Abstract
The authors discuss the history of research terminology in American psychology with respect to the various labels given to those upon whom we conduct research (“observer”–“subject”–“participant”–“client”). This history is supplemented with an analysis of participant terminology in APA manuals from four historical eras, from the 1950s to the present. The general trend in participant terminology reflects the overall trends in American psychology, beginning with a complex lexicon that admitted both the passive and the active research participant, followed by a dominance of the passive term ‘subject’ and ending with the terminological ambiguity and multiplicity reflected in contemporary psychology. This selective history serves to contextualize a discussion of the meaning, functions, and implications of the transformations in, and debates over, participant terminology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In other countries, other non-human species also began to stand in for human beings—so the Russian tradition got its share of “dog-ified” psychology, even if slowly and reluctantly (Valsiner 1988).
References
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Bentley, M. (1929). ‘Observer’ and ‘subject’. The American Journal of Psychology, 41, 682–683. doi:10.2307/1414760.
Boring, E. G. (1950). A history of experimental psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Carey, B. (2004, June 15). The subject is subjects. The New York Times, p. A10.
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dashiell, J. F. (1929a). Note on the use of the term ‘observer’. Psychological Review, 36, 550–551. doi:10.1037/h0074094.
Dashiell, J. F. (1929b). A reply to Professor Bentley by John F. Dashiell. Psychological Review, 36, 183–185. doi:10.1037/h0074094.
Dolby, R. G. A. (1977). The transmissions of two new scientific disciplines from Europe to North America in the late 19th century. Annals of Science, 34, 287–310. doi:10.1080/00033797700200231.
Günther, I. (1998). Contacting subjects: The untold story. Culture and Psychology, 5(2), 131–152.
Logan, C. A. (2003). The legacy of Adolf Meyer’s comparative approach: Worcester rats and the strange birth of the animal model. From Past to Future: Clark Papers on History of Psychology, 4(1), 25–38.
Mead, G. H. (1930/2001). The philosophies of Royce, James, and Dewey in their American setting. Culture and Psychology, 7(1), 49–64. doi:10.1177/1354067X0171003.
Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse son image et son public: Étude sur la représentation sociale de la psychanalyse. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Murphy, G. (1949). Historical introduction to modern psychology (rev. ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.
Publication Manual, (1952). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Publication Manual, (2nd ed.). (1974). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Publication Manual, (3rd ed.). (1983). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Publication Manual, (5th ed.). (2001). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Roediger, H., III (2004). What should they be called? Observer, 17(4), 5, 46–48.
Valsiner, J. (1988). Developmental psychology in the Soviet Union. Brighton: Harvester.
Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158–176. doi:10.1037/h0074428.
Weekley, E. (1967). An etymological dictionary of Modern English (vol. 2). New York: Dover.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bibace, R., Clegg, J.W. & Valsiner, J. What Is in a Name? Understanding the Implications of Participant Terminology. Integr. psych. behav. 43, 67–77 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-008-9076-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-008-9076-5