Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Introspection
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Historical misconceptions=== American [[historiography]] of introspection, according to some authors,<ref name="Costal 2006 634β654">{{cite journal|last=Costal|first=A|title='Introspectionism' and the mythical origins of scientific psychology|journal=Consciousness and Cognition|year=2006|volume=15|issue=4|pages=634β654|doi=10.1016/j.concog.2006.09.008|pmid=17174788|s2cid=17381488}}</ref><ref name="Clegg 2013">{{Cite book |last=Clegg |first=Joshua W. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DSFWDwAAQBAJ |title=Self-Observation in the Social Sciences |publisher=Routledge |year=2013 |isbn=978-1-351-29678-6 |language=en}}</ref> is dominated by three misconceptions. In particular, historians of psychology tend to argue 1) that introspection once was the dominant method of psychological inquiry, 2) that behaviorism, and in particular [[John B. Watson]], was responsible for discrediting introspection as a valid method, and 3) that scientific [[psychology]] completely abandoned introspection as a result of those critiques.<ref name="Costal 2006 634β654"/> However, introspection may not have been the dominant method. It was widely believed to be dominant because [[Edward B. Titchener|Edward Titchener]]'s student [[Edwin G. Boring]], in his influential historical accounts of experimental psychology, privileged Titchener's views while giving little credit to original sources.<ref name="Costal 2006 634β654"/> Introspection has been critiqued by many other psychologists, including [[Wilhelm Wundt]] and [[Knight Dunlap]], who presented a non-behaviorist argument against self-observation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dunlap |first=Knight |date=1912 |title=Discussion: The case against introspection. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0071571 |journal=Psychological Review |language=en |volume=19 |issue=5 |pages=404β413 |doi=10.1037/h0071571 |issn=1939-1471|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Introspection is still widely used in psychology, but now implicitly, as self-report surveys, interviews and some fMRI studies are based on introspection.<ref name="Clegg 2013"/>{{rp|4}} It is not the method but rather its name that has been dropped from the dominant psychological vocabulary.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)