Self-observation of one's own mental processes and actions. Observation method

When you read modern articles describing experiments, you will see that in the section "Methodology", as a rule, various information about the subjects is given. Their gender, age, and education are usually indicated. Sometimes special information, important for these experiments, is given: for example, about normal visual acuity, mental usefulness, etc.

In the experimental reports of the end of the last and the beginning of our century, one can also find a section with the characteristics of the subjects. But he looks very strange. For example, you read that one of the subjects was a professor of psychology with ten years of introspectionist experience; the other subject was, however, not a professor, but only an assistant psychologist, but also an experienced introspectionist, since he had completed 6-month introspection courses, etc.

Psychologists of that time noted important additional Benefits method of introspection.

First of all, it was believed that the causal relationship of mental phenomena is directly reflected in consciousness. For example, if I wanted to raise my hand and raised it, then the reason for the action is directly known to me: it is present in consciousness in the form of a decision to raise my hand. In a more complicated case, if a person arouses compassion in me and I strive to help him in every possible way, it is obvious to me that my actions are caused by a feeling of compassion. I not only experience this feeling, but I know its connection with my actions.

Hence, the position of psychology was considered to be much easier than the position of other sciences, which still have to search for causal connections.

Second noted dignity: introspection delivers psychological facts, so to speak, in their pure form, without distortion. In this respect, psychology also compares favorably with other sciences. The fact is that when cognizing the external world, our sense organs, interacting with external objects, distort their properties. For example, behind the sensations of light and sound are physical realities - electromagnetic and air waves, which are completely different from either color or sound. And they still need to be somehow "cleaned" of the introduced distortions.

In contrast, for the psychologist, these sensations are exactly the reality that interests him. Any feeling that a person experiences, regardless of its objective validity or reason, is a true psychological fact. There is no distorting prism between the contents of consciousnesses and the inner gaze!

“In the sphere of the immediate data of consciousness, there is no longer any difference between the objective and the subjective, the real and the apparent, everything is here, as it seems, and even precisely because it seems: after all, when something to us seems which is a very real fact of our inner spiritual life.

So, the application of the method of introspection was reinforced by considerations about the special advantages of this method.

In psychology at the end of the 19th century. a grandiose experiment began to test the possibilities of the method of introspection. The scientific journals of the day were filled with introspective reports; in them, psychologists described in great detail their feelings, states, experiences that appeared in them when certain stimuli were presented, when certain tasks were set.

It must be said that these were not descriptions of the facts of consciousness in natural life circumstances, which in itself might be of interest. These were laboratory experiments that were carried out "under strictly controlled conditions" in order to get the same results in different subjects. The subjects were presented with individual visual or auditory stimuli, images of objects, words, phrases; they had to perceive them, compare them with each other, report on the associations that they had, etc.

The experiments of the most rigorous introspectionists (E. Titchener and his students) were complicated by two more additional requirements.

First of all, introspection had to be directed to the selection of the simplest elements of consciousness, i.e., sensations and elementary feelings. (The fact is that the method of introspection was from the very beginning connected with the atomistic approach in psychology, that is, the conviction that to investigate means to decompose complex processes into their simplest elements.)

Secondly, the subjects had to avoid in their answers terms describing external objects, and speak only about their sensations, which were caused by these objects, and about the qualities of these sensations. For example, the subject could not say:

"I was presented with a big red apple." A should have reported something like this: “At first I got a feeling of red, and it eclipsed everything else; then it gave way to the impression of a round one, at the same time as a slight tickling in the tongue, apparently a trace of a taste sensation. There was also a quickly transient muscular sensation in the right hand ... ".

The answer in terms of external objects was named by E. Titchener "stimulus error"- a well-known term of introspective psychology, reflecting its atomistic focus on the elements of consciousness.

As this type of research expanded, major Problems and difficulties.

First, the futility of such an "experimental psychology" became more and more obvious. According to one author, at that time, everyone who did not consider it their profession turned away from psychology.

Another unfortunate consequence was the accumulating inconsistencies in the results. The results did not coincide not only with different authors, but even sometimes with the same author when working with different subjects.

