The Importance of Instrument Makers For The Development of Experimental Psychology. The Case of Alfrd Binet at The Sorbonne Laboratory

Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol.
00(0), 1–27 xxxx 2016

View this article online at Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/jhbs.21790

C 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
THE IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUMENT MAKERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY: THE CASE OF ALFRED BINET
AT THE SORBONNE LABORATORY
SERGE NICOLAS
The importance of instrument firms in the development of psychology, and science in

general, should not be underestimated since it would not have been possible for various
leading psychologists at the turn of the twentieth century to conduct certain experiments
without the assistance of instrument makers, as is often the case today. To illustrate the
historical perspective introduced here, the example of Alfred Binet is taken, as he is an
interesting case of a psychologist working in close collaboration with various French
instrument designers of the time. The objective of this article is twofold: (1) to show
the considerable activity carried out by early psychologists to finalize new laboratory
instruments in order to develop their research projects; (2) to reassess the work of a major
figure in French psychology through his activity as a designer of precision instruments.
The development of these new instruments would certainly have been difficult without the
presence in Paris of numerous precision instrument manufacturers such as Charles Verdin,
Otto Lund, Henri Collin, and Lucien Korsten, on whom Binet successively called in order
to develop his projects in the field of experimental psychology. C 2016 Wiley Periodicals,
Inc.
INTRODUCTION
In the past, historians have primarily studied the development of scientific psychology in
the light of the biographies of pioneers (e.g., Fancher, 1985; Kimble, Wertheimer, & White,
1991; Kimble, Boneau, & Wertheimer, 1996), psychological research methodology (e.g.,
Danziger, 1990), publishing houses and editorial policy of books and journals (e.g., Nicolas,
2015), descriptions of laboratories (e.g., Capshew, 1992) and of some of their instruments
(e.g., Evans, 1999; Schmidgen, 2005; Nicolas & Thompson, 2015), etc. Although some
information is available on lists of instruments located in early laboratories (e.g., Popplestone
& McPherson, 1971, 1980; Nicolas & Young, 2014), to my knowledge little has been written
about the relationships existing between psychologists and instrument designers (see however
Benschop & Draaisma, 2000; Evans, 2000; Haupt, 2001). Yet, the importance of instrument
firms in the development of psychology, and science in general (e.g., de Clercq, 1985; Turner
& Bryden, 1997; Bud & Warner, 1998), should not be underestimated since it would not have
been possible for various leading psychologists at the turn of the twentieth century to conduct
some of their experiments without the assistance of such engineers, as is often the case today.
To illustrate the new historical perspective introduced here, the example of Alfred Binet is
taken as he is an interesting case of a psychologist working in close collaboration with various
French instrument designers of the time.
SERGE NICOLAS is Professor of psychology at the University Paris Descartes, France. He received his
PhD in cognitive psychology from the University of Grenoble in 1992 and his PhD in history of philosophy
from the University of Paris VIII in 2007. His interests include the history of French psychology and
history of French philosophy. He is also director of L’Année Psychologique and this article is part
of a larger project on Binet’s work. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Serge Nicolas, Laboratoire Mémoire et Cognition, Institut de Psychologie, Centre de Psychiatrie et
Neurosciences, INSERM UMR U894, 71 avenue Edouard Vaillant, 92774 Boulogne Billancourt, France;
serge.nicolas@parisdescartes.fr
1
2 SERGE NICOLAS
It may seem paradoxical to take the example of Alfred Binet (1857–1911; for biographical
information, see Wolf, 1973; Fancher, 1997) because he is a figure in psychology who is now
known primarily for his work in the field of intelligence (see Nicolas et al., 2013). However,
that is only one aspect of his scientific work (though certainly the most important historically
speaking) which began at the Salpêtrière hospital with Jean Martin Charcot (1825–1893) and
which continued at the Sorbonne in the psychology laboratory and in the schools of Paris
(see Nicolas & Sanitioso, 2012). Although he was the inventor of the first intelligence test
in 1904 (Binet & Simon, 1905), he was also an experimental psychologist who conducted
several original studies in various domains of scientific psychology (Nicolas & Levine, 2012).
For his laboratory work, like most of the great pioneers of modern psychology, Binet built or
commissioned apparatus and instruments for the needs of his research. This is an aspect of
Binet’s work which has unfortunately never received the attention of historians of psychology. I
have already stressed Binet’s research activity (Nicolas & Sanitioso, 2012) and pointed out that
he made use of some instruments provided by the physiologist Henry Beaunis (1830–1921)
at the Sorbonne psychology laboratory, in particular for his experimental work on writing
movements, using Edison’s electric pen (see Nicolas & Sanitioso, 2012, pp. 343–345) and on
reaction times (RTs), not using the Hipp chronoscope as was then customary in German and
American laboratories, but the d’Arsonval chronometer (cf. Nicolas & Sanitioso, 2012; Nicolas
& Thompson, 2015). However, these devices were not designed or built by psychologists; Binet
simply used them for his experimental work (e.g., d’Arsonval chronometer) or ingeniously
repurposed them (e.g., Edison’s electric pen) for experimental purposes. Binet was always
interested in psychology instrumentation as evidenced by his early work at the Salpêtrière
hospital (e.g., Binet, 1889a, 1889b) and certain papers published in L’Année Psychologique
(e.g., Binet, 1895a, 1896b; Binet & Henri, 1897; Scripture, 1897b).
Although most of the instruments used in psychology by the late 1890s were derived
from instruments devised for other disciplines (e.g., physiology, physics, medicine), original
instruments began to be created by psychologists (Evans, 2000). Indeed, for their laboratory
work, experimental psychologists constantly needed to adapt existing instruments or to develop
specific devices for their own research. The lists of equipment located in various German and
American laboratories (e.g., Münsterberg, 1893) of the late nineteenth century show, for
instance, that many instruments were built by psychologists themselves and/or their assistants.
Among these psychologists-cum-mechanical engineers we find the names of major figures
in psychology such as Wilhelm Wundt, James McKeen Cattell, Edward Bradford Titchener,
Joseph Jastrow, Hugo Münsterberg, Edmund Sanford, Edward Scripture, etc. But there was
a tendency to forget the contribution of Binet in this domain. Makers such as Krille and
Zimmermann in Leipzig produced instruments for the laboratory of Wilhelm Wundt for
years. As noted by Evans (2000), other German psychology laboratories were associated
with various European makers: for example, Rothe with Ewald Hering, Spindler and Hoyer
with G. E. Müller. In America, some firms were set up in connection with universities. The
Chicago Laboratory Supply and Scale Company, directed by C. H. Stoelting, was the most
famous American psychology instrument maker at the turn of the century. The importance of
manufacturers of precision apparatus and instruments for psychological laboratories has not
yet been fully highlighted in the literature and a history of their role remains to be written.
As noted by Brenni (2006) and Payen (1985, 1986), during this period (1880–1914), the
French precision instrument industry lost its leading position in the world market. Despite
this, the names of some French makers were well-known abroad at the time (see Münsterberg,
1893; Titchener, 1900). This was the case of the firm Koenig with its acoustical equipment
(see Brenni, 1995; Pantalony, 2009), which was used by Hermann von Helmholtz, and the
JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

THE IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUMENT MAKERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 3
FIGURE 1.
Schematic map of Paris city center with the main Paris monuments and the instrument firms run by Verdin, Collin,
Lund, and Korsten who worked with Binet. These firms, whose buildings still exist, were located on the left bank of
the Seine (south of the city), near the Faculties of Sciences and Medicine (the psychology laboratory was located in
the Sorbonne building, near the Collège de France and the Faculty of Medicine). I have indicated by the relative
location of Binet’s apartments in the 1890s (in 1890–1897: rue Madame, n° 26; in 1898–1901: rue Herschel, n° 5).
firm Verdin, which specialized in the construction of physiological and medical devices (see
Nicolas, 2016, in preparation). They worked in close collaboration with the academic world
and contributed to the fruitful work of the most famous French scientists of the time. Although
it is common to speak of the decline of the French instrument industry in the 1890s and early
1900s (Payen, 1985, 1986), the quality of French instruments remained very high. Koenig
and Verdin were not the only famous instrument makers in Paris, since there were many
other precision instrument manufacturers that specialized in the making of psychological
instruments. In order to pursue his projects in the field of experimental psychology, Binet
contacted, in succession, Charles Verdin, Otto Lund, Henri Collin, and Lucien Korsten. (see
Figure 1 for the location of the diverse instrument makers in Paris contacted by Binet).
The main focus of the article has more to do with Binet’s activity as a designer of
instruments, and on the nature of the instruments, rather than on the activities of the instruments
makers as such. Thus, the objective of this article is twofold: (1) to show, through the figure of
Binet, the considerable activity carried out by early psychologists to finalize new laboratory
instruments in order to develop their research projects; (2) more broadly, to reassess the work of
a major figure in French psychology through his activity as a designer of precision instruments
and to show that there is “another Binet” (Siegler, 1992), a first-rate experimenter, whose work
has been overshadowed by the classic story of psychology (Nicolas & Levine, 2012), who
built original devices for his research needs. The development of these new instruments would

