Terman, Goddard and Yerkes were staunch believers in the idea that intelligence was entirely accounted for by genetics and was the strongest predictor of life success as opposed to simple social status. Their ideas formed a model whereby they foresaw a society in which the leaders were those with the highest intelligence and achievements not those with the highest social standing.
They were therefore interested in the development of intelligence tests as the means of determining who were the most likely candidates to become the future leaders of society. As the tests were heavily culturally and racially biased it was almost guaranteed that immigrants and Blacks would score in the feeble minded range, as well they did, providing the first steps toward voicing the need for racial purity in this country, even before the Nazi’s took up the cry.
What is Eugenics and How Did Intelligence Testing Influence It?
Eugenics is the practice of attempting to improve the gene pool through selective breeding by encouraging individuals with desirable traits to reproduce (positive eugenics) and discouraging or preventing individuals with undesirable traits from reproducing (negative eugenics).
Intelligence testing, became one of the unintended foundations of the eugenics movement, advocated as a method of differentiating who should be permitted to reproduce based on intelligence by some of the biggest names in he field of psychometrics. Three of the most influential psychometricians who built momentum for the concept of selective breeding were Lewis Terman, Henry Goddard and Robert Yerkes.
However, the initial work on testing intelligence was based on ideas quite opposite from those behind eugenics. Begun in France, psychologist Alfred Binet had been commissioned to determine a way to differentiate students of normal intelligence from those who were considered of inferior intellectual functioning. The goal was to provide special services for those who scored below average to help raise them to the norm (Binet, 1916).
Binet was concerned, however that his test could be misused, and reinforced that the purpose of the scale was to identify students who could benefit from additional services in schools. He believed a lower IQ indicated the need for special learning techniques, an increase in instruction and individualized attention. He emphasized low scores did not indicate an inability to learn.
Binet firmly declared that his test was never intended as, “a general device for ranking all pupils according to mental worth” (Binet, 1916) He noted that intelligence could not be quantified by a single score and using what had come to be referred to as an IQ score as a definitive indication of a child’s intelligence could cause serious harm.. He feared the IQ score would condemn children to a permanent assumption of stupidity, limiting their education, opportunities and ability to support themselves. Overall, Binet stressed that intelligence progressed at variable rates, was malleable not fixed, could be altered by the environment, and was only able to be compared among children of the same background and education (Binet & Simon, 1916)
Unfortunately, it appears that on its way across the ocean, Binet’s intelligence theory and accompanying warnings regarding interpretation of IQ scores got lost somewhere in the translation.
Terman Ignores Binet’s Warnings
In the U.S. Lewis Terman, translated the Simon Binet Intelligence Scale into English, altering it somewhat to apply to American culture, and normed it on a large sample of American children. However, his goals in testing children were quite different from those originally intended by Binet, who wanted them to serve as a means of advocating for the most appropriate education of all children. Instead, as stated in the manual, Terman believed the primary benefits that came from the information provided by this test, now called the Stanford Binet, was the improvement of society, which was ultimately obtainable by, “curtailing the reproduction of feeble-mindedness and in the elimination of an enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency” (White, 2000). Now that the concept of eugenics had been bestowed with scientific merit through the endorsement of a respected Stanford Professor, the movement began to grow exponentially.
Goddard Validates IQ Scores by Testing New Immigrants
Further advancing the support for eugenics, Henry Goddard, in 1913, desired to prove the effectiveness of the intelligence test, choosing the immigrants at Ellis Island to do so. The underlying assumption was that immigrants were more likely to be feebleminded than citizens of the U.S. Believing he could identify feebleminded individuals by sight he chose immigrants from various countries that “appeared” low functioning and gave them the Standford Binet.
His results showed that of the immigrants he tested, 80% of the Hungrians, 79% of the Italians, 87% of the Russians, and 83% of the Jews were feebleminded. Ignoring the fact that most of these individuals didn’t speak English, were exhausted from a long and arduous journey, and that the Americanized Standford Binet was culturally biased, Goddard stood by his results (Gould 1981). Never did he use any kind of comparison group to prove the validity of his findings. Yet as another “respected” scholar, his findings were accepted without question, adding to the growing discontent Americans had with the increasing numbers of immigrants entering the country.
Yerkes and the Group Intelligence Test
Next to further the cause of Eugenics in the testing movement was Robert Yerkes. During World War I, Robert Yerkes, with Terman and Goddard, developed the first group administered Intelligence Tests. These tests were believed to administer “Native Intellectual Ability” or IQ free of cultural or environmental influences. Administered to 1.75 million army recruits, the Army Alpha and Beta tests were used as evidence that feeblemindedness was based in large part on differences between races.
