COURSE TITLE: HISTORY AND SYSTEMS OF PSYCHOLOGY

Paper: I Teaching Hr. 48

Course Code: PSY. 551 Theory: 60
Credit Hr.: 3 Practical:40
Course Description: Studying the history of psychology is important to
understand how the study came into practice, were the belief comes from, why
psychology is important, what scientist and other noted persons in history used to
draw his or her conclusion from, and why the conclusion is relevant, and how the
psychology evolves with society as time moves forward and society changes. This
course examines major psychological theories and their historical development.
Important psychological schools of thought receive consideration. The course pays
attention to the social, economic, and cultural contexts in which knowledge
developed, the wide variety of influences on psychology, and the individuals who
advanced the field.
Objectives: To provide an overview of psychological thinking from Ancient
Greece to the present. To emphasize critical stance toward the assumptions and
implications of major psychological theories.
Unit I Introduction to History of Psychology
(3)
1. Historical roots of modern psychology
 Philosophical Foundations of the Psychology: Positivism,
Materialism, and Empiricism, contribution of Descartes
2. Contributions from biological sciences
 The Beginnings of Experimental Psychology: Hermann von
Helmholtz, Ernst Weber, Gustav Theodor Fechner
Unit II: The Scientific Psychology: Structuralism, and Functionalism
(10)
1. Structuralism
 Antecedent Influence
 Contributors: Wilhelm Wundt, Edward Bradford Titchener
 Contribution to Psychology
 Strengths and weaknesses
 2. Developments in German Psychology: Hermann Ebbinghaus, Franz
Brentano and others.
3. Functionalism
 Antecedent Influences: The Evolution Revolution, Individual
Differences, Animal Psychology.
 Major Contributors: William James, John Dewey, Hugo Munsterberg,
G. Stanley Hall, Robert Sessions Woodworth, Edward Lee Thorndike,
James McKeen Cattell, and others.
 Contribution in Psychology
 Strength, weakness, current status
Unit III Behaviorism
(10)
1. Antecedent Influences: Edward Lee Thorndike and Ivan Petrovitch Pavlov
2. Major contributors: John B. Watson, B.F. Skinner, Albert Bandura, Julian
Rotter, Edward Chace Tolman, Clark Leonard Hull, Edwin Ray Guthrie,
William Mcdougall
3. Major themes of behaviorism
4. Contribution in Psychology
5. Strengths, weaknesses and current status
Unit IV Gestalt Psychology
(7)
1. Antecedent Influences: Immanuel Kant, Ernst Mach, Christian von
Ehrenfels, William James
2. Major contributors: Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, Wolfgang Köhler and
Kurt Lewin
3. Major themes
4. Contribution in psychology
5. Strengths, weaknesses and current status
Unit V Psychoanalysis
(10)
1. Antecedent Influences
2. Major contributors: Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, Karen Horney,
Anna Freud and others.
3. Major themes
 4. Contributions in Psychology
5. Strengths, weaknesses and current status
Unit VI Cognitive Psychology
(5)
1. Antecedent Influences: Wilhelm Wundt, Gestalt Psychology, Human Factor
Psychology, Jean Piaget, Noam Chomsky
2. Major contributors: Ulric Neisser, Allen Newell and Herbert Simon.
3. Major themes
4. Contribution in psychology
5. Strengths, weaknesses and current status
 Unit 1
Introduction to History of Psychology
Course Contents
1. Historical roots of modern psychology
 Philosophical Foundations of the Psychology: Positivism,
Materialism, and Empiricism, contribution of Descartes
2. Contributions from biological sciences
 The Beginnings of Experimental Psychology: Hermann von
Helmholtz, Ernst Weber, Gustav Theodor Fechner
Historical roots of modern psychology
Philosophical Foundation of Psychology
A closer reading of the history and philosophy of science indicates that there is a
contestation around the meaning, methodology, and purpose of science. In a broad
sense, science refers to a systematic acquisition of knowledge. However,
laypersons as well as many scholars hold a narrow view of science. According to a
narrow view of science, acquisition of only sense observations based knowledge is
considered valid and scientific. This perspective of science is termed empiricism. It
is to be noted that the empiricist view of science is just one of the perspectives of
science and a group of philosophers of science considers it as a limited and narrow
perspective on science. Rationalism, another philosophical perspective, advocates
the use of human reason/intellect to generate new knowledge. Although
chronologically rationalism was advocated by the philosophers as the perspective
of science much before the adoption of empiricism, the empiricist perspective
dominated the discipline of psychology for a long time. However, some of the
psychological theories have been influenced by the philosophy of rationalism as
well.
The controlled application of empiricism is the experimental method, which
attained the status of being the most popular and respected method in natural
sciences. As natural sciences helped people to overcome the uncertainties and
difficulties of life and also made human life more predictable and comfortable,
the experimental method was viewed as the most sophisticated and useful method
to generate valid knowledge. Therefore, scholars in the field of social sciences too,
thought that the experimental method could be fruitfully applied in the social
domain to generate valid knowledge. Wilhelm Wundt developed a system of
psychology that was based on the empiricist perspective of science. He advocated
the use of controlled introspection (a type of experiment in which the person
involved in introspection experiments on oneself) to unravel the structure of the
mind. His basic training was in the discipline of physiology wherein experimental
method had occupied a prominent place among the researchers. It is said that the
(Wundtian) experimental psychology was an offspring of experimental physiology
and mental philosophy, the former supplied the method and the latter its subject
matter. The term ‘physiological’ in the book, “Physiological Psychology”,
authored by Wundt signifies the use of the method of physiology, that is, the
experimental method in psychology; it does not explicate the physiological basis of
psychological processes as all the contemporary books on physiological
psychology do.
It may be noted that some systems of psychology, such as structuralism and
behaviourism relied on empiricism. John Watson, the founder of behaviourism, is
known for his effort to make psychology a fully scientific discipline and opposed
the study of mental structure and its functions. To him, only observable behaviour
should be the subject matter of psychology whereas the Gestalt school drew on the
logic of rationalism. Although Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, was
trained in the modern discipline of neurology, his philosophical position is not very
clear regarding the use of a particular scientific perspective for his system of
thought. The proponents of another school of psychological thought, the
humanisticexistential psychology, were critical of the use of the scientific method
to study human psychology and they were particularly opposed to applying an
analytical approach to understand human mental processes or behaviour.
According to them, every person is born free and has the capabilities to develop
his/her potential, and the discipline of psychology should help the person in this
endeavor. This group of psychologists advocated the phenomenological approach
to understand the experiences of the person.
From all the above examples it is clear that if scientific psychology is defined in a
particular way, it specifies or defines the scope of the discipline in a limited sense.
What constitutes the subject matter of psychology – mental structure or mental
functions or consciousness or observable behaviour or unconscious motives or
fully functioning person — depends on what the thinkers associated with a
particular school of thought consider important. However, most of the standard
textbooks define psychology as a scientific study of the brain, mind, and
behaviour. Therefore, it can be argued that the current standard definition of
psychology reflects views of only a few thinkers associated with a particular
school of psychology or a combination of a few of them instead of representing the
entire spectrum of psychological thoughts.
Upon reading the history of psychology in an introductory textbook of psychology,
the reader may get the impression that Wilhelm Wundt was the founder of
scientific psychology as he had established the first laboratory of psychology at
Leipzig University in 1879. At this point, it will be worthwhile to alert the reader
that this is not an objective fact. This image of Wundt has been constructed and
propagated by a group of psychologists who hold a particular image of science and
scientific psychology. In fact, Wundt had understood the limitations of the
experimental method in understanding mental processes. By using the
experimental method, Wundt believed, the experimenter can study only the simple
mental processes such as attention, perception, and some forms of memory.
However, for studying the higher mental processes, according to him,
anthropological and historical methods are more appropriate. Therefore, he started
a new area of psychology, known as Volkerpsychologies, and which can be
translated as ‘cultural’ or ‘social’ psychology, to study the products of higher
mental processes, such as religion, customs, cultural artifacts, etc. He devoted
more time to Volkerpsychologies than on experimental psychology. These facts
about Wundt clearly show that Wundt himself had thought psychology should be
broader than merely being an experimental discipline. Is it not puzzling to note that
Volkerpsychologies advocated by Wundt is hardly discussed in the introductory
textbook of psychology?
Similarly, William James, one of the founders of psychology and originally trained
as a physiologist like Wundt, thought that psychology should focus on the study of
consciousness. However, after realizing that in the prevalent scientific psychology
it is not possible to study the stream of consciousness, he quit the discipline of
psychology, accusing it of a ‘nasty little science’. Based on the above discussion of
the views of two eminent thinkers in psychology, one needs to appreciate the
element of arbitrariness in defining psychology as a scientific (read experimental)
discipline and how such a way of defining the discipline makes it narrow.
Therefore, it is imperative to study the historical forces that shaped the discipline
in a particular direction. By historicizing the various psychological thoughts, as a
student of psychology, you will be able to understand how social, political, and
ideological factors have played an important role in the development and
perpetuation of certain kinds of psychological thoughts.
Historical Perspectives
According to the traditional approach, history refers to an objective account of past
happenings. However, in examining the past, historians often make use of
structures or models to analyze and explain past events. For example, E.G. Boring,
one of the eminent historians of psychology, has distinguished between two
models of examining the past events of psychology – the great man and the
Zeitgeist models of history. According to the great man model, historical changes
occur due to the extraordinary talents and efforts of great persons. On the other
hand, the zeitgeist, or “the spirit of the times” model attributes historical changes to
momentum or historical forces. In this model the contributions of great men are not
discounted, rather they are viewed as the manifestations of the historical forces.
One example of the zeitgeist model of history is the contribution of Thomas S.
Kuhn in the field of history of science. In his seminal book The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions (1962), he has argued that cultural and social forces are
involved in the development of a paradigm or model of science and the
development of a new paradigm gives rise to change in the understanding and
practice of science. The new paradigm develops either as a by-product of social
and cultural forces or due to the inability of the old paradigm to explain new
scientific findings.
Kuhn thinks that a paradigm that guides the thinking and practices of scientists is
developed only in mature sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, and argues
that psychology is not a mature science and still it is in a pre-paradigmatic stage.
Interestingly, Kuhn used the term ‘paradigm’ in various ways and according to one
scholar, he used this concept with 21 different meanings. In contemporary
scholarship, the term ‘paradigm’ is not necessarily used in a strict Kuhnian sense
and it stands for any ‘framework’ or ‘system of thought about human nature’.
Therefore, the various systems of psychological thoughts such as structuralism,
functionalism, behaviourism, psychoanalysis, gestalt school, etc. may be viewed as
examples of the paradigm of psychology. One important advantage of looking at
different systems of psychology in terms of Kuhn’s concept of paradigm will be to
link psychological thought with the prevailing historical, political, sociocultural,
and ideological social forces.
The zeitgeist approach to the history of scientific thought allows us to view
philosophical systems/systems of thoughts in their historical context rather than
existing as an autonomous and isolated corpus of thoughts. Further, this approach
to look at the history of psychological thoughts makes room to look for the
existence and development of psychological thoughts prevalent in non-Western
cultural contexts. By now, it is hoped, that the you will be able appreciate that
science is not only an intellectual pursuit but also a cultural and political enterprise.
The Western societies, due to the dominance of the philosophical perspective of
empiricism and the ideology of individualism, have popularised a narrow view of
science and the same has been applied in the field of psychology too. Further,
historical events like the industrial revolution and colonization gave rise to a
situation in which western societies became important centers of scientific
knowledge production. Owing to the political power being exercised by the
western societies over the rest of the world, especially over the colonized
countries, the former was successful in declaring scientific knowledge as superior
and universal and imposed the same on the nonwestern societies. After World War
II, psychological theories, developed in the United States, reflecting the ideology
of individualism, were exported to all the other countries due to its prominent
position in world politics. As the modern (read Western) psychology has been
exported in the nonWestern societies in the guise of being universal psychology,
the prominent and influential scholars in the discipline of psychology in the non-
Western countries, mostly being trained in the Western countries such as the UK,
USA, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, have adopted it uncritically and helped
in propagating the Western psychology in their respective countries through their
teaching and research programmes. However, it is well-known that some important
civilizations grew in the non-Western world with their systems of elaborate and
sophisticated philosophical thoughts (including psychological thoughts).
Therefore, we should make a distinction between the “non-Western psychologies”
and “psychology practiced by the scholars of non-Western societies”. The former
refers to the systems that originated in non-Western societies intending to explain
human nature and behaviour while the latter signifies the activities and practices of
western psychology adopted by the scholars of non-Western societies.

