Tllr Sport Ps!ycholoigist, 1995, 9, 366-375
0 1995 Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.
Noman Triplett and The Dawning
of Sport Psychology
Stephen F. Davis,
Matthew T. Huss
Emporia State University
Angela W. Becker
Indiana University
at Kokomo
Research projects on reaction time, motor learning, and transfer of training, which
were conducted in the late 1800s and early 190Q, as well as early atlempts to
relate personality development and sport, are among the roots of sport psychology.
The first experimental research directly involving psychological factors and sport
was conducted by Norman Triplett (1898). This paper surveys these early research
projects and chronicles Triplett's life and career.
During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the study of physiological/physical processes
and abilities, such as reaction time, threshold determination, attention, and feeling occupied
the time and energies of such notables as Hennann von Helmholtz, Ernst Webcr, and
psychology's founding father, Wilhelm Wundt (Schultz & Schultz, 1992). As thc new
psychology spread from its German roots to take hold in the United States, these problems
continued to be of interest. However, such interests were not limitcd just to the new
psychologists. Researchers, especially those in physical education. were quick to adapt
the new, scientific research procedures to their own areas of interest. Spo11 was among
these areas.
Early Studies
Motor Learning, Reaction Time, and Transfer of Training
One such early researcher who attempted to apply physiological/psychological proccsscs
to the field of education was George Wells Fitz of Harvard University's Lawrcncc Scientific
School. Fitz established what is believed to be the first physical education laboratory in
North America and headed the Department of Anatomy, Physiology, and Physical Training
at Harvard from 1891 to 1899 (Wiggins, 1984). In 1895, Fitz published the results of a
study concerned with multiple reaction time in the Psyclzolo,qic~ulRevicw~.Fitz constructed
an apparatus that was designed to test "the power of an individual to touch an object
suddenly disclosed to him in an ~~nexpected
position" (Fitz, 1895, p. 37). The apparatus
Stephen F. Davis and Matthew T. Huss are with the Department of Psychology at Emporia
State University, Emporia, KS 66801. Angela H. Becker is with the Department of Social and
Behavioral Science at Indiana University at Kokomo, Kokomo, IN 46902.
Norman Triplett
367
consisted of an arched horizontal strip of brass configured to signal when a participant
made contact with the surface, hence recording the reaction time via a chronoscope with
a balanced pendulum. When the screen covering the apparatus fell, the study participants
were to remove their finger from the tip of their nose and place their hand at the point on
the blackened brass strip where a white spot was visible. As soon as the screen fell, the
chronoscope began recording the participant's reaction time. Fitz believed that the test's
ability to measure quickness and accuracy would have applications to athletics. He summarized that those individuals who demonstrated quicker and more accurate times would, in
turn, be better at such sports as tennis and fencing.
Upon completion of the experiment Fitz indicated that the full value of any direct
application of the reaction time apparatus was not yet fully understood, but he did believe
it would be an appropriate predictor of individual motor ability. Fitz (1895) concluded that
(a) individuals who were quicker were not necessarily less accurate; (b) on an everyday
basis, time-not accuracy--demonstrated greatest variability; and (c) no firm conclusion
could be made about the relationship between accuracy and time. Although Fitz could not
predict performance in athletic events based on reaction time, his study provided an early
example of the application of scientific principles in this area.
Walter Wells Davis of Iowa College also investigated the application of basic
psychological principles to the world of sport. While working on his doctorate at Yale
University, Davis published studies in two separate volumes of Studies From the Yale
Psychology Laboratory (as cited in Kroll & Lewis, 1970). Davis reported a surprising
result from studies in which study participants raised a 5-lb dumbbell by flexing the arm
at the elbow. Initially, participants accomplished this task with both the right and left arms.
For the ensuing 2-to-4 weeks the participants lifted the weights using only the right arm;
then both arms were tested for changes. Not only did the right arms increase in size and
strength, but the left arms also increased in both size and strength. This finding was
interpreted as reflecting the effects of cross-education or, as it became known, transfer
of training.
Another physical educator interested in transfer of training was William G. Anderson,
also of Yale University. Anderson (1899) was interested in discovering if exercising muscles
on one side of the body made the corresponding muscles on the opposite side of the body
stronger. In a series of experiments, Anderson demonstrated that if muscles on one side
of the body are strengthened, either by squeezing an object or by balancing on a tightrope,
such transfer does occur. Noble (1922) also conducted transfer-of-training research and
concluded that transfer occurred between similar activities, such as shooting lay-ups and .
short push shots, but not dissimilar activities, such as shooting lay-ups and free throws.
