Has psychology “found its true path”? Methods,objectivity, and cries of “crisis” in early twentieth-century French psychology

This article explores how French psychologists understood the state of their field during the first quarter of the twentieth century, and whether they thought it was in crisis. The article begins with the Russian-born psychologist Nicolas Kostyleff and his announcement in 1911 that experimental psychology was facing a crisis. After briefly situating Kostyleff, the article examines his analysis of the troubles facing experimental psychology and his proposed solution, as well as the rather muted response his diagnosis received from the French psychological community. The optimism about the field evident in many of the accounts surveying French psychology during the early twentieth century notwithstanding, a few others did join Kostyleff in declaring that all was not well with experimental psychology. Together their pronouncements suggest that under the surface, important unresolved issues faced the French psychological community. Two are singled out: What was the proper methodology for psychology as a positive science? And what kinds of practices could claim to be objective, and in what sense? The article concludes by examining what these anxieties reveal about the type of science that French psychologists hoped to pursue.     

American social psychology: Examining the contours of the 1970s crisis

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, social psychologists diagnosed their field as suffering a state of disciplinary crisis. The crisis was a multifaceted one, but issues of methodology, social relevance, and disciplinary, philosophical, and theoretical orientation were the primary areas of concern. Given that these issues have been prominent ones throughout the history of the social and behavioral sciences, it becomes necessary to look to the immediate context of the 1970s crisis to understand how and why a disciplinary crisis came to be diagnosed. The present analysis suggests that the crisis reflected the larger crisis in American society and also drew on the language of crisis prevalent at the time. Employing this language may have offered the field a method of making sense of, reframing, and redirecting internal and external critiques of the discipline.     

Koffka, Köhler, and the "crisis" in psychology

This paper examines the claims of the Gestalt psychologists that there was a crisis in experimental psychology ca. 1900, which arose because the prevailing sensory atomism excluded meaning from among psychological phenomena. The Gestaltists claim that a primary motivation of their movement was to show, against the speculative psychologists and philosophers and Verstehen historians, that natural scientific psychology can handle meaning. Purportedly, they revealed this motivation in their initial German-language presentations but in English emphasized their scientific accomplishments for an American audience. The paper finds that: there was a recognized crisis in the new experimental psychology ca. 1900 pertaining especially to sensory atomism; that the Gestaltists responded to the crisis with new experimental findings and theoretical concepts (Gestalten) that challenged atomism; in both languages, they raised problems of meaning and discussed the contest with speculative psychology and philosophy only after presenting their scientific case; that they introduced phenomenological observations on meaning and perceptual organization into their psychology but did not develop a theory of meaning or solve philosophical problems; that they argued "philosophically," that is, using abstract, conceptual arguments; and that this aspect of their cognitive style was not received well by some prominent members of their American audience.     

Crisis discussions in psychology--New historical and philosophical perspectives

In this introductory article, we provide a historical and philosophical framework for studying crisis discussions in psychology. We first trace the various meanings of crisis talk outside and inside of the sciences. We then turn to Kuhn’s concept of crisis, which is mainly an analyst’s category referring to severe clashes between theory and data. His view has also dominated many discussions on the status of psychology: Can it be considered a “mature” science, or are we dealing here with a pre- or multi-paradigmatic discipline? Against these Kuhnian perspectives, we point out that especially, but not only in psychology distinctive crisis declarations and debates have taken place since at least the late 19th century. In these, quite different usages of crisis talk have emerged, which can be determined by looking at (a) the content and (b) the dimensions of the declarations, as well as (c) the functions these declarations had for their authors. Thus, in psychology at least, ‘crisis’ has been a vigorous actor’s category, occasionally having actual effects on the future course of research. While such crisis declarations need not be taken at face value, they nevertheless help to break the spell of Kuhnian analyses of psychology’s history. They should inform ways in which the history and philosophy of psychology is studied further.     

