“Pure” versus “Applied” Psychology: An Historical Conflict between Edward B. Titchener (Pure) and Ludwig R. Geissler (Applied)

There have been three significant breakaways from the American Psychological Association (APA) as a result of its emphasis on professional practice as opposed to “pure” or scientific psychology. In the first, Titchener organized “the Experimentalists” in 1904 (renamed “Society of Experimentalists,” 1929) as an alternative to APA. Following that, the Psychonomic Society (1959) and American Psychological Society (1989; renamed Association for Psychological Science, 2006) broke away from APA. Titchener’s conflict with Ludwig Geissler might be read as a case study of some of the early issues associated with such breakaways. For better understanding of Titchener and Geissler, biographical sections are included with more about Titchener as he is more prominent in the history of psychology literature. Their primary conflict, a private one, was revealed in 14 extant letters between Titchener and Geissler. Titchener was persistently critical of applied psychology. Geissler, Titchener’s student, was the principal founder of the Journal of Applied Psychology. A secondary conflict involved Titchener’s persistent effort to convince Geissler to leave his position in Virginia and return “East, up into the center of things again.” Geissler ( 1923 ) eventually responded with a critique of Titchener’s structuralism. In spite of several longstanding disagreements, the two maintained a cordial professional relationship, and in the end, Titchener showed increasing respect for applications of psychology.