Contribution from biological sciences

Contribution to early modern psychology: - Herman von Helmholtz, Ernst
Weber, Gustav Theodor Fechner
Introduction
The scientific discoveries that took place in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries made it possible for many of the longstanding philosophical questions to
be explored and analyzed in a lot more precision. These discoveries gave a lot of
answers about the physical world, and it seemed to be the right time for science to
make a shift towards understanding the physiological mechanisms that help in
understanding the physical world. This led to the rise of empirical research in
physiology. In the nineteenth century, many significant investigations such as
nervous system activity, sensations, and brain physiology took place, indicating the
advantages of systematic, empirical research. This benefited the discipline of
psychology to a great extent, as it allowed physiological explanations of mental
operations.
Scholars, in that time, were majorly interested in understanding the ways in which
external events are represented in consciousness. Intensive investigations were
made in many areas such as sense perception and motor reactions, which
eventually led to the emergence of experimental psychology. In 1879, Wilhelm
Wundt established the first experimental psychology laboratory at the University
of Leipzig. The laboratory consisted of four rooms. Four years later, in 1883, a
four-room experimental psychology laboratory opened at John Hopkins University,
USA. Similar experimental laboratories began opening in different parts of the
world, within a short period of time. In 1886, an experimental psychology
laboratory opened in University of Kazan, Russia (1889), at the Sorbonne, France
(1892), at the University of Groningen, Netherlands, and in 1898, at University
College London, England.
These different laboratories opening in different parts of the world, in a short
period of time, gave an indication that the first experimental psychology opening at
Leipzig was not an unusual event. It actually resulted due to the intellectual
developments that were taking place in different parts of the world. It was the spirit
of times that was making psychology develop into a scientific, academic discipline.
Surely, the contribution in this development made by Wilhelm Wundt cannot be
denied. But it was the contributions of others such as Helmholtz and Fechner that
gave Wundt that platform.
Contributors to early modern psychology: - Hermann Von Helmholtz,
Fechner, Wundt, Weber and James
A. Hermann Von Helmholtz
Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz is considered to be one of the
greatest German scientists of the nineteenth century. He made significant
contributions in physics, physiology, and psychology. He gave emphasis to a
mechanistic and deterministic approach, suggesting that human sense organs
function just like a machine. Among physics, physiology, and psychology,
psychology was the least preferred discipline for Helmholtz. Despite that,
his contributions in psychology made it instrumental to make it a scientific
discipline.

Hermann von Helmholtz

Hermann von Helmholtz was highly scientific in his

nature. With great experimental rigor, more than
anyone else before him, he demonstrated the
mechanisms by people interacted with the physical
world. He gave his explanations in terms of
objective, physical laws. Helmholtz emphasized on
the applied or practical benefits of scientific
research. He did not believe in conducting
experiments just to gather large numbers of data. He
actually believed that scientific research should be
used to solve practical problems. Helmholtz did not
consider himself to be a psychologist. But his
 contributions in the study of human senses helped to
strengthen the experimental approach in
understanding psychological issues. The work of
Helmholtz brought physics, chemistry, physiology,
and psychology closer together. This, eventually,
led to the emergence of experimental psychology. In
many ways, experimental psychology is considered
to be the inevitable step after the work of
Helmholtz.

