Family, friends, and faith-communities: Intellectual community and the benefits of unofficial networks for marginalized scientists.

Throughout the 20th century, female scientists faced barriers to participation in scientific communities. Within psychology, the 1st generation of women fought for inclusion in the university and access to laboratories; the 2nd generation officially gained access to such resources while still in practice being excluded from many areas of psychology and being denied suitable professional opportunities (Johnston & Johnson, 2008; Scarborough & Furumoto, 1987). Scholarship on these challenges tends to focus on power dynamics or on the strategies used by women to overcome obstacles to their full acceptance in the scientific world. In other words, there has been a focus on women's participation in official intellectual communities. Less attention has been paid to the motivational consequences of belonging to unofficial or informal intellectual communities. In this article, we argue that exploring the nature of unofficial communities illuminates a pattern of strategies that accounts for women's success in official communities; challenges a masculine, laboratory-centric model of science; and offers a model of intellectual work that has applications for other disenfranchised groups both in the history of science and in the modern world. We focus on 3 psychologists, Milicent Shinn, Eleanor Gibson, and Magda Arnold, whose success was underpinned by the support of unofficial networks. By so doing, we show how unofficial communities address specific needs for the marginalized. Finally, we explore applications to address the problems of the neoliberal university. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Problematic women: psychology, gender, and health in North America / Mulheres problemáticas: psicologia, gênero e saúde na América do Norte / Mujer problemática: psicología, género y salud en América del Norte

Taking its cue from the medical field, psychology has long been curious about the relationship between biological sex and illness just as societies have long been interested in regulating women's bodies. From 19th Century gender differences scholarship through 20th century activism this article introduces the gendered history of psychology and health. Offering a general overview of the past and more recent feminist present within a North American framework. Taking as its base foundation the intellectual shifts away from an exclusively individualistic lens towards one that now emphasizes systems and society; referred to as the difference between a "women-as-problem" and a "women-in-context" approach. Topics addressed include early gender differences scholarship, mental health costs and gendered violence; dual impact of the paradigms of masculinity, perversity in medicating and treating a woman's psychological condition which result from living in a patriarchal societies; constructs of female sexual dysfunction, and more. We encourage South American scholars to take up the call to more thoroughly explore and expand on the histories of gendered health and psychology within regional and historical time sensitive contexts.

Frente ao campo da medicina, a psicologia tem dedicado discussões sobre a relação entre sexo biológico e doença, assim como as sociedades que, há algum tempo, se interessam em regular o corpo das mulheres. Este artigo apresenta a história de gênero da psicologia e da saúde, a partir das pesquisas de diferenças de gênero do século XIX, por meio do ativismo do século XX. Além de oferecer uma perspectiva sobre o feminismo presente no quadro norte-americano, sobre o diálogo entre presente e passado. Sendo assim, A reflexão se desloca de uma produção intelectual com lente exclusivamente individualista para uma que agora enfatiza os sistemas e a sociedade; referido como a diferença entre uma abordagem "mulheres como problema" e "mulheres em contexto". Os tópicos abordados incluem a relação de diferenças de gênero com bolsas de estudos, custos de saúde mental e violência de gênero; impacto duplo dos paradigmas da masculinidade, perversidade em medicar e tratar a condição psicológica de uma mulher que resulta de viver em sociedades patriarcais; construtos da disfunção sexual feminina e mais. Encorajamos pesquisadores da América do Sul para fomentarem as discussões exploratórias e profundas da história de saúde e psicologia de gênero - dentro de contextos regionais e históricos, sensíveis ao tempo,

Siguiendo la propuesta del campo de la medicina, la psicología ha sentido curiosidad por la relación entre el sexo biológico y la enfermedad así como las sociedades han estado interesadas desde hace tiempo en regular los cuerpos de las mujeres. Desde las diferencias de género en subsidios en el siglo XIX hasta el activismo en el siglo XX, este artículo introduce la historia de género de la psicología y la salud. Ofrece una visión general del pasado y del más reciente feminismo en un ámbito norteamericano. Tomando como su base fundamental el intelectual se aleja de una lente exclusivamente individualista hacia una que enfatiza los sistemas y la sociedad; se refiere a la diferencia entre los enfoques "mujeres-como-problema" y "mujeres-en-contexto". Los temas abordados incluyen subsidios anticipados considerando las diferencias de género, costos de salud mental y violencia de género; doble impacto de los paradigmas de la masculinidad, la perversidad en medicar y tratar de la condición psicológica de una mujer que resulta de vivir en una sociedad patriarcal; constructos de la disfunción sexual femenina, y más. Alentamos a los académicos sudamericanos a que atiendan al llamado para explorar y expandir profundamente las historias de salud y psicología de género en contextos regionales e históricos sensibles al tiempo.

"Very much in love": The letters of Magda Arnold and Father John Gasson.