Moreover, the foundations of psychology - the elements of consciousness - were shaken. Psychologists began to find such contents of consciousness that could in no way be decomposed into separate sensations or represented as their sums. Take a melody, they said, and take it to another key; every sound in it will change, but the melody will remain. This means that it is not individual sounds that determine the melody, not their simple combination, but some special quality that is associated with relations between sounds. This is the quality of a holistic structure (German - ), not the sum of the elements.

Further, the systematic use of introspection began to reveal the non-sensuous or ugly elements of consciousness. Among them, for example, are "pure" movements of thought, without which, as it turned out, it is impossible to reliably describe the process of thinking.

Finally, the unconscious causes of some phenomena of consciousness began to be revealed (more on them below).

Thus, instead of the triumph of science, which has such a unique method, a situation of crisis began to mature in psychology.

What was the matter? The point was that the arguments put forward in defense of the method of introspection had not been rigorously tested. These were statements that seemed true only at first glance.

In fact, I'll start with the statement about the possibility of splitting consciousness. It would seem that we can really do something and take care of ourselves at the same time. For example, write - and follow the handwriting, read aloud - and follow the expressiveness of reading. It would seem so - and at the same time not so, or at least not quite so!

Isn't it less known that the observation of the course of one's own activity interferes with this activity, if not completely destroys it? By following the handwriting, we can lose the thought; trying to read with expression - stop understanding the text.

It is well known how destructive reflection acts on the flow of our feelings: from it they turn pale, distorted, or even completely disappear. On the other hand, to what extent “giving back to feeling” excludes the possibility of reflection!

In psychology, the question of the possibility of the simultaneous implementation of two activities has been specially studied. It has been shown that this is possible either through rapid transitions from one activity to another, or if one of the activities is relatively simple and proceeds "automatically". For example, you can knit and watch TV, but the knitting stops at the most exciting places; while playing the scales one can think of something, but this is not possible when performing a difficult piece.

If we apply everything that has been said to introspection (and it, too, second activity!), it must be admitted that its possibilities are extremely limited. Introspection of a real, full-blooded act of consciousness can be carried out only by interrupting it. I must say that the introspectionists quickly realized this. They noted that it was not so much the immediate process itself that had to be observed, but rather its fading trail. And in order for memory traces to retain as complete as possible, the process must be broken up (by acts of introspection) into small portions. Thus, introspection turned into a "fractional" retrospection.

Let us dwell on the following statement - supposedly the possibility of revealing cause-and-effect relationships in the sphere of consciousness with the help of introspection.

Perhaps, the validity of this thesis is limited to examples of individual, so-called arbitrary, actions. But with how many inexplicable facts of our own consciousness we meet every day! A sudden flash of memory or a change in mood often forces us to do some real research to find their causes. Or let us take the process of thinking: do we always know in what ways this or that thought came to our mind? The history of scientific discoveries and technical inventions is replete with descriptions sudden insights!

And in general, if a person could directly perceive the causes of mental processes, then psychology would not be needed at all! So, the thesis about the immediate openness of causes turns out to be wrong.

Finally, consider the view that introspection provides information about the facts of consciousness in an undistorted form. That this is not the case can be seen from the remark made above about the interference of introspection in the process under study. Even when a person gives an account from memory of the experience he has just experienced, he inevitably distorts it even then, for he directs attention only to certain aspects or moments of it.

It is this distorting influence of attention, especially the attention of an observer who knows what he is looking for, that has been persistently noted by critics of the method under discussion. The introspectionist, they wrote not without irony, finds in the facts of consciousness only those elements which correspond to his theory. If this is a theory of sensuous elements, he finds sensations; if it is a theory of ugly elements, then the movements of "pure" thought, etc.

In the second decade of our century, i.e., a little over 30 years after the founding of scientific psychology, a revolution took place in it: changing the subject of psychology. They became not consciousness, but behavior man and animals.

The pioneer of this new direction, wrote:

“... psychology must ... abandon the subjective subject of study, the introspective method of research and the old terminology. Consciousness with its structural elements, indecomposable sensations and sensual tones, with its processes, attention, perception, imagination - all these are just phrases that cannot be defined.

