A brief history of personality and individual differences research in australia

Chapter 1 Simon Boag∗ Department of Psychology, Macquarie University Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia ABSTRACT While there are various accounts describing the development of Australian psycho

Chapter 1

Simon Boag∗

Department of Psychology, Macquarie University

Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia

ABSTRACT

While there are various accounts describing the development of Australian psychology generally there exists at present no account of the development of personality and individual differences research within Australia specifically This paper provides an overview of the development of personality and individual differences research within Australia through examining the research interests of the pioneers of Australian psychology This reveals that Australian psychology from the beginning was, both in theory and practice, chiefly a psychology of personality and individual differences This chapter highlights key theoretical directions in Australian personality research, as well as noting practical applications of personality and individual differences research to clinical psychology, education and industry The early contributions from the pioneers of Australian psychology to this field are highlighted, and their impact on later developments within personality and individual differences research discussed

Keywords: Australian psychology, history of psychology, individual differences, mental

testing, personality

INTRODUCTION

While there are already various accounts of the development of Australian psychology generally (e.g., Nixon & Taft, 1977; O’Neil, 1977; 1987; Taft, 1982; Taft & Ross, 1988; Turtle, 1985), and more specifically ‘social psychology’ (Feather, 2005), and even the

∗

Ph: 61-2-9850 8024; Fax: 61-2-9850 8062; simon.boag@psy.mq.edu.au http://www.psy.mq.edu.au/staff/sboag

No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or

by any means The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services

‘psychology of religion’ (O’Connor, 1991), there is, as yet, no account of the development of personality and individual difference research within Australia, specifically To address this, the present paper examines personality and individual differences research as it began in Australian psychology and traces key developments into the latter half of the Twentieth Century The aim here is to characterise Australian personality and individual differences research by identifying the major themes within personality and individual research in Australia, as well as highlighting achievements in both theory and application

PIONEERS IN AUSTRALIAN PERSONALITY AND

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RESEARCH

Australian psychology emerged out of philosophy and education principally (O’Neil, 1977) and was first formally taught at the University of Sydney by the first professor of Philosophy there, the Scottish-born Francis Anderson in the 1890s (Turtle, 1985) It was not until 1929 that the first independent Department of Psychology formed in Australia at the University of Sydney, headed by Henry Tasman Lovell Lovell, who later became the first Professor of Psychology in Australia (O’Neil, 1977), had earlier received a doctorate in Jena, Germany, and amongst the many influences that he brought back to Australia were those of Alfred Binet’s work on mental measurement and Freud’s psychoanalytic theory (O’Neil, 1977) Lovell developed psychology courses at Sydney University with A H Martin, who had obtained a doctorate under R S Woodworth at Columbia (Martin, 1925) Martin, himself, was interested in individual differences research and was influenced by both Charles

Spearman’s general factor account of intelligence (g), and E L Thorndike’s specific abilities

approach (separating verbal/abstract reasoning, practical/mechanical, and social intelligences) (O’Neil, 1977; Taft, 1982) Martin was particularly active in test construction and adapted overseas tests for Australian use, such as with the U S Army Alpha (spatial aptitude) test developed by Thorndike, as well as training students in test construction and their application (O’Neil, 1977)

What characterised the early outlook of both Lovell and Martin was both their breadth of interests and focus on both personality and individual differences For example, in 1923 Lovell published one paper discussing criticisms and theoretical developments of psychoanalysis (Lovell, 1923a), and another praising the State of Tasmania for taking intelligence testing seriously (Lovell, 1923b) In a similar fashion, Martin published papers ranging across ‘instincts in the school yard’ (Martin, 1922), a discussion of IQ (Martin, 1923), as well as writing on the concepts of self and personality through examining the theories of William James, Freud, and McDougall (Martin, 1926) Such diversity was by no means unusual or limited to these two and appears to have been a common outlook of the time For example, Alexander Mackie, the first Principal of Sydney Teachers’ College established in 1906 (Turtle, 1985), published papers on psychology and education ranging from psychoanalytic applications (Mackie, 1923a) to mental testing and general ability (Mackie, 1923b) O’Neil (1977) characterises the approach of these early Australian researchers accordingly: “There was a certain eclecticism in all of them, a readiness to pick

