[1] Her father, William Henry Heidbreder, and her mother, Mathilda Emelie Meyer, had five children, Bertha, Lousie, Edna, Helen, and Ralph.
She recounted that reading Berkeley, Hume, and Kant led her to be increasingly skeptical of the validity of human knowledge, which kickstarted her interest in psychology.
She credits this decision to her conservative upbringing where women got married, lived at home, and had very stereotypical occupations such as nurse or secretary.
[3] During her time there, she researched thinking, problem solving, attainment of concepts, introversion versus extroversion, and inferiority attitudes.
At the university, Heidbreder was also asked to help assemble, edit, and put together a draft of reports for The Minnesota Mechanical Ability Tests which were being developed.
[1] As a psychologist in the field of research, Heidbreder was interested in the notion that the mechanism of thinking could possess identical properties similar to a biological instinct.
Heidbreder stated that the reason the notion of thinking has been disregarded within the field of psychology was because it was brought upon a philosophical manner rather than a testable subject that could be studied within the realm of empirical research.
A topic that was once solely looked at within a metaphysical point-of-view could essentially be renewed and relooked at with just a change of direction and perception - in this case, a biological point of view.
[4] To build on, Heidbreder also broke down the mechanisms of thinking and compared it to the other functions that occur within the human body classified as instincts.
She emphasized the fundamental need to start understanding phenomena within a much more diverse manner and within a multi-comparison level in order to grasp the essence of what it is, how it functions, and how it developed, rather than within a singular, structured perspective.
[5] Heidbreder’s approach was to examine the perspective of each theorist’s viewpoint on psychology through their different schools of thought while discussing the positives and deficiencies of each theory.
[5] Heidbreder evaluated the theories based on their ability to progress the scientific approach to psychology rather than on their accuracy.
[5] She also discussed the potential pitfalls of her approach to writing the book, such as the illusion of cohesion within a theory and the oversimplification of concepts.
However, in defending her decisions, Heidbreder reiterated that the purpose of the text was for a non-psychologist to gain a brief insight into the main sources of influences on American psychology.
[2] For instance, Kurt Koffka, one of the founders of Gestalt psychology, commented: “Throughout I was struck by the clearness, impartiality and the fairness of your exposition.
She was also aware of the discrimination and inequality women had to continuously face in science and research as it was studied predominantly by men at the time.
When learning at school, she found it hard being in the field of science and psychology as she was surrounded by men, including the professors that taught her.
[2] The cause of men being favored in most academic fields, Heidbreder believed, was due to the nature of the conditions outside the workplace and disciplines.
Women in non-stereotypical positions, working in male-dominant fields of science and research, was difficult to become accustomed to for some, even subconsciously, according to Heidbreder.
[2] Edna Heidbreder was involved with the American Psychological Association (APA), and provided services to them for over a decade, until her retirement in 1955.