In the next lecture, I will talk in detail about this revolution. Let us now consider the fate of consciousness in psychology. Has psychology succeeded in breaking completely with the facts of consciousness, with the very concept of consciousness?

Of course not. J. Watson's statement was a "cry from the heart" of a psychologist led into a dead end. However, after any "cry of the soul" workdays come. And in the everyday life of psychology, the facts of consciousness began to return. However, they were treated differently. How?

Take modern research on human perception as an illustration. How do they differ in principle from the experiments of introspectionists?

And today, when they want to investigate the process of perception, for example, the visual perception of a person, they take the subject and present him with a visual object (image, object, picture), and then ask what he saw. It still seems to be the same. However, there are significant differences.

Firstly, not a professor-psychologist sophisticated in self-observation is taken, but a “naive” observer, and the less he knows psychology, the better. Secondly, the subject is required not an analytical, but the most ordinary report on what he has perceived, that is, a report in the terms that he uses in everyday life.

You may ask: “What is there to explore here? We make dozens and hundreds of observations every day, acting as a "naive observer"; we can tell, if asked, about everything we have seen, but this is unlikely to advance our knowledge of the process of perception. Introspectionists at least caught some nuance and detail.

But this is only the beginning. The experimental psychologist exists in order to come up with experimental technique, which will cause the mysterious process to open up and expose its mechanisms. For example, he places inverting prisms on the subject's eyes, or pre-places the subject in conditions of "sensory hunger", or uses special subjects - adults who first saw the world as a result of a successful eye operation, etc.

So, in the experiments of introspectionists, normal object in conventional conditions; the test subject was required sophisticated analysis of "internal experience", analytical setting, avoidance of "stimulus error", etc.

In modern research, the opposite is true. The main burden falls on the experimenter, who must show ingenuity. He organizes the selection of special objects or special conditions for their presentation; uses special devices, selects special subjects, etc. The subject is required normal answer in conventional terms.

If E. Titchener were to appear these days, he would say: “But you fall into the stimulus error all the time!” To which we would answer: “Yes, but this is not a “mistake”, but real psychological facts; you fell into the error of analytical introspection.”

So, once again we will clearly separate two positions in relation to introspection - that which was occupied by the psychology of consciousness, and our modern one.

These positions should first of all be separated terminologically. Although "self-observation" is an almost literal translation of the word "introspection", these two terms, at least in our literature, have taken different positions.

We'll call the first one method of introspection. The second is how use of self-observation data.

Each of these positions can be characterized by at least two of the following points: firstly, by the fact that what and as observed; secondly, because as received data are used for scientific purposes. Thus, we get the following simple table.

Table 1

So, the position of the introspectionists, which is represented by the first vertical column, presupposes a bifurcation of consciousness into the main activity and the activity of self-observation, as well as the direct acquisition of knowledge about the laws of mental life with the help of the latter.

In our position, "data of self-observation" means facts of consciousness that the subject knows about by virtue of their property of being directly revealed to him. To be aware of something is to know it directly. Proponents of introspection, from our point of view, do unnecessary addition: why should the subject specifically consider the contents of his consciousness, when they are already open to him? So, instead of reflection - the effect of direct knowledge.

And the second point of our position: in contrast to method introspection usage self-observation data involves referring to the facts of consciousness as phenomena or as "raw material", and not as information about regular connections and causal relationships. Registration of the facts of consciousness - not a method scientific research, but one of the ways to get the original data. The experimenter must in each individual case apply a special methodical technique that will allow him to reveal the connections of interest to him. He must rely on the ingenuity of his mind, and not on the sophistication of the subject's self-observation. In what sense can one speak of use self-observation data.

After this summary, I want to focus on some difficult questions. They may arise or have already arisen in you by captious consideration of both positions.

First question, which we have already touched a little: "Well, split consciousness is possible or not! Isn't it possible to do something - and at the same time watch what you are doing? I answer: this possibility of splitting consciousness exists. But, firstly, it does not always exist: for example, the splitting of consciousness is impossible with full dedication to any activity or experience. When, nevertheless, it succeeds, then the observation of how the second activity introduces a distortion in the main process. It turns out something similar to a “fake smile”, “forced gait”, etc. After all, even in these everyday cases, we split our consciousness: we smile or we walk - and at the same time we watch how it looks.