4 SERGE NICOLAS
FIGURE 2.
Portrait of Charles Verdin (private possession of S. Nicolas).
certainly have been difficult without the presence in Paris of numerous precision instrument
manufacturers.
A NEW DEVICE DESIGNED BY THE FAMOUS FIRM VERDIN TO EXAMINE INAUDI’S FACULTY
OF CALCULATION
When Binet was recruited in 1891 by the physiologist Henry Beaunis (1830–1921) to
work in the psychology laboratory at the Sorbonne (see Nicolas & Sanitioso, 2012), the
manufacturer Charles Verdin (1848–1907, see Figure 2) was the best known French precision
instrument maker for laboratories at the time. Between 1873 and 1878, Verdin was first the
assistant mechanic of Etienne Jules Marey (1830–1904), a professor at the Collège de France,
who had developed the graphic method in physiology in France (he also developed a strong
interest in the study of movements using chronophotography, see Thomas, Didierjean, &
Nicolas, 2016). The graphic method is a technique using recording instruments that produce
a graphical representation of several complex and imperceptible variables (time durations,
temperature variations, muscle movements, etc.). Introduced into physiology (see Marey,
1868), this method enabled physiological events to be directly recording by “slowing down
and magnifying hitherto indistinguishable or unobservable biological events” (Borell, 1986,
p. 114). The basic equipment in French physiology laboratories consisted of a revolving
drum (the kymograph) connected to a regulator (Marey used Foucault’s regulator) to obtain a
uniform speed (see Figure 3). Associated with this equipment, we find Marey’s tambour (see
Figure 4) which converted changes in air pressure into movements of a stylus that scribed
on the smoked continuously revolving drum. Having perceived Verdin’s desire to set up a
company specialized in the construction of precision instruments, Marey encouraged him to

FIGURE 3.
Smoked continuously revolving drum (kymograph) with Foucault’s regulator (Marey, 1868, p. 125).
FIGURE 4.
Marey’s tambour (from Marey, 1868, p. 148). It is a registering device that fits on a kymograph or other similar
device.
do so. In 1878, Verdin was officially established as an instrument maker in Paris. Verdin first
marketed the devices constructed and used in Marey’s laboratory, then gradually extended his
range of precision instruments for physiology and medicine laboratories. For example, in the
Verdin catalog of 1888 we find an important novelty: the famous chronometer of the French
physiologist Jacques d’Arsonval (cf. Nicolas & Thompson, 2015) designed to measure RTs
(Verdin, 1888).
In 1892–1893, the psychology laboratory personnel officially included H. Beaunis
(Director), Alfred Binet (Assistant Director), Jean Philippe (Head of Research), Jules Courtier
(Assistant Head of Research), Charles Henry (Lecturer), and an advanced student Victor Henri
(see Figure 5). Various work was conducted during this period (see Nicolas & Sanitioso, 2012);
for example, experiments on sensations (RT studies), movement (writing), memory (visual
and auditory), etc. But the most interesting experiments focused on the psychology of mental
arithmeticians. It is in this context that Binet came into contact with Charles Verdin, who had
supplied some equipment (e.g., Marey’s drum, the kymograph, the d’Arsonval chronometer,
etc.) on the foundation of the psychology laboratory in 1889.
Indeed, Binet enjoyed the opportunity of being in contact with Charles Verdin, whose firm
was located rue Linné n° 7 in Paris, while studying a calculating prodigy, a young 24-year-old
man, Jacques Inaudi (1867–1950), who performed, with surprising rapidity, mental arithmetic
involving a large number of figures (see Burman, Guida, & Nicolas, 2015). At seven years
of age Inaudi was already capable of performing five-figure multiplications in his head. He
came to Paris for the first time in 1880, and was presented to the Anthropological Society
by Broca, who wrote a brief note on the case (Broca, 1880; see Nicolas, Guida, & Levine,
2014). Since 1880, Inaudi had made great progress: he learned to read and write, and the
sphere of his operations widened. The operations he performed with surprising rapidity were
additions, subtractions, multiplications, divisions, and extractions of roots. In February 1892,
Inaudi, now a young man of 24, was presented at a session of the Academy of Sciences in

6 SERGE NICOLAS
FIGURE 5.
Some members of the psychology laboratory of the Sorbonne in 1893 (illustration of the graphic method). From left
to right: Jules Courtier (Assistant Head of Research), Alfred Binet (Assistant Director of the laboratory), Jean
Philippe (Head of Research), and Victor Henri (Student). Source: Courtesy of the Alfred Binet Archives.
Paris. After witnessing a few of Inaudi’s usual exercises, the Academy named a commission,
whose members included several mathematicians (Darboux, Poincaré, Tisserand), and Dr. Jean
Martin Charcot (1825–1893), an eminent professor at the Salpêtrière hospital. Charcot was
specially charged with examining Inaudi from the point of view of physiological psychology
(see Nicolas & Guida, 2015). Charcot invited Binet, his former collaborator, to join him in
studying Inaudi. Binet saw Inaudi during several sessions at the psychological laboratory of
the Sorbonne, where he came to submit himself to various measurement experiments. Binet
published the first results of this research in the Revue des deux Mondes (Binet, 1892b), where
he dealt with the question in a general manner, and then in collaboration with the French
zoologist Louis Félix Henneguy (1850–1928, see Figure 6; who worked in the laboratory
of embryology under the direction of Edouard Gérard Balbiani, Binet’s father-in-law) in the
Bulletins of the Sorbonne laboratory (year 1892) where he gave technical details about some
of the experiments.
Binet and Henneguy (1892) published a famous paper in which they first studied Inaudi’s
memory for digits and other types of material (words, colors, etc.), and then examined his
faculty of calculation in greater detail. In fact, Binet was highly interested by the rapidity
with which Inaudi indicated the solution to a problem that had been posed to him. In his
calculations, Inaudi began to calculate while listening to the elements of the problem. If the
enunciation of these elements took 30 seconds, he gained that amount of time, and when he
said: “Now I shall begin,” in fact Inaudi had already finished a substantial part of his work.
At the time various methods could be used in psychology to measure vocal RTs. Because they
were confronted with a technical problem, Binet and Henneguy developed several procedures
and used diverse apparatuses to measure RTs.
To measure the exact time necessary for a mental calculation, Binet and Henneguy (1892)
first thought of using Wundt’s apparatus (Wundt, 1893, Vol. II, p. 337), but they were obliged
to give up on this due to difficulties of adjustment. They did not make use of the elementary
procedure which consists in acting on a current using a switch at the same time as a word
is pronounced. As Binet mentioned in a preceding study on colored hearing (Binet, 1892b),
the subject, in this case, has a tendency to move his hand before pronouncing the word, such

FIGURE 6.
Portrait of Louis Félix Henneguy (1850–1928; private possession of S. Nicolas).
FIGURE 7.
Apparatus designed by Charles Verdin and used by Binet and Henneguy (1892) to measure the exact time necessary
for a mental calculation.
that the recorded RT is too short. Binet and Henneguy (1892) resorted to another method.
Following the instructions that d’Arsonval was kind enough to give them, Charles Verdin
constructed for the laboratory an apparatus (see Figure 7) formed of two channels, placed on
flexible metallic blades that were exactly adapted to the lips of the subject of the experiment
(there was an earlier version of this lip key invented by Cattell when he was student in the
Wundt’s lab). This little apparatus was connected to the d’Arsonval chronometer, and when
the subject opened his mouth to speak, the two channels, which were close to each other when
the mouth was closed, separated, and the spindle fixed to the base of one of them came to
rest against the extremity of a screw whose distance from the channel could be adjusted. The

8 SERGE NICOLAS
contact between these two parts stopped the flow of a current, the effect of which was to stop
the hand of the chronometer.
Here then is how the experiment was arranged. The experimenter gave the verbal signal
for the reaction by switching on the current which set the hand of the chronometer in motion;
for example, if he wished to measure the time needed for a multiplication, he would say “Three
times five.” On pronouncing the word “five,” he toggled a switch by hand. Once the subject had
heard the number five pronounced, he performed his mental multiplication. He did so with his
mouth closed; once he had found the solution he pronounced it; and because on pronouncing
it he opened his mouth, this act had the effect just described on the apparatus and the hand of
the chronometer was stopped. In general, subjects tended to open their mouth too soon, that
is, not to talk, but before talking, sometimes also before having found what they intended to
say. After having tried out this procedure on Inaudi, Binet was obliged to abandon it. To their
knowledge, no recording procedure had yet been found that was both precise and practical.
Since this research was published (1892), the gap they indicated had been filled by Rousselot
(1891), whose encoding microphone was a very useful device marketed by Verdin in 1893
(see Verdin, 1895).
The procedure that Binet adopted, after much research, consisted in placing a pneumo-
graph on the experimenter’s chest, and another on that of the subject; the two pneumographs
each marked separate traces on a recording cylinder (graphic method) whose movement was
controlled by an electric diapason. The experiment was carried out in the now-classical condi-
tions described by Etienne Jules Marey. An assistant watched the trace of the first pneumograph
and the trace of the second. The experimenter took care, when giving the verbal signal, to
speak loudly; the subject was asked to do the same when giving his response. There was a
slight modification in the respiratory traces, of variable nature, but in general quite recogniz-
able, which made it possible to determine the precise moment at which the two utterances
were produced. Binet and Henneguy (1892) used this procedure to measure the time taken for
simple arithmetical operations. They first measured the time required to extract a square root.
Here are the times, set alongside the corresponding operations.
Question: 625 Response: 25 Time: 1.49 sec.

