Wilhelm Wundt
Wundt was the first self-professed ‘psychologist.’ He set out with the very best intentions, to produce a scientific study of human mind and behaviour. Initially only behaviours that were observable were studied, such as reaction times, pupil dilations etc.
Structuralism
Wundt defined psychology as the study of the structure of conscious experience. The goal was to find the 'atoms' of conscious experience, and from there to build a knowledge of how the atoms combine to create our experience. He was a reductionist, who believed the whole was better understood by breaking it down into its component parts. The main tool of structuralism was introspection.
Wundt was the first self-professed ‘psychologist.’ He set out with the very best intentions, to produce a scientific study of human mind and behaviour. Initially only behaviours that were observable were studied, such as reaction times, pupil dilations etc.
Structuralism
Wundt defined psychology as the study of the structure of conscious experience. The goal was to find the 'atoms' of conscious experience, and from there to build a knowledge of how the atoms combine to create our experience. He was a reductionist, who believed the whole was better understood by breaking it down into its component parts. The main tool of structuralism was introspection.
|
|
Introspection
It soon became clear to Wundt, that much of what is essential to psychology is unobservable, namely mental states. Descartes, two centuries earlier had used the method of introspection to investigate the inner workings of the human mind. However, for Wundt, the process had to be rigorous and tightly controlled. After all, he was aiming for a science of psychology! He would train his students in the process and present them with a variety of stimuli. By controlling all other variables he could show the precise response being elicited by the stimuli. |
Although introspection is largely discredited by modern psychology, Wundt’s essential legacy is his realisation that a scientific investigation of the human mind and behaviour was possible. Since Wundt, psychology has largely followed a scientific and empirical course.
Evaluation
Wundt did attempt a scientific study of psychology and showed it was possible. However, he was overly reliant on introspection which by its nature is subjective. When others tested Wundt’s ideas their findings often differed. His research therefore lacked reliability.
Introspection is still used but it lacks scientific rigour. Looking inwards, attempting to understand our conscious thought processes is difficult enough. Trying to explain them to others, even for the most intelligent and eloquent observer is nigh on impossible.
Wundt’s contemporaries were to include the Freudian psychodynamic theorists and by the early twentieth century the behaviourists. Wundt’s research was clearly more scientific than the former, clearly less so than the latter. Psychology was becoming more scientific. Wundt and other early pioneers such as James had sewn the seeds.
The Emergence of Psychology as a Science
Wundt had realised that knowledge and understanding had to come from observation, the basis of an empirical approach. Unfortunately his methods had let him down. His successors, particularly the behaviourists, were now to focus on more scientific methods. They believed:
What do we mean by science?
Controlled observations
Generally in scientific research something (the IV) is manipulated and we observe the effect this has on something else (the DV). A physicist might manipulate the weight of a pendulum and measure its period, whilst obviously keeping length of string and height of release constant.
Objectivity
Physics and chemistry are objective and hopefully mostly free of personal opinions but is psychology? Our existing knowledge determines our expectations and our viewpoint. This is particularly noticeable in psychology with researchers belonging to one approach or another, e.g. cognitive or behaviourist.
Falsifiability
A concept introduced by Popper in 1969. Having a theory that can be objectively tested and ultimately proven wrong is what distinguishes science from religion and pseudoscience such as psychoanalysis. Psychological research tests an alternative or experimental hypothesis, however, we are not seeking to prove this, rather we seek to disprove our null hypothesis.
Replicability
Generally in psychology, laboratory experiments can be repeated. Much of the behaviourist approach has been tested many times and the schedules of reinforcement for example are seen as close to psychological fact as it’s possible to get. Piaget’s work has been tested to death too!
Replication in social psychology however is more hit and miss. Generally, research such as that of Asch and Milgram that was set in tightly controlled environments has been repeated.
Are scientific methods appropriate for psychology?
Using scientific methods with tight control of variables allows for cause and effect relationships to be determined. This together with replication adds strength and validity to the theories produced.
However, laboratory experiments tell us little about behaviour in real life. How many times during lessons on memory and social influence have we used the term ‘lacks external validity?’
Humans are not coiled springs or burettes of alkali. Much of what determines our behaviour is not observable. Our memories, perceptions, thought processes, stereotypes and emotions all have an impact. With no objective way of measuring these can we develop a truly scientific theory of human behaviour? As we shall see later, some psychologists believe we can’t and even if we could, we shouldn’t!
Wundt had realised that knowledge and understanding had to come from observation, the basis of an empirical approach. Unfortunately his methods had let him down. His successors, particularly the behaviourists, were now to focus on more scientific methods. They believed:
- Behaviour had a cause. It didn’t appear for no reason. It was determined by certain factors (although they would spend the next century or more arguing over what these factors were!).
- If behaviour was determined and if we could fully understand the factors responsible for causing behaviour, then behaviour could be predicted and, according to Skinner, it could be controlled.
What do we mean by science?
Controlled observations
Generally in scientific research something (the IV) is manipulated and we observe the effect this has on something else (the DV). A physicist might manipulate the weight of a pendulum and measure its period, whilst obviously keeping length of string and height of release constant.
Objectivity
Physics and chemistry are objective and hopefully mostly free of personal opinions but is psychology? Our existing knowledge determines our expectations and our viewpoint. This is particularly noticeable in psychology with researchers belonging to one approach or another, e.g. cognitive or behaviourist.
Falsifiability
A concept introduced by Popper in 1969. Having a theory that can be objectively tested and ultimately proven wrong is what distinguishes science from religion and pseudoscience such as psychoanalysis. Psychological research tests an alternative or experimental hypothesis, however, we are not seeking to prove this, rather we seek to disprove our null hypothesis.
Replicability
Generally in psychology, laboratory experiments can be repeated. Much of the behaviourist approach has been tested many times and the schedules of reinforcement for example are seen as close to psychological fact as it’s possible to get. Piaget’s work has been tested to death too!
Replication in social psychology however is more hit and miss. Generally, research such as that of Asch and Milgram that was set in tightly controlled environments has been repeated.
Are scientific methods appropriate for psychology?
Using scientific methods with tight control of variables allows for cause and effect relationships to be determined. This together with replication adds strength and validity to the theories produced.
However, laboratory experiments tell us little about behaviour in real life. How many times during lessons on memory and social influence have we used the term ‘lacks external validity?’
Humans are not coiled springs or burettes of alkali. Much of what determines our behaviour is not observable. Our memories, perceptions, thought processes, stereotypes and emotions all have an impact. With no objective way of measuring these can we develop a truly scientific theory of human behaviour? As we shall see later, some psychologists believe we can’t and even if we could, we shouldn’t!