Military in World War I.” Journal of American History 55:565581.

Nikolas Rose . 1996. Inventing Our Selves: Psychology, Power, and Personhood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas S. Szasz 1960. “The Myth of Mental Illness.” American Psychologist 15 (2):113118.

Fernando Vidal . 2009. “Brainhood, Anthropology of Modernity.” History of Human Sciences 22:536.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Science in Context
  • ISSN: 0269-8897
  • EISSN: 1474-0664
  • URL: /core/journals/science-in-context
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 20 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 240 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 31st March 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.