Ravenna Helson - (Contributions by Carolyn Ashby, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology and Berkley University)
Ravenna Helson is an Adjunct Professor Emeritus of the Department of Psychology and former long-time Research Psychologist at the Institute of Personality and Social Research and Director of the Mills Longitudinal Study, which she began. Her current interests are personality processes in life-span context, such as how enduring affective-cognitive styles are associated with life choices, roles, stresses, and satisfactions; how identity processes shape work lives and retirement; changes in the self; and the development of wisdom. Long interested in gender issues, Dr. Helson now works with students on data from the Mills Study, which has followed some 120 women for 40 years, from ages 21 to 61. The Mills Study examines long-term personality components (e.g., attachment, traits), social influences on personality (e.g., work and family roles, social networks, the women's movement, the culture of individualism), and processes of growth and development (e.g., how early marriage affects identity consolidation).
A Reflection on the Legacy of Ravenna M. Helson’s WorkSPSP had the opportunity to ask Ravenna M. Helson, the 2017 Annual Convention Legacy honoree, how she believes the field has changed over time, and what she considers to be her greatest professional contributions. Ravenna’s responses are below:
“In the 1970s and 1980s there was great controversy about what personality was, whether it existed at all,” Ravenna noted. “Whether personality changes was a question that obsessed psychologists in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and even since. The Mills Study contributed a steady stream of evidence that personality kept adapting to a changing world. Now we are pretty comfortable about accepting a diversity of traits, situations, and levels of personality.”
What are the biggest shifts you’ve seen since the Mills Study began?
Developing Attachment “When the Mills Study began in the late 1950s, Freud and psychoanalysis were potent influences in the culture. But about the same time two new approaches to psychology were just getting started, attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1969) and Self Theory (Mahler, 1968; Kohut, 1971). At the age-43 follow-up of the Mills women we sent questions about their relations to their parents as children that prodded impressive support to Kohut's concepts of mirroring and idealizing, and we used a scale that enabled Klohnen and Bera (1998) to write a paper on attachment patterns in the Mills sample. We began to see the continuing importance of our social clock patterns involving marriage and children as attributable to attachment. These are three big kinds of change that the Mills Study has tried to take into account.”
Measuring Femininity ”Over time, the Mills Study has used both the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and the Big Five, along with other measures. The scale that showed the most change over time in the Mills Study from age 21 to 61 was the CPI Femininity scale, which may be considered a measure of feelings of vulnerability in the feminine role. It increased sharply from ages 21 to 43, and decreased sharply from ages 43 to 61. The Big 5 has no Femininity scale, so I am very glad we used the CPI.”
Adding Emotion “When the Mills Study began in the late 1950s, emotion was regarded in terms of disruption of behavior, for example as irritability or self-control that was too high or too low. In the 1980s Extraversion and Neuroticism came to be described as tendencies to experience positive and negative emotion, respectively (Costa and McCrae, 1980), and Tellegen's (1985) model of personality identified its primary personality dimensions in terms of affective experience. In a study of personality change from ages 27 to 61, Chris Soto and I (2006) found the variables associated with most change to be Labouvie-Vief's scales for two strategies of emotional regulation, affective optimism and affective complexity. Eva Klohnen and I wrote an article about the affective coloring of personality from young adulthood to middle age (PSPB, 1998). We were excited to be a part of bringing emotion into personality.”
What are some examples of collaboration in your work?
“One of the main contributions of the Mills Study was to offer concepts encouraging the integrative study of social and psychological concepts through time. The best example is Neugarten's construct of the social clock, referring to the timing norms that influenced the performance of family and work roles over time, which we made into individual difference variables.
Abby Stewart and David Winter brought several of their graduate students and spent a sabbatical with us at Berkeley. Abby and I combined our efforts to call attention to the value and importance of conducting and comparing longitudinal studies. We conducted studies which compared Abby's Radcliffe Study, the Mills Study, the IHD longitudinal studies, Cartwright's longitudinal study of women physicians, and sometimes other samples (e.g., Peterson and Klohnen, Realization of generativity in two samples of women at midlife, Psychology of Aging, 1995). Two studies by Duncan and Agronick concerned the influence of importance attached to the women's movement in Mills and Radcliffe samples, the role of personality and of life stage. We published ten papers that compared longitudinal studies.”
Do you have any favorite research?
“I have always loved the article Jen Pals (JP, 1999) wrote for her second-year project, on how women changed in ego-resilience from ages 21 to 27 depending on whether they felt their identities were restricted, confused, or consolidated in their relation with their marital partner. I was intrigued by what Brent Roberts and I found about how the culture of individualism (1950-85) seemed to help some women adjust to the radical changes in women's roles in the late 1960s and 1970s (Changes in culture, changes in personality: The Influence of individualism in a longitudinal study of women, JPSP, 1997).”