Magda Arnold (1903-2002), best known for her pioneering appraisal theory of emotion, belonged to the second generation of women in psychology who frequently experienced institutional sexism and career barriers. Following her religious conversion, Arnold had to contend with the additional challenge of being an openly Catholic woman in psychology at a time when Catholic academics were stigmatized. This paper announces the discovery of and relies upon a number of previously unknown primary sources on Magda Arnold, including approximately 150 letters exchanged by Arnold and Father John Gasson. This correspondence illuminates both the development of Arnold's thought and her navigation of the career challenges posed by her conversion. I argue that Gasson's emotional and intellectual support be considered as resources that helped Arnold succeed despite the discrimination she experienced. Given the romantic content of the correspondence, I also consider Arnold and Gasson in the context of other academic couples in psychology in this period and argue that religious belief ought to be further explored as a potential contributor to the resilience of women in psychology's history.

Far More Than Dutiful Daughter: Milicent Shinn's Child Study and Education Advocacy After 1898.

Previous scholarship on the life of psychologist Milicent Shinn (E. Scarborough & L. Furumoto, 1987 ) emphasized Shinn's failure to pursue an academic career in psychology following her PhD in 1898. Scarborough and Furumoto used Shinn as an example of "the family claim"-the career limitations women faced in terms of their family obligations. This narrative, however, obscured Shinn's continued engagement with child study before and after her years in graduate school, as a recent article documenting Shinn's leadership of network of home-based observers of infant development makes clear (C. von Oertzen, 2013 ). This article challenges the traditional retelling of Shinn's story still further, by exploring how Shinn used her professional contacts from her previous role as editor of the Overland Monthly to promote a wide range of causes related to child study and education. Following G. Lerner ( 1979 ), the author attends to Shinn's own values, such as her love of California, education, and her family. These values suggest a much more positive evaluation of Shinn's life work and the domestic environment in which she conducted her research and advocacy work.

The visual cliff's forgotten menagerie: rats, goats, babies, and myth-making in the history of psychology.

Eleanor Gibson and Richard Walk's famous visual cliff experiment is one of psychology's classic studies, included in most introductory textbooks. Yet the famous version which centers on babies is actually a simplification, the result of disciplinary myth-making. In fact the visual cliff's first subjects were rats, and a wide range of animals were tested on the cliff, including chicks, turtles, lambs, kid goats, pigs, kittens, dogs, and monkeys. The visual cliff experiment was more accurately a series of experiments, employing varying methods and a changing apparatus, modified to test different species. This paper focuses on the initial, nonhuman subjects of the visual cliff, resituating the study in its original experimental logic, connecting it to the history of comparative psychology, Gibson's interest in comparative psychology, as well as gender-based discrimination. Recovering the visual cliff's forgotten menagerie helps to counter the romanticization of experimentation by focusing on the role of extrascientific factors, chance, complexity, and uncertainty in the experimental process.

The infancy of infant pain research: the experimental origins of infant pain denial.

UNLABELLED: Skepticism toward infant pain characterized much of 20th century research and clinical practice, with infant surgery routinely conducted with minimal or no anesthesia into the 1980s. This paper offers a historical exploration of how this view became common by reviewing and analyzing the experimental infant pain research of the 19th and early 20th centuries that contributed to the development of infant pain denial. These experiments used pinprick and electric shock, and the results were generally interpreted as evidence of infants' underdeveloped pain perception, attributed to their lack of brain maturation. Even clear responses to noxious stimuli were often dismissed as reflex responding. Later these experimental findings were used by anesthesiologists to support the lessened use of anesthesia for infants. Based on the reviewed literature, this paper suggests that 4 interrelated causes contributed to the denial of infant pain: the Darwinian view of the child as a lower being, extreme experimental caution, the mechanistic behaviorist perspective, and an increasing emphasis on brain and nervous system development. Ultimately this history can be read as a caution to modern researchers to be aware of their own biases, the risks of null hypothesis testing, and a purely mechanistic view of infants. PERSPECTIVE: This article reviews the history of 19th and early 20th century infant pain research, tracing how the widely accepted belief that infants could not feel pain developed in the period prior to the growing acceptance of infant pain. Four interrelated causes are posited to help explain the tolerance of infant pain denial until recent times.

Last of the mohicans? James McCosh and psychology "old" and "new".

This paper addresses the history of a rhetorical tradition in psychology that made a distinct division between old and new psychology and denigrated the old. The views of James McCosh, a transitional old psychologist and Princeton's president from 1868 to 1888, are analyzed to evaluate the stereotypical view of old psychology as antiscience and dogmatic. The evidence of James McCosh's writings and his actions while president of Princeton suggest the need for a more nuanced interpretation of the relationship between the old and the new. While McCosh did not share the new psychologists' valuation of experimental psychology, this was because of a disagreement over the correct methods of science, not a rejection of science itself. Therefore, the negative view of old psychology is better understood as a rhetorical strategy on the part of new psychologists who had professional reasons to distance themselves from their old psychology heritage.