up ideas, methods and data from various schools of psychological thought and to try and knit them together in at least a loose system of coherence” (p 11) However, what should be

pointed out here is that this ‘loose coherence’ meant an appreciation of understanding the

whole person, epitomised by A B Gibson (1938), from the University of Melbourne, who

writes, “psychology is always concerned with persons”, and the valuable psychologist was one “who could take the complete human view of his subject” (p 126)

Of course, not everyone in this early period necessarily held to this position, as we will later see, but it was a common position, nonetheless, which incorporated an appreciation of

the fundamental role of motivation (conation) and affective processes in understanding

human nature Constructs such as ‘instincts’ featured prominently in early Australian psychology writings (e.g., Lovell, 1930a, 1931; Martin, 1922, 1926), and their significance extended to providing the foundation of personality itself Lovell (1931), for instance, writes that “the raw materials from which character is formed are the instinctive impulses” (p 38; cf Martin, 1922), and that in addition to this, understanding intellectual functioning also requires appreciating the motivational basis of the mind Here Lovell (1930a), arguing against the

‘traditional view’ that isolates “the intellectual from the emotional and purposive processes” (p 150), notes the importance of emotions and drives for understanding the intellect, a view which would not be too out of step with some modern positions (e.g., Damasio, 1994) In fact, theoretically, there is much to be admired about this particular stance As John Passmore (1935)1, notes, the position that cognition is employed in the service of the motivational systems provides a platform for understanding the policy of the mind’s interests, as well as avoiding empty ‘faculty’ accounts of abilities and capacities

While to some extent this interest in ‘instincts’ and conation reflected overseas interests

at the time (e.g., McDougall, 1923), one Australian direction of this interest developed a peculiarly Freudian and philosophical flavour The general interest here in motivation and affects led to a broad appreciation of Freudian theory, generally, without commitment necessarily to the whole treatise (O’Neil, 1977) Furthermore, there was a general appreciation of psychoanalysis as a deterministic school of thought (e.g., Lovell, 1923a), in line with the common view at the time that“[p]sychological determinism is essential to any scientific study of mental phenomena” (Piddington, 1928, p 43)2 Additionally, Lovell was

an Australian pioneer in the study of psychoanalysis, writing two books on dreaming The

first, Dreams (Lovell, 1923c), providing “a critical examination of some of the most important of Freud’s principles” (p 2), and the second, Dreams and Dreaming (Lovell,

1938), extending this earlier analysis

However, what was added to make this Freudianism distinctly Australian was the philosophical influence from the Scottish-born John Anderson, Professor of Philosophy at Sydney from 1927-1958 Australian psychology was generally much more sympathetic to philosophical contributions compared to other parts of the world (Turtle, 1985), and Anderson exerted a strong philosophical influence at the University of Sydney through his staunch empiricist, determinist, and realist outlook (see Baker, 1987) Anderson, too, emphasised psychological determinism (Anderson, 1962b), which he admired in Freud’s writings (e.g., Anderson, 1962d), and his philosophical outlook contributed to a hard-line theoretical Freudian tradition that is arguably a unique Australian contribution to the international intellectual landscape That the Andersonian position, alone, is itself unique is evident by the failing of it to sit neatly in any established category (Anderson is often mischaracterised as a