Research during this early period was not limited only to transfer of training. For
example, Starch (191 1) describes a series of studies that attempted, among other things,
to demonstrate trial-and-error motor learning through the use of a mirror trace. Similarly,
Robert A. Cumrnins (1914), of the University of Washington, investigated the effects of
basketball practice on motor reaction, attention, and suggestibility. Curnmins concluded
that the, average college student should not practice basketball because it breaks up motor
control. Herbert Hayes Murphy (1916) tested the effects of varying schedules of practice
on the performance of javelin throwers and f o k d that learning can be distributed by giving
days or even weekly practice. without any significant loss in learning.
though many of these studies can be classified as simple motor learning research,
provided direct applications to a variety of sports. Another group of early
researchers was interested in the role of sports in the development of personality.
368
Davis, Huss, and Becker
Studies Relating Personality Development and Sport
In contrast to the experimentally oriented studies of motor learning, reaction time, and
transfer, a number of studies focused on the relationship of personality variables and sports.
In fact, it became fashionable to create a theory to explain the need or desire for sport and
play. Among these explanations (see Hermann, 1921) were the Schiller-Spencer theory
(play is surplus energy), Pryor's theory (play is inherently pleasurable), and the imitation
theory (imitation is a fundamental human faculty). Few of these theories were based on
sound scientific manipulations.
The most methodologically sound of these studies was conducted by Edward W.
Scripture (1900), the director of the psychological laboratory at Yale University during the
late 1800s and early 1900s. This research relied on a number of case studies. Scripture
sought to uncover whether the long-held belief that participation in sports leads to an
improvement in a variety of personality characteristics or character was correct. He attempted
to examine this relationship by examining young felons in a program at the Elmira Reformatory. Scripture reported remarkable success at improvements in self-control and general
behavior in those individuals who participated in a program of athletics, calisthenics, and
manual training. It was believed that such motor activity built character that was then
transferred to everyday living. Though not meticuious by any standards, Scripture's attempt
does represent one of the few with any methodological rigor.
Fitz (1897), Patrick (1903, 1914), and Hermann (1921) are much more representative
of the literature at this time. Fitz (1897) made the claim that play was a means of preparing
one for life. It enabled the individual to develop (a) judgmental capabilities such as alertness,
(b) the ability to perceive conditions correctly, and (c) the ability to react quickly to an
ever-changing environment. Fitz (1897) believed that one should play "and as a result
become an abler, nobler, and spiritually stronger man" (p. 215).
Patrick (1903, 1914) developed a much more formalized theory for play. He felt
that childhood play was a reflection of ancestral adult survival practices. For example,
actions, such as running, wrestling, and jumping, were more popular to spectators because
they allowed the spectators to return to basic instinctual levels and to rest higher brain
functions that were constantly being utilized in a society increasing in complexity. Hermann
(1921) hypothesized that play enabled us to develop life-long habits and that muscles
were the mechanism by which one developed habituation, imitation, obedience, character,
manners, and customs. He proposed that there was an indisputable interconnection between
mind, body, and spirit and that through play an individual could apply ethical and other
knowledge in real situations.
In addition, Kellor (1908) advocated the inclusion of physical play as a means to
not only build a strong body but also a strong mind. She argued that even though women
are restricted to calisthenic-like activity they should be regularly encouraged to participate
in games of spirit and competition, such as basketball, rowing, lacrosse, tennis, and handball. It is only through similar games that one is truly able to create the energy that allows
one to "accomplish the same quantity arid quality of intellectual work as men" (Kellor,
1908, p. 104). Hence, Kellor concluded that physical play anows one to relieve the full
tension of the mind, create the inspiraton that is essential for returning'to intellectual
activity, and utilize intellectually relevant faculties' such as reflection, memory, and reason
in entirely different ways.
The early researchers in these two disparate'areas laid the foundation for the more
directed and scienW~c
approach that was to characterize Coleman Wffith. BddCGriffith's
seminal Work, the creative.inind of m l'llihois school teacher was* irrevocablylpoirft the
direction that sport psychology #as destined to take.
s
7
Norman Triplett
369
Norman Triplett: The Initial Sport Psychology Research
While the early research on reaction time and motor learning, and the musings about why
individuals engage in sport, provided a premonition of sport psychology, it was a research
project conducted by Norman Triplett (1898) that cut to the heart of the interface between
sport and psychology. This core was competition.