His contribution in psychology

a) Principle of Conservation of energy

In one of his earliest researches, Helmholtz studied the metabolic
processes of frogs. He demonstrated that the consumption of food and
oxygen by the frog were able to account for the total energy consumed
by the organism. By doing so, Helmholtz applied the well-known
principle of conservation of energy to living organisms. The principle
had been earlier used to explain physical phenomena. The principle of
conservation of energy suggests that energy is never lost in a system,
it only gets transformed from one form to another. Helmholtz used the
materialist philosophy by the applying the principle of conservation of
energy to living organisms. In doing so, he brought physics,
chemistry, and biology close to each other. In 1847, Helmholtz
published a highly influential paper called The Conservation of Force.
Later, Sigmund Freud was highly influenced by Helmholtz in the
usage of the principle of conservation of energy for living organisms.
Freud applied the principle in explaining his idea of psychic energy.
b) Rate of nerve Conduction
Earlier it was believed that nerve conduction was too fast to be
measured. However, Helmholtz did not agree with it and made
pioneering efforts to measure the rate of nerve conduction. In order to
do this, Helmholtz electrically stimulated the motor nerve of the leg of
a frog. The frog was already dead, but there was life in its leg. The
stimulation of the nerve caused the contracting of the muscle. He
attached a minute pen to the end of the frog’s leg, which drew upon a
moving drum. Using this arrangement, Helmholtz was able to
compare the time between the stimulation of the nerve and the time
 the pen first moved. He was able to calculate the rate of the motor
nerve transmission, as he knew the length of the nerve. The rate of
nerve transmission, according to Helmholtz, came out to be 25 to 30
meters per second.

After measuring the nerve transmission in a frog, Helmholtz decided

to measure the rate of transmission of sensory nerves in humans. He
tried to do this by using touch as a stimulus. Helmholtz found that
reaction time is longer when the foot is stimulated as compared to the
face. This means reaction time is determined by how further away the
stimulus is from the brain. By subtracting the reaction time of the
short distance with that of the long distance, Helmholtz was able to
calculate the rate of sensory nerve conduction, which came out be 50
to 100 meters per second.

Helmholtz’s research for measuring nerve conduction was highly

significant because it demonstrated that nerve impulses can actually
be measured, and are also relatively slow than it was initially believed
to be. This also gave evidence that physical and chemical processes
are a part of interactions with the environment, and are entities that
are not beyond scientific evaluation.

Later on, Helmholtz found that reaction time, in order to measure

nerve conduction varied in different individuals. It even varied for the
same individual at different times. He concluded that reaction time is
not a reliable and valid method of measuring nerve conduction, and
eventually abandoned it. This discovery, however, does not deny the
significance of the pioneering research done by Helmholtz.

c) Theory of Perception
According to Helmholtz, the past experiences of an observer play a
role in converting sensation to perception. Sensations, thus, can be
considered to be the raw elements of consciousness. When sensations
are given some meaning with respect to past experiences, then it is
called perception. This transformation of sensation to perception, that
is, sensation given meaning, on the basis of past experiences was
termed by Helmholtz as unconscious
 inference. Helmholtz suggested that the label given to any object
involves applying past experiences. This was further explained by
Helmholtz by using the example of depth perception. Depth
perception takes place because the retinal image an object causes is
slightly different on the two retinas. An individual’s past experiences
with such retinal disparity causes the unconscious inference of depth.

Helmholtz’s theory of perception can be supported by his observation

of people who are blind at birth and acquire sight later on. Such
people need to learn how to perceive, even though all the sensations
furnished by the visual apparatus are available. Apart from these
observations, Helmholtz’s classic experiments with lenses that distort
vision, provide further evidence for his theory. In these experiments,
Helmholtz had subjects wear lenses
that displaced the visual field several inches to the right or left.
Initially, the subjects made mistakes in reaching for the objects. After
some time, the subjects were able to interact accurately with the
environment. When the subjects removed the glasses, they again made
mistakes initially, but then after a while recovered.

d) Young-Helmholtz theory of Color vision

Thomas young (1801) had proposed a theory of color vision, which
was similar to what Helmholtz had come up with, many years later.
The theory of Young had not been very widely accepted. Helmholtz
made slight changes in the theory of Young and supported it with
experimental evidence.

The theory, then, came to be known as the Young-Helmholtz theory

of color vision. The theory is also called the trichromatic theory.
Helmholtz postulated that there are three different types of color
receptors on the retina, corresponding to the three primary colors,
which are red, green, and blue. He further suggested that if a red light
is shown, then the red receptors get stimulated, leading to a sensation
of red. Similarly, if a green or blue light is shown, then green or blue
receptors, respectively, get stimulated, leading to a sensation of green
or blue. In addition to that, all these primary colors are shown at once,
then there is an experience of white.
 If none of the primary colors are shown, then it will stimulate
different combinations of the three receptors, which will lead to an
experience of a subjective color, corresponding to the combination of
wavelengths present.

The Young-Helmholtz theory of color vision has been found to be

very useful in explaining different forms of color blindness. If a
person lacks one or more receptors corresponding to any of the
primary colors, that person will not be able to experience certain
colors subjectively, even when the physical world remains the same.
however, perceptual adaptation took place, and despite wearing the
glasses,

e) Visual illusions
Helmholtz was one of the earlier researchers who investigated the
phenomenon of visual illusions. According to Helmholtz, illusions
take place when visual conditions are not normal. Due to this,
Helmholtz felt that illusions can help in the understanding of the
normal functioning of the eye. This means that abnormality can help
in studying the normal.
Regarding this, Helmholtz made a significant contribution when it
comes to analyzing the optics of the eye. For this, he developed a
wide range of optical instruments such as optometers,
ophthalmometers, and ophthalmoscopes. These instruments were used
by scientists to investigate the functioning of the eye.

f) Theory of auditory Perception

Helmholtz found that the ear is not a single sense receptor. Instead,
the ear is actually a highly complicated system of many receptors.
Compared to the visual system that has three nerve fibers, the auditory
system is known to have thousands of nerve fibers, each nerve fibers
having its own specific nerve energy. Helmholtz speculated that
different fibers along the basilar membrane are sensitive to differences
in the frequency of sound waves.
The short fibers respond to the higher frequencies, and the longer
fibers respond to the lower frequencies. A wave of a specific
 frequency causes the appropriate fiber of the basilar membrane to
vibrate, which leads to a sensation of sound that corresponds to that
frequency. This process is referred to as sympathetic vibration.
Helmholtz believed that a similar process takes place in the middle
ear. Through various combinations of fiber stimulation, the wide
range of auditory experiences can be explained. This theory is known
as the Resonance Place Theory of Auditory Perception. There are
some variations of this theory in today’s time.
Gustav Theodor Fechner
Gustav Theodor Fechner contributed to a number of intellectual pursuits in his life.
He was a German physiologist, physicist, philosopher, psychophysicist, and
experimental ethicist. Among all his contributions, he is mostly known for his
work in psychophysics. His contributions in psychophysics are considered to be a
major precursor to the emergence of psychology as an independent, scientific
discipline.

Gustav Theodor Fechner

In about 1840, Gustav Theodor Fechner suffered a nervous

breakdown. He became a recluse and developed severe
depression. This resulted in Fechner’s interest to change from
physics to philosophy. He became highly interested in studying
the mind-body problem. His interest in the mind-body problem
got him interested in studying the quantitative relationship
between physical stimuli and the sensations and perceptions
they produce. He thus, came to be known as the pioneer of
psychophysics – the scientific study of the relation between
physical stimuli and the sensations and perceptions that they
evoke.
Even though, he strongly intended to, Fechner did not really
resolve the mind-body problem. However, he did demonstrate
 that it was possible to quantitatively measure mental events and
associate them with physical events.
It is often suggested that, instead of Wundt, the beginning of
experimental psychology should be credited to Fechner’s book
Elements of Psychophysics, published in 1860. Wundt, himself
does not completely deny this claim. Titchener also has often
referred to Fechner as the father of experimental psychology.