Question: 324 Response: 18 Time: 1.22 sec.
Question: 827 Response: 28 (remainder, 53) Time: 2.56 sec.
Binet conducted numerous experiments in 1892 and 1893 with Inaudi and other mental
calculators (see Binet, 1894a), but it was when conducting studies in individual psychology
that he developed new instruments for laboratory experiments.
LABORATORY APPARATUSES DESIGNED BY OTTO LUND AND THE GRAPHICAL METHOD

During the years 1894–1895, the main event to occur in the Sorbonne laboratory was
the publication of the first volume of the Année psychologique (Psychology Yearbook; Binet,
1895b; see Nicolas, Segui, & Ferrand, 2000). The aim of the Année psychologique was to
present an accurate picture of contemporary trends in psychology in all countries. To this end,
in the first volume, it published: (1) a series of original papers produced by the laboratory
in 1894; (2) analyses of articles and books; (3) a bibliography containing 1,200 references

FIGURE 8.
Binet and Courtier’s graphical regulator (Binet, 1896b).
encompassing not only psychology but also all the related sciences. The same year, Binet was
paying particular attention to the graphical method in collaboration with his research assistant
Jules Courtier (1860–1938; Binet, 1896a). Although the Verdin firm was the leader in France
for graphic apparatuses, Binet and Courtier commissioned the construction of two new items
of apparatus from another Parisian instrument maker named Otto Lund (located place de la
Sorbonne, n° 6, near the psychology laboratory): a graphical regulator (Binet & Courtier,
1895d; see Figure 8) and a graphical switch (Binet, 1896b), both of which were intended to
correct certain sources of graphical errors. Some initial information, including a presentation
of the apparatus, was presented to the Société de Biologie (Biological Society) during the
meetings in February and March 1895.
In March 18, 1895, Binet and Courtier (1895a) proposed a new application of the graphical
method to music. Their main aim was to construct an instrument that would be of use to

10 SERGE NICOLAS
FIGURE 9.
Apparatus (the criterium musical) recording the pianist’s fingers on the keys, by Otto Lund (see Binet & Courtier,
1895b, 1895c).
psychology laboratories and assist in the study of intentional movements, sense of timing,
sense of rhythm, etc. They commissioned Otto Lund, Marey’s instrument maker, to build a
graphical device, called criterium musical (Binet & Courtier, 1895b), designed to monitor the
movement of the fingers at the piano. They presented this instrument to the French Academy
of Sciences (Binet and Courtier, 1895a) and a full description of this mechanism was provided
in the Revue scientifique (Binet & Courtier, 1895c). The purpose of the instrument, designed
by Otto Lund, was to study and verify the playing of the piano. It was based on the use of the
graphical method and consisted in recording, by means of air tubes, the mechanical actions
exerted by the pianist’s fingers on the keys.
It consisted of two parts (see Figure 9): (1) a rubber tube laid crosswise below all the
black and white keys on the piano; (2) a recording instrument.
The two ends of the rubber tube were gathered together in one and the same recording
drum. This drum possessed a stylus that recorded the curves obtained due to the pressure
exerted on the keys. The advantage of this instrument was that it consisted of a single element
(the rubber tube and the drum to which it was connected). This arrangement prevented the
errors that necessarily resulted from differences in the sensitivity and adjustment of a series
of air-filled mechanisms placed below the various parts of the keyboard. The rubber tube was
glued to a cardboard strip which was itself fixed to a wooden slat that ended flush with the
lid of the piano. It was therefore possible, by means of a single screw which was accessible
from outside the piano, to raise or lower the tube depending on whether or not one wished

to record the key presses made by the pianist. The height and the diameter of the tube had
been calculated to conserve the extent to which the tube was crushed and the resistance of the
keys. To equalize the effect of the pressure of the black and white keys, which have levers of
different lengths, they made holes in the cardboard support at the positions of the black keys
in order to lengthen their distance of travel.
The recording instrument consisted of a clockwork mechanism which controlled two
rollers, between which a paper ribbon which was wound from a reel was transported by
friction. The annoying blackening of the ribbon was avoided thanks to the use of a new type of
ink pen possessing a touchwood ink holder which dispensed its reserve of ink slowly through
capillary action to a light stylus made from porous wood. The complete instrument was small
in size and was housed in a rigid copper box whose dimensions were similar to those of an
octavo volume (20 cm × 15 cm × 6 cm). It was easy to transport and could be placed on the
piano in such a way that the pianist could read the corresponding plot while he was playing.
Experiments conducted for verification purposes (Binet & Courtier, 1895c, 1896) showed
that the operation of this system provided comparable and consistent results from one end of
the series of keys to the other. The results of their research were published in a special paper
(Binet & Courtier, 1895c). Binet and Courtier (1895c, 1896) considered that this instrument
could be of use for psychological, pedagogical, and artistic reasons. They first observed that
certain virtuosos were able to deliberately extend by a hundredth of a second an interval
lasting ten hundredths of a second. Second, for pedagogical use, imperfections in the manner
of playing could be seen in particular in the fastest passages. Third, given the inadequacies of
everyday musical notation, it seemed that this instrument might be of use to performers who
wished to express precisely how a piece was to be played by providing them with information
about force, speed and all the other nuances involved in the performance.
LABORATORY APPARATUSES DESIGNED BY THE FIRMS COLLIN AND KORSTEN TO MEASURE

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
From the early 1890s, psychologists tried to clarify scientifically the characteristics of
individuals to ascertain their intellectual type. The main objective of individual psychology
was the study of individual differences in psychological processes. In 1896, Binet and Henri
examined mental tests proposed by various writers (e.g., Cattell, 1890), and found them all
incomplete; moreover, they were not representative because each test neglected higher intel-
lectual processes (for a debate, see Sokal, 1990). Binet and Henri (1896) therefore proposed
many ingenious tests (see Nicolas, Coubart, & Lubart, 2014) to measure: (1) memory; (2) the
nature of memory images; (3) imagination; (4) attention; (5) power of understanding, observ-
ing, defining, and distinguishing; (6) suggestibility; (7) aesthetic feeling; (8) moral sentiments;
(9) muscular force and force of will; and (10) motor ability. Anticipating the development of
Binet’s intelligence test (see Nicolas et al., 2013), this program of individual psychology was
pursued in the following years. In the years 1897–1898, Binet was notably interested by mus-
cular force and force of will, and in the years 1899–1900, by suggestibility and attention. It
was in this context that with the aid of some new instrument makers, he designed apparatuses
to measure individual differences in these mental functions.
Binet’s Spring Ergograph Measuring Muscular Force and Force of Will (1897)
Binet and Henri’s (1896) first aim was to find a test that provided information about both
muscular power and will power. They considered that three factors were involved: the impulsive
power of will, power of muscular contraction, and particular feelings of pain and tiredness

12 SERGE NICOLAS
FIGURE 10.
Collin’s oval dynamometer commonly used in France (see Binet & Henri, 1898, p. 172) and Germany (see
Zimmermann, 1897, p. 44) and other countries (see Fullerton & Cattell, 1892, p. 66) to measure the strength of the
flexor muscles of the hand.
that come with an energetic contraction of the muscle. The most widely used instrument at the
time was the dynamometer. At the time the French firm specialized in making dynamometers
was directed by Henri Collin (1865–1845), and was located in Paris near the Sorbonne and the
Faculty of Medicine. However, Binet and Henri (1896) considered that dynamometers were in
general badly graduated and inconvenient to handle for people who were not used to them (see
also Binet & Vaschide, 1898b). Moreover, since they only give the result of a single pressure, the
role of will is minimal. It is by the persistence of a voluntary state that individual differences
reveal themselves. They proposed another procedure: lifting with only one finger (for the
effects to be faster and clearer than with the entire hand) a known weight (so that the quantity
of work can be measured), as fast (because, thanks to the speed, tiredness rapidly sets in and
the muscle is prevented from resting) and as long as possible (to see the persistence of effort).
For Binet and Henri (1896), dynamometers (see Figure 10) and dynamographs (see Figure
11) did not satisfy these conditions and even Mosso’s famous ergograph (for a description:
Binet, 1895c, see Figure 12 and also the web site http://himetop.wikidot.com/angelo-mosso-
s-ergograph) did not entirely satisfy these conditions because raising the weight is done by
flexing, a movement that has considerable amplitude and takes time (for some other criticisms
and modifications of the ergograph, see Hock & Kraepelin, 1895; Franz, 1900; Schenck, 1900;
Hough, 1901; Treves, 1906). “Obviously, we have to modify the ergograph while keeping the
principle. Choose a movement of finger extension, to lift a weight lighter than a kilogram, with
each lift inscribed on the cylinder.” (Binet & Henri, 1896, p. 463).
On December 20, 1897, Binet (1897) announced the construction by Collin’s firm of a
new ergograph, which he called a spring ergograph (see Figure 13) because it differed from
that designed by Mosso (1888, 1890) in that the weight lifted by flexing the middle finger
was replaced with a spring. This new ergograph was first described on December 27, 1897
by Binet and Vaschide (1897, 1898a) at the French Academy of Sciences. At the time the
young Romanian student Nicolas Vaschide (1874–1907; see Figure 14) was Binet’s close
collaborator, replacing Jules Courtier.
This replacement with a spring in the spring ergograph (see Figure 13) had three advan-
tages: (1) It enabled subjects working with the ergograph to bring all their strength to bear,
which was not the case when working with a weight ergograph (Mosso, 1890). Indeed, when
the subject was asked to lift the weight of 5 kg with the middle finger, some extremely fit
subjects for whom this weight was relatively small would, at the beginning of the experiment,
be able to lift heavier weights with their finger. The first curve recorded by the ergograph did
not therefore represent the full extent of their capacity. (2) As the experiment continues, there

