No.i.j PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINING IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY. 97 



Contrasted with this list of favorable circumstances is an equally formidable list of disad- 

 vantages or handicaps. Again it is impossible to achieve completeness; only those circumstances 

 or events which figure conspicuously can be mentioned: 



(a) Misunderstanding of psychology and prejudices against anything done in its name. 

 It is said by certain army officers who have good reason to know that the name "psychological 

 examining" did more to retard the development of this work and to render it unreasonably 

 difficult than anything else. It was later suggested by one of the inspectors that the examina- 

 tion be called a test of alertness. 



(b) Officers who claimed that mental classification was unnecessary because armies had 

 always got along without it previously were not lacking. Some of these individuals objected to 

 the novelty of the new service, others to its scientific aspect or seeming impracticability, and 

 yet others to the risk of interference with military training. 



(c) In the medical department, aside from the support of a few officers who were intimately 

 acquainted with the methods, there was fairly general and natural opposition or skepticism 

 because it seemed as though psychologists were attempting to do what should be done by medical 

 specialists. This was especially true, with notable exceptions, of the neuro-psychiatrists, and 

 the situation was made considerably worse by the early demonstration that medical officers as a 

 group, as well as the officers in the Dental and Veterinary Corps, ranked relatively low in intelli- 

 gence. This revelation, quite aside from the fact, tended to prejudice officers of the Medical 

 Department against the psychological service. It made little difference that this fact was first 

 brought to light by a medical inspector and by him made the basis for important special recom- 

 mendations to the Surgeon General concerning the elimination, careful selection and placement of 

 medical officers. 



(<Z) Opposition appeared also in other quarters, for the officers of the line very naturally felt 

 that the War Department, especially through the Medical Department, was attempting to impose 

 many novelties upon the service. These officers seriously objected to the interference with 

 military training and they were frankly and reasonably skeptical of the importance for military 

 efficiency of the many new types of examination, classifications, suggestions and recommenda- 

 tions which were offered them. 



(e) The early exammation of officers and the assignment of intelligence ratings aroused the 

 suspicion that appointments and promotions might be determined in part by the results of psy- 

 chological examination. This seemed to many officers unfair and it undoubtedly led to much 

 adverse criticism on the part of individuals who had no direct knowledge of the work itself and 

 no reasonable basis for opinion concerning its value to the Army. 



(/) Officers of the General Staff who were responsible for major decisions concerning the psy- 

 chological service were at the extreme disadvantage of having to judge from written evidence or 

 the arguments of advocates instead of from intimate first-hand acquaintance with the work of 

 examining as conducted in camps and the practical applications of the information supplied. 

 It is surprising indeed that these officers should have been willing at any time to take the risk of 

 introducing a service at once so novel and so certain to arouse opposition. It is easier to under- 

 stand why many staff officers conscientiously and persistently opposed the work and after its 

 introduction opposed also expenditures to facilitate it and all attempts to extend it. 



(g) This opposition in Washington proved most serious to the new service when it prevented 

 the construction of special buildings for psychological examining. Had the buildings been pro- 

 vided as originally requested, planned and authorized, it is reasonable to estimate that the value 

 of psychological examining for increased military efficiency during the last six months of hostili- 

 ties would have been doubled. The misapprehension of the opposition is also indicated by the 

 fact that the conduct of psychological examining in barracks and other buildings assigned for 

 the purpose actually cost the Army considerably more than the construction of special buildings 

 would have cost. 



(h) The failure of the War Department to issue special orders and instructions concerning 

 psychological examining for the guidance of commanding officers most seriously affected the 