His contributions
1. Psychophysics
Fechner is considered to be the major proponent of psychophysics. He
wanted to understand the relationship between sensations and perceptions in
a much better way. This movement named as psychophysics emerged from
his book ‘Elemente der Psychophysik’ (Elements of Psychophysics), which
was published in 1860. Fechner wanted it to be an exact science of the
functional relations between the mind and the body. Fechner’s interest in the
philosophical issue of the mind and body relationship developed from his
idea of psychophysics. He was adamant in solving the mind-body problem
in terms of a purely scientific manner, that is, in materialistic terms.

Fechner felt that the mind and body are two aspects of the same fundamental
reality, which is what spinoza had suggested calling it double aspectism. In
this way, Fechner agreed with the double aspectism of Spinoza, and
disagreed with Descartes’s mind-body dualism. Fechner actually wanted to
prove the idea of double aspectism instead of just of speculating about it.

Fechner came up with a way to prove it on one morning in 1850. He realized

that if a person were asked to report changes in sensations as a physical
stimulus was systematically varied, it could easily demonstrate that there is a
systematic relationship bodily and mental experiences. Fechner felt that for
mental sensations to change arithmetically, the physical stimulus would have
to change geometrically. By testing these ideas, Fechner eventually created
the field known as psychophysics — the scientific study of the relation
between physical stimuli and the sensations and perceptions that they evoke.
 Psychophysics emphasizes on the subjective experiences in the study of the
relationship between physical stimuli and sensations. It examines sensations
from many different perspectives. Psychophysics considers sensations with
respect to the mind-body problem, and not entirely as a situation for
anatomical and physical study. It is within the realms of physiology, physics,
and natural philosophy.

Psychophysics played a significant role in the transition from studying

physiological and physical components of sensation to the beginning of
psychology as an independent discipline. It is, therefore, considered to be
one the immediate precursors of modern psychology.

2. The JND (Just-Noticeable-Difference) as the Unit of sensation

Fechner believed that as the magnitude of a stimulus increases from zero, it
would eventually reach a point where the stimulus can get detected
consciously. The lowest intensity at which a stimulus can be detected is
referred to as the absolute threshold. Absolute threshold, thus, is the
intensity of a stimulus at or above which a sensation is detected. Below the
absolute threshold, no sensation can be detected. Fechner suggested that
reactions do take place for intensity levels below the absolute threshold, but
those reactions are unconscious.
Fechner felt that the absolute threshold is only one measure of sensations,
and that is its usage is very limited. Fechner actually wanted to have a
continuous scale that indicated how sensations that are above the absolute
threshold varied as a function of level of stimulation. This was done by
using the differential threshold, which refers to how much a stimulus
magnitude needs to be increased or decreased for an individual to detect a
difference (just-noticeable difference or JND). Fechner, with respect to the
differential threshold, found that intensities must change in geometric
manner for sensation to change arithmetically. He, thus, assumed that when
there would be geometric increase in the intensity of a stimulus, the
sensations would increase in equal increments (JNDs). This assumption
made it possible for Fechner to deduce how many JNDs above the absolute
threshold a particular sensation was at any given level of intensity of the
stimulus. Accordingly, it can be said, that Fechner’s law assumed that when
stimulus intensity increases in a geometric manner beyond the absolute
threshold, sensation increases in equal units (JNDs). In using the idea of
 differential threshold, Fechner believed that he had found a relation of the
physical and the psychical that is scientifically respectable.

3. Psychophysical methods
Fechner developed a number of methods to further explore the relationship
between mind and body. One of such methods is the method of limits. The
method of limits is also called the method of just-noticeable differences. In
this method, initially the variable stimulus can be kept equal to the standard,
and then varied. It can also be much stronger or weaker than the standard.
The subject has to determine the range of stimuli that he or she may consider
to be equal to the standard. Another method developed by Fechner is the
method of constant stimuli. This is also called the method of right and wrong
cases. In this, the subject is given a pair of stimuli. One of the pairs of the
stimuli is the standard and remains constant. The other one, in the pair,
varies in magnitude from one presentation to another. The subject has to
report if the variable stimulus is greater than, less than, or equal to the
standard. Fechner also developed the method of adjustment. This is also
called the method of average error. In this method, the subject is given
control over the variable stimulus. The subject is given instructions to adjust
in the magnitude of the stimulus in order to make it equal to the standard
stimulus. After these adjustments are done, the average difference between
the variable stimulus and the standard stimulus is measured.

These methods developed by Fechner are still used today in experimental

psychology. They are considered to be some of the greatest legacies of
Fechner that have been provided to the discipline of psychology.
Ernst Hendrich Weber
 Chapter 2
The scientific Psychology: Structuralism and Functionalism
Course contents
1. Structuralism
 Antecedent Influence
 Contributors: Wilhelm Wundt, Edward Bradford Titchener
contribution to Psychology
 Strengths and weaknesses
2. Developments in German Psychology: Hermann Ebbinghaus, Franz
Brentano and others.
3. Functionalism
 Antecedent Influences: The Evolution Revolution, Individual
Differences, Animal Psychology.
 Major Contributors: William James, John Dewey, Hugo
Munsterberg, G. Stanley Hall, Robert Sessions Woodworth, Edward
Lee Thorndike, James McKeen Cattell, and others.
 Contribution in Psychology
 Strength, weakness, current status
Structuralism
Structuralism, a systematic movement founded in Germany, can be thought of as a
highly developed introspective psychology, which was represented in its final
American form by the work of Edward Bradford Titchener. In 1898, in order to
differentiate his perspective from the others, Titchener came up with the name
structural psychology or structuralism.
Before the arrival of the Structuralists, psychology was already being considered as
the study of consciousness. This meant that the entire scope of psychology
encompasses the study of man’s consciousness. The distinguishing feature of the
Structuralists was that they added further to the definition of psychology being the
study of consciousness; psychology to them was concerned with the study of the
structure of consciousness. Therefore, Structuralists are philosophers/psychologist
who defined psychology as the study of consciousness. Further, Structuralists also
tried to solve the enigma of a definition of consciousness. It was imperative to give
a definition of consciousness in order to substantiate the view point of psychology
being the study of structure of consciousness. Therefore, Structuralists put forward
the view that consciousness has a definite structure and it can be defined in terms
of its structure. The concept of definite structure was given by this school named
Structuralists. The structuralist school has many followers, but two of the very
important names who belong to the Structuralist school of thought are Wilhelm
Wundt and Edward Bradford Titchener.
Titchener’s system was the improved version of the psychology of his mentor,
Wilhelm Wundt. He dramatically modified and revised Wundt’s system of
psychology when he brought it from Germany to the United States, despite
claiming to be a staunch follower of Wilhelm Wundt. Structuralism gained huge
popularity in the United States that lasted some two decades until it was replaced
by newer movements.
Structuralism had the following aims: -
 To describe the components of consciousness in terms of basic elements.
 To describe how these basic elements are combined.
 To explain the connections of the elements of consciousness to the nervous
system (i.e., physical processes). Titchener suggested that physiological
processes provide a continuous substratum that gives psychological
processes a continuity they otherwise would lack. Therefore, some
characteristics of mental events can be explained through nervous system,
which itself does not cause conscious experience.
The definition of psychology, according to structuralism is as follows -
“psychology is the analytic study of the generalized adult normal human mind
through introspection.”
Wundt-Titchener Controversy
Titchener always called himself to be a follower of Wundt. His structuralism is a
representation of Wundtian Psychology. However, suggestions have been made
that systems of Wundt and Titchener are very different from each other. It is said
that Titchener came up with his own approach, which he called structuralism.
The label “structuralism” is said to best fit to describe the psychology of
Titchener, and has little to do with that of Wundt.