1

John Passmore was a philosopher at the University of Sydney

2

University of Sydney

“logical positivist”—e.g., Bochner, 2000, p 332) The resulting Freudian theoretical school of thought survives into the present day (e.g., Mackay, 1996; Maze, 1952, 1983, 1987; Petocz, 1999), although its lack of empirical research pursuits means that it is often looked down upon as ‘arm-chair’ theorising (Furedy, 1988, p 75) Furthermore, while this school is vocal

it mostly remains restricted to universities within New South Wales and some proponents

appear to prefer to maintain a relatively insular status quo

APPLICATIONS IN PERSONALITY AND

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES RESEARCH

From the beginning Australian psychology was keen to provide applications to real-world problems (Martin, 1925), whether it be with the use of psychological testing of intelligence and ability in personnel recruiting (e.g., Martin, 1925; Martin, Doig & Simmat, 1925; Piddington, 1930; Taylor, 1925), or psycho-analysis in education (Mackie, 1923a; McCrae, 1928) This was, in part, motivated by a need to be seen to be useful; initially Australian psychology was struggling to gain recognition and resources were scarce (Turtle, 1996) Individual differences research found ready application in Australia, inspired by Binet and Théodore Simon’s apparent success with mental testing, and evidence of this impact is not difficult to find Martin (1925) refers to the “immortal name of Binet” (p 41), and the research and theories of Charles Spearman, Cyril Burt, as well as Lewis Terman’s development of both the Stanford Revision of the Binet tests and the concept of the

Intelligence Quotient, were all frequently discussed (e.g., Martin, 1923; Miller, 1928)

Furthermore, many overseas sources influenced the development of academic psychology within Australia through impacting upon key figures that were at work shaping the discipline For instance, Hugh L Fowler, another PhD student of Spearman “stressing the measurement

of individual differences” (O’Neil, 1977, p 8), founded the second department of Psychology

in Australia at the University of Western Australia in 1929 (Turtle, 1996)

CLINICAL APPLICATIONS

Following Binet and Simon’s pioneering work, Australian individual differences research found application in identifying various degrees of mental retardation (‘mental deficiency’), and more specifically, with identifying ‘feeble-minded’ individuals (legally defined as

“individuals who could neither support nor manage themselves in community life”—Porteus,

1965, p 6) (e.g., Bachelard, 1932; Lovell, 1923b; Phillips, 1924c)3 One particularly noteworthy and influential Australian pioneer here, was E Morris Miller, who from 1922 was Professor of Psychology and Philosophy at the University of Tasmania, and Director of the State Psychological Clinic there (Turtle, 1996) Miller was particularly influenced by Binet and intelligence testing prospects (e.g., Miller, 1928), as well as being interested in the

3

This outdated scientific and legal terminology referred to grades of mental retardation ranging from ‘feeble-minded’ individuals (the equivalent U.S term being ‘moron’), to ‘imbeciles’ and finally ‘idiots’ The Psychology Museum at the University of Sydney still holds copies of ‘idiot’ and ‘moron’ tests in its collection

relationship between neural structures and intelligence (Miller, 1926b), and was involved with Tasmanian legislation that identified and worked with mentally retarded individuals

It was the need for identifying mentally retarded individuals which also led to possibly Australia’s most original contributions to mental testing: the Porteus Maze test, and O’Neil (1977) goes so far as to write that “[t]he Porteus Maze Test is without doubt the most original Australian contribution has made to psychological techniques” (p 9) The test was developed

by Stanley Porteus in 1913 to identify ‘feeble-minded’ children for a special school set up in

Melbourne (School for Mental Defectives) Porteus had little by way of academic resources or

guidance to work with, and finding that the existing tests (e.g., the revisions of the Binet) failed to assess ‘practical intelligence’—they were predominantly verbal measures and dependent upon previous educational experience—he developed a “series of motor-intellectual tests” (Porteus, 1958, p 245) These tests consist of a series of mazes “arranged as

to allow an evaluation of the individual’s ability to carry out in proper sequence and prescribed fashion the various steps to be taken in the achievement of a goal, in this case finding his was out of a printed labyrinth” (Porteus, 1965, pp 6-7) In conjunction with John Smyth (who set up the first experimental psychology laboratory in Australia in the Melbourne Teachers’ College in 1903—Taft, 1982; Turtle, 1985), Porteus’ tests were found to successfully differentially diagnose mental retardation (Porteus, 1965), generating interest in both England and the United States Porteus himself left Australia for Vineland Training School in New Jersey relatively early 1918 (succeeding H H Goddard) before moving to the University of Hawaii in 1925 He did, however, soon after return to Australia in 1928 and conducted studies of ‘aboriginal intelligence’ intertwined with cultural observations (Porteus,

