Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology

Boring argues that the history of sensation and perception should be written to explain how experimental psychology came to be as it is now, not to reconstruct the past for its own sake. He explicitly states in the preface that 'in a strict sense neither this book nor its predecessor of 1929 is a history—an historian's history' . He rejects the antiquarian ideal of accurate reconstitution, arguing that if something important in the past has no demonstrable effect on the present, it should be omitted from a book that recreates the past merely to explain the present . This presentist commitment shapes the entire volume: topics are selected and weighted by their relevance to contemporary psychology, not by their intrinsic historical importance.

Reviews were largely celebratory but not uncritical. Egon Brunswik and Edna Heidbreder, writing in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology (1943), called it 'one of the most outstanding contributions to contemporary psychological literature' and praised its seminar-style organization that interweaves important issues rather than following textbook structure . A Psychoanalytic Review notice called it 'rather perfect,' praising its full literature coverage, careful distinction between hypothesis and fact, and ample bibliographies . However, a detailed review in the Journal of the Optical Society of America noted omissions: data on flicker were missing, reading was not included, and olfactory and gustatory adaptation were compressed to single paragraphs . The same reviewer found the treatment of tactual sensibility marred by Boring's reliance on Kincaid's poor experimental values.

Boring's 'n.v.' notation—meaning 'not viewed' and therefore 'not verified'—is a methodological innovation in scholarly honesty. He explains that he resolved the dilemma of citing sources he could not personally examine by distinguishing two kinds of references: originals he had seen himself, and less important items cited at second hand and explicitly labeled . He invites the critic who thinks he should have cited nothing unverified to imagine that these 'n.v.' references are not in the book at all . The notation is a small but telling feature of Boring's historiographical ethic: he refuses to pretend to a comprehensiveness he does not possess, while still providing readers with leads he could not personally confirm. Modern scholars rarely adopt the practice, but it remains a model of transparent citation.

Sensation and Perception is the second volume in a planned trilogy. The first, A History of Experimental Psychology (1929, revised 1950), dealt primarily with personalities and schools. The 1942 volume takes up the special fields whose designations augment the original title—sensation and perception—and the third, never completed, was planned to cover feeling, emotion, learning, attention, action, and thought . Brunswik noted that the second volume is both a sequel to and an elaboration on the first, because the field of perception had to be drawn upon heavily in any account of psychology's history as a whole . The two books were used by graduate students for decades and were considered 'a classic, replacing a classic' in psychology .

Yes, and this is one of the book's most consequential legacies. Boring claimed that different areas of the tongue are sensitive to sweet, salty, sour, and bitter tastes, based on his misinterpretation of data from a 1901 paper by German scientist D. P. Hänig . This claim, presented in Sensation and Perception, popularized the tongue map that appeared in textbooks for decades and is now known to be discredited: all taste qualities can be detected across the tongue, with varying sensitivity rather than absolute zones. The episode is a cautionary case for the book's own presentist method: Boring's authority as a historian of perception lent credibility to a misreading that outlived its correction. Readers approaching the book today should treat its factual claims about sensory physiology with historical caution.

Boring uses 'macronism' to name a persistent error in historical writing: the tendency to exaggerate the importance of past events that seem significant from the present vantage point, while neglecting smaller developments that proved fertile. In his preface he acknowledges that he has painted nativism-versus-empiricism and Weber's law 'small, and in the distance,' while enlarging other remote details 'telescopically' . He admits this is 'not quite History' . The admission is significant because it names the methodological cost of his presentist approach: by selecting and weighting topics according to their relevance to contemporary psychology, he inevitably distorts the past's own proportions. The book is thus not only a history of sensation and perception but also a reflection on the limits of writing history from the present's perspective.

It is a technical monograph written for psychologists and historians of science, not a popular work. The chapters assume familiarity with psychophysical methods, neuroanatomy, and the experimental literature of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A Psychoanalytic Review notice praised its clarity and full coverage but described it as a 'rare event' of scholarly perfection rather than an accessible introduction . The Journal of the Optical Society reviewer found some expositions 'too condensed' and noted that the olfactory and gustatory sections were compressed severely . Modern readers without training in perception will find the middle chapters demanding. Those seeking an accessible entry to Boring's historiography might start with his 1929 History of Experimental Psychology or a secondary account of his career.