Hans Eysenck at the Maudsley — the early years

When Hans was appointed to direct a new Psychology Department at the Maudsley Hospital,London, in the late 1940s, he had a clear program of research mapped out (adumbrated in his1947 book Dimensions of Personality) and proceeded to implement it. It was an astonishinglyfresh approach to the study of personality, viewing psychology as a natural science and empha-sising biological and genetic factors, all within an uncompromising objective, experimentalapproach. That which could not be measured would not be entertained. The personality theorywas presented as a hierarchical structure with specific responses and habitual acts at lower levelsand traits and types such as introversion and neuroticism at higher levels. With the support of theProfessor of Psychiatry (Sir Aubrey Lewis) Hans was given space in what had been a private wingof the hospital; hence much of the research and clinical testing was carried out in erstwhilebathrooms and kitchens, with ex-bedrooms as offices, and verandahs once used by convalescentstransformed into laboratories. This need to ‘make-do’ fitted in well with the spirit of wartime andpost-war London and the new pioneer spirit in psychology.There was nothing makeshift in the scope and application of Hans’ vision. It included, of

course, a detailed analysis of the items and statistical structure of the personality scales and anemphasis on quantitative and objective procedures that differed quite markedly from much of theprevailing work in psychology and, especially, psychiatry. It was an attractive prospect to workwithin such a theoretical stronghold yet to be free to pursue independent research topics. Thesewere wide ranging: perception, conditioning, social attitudes, child development, animal beha-viour, genetics and intelligence all fell within the scope of the program. The emphasis on objec-tivity and numeracy meant that support in the way of statistical advice was necessary and Hansensured that we had access to an extraordinarily gifted number of statisticians whom heemployed from the start. Indeed, an important legacy was the setting up of Statistics and Bio-metrics sections staffed by people of outstanding talent. The emphasis on quantitative measure-ment was also used to inflict many a scar on those who maintained that dynamic influences werethe major determinants of human individuality.Once a research project met his criteria, his support was unstinting. There were not only good

statistical facilities but also good workshop facilities to build apparatus as it was needed. All thisrequired money and Hans seemed endlessly successful in its acquisition! Requests were listened toand (if reasonable) granted. Whereas the earlier research had employed a diverse array of ‘tests’of an almost infinite variety, research now became more concentrated on specific topics, inte-grated in the research program by Pavlovian and Hullian concepts of inhibition and providing astructure within which researchers could develop their own interests. Thus laboratories forresearch in conditioning, perception, intelligence, animal behaviour, to name a few, were constructed

PII : S0191-8869(01)00045-9

Personality and Individual Differences 31 (2001) 7–9www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

in whatever rooms were available. Later, when the Institute of Psychiatry building was planned,we were able to design a proper layout of laboratory space and install our first computer.The Department of Psychology flourished, well supplied with the needs to carry out good

research — a program with a strong sense of direction, a developing and very lively clinicalsection — and attracted highly motivated research people from all parts of the world. At its headwas someone young, intensely focused on the promotion of his theories: the biological basis ofpersonality and a model of clinical treatment. There was usually daily interaction among all of us,clinical and research staff and students, and Hans. It has often been commented, sometimes withsurprise, that Hans was always available for discussion; this is true, but some preparation wasnecessary before engaging with him. He was skilled in argument and out to win, and from hisknowledge of the experimental literature immediately able to reference whatever facts wereavailable; he also employed several well-thought out (and occasionally devious) tactics! He hadno time for impressions, speculations, or intuition; the ‘semantic effusions’ of his critics oftenlooked ridiculous against his logic and calm certainty.His determination to maintain the integrity of his theories also meant that any attempt to open

a discussion on seemingly divergent facts and findings generally met with short shrift. Those whomight genuinely question how far the type concepts could explain such an enormous range ofbehaviour did not find it easy to discuss their doubts. His listening was oriented more to thosewho provided data to support his theory and also on those researchers in tune with his approachbut sufficiently knowledgeable in their own areas and skilled in argument to interest him— peoplelike Gwynne Jones, Arthur Jensen and Jeffrey Gray for example. He enjoyed a good duel, neverdoubting that he would win. This also applied to his tennis, a game seriously played at lunchtime.Whatever the genetic influences on his personality, it is clear that his early and teenage experi-