Pavlov and the Nobel Prize Award

When Pavlov was first nominated for the Nobel Prize, he was well recognized by physiologists, especially those concerned with digestion. It appears unlikely that psychological interpretations of his conditional reflex findings had begun to penetrate deeply into the discipline of psychology. The selection in 1904 of Pavlov for the award in physiology or medicine attracted the attention of a broader range of scientists. American psychologists, in particular, probably became more aware of the advantages of incorporating his "objective" conditional reflex method into their investigations. General biographical aspects relating to the award and the effect of the award upon the acceptance of the conditional reflex method by American psychologists are developed in this presentation.     

Some Problems of Research in Social Psychology

The field of social psychology is the center of an extremely complex and ideology-laden controversy among Soviet psychologists. The complexity arises chiefly from the fact that in the era approximately bounded by 1930 and 1960 there was no research carried out in the USSR labeled "social psychology." All such research had ceased in the very early 1930s, replaced by the Marxist-Leninist theory of historical materialism that was said to make social psychology superfluous, if not harmful.     

L��h��ritage de l����cole de Boston

The Boston School was a school of thought that gave birth, in the 1890s in the USA, to psychology as an academic discipline and as a practising profession. Some of the ideas and therapeutic attitudes of the school??s members will be examined from a historical perspective. The approach will be compared briefly with that of current psychological practice in France. The aim of this comparison is to get an overview of the development of psychology from its initial progress in the USA to current practice in France and from earlier European influences to the present American contribution. Thus, we can explore the legacy of the Boston School and some more recent potential influences. In comparison with modern psychologists how did the members of the Boston School regard psychology, mental life and psychotherapies?     

Time and noise: the stable surroundings of reaction experiments, 1860–1890

The ‘Reaction experiment with Hipp chronoscope’ is one of the classical experiments of modern psychology. This paper investigates the technological contexts of this experiment. It argues that the development of time measurement and communication in other areas of science and technology (astronomy, the clock industry) were decisive for shaping the material culture of experimental in psychology. The chronoscope was constructed by Matthäus Hipp (1813–1893) in the late 1840s. In 1861, Adolphe Hirsch (1830–1901) introduced the chronoscope for measuring the ‘physiological time’ of astronomical observers. Hirsch’s observatory at Neuchâtel (Switzerland) served to control the quality of clocks produced in the nearby Jura mountains. Hipp provided the observatory with a telegraphic system that sent time signals to the centers of clock production. Time telegraphy constituted the stable surroundings of the reaction time experiments carried out by both astronomers and psychologists. This technology permitted precise measurements of short time intervals and offered to Hirsch, as well as to Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920), a useful metaphor for conceptualizing their respective ‘epistemic objects’. But time telegraphy also limited the possibilities of the experimental work conducted within its framework. In particular, noise from outside and inside the research sites at Neuchâtel, Leipzig and elsewhere disturbed the precise communication of time.     

The ethology of inter-individual differences

In recent times psychologists have shown a growing interest in ethological methods of data collection. At the same time ethologists are showing a growing interest in the methods of data processing as developed in personality psychology. These methods of data processing appear to be most useful to ethological research when investigating differences between individuals. Using factor analysis of aggressive behaviour as an example, it is argued that an ethological approach which focusses on individual differences may add substantial information to the models derived from a (classical) ethological approach which only concerns general pictures of species. The advantages of the proposed research procedures are discussed, especially in relation to behavioural genetic and ontogenetic research.Without the help and assistance of staff members of the departments of ethology and personality psychology of Groningen University this text would never have reached its present form. The suggestions of Ference Bodnár, Ciska Feekes, No Molenaar, Nance Vodegel and Annemarie van der Molen are gratefully acknowledged. Translation from Dutch into English was taken care of by Margi and Talib Rothengatter. The drawings were prepared by Agnes de Graaf.     

Foreword to Psychological Science in the USSR

The realization of the many and varied practical tasks to be met by psychology calls for a thorough study of the theoretical problems. The basic questions with which psychology is concerned along these lines have been outlined above. Their solution must rest upon the concrete investigations carried out by Soviet psychologists, upon the data obtained in their research.     