FIGURE 11.
A dynamograph constructed by Verdin (upper figure) and his recording cylinder with Foucault’s regulator by Verdin
(1888). Courtesy of BIUM santé, Paris.
FIGURE 12.
Mosso’s ergograph by Charles Verdin (1890).
comes a time when the subject is no longer able to lift this weight of 5 kg; however hard they
try, the finger cannot flex and raise the weight. It is then generally concluded that the subject is
exhausted, but this is inaccurate. The finger is not genuinely exhausted but is simply exhausted
relative to this weight of 5 kg. A spring ergograph avoided this source of error since the
reputedly exhausted subject is certainly still able to make a significant mechanical effort with
the same finger. (3) The third advantage of the spring ergograph is that it allowed subjects to
exert a force that is proportional to the state of their strength. In effect, it is the subject himself
who decides on the quantity of mechanical effort that he can exert. By contrast, using a weight

14 SERGE NICOLAS
FIGURE 13.
Binet’s spring ergograph (Binet & Vaschide, 1898a, 1898c) by Henri Collin.
FIGURE 14.
Portrait of Nicolas Vaschide (1874–1907), Binet’s Romanian student. (Private possession of S. Nicolas.)
ergograph, the same amount of mechanical work is imposed on subjects with very different
muscle strengths, making it almost impossible to obtain a measurement of their strength and
perform comparative studies.
The spring ergograph (see Figure 13) consisted of a horizontal strip to which a coil spring
and a finger tube were securely fixed. The entire instrument was connected to an extremely
strong upright cylindrical base which gave the apparatus its stability. It could be fixed to the

edge of a piece of furniture by means of a strong mobile clamp into which the upright base
could be slid from the top downward. The finger tube was made of metal and was hinged to
form two parts. The first part, which was fixed to the frame of the instrument, supported the
third phalanx of the middle finger, while the other part supported the other two phalanxes. The
end of the finger was protected by a moveable cap on the finger tube which made it possible
to adjust the position of fingers of all sizes. The moving part of the finger tube was connected,
at the rear, to a traction rod that acted on a dynamometer. This consisted of a coil spring
terminating in two vertical levers which were almost parallel. One of these was fixed to the
frame of the instrument and the other was connected to the traction rod on the finger tube by
means of a runner that slid on the moving lever and was able to exert traction at the top or
bottom of it. This permitted traction forces corresponding to two different scales and which
differed, in particular, in the amplitude of displacement of the finger. Thus, when the runner
was fixed to the lower end of the lever, the movement of the finger required to exert a traction
of 10 kg corresponded to a displacement of 0.04 m at the end of the lever. This arrangement
allowed the finger to perform genuine mechanical work.
A horizontal, graduated dial was placed in front of the dynamometer and fixed to the
dynamometer’s retaining piece. The traction movements acting on the moving lever of the
dynamometer were indicated on the dial, thanks to a special mechanism, by means of a needle
that was connected to the lever. The end of this needle was connected to a stylus which
inscribed the traction curves on the rotating cylinder. The central section of the stylus was
hinged vertically in order to permit the straightforward adjustment of the contact of the stylus
with the surface of the recording cylinder.
Results of the experiments on fatigue (see Binet & Vaschide, 1898c; Binet, 1899) con-
ducted with Binet’s ergograph showed its superiority over Mosso’s weight ergograph. It is
to be noted that during the same period various authors used spring ergographs or ergome-
ters. During the fourth special meeting of the American Physiological Society, in May 1897,
James McKeen Cattell (1860–1944) also presented a new spring ergograph (named ergometer)
which was a dynamometer made to write on a kymograph (Cattell, 1897). The instrument was
compared with Mosso’s ergograph and also showed its superiority. Cattell (1897, 1898, 1899)
specified that this instrument was used in the psychological laboratory of Columbia University
to study fatigue and the effects of sensations and emotions on movements. Another great
American psychologist, Edward Wheeler Scripture (1864–1945) had also devised a spring
ergograph intended to replace the Mosso ergograph (Scripture, 1896, 1897a). But none of
them was interested in studying individual differences in intelligence testing.
Binet’s Wheel-Based Apparatus Measuring Suggestibility (1901)
In the late nineteenth century in France, the words suggestion and suggestibility evoked
mainly the idea of very special experiments that had been conducted in laboratories and
hospitals with trained individuals, hysterical persons for example, and even ordinary people.
One of the easiest experiments to carry out was the repetition of passive movements. In their
research conducted at the Salpêtrière hospital, Binet and Féré (1887) took the anaesthetized
finger of a hysterical subject and bent it several times in succession behind a screen which hid
the subject’s hand from her view, after which the finger, when left to its own devices, repeated the
same flexion (see also Binet, 1889b, 1890, 1892a). In order to study the mechanical recording
of the movement, Binet also placed a pencil in the subject’s insensitive hand, and then traced a
movement by holding either the hand or the pencil, which the hand then repeated. This is also
the process that was used by Pierre Janet (1889) in order to obtain automatic writing which
was not simply repeated but also occurred spontaneously. In 1896, Binet and Henri proposed

16 SERGE NICOLAS
FIGURE 15.
Binet’s beam which is an adaptation of a Wundt’s apparatus (in Binet, 1900a, p. 361).
several experimental situations to study suggestibility in normal subjects; experiments on

involuntary and unconscious movements were mentioned but the entire program was applied
three years later with some modifications.
Indeed, it was in his famous book on Suggestibility that Binet (1900a) published an
interesting series of experiments on suggestibility in children. Binet wrote: “This book is the
execution of a quite small part of a much larger plan. This plan, on which I worked for many
years, and for which I amass materials, most of which have not yet been published, consists in
establishing the experimental psychology of the higher functions of the mind, with the goal of
differentiating individuals. I have already published with Victor Henri glimpses of this body of
research, giving the summary name ‘individual psychology’ to these overviews.” (Binet, 1900a,
p. 385). Like researchers who came much later, Binet (1900a) sought to study suggestibility as
a normal social and cognitive process rather than as an indication of psychological disorders
or weakness. Within this framework, he conducted several experiments that established the
role of autosuggestion and comments or orders (suggestions) of the experimenter on the
acts of perceiving and remembering in subjects studied both individually or in groups (see
Nicolas, Gounden, & Sanitioso, 2011a, 2011b, 2014). The tests used allowed participants to
be classified. Thus Binet succeeded in determining that person A is more suggestible than
person B, who is less suggestible than person C (this suggestibility also varied with the age of
the subjects).
In his book, Binet (1900a, Chap. VIII, pp. 360–384) recounted a number of experiments
on the suggestion of subconscious movements in children using first a beam which was a
slight modification of an Electromagnetischer Schallhammer designed by Wundt to study
auditory sensations (see Figure 15), and second the above-mentioned procedure adapted from
previous research with hysterics (automatic writing). However, these experimental situations
were somewhat problematic and Binet thought that the ability to communicate movement
by means of a special apparatus that recorded the communicated movement as well as the
reproduced movements was much more promising. The automatograph designed by Joseph
Jastrow to study unconscious movements was unsuitable for this purpose (Jastrow, 1892, 1900,
pp. 307–336).
Since the publication of his book on suggestibility in 1900, Binet continued his exper-
iments, thinking that it would be possible to record the communicated movement and the
repeated movement separately from each other, that is to say, on the one hand the commu-
nication of the suggestion and, on the other, the production of this suggestion. This is the
mechanism achieved through the development of his wheel-based apparatus (Binet, 1901a).
Binet commissioned Lucien Korsten (1865–1927), a skilled designer of precision instruments