1931, 1937)4

MENTAL TESTING IN AUSTRALIA AND THE RACE DEBATE

As in other parts of the world the issue of group differences between indigenous and non-indigenous Australian populations came to the fore in individual differences research Porteus

is credited as the first individual “to apply modern psychometric measurement to the Aboriginal people” (Kearney, de Lacey & Davidson, 1973, p 27), and his studies of indigenous Australians using his maze tests indicated that indigenous subjects generally performed poorer than their European counterparts (Porteus, 1917, 1931, 1937) However, the issue of cultural biases remained an issue here (see Ross, 1984), and in response to this the

Queensland Test was developed by Donald McElwain, Foundation Professor of psychology

at the University of Queensland, and G E Kearney (McElwain & Kearney, 1970) This non-verbal test aims to be void of cultural assumptions (McElwain & Kearney, 1973) and subsequent testing reduced the performance differences between indigenous and non-indigenous children However, non-indigenous children were still found to perform generally poorer than their European counterparts, which McElwain and Kearney (1973) attribute, in part, to the test lacking relevance to their experience and learning Of course, this is a major issue, and perhaps the whole discussion of ‘intellectual abilities’ here could have been both

4

The boundary here between psychological research and anthropological research here becomes blurred (see, also, the anthropologist A P Elkin’s 1944 account of the ‘personality of medicine-men’ in indigenous Australian societies)

clarified and mitigated by appreciating the importance of motivational factors for understanding intellectual functioning generally, as Lovell (1930a) had recognised Rather, then, than treating the intellect as a separate isolated faculty that to assess one simply needs to present a test to, the researcher would ask questions concerning why anyone sitting a test should be expected to apply him or herself to any given assessment in the first place (and the answer here would probably involve factors such as subjugation to authority and/or narcissistic investment, etc.) However, as with many other parts of the world, this issue has been generally neglected, and the IQ race-debate has become prominent from time to time in Australian psychology Tours by Arthur Jensen and Hans Eysenck of Australia in the late 1970’s were disrupted by demonstrations due to their position on racial differences in IQ5,

and the race issue was further reinvigorated by Hernstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve

(1994), finding its way into further public discussions of the issue in Australian journals (e.g., Bates & Stough, 2000; Stankov, 1998, 2000)

OTHER SPHERES OF EARLY APPLICATION:

INDUSTRIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATION

Early Australian psychology found many other areas of application for personality and individual differences research Industry, where psychology could contribute to the “scientific selection of the worker” to “avoid waste of human energies and abilities” (Lovell, 1930b, p 215), was one clear arena for the application of individual difference research The view that

“[i]ndividuals differ in their native gifts, in their abilities and aptitudes, just as they differ in their facial features” (Lovell, 1930b, p 216) allowed fitting particular workers with specific environments and it was such thinking that formed the basis of a major contribution from

Australia, the development of Industrial Psychology A pioneer here was Bernard Muscio6, described as “the author of ‘Industrial Psychology’” (Martin, 1925, p 42), who published lectures on industrial psychology based on lectures given in 1916 which covered material ranging from fatigue, accidents and the selection of workers (Muscio, 1917) According to O’Neil (1977) these lectures “constituted the first book anywhere in the world in the new style on industrial psychology” (p 9; cf Taft, 1982) Muscio himself died in 1926, but in the

following year A H Martin set up the non-profit Australian Institute of Industrial

Psychology (AIIP) in Sydney in 1927 which was set up “primarily as a vehicle for developing

and conducting vocational and intelligence tests for the use of private enterprise” (Turtle,

1996, p 111)