Antecedents of structuralism (Antecedent Influence)

1. Helmholtz and Fechner
In 1858, Wundt was appointed as assistant of Hermann von Helmholtz and
the two worked together in the same physiological laboratory for the next 13
years. Wilhelm Wundt used the methods of Helmholtz and based his work
on the sensory physiology of Helmholtz. Later, Titchener adopted these
methods from Wundt, for his structuralism.

In 1860, approximately 15 years before Wundt began working in the field of

psychology, Gustav Theodor Fechner published his book Elements of
Psychophysics. Wundt acknowledged and accredited Fechner’s work as the
“first conquest” in experimental psychology. Fechner’s influence was so
strong that Titchener used the experimental method for his structuralism.

2. Wilhelm Wundt
Even though there is the controversy that Titchener’s system was very
different from that of Wundt, it is completely impossible to talk about
structuralism and not mention Wundt or Wundtian psychology. Wundtian
psychology has its roots in natural science as it is the domain of psychology
that adopts the methodology and analytic goals common to physics,
chemistry, and biology. The approach emphasizes that psychology should be
studied by defining psychological events in terms of variables and then
utilizing analytic scrutiny of the experimental method to interpret these
variables. Psychology within this system makes use of the method of
introspection, in order to analytically study the generalized adult human
mind. This approach was pioneered by Wilhelm Wundt and was later further
promoted in the United States by Titchener. This system is sometimes also
referred to as content psychology, as its aim was to study the content of the
 mind. Additionally, Titchener emphasized the mental structures and named
this system structural psychology in his writings in 1898.

Irrespective of the name given to this system, its major goal was to carefully apply
the experimental method of introspection, for the purpose of analyzing the human
mind, which was carried out by the trained scientists. By analogy, this system
intended to develop the “chemistry of consciousness.”
The Subject Matter of Titchener’s Structuralism
The Content of Conscious Experience
Titchener asserted that conscious experience is the subject matter of psychology as
this conscious experience depends upon the person who is experiencing it real
time. This kind of experience that psychologists study differs from those studied by
scientists in other fields. For instance, phenomena such as sound or light can be
studied by both physicists as well as psychologists. The difference is that whereas
the physicists investigate the phenomena by taking into consideration the physical
processes involved, psychologists examine these phenomena by considering
human beings observe and experience them. In this way, we can say that other
natural sciences are independent of the individual’s experience.
Titchener explained it further by taking an example from physics. The temperature
in a room may be measured at, let us say, 85° Fahrenheit, irrespective of whether
anyone is present in room to feel or experience it. However, it is only when the
observers are present in this particular room that they can report of feeling
uncomfortably warm. Therefore, this feeling, or the experience of warmth, is
dependent on the individuals experiencing it, i.e., the people who are present in the
room. According to Titchener, this type of conscious experience was the only
appropriate focus for research in the field of psychology. In his book published in
1909, A Textbook of Psychology, Titchener differentiated between two kinds of
experience- dependent experience and independent experience.
Titchener also warned against confusing the mental process with the object of
observation while studying conscious experiences, which he named as stimulus
error. For example, observers who see an apple and then describe that object as an
apple, rather than giving an account of what they experience in terms of the
elements of shape, color and brightness etc. are actually committing the stimulus
error. The object of observation is to be described in terms of the elements of
conscious experience and not in everyday language Observers are unable to
differentiate what they have learned about the object in the past from their own
immediate experience, when they focus on the stimulus object in place of the
conscious content. All that observers can really know about the object is that its
color, shape and texture. If the observers describe anything other than the color,
brightness, and spatial characteristics, they are not really observing the object but
interpreting it. As a result, they would be dealing with mediate experience and not
the immediate experience.
Consciousness was defined by Titchener as the sum or aggregate of our
experiences as they exist at a given period of time. Mind, according to him, is the
sum of our experiences accumulated over an entire lifetime.
Consciousness and mind are almost similar, with only difference being that
whereas consciousness consists of the mental processes occurring at a given
moment, mind consists of the sum total of these processes. Structural psychology,
as envisaged by Titchener, was a pure science and he was not interested in
applying psychological knowledge to it. According to him, the purpose of
psychology was not to reform societies or cure sick minds, but to discover the facts
of the structure of the mind. He was of the view that scientists should not only
contemplate about the practical worth of their work. It was due to this reason that
he did not favor the development of animal psychology, child psychology, and all
other domains of psychology that was not in line with his introspective
experimental psychology of the content of conscious experience.
1. Introspection
The form of introspection, or self-observation that Titchener promoted,
depended on observers who were scrupulously trained to describe the
elements of their conscious experience instead of just reporting the name
Structuralism of observed or experienced stimulus that they were already
familiar with. Titchener did realize that we all learn to describe our
experiences in terms of the stimulus, for instance, that a red round object is
an apple, and that in everyday life this is beneficial and necessary.

However, this practice had to be unlearned in his psychology laboratory.

Titchener described his method of introspection by using the term systematic
experimental introspection, which was given by Oswald Külpe. Titchener
used subjective, detailed, qualitative reports of his subjects’ mental activities
for the purpose of introspection, in a similar way as used by Külpe. Also,
 Titchener opposed Wundt’s approach to introspection, as he believed that
with its focus on objective and qualitative measurements, the approach was
not suitable for unveiling the elementary sensations and images of
consciousness that were fundamental to his psychology.

Titchener differed from Wundt in that, whereas Wundt focused upon the
synthesis of the elements through apperception, Titchener was concerned
with analysis of complex conscious experience into its elements or
component parts. In other words, it can be said that Titchener stressed on the
parts and Wundt stressed upon the whole. Consistent with most of the
British associationists and empiricists, Titchener’s aim was to uncover the
so-called atoms of the mind. Before Titchener even went to Leipzig to study
with Wundt, his approach to introspection had already started developing. It
has been suggested that while Titchener was influenced by the writings of
James Mill while he was still enrolled at Oxford University (Danziger,
1980).

2. The Mechanistic Approach

The mechanistic spirit of philosophy also inspired Titchener, as can be seen
in his image of the observers who used to bring in the data in his laboratory.
The subjects were often referred to as reagents in the research reports
published by Titchener. In natural sciences, reagent is a term used by
chemists to denote substances that are used to detect, measure or examine
other substances because of their capacity to undergo certain reactions.

A reagent is a passive agent used in chemical reactions so as to elicit or

prompt responses from some other substance. Titchener applied this concept
in his laboratory on his human observers and thought of his subjects to be
like mechanical recording instruments, who objectively reacted and
responded to the stimulus by noting its characteristics. The subjects were
thoughts to be unbiased, detached machines. The trained observations would
become so automatic and mechanized that subjects would no longer feel that
they were carrying out some conscious process, which was also in
accordance with the Wundt’s idea.

It is then easier to suggest that all human beings are machines if we do

consider the observers in the laboratory to be machines. This thinking was
 influenced by the Galilean-Newtonian mechanical view of universe, an idea
that continued to exist even after the slow death of structuralism. The image
of human-as-machine continued to be the characteristic of experimental
psychology throughout the first half of the twentieth century, which can be
seen if we study the history of psychology. Titchener asserted to evaluate the
introspective observation through experimental approach in his psychology.
By carefully following the rules of scientific experimentation, he figured out
that an experiment is an observation that can be repeated, isolated, and
varied.
According to Titchener, if an observation is repeated more frequently, it will
be more likely for to see clearly and describe accurately what has been seen.
Moreover, the more stringent in isolating an observation, easier will be the
task of observation, lesser will be the chances of getting distracted by
irrelevant circumstances or of putting emphasis on the irrelevant point.
Finally, if an observation is varied widely, it will be easier for to determine
the generalizability of experience and higher will be the chances of
discovering laws. The subjects or reagents in Titchener’s laboratory gave
lengthy, detailed observations of the elements of their experiences by
introspecting on a wide variety of stimuli.