A life-long devotee of athletic competition, Triplett investigated the effects of the
presence of other competitors on performance. In his paper, "The Dynamogenic Factors
in Pacemaking and Competition," Triplett (1898) analyzed official records from the Racing
Board of the League of American Wheelmen for bicycle racing performance under three
conditions: (a) unpaced (no competitor or pacemaker present), (b) paced (a fresh team of
three or four cyclists set the pace on each lap for the competitor), and (c) paced cycling
against an actual competitor(s) (each competitor was paced by a team). His review of these
cycling data indicated that the presence of pacemakers and actual competition against other
cyclists resulted in superior performance. Although one can appeal to several factors to
account for these results, Triplett felt that the presence of the pacemakers/competitors
served as a stimulus for the release of energy that remained latent under the unpaced and
direct competition conditions. In addition to the release of this latent energy, Triplett also
believed that the visual and auditory presence of the pacemakers/competitors served as an
inspiration for increased effort.
In an attempt to generalize from cycling to a different form of behavior, these
predictions were tested in a laboratory experiment in which sub,jects wound fishing line
as rapidly as possible in ordcr to move a toy flag around a course. As with the cycling
data, thc most informative data came in the form of comparisons between times recorded
by solitary individuals and whcn pairs of sub,jects competed; the quickest times were
rccorded whcn pairs of sub.jccts competed. Triplett (1898) concluded, "From the . . . facts
regarding the laboratory raccs we infer that the bodily presence of another contestant
participating in the raccs serves to libcratc latent energy not ordinarily available" (p. 533).
The importance of Triplctt's "Dynamogcnics" paper has stood the test of time
cxccptionally wcll; it is rccognizcd as a timeless classic in social psychology, as well as
sport psychology. For cxamplc, Allport (1954) indicated that
the first cxpcrimcntal problem lin social psychology 1-and indeed the only problem
for thc I'irst thrce dccadcs of cxpcrimcntal research-was formulated as follows:
What changcs in an individual's normal solitary pcrformancc occur whcn other
pcoplc arc present? Thc lirst laboratory answer to this yucstion came ,from Triplctt
( 1x98). (p. 46)
Likcwisc, Halbcrstadt and Ellyson (1989) chosc Triplctt's paper for inclusion in a book
of readings covering thc lirst century of rcsearch in social psychology.
Moreover, an examination of texts and chapters dcaling with the history of sport
psychology has yct to yield a singlc sourcc that fails to acknowlcdgc the importancc of
this pioneering work. For cxamplc, Iso-Ahola and Hatficld (1986) indicatcd that
thc lirst scientific cxpcrimcnt of sport psychology was rcportcd by Triplctt in 1898.
. . . Onc cannot hclp hut feel awcd by his scientific ingcniousncss and rigorousness.
It is ironic that only rcccntly havc psychologists issucd calls for studies bascd upon
ficld and laboratory data. Had they rcad Triplctt's study, such an idca wt)uld have
bccn sclf-cvidcnt. Nccdlcss to say, Triplett's is the study that all sporl psychologists
should read and Icarn thc lessons providcd by thc pioneer. (pp. 16, 18-19)
370
Davis, Huss, and Becker
Likewise, Mahoney and Suinn (1986) indicate that "Norman Triplett (1898) of Indiana
University is increasingly credited with the first technical publication in the area" (p. 64).
Because the boundaries and configuration of an entire discipline were being molded,
the pressures faced by American psychologists in the early 20th century were significantly
different from those faced by contemporary academicians. In most instances psychology
did not exist as a separate department or specialty. Likewise, there was no set cuniculum,
and specialty areas of programmatic research were unheard of. Thus, turn-of-the-century
psychologists were called on repeatedly to justify both the new discipline and their own
existence. Such constraints.effectively precluded the development of organized programs
of research in sport psychology until the 1920s and the work of Coleman Griffith at the
University of Illinois (see Gould & Pick, 1995, in this issue).
In many respects Norman Triplett might be cast as the prototypical example of these
early researchers. Often their interest in sport, even though intense, was not sufficient to
justify a concerted research program. Hence, their interests had to manifest themselves via
the occasional project or other relevant avenues. The pressures of that era were not conducive
to developing an extensive publication list, at least not extensive by current standards. In
the case of Norman Triplett, teaching was more highly prized than it appears to be today
(see Benjamin, 1991).