General education was another sphere that psychology found ready application One pioneer here was Gilbert E Phillips, also a former Spearman pupil, who joined the Sydney Teacher’s College in 1919 Phillips was interested in studying “the close relationship between the ability to learn and intelligence” (1924, p 23) and published the 1923 Sydney revision of the Binet tests which was widely used throughout Australia (Martin, 1925; O’Neil, 1977;

Turtle, 1996), as well as developing the Sydney Teachers’ College Group Scale for assessing

5

See Eysenck’s autobiography (Eysenck, 1990) for his views on the race-debate and accounts of demonstrations that occurred against his views throughout the world

6

A graduate from the University of Sydney

primary school children’s general ability (Phillips, 1924a7) Another application of individual

differences research to education involved the development of the Australian Council for

Educational Research (ACER), established in 1930 and which is still active today Its first

director, Kenneth S Cunningham, had trained at Columbia University under Thorndike and set up psychological laboratories at Melbourne Teachers’ College in 1923 (Turtle, 1996) ACER promoted individual difference research through work in psychometrics and psychological testing as well as providing postgraduate training in the use of mental tests Initially ACER primarily adapted overseas tests for Australian use (Taft, 1982), but later became active in conducting and publishing research on test development (e.g., Dunn & Brownless, 1956; Dunn & Spearritt, 1955) During the Second World War the Australian Commonwealth Training Scheme then commissioned ACER to develop tests for personnel and technical training suitability (Turtle, 1985) This allowed psychologists to demonstrate their usefulness, and the post-war years witnessed both an expansion of psychology departments in Australia and increasing access to government funding for research (O’Neil, 1977; Turtle, 1985)

THE DEVELOPING FACE OF PERSONALITY RESEARCH

From the 1940s onwards the emergence of the ‘trait’ approach to personality can be seen

to develop in Australian personality research A pioneer here was Cecil A Gibb at the University of Sydney who in 1940 completed a Masters thesis on ‘Personality traits, their empirical measurement and statistical isolation’8, and in that same year published a paper,

‘The definition of personality’ (1940), which follows Allport and Vernon’s (1930) tack of examining the variety of definitions of personality (and extracting 66 definitions from the literature!) In a series of papers that followed (Gibb, 1942a, 1942b, 1942b) Gibb outlined this trait approach, reflecting a move away from personality dynamics (the interest of Lovell and others), and instead developing an almost behaviourist approach: “Personality is … a manner

of behaving” (Gibb, 1942b, p 86)9, he writes, and judging by published responses, Gibb’s position here was clearly seen as both a new and seemingly unacceptable direction initially (see responses from Cook (1941), Walker, (1941) and Gibb’s (1941) reply; See also Gibb (1942a, 1942b), for further discussion)

The trait approach became a central personality perspective within Australia and appears

to have been unscathed by the situationist criticism of traits that was so pronounced during the 60s and 70s in other parts of the world For example, from the late 1950s through to the 1990’s studies involving Eysenck’s personality dimensions of extroversion/introversion, neuroticism (emotional stability) and psychoticism were regularly published in Australian journals (e.g., Brebner, 1983; Hammer, 1959; Heaven, 1989; Heaven & Connors, 1988; Heaven & Furnham, 1994; Parker, 1972; Rigby & Slee, 1987; Schneider & Gibbins, 1982;

7

The test material is available in Phillips (1924b)

8

PhD degrees were only introduced into Australia in 1946, with the first PhD awarded in 1953 (Taft & Ross, 1988) Prior to that students either completed Masters level theses in Australia or travelled abroad to do doctorates with noted individuals (e.g., Spearmen, Thorndike, Woodworth and Terman—Turtle, 1985)

9

However, the influence of Kurt Lewin’s dynamic psychology can also be seen, with Gibb (1940) writing that

“Personality is to be regarded as a function of the social situation There can be no personality in isolation” (p 253)