3. The Elements of Consciousness

Titchener proposed that psychology had three crucial goals: -
 To reduce conscious processes to their simplest components.
 To identify laws by which these elements of consciousness were
associated.
 To connect the elements with their physiological conditions.
Therefore, it is quite evident that the goals of Titchener’s structural
psychology were similar to those of the natural sciences. Once the scientists
decide upon the part of the natural world that they intend to study, they work
ahead to identify or discover its elements, exhibiting how these elements are
compounded to form complex phenomena, and finally, formulating laws that
govern these processes. A large amount of Titchener’s research focused
upon the first goal, i.e., identifying the elements of consciousness.
According to Titchener, there were three elementary states of consciousness:
-
  Sensations
 Images
 Affective states
Sensations are the basic elements of perception and can occur in the smells,
sights, sounds, and other experiences that arise from physical objects present
in the natural world. Images are the elements of ideas that can be found in
the process that reflects past experiences, i.e., the experience that are not
actually present at the moment, for example, the memory of a past event.
Affective states, or affections, are the elements of emotion and are found in
experiences like love, anger hate, happiness, sadness etc.
In his book, An Outline of Psychology (1896), Titchener gave a list of all the
elements of sensation that he had discovered through his extensive research.
The list included approximately 44,500 individual sensation qualities, out of
which 11,600 were identified as auditory sensations, whereas the rest 32,820
were identified as visual sensations. Titchener believed that each of these
elements was conscious and different from all of the others that would
combine with other elements to give rise to perceptions and ideas.
All these elements, however basic and irreducible, could be categorized, just
as chemical elements are grouped into classes. All these mental elements
have certain qualities and attributes that allow us to differentiate between
different elements, despite their simplicity.
Titchener added clearness and duration to the Wundtian attributes of
intensity and quality. He considered these four attributes to be fundamental
to all sensations as according to him, all of them are present to some extent
in all experiences: -
 Quality is the characteristic, such as “warm” or “red” that explicitly
differentiates each element from every other element,
 Intensity refers to the strength, weakness, loudness, or brightness of a
sensation,
 Duration is the course or time till a sensation lasts
 Clearness is concerned with the significant role that attention plays in
conscious experience; experience towards which our attention is
directed is clearer than experience towards which our attention is not
directed.
 While all of these four attributes are present in sensations and images, only
quality, intensity and duration are present in affective states. Clearness, as
per Titchener, was lacking in affective states because he believed that
focusing attention directly on an element of emotion or feeling was
impossible. In an effort to do so, the affective quality of conscious
experience, such as the sadness or the happiness, disappears. Some of the
sensory processes, particularly the ones that involve touch and vision,
possess one more attribute, called extensity, as they also take up space. It is
possible to reduce all conscious processes to one of these attributes.
Criticism of Structuralism
Historically speaking, it has mostly been the case that people gain prominence in a
field when they reject or counter an older viewpoint. However, Titchener is an
exception as he chose to stand firm even when everyone else was moving beyond
him. The formal published statement of Titchener had remained the same, even
when the intellectual climate of thought in European and American psychology
had changed, by around the second decade of the 20th century. Consequently,
numerous psychologists came to view his structural psychology as a failed attempt
to adhere to obsolete principles and methods.
Titchener assumed that he was laying a foundation for psychology, but his attempt
turned out to be only one of the phases in the history of psychology. Although the
domain of structuralism lost its charm with the death of Titchener, the fact that it
successfully survived for so long points towards the commanding personality that
he was.
1. Criticisms of Introspection
The criticisms surrounding the method of introspection in structuralism had
more to do with the kind of observation practiced at Titchener’s and Külpe’s
laboratories than with Wundt’s internal perception method. Whereas
Titchener and Külpe dealt with the subjective reports of the basic elements
of consciousness, Wundt was concerned with obtaining objective and
quantitative responses to external stimuli. Although Titchener modified and
refined the method of introspection used in his psychology, to make it more
precise, so as it does conform to the requirements and tenets of science, the
fault-finding continued: -
 First criticism is related to the definition. Although Titchener
attempted to define what he meant by introspective method by relating
 it to specific experimental conditions, he apparently failed at it. The
course that an observer follows will vary extensively with the nature
of the consciousness observed, with the objective of the experiment,
and/ or with the instructions given by the instructor. Thus,
introspection can be thought of as a generic term that includes a large
number of specific methodical procedures.
 The second source of criticism in Titchener’s methodology was the
training process of introspection, or precisely, the uncertainty about
what the introspectors were trained to do. Titchener instructed his
graduate student observers to ignore certain classes of words (or the
so-called meaning words) that had become fixed in their vocabulary.
For instance, the sentence, “I see a chair,” does not hold any scientific
meaning for a structuralist; the word “chair” is considered a meaning
word, based on the previously learned and universally agreed upon
knowledge about the specific combination of sensations that we
learned to identify as chair. So, the observation “I see a chair” did not
tell the structural psychologist anything about the elements of the
observers’ conscious experience. The structuralist was concerned with
the specific elementary forms of the experience and not with the
collection of sensations summed up in a meaning word. Observers
who said “chair” were committing what Titchener referred to as the
stimulus error. But how would the trainers describe their experience if
ordinary words were to be removed from the vocabulary? It suggested
that an introspective language would have to be developed. In order to
determine the conscious processes with accuracy and precision,
Titchener (also, Wundt) stressed on controlling the experimental
conditions, such that any two observers would have identical
experiences and their results would substantiate one another. It also
Structuralism pointed towards the possibility of developing a working
vocabulary for the observers, which was free of meaning words, as
these highly similar experiences took place under controlled
conditions. Ultimately, it is be due to our shared experiences in
routine life that we arrive at common meanings for familiar words.
The idea of developing an introspective language, however, could
only be conceived but never realized.
 Again, observers at different laboratories frequently obtained different
results, even when experimental conditions were most rigidly
 controlled. Even introspectors at the same laboratory, focusing on the
same stimulus material often failed to obtain similar observations.
Regardless, Titchener firmly believed that identical results would be
obtained and agreement would be reached eventually. Perhaps, the
school of structuralism would have lasted longer than it actually did,
had sufficient uniformity been achieved.
 Critics also argued that introspection was actually a form of
retrospection, because there was a time gap between when the
experience occurred, and when it was reported (Ebbinghaus had
demonstrated through his experiment that most of the forgetting takes
place immediately after an experience, so it is highly likely that some
of the experience might be lost by the time it was reported for
introspection). Structural psychologists answered the critiques on two
grounds: first, they specified that there was very brief time interval
between experience and reporting of it; and, secondly, they proposed
that there exists a primary mental image, which according to them
preserved the experience for observer until it was reported. However,
it is possible for an experience to get altered as we examine it through
the method of introspection. For instance, it is difficult to introspect
the conscious state of anger. It is because in the process of being
cognizant towards and trying to break the experience into its
constituent elements, our anger may disappear or subside. However,
Titchener still held that with continued practice and efforts, his
introspectors would be able to perform their task of observation
without altering it consciously.
 Yet another criticism of introspective method arose from the notion of
the unconscious mind, which was proposed by Sigmund Freud in the
early years of the 20th century. If Freud’s claim, that a part of our
mental functioning is unconscious, is to be believed, then it is also
clear that it cannot be explored using introspection. One historian
wrote: At the base of introspective analysis was the assumption that it
is possible to access all of the mind’s functioning through conscious
observation. Introspection could not provide a complete picture of
mental functioning, unless every thought and emotion of human mind
was capable of being observed. If vast areas of our mind remained
curtailed like an iceberg, behind powerful defensive barriers and
 consciousness was just like tip of that iceberg, then introspection was
bound to be a failure.
Additional Criticisms of Titchener’s System
 The structuralist movement was accused of being artificial and sterile, since
it attempted to synthesize conscious processes into elements. Critics argued
that it is not possible to capture the whole of an experience by the
summation or combination of its elementary components. They also argued
that experience comes to us as unified wholes and not as discrete individual
sensations, images, or affective states. We inevitably lose on some of the
conscious experience in our effort to artificially analyse it. It was on this
ground or base that a group of psychologists launched their revolt against
structuralism in order to give rise to a new school of thought, Gestalt
Psychology.
 The structuralist definition of psychology was also criticized. The
structuralists chose to exclude several specialities that were emerging during
the Titchener’s later years, because it did not fit in their idea of psychology.
For instance, Titchener did not even regard child psychology or animal
psychology, as psychology. His conception of psychology was too narrow to
appreciate and embrace the new work being done and the new directions
being explored in the field. Psychology began to quickly move beyond
Titchener.
Contributions of Structuralism to Psychology
Despite these criticisms, Structuralism has also been given due credits for its
contribution in the field:
 Their subject matter, conscious experience, was clearly defined.
 Their research methods were in the highest traditions of science, as they
were based on observation, experimentation, and measurement. Self-
observation was considered to be the most appropriate method for studying
experience and the subject matter, because consciousness could only be
perceived by the person having the experience.
 Even though the subject matter and goals of the structuralists are no longer
significant, the method of introspection, which is defined as the examination
of one’s own thoughts and emotions by giving a verbal report based on
experience, continues to be used in many areas of psychology. For instance,
 self-reports are requested from the person who has undergone an unusual
experience, such as weightlessness for people going in space. Even in
psycho physics, researchers still ask their subjects to report whether a second
tone sounds softer or louder than the first. Also, responses on attitude scales
and personality tests or inventories, and clinical reports from patients etc. are
all introspective in nature.
 Cognitive processes such as reasoning that are based on introspection are
commonly used in psychology today. For example, industrial/ organizational
psychologists may obtain introspective reports from employees about their
interaction with computer terminals, which can later be used to develop
user-friendly computer component. Such verbal reports, which are based on
personal experience are reliable forms for obtaining data.
 Finally, cognitive psychology also put greater emphasis on Structuralism
introspection as its interest in conscious processes revived. Therefore, we
can say that the introspective method stood the test of time and remained
alive, though not exactly as how Titchener had envisaged.
 One of the most significant contributions of structuralism was that it served
as a target of criticism. Structuralism turned out to be a strong, established
orthodox school of thought, which could be targeted and criticized by the
newly developing movements in psychology. These newer approaches owed
their existence in great amount to their progressive reformulation of the
structuralist approach. It is by opposing the existing systems or ideas that
advancements in science occur. In analogy, having Titchener’s structuralism
as an idea to counter, psychology also moved far beyond the delineated
boundaries of his rigid system.
Functionalism
The development of the first truly American school of thought of psychology,
functionalism, is largely credited to the work of William James, considered to be
the greatest American psychologist. Unlike those before Functionalism them,
functionalists did not focus on the structure or composition of the mind; rather,
they tried to study it in terms of its functionality. That is, functionalism looked at
the mind as comprising numerous functions and processes that have consequences
for an individual in the real world, and aimed to discern how these mental
processes help individuals adapt to their environment.
The perspectives of Wundt and Titchener had failed to shed light on such
consequences of mental processes, but that was never their goal. Practical issues
like these were not in line with their purely scientific attempts to the study of
psychological phenomena. Functionalism as a new school of thought arose in
response to the already existing experimental psychology and structural
psychology, both of which were seen as very limited in terms of their focus of
study. Both of these systems failed to answer something that was imperative to the
functionalists. Functionalists were looking for answers to questions like “what is
the function of the mind?” and “how does the mind do what it does?”
Functionalists were typically interested in understanding how individuals’
behaviors and consciousness were functional in helping them adapt to their
environment. That is, they focused on the utilitarian value of human consciousness
and behavior. This emphasis on functionality of mental processes and behaviors
eventually led to the functionalists developing an increasing interest in applying
psychological principles to day-to-day problems concerning how individuals adapt
to and successfully function in different environments. The functionalist
movement, thus, played a crucial role in the rapid development of applied
psychology in America. As functionalists themselves admit, a single functionalism
never truly existed in the same way that a single structuralism did. Rather, what
were seen were multiple functional psychologies, each somewhat different from
the others. Today, however, even these have ceased to exist. With the retirement of
Harvey Carr from Chicago, functionalism as a school of thought all but
disappeared.
Functionalism was not just an opposition to existing perspectives. When
functionalism is understood as a set of values and procedures that emphasizes
adaptability and empirically established relationships, its influence can be seen on
psychology even today.
Various schools of thoughts have emerged in psychology in the last two to three
hundred years. These schools differed from one another on the basis of what they
reckoned as the subject matter of psychology and how they explained it. One of the
early major schools in the development of psychology is the functionalist school.
Like the Structuralist school, Functionalists also defined psychology as the study
of consciousness but instead of explaining the structure of consciousness and
describing its content, Functionalists focused on, as the name implies, the
functioning of consciousness.
There are two branches of functionalists: -
1. American functionalists; those who were on the American continent.
2. European functionalists; those who were on the European continent.

