Remarkable Women in Psychology

This week’s post is a special one in honour of International Women’s Day 2018. Whilst some of the most famous figures in psychology are men (think Freud, Jung, Milgram etc), this doesn’t mean that women haven’t made a massive contribution to the field. The work of female scientists should be celebrated, so I’ve picked 5 women who have made a real difference to the field of psychological research to profile below.

1. Mary Ainsworth


Born: 1913. Ohio, USA

Studied: University of Toronto

Most famous for: Devising the Strange Situation – a test to observe attachment type between an infant and their primary caregiver (to find out more about the Strange Situation read my blog post here). Her work makes up the cornerstone of attachment theory – that is the type of attachment an infant has to their primary caregiver (usually their mother). If an infant does not have secure attachment then it may result in emotional or behavioural problems later on in life.

2. Mamie Clark

mamie clark

Born: 1917. Arkansas, USA

Studied: Columbia University

Most famous for: Doing some of the first work into racial bias with young children in segregated America that went on to provide pivotal evidence in the United States Supreme Court case which ruled it was unconstitutional to have separate schools for white and black children. Her experiment used dolls of different skin tones and children were asked questions such as “show me the doll that looks bad” or “which doll would you like to play with?”. The experiment revealed a preference for the white doll, mimicking society at the time. It concluded that racial segregation caused psychological harm to children.

3. Anne Treisman


Born: 1935. Yorkshire, UK

Studied: University of Oxford

Most famous for: Developing Feature Integration Theory with Gelade in 1980. This states that the individual features of a stimulus (such as colour or shape) are processed simultaneously through an automatic process before object recognition occurs at a later stage. This process explains how we search for a target in a crowded field – if it has a distinctive feature like being a bright colour (e.g. a pink circle in a field of blue ones) then it seems to pop out automatically. However, processing takes longer if the target shares a feature with the distractors (imagine looking for a blue circle in a field of blue squares). In the first example processing happens automatically, whereas the second example requires more attention to find the target. This work has since gone on to form the basis of several new experiments in the field of cognitive psychology, and her paper with Gelade (Treisman & Gelade, 1980) has been cited over 100,000 times.

4. Elizabeth Loftus


Born: 1944. California, USA

Studied: Stanford University

Most famous for: Her work on the reliability of eyewitness testimony. In her well-known experiment, she showed participants a video of a car accident. She then asked half of them “How fast was the car going when it bumped into the other car?” and the other half “How fast was the car going when it smashed into the other car?”. The participants who were asked the second question were more likely to overestimate the speed the car was travelling. Her work in this field shows how careful interviewers must be when talking to eyewitnesses as leading questions can alter their perception of the event. She has gone on to advise courts in several famous cases, including that of OJ Simpson.

5. Dame Vicki Bruce


Born: 1953. Essex, England

Studied: University of Cambridge

Most famous for: Being a leader in the field of face recognition and eyewitness testimony. In 1986 she developed a Functional Model of Face Processing with Young (Bruce & Young, 1986) which states that there are 7 different codes that we use to process faces which, include expression, pictorial, and structural codes. The model explains how familiar faces are processed differently to unfamiliar ones, and why we have the ‘tip-of-the-tongue’ phenomenon, when we know we know someone’s name but can’t remember exactly what it is. She was awarded an OBE for services to psychology in 1997 and was made a Dame in 2015.



Were there any people profiled here that you hadn’t heard of before? It’s be really interesting to put this post together, but also frustrating at times – some female psychologists who I wanted to feature don’t have their own Wikipedia page, making it hard to find out their biographical information. This just goes to show that we should celebrate women in science! Please share, using the hashtag #internationalwomensday and if there’s anyone else you think I should have featured here please let me know in the comments below.



Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E. and Wall, S.N., 2015. Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Psychology Press.

Bruce, V. and Young, A., 1986. Understanding face recognition. British journal of psychology77(3), pp.305-327.

Loftus, E.F. and Palmer, J.C., 1996. Eyewitness testimony. In Introducing psychological research (pp. 305-309). Palgrave, London.

Treisman, A.M. and Gelade, G., 1980. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive psychology12(1), pp.97-136.



