American psychology's struggles with its curriculum. Should a thousand flowers bloom?

Although discussions of a core curriculum in doctoral training in psychology can be heard in contemporary psychology, there is no such common core, nor has one ever existed in American psychology's history. Advocates of a core curriculum argue that it ensures breadth of training, an outcome made even more important by growing specialization in psychology, and that it provides psychologists with a needed common identity as members of a recognized professional discipline. Opponents argue that a core curriculum places unwanted constraints on a program of study, prohibiting the kind of diversity needed to keep abreast of changes in psychology and related fields of study. The author reviews the history of this struggle within American psychology and discusses its implications for the science and practice of psychology.

A brief history of the psychology course in American high schools.

Psychology has been a part of the high school curriculum for the past 170 years in a variety of forms, in classes labeled mental and moral philosophy mental hygiene, personal adjustment, child development, human relations, and psychology. This abbreviated and selective account traces that history, including the considerable role played by the American Psychological Association. This history focuses on the social and educational contexts that led to changes in the nature of high school psychology classes and concludes with comments about the value of precollege psychology classes.

The psychology laboratory at the turn of the 20th century.

The author provides a brief history of the psychology laboratory from 1879 to 1900, discusses its crucial role in the founding of scientific psychology, and describes how it enabled psychology's separation from philosophy. The laboratory model is described as a research and graduate training enterprise that operated with K. Danziger's (1990) concept of a "community of scholars" and was eventually extended to the training of undergraduate students.

The affirmation of the scientist-practitioner. A look back at Boulder.

In the aftermath of World War II, several influences were paramount in forcing academic psychology to recognize, albeit reluctantly, the coming professionalization of psychology. The federal government, wishing to avoid a repeat of blunders following World War I that led to significant dissatisfaction among veterans, took proactive steps to ensure that mental health needs of the new veterans would be met. The USPHS and the VA were mandated to expand significantly the pool of mental health practitioners, a direction that led not only to the funding of the Boulder conference but also to the development of APA's accreditation program, funded practical and internship arrangements with the VA, and the USPHS grants to academic departments for clinical training. The GI Bill, amended to include payment for graduate education, created tremendous interest in graduate programs in psychology. As a result, psychology programs were inundated with funded applicants, most of whom were interested in the application of psychology to clinical and other applied fields. Graduate psychology departments were mixed in their views of this "blessing." The reality of a separate curriculum for professional training in psychology was a bitter pill for some academic psychologists to swallow. Graduate departments feared that control of their programs would be taken over by external forces and that they would lose their right to determine their own curriculum. Further, they feared the domination of clinical training within their own departments and the effects of such educational emphasis on their traditional experimental programs. The Boulder conference brought together these disparate needs and concerns, although one can argue about how well some points of view were represented with respect to others. It was a time of high anticipation and fear. The conference could easily have ended in failure, with such diverse interests being unable to reach any consensus. There are many letters in the correspondence of committee members that suggest disagreements serious enough to prevent the development of any single model of training. Instead, by most yardsticks that one could apply, the conference succeeded, perhaps beyond the dreams of many of those in attendance who were most invested in a model for professional training. In evaluating the legacy of Boulder, several points are apparent. First, the conference succeeded because 73 individuals were able to agree to some 70 resolutions in 15 days, creating the scientist-practitioner model of professional training. Such consensus was arguably a remarkable achievement. The endorsement of the model by academic units followed with little evident resistance, although it is clear that some Boulder-model programs were developed that bore little resemblance to the model's insistence on significant training in both research and practice. Second, as a response to social and political needs, the conference was clearly a success. The cooperation of the APA, the USPHS, and the VA benefited all three entities. Clinical psychology was given the financial support and backing to advance it as a profession, and the federal government was able to begin the process of securing the personnel needed to address the mental health needs of the nation. The architects of Boulder were clear that their vision of training for professional psychology should be viewed as dynamic and experimental rather than fixed and prescribed. Certainly there are several variants of professional training extant today, yet the overwhelming majority of currently accredited programs in psychology label themselves as "Boulder-model" programs or "scientist-practitioner" programs. Still, new national conferences on professional training in psychology occur with some regularity as participants seek to resolve many of the same concerns debated by those at Boulder. The grand experiment goes on.

Coca-Cola, caffeine, and mental deficiency: Harry Hollingworth and the Chattanooga trial of 1911.

Harry Hollingworth's 1911 investigation of the behavioral effects of caffeine is one of the earliest examples of psychological research contracted by a large corporation. The research was necessitated by a federal government suit against the Coca-Cola Company for marketing a beverage with a deleterious ingredient, namely, caffeine. Although Hollingworth's research played little role in the outcome of the Coca-Cola trials, it was important as a model of sophistication in experimental design. As such, it set a standard for psychopharmacological research. It also was particularly important in directing Hollingworth toward a life-long career in applied psychology.