Norman Triplett was born October 1, 1861, on a farm near Peny, Illinois.' He
graduated from the Peny High School. His baccalaureate degree was awarded by Illinois
College (Jacksonville, Illinois) in 1889, where he served as the valedictorian of his class.
Following completion of his undergraduate training, Triplett served as the superintendent of schools in New Berlin, Illinois, from 1889 until 1891. Additionally, he taught
science in the Quincy (Illinois) High School from 1894 until 1897. The nature of his
employment from 1891 to 1894 is, as yet, not documented.
Triplett did graduate work at Indiana University where he received the master's
degree in 1898; the "Dynamogenics" paper was his master's thesis. This research was
conducted in the laboratory of William Lowe Bryan, who served as the 12th President of
the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1903 and who was G . Stanley Hall's
second doctoral student. Hence, it is little wonder that upon completion of the master's
degree Triplett traveled to Worcester, Massachusetts, to study with Hall at Clark University.
He completed the PhD in 1900, becoming Hall's 29th doctoral student. Triplett's dissertation
topic, which was suggested by Hall, was "The Psychology of Conjuring Deceptions." In
addition to Hall, Triplett's dissertation committee consisted of Edmund C. Sanford and
William Henry Burnham. As Coodwin (1987) has documented, Sanford is to be remembered
for his development of laboratory equipment, as well as for writing the fist psychology
laboratory manual in the United States. Bumham, an acknowledged authority on educational
psychology and mental hygiene, headed the Department of Pedagogics at Clark University.
Publication of the dissertation in the American .fournu1of P.~ycholo,qyqriplett, I 900)
established Triplett as an authority in this area. This eminence had not diminished threeqwarters of a century I-ater. For example, Rickard (1975) indicates that "the footnotes in
Triplett's paper show a rather broad acquaintance with the literature of magic up to the
date of the dissertation. ft is quite evident that Triplett had studied the previous authorities,
Binet, Dessdtr, Jastrow, sand Sidis" (pp. 6-7). In his conclusion Rickard (1975) says, "i
hope 1 have added something worthwhile to the total of magical knowledge and have shed
some light on a gentleman who deserves recognition in our area as well a5 he received in
his own field of academic endeavor" (Rickard, 1975, p. 7). More recently, Hyman (1989)
i,ldicated that Triplett was one of the four major psychologists who published on the topic
of deception in the late 189%. In a summary statement Hyman (1989) indicates that
Nonnan Triplett
371
although these early forerunners of a psychology of deception focused on conjuring,
in many ways their analyses anticipated other aspects of the contemporary scene,
attempting to place deception in both biological and developmental contexts. Like
some current researchers, too, they applied their findings to account for the success
of fraudulent psychics. (p. 139)
While at Clark University, Triplett also performed an experiment in which fish
served as his subjects {Triplett, 1901). A two-chambered tank in which the chambers were
separated by a removable glass partition was employed. Two perch were housed in one
chamber, and two minnows were housed in the second chamber. The perch initially tried
to catch and eat the minnows. Following a month of such experiences, the partition was
removed and Triplett observed that the minnows swam unmolested with the perch. He
concluded that "the perch's whole attitude is expressive of a desire to catch the minnow,
a task which had become, however, hopeless" (Triplett, 1901, p. 360).
Even though this paper was highly regarded by animal psychologists such as Robert
M. Yerkes, whose lecture notes indicate that it was a standard reference in his courses
through at least 1910, there were few dedicated animal researchers at this time. Had this
report been more widely read and discussed, Norman Triplett might have become known
as the originator of the now-familiar learned helplessness paradigm. However, Triplett's
career, and the careers of many of the early sport psychologists, were destined for the
classroom and away from a career of laboratory research. His first position in higher
education was as an instructor in psychology and pedagogy at Mt. Holyoke College in
Massachusetts. This one-year appointment was for the 1900-1901 academic year.
In 1901 he accepted an appointment at Kansas State Normal School in Emporia,
Kansas, as Head of the Department of Child Study. In an interview? his daughter, Dr.