The First School of Psychology: Structuralism or Functionalism?

Functionalists have often opposed the idea of structuralism to be considered the
first school of psychology. They claimed that their perspective was well existing
before the beginning of structuralism. According to functional psychologists, in
the time period preceding as well as during the development of the new
psychology, the groundwork for functional psychology was being laid down.
Influential work by Darwin, Galton, and students of animal behavior established
the roots of functional psychology. In 1859, Darwin published his book On the
Origin of Species, a landmark in the study of evolution. This was a year before
Fechner published Elements of Psychophysics, and 20 years before Wundt
established his psychological laboratory at Leipzig, Germany. By 1869, a few
years before Wundt published Principles of Physiological Psychology (1873-74),
Galton had begun working on understanding individual differences. Lastly,
before Titchener’s move from England to Germany to study under Wundt,
experiments on animal behavior had been underway in the 1880s.

Thus, significant advancements were being made in areas of study like animal
behavior, individual differences, and functions of consciousness, at the same
time when other psychologists like Wundt and Titchener defined psychology
without these aspects.

Antecedents of Functionalism (Antecedent influences in Functionalism)

1. Charles Darwin (Evolution-Revolution)
It was Charles Darwin and his ideas pertaining to evolution that brought
about a shift in the focus of psychology from the structure to the function of
consciousness. Explaining the observed variations among members of the
same species, Darwin postulated that this variability was inheritable. He
described the process of natural selection and explained how it leads to the
survival of only those who are best suited for a given environment. Those
who are not, are eliminated by the same process. At all times, thus, a
 struggle for survival takes place — the ones who survive are those that are
able to successfully adapt to the demands of their changing environment.
Those unable to adapt, on the other hand, do not survive.

With his work on evolution and natural selection, Darwin became an

important antecedent to the rise of functionalism. Being an astute observer
of both animal behavior as well as morphology, through his work on
evolution, Darwin was able to theorize the continuity between humans and
animals. This was an important development as it justified the continuation
of the study of animal psychology. Darwin’s evolutionary emphasis on
adapting to one’s environment has been used by psychologists both as a
direct as well as indirect explanation of behavior, via instincts and principles
of reinforcement respectively.

2. Francis Galton (Individual differences)

Inspired by his cousin Darwin, Francis Galton chose to study heredity in
human beings. More specifically, he studied the inheritance of intelligence.
In 1869, he published Hereditary Genius, which described numerous studies
on individual differences in intelligence. Galton’s work opened the way for
the emergence of the field of mental testing, a major aspect of the field of
psychology.
3. George John Romanes and C. Lloyd Morgan (Animal psychology/
Animal intelligence)
Both Romanes and Morgan are prominent figures in the field of animal
behaviour. They represent different attitudes towards the man-animal
relationship. Romanes carried Darwin’s work on Comparative Psychology.
In his work Animal Intelligence (1883), Romanes surveyed the mental
abilities of animals from protozoa to apes. Morgan objected to Romanes’s
overestimation of animal intelligence.

