INFLUENCE OF BINET’S EARLY
RESEARCH UPON HIS TEST
As most every student of psychology knows, Alfred
Binet (1857–1911) invented the first modern
intelligence test in 1905. What is less well known,
but equally important for those who seek an understanding
of his contributions to modern psychology,
is that Binet was a prolific researcher and
author long before he turned his attentions to intelligence
testing. The character of his early research
had a material bearing on the subsequent form of
his well-known intelligence test. For those who
seek a full understanding of his pathbreaking influence,
brief mention of Binet’s early career is
mandatory. For more details the reader can consult
DuBois (1970), Fancher (1985), Goodenough
(1949), Gould (1981), and Wolf (1973).
Binet began his career in medicine, but was
forced to drop out because of a complete emotional
breakdown. He switched to psychology, where he
studied the two-point threshold and dabbled in
the associationist psychology of John Stuart Mill
(1806–1873). Later, he selected an apprenticeship
with the neurologist J. M. Charcot (1825–1893) at
the famous Salpetriere Hospital. Thus, for a brief
time Binet’s professional path paralleled that of
Sigmund Freud, who also studied hysteria under
Charcot. At the Salpetriere Hospital, Binet coauthored
(with C. Fere) four studies supposedly
demonstrating that reversing the polarity of a magnet
could induce complete mood changes (e.g.,
from happy to sad) or transfer of hysterical paralysis
(e.g., from left to right side) in a single hypnotized
subject. In response to public criticism from
other psychologists, Binet later published a recantation
of his findings. This was a painful episode
for Binet, and it sent his career into a temporary detour.
Nonetheless, he learned two things through
his embarrassment. First, he never again used
sloppy experimental procedures that allowed for
unintentional suggestion to influence his results.
Second, he became skeptical of the zeitgeist (spirit
of the times) in experimental psychology. Both of
these lessons were applied when he later developed
his intelligence scales.
In 1891, Binet went to work at the Sorbonne as
an unpaid assistant and began a series of studies
and publications that were to define his new “individual
psychology” and ultimately to culminate
in his intelligence tests. Binet was an ardent experimentalist,
often using his two daughters to try out
existing and new tests of intelligence. Early on, he
flirted with a Cattellian approach to intelligence
testing, using the standard measures of reaction
time and sensory acuity on his two daughters. The
results were annoyingly inconsistent and difficult
to interpret. As might be expected, he found that the
reaction times of his children were, on average,
much slower than for adults. But on some trials his
daughters’ performance approached or exceeded
adult levels. From these findings, Binet concluded
that attention was a key component of intelligence,
which was itself a very multifaceted entity. Furthermore,
he became increasingly disenchanted
with the brass instruments approach to measuring
intelligence, which probably explains his subsequent
use of measures of higher mental processes.
In addition, Binet’s sensory-perceptual experiments
with his children greatly influenced his
views on proper testing procedures:
The experimenter is obliged, to a point, to adjust
his method to the subject he is addressing. There
are certain rules to follow when one experiments
on a child, just as there are certain rules for adults,
for hysterics, and for the insane. These rules are not
written down anywhere; each one learns them for
himself and is repaid in great measure. By making
an error and later accounting for the cause, one
learns not to make the mistake a second time. In regard
to children, it is necessary to be suspicious of
two principal causes of error: suggestion and failure
of attention. This is not the time to speak on the
first point. As for the second, failure of attention, it
is so important that it is always necessary to suspect
it when one obtains a negative result. One
must then suspend the experiments and take them
up at a more favorable moment, restarting them 10
times, 20 times, with great patience. Children, in
fact, are often little disposed to pay attention to experiments
which are not entertaining, and it is useless
to hope that one can make them more attentive
by threatening them with punishment. By particular
tricks, however, one can sometimes give the experiment
a certain appeal. (Binet, 1895, quoted in
Pollack, 1971)
It is interesting to contrast modern-day testing
practices—which go so far as to specify the exact
wording the examiner should use—with Binet’s advice
to exercise nearly endless patience and use entertaining
tricks when testing children.