The Strange Situation

Something related to developmental psychology now – in particular, how do we know if an infant is securely attached to their parent? Attachment means the emotional bond that connects one person to another (Ainsworth). If  attachment is successful, then there is a secure bond between the infant and their parent, which is thought to lead to psychological and social benefits to the child as they grow up, e.g. being better at expressing emotions and better social skills. So let’s start with the basics, what are the types of attachment?

As mentioned above, if attachment is successful, then it is said to be secure. There are two different forms of insecure attachment: insecure/avoidant, and insecure/resistant. These represent the opposite ends of insecure attachment: infants with resistant type are more clingy to their caregivers, whilst avoidant children tend to seek less interaction and avoid new situations.

This leads us nicely into an important question.. how can we measure attachment? Mary Ainsworth (1969) devised an assessment called the Strange Situation: a mother and her baby came to a lab and took part in an observed experiment. There are 8 stages in total, and these are shown in the table below:


As you can see, the infant’s behaviour was monitored throughout this situation, and was then categorised into the 3 attachment types. The table below summarises their results:


As you can see, infants with a secure attachment cope better being left in an unfamiliar environment – they are less anxious as they know their mother will return. As well as these results, Ainsworth & Bell (1970) found that infants with a secure attachment are more likely to have a mother who is sensitive to their needs e.g. comfort them when they cry. This secure attachment provides a basis for the infant’s social relationships as they grow older, so is strongly encouraged.

If you would like to see a video of the strange situation in action then click here!

Theory of Mind?

As adults, we take it for granted that we know what others are thinking may be different to our own view. Not everyone likes the same things, or has the same beliefs. However, knowing that others have their own interpretations of the world is a skill which is acquired during childhood, and is known as Theory of Mind.

One of the methods used to test at what age children develop this skill are false belief tasks, e.g. the Maxi task (Wimmer & Perner, 1983). In this task, infants see a puppet, Maxi, put a chocolate in a green draw. Maxi leaves, and his mum moves the chocolate to a blue draw. Infants are then asked ‘Where will Maxi look for the chocolate?’ To check any mistakes are not caused by a memory error, they are also asked if they remember where Maxi put the chocolate at the beginning. There is a 50/50 chance of infants getting the right answer, however this study found that only children over the age of 5 performed above chance level – in other words, had developed a Theory of Mind. 80% of children who answered the false belief question wrong got the memory question right showing that their mistake was not due to forgetfulness.


However, this task has been criticised for being too complicated for young children to understand. The question ‘Where will Maxi look for the chocolate?’ could also be misleading, as it could be interpreted as ‘where will he look for (and find) the chocolate?’ Therefore, Seigal & Beattie (1991) repeated this task, but asked children either ‘Where will Maxi look?’ or ‘Where will Maxi look first?’ They found that only 35% of 3-4 year olds answered correctly when asked the original question, and this rose to 71% for the new manipulation. However, as 29% still did not answer correctly, it shows the question does not explain all of the poor performance.

Another method used to measure Theory of Mind are deception tasks. To deceive someone shows that you understand they can hold a different belief to your own. Chandler et al (1989) tested this with young children, who were shown a video of a doll with dirty shoes hiding a treasure in a container, leaving a trail of footprints. The child had to think of a way of deceiving someone who did not see this, so that they would not know where the treasure was hidden. Interestingly, they found that younger children (aged around 2 ½) were better than slightly older children (around 3 ½) at choosing deceiving strategies such as wiping out the genuine trail or laying a false one. However, from 4 years of age, performance increases.

These studies suggest that Theory of Mind is acquired at around the age of 4-5. However, there is still some debate about whether this ability is caused by gradual development, or a sudden shift. It is now thought more likely that this is skill is gradually learnt, as older children can fail to show complete Theory of Mind, without passing false belief tasks.

There is also evidence that Theory of Mind is not fully acquired in children with autism until they are much older. Baron-Cohen et al (1985) carried out a false belief tasks with children with autism, and healthy controls. They found that at the same age, 80% of the autistic children failed, whereas 87% of controls passed. While deficits in Theory of Mind cannot account for all of the symptoms of autism, and not all autistic children fail false belief tasks (20% passed in the Baron-Cohen study), problems with this skill could be a result of other cognitive deficits, such as planning, inhibition, and belief flexibility.

I’ll stop here before this blog post turns into 1000’s of words long, but please check back soon for my next post on autism in childhood.