Dorothy Triplett Maxwell, was asked if she knew why her father chose to come to Kansas
State Normal (KSN). She replied, "I don't recall his ever saying. I suppose he needed a
job and there was one there." One might speculate that Triplett was drawn to KSN because
of the bustling pace of life that he found. At the turn of the century, Emporia, Kansas,
was a major center for the Santa Fe Railroad; it was a lively town that attracted many
visitors. Triplett was an active and involved individual who would appreciate and fit in
well with this style of life. On the other hand, Triplett's experiences with W.H. Burnham
at Clark University and as a public school teacher in Illinois were sufficiently reinforcing
to attract him to an institution where teaching and teacher training were highly valued.
Whatever his reason for accepting the KSN position, Triplett's original salary was $220
per month. By 1920 this figure had risen to $325 per month-a figure that was to remain
in effect until 1929.
Some critics might characterize Norman Triplett's KSN career as uneventful, possibly
even pedestrian. While uneventful might be an apt descriptor, Triplett's career was certainly
not dull or boring. As was characteristic of many turn-of-the-century psychologists, Triplett
was faced with the task of establishing a new department in a new discipline, Hence, we
find requests from Triplett in various editions of the Biennial Report to the Kansas Board of
Regents for such items as (a) "a small yearly appropriation for the purchase of experimental
apparatus for the psychology department, having in view the ultimate equipment of a
modem psychological laboratory," (b) additional funds to buy books for the department,
and (c) a modification of thename of thedepartment to reflect its psychological nature. Sport
psychologists seem to be grappling with many of these same issues nearly a century later.
Triplett served as department head for 30 years from 1901 until his retirement in
1931. During the early years, the psychology department essentially was a -two-person
operation, with Triplett being the constant element. Apparently KSN was an .excellent
stepping stone or lirst position Ihr many aspiring psychologists. Four of the 12 faculty
hired by Triplctt during this period had rcccivccl thcirdoctor:~ldcgrccs from Clark Univcrsity.
Two additional faculty, James Bart Stroud and William H. Gray, had received their doctoral
training at the University of Chicago, and they gave the dcpartmcnt a dclinitc functional
flavor. Stroud (Harvey Carr's final PhD student) and Gray (who is rcmcmbcrcd Ihr dcvcloping the Gray Reading Readiness Test) joined the faculty in the late 1920s and wcrc to
bccomc cstablishctl lixturcs as the dcpartmcnt grew and prospered during the 1930s and
1940s. In recognition of Triplctt's clli)rts in building a quality tlcpartmcnt, a 1935 yearbook
memorial indicated that "he ITriplctt) was instrumcntal in the dcvclopmcnt of a strong
dcpartmcnt ol' psychology, which included live instructors, all of whom held the doctor's
dcgrcc whcn hc rctircd from service in 1931 ." Kansas State Normal President, Dr. Thomas
W. Butcher, also stated at the time of Triplctt's rctircmcnt,' "More psychology students
. . . have gone on to rcccivc master's and doctor of philosophy dcgrccs in the univcrsitics
of the country than studcnts of any other dcpartmcnt."
As il' the dcvclopmcnt of a separate dcpartmcnt and a quality psychology program
were not suflicicntly demanding, Triplctt assumed additional maior roles and rcsponsibilitics
(luring his carccr. For example, he scrvcd as the dean of mcn from I913 to 1930.
Triplctt's intense interest in athletics and competition proved to bc an enduring
passion throughout his carccr. His inllucncc was felt as carly as 1903, whcn he and Professor
J.M. Rhodcs planned a grandstand li)r vicwing athletic events at KSN. When the grandstand
burned in 1923, Triplctt was instrumental in thc design and completion of' a full-scale
stadium. Hawkins (1985) states,
The third man who helped in the dcvclopment of the track program was Dr. Norman
Triplctt. Hc was an ardent supporter of track on the Normal campus. Triplett even
temporarily took over thc reins of the track squad for the I909 season, when Samson's
rcsignation after the 1908 football season left Kansas State Normal without a track
coach. But his main role was as faculty advisor, a responsibility Triplett held for 30
years until his retirement in 1931 . (p. I I )
Triplett's habitual presence at practice sessions for ull sports provided important
encouragement for the student athletes. His daughter Dorothy summarized his importance
by saying, "He was the patron saint of college athletics."
Triplett was not without his own athletic prowess. He was one of the first men in
the United States to win a gold medal for running the 100-yard dash in 10 seconds. He
also was a familiar fixture on the KSN faculty baseball team.
Despite such activities and accomplishments, it is arguable that Norman Triplett's
ma.jcjor contribution was in teaching and training students. A passionate interest in the
intellectual growth of the KSN students was a Triplett hallmark. Hence, one finds that in
I904 Triplett was instrumental in founding an active psychology club, whose meetings
were held a full decade before any other departmental club was organized. In reflecting
on the Psychology Club in an article in the 1912 KSN yearbook, Triplett indicated that
"when school was not so full of organizations, meetings of the Psychology Club, especially
on nights when students discussed freedom of the will, were overflow meetings. The
highwater mark was 72, when students had to pile up on the floor of my little house."
Triplett's commitment to excellence and iiitellectual development did not begin and
end with textbooks and club meetings. He actively sought out and brought to campus wellknown speakers. Among the notables that made the trip to Emporia, Kansas, were three
former APA presidents: G.Stanley Hall, Joseph Jastrow, and Charles H. Judd. The topics
presented by these invited speakers were as lively and intense as Triplett himself. For
Norman Triplett
373
example, the November 20, 191 1, issue of The Ernporia Gazette carried the following
account of the November 19 address by G. Stanley Hall:
A representative Emporia audience packed Albert Taylor Hall Sunday to hear President G. Stanley Hall in his address on "Eugenics and Religion." Dr. Hall, who has
made a lifelong study of the subject, spoke as one having authority concerning the
most vital questions of the man and animal. In the beginning of his talk Dr. Hall
postulated the theory of evolution, and the good Methodist brethren began to look
for an easy exit. The exposition of the subject, however, was so reasonable and the
speaker's faculty of giving the impression that he spoke the truth, so evident, that
even the most skeptical were forced to admit the cogency of his arguments. (p. I)
Likewise, his own professional development was not ignored. There were articles
on such timely issues as "A Study of The Faults of Children" (Triplett, 1903), "Pedagogical
Arrests and Peculiarities" (Triplett, 1905),and "Language in the Grades" (Triplett, 1914).
Additionally, Norman Triplett was a frequent contributor to the book review sections of
the Amcvicun .lourno1 of Psyc.holo<qyand the Peda~qogic.alSeminar-y.
In 1931 Norman Triplett retired from active service to KSN. Upon retirement, he
and his wife Laura traveled to California to visit a sister and to attend the 1932 Olympic
Games. Following 3 years of retirement living, Triplett passed away in 1934 in a Manhattan,
Kansas, hospital. Norman and Laura Triplett are buried in the Maplewood Memorial
Cemetary in Emporia, Kansas.
When he retired, the department that Triplett built had achieved national stature and
was ranked on a par with departments in such schools as George Peabody College for
Teachers in Nashville, Tennessee. The strength of the department resided in its students
and their successes.
Over 250 former students sent letters for Triplett's retirement. Forty-three were from
former students who were now faculty members at colleges and universities that ran the
gamut from numerous state teachers colleges to Ohio State University to the University
of Chicago. Twelve protCgCs were public school principles, and 19 were public school
superintendents. A variety of other educational positions, ranging from Commissioner of
Education of the State of Indiana to the Director of the Federal Board of Vocational
Education, was represented by the occupations of an additional 36 former students. Then
there were the letters from 7 lawyers, a research physicist, and 2 state senators. Clearly,
Norman Triplett had influenced a huge number of students who had become successful.
Praise of Triplett's teaching abilities and a clear indication that he had a lasting
impact upon careers and lives is a central theme in all of these letters. For example, Byron
Broom, a 1903 graduate, wrote, "I wish to express my appreciation of classroom contact
and personal help extended by you to those of us who had the privilege of receiving your
counsel and instruction." Triplett's profound influence was not a static and circumspect
commodity; it persisted aftel; students graduated. Amos H. Engle, a 1923 graduate who
was on the faculty of the Texas College of Arts and Industries, wrote, "As the years increase
their span, so, I believe, are there human influences that increase in their effectiveness after
the direct contacts are made; many a young man and woman will vouch for this being
especially true about you."
With the letter of A.B. Carlisle, one comes full circle back to Triplett's experiment
with the perch and the minnows. Carlisle, a faculty member at Butler University in
Indianapolis wrote,
"So, even a fish may learn." Again and again have these words, spoken by you
one day when you were summarizing your learning experiment with the perch and
374
Davis, Huss, and Becker
minnows, been a source of encouragement to me. Especially has this been true when
the progress of my students has seemed to be on a low level.
Perhaps this massive testimonial and the impact of Triplett's career were best summed
up by F.L. Pinet who wrote, "As I recall, you were not merely a professor of psychology
but you were an institution." Norman Triplett, the consummate master teacher had pointed
the direction research in sport psychology was to take. It was for those who followed him
to bring the new field into existence.
References
Allport, G.W. (1954). The historical background of modem social psychology. In G. Lindzey
(Ed.), The handbook c!f'sociaIpsychology (pp. 3-56). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Anderson, W.G. (1899). Studies in the effects of physical training. American Physical Education
Review, 4, 265-278.
Benjamin, L.T., Jr. (1991). Harry Kirke Wolfe: Pioneer in psychology. Lincoln, NE: University
of Nebraska Press.
Cummins, R.A. (1914). A study of the effect of basketball practice on motor reaction, attention,
and suggestibility. Psychological Review, 21, 356-369.
Fitz, G.W. (1895). A location reaction apparatus. Psychological Review, 2, 37-42.
Fitz, G.W. (1897). Play as a factor in development. American Physical Education Review, 2,
209-2 15.
Goodwin, C.J. (1987). In Hall's shadow: Edmund Clark Sanford (1859-1924). Journal ofthe
History of the Behavioral Sciences, 23, 1 53- 168.
Gould, D., & Pick, S. (1995). Sport psychology: The Griffith era, 192&1940. The Sport
Psychologist, 9, 39 1-405.
Halberstadt, A.G., & Ellyson, E.L. (1990). Social psychology readings: A century ofresearch.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hawkins, S.A. (1985). A history of the tr-ackljield and cross country teams at Ernpot-ia State
University, 1900-1984. Unpublished master of science thesis, Emporia State University.
Hermann, E. (1921). The psychophysical significance of physical education. American Physical
Education Review, 26, 283-289.
Hyman, R. (1989). Psychology of deception. In M.R. Rosenzweig & L.W. Porter (Eds.), The
annual review of psychology (pp. 135-152). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.
Iso-Ahola, S.E., & Hatfield, B. (1986). Psychology of sports: A social psychological approach.
Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Kellor, F. (1908) Psychological basis for physical culture. Education, 19, 100-104.
Kroll, W., & Lewis, G. (1970). America's first sports psychologist. Quest, 13, 1-4.
Mahoney, M.J., & Suinn, R.M. (1986, Summer). History and overview of modem sport psychology. The Clinical Psychologist, pp. 64-68.
Murphy, H.H. (1916). Distribution of practice periods in learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 17, 150-162.
Noble, S.G. (1922). The acquisition of skill in the throwing of basket-ball goals. School and
Society, 16, 640-644.
Patrick, G.T.W. (1903). The psychology of football. American Journal of Psychology, 14,
104-117.
Patrick, G.T.W. (1914). The psychology of play. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 21,469-484.
Rickard, F.L. (1975). Norman Triplett and "The Psychology of Conjuring Deceptions." MAGICOL, 35, 4-7.
Schultz, D.P., & Schultz, S.E. (1992). A history of modern psychology (5th ed.). Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Scripture, E.W. (1900). Cross-education. Popular Science, 56, 589-596.
Starch, D. (191 1). Experiments in educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.
Norman Triplett
375
Triplett, N.L. (1898). Dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. The American
Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533.
Triplett, N. (1900). The psychology of conjuring deceptions. The American Journal of Psychology, 11, 1-72.
Triplett, N. (1901). Educability of the perch. The American Journal of Psychology, 12,354-360.
Triplett, N. (1903). A study of the faults of children. Pedagogical Seminary, 10, 200-238.
Triplett, N. (1905). Pedagogical arrests and peculiarities. Pedagogical Seminary, 12, 141- 157.
Triplett, N. (1914). Language in the grades. Teaching, 1, 3.
Wiggins, D.K. (1984). The history of sports psychology in North America. In J.M. Silva &
R.S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 9-22). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Notes
'Appreciation is expressed to the staff of the William Allen White Library at Emporia
State University for providing access to the Normaliana Collection. Many of the details of
Norman Triplett's life and career were gleaned from this collection.
?Telephone interview conducted with Dr. Dorothy Triplett Maxwell, June 21, 1989.
'Appreciation is extended to Dr. John Triplett, Norman Triplett's grandson, for making
the entire collection of retirement letters available for study and use.