ences were ones that encouraged an almost total independence of behaviour and thinking. This,and his high intelligence and confidence, provided a unique kind of leadership. He made his owndecisions and relied almost exclusively on his own judgement. He did not enjoy committees,academic board meetings or selection panels, and was fortunate in that there was little organisa-tional structure in those early, developing years of psychology. He could pursue the unfetteredway of an individualist, a way possible then but impossible to imagine today. His life was highlyorganised, with an extremely efficient secretary at work and Sybil, an efficient and supportive wifeboth at home and at work; he rarely worked late, never worried, and never enjoyed a ‘drink withthe boys’. Friendly he was, but in a distant, impersonal way. Social occasions, parties and din-ners, the evening ‘at-homes’ were strictly for purposes of discussing research issues, never forgeneral chitchat or gossip.The personality program, scientifically rigorous as it was, generated relatively little con-

troversy. There were always a few dissidents, but it was very difficult to martial an opposition thatcould impact on Hans! It was his views on the treatment of patients and the role of clinical psy-chology that caused the major storms. He never deviated from the view that they required atheoretical basis, and that basis was conditioning theory. Further, clinical psychologists were asable or even better equipped than psychiatrists and psychotherapists to treat patients. In 1955 hewas appointed Professor of Psychology, and his inaugural speech presented his views in provo-cative terms. Psychologists were not to be pale carbon copies of psychiatrists, nor devote theirenergies to psychiatrists’ requests for ‘tests’, but to develop their own independent and muchmore scientific approach to treatment which they would then evaluate. His disturbing question:

8 I. Martin / Personality and Individual Differences 31 (2001) 7–9

how did psychiatrists and psychotherapists assess the reliability of their diagnoses or the effec-tiveness of their treatments was guaranteed to inflame.Another major achievement during the 1950s was the publication of his popular books — Fact

and Fiction and Uses and Abuses (wonderfully assured titles!). He became internationally famousnot only for his views on personality and clinical psychology but for the clarity and popularity ofhis books. He was also generous in providing publication opportunities for his research students:when planning the first Handbook of Abnormal Psychology he asked those around him whetherthey would like to contribute, and then left them free to formulate their own chapters. The rela-tively small department of the early years was alive with a sense of direction and purpose. Onemight have wished that it could continue to be small, with a coherent research structure devotedto the personality theory in which all participated. Realistically, a sustained and long term, well-funded program into personality research was an unlikely event in psychology.The pattern and organisation of the department altered when Clinical and Research Sections

moved to the new building of the Institute of Psychiatry in 1968, a target that had taken years ofplanning. The Clinical Section was enormously successful in pioneering treatment by psycholo-gists and in clinical research, and had its own significant leader in Jack Rachman. Its size, and thegeneral organisation of space and timetables, meant that there was less day-to-day interactionamong clinicians and non-clinical researchers than had occurred in previous years. Also, Hanshad become an international and controversial figure, in demand world-wide and attracting largeaudiences to his talks. His interest in personality expanded to a range of new topics: personality,psychosocial factors, coronary heart disease and cancer; personality and creativity; personalityand astrology, vitamins and IQ. His mind was open to all of these. But most of all he was ser-iously absorbed by the possibility of analysing intelligence. Again, he focused on biologicalintelligence, and early on suggested that mental speed was possibly a central factor; speed wasinitially measured in a variety of reaction and inspection time tests, but these measures were soonsupplemented by measures of brain activity. To investigate the relationship between intelligenceand brain activity state-of-the-art laboratories were equipped, with Paul Barrett as chiefresearcher. Paul describes his experience with Hans in the ‘Later Years’.

Irene MartinInstitute of Psychiatry

De Crespigny ParkDenmark Hill,

London SE5 8AFUK

I. Martin / Personality and Individual Differences 31 (2001) 7–9 9