Temperamental workers: Psychology, business, and the Humm-Wadsworth Temperament Scale in interwar America.

Abstract

This article traces the history of a popular interwar psychological test, the Humm-Wadsworth Temperament Scale (HWTS), from its development in the early 1930s to its adoption by corporate personnel departments. In popular articles, trade magazines, and academic journals, industrial psychologist Doncaster Humm and personnel manager Guy Wadsworth trumpeted their scale as a scientific measure of temperament that could ensure efficient hiring practices and harmonious labor relations by screening out "problem employees" and screening for temperamentally "normal" workers. This article demonstrates how concerns about the epistemological and scientific credibility of the HWTS were intimately entangled with concerns about its value to business at every step in the test's development. The HWTS sought to measure the emotional and social dimensions of an individual's personality so as to assess their suitability for work. The practice of temperament testing conjured a vision of the subject whose emotional and social disposition was foundational to their own capacity to find employment, and whose capacity to appropriately express, but regulate, their emotions was foundational to corporate order. The history of the HWTS offers an instructive case of how psychological tests embed social hierarchies, political claims, and economic ideals within their very theoretical and methodological foundations. Although the HWTS itself may have faded from use, the test directly inspired creators of subsequent popular personality tests, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. (PsycINFO Database Record

Critical Perspectives on Governance Mechanisms for AI/ML Systems

“…Techniques for diminishing technical definitions of bias and unfairness have been developed by corporate (Zhang, Lemoine, & Mitchell, 2018), scholarly (Kearns, Roth, & Wu, 2017), and civil society actors (Duarte, 2017). These efforts have historical parallels in the social sciences, particularly around quantitative educational, vocational (Hutchinson & Mitchell, 2019), and psychometric testing (Lussier, 2018). Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency in Machine Learning (FATML) workshops, held yearly in conjunction with the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) from 2014 to 2018, were organized by a group comprised largely of computer scientists.…”

Neurodiversity Studies

“…Shaken by incidents of workplace violence, such as the 1934 murder of a supervisor by an employee (Hemsath, 1939), large employers flocked to add such tests to their pre-employment screening processes. The HWTS was heavily marketed to employers, and eventually became the inspiration for the personality inventories used most commonly today: the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Lussier, 2018).…”

A Silicon Valley love triangle: Hiring algorithms, pseudo-science, and the quest for auditability

“…Although reliable metrics to evaluate the likely success of applicants remain elusive, 4 applicant screening and pre-interview evaluation tools are nevertheless being promoted as if they provide stable, reliable, objective, and fair insights into applicants' suitability for roles without regard for the validity of the evaluative constructs being deployed. 5,6 Most worryingly, these constructs are often grounded in pseudo-scientific practices 7,8 that recall the dark, eugenicist histories of physiognomy. 9,10 Even though there is mounting evidence that such systems harbor bias across demographic categories, 11 algorithmic and bureaucratic opacity [12][13][14] have led to slow responses from regulators.…”