Sparrow & Ross, 1964; Stanley, 1973; Stanley & Watkins, 1972) In fact, the spate of early publications devoted to Eysenck’s research led McDonald and Yates10 to write as early as 1960: “The extent to which Eysenck has achieved a distinctive position in the field of personality theory can be measured by the number and nature of critical reviews … of his work that have recently appeared” (1960, p 212) This new focus of personality research also had many interesting outlets For instance, Gordon Stanley, of the University of Western Australia, published a series of papers examining the personality characteristics of fundamentalist Christian students (finding them to be no different to non-fundamentalist students on scores of extraversion and neuroticism, but to have “significantly higher lie scale scores”—Stanley, 1963b, p 199; cf Stanley, 1963a)

OTHER AREAS OF INTEREST

While the trait approach reflects mostly overseas developments, a more originally Australian approach was that of Paul Lafitte, of the University of Melbourne, who published a

book titled The Person in Psychology (1957) O’Neil (1987) describes Lafitte’s position as a

“basically tender-minded and humanistic” approach highlighting the uniqueness of the individual (p 125) However, as with the early Australian researchers, Lafitte’s interests were

diverse He developed the Melbourne Test for predicting university performance (Lafitte,

1954), examined the personality characteristics of factory workers (Lafitte, 1958), as well as working on both theoretical and practical issues of personality assessment (Lafitte, 1950) However, there appears to have been little follow-up of his work

In addition to this, nearly all major schools of personality appear to have developed some representation in Australian research, whether it be Kelly’s personal construct theory (e.g., Harper, 1974), Maslow’s humanistic approach (e.g., Blunt & Denton, 1979), Cattell’s 16PF (e.g., Walker, 1966), Myers-Brigg Type indicators (e.g., Ross, 1966), or interest in conservatism and authoritarian personality (e.g., Ray, 1979), or the construct of ‘repression-sensitisation’ as a defensive style (e.g., Hill & Gardner, 1976, 1980; Davis, Singer, Bonanno

& Schwartz, 198811) The 1950s and 1960s also saw continued interest in projective testing and psychodynamic concepts in Australia both in theory and practice (e.g., Gabriel & Herd, 1960; Sutcliffe, 1955, 1956), as in other parts of the world, partly in response to treating war shell-shock victims (Turtle, 1985) Of course, much more could be written here regarding Australian personality and individual differences research, but the expansion of research in the post-war period makes providing an exhaustive account here both difficult and beyond the scope of the present paper

CONCLUSION

As the preceding discussion demonstrates, the development of personality and individual difference research within Australia is to a large extent the history of psychology in Australia itself Many of the pioneers of Australian psychology were specifically interested in personality and individual differences research, including an appreciation of motivational and

10

Both from the University of New England

11

At the time Penelope Davis was from the University of Sydney

emotional processes, character and personality, and their relation to intellectual abilities Their contributions to theory and practice, such as in the areas of clinical, industrial and educational psychology, provide the foundation for present personality and individual differences research in Australia While the trait approach has become a central direction in personality research within Australia most schools of personality still have clear representation, and a strong appreciation for both theory and application can still be found, even if not always amalgamated

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am indebted to Alison Turtle (1939-2006) for sharing with me both her extensive knowledge of, and passion for, the history of Australian psychology during our time together working in the Psychology Museum at the University of Sydney (2004-2006)

REFERENCES

Allport, G W., & Vernon, P E (1930) The field of personality Psychological Bulletin, 27,

677-730

Anderson, J (1962a) The knower and the known In Studies in empirical philosophy (pp

27-40) Sydney: Angus & Robertson (Original work published 1927)

Anderson, J (1962b) Determinism and ethics In Studies in empirical philosophy (pp

214-226) Sydney: Angus & Robertson (Original work published 1928)

Anderson, J (1962c) The non-existence of consciousness In Studies in empirical philosophy

(pp 60-67) Sydney: Angus & Robertson (Original work published 1929)

Anderson, J (1962d) The Freudian revolution In Studies in empirical philosophy (pp