Bühler revisited in times of war--Peter R. Hofstätter's The Crisis of Psychology (1941)

During World War II in 1941, the psychologist P. R. Hofstätter added an article to the debate on the crisis of psychology in a distinctly Nazi academic journal. After introducing Hofstätter and the journal, the core elements of his diagnosis and therapy recommendation beneath the National-Socialist-verbiage will be expounded. Hofstätter, a student of Karl Bühler’s, ties on to his teacher’s crisis well-known publication, but perceives the crisis in a broader perspective and connects it to the decline of theology and of pastoral guidance. Hofstätter’s central, new aspect is the practice of psychology without which he sees it doomed. A central feature of psychological practice should be secular, non-therapeutic guidance of individuals. Various contextual facets are illuminated, Hofstätter’s thwarted attempts to get a university position, the recent establishment of psychology in Germany as a discipline teaching professionals, the abolition of German military psychology, the battle for the Berlin university chair of Wolfgang Köhler.     

常识性: 心理学另一种文化品格

今天心理学在科学化道路上已经越走越远,渐渐远离了人类日常生活,彰显着浓郁的自然科学品性：成为心理学家孤芳自赏的一种标签。事实上,心理学不仅仅是“心理学家”的心理学,也应该是人民大众的心理学,这便是心理学另一重要品质——常识性。常识性心理学可使人的心灵活动得到素朴、直观理解,是常识心理学而非心理科学使得人们日常心理生活成为可能。毛为科技理性和逻辑语言所支配下的科学心理学抹上浓郁的文化色彩,使其流露出文化品性,也为重新理解和诠释心理学学科性质提供视角。     

社会认知神经科学的取向与研究进展

社会认知神经科学是社会心理学和认知神经科学相结合的新兴多学科研究领域,其强调在社会、认知与脑神经等三个层面的交互作用上去理解心理现象。前几年主要是对刻板印象、态度与态度改变、他人知觉、自我认知以及情绪与认知交互作用等方面进行了深入研究,其主要范式是应用认知神经科学的方法来验证社会心理学在这些范围内上的各种不同的理论观点,当前的研究主要集中在知觉和再认的社会标记、社会判断和归因、评价调节知觉和经验以及社会交互作用等传统的社会心理学方面,并取得了突破性进展。展望未来的研究,其将在系统准则研究发展的基础上,把当今的社会认知研究与认知神经科学在理论和方法论上整合起来,为揭示人类高级社会心理现象的神经基础,开辟一条崭新的研究道路。     

The highs and lows of theoretical interpretation in animal-metacognition research

Humans feel uncertain. They know when they do not know. These feelings and the responses to them ground the research literature on metacognition. It is a natural question whether animals share this cognitive capacity, and thus animal metacognition has become an influential research area within comparative psychology. Researchers have explored this question by testing many species using perception and memory paradigms. There is an emerging consensus that animals share functional parallels with humans' conscious metacognition. Of course, this research area poses difficult issues of scientific inference. How firmly should we hold the line in insisting that animals' performances are low-level and associative? How high should we set the bar for concluding that animals share metacognitive capacities with humans? This area offers a constructive case study for considering theoretical problems that often confront comparative psychologists. The authors present this case study and address diverse issues of scientific judgement and interpretation within comparative psychology.     

Pathways in the emergence of developmental neuroethology: antecedents to current views of neurobehavioral ontogeny.

The historical forces that have contributed to our current views of neurobehavioral development (and thus to the fields of developmental psychobiology and neuroethology) are many and varied. Although similar statements might be made about almost any field of science, it is in particular true of this field, which represents a kind of mongrel discipline derived from at least three major sources (psychology, embryology, and neuroscience) and several more minor ones (including developmental psychology and psychiatry, psychoanalysis, education, zoology, ethology, and sociology). Although I attempt to demonstrate here how each of these sources may have influenced the emergence of a unified field of developmental psychobiology or developmental neuroethology, because the present article represents the first attempt of which I am aware to trace the history of these fields I am certain that there is considerable room for improvement, correction, and revision of the views expressed here. Accordingly, I consider this inaugural effort a kind of reconnaissance intended to trace a necessarily imperfect historic path for others to follow and improve upon. In the final analysis, I will be satisfied if this article only serves to underscore two related points: first is the value derived from historical studies of contemporary issues in development, and the second concerns the extent to which our current ideas and concepts about neurobehavioral development, ideas often considered new and contemporary, were already well known to those who came before us. The first point underscores the arguments expressed in the Introduction that the present must always be reconciled with the past, for the past is never entirely past. The second point returns full circle to an important thought expressed in the opening quotation to this article, namely, that even though our historic predecessors lacked much of the empirical facts available to us they were nonetheless able to attain a surprisingly deep understanding of neurobehavioral ontogeny.     