FIGURE 16.
Wheel-based apparatus. Front view.
FIGURE 17.
Wheel-based apparatus. View of the recording side.
located in Paris (rue Lebrun, n° 8), to construct this apparatus which satisfactorily recorded the
movements suggested to a person. In designing such an apparatus (see Figures 16 and 17), the
engineer might take account of extremely complex mechanical and psychological phenomena.
The typical instructions given to the subjects were as follows (see Binet, 1901a): “The
experiment is divided into two parts: in the first part, you follow my movement (I show how
the two wheels are connected). This will take a length of time that I am not going to tell you
in advance. Then, in the second part, you will, on my signal, make an active movement, that
is to say that you will turn the wheel by yourself and try to identify the difference between
the two types of movement.” (p. 530). The apparatus consisted of two wheels or drive pulleys
(R and R ) connected to each other by an unbroken belt C and controlled by the handles M
and M , one of which (M) is loose on its axis, are mounted on a support. The handles can
be connected to each other or isolated from each other during operation by means of a brake
F. The brake prevents the driven wheel from communicating its movement to the driving
wheel, while causing it to obey the latter and, on the other, the belt system allows the driven
wheel to resist the driving movement and to slip a little so that the movements of resistance

18 SERGE NICOLAS
FIGURE 18.
Beam compass with ivory tips adapted from the classic model of Brown-Sequard (1858) by the engineer Charles
Verdin (1890, p. 64).
made by the subject are recorded in the plots. Each of the wheels (R, R ) possesses a short
connecting rod (bb ) which is hinged eccentrically at cc . These rods control the rectilinear
back-and-forth movement of two small trolleys (hh ) which carry pens (see Figure 18). Binet
(1901a) considered that the belt-driven movement transmission system, combined with the
brake system was a good apparatus.
The aim that Binet wished to achieve with his wheel-based apparatus was for a subsequent
comparison of the plots from the two wheels to indicate what the subject had added to or
removed from the movement that had been communicated to his or her hand. “In my work on
Suggestibility, I have already shown that a person who is subject to a suggestion may react
in three different ways: comply with the suggestion and act in accordance with it; oppose the
suggestion and act in the opposite way; remain critical and act in one way or the other without
being troubled by the suggestion. These distinctions apply very easily to our motor suggestion
experiment.” (Binet, 1901a, pp. 528–529). The subject holding the handle in his hand can: (1)
continue the movement when the experimenter stops; this corresponds to the pure and simple
execution of the suggestion; (2) act contrary to the movement while the experimenter is acting
on the handle; (3) follow the movement while the experimenter is acting on the handle and stop
when the experimenter stops. Situation 1 is familiar and corresponds to the most common form
of suggestibility. Situation 3 is also familiar and corresponds to indifference to suggestion.
Situation 2 is much less familiar and corresponds to a resistance to motor suggestion.
In his paper, Binet (1901a) briefly presented three methodically conducted experiments
that he performed in 1900 with the students in his laboratory, young people aged 25–33 with
a good intellectual background and the habit of performing mental analyses. With Théodore
Simon (1873–1961), he found no trace of resistance or suggestibility since he added nothing
to and removed nothing from the communicated movements. Simon was already familiar
with experiments on suggestion and it was possible that this was the reason for his lack of
sensitivity. Kristian Aars (1868–1917), a foreign teacher of philosophy aged 31, knew nothing
whatsoever about the experiment. The subject resisted the driven movement somewhat and did
not continue it spontaneously. To increase his suggestibility by distracting him, Binet asked
him to perform some mental arithmetic while he was turning the wheel. The fact of being
distracted increased his suggestibility a little: he spontaneously turned the wheel once and then
stopped. Clearly, this subject had only a low level of suggestibility to movements. Finally, Mr.
Gerb . . . , 30 years old, a philosophy teacher, who was already familiar with the apparatus, was
extremely suggestible to movements. He was convinced that he was simply following Binet’s
movement. Binet noted that he had a very dependable character.
“I should like to have an opportunity, Binet (1901a) said, to continue this research under
the same conditions as the three experiments reported above, with the time to question at length

the subjects who take hold of the handle and, if possible, with the capability of comparing their
suggestibility, as I have been able to predict it from their everyday actions, with the results
revealed by the wheel-based apparatus . . . We would then see whether it deserves a place among
the tests of individual psychology.” But it seemed that Binet did not continue the experiments.
However, this apparatus was considered to measure suggestibility by researchers in France
(see Toulouse & Piéron, 1911; Lahy, 1927) and also in some foreign countries since I found
traces of its use in Italian laboratories (see http://www.archiviapsychologica.org/index.php?id
=1762).
Binet’s esthesiometer for the Measurement of Attention (1901)
In their program of individual psychology, Binet and Henri (1896) proposed various tests
of attention. It was in the context of their work on the measurement of intellectual fatigue
(Binet & Henri, 1898) and its relations with attention that Binet (1900b) studied voluntary
attention experimentally. All the experiments required a certain intellectual work that the
subject could only perform if he paid close attention. Among the various tests employed to
measure voluntary attention, we find first the measurement of tactile sensitivity (pp. 258–275),
RT experiments (pp. 275–282), counting points (pp. 282–292), the perception of beats of a
metronome (pp. 292–299), the numeration of rhythmic sounds (pp. 300–304), copying visual
material (pp. 304–323), memory span (pp. 323–340), the rapid perception of visual material
(pp. 340–361), proofreading (pp. 362–381), simultaneous additions (pp. 381–389), and the
resolution speed of different tasks (pp. 389–393). Binet was particularly interested in the test
of tactile sensitivity because the results showed that intelligent subjects had greater tactile
sensitivity (Binet, 1900b) than less-intelligent or inattentive subjects. On the advice of his
pupil V. Henri, Binet did not use Weber’s compass but simply needles mounted on small
wooden boards. He quickly realized that this technique, although satisfactory, needed to be
improved.
In his early work, like most young researchers, Binet had at first simply used an ordinary
compass (Weber’s compass), on which he had previously blunted the tips with sealing wax. As
was customary, he applied this compass on the skin, varying the angle between the two legs.
This ordinary compass nevertheless had certain disadvantages: (1) Adjustment problems: as
it was not usually provided with graduations the spacing between the legs had to be constantly
checked with a ruler; (2) Problem with the angle: the legs of a compass form an angle (they are
not parallel), and therefore they make an oblique angle with the skin; (3) Problem of unequal
pressure: as the compass is held in the hand and applied to the skin, it exerts pressure that cannot
be controlled (also we do not know whether this degree of pressure remains constant from one
moment to another, from one session to another, from one subject to another); (4) Problem
of simultaneity: we are never certain that the tips are applied simultaneously, especially when
the distance between them is greater than 3 cm. For these reasons, it was useful to replace the
ordinary compass with a more sophisticated device.
In the 1890s, physiologists and psychologists used not only Weber’s graduated compass,
but also the beam compass (see Figure 18), or the dynamometric compass (see Figure 19)
to study tactile sensitivity. As emphasized by Binet (1901a, p. 237), the Parisian instrument
maker Verdin designed a spring-loaded esthesiometer, in which a spring is connected to each
point and a cursor which moves on the spring indicates the pressure exerted by each point
in grams. This apparatus was used by some of Binet’s students for their personal research.
Thus, Jean Larguier des Bancels (1876–1961) found that after labor that was sufficiently
prolonged for the subject to be conscious of a certain amount of intellectual fatigue, his tactile
sensitivity was diminished (Larguier des Bancels, 1899). However, with this apparatus the

20 SERGE NICOLAS
FIGURE 19.
Dynamometric esthesiometer designed by Charles Verdin (1890, p. 65).
simultaneity of contact is neither ensured nor verified. With regard to pressure, the apparatus
was absolutely incomplete, and consequently faulty; that which acts upon the contact, and
changes its intensity, is not only modified by the weight of the point, but also by the speed
at which the point is applied. With Verdin’s apparatus, it was easy to apply pressures which
mark the same degree with the cursor, and yet result from contacts which differ highly in
intensity; to do so it sufficed to produce the contact either slowly or quickly. Any apparatus
which measures the intensity of contact using only a weight or a spring, without taking the
speed of its application into account, is thus a faulty apparatus because it is incomplete; it
seems to yield a measurement, but it is an illusion.
It was during his work on the measurement of attention and mental fatigue (Binet &
Henri, 1898) that Binet decided to contact the engineer Lucien Korsten (located 8 rue Le
Brun, Paris) in order to construct a special esthesiometer in accordance with his instructions.
We know from Binet that the firm constructed several types of esthesiometers in 1900 before
unveiling the plan of his new device in 1901.
His esthesiometer (see Figure 20), “most intelligently constructed by Korsten” (Binet,
1901d, note 1, p. 231) consists of two masses M, M , which are independent of each other and
which slide freely along the rods T, T, T, T which serve to guide them. The rods T also serve to
connect together the two crossarms B, B , thus forming a rigid assembly. (The lower crossarm
B is not labeled in the figure.) At the ends of the upper crossarm B are two buttons D, D,
which allow the user to hold the apparatus suspended between two fingers. Each of the masses
weighs 50 g; each is attached to a needle a which can be moved laterally using the adjusting
screws R, R, in order to be used at different separations. These separations can be read from
the divisions engraved on the masses above the needles, and are numbered at intervals of
5 mm, from 5 up to 45 mm. In Binet’s esthesiometer, the equality of pressure is realized very
simply by making the needles independent of each other and loading each of them with the
same weight. Because of the independence of the two needles aa, if one of the points is applied