While the average White American scored 13, which was at the top of the range defining “moron” (conveniently rationalized away), Yerkes focused exclusively on the idea that differences in intelligence could be defined by the country an individual originated from. The Average score of immigrants from Northern and Western Europe was 11.34, that for the Slavs of Eastern Europe was 11.01, and the darker immigrants from Southern Europe averaged 10.74. However, the lowest scores were for Black American men who averaged 10.4, which was pointed out to be considerably lower than the average for White Americans (Brigham, 1923). These findings were used to support segregation and discriminatory practices as well as providing a scientific platform for eugenicists to lobby Government to close our borders to immigrants. This lead to the Immigration Restriction Act (1924) which markedly decreased the immigration quotas for Eastern and Southern Europeans.
In addition to supporting the idea that the White Upper Class were the ones with the greatest promise regarding future leadership maintaining social order, the tests - designed, administered and scored by prominent psychologists - provided the data that proved that large groups could be tested simultaneously. There was now a basis for moving it into the school system to conduct large scale testing of all children.
Separating School Children of Differing Abilities Defined by IQ
Its use in the schools was never intended to identify who is intelligent and who wasn’t but to separate children into similar “ability groups”. This would make it possible to teach different groups skills in a manner that correlated with what would be their assigned functions in society as appropriate to their abilities. Based solely on IQ scores those who were had the cognitive abilities to continue to college were taught the academic subjects necessary for further educations. Those who scored in a range indicating a future as a low level worker were instructed in simple vocational skills they’d need for their future. Later the results of intelligence testing in the schools became more ominous.
The Eugenics Movement Calls for More Extreme Measures
It wasn’t long before the increasing support for eugenics lead from segregation within the schools to removing “feebleminded” children and placing them along with “feebleminded” adults into institutions where they were complete isolated and genders separated due to fears of them being a danger to society, if not directly then through their genes. In merely a few years’ time, thousands of children and adults were placed in these institutions where physical, emotional and sexual abuse was common and any contact between males and females prohibited to prevent them from reproducing (Community Support Network, Inc., 2011).
Given that many “scholars” and “men of science” believed intelligence and thus feeblemindedness was entirely accounted for by genetics, it was only a matter of time prior to a more permanent solution being implemented. Sterilization of the feebleminded began legally in two States in 1907, though cases of these surgeries being performed illegally before that were reported. However sterilization of the feebleminded did not gain wide spread support until the 1920’s. Before Mandatory Sterilization Laws for the feebleminded were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court in the mid-1970’s, 33 States had previously enacted statutes legalizing this practice and more than 60,000 Americans had been forced to endure this procedure.
Summary of Historical Precedents and Implications for Today
As leading eugenicists who provided the “scientific method” to be able to discern who was “feebleminded” and who was not, Terman, Goddard and Yerkes ultimately helped shape the direction of the movement’s decisions and actions. Believing in the heritability of intelligence they strongly advocated for utilizing eugenics to improve the gene pool and eliminate passing on the incurable handicap of feeblemindedness.
As members of several Eugenics Societies including the Human Betterment Foundation, they supported the organizations dedication to the improvement of the human race by encouraging those who were intellectually superior to reproduce while mandating compulsory sterilization for those considered feebleminded.
Some criticized the Foundation for ignoring the fact that many of those sterilized were either poor, uneducated, from minority groups or immigrants none of which is taken into account when interpreting an IQ score. In addition, since Terman’s IQ Tests and those developed later were highly dependent on education and heavily biased toward American Middle Class White culture, those who scored in the feebleminded range were most often subjects of racial and educational discrimination.
Unfortunately, this legacy continues to taint efforts against discrimination. Eugenics continues to be used today by Judges and Welfare agencies who, in an attempt to limit child bearing by poor, minority women, promise either probation vs. long prison sentences, or higher welfare benefits if they agree to use Norplant for the rest of their reproductive years despite serious side effects, or undergo some other sterilization method, (Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights, 2006). New methods of long term, birth control implants are still being developed, and many have concerns whether these also will be used for population control of those considered “undesirable”, despite the large body of knowledge regarding the effects of environment on one’s genetic makeup.
Sources
Binet, A. (1916). New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals. In E. S. Kite (Trans.), The development of intelligence in children. Vineland, NJ: Publications of the Training School at Vineland. (Originally published 1905 in L'Année Psychologique, 12, 191-244.) See related introduction and commentary by Henry L. Minton.
Binet. A., & Simon, T. (1916). The development of intelligence in children. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins. (Reprinted 1973, New York: Arno Press; 1983, Salem, NH: Ayer Company). The 1973 volume includes reprints of many of Binet's articles on testing.
Brigham, Carl C. (1923). A Study of American Intelligence. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton, University Press.
Community Support Network, Inc., (2011). Lost In Laconia Instructional Guide. Retrieved September 18, 2011.
General Assembly of Virginia, (1924). The Racial Integrity Act. Retrieved September 18, 2011.
Gould, S. J., (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
White, S. (2000). Conceptual foundations of IQ testing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 33-43.
Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR), (2006). Implanon: Basic Information and A Feminist Perspective, Retrieved September 18, 2011.
Join the Conversation