INTROSPECTION
INTROSPECTION
This is observation by an individual of his own conscious action. It is also called subjective observation. Notice that it is a form of observation, and not speculation or reasoning from probabilities or from past experience. It is a direct observation of fact.
One very simple instance of introspection is afforded by the study of after-images. Look for an instant at the glowing electric bulb, and then turn your eyes upon a dark background, and observe whether the glowing filament appears there; this would be the " positive after-image ". This simple type of introspection is used by physiology in its study of the senses, as well as by psychology; and it gives such precise and regular results that only the most confirmed behaviorists refuse to admit it as a good method of observation.
But psychology would like to make introspective observations on the more complex mental processes as well; and it must be admitted that here introspection becomes difficult.
You cannot hope to make minute observations on any process that lasts over a very few seconds, for you must let the process run its natural course unimpeded by your efforts at observing it, and then turn your " mental eye " instantly back to observe it retrospective!?/ before it disappears. As a matter of fact, a sensation or feeling or idea hangs on in consciousness for a few seconds, and can be observed in this retrospective way. There is no theoretical objection to this style of introspection, but it is practically difficult and tricky. Try it on a column of figures: first add the column as usual, then immediately turn back and review exactly what went through your mind in the process of adding—what numbers you spoke internally, etc. Try again by introspecting the process of filling in the blanks in the sentence: " Botany could not make use of introspection because have probably no processes." At first, you may find it difficult to observe yourself in this way; for the natural tendency, when you are aiming at a certain result, is to reach the goal and then shift to something else, rather than to turn back and review the steps by which you reached the goal. But with practice, you acquire some skill in introspection.
One difficulty with introspection of the more complex mental processes is that individuals vary more here than in the simpler processes, so that different observers, observing each his own processes, will not report the same facts, and one observer cannot serve as a check upon another so easily as in the simpler introspection of after-images and other sensations, or as in the observations made in other sciences.
Even well trained introspectionists are quite at variance when they attempt a minute description of the thought processes, and it is probable that this is asking too much of introspection.
We mustn't expect it to give microscopic details.
Rough observations, however, it gives with considerable certainty. Who can doubt, for example, that a wellpractised act goes on with very little consciousness, or that; inner, silent speech often accompanies thinking? And yet we have only introspection to vouch for these facts.
OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION
But to say, as used to be said, that psychology is purely an introspective science, making use of no other sort of observation, is absurd in the face of the facts.
We have animal psychology, where the observation is exclusively objective. In objective observation, the observer watches something else, and not himself. In animal psychology, the psychologist, as observer, watches the animal.
The same is true of child psychology, at least for the first years of childhood. You could not depend on the introspections of a baby, but you can learn much by watching his behavior. Abnormal persons, also, are not often reliable introspectionists, and the study of abnormal psychology is mostly carried on by objective methods.
Now how is it with the normal adult human being, the standard subject for psychology? Does he make all the observations on himself or may he be objectively observed by the psychologist? The latter, certainly. In fact, nearly all tests, such as those used in studying differential psychology, are objective. That is to say that the person tested is given a task to perform, and his performance is observed in one way or another by the examiner. The examiner may observe the time occupied by the subject to complete the task, or the quantity accomplished in a fixed time; or he may measure the correctness and excellence of the work done, or the difficulty of_ j h e task assigned. One test uses one of these measures, and another uses another; but they are all objective measures, not depending at all on the introspection oi the subject.
What is true of tests in differential psychology is true of the majority of experiments in general psychology: the performer is one person, the observer another, and the observation is objective in character. Suppose, for example, you are investigating a memory problem; your method may be to set your subject a lesson to memorize under certain defined conditions, and see how quickly and well he learns i t; then you give him another, equally difficult lesson to be learned under altered conditions, and observe whether he does better or worse than before. Thus you discover which set of conditions is more favorable for memorizing, and thence can infer something of the way in which memorizing is accomplished. In the whole experiment you need not have called on your subject for any introspections; and this is a type of many experiments in which the subject accomplishes a certain task under known conditions, and his success is objectively observed and measured.
There is another type of objective psychological observation directed not towards the success with which a task is accomplished, but towards the changes in breathing, heart beat, stomach movements, brain circulation, or involuntary movements of the hands, eyes, etc., which occur during the course of various mental processes, as in reading, in emotion, in dreaming or waking from sleep.
Now it is not true as a matter of history that either of these types of objective observation was introduced into psychology by those who call themselves behaviorists. Not at all; experiments of both sorts have been common in psychology since it began to be an experimental science. The first type, the success-measuring experiment, has been much more used than introspection all along. What the behaviorists have accomplished is the definitive overthrow of the doctrine, once strongly insisted on by the " consciousness psychologists ", that introspection is the only real method of observation in psychology; and this is no mean achievement.
But we should be going too far if we followed the behaviorists to the extent of seeking to exclude introspection altogether, and on principle. There is no sense in such negative principles. Let us accumulate psychological facts by any method that will give the facts.
This is observation by an individual of his own conscious action. It is also called subjective observation. Notice that it is a form of observation, and not speculation or reasoning from probabilities or from past experience. It is a direct observation of fact.