359-362) Sydney: Angus & Robertson (Original work published 1953)

Bachelard, P M (1931) Can we diagnose feeble-mindedness in children? Australasian

Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 9, 120-130

Baker, A J (1986) Australian realism: The systematic philosophy of John Anderson

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bates, T C., & Stough, C (2000) Intelligence arguments and Australian psychology: A reply

to Stankov and an alternative view Australian Psychologist, 35, 68-72

Blunt, P., & Denton, S (1979) A factor analysis of a ten-item questionnaire designed to

measure Maslow’s need categories Australian Psychologist, 14, 41-50

Bochner, S (2000) Australia In A E Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychology Volume 1

(pp 331-338) Washington DC: APA

Brebner, J (1983) Introduction to Special Issue on Personality and Temperament Australian

Journal of Psychology, 35, 287-288

Cook, P H (1941) Discussion: The definition of personality Australasian Journal of

Psychology and Philosophy, 19, 175-179

Damasio, A (1994) Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain New York:

Penguin

Davis, P J., Singer, J L., Bonanno, G A., & Schwartz, G E (1988) Repression and

response bias during an affective memory recognition task Australian Journal of

Psychology, 40, 147-157

Dunn, S S., & Brownless, V T (1956) Differences in test and retest responses of a group of

children to a verbal and non-verbal test Australian Journal of Psychology, 8, 84-87

Dunn, S S., & Spearritt, D (1955) A comparative study of the reliability of some verbal and

non-verbal intelligence tests Australian Journal of Psychology, 7, 169-174

Elkin, A P (1944) Aboriginal men of high degree Sydney: Australasian Publishing Co Eysenck, H J (1990) Rebel with a cause: The autobiography of H J Eysenck London: W

H Allen

Feather, N T (2005) Social psychology in Australia: Past and present International Journal

of Psychology, 40, 263-276

Furedy, J F (1988) On the relevance of philosophy for psychological research: A

preliminary analysis of some influences of Andersonian realism Australian Journal of

Psychology, 40, 71-77

Gabriel, J., & Herd, J (1960) Culturally expected responses and the Rosenzweig P-F test,

Children’s form Australian Journal of Psychology, 12, 178-188

Gibb, C A (1940) The definition of personality Australasian Journal of Psychology and

Philosophy, 19, 246-254

Gibb, C A (1941) Discussion: The definition of personality Australasian Journal of

Psychology and Philosophy, 19, 180-183

Gibb, C A (1942a) Personality traits by factorial analysis (I) Australasian Journal of

Psychology and Philosophy, 20, 1-15

Gibb, C A (1942b) Personality traits by factorial analysis (II) Australasian Journal of

Psychology and Philosophy, 20, 86-110

Gibb, C A (1942c) Personality traits by factorial analysis (III): Item analysis of personal

inventory Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 20, 203-27

Gibson, A B (1938) The conjunction of personality Australasian Journal of Psychology

and Philosophy, 16, 97-126

Hammer, A G (1959) An examination of Eysenck’s dimensional psychology Australian

Journal of Psychology, 11, 46-61

Harper, J (1974) An exploratory study of the repertory test with children Australian

Psychologist, 9, 64-70

Heaven, P C L (1989) Adolescent smoking, toughmindedness and attitudes to authority

Australian Psychologist, 24, 27-35

Heaven, P C L., & Connors, J (1988) Personality, gender, and “Just World” beliefs

Australian Journal of Psychology, 40, 261-266

Heaven, P C L., & Furnham, A (1994) Personality factors and preferences for therapy: A

simulated study among a community sample of adults Australian Psychologist, 29,

207-211

Hernstein, R J., & Murray, C (1994) The Bell Curve New York: The Free Press

Hill, D., & Gardner, G (1976) Repression-sensitization and cardiac responses to threat

Australian Journal of Psychology, 28, 149-154

Hill, D., & Gardner, G (1980) Repression-sensitization and yielding to threatening health

communications Australian Journal of Psychology, 32, 183-193