Major Contributor in Functionalism

1. William James
William James was born in 1842 and he died in 1910. He was an American
philosopher, brother of the novelist Henry James. In 1872 he joined the
Harvard faculty as lecturer of anatomy and physiology, after 1880 worked in
the department of psychology and philosophy, continued teaching until
1907. In 1890 he published his brilliant and epoch-making book Principles
of Psychology, in which the seeds of his philosophy are already discernible.
James's fascinating style and his broad culture and cosmopolitan outlook
made him the most influential American thinker of his era.

James is considered the founder of the sort of thinking called functionalism.

The basic question that was raised by James when he purported his theory
was that “what is the purpose of consciousness?” Therefore, unlike the
Structuralists who emphasized on explaining the structure and the parts of
consciousness, James came up with a completely new point of view. He
focused on why we need consciousness. This need is the function that the
consciousness performs, therefore his theories focused on explanation of the
functions of consciousness and he is known as the founder of functionalist
school.

William James put forward the view that consciousness is not

epiphenomena, means that consciousness cannot be considered as something
whose functions or working cannot be explained. Consciousness has to have
certain set patterns of functions and it shall always work according to those
patterns. Therefore, if we consider consciousness to be an “epiphenomenon”
it would be wrong. Consciousness needs to be studied and understood in
order to explain its functions.

Explaining the function of consciousness, James put forward the view that
consciousness creates adjustment between the organism and the
environment. This means that the organism needs to adjust and adapt its
environment in order to survive. This adaptation process is carried out with
the help of consciousness. Consciousness helps the organism to understand
the environment and cope with the changes in it.

James was also of the view that not just consciousness but all human
psychological functions have a definite purpose. For example, fear in an
animal creates movement in the body; laughter reduces tension etc.
Therefore, the importance of all these psychological functions as well as
consciousness is due to their functions. If these functions are disturbed, the
organism cannot survive. Therefore, instead of focusing on the structure of
the consciousness, scientists should focus on the functions.

His view was based upon his philosophy of pragmatism which means that
the validity of an idea is tested by its consequences. In other words, when we
need to assay how valid an idea is we need to look at the consequences of
the application of idea. If the consequences are as expected, the idea is
correct, if not, the idea is wrong. Adopting a pragmatic approach, James was
able to give the idea of the functions of consciousness being more important.

William James is also known for his theory of emotions, now called James-
Lange theory of emotions. According to this theory, emotions are the
consequences of perceptions of bodily changes. For example, a person feels
angry because he strikes something. The perception that is generated by this
event results in generation of certain responses which are emotions. In this
case the emotion would be anger. He also emphasized that repetition is most
important for learning and it creates habits. Therefore, we can develop habits
by repeating certain acts. In other words, if we want to develop a habit of
something, we need to perform the thing again and again or repeatedly.
Ultimately it would become a habit. These were some of the contributions of
William James.

William James is often regarded as one of the greatest psychologists ever.

John Dewey referred him as the greatest American psychologist, and John
Watson has called him the most brilliant psychologist in the world. Although
James did not establish a formal system of psychology or train any disciples
under him, his contributions to the development of psychology, particularly
the school of functionalism, are crucial and widely recognized. The ideas he
presented in the sphere of functional psychology inspired later generations
of psychologists and indirectly, thus, propelled the functionalist movement.

William James, certainly, was not the founder of functionalism, but his ideas
foreshadowed what was to become the functionalist movement. He was a
big influence on the future generation of psychologists, especially the ones
who were involved in the functionalist movement. The book by William
James, The Principles of Psychology (1890), eventually became the central
tenet of functionalism. According to which, the goal of psychology is to
 study how people adapt to their environment, instead of examining the
elements of consciousness.
2. John Dewey
The other prominent American functionalist was a philosopher, psychologist and above all an
educationist, John Dewey, born in 1859 and died in 1952. He taught at the universities of
Minnesota, Michigan and Chicago and at Columbia from 1904 until his retirement in 1930.

Since John Dewey was an educationist, his theories focused on the field of education. Dewey put
forward the view that education, particularly of children, should be based upon the needs of the
children. This means that children of different ages have different needs. The education system
should concentrate on understanding those needs and should adjust itself to meet the needs. In
other words, while forming an education system, the needs have to be focused upon. For further
understanding, children have different educational needs during his or her developmental stages.
These needs need to be focused upon. This was one of the greatest contributions of John Dewey.
His point of view had a great impact on educational practices in the States and globally.

3. Robert Sessions Woodworth

While the basic development and founding of the school of functionalism occurred at the
University of Chicago, Robert Woodworth at Columbia University also developed another
functionalist approach. Woodworth was not a fan of the boundaries that are put on an individual
simply by virtue of their membership of a particular school of thought. Unlike Angell and Carr,
he did not formally belong to the functionalist school but his work embodied the spirit of
functionalism. He also introduced the notion of dynamic psychology to functionalism.

Woodworth did not consider his ideas as additions to psychology. Rather, he stated that this
approach was one that good psychologists had been following long before psychology even
became established as a science. His viewpoint, interestingly, did not arise out of opposition to
existing approaches, but out of his attempts at elaborating and applying to his work what he
considered desirable features of other approaches. Woodworth acknowledged that scientific
psychological inquiry must begin with studying the objective, observable, external events, that is,
the stimulus and response. However, it becomes problematic when psychologists try to explain
behavior simply by studying these. This is because in doing so, they are not taking into
consideration what ought to be the most important part of the study — the living organism.
Woodworth argued that this is important because a stimulus, in isolation, does not completely
explain the cause of a particular behavior. Rather, the organism, with internal factors like energy
levels, past and present experiences, also determines response to a stimulus.

Woodworth, therefore, viewed the organism as interjected between the Functionalism stimulus
and the response. For this reason, he believed that the subject matter of psychology should
include both consciousness and behavior. This viewpoint was later adopted by both the
humanistic and social-learning theorists.

Because it is not possible to objectively know what is going on inside an individual, Woodworth
accepted introspection as a valid method for data collection. Introspection was used in
conjunction with observational and experimental methods. Developing upon the work of John
Dewey and William James, Woodworth also introduced the notion of dynamic psychology to
 functionalism. The word ‘dynamic’ in this context had been used by Dewey and James as early as
1884 and 1908 respectively. The main focus of dynamic psychology is motivation. When
studying behavior, Woodworth considered important the physiological events occurring inside
the organism. Focusing on cause and effect relationships, he was primarily interested in
understanding the forces that motivate people to behave in a particular way. In line with this, he
argued that the goal of psychology should be to examine why people behave the way they do.

Chapter 3
Behaviorism
Course contents
1. Antecedent Influences: Edward Lee Thorndike and Ivan Petrovitch Pavlov
2. Major contributors: John B. Watson, B.F. Skinner, Albert Bandura, Julian
Rotter, Edward Chace Tolman, Clark Leonard Hull, Edwin Ray Guthrie,
William Mcdougall
3. Major themes of behaviorism
4. Contribution in Psychology
5. Strengths, weaknesses and current status

Chapter 4
 Gestalt Psychology
Course contents
1. Antecedent Influences: Immanuel Kant, Ernst Mach, Christian von
Ehrenfels, William James
2. Major contributors: Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, Wolfgang Köhler and
Kurt Lewin
3. Major themes
4. Contribution in psychology
5. Strengths, weaknesses and current status

Chapter 4
Psychoanalysis
Course contents
1. Antecedent Influences
2. Major contributors: Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, Karen
Horney, Anna Freud and others.
3. Major themes
4. Contributions in Psychology
5. Strengths, weaknesses and current status
 Chapter 5
Cognitive Psychology
Course contents
1. Antecedent Influences: Wilhelm Wundt, Gestalt Psychology, Human Factor
Psychology, Jean Piaget, Noam Chomsky
2. Major contributors: Ulric Neisser, Allen Newell and Herbert Simon.
3. Major themes
4. Contribution in psychology
5. Strengths, weaknesses and current status