FIGURE 20.
Binet’s new esthesiometer (1901).
before the other out of clumsiness or inattention, this point and the metallic mass to which it
is connected comes to sit at a higher level than the other point; this unevenness immediately
indicates that a mistake has been made.
Thus, the esthesiometer invented by Binet (see Figure 21) was, it seems, much more
reliable than any other of the instruments of this type constructed up to that point because it
made it possible, for the first time, to overcome all the problems mentioned above. The method
that Binet (1901b) was to favor in his new esthesiometric research consisted in obtaining a
sequence of contacts by combining two distinct psychophysical methods, namely the minimal
variations method and the true and false method. In practice, this method, which he had already
used in his initial work on the subject (Binet, 1900b), consisted in successively presenting the
needles with different separations between them. These separations did not follow one another
in any regular way and each separation was repeated several times in the overall series. He
noted, however, that the responses given by the subjects were often ambiguous. The subjects
might reply “1 prick” or “2 pricks” even if they did not have the sensation of having been
pricked. In referring to the initial results obtained when using his new esthesiometer, Binet
(1901b) concluded his article by writing: “New research, which I am currently bringing to a

22 SERGE NICOLAS
FIGURE 21.
Set of six esthesiometers. Photo from Binet Archives (Courtesy).
conclusion, has shown me that the responses 1 and 2 are equivocal since they express complex
judgments which are not the same in all individuals; some, the interpreters, respond 2 even if
they have no distinct impression of 2 pricks but only a sensation of a large, broad body which
appears to them to constitute 2 pricks; the others, the simplists, respond 2 only in the specific
case in which the dual sensation is perfectly distinct, and they make fewer mistakes than the
interpreters when there is only one prick. This gives rise to many curious consequences which
I do not have space to go into here and which make the measurement of individual tactile
sensitivity very difficult.” (Binet, 1901b, pp. 247–248). These new studies were presented to
the completely new Société [française] de psychologie [French Society of Psychology] (Binet,
1901c) during its meeting of March 29, 1901 and Binet showed that the responses given by
subjects who are asked what they feel are not simple reactions but judgments. Painstaking
interrogation was to reveal to Binet that not all subjects understand the responses “1 prick”
and “2 pricks” in the same way. School children and less-intelligent or less-educated subjects
in general are simplistic; responding 2 when the pricks are quite distinct and 1 in all other
cases. Consequently, their threshold is generally quite high while, on the other hand, they do
not confuse a single prick with two pricks because there is a great difference between a single
prick and two pricks that are sufficiently distanced to give the clear sensation of two distinct
pricks. By contrast, intelligent adults and those who have already seen the equipment and
observed such experiments are interpreters; they respond 2 not only when they distinctly feel
the 2 pricks but also when they feel a single contact that is, nevertheless, too broad to appear
to them to be made by a single needle point. Consequently, they have a very low threshold
and, furthermore, due to their interpretations, they are led to experience very little difference
between the sensation resulting from the single prick and that made by two pricks located
very close together. They therefore make a large number of mistakes in response to the single
prick. This sounds like an early appreciation of the difference between bias and sensitivity
(as in Signal Detection Theory). In his conclusion to this important article, Binet (1901c,
p. 150) emphasized that “the whole field of aesthesiometry must be revisited; it seems to be

very difficult to evaluate the level at which individuals interpret their tactile sensations; it is
therefore very difficult to compare the tactile sensitivity of different persons.”
It was in 1903 that the famous series of articles written by Binet on the subject of tactile
sensitivity based on the use of his new compass was to appear (Nicolas & Makowski, 2016).
He put a definitive end to his research into the subject in 1905 (Binet, 1905a, 1905b), at the
time of his work on the development of his intelligence test.
CONCLUSION
First associated with Verdin, then Binet preferred to collaborate with other psychology
instrument makers; Lucien Korsten seemed to be the last one of a series. We have seen that
Binet was very critical of some of the instruments sold by the Verdin firm (e.g., esthesiometers,
ergographs). Maybe this situation precluded any continued collaboration with Charles Verdin,
although I cannot be sure about this. Maybe also Verdin was not available for a long and
active collaboration in the construction of a specific instrument, as was the case with Binet’s
esthesiometer or the suggestion apparatus constructed by Korsten. However, Payen (1985)
considered that French scientific instrument makers were, at the time Binet used their services,
in serious decline (although there were still some distinguished makers in Paris, e.g., Koenig).
I do not think that this is the reason why Binet moved from one maker to another: Verdin, for
instance, had been a famous instrument maker in France since the 1880s (Carnoy, 1900). It is
more probable that Binet moved from one maker to another, rather than developing a lasting
relationship with a single one, because of the varying capabilities of the different makers.
We have seen that Binet’s interest in the construction of psychology instruments was
clearly associated with the development between 1896 and 1901 of his program of individual
psychology (Binet & Henri, 1896). In his book on experimental psychology, Binet (1894b) gave
a long list of instruments located in the Sorbonne laboratory (see Nicolas & Sanitioso, 2012),
and in his book on intellectual fatigue (Binet & Henri, 1898) he described other new devices
he used. Although instrumentation was important for Binet in the 1890s, he later published
an important book (Binet, 1903), that has never been translated into English, in which he
noted that his experimental psychology had changed. The main characteristic of psychological
research going back to the period 1880–1900 consisted in borrowing apparatus and methods
from physiology: close attention was paid to the material aspects of the experiments, and the
role of the persons serving as participants was minimized. The new movement which Binet
contributed to developing allowed more room for introspection and for investigating the higher
phenomena of the mind. But this was not the only reason that led Binet to gradually turn away
from the laboratory of the Sorbonne and its devices. (1) He found himself somewhat isolated
in his laboratory as he lost several of his closest associates (e.g., Courtier, Henri, Vaschide), for
various reasons (institutional and personal reasons) that there is no need to specify here (see
Nicolas & Sanitioso, 2012). (2) Students left the laboratory because Binet was not authorized
to award degrees (see Vaschide, 1898). (3) His repeated failure to gain access to the Collège
de France and the Sorbonne (Nicolas & Ferrand, 2002) led him to take some interest in
philosophy to the detriment of laboratory work in the domain of psychophysiology. He was
now increasingly interested in the applications of psychology in the domains of education and
justice, continuing his research with some long investigations on graphology (Nicolas et al.,
2015) and anthropometry (Staum, 2007).
Like Wundt and other psychologists in Germany, or Titchener and other psychologists
in America, Binet was a real experimental psychologist, but for almost every introductory
psychology student in the world and most professional psychologists he is only the father