One very simple instance of introspection is afforded by the study of after-images. Look for an instant at the glowing electric bulb, and then turn your eyes upon a dark background, and observe whether the glowing filament appears there; this would be the " positive after-image ". This simple type of introspection is used by physiology in its study of the senses, as well as by psychology; and it gives such precise and regular results that only the most confirmed behaviorists refuse to admit it as a good method of observation.
But psychology would like to make introspective observations on the more complex mental processes as well; and it must be admitted that here introspection becomes difficult.
You cannot hope to make minute observations on any process that lasts over a very few seconds, for you must let the process run its natural course unimpeded by your efforts at observing it, and then turn your " mental eye " instantly back to observe it retrospective!?/ before it disappears. As a matter of fact, a sensation or feeling or idea hangs on in consciousness for a few seconds, and can be observed in this retrospective way. There is no theoretical objection to this style of introspection, but it is practically difficult and tricky. Try it on a column of figures: first add the column as usual, then immediately turn back and review exactly what went through your mind in the process of adding—what numbers you spoke internally, etc. Try again by introspecting the process of filling in the blanks in the sentence: " Botany could not make use of introspection because have probably no processes." At first, you may find it difficult to observe yourself in this way; for the natural tendency, when you are aiming at a certain result, is to reach the goal and then shift to something else, rather than to turn back and review the steps by which you reached the goal. But with practice, you acquire some skill in introspection.
One difficulty with introspection of the more complex mental processes is that individuals vary more here than in the simpler processes, so that different observers, observing each his own processes, will not report the same facts, and one observer cannot serve as a check upon another so easily as in the simpler introspection of after-images and other sensations, or as in the observations made in other sciences.
Even well trained introspectionists are quite at variance when they attempt a minute description of the thought processes, and it is probable that this is asking too much of introspection.
We mustn't expect it to give microscopic details.
Rough observations, however, it gives with considerable certainty. Who can doubt, for example, that a wellpractised act goes on with very little consciousness, or that; inner, silent speech often accompanies thinking? And yet we have only introspection to vouch for these facts.
OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION
But to say, as used to be said, that psychology is purely an introspective science, making use of no other sort of observation, is absurd in the face of the facts.
We have animal psychology, where the observation is exclusively objective. In objective observation, the observer watches something else, and not himself. In animal psychology, the psychologist, as observer, watches the animal.
The same is true of child psychology, at least for the first years of childhood. You could not depend on the introspections of a baby, but you can learn much by watching his behavior. Abnormal persons, also, are not often reliable introspectionists, and the study of abnormal psychology is mostly carried on by objective methods.
Now how is it with the normal adult human being, the standard subject for psychology? Does he make all the observations on himself or may he be objectively observed by the psychologist? The latter, certainly. In fact, nearly all tests, such as those used in studying differential psychology, are objective. That is to say that the person tested is given a task to perform, and his performance is observed in one way or another by the examiner. The examiner may observe the time occupied by the subject to complete the task, or the quantity accomplished in a fixed time; or he may measure the correctness and excellence of the work done, or the difficulty of_ j h e task assigned. One test uses one of these measures, and another uses another; but they are all objective measures, not depending at all on the introspection oi the subject.
What is true of tests in differential psychology is true of the majority of experiments in general psychology: the performer is one person, the observer another, and the observation is objective in character. Suppose, for example, you are investigating a memory problem; your method may be to set your subject a lesson to memorize under certain defined conditions, and see how quickly and well he learns i t; then you give him another, equally difficult lesson to be learned under altered conditions, and observe whether he does better or worse than before. Thus you discover which set of conditions is more favorable for memorizing, and thence can infer something of the way in which memorizing is accomplished. In the whole experiment you need not have called on your subject for any introspections; and this is a type of many experiments in which the subject accomplishes a certain task under known conditions, and his success is objectively observed and measured.
There is another type of objective psychological observation directed not towards the success with which a task is accomplished, but towards the changes in breathing, heart beat, stomach movements, brain circulation, or involuntary movements of the hands, eyes, etc., which occur during the course of various mental processes, as in reading, in emotion, in dreaming or waking from sleep.
Now it is not true as a matter of history that either of these types of objective observation was introduced into psychology by those who call themselves behaviorists. Not at all; experiments of both sorts have been common in psychology since it began to be an experimental science. The first type, the success-measuring experiment, has been much more used than introspection all along. What the behaviorists have accomplished is the definitive overthrow of the doctrine, once strongly insisted on by the " consciousness psychologists ", that introspection is the only real method of observation in psychology; and this is no mean achievement.
But we should be going too far if we followed the behaviorists to the extent of seeking to exclude introspection altogether, and on principle. There is no sense in such negative principles. Let us accumulate psychological facts by any method that will give the facts.
source: PSYCHOLOGY A STUDY OF MENTAL LIFE BY ROBERT S. WOODWORTH, Ph.D.
Professor of psychology in Columbia University NEW YORK
0 Response to "INTROSPECTION"
Post a Comment