Key informants on the history of anthropology: an itinerary

The history of anthropology is a growing field of study within the discipline itself. Our series ‘Key Informants on the History of Anthropology’ contributes to the discussion of how anthropology, as it is understood and practised today, evolved and took shape. In the following invited contribution Marc Augé, Professor of Anthropology at École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, reflects back on his work in Africa, in light of his more recent explorations of contemporary global issues. He observes how history intervenes also with previous research ‘as if the facts which I observed in former times were only taking on their full meaning today’. This relationship between past and present research reinforces his faith in social anthropology as a discipline that is particularly well suited to address contemporary issues of globalisation.     

Comparative approaches in evolutionary psychology: molecular neuroscience meets the mind

Evolutionary psychologists often overlook a wealth of information existing between the proximate genotypic level and the ultimate phenotypic level. This commonly ignored level of biological organization is the ongoing activity of neurobiological systems. In this paper, we extend our previous arguments concerning strategic weaknesses of evolutionary psychology by advocating a foundational view that focuses on similarities in brain, behavior, and various basic psychological features across mammalian species. Such an approach offers the potential to link the emerging discipline of evolutionary psychology to its parent scientific disciplines such as biochemistry, physiology, molecular genetics, developmental biology and the neuroscientific analysis of animal behavior. We detail an example of this through our impending work using gene microarray technology to characterize gene expression patterns in rats during aggressive and playful social interactions. Through a focus on functional homologies and the experimental analysis of conserved, subcortical emotional and motivational brain systems, neuroevolutionary psychobiology can reveal ancient features of the human mind that are still shared with other animals. Claims regarding evolved, uniquely human, psychological constructs should be constrained by the rigorous evidentiary standards that are routine in other sciences.     

List of L.I. Bozhovich's Major Scientific Works

The decades that separate us from the period marked by the birth and rise of Gestalt psychology are sufficient to permit us to evaluate its contribution to the history of psychology and its place in contemporary psychology. It is generally recognized that the outstanding service of the founders of Gestalt psychology was their questioning of the limitations of the analytic approach to the study of complex systems. They formulated and provided a theoretical basis for the position that the perception of the whole cannot be reduced to the sum of the perception of its parts, and that interpretation of each part depended on the whole. The mechanisms the Gestalt psychologists incorporated into the explanations of this phenomenon were excessively influenced by physics, and now are of only historical interest. But the problem of Gestalt itself was further developed, especially in the domain of visual perception.     

Hans Driesch and the problems of "normal psychology". Rereading his Crisis in Psychology (1925)

In 1925, the German biologist and philosopher Hans Driesch published a booklet entitled The Crisis in Psychology. It was originally published in English and was based on lectures given at various universities in China, Japan and the USA. The "crisis" in psychology of that time, in Driesch's opinion, lies in the necessity to decide about "the road which psychology is to follow in the future". This necessity refers to five "critical points", namely (1) to develop the theory of psychic elements to a theory of meaning by phenomenological analysis, (2) the overcoming of association theory, (3) to acknowledge that the unconscious is a fact and a "normal" aspect of mental life, (4) to reject "psychomechanical parallelism" or any other epiphenomenalistic solution of the mind-body problem, and (5) the extension of psychical research to new facts as described by parapsychology, for instance. Driesch saw close parallels between the development of modern psychology and that of biology, namely in a theoretical shift from "sum-concepts" like association and mechanics, to "totality-concepts" like soul and entelechy. The German translation of 1926 was entitled Grundprobleme der Psychologie (Fundamental Problems of Psychology) while "the crisis in psychology" forms just the subtitle of this book. This underlines that Driesch's argumentation--in contrast to that of Buehler--dealt with ontological questions rather than with paradigms.