Approximately the same thing happens when trying to introspect as a special observation. It must be said that the introspectionists themselves repeatedly noted the unreliability of the facts that were obtained using their method. I will read to you the words of a psychologist, written in 1902, on this subject:

“Different feelings - anger, fear, pity, love, hatred, shame, tenderness, curiosity, surprise - we experience constantly: and now you can argue and more or less hopelessly argue about what exactly these feelings consist of and what we are in do we perceive them? Is there a need for better proof of that sad truth for a psychologist that in our inner world, although it is completely open to our self-consciousness, far from everything is clear to us and far from everything fits into clear and definite formulas? .

These words refer specifically to the data of introspection. Their author writes like this: to argue about what we are in these feelings perceive. The feelings themselves are full-blooded, full-fledged, he emphasizes. Observation of them gives fuzzy, unformed impressions.

So, the possibility of split consciousness, or introspection, exists. But psychology is not going to rest on the uncertain facts it supplies. We can have much more reliable data that we get as a result of direct experience. This is the answer to the first question.

Second question. It may arise especially in connection with the examples given above, examples from the studies of perception.

In this area of experimental psychology, reports of subjects about what they see, hear, etc. are widely used. Are these reports of introspection? It is this question that the well-known Soviet psychologist BM Teploe examines in his work on the objective method in psychology.

“No sane person,” he writes, “will say that a military observer who gives such a statement, for example: “An enemy tank appeared near the edge of the forest,” is engaged in introspection and gives evidence of self-observation. ... It is quite obvious that here a person is engaged not in introspection, but in “extro-spection”, not in “internal perception”, but in the most ordinary external perception” .

Reasoning is quite fair. However, the term "extrospection" may mislead you. You might say, “OK, we agree that registering external events is not introspection. Please call it extrospection if you like. But leave the term "introspection" to refer to reports of internal mental states and phenomena - emotions, thoughts, hallucinations, etc. ".

The fallacy of this reasoning is as follows. The main difference between the opposite points of view indicated by us is not based on the different localization of the experienced event: in the external world - or inside the subject. The main thing is different approaches to consciousness: either as united process, or how to "doubled" process.

B. M. Teplov gave an example of a machine tool because it clearly shows the absence of a commander in the report observation of one's own observation. But the same absence of reflective observation can also take place in emotional experience. I believe that both extrospection and introspection in the sense we are discussing can be combined by the term "monospection".

Finally, the third question. You may rightly ask: “But there is a process of knowing yourself! Some authors write that if there were no self-observation, then there would be no self-knowledge, self-esteem, self-awareness. After all, it's all there! How is self-knowledge, self-esteem, self-consciousness different from introspection?

The difference, in my opinion, is twofold. First of all, the processes of knowing and evaluating oneself are much more complex and lengthy than the usual act of introspection. They include, of course, self-observation data, but only as primary material that is accumulated and processed: comparison, generalization, etc.

For example, you can evaluate yourself as an overly emotional person, and the basis, of course, will be too intense experiences you experience (self-observation data). But in order to conclude about such a property, you need to collect a sufficient number of cases, make sure that they are typical, see a calmer way of reacting other people, etc.

Secondly, we receive information about ourselves not only (and often not so much) from self-observation, but also from external sources. They are the objective results of our actions, the attitude of other people towards us, etc.

It is probably difficult to say about this better than G. H. Andersen did in the fairy tale "The Ugly Duckling". Remember that exciting moment when the duckling, having become a young swan, swam up to the royal birds and said: “Kill me!”, Still feeling like an ugly and miserable creature. Would he be able to change this self-assessment due to one “introspection”, if the admiring relatives would not bow their heads before him?

Now, I hope, you will be able to understand a number of different terms that will appear in the psychological literature.

Method of introspection- a method of studying the properties and laws of consciousness with the help of reflective observation. Sometimes it is called subjective method. Its varieties are method of analytical introspection and method of systematic introspection.

Voice report- communication of the subject about the phenomena of consciousness in a naive (non-introspective, non-analytical) setting. The same is sometimes called subjective report, subjective testimony, phenomenal data, self-observation data.