24 SERGE NICOLAS
of the IQ test. When the French psychologist and historian of psychology Maurice Reuchin
(1965) gave an account of the historical background of French psychology, Binet was not
cited as a major French figure and his work in experimental psychology was not mentioned.
The judgment of historians must be objective. More generally the list of experimental studies
written by Binet (for the most part never translated into English, however for some papers, see
Pollack & Brenner, 1969), and more specifically the present article on the instruments used and
designed by Binet prove that he must be considered as an eminent experimental psychologist.
Future English translations of Binet’s experimental work presented from a historical perspective
are intended to show this (for some experimental work that has been recently translated, see
Nicolas et al., 2011; Nicolas, Gounden, & Levine, 2011; Nicolas, Gounden, & Sanitioso,
2011a, 2011b).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by a Labex-EFL Sorbonne Paris Cité (Axe 7) Empirical Foun-
dations of Linguistics grant to S. Nicolas.
REFERENCES
Benschop, R., & Draaisma, D. (2000). In pursuit of precision: The calibration of minds and machines in late
nineteenth-century. Annals of Science, 57, 1–25.
Binet, A. (1889a). Recherches sur les mouvements volontaires dans l’anesthésie hystérique. Revue Philosophique de
la France et de l’Étranger, 28, 470–500.
Binet, A. (1889b). The graphic method and the doubling of consciousness. The Open Court, 3, 1919–1922.
Binet, A. (1890). Double consciousness in health. Mind, 15, 46–57.
Binet, A. (1892a). Les altérations de la personnalité. Paris: F. Alcan.
Binet, A. (1892b). Le calculateur Jacques Inaudi [The mental calculator Jacques Inaudi]. Revue des Deux Mondes,
111, 905–924.
Binet, A. (1894a). Psychologie des grands calculateurs et joueurs d’échecs. Paris: Hachette.
Binet, A. (1894b). Introduction à la psychologie expérimentale. Paris: F. Alcan.
Binet, A. (1895a). Appareils nouveaux. L’Année Psychologique, 1, 529–532.
Binet, A. (1895b). Laboratoire de psychologie physiologique des Hautes-Etudes. Revue Philosophique de la France
et de l’Etranger, 40, 671–672.
Binet, A. (1895c). Review of A. Mosso La fatigue intellectuelle et physique Paris, Alcan, 1894, 191 p. L’Année
psychologique, 1, 450–452.
Binet, A. (1896a). La technique de la psychométrie d’après des recherches récentes. L’Année Psychologique, 2,
770–776.
Binet, A. (1896b). Appareils. Nouvelles applications et modifications de la méthode graphique. L’Année Psy-
chologique, 2, 776–782.
Binet, A. (1897). Les nouveaux ergographes. L’intermédiaire des Biologistes. Organe International de Zoologie,
Botanique, Physiologie et Psychologie, 4, 77.
Binet, A. (1899). Le premier devoir de l’éducation physique. Revue des Revues, 28, 597–609.
Binet, A. (1900a). La suggestibilité. Paris: Schleicher.
Binet, A. (1900b). Attention et adaptation [Attention and adaptation]. L’Année Psychologique, 6, 248–404.
Binet, A. (1901a). Un nouvel appareil pour la mesure de la suggestibilité [A new apparatus for measuring suggestibil-
ity]. L’Année Psychologique, 7, 524–536.
Binet, A. (1901b). Technique de l’esthésiométrie. L’Année Psychologique, 7, 240–248.
Binet, A. (1901c). Est-il possible de mesurer la sensibilité tactile d’une personne avec la méthode de Weber ? (29
mars). Bulletin de l’Institut Psychologique International, 1, 145–150.
Binet, A. (1901d). Un nouvel esthésiomètre [A new aesthesiometer]. L’Année Psychologique, 7, 231–239.
Binet, A. (1903). L’étude expérimentale de l’intelligence [The experimental study of itelligence]. Paris: Schleicher.
Binet, A. (1905a). Recherches sur la fatigue intellectuelle scolaire et la mesure qui peut en être faite au moyen de
l’esthésiométrie. L’Année Psychologique, 9, 1–37.
Binet, A. (1905b). Expériences sur la mesure de la fatigue intellectuelle scolaire au moyen du sens du toucher. Bulletin
de la Société Libre pour l’Etude Psychologique de l’Enfant, 5e année, n 23, mai, 644–652.
Binet, A., & Courtier, J. (1895a). Application nouvelle de la méthode graphique à la musique. Comptes Rendus
Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 120, 646–647.
Binet, A., & Courtier, J. (1895b). Le critérium musical. L’Année Psychologique, 1, 529–530.

Binet, A., & Courtier, J. (1895c). Recherches graphiques sur la musique. Revue Scientifique, 4, 5–15.
Binet, A., & Courtier, J. (1895d). Un régulateur graphique. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances et Mémoires
de la Société de Biologie, 47, 320–322.
Binet, A., & Courtier, J. (1896). Recherches graphiques sur la musique. L’Année Psychologique, 2, 201–222.
Binet, A., & Féré, Ch. (1887). Recherches expérimentales sur la physiologie des mouvements chez les hystériques.
Archives de Physiologie Normale et Pathologique, 10, 320–373.
Binet, A., & Henneguy, H. (1892). Observations et expériences sur le calculateur Jacques Inaudi [Observations
and experiments on the calculator Jacques Inaudi]. Travaux du Laboratoire de Psychologie Physiologique de la
Sorbonne, 1, 21–37.
Binet, A., & Henri, V. (1896). La psychologie individuelle [Individual psychology]. L’Année Psychologique, 2,
411–465.
Binet, A., & Henri, V. (1897). Instruments. L’Année Psychologique, 3, 652–658.
Binet, A., & Henri, V. (1898). La fatigue intellectuelle. Paris: Schleicher.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Méthodes nouvelles pour le diagnostic du niveau intellectuel des anormaux [New
methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals]. L’Année Psychologique, 11, 191–244.
Binet, A., & Vaschide, N. (1897). Sur un ergographe à ressort. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de
l’Académie des Sciences, 125, 1161–1163.
Binet, A., & Vaschide, N. (1898a). Note sur un nouvel ergographe. L’intermédiaire des Biologistes. Organe Interna-
tional de Zoologie, Botanique, Physiologie et Psychologie, 13, 289–291.
Binet, A., & Vaschide, N. (1898b). Critique du dynamomètre ordinaire. L’Année Psychologique, 4, 245–252.
Binet, A., & Vaschide, N. (1898c). Un nouvel ergographe, dit ergographe à ressort. L’Année Psychologique, 4,
303–315.
Borell, M. (1986). Extending the sense: The graphic method. Medical Heritage, 2, 114–121.
Brenni, P. (1995). 19th century French scientific instruments makers (VI). Albert Marloye (1795–1874) and Rudolph
Koenig. Bulletin of the Scientific Instrument Society, 44, 13–17.
Brenni, P. (2006). Artist and engineer: The saga of 19th Century French precision industry. Bulletin of the Scientific
Instrument Society, 91, 2–10.
Broca, P. (1880). Sur un enfant illétré doué de la faculté de faire mentalement des calculs très compliqués [An
illiterate child endowed with the faculty to make mentally very complicated calculations]. Bulletins de la Société
d’Anthropologie de Paris, 3, 244–249.
Brown-Sequard, C. E. (1858). Augmentation de la finesse du sens du lieu par suite de l’hyperesthésie. Journal de
Physiologie de l’Homme et des Animaux, 1, 344–346.
Bud, R., & Warner, D. J. (Eds.) (1998). Instruments of science: An historical encyclopedia. London: The Science
Museum.
Burman, J. T., Guida, A., & Nicolas, S. (2015). Hearing the inaudible experimental subject: Echos of Inaudi, Binet’s
calculating prodigy. History of Psychology, 18, 47–68.
Capshew, J. H. (1992). Psychologists on site: A reconnaissance of the historiography of the laboratory. American
Psychologist, 47, 132–142.
Carnoy, H. (1900). Dictionnaire biographique des grands négociants et industriels. Paris: Imprimerie de l’Armorial
Français.
Cattell, J. McK. (1890). Mental tests and measurements. Mind, 15, 373–381.
Cattell, J. McK. (1897). An ergometer. Science, 5, 909–910.
Cattell, J. McK. (1898). A method for studying muscular fatigue in its relations to mental conditions (American
Psychological Association Meeting). Psychological Review, 5, 151–152.
Cattell, J. McK. (1899). Exhibition of instruments for the study of movements and fatigue (American Psychological
Association Meeting). Psychological Review, 6, 159.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Clercq, P. R. (Ed.) (1985). Nineteenth-century scientific instruments and their makers: Papers Presented at the
Fourth Scientific Instrument Symposium, Amsterdam 23-26 October 1984. Amsterdam: Rodopi; Leidin; Museum
Boerhaave.
Evans, R. B. (1999). E.C. Sanford and his Vernier Chronoscope. Rittenhouse: Journal for the American Instrument
Enterprise, 13, 73–85.
Evans, R. B. (2000). Psychological instruments at the turn of the century. American Psychologist, 55, 322–325.
Fancher, R. E. (1985). Pioneers of psychology (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & C.
Fancher, R. E. (1997). Alfred Binet, general psychologist. In G. A. Kimble, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Portraits of
pioneers in psychology (chap. 5, pp. 67–83). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Franz, S. I. (1900). On the methods of estimating the force of voluntary muscular contractions and on fatigue.
American Journal of Physiology, 4, 348–372.
Fullerton, G. S., & Cattell, J. McK. (1892). On the perception of small differences with special reference to the extent,
force and time of movement. Publications of the University of Pennsylvania, N 2 (159 pp.). Philadelphia, PA:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Haupt, E. J. (2001). Laboratories for experimental psychology. In R. W. Rieber & D. K. Robinson (Eds.), Wilhelm
Wundt in history. The making of a scientific psychology (pp. 205–250). New York: Plenum Publishers.

26 SERGE NICOLAS
Hock, A., & Kraepelin, E. (1895). Ueber die Wirkung der Theebestandtheile auf körperliche und geistige Arbeit.
Psychologische Arbeiten, 1, 378–488.
Hough, J. (1901). Ergographic studies in neuro-muscular fatigue. American Journal of Physiology, 5, 240–266.
Janet, P. (1889). L’automatisme psychologique. Paris: F. Alcan.
Jastrow, J. (1892). Further study of involuntary movements. Popular Science Monthly, 41, 636–643.
Jastrow, J. (1900). Fact and fable in psychology. Boston & New York: Houghton, Mifflin and C.
Kimble, G. A., Boneau, C. A., & Wertheimer, M. (1996). Portraits of pioneers in psychology (Vol. II). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Kimble, G. A., Wertheimer, M., & White, C. L. (1991). Portraits of pioneers in psychology (Vol. I). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Lahy, J. M. (1927). La sélection psychophysiologique des travailleurs. Paris: Dunod.
Larguier des Bancels, J. (1899). Essai de comparaison sur les différentes méthodes proposées pour la mesure de la
fatigue intellectuelle. L’Année Psychologique, 5, 190–201.
Marey, E. J. (1868). Du mouvement dans les fonctions de la vie. Paris: Germer Baillière.
Mosso, A. (1888). Le leggi della fatica studiate nei muscoli dell’uomo. Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei –
Memorie della Classe di scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali, 4th serie, 5, 410–426.
Mosso, A. (1890). Les lois de la fatigue étudiées dans les muscles de l’homme. Archives Italiennes de Biologie, 13,
123–186.
Münsterberg, H. (1893). Psychological laboratory of Harvard University. [A catalogue of equipment and readings,
prepared for the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago.] Appendix B. Addresses of the manufacturers
recommended for furnishing the equipment of psychological laboratories, in alphabetical order. Retrieved from
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Munster/Lab/
Nicolas, S. (2015). Psychology in French academic publishing in the late nineteenth century: Alfred Binet, editorial
director at the Schleicher publishing house. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 51, 285–307.
Nicolas, S. (2016). The importance of instrument makers for the equipment of psychological laboratories: The example
of the French Firm Verdin at the turn of the XXth century. Manuscript in preparation.
Nicolas, S., Andrieu, B., Croizet, J. C., Sanitioso, R. B., & Burman, J. T. (2013). Sick? or Slow? On the origins of
intelligence as a psychological object. Intelligence, 41, 699–711.
Nicolas, S., Andrieu, B., Sanitioso, R. B., Vincent, R., & Murray, D. J. (2015). Alfred Binet and Crépieux-Jamin: Can
intelligence be measured scientifically by graphology? L’Année Psychologique / Topic in Cognitive Psychology,
115, 3–52.
Nicolas, S., Collins, Th., Gounden, Y., & Roediger, H. (2011). Natural suggestibility in children: A translation of
Binet & Henri (1894) pioneer paper. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 394–398.
Nicolas, S., Coubart, A., & Lubart, T. (2014). The program of individual psychology (1895-1896) by Alfred Binet
and Victor Henri. L’Année Psychologique / Topic in Cognitive Psychology, 114, 5–60.
Nicolas, S., & Ferrand, L. (2002). Alfred Binet and higher education. History of Psychology, 5, 264–283.
Nicolas, S., Gounden, Y., & Levine, Z. (2011). The memory of two great mental calculators: Charcot and Binet’s
neglected 1893 experiments. American Journal of Psychology, 124, 235–242.
Nicolas, S., Gounden, Y., & Sanitioso, R. B. (2011a). Alfred Binet on eyewitness testimony. Psychology & History /
Psychologie & Histoire, 12, 21–50.
Nicolas, S., Gounden, Y., & Sanitioso, R. B. (2011b). Alfred Binet, the first investigator of the group conformity
effect. Psychology & History / Psychologie et Histoire, 12, 51–82.
Nicolas, S., Gounden, Y., & Sanitioso, R. B. (2014). Alfred Binet, founder of the science of testimony and psycho-legal
science. L’Année Psychologique / Topic in Cognitive Psychology, 114, 209–228.
Nicolas, S., Guida, A., & Levine, Z. (2014). Broca and Charcot’s research on Jacques Inaudi: The psychological and
anthropological study of a mental calculator. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 23, 140–159.
Nicolas, S., & Guida, A. (2015). Charcot and the mental calculator Jacques Inaudi. European Yearbook of the History
of Psychology, 1, 107–138.
Nicolas, S., & Levine, Z. (2012). Beyond intelligence testing: Remembering Alfred Binet after a century. European
Psychologist, 17, 320–325.
Nicolas, S., & Makowski, D. (2016). Can mental fatigue be measured by Weber’s compass? Alfred Binet’s answer on
the value of aeshesiometry (tactile sensitivity) as an objective measure of mental fatigue. European Yearbook of
the History of Psychology, 2, In press.
Nicolas, S., & Sanitioso, R. B. (2012). Alfred Binet and experimental psychology at the Sorbonne laboratory. History
of Psychology, 15, 328–363.
Nicolas, S., Segui, J., & Ferrand, L. (2000). L’Année Psychologique: History of the founding of a centenarian journal.
History of Psychology, 3, 44–61.
Nicolas, S., & Thompson, P. B. (2015). The Hipp chronoscope vs. the d’Arsonval chronometer: Differing approaches
to chronometry in early German and French psychology. History of Psychology, 18, 367–384.
Nicolas, S., & Young, J. (2014). A French description of the psychology laboratory of G. S. Hall at Clark University
in 1893. American Journal of Psychology, 127, 527–535.
Pantalony, D. (2009). Altered sensations: Rudolph Koenig’s acoustical workshop in nineteenth-century Paris. New
York: Springer Verlag.

Payen, J. (1985). La construction des instruments scientifiques en France au XIXe siècle. In P. R. de Clercq (Ed.),
Nineteenth-century scientific instruments and their makers (pp. 159–182). Amsterdam: Rodopi; Leiden; Museum
Boerhaave.
Payen, J. (1986). Les constructeurs d’instruments scientifiques en France au XIXe siècle. Archives Internationales
d’Histoire des Sciences, 36, 84–161.
Pollack, R. H., & Brenner, M. J (1969). The experimental psychology of Alfred Binet. New York: Springer.
Popplestone, J. A., & McPherson, M. W. (1971). Prolegomenon to the study of apparatus in early psychological
laboratories circa 1875-1915. American Psychologist, 26, 656–657.
Popplestone, J. A., & McPherson, M. W. (1980). The vitality of the Leipzig model of 1880-1910 in the United States
in 1950-1980. In W. G. Bringmann & R. D. Tweney (Eds.), Wundt studies (pp. 226–257). Toronto: C. J. Hogrefe.
Reuchin, M. (1965). The historical background for national trends in psychology: France. Journal of the History of
the Behavioral Sciences, 1, 115–123.
Rousselot, J. P. (1891). Les modifications phonétiques du langage étudiées dans le patois d’une famille de Cellefrouin.
Paris: Welter.
Schenck, F. (1900). Ueber den Verlauf der Muskelermüdung bei willkürlicher Erregung und bei isometrischem
Contractionsact. Archiv für die Gesammte Physiologie des Menschen und der Thiere, 82, 384–398.
Schmidgen, H. (2005). Physics, ballistics, and psychology: A history of the chronoscope on/as context, 1845-1890.
History of Psychology, 8, 46–78.
Scripture, E. W. (1896). Researches on voluntary effort. Studies from the Yale Psychological Laboratory, 4, 69–75.
Scripture, E. W. (1897a). The new psychology. London: Walter Scott.
Scripture, E. W. (1897b). Nouveaux instruments. L’Année Psychologique, 3, 658–664.
Siegler, R. S. (1992). The other Binet. Developmental Psychology, 28, 179–190.
Sokal, M. (Ed.) (1990). Psychological testing and American society 1890-1930. New Brunswick: Rutgers University
Press.
Staum, M. S. (2007). Ribot, Binet, and the emergence from the anthropological shadow. Journal of the History of the
Behavioral Sciences, 43, 1–18.
Thomas, C., Didierjean, A., & Nicolas, S. (2016). Scientific study of magic: Binet’s pioneering approach based on
observations and chronophotography. American Journal of Psychology, 129, In press.
Titchener, E. B. (1900). The psychological laboratory of Cornell University. Worcester, MA: Oliver B. Wood.
Toulouse, E., & Piéron, H. (1911). Technique de psychologie expérimentale (2nd ed.). Paris: O. Doin.
Treves, Z. (1906). Le travail, la fatigue et l’effort. L’Année Psychologique, 12, 34–69.
Turner, G. L’E. & Bryden, D. J. (1997). A classified bibliography on the history of scientific instruments. Oxford:
Scientific Instrument Commission/The Museum of the History of Science.
Vaschide, N. (1898). Un laboratoire de psychologie à Paris. Revue des Revues, 24, 249–257.
Verdin, C. (1888). Catalogue des instruments de précision. Paris: s. n.
Wolf, T. (1973). Alfred Binet. Chicago: The Chicago University Press.
Wundt, W. (1893). Grundzüge der Physiologischen Psychologie (4th ed.). Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
Zimmermann, E. (1897). Liste XV. Psychologische und physiologische Apparate [Psychological and physiological
apparatus]. Leipzig, Germany: s. n.

The Importance of Instrument Makers For The Development of Experimental Psychology. The Case of Alfrd Binet at The Sorbonne Laboratory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Importance of Instrument Makers For The Development of Experimental Psychology. The Case of Alfrd Binet at The Sorbonne Laboratory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol.

00(0), 1–27 xxxx 2016

THE IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUMENT MAKERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

The importance of instrument firms in the development of psychology, and science in

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

Question: 625 Response: 25 Time: 1.49 sec.

LABORATORY APPARATUSES DESIGNED BY OTTO LUND AND THE GRAPHICAL METHOD

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

LABORATORY APPARATUSES DESIGNED BY THE FIRMS COLLIN AND KORSTEN TO MEASURE

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

several experimental situations to study suggestibility in normal subjects; experiments on

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES DOI 10.1002/jhbs

You might also like