"Mere guesswork": Clarifying the role of intelligence, mentality, and psychometric testing in the diagnosis of "mental defectives" for sterilization in Alberta from 1929 to 1972.

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q1 HISTORY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
History of Psychology Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-10 DOI:10.1037/hop0000236
Elliott M Reichardt, Henderikus J Stam, Kim Tan-MacNeill
{"title":"\"Mere guesswork\": Clarifying the role of intelligence, mentality, and psychometric testing in the diagnosis of \"mental defectives\" for sterilization in Alberta from 1929 to 1972.","authors":"Elliott M Reichardt,&nbsp;Henderikus J Stam,&nbsp;Kim Tan-MacNeill","doi":"10.1037/hop0000236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>From 1929 until 1972, the Alberta Eugenics Board (the Board) recommended that 4,739 individuals be sterilized. The original 1928 act that legalized eugenic sterilization stipulated that the surgery itself required the consent of the individual or their caregiver; however, in 1937, the Alberta government removed the consent requirement for such cases where the Board determined individual patients to be \"mental defectives.\" By analyzing published reports, case histories, medical journals, and primary sources from the Board, we situate the concept of \"mental defective\" in a historical context to clarify the Board's diagnostic process. By analyzing how the Board found individuals to be \"mental defectives,\" we challenge a previous historiographic assumption that intelligence tests played a critical or defining role in this diagnostic process. We argue that the notion of the \"mental defective\" used by the Board had a long history before the advent of intelligence testing and eugenic thought. This history helps to explain how and why the Board relied extensively on the broader examination of behavior, social status, and physical appearance as core evidence in the diagnosis of \"mental defect.\" Intelligence tests were certainly important as they shed light on an individual's academic ability. However, this alone was only one part of \"mentality.\" Defects of mentality were understood to be broad and multifactorial, and included difficult, if not impossible, to measure attributes such as personality, emotionality, and morality. Further research should incorporate the concept of mentality in the history of psychology, testing, and eugenics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":51852,"journal":{"name":"History of Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000236","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

From 1929 until 1972, the Alberta Eugenics Board (the Board) recommended that 4,739 individuals be sterilized. The original 1928 act that legalized eugenic sterilization stipulated that the surgery itself required the consent of the individual or their caregiver; however, in 1937, the Alberta government removed the consent requirement for such cases where the Board determined individual patients to be "mental defectives." By analyzing published reports, case histories, medical journals, and primary sources from the Board, we situate the concept of "mental defective" in a historical context to clarify the Board's diagnostic process. By analyzing how the Board found individuals to be "mental defectives," we challenge a previous historiographic assumption that intelligence tests played a critical or defining role in this diagnostic process. We argue that the notion of the "mental defective" used by the Board had a long history before the advent of intelligence testing and eugenic thought. This history helps to explain how and why the Board relied extensively on the broader examination of behavior, social status, and physical appearance as core evidence in the diagnosis of "mental defect." Intelligence tests were certainly important as they shed light on an individual's academic ability. However, this alone was only one part of "mentality." Defects of mentality were understood to be broad and multifactorial, and included difficult, if not impossible, to measure attributes such as personality, emotionality, and morality. Further research should incorporate the concept of mentality in the history of psychology, testing, and eugenics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

“纯粹的猜测”:阐明智力、心理和心理测量测试在1929年至1972年阿尔伯塔省绝育“精神缺陷”诊断中的作用。
从1929年到1972年,艾伯塔省优生学委员会(委员会)建议对4739人进行绝育。1928年的原始法案将优生绝育合法化,规定手术本身需要个人或其护理者的同意;然而,在1937年,阿尔伯塔省政府取消了对委员会认定个别患者为“精神缺陷患者”的病例的同意要求。通过分析已发表的报告、病史、医学期刊和委员会的主要来源,我们将“精神缺陷”的概念置于历史背景下,以澄清委员会的诊断过程。通过分析委员会是如何发现个人是“精神缺陷者”的,我们挑战了以前的历史假设,即智力测试在这一诊断过程中发挥着关键或决定性的作用。我们认为,在智力测试和优生学思想出现之前,委员会使用的“精神缺陷”概念已有很长的历史。这段历史有助于解释委员会如何以及为什么广泛依赖对行为、社会地位和外表的更广泛检查作为诊断“精神缺陷”的核心证据。智力测试当然很重要,因为它们可以揭示个人的学术能力。然而,这只是“心态”的一部分。人们认为,心态的缺陷是广泛的、多因素的,即使不是不可能,也包括难以衡量的属性,如个性、情感和道德。进一步的研究应该将心理学的概念纳入心理学、测试学和优生学的历史。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: History of Psychology features refereed articles addressing all aspects of psychology"s past and of its interrelationship with the many contexts within which it has emerged and has been practiced. It also publishes scholarly work in closely related areas, such as historical psychology (the history of consciousness and behavior), psychohistory, theory in psychology as it pertains to history, historiography, biography and autobiography, and the teaching of the history of psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信