Introspection It is a method of conscious self-observation. The name comes from the Latin (introspecto) and means to look inside. Introspection and self-observation are synonymous and both methods are used in psychological research. The importance of this method cannot be overestimated, since with its help it is possible to learn in depth to perceive reality, and then his consciousness and intuition are revealed to the individual. Schizophrenics have excessive introspection, they replace the real world with their own inner world.

The method of introspection in psychology is used to observe a person's own mental processes and is carried out without the help of any tools or means, only through his own consciousness.

Introspection in psychology is a thorough knowledge and study by an individual of his own thoughts, feelings, experiences, activities of the mind, images, attitudes, and so on. The method of introspection in psychology was founded by J. Locke.

Introspection is a subjective analysis in which a person does not seek self-condemnation, which is how this method differs from remorse.

Introspection in philosophy is a method of introspection on which retrospective philosophy is based to achieve a reflex liberation of consciousness and the hierarchy of feelings in the structure of personality. Too much introspection or a tendency to deep introspection can contribute to the formation of a suspicious attitude towards other individuals and the entire world around. Dualistic philosophy separates the material nature and the spiritual (), therefore, introspection in philosophy is the basis of psychological methodology. It was of great importance for a large number of philosophers: J. Locke, J. Berkeley, T. Hobbes, D. Hume, J. Mill and others. All of them considered consciousness to be the result of inner experience, and the presence of feelings and experiences testified to knowledge.

Method of introspection

Introspection and self-observation are very useful in a person's knowledge of himself, his activity. The method of self-observation is quite practical, since it does not require additional tools and standards. It has a great advantage over other methods, since no one, and in no other way, can know a person much better than himself. Along with a great advantage, there are also disadvantages, the main of which are subjectivity and bias.

Introspection in psychology was the most used research method until the 19th century. Psychologists of that time used the following dogmas: the processes of consciousness cannot be known in some way from the outside, they can only be revealed to the subject of observation himself.

The method of introspection was dealt with by J. Locke, who also distinguished two types in the processes of cognition: observation of objects of the external world and (introspection aimed at processing information received from the external world).

The method of introspection of consciousness has certain possibilities and has limitations. Problems can arise in the process of applying introspection. Not all people possess this method to a sufficient extent, so they need to be specially trained in the method. Children's minds and psyches are not at all set up to explore themselves in this way.

Introspection is functionally useless and its results are inconsistent. The biggest disadvantage of introspection is its subjectivity. The reasons for the restrictions may vary. Impossibility to simultaneously carry out the process of introspection and observation of this process, but only a fading process can be observed.

Introspection is difficult to uncover causal relationships from the conscious realm. Reflection of self-observation contributes to the distortion or disappearance of the data of consciousness.

The method of introspection of consciousness can have separate independent variants.

Types of introspection: analytical, systematic and phenomenological.

Analytical introspection in psychology is the perception of things through structural elementary feelings. Supporters of this view are called structuralists. According to structuralism, most of the objects of the external world perceived by a person are combinations of sensations.

Systematic introspection is a method of describing consciousness with the help of experienced images and sensations. It tracks the main stages of thought processes based on a retrospective report. This is a method of mental introspection that requires the individual to have a highly organized self-observation.

Proponents of this method divide consciousness into basic processes and their self-observation. The problem of self-observation is that only one person can observe the processes open to him, others are not able to evaluate his thoughts. Self-observation refers to the products of conscious processes, and not to regular connections.

Phenomenological introspection of consciousness was developed in , it is characterized by a description of mental phenomena in their integrity and the immediacy of the subject. This method comes from the method of internal perception, it was actively used in descriptive psychology, and then in humanistic psychology.

The method of introspection is often used to collect primary data and test hypotheses. It is used solely to obtain data, but not to interpret them.

Self-observation is carried out over the simplest processes of the psyche: sensations, associations and ideas. Self-report does not need any supporting tools or goals. Only the fact of self-observation is taken into account, which will then be analyzed. Introspection can be said to be the presence of a conscious experience and an account of it. This definition was given by W. Wundt. He believed that the direct experience of a