Dr. Jennifer Beer, the 2017 Legacy Award Program Chair, also shared why Ravenna was selected as this year’s Legacy honoree. Her thoughts are as follows:
“Who could have guessed the bounty that would result after Ravenna M. Helson was offered a half-time appointment at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research (IPAR) in 1957? She was asked to take over IPAR’s project on creativity in women, and shortly thereafter, she started what would later become the Mills Longitudinal Project when she conducted a study of creativity in the women of the Mills College classes of 1958 and 1960. Between the years of 1960 and 1980, Ravenna maintained a commitment to personality research during a very difficult time for the field of personality psychology.
It was not until 1980 that Ravenna was awarded an NIMH grant to study adult development in the Mills women whom she had first studied 20 years earlier. What followed were three remarkably productive decades for Ravenna, as she, along with her many students and collaborators, developed the Mills Project into one of the premier longitudinal studies of its kind, with assessments of the women in their 20s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s.
The 100+ articles and chapters that have been published on the Mills Project examine how patterns of personality stability and change over time relate to social roles, socio-historical context, and critical life events. One of Ravenna’s seminal contributions was her concept of the social clock project, which she used to show how personality patterns relate to the timing of work and family role commitments (Helson, Mitchel, & Moan, 1984).
Two enduring themes that emerge from Ravenna’s rich and varied body of work are (1) personality is more than “just traits” and must include a conceptualization of the whole person, and (2) personality does indeed change, and it changes in different ways for different people depending on their life experiences and circumstances.”
Barron, F., Jarvik, M. E., & Bunnell, S., Jr. (1964). The hallucinogenic drugs. Scientific American. 210:29-37.
Gruber, H. E. (1988). The Evolving Systems Approach to Creative Work. Creativity Research Journal 1:27-51.
Gruber, H., & Bödeker, K. (2005). Creativity, Psychology and the History of Science. Vol. 245.
CEF (2019). A History of Creative Education Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.creativeeducationfoundation.org/about-cef/a-history-of-cef/
Rutgers. (2019). Rutgers University. Retrieved from https://sasn.rutgers.edu/research/centers-institutes/center-molecular-and-behavioral-neuroscience-cmbn
Saxon, W. (2005). Howard Gruber, 82, Expert in Cognitive Psychology is Dead. The New York Times Obituaries Monday, February 14, 2005. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/obituaries/howard-ernest-gruber-82-a-scholar-of-cognitive-psychology-is.html
Stein, M. (1974). Stimulating Creativity. Volume 1. Individual Procedures. Academic Press. New York.
Helson, R. (1965). Childhood interest clusters related to creativity in women. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 29(4), 352-361.
Helson, R. (1967). Sex differences in creative style. Journal of Personality 35(2), 214-233.
Retrieved May 25, 2008, from the Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.
Helson, R. (1968). Effects of sibling characteristics and parental values on creative interest and
achievement. Journal of Personality. 36(4),589-608. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from the SocINDEX database.
Helson, R. (1970). Sex-specific patterns in creative literary fantasy. Journal of
Personality. 38(3),344-363. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from the SocINDEX database.
Helson, R. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36(2), 210-220. Retrieved May 18, 2008 from the PsycARTICLES database.
Helson, Ravenna. (1973a). Heroic and tender modes in women authors of fantasy. Journal of
Personality, 41 (4), pp. 493-512. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from the PsycINFO database.
Helson, R. (1973b). The heroic, the comic, and the tender: Patterns of literary fantasy and their
authors. Journal of Personality, Vol. 41(2),163-184. Retrieved May 18,
2008, from the PsycINFO database.
Helson, R. (1983). Creative mathematicians. In R. S. Albert (Ed.), Genius and eminence: the
social psychology of creativity and exceptional achievement (pp. 311-330). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Helson, R. (1988). The creative personality. In K. Gronhaug & G. Kaufman (Eds.), Innovation:
A cross-disciplinary approach (pp. 29-64). Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
Helson, R. (1990). Creativity in women: Outer and inner views over time. In M. A. Runco; R. S.
Albert (Ed.), Theories of creativity (pp. 46-47). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications Incorporated.
Helson, R. (1996). In search of the creative personality. Creativity Research Journal,
9(4), 295-306. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from the Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.
Helson, R. (2008). One Surprise After Another. Journal of Personality Assessment. 90(3), 205-
214. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from the InformaWorld database.
Helson, R, Mitchell, V, Moane, G. (1984) personality and patterns of adherence and
nonadherence to the social clock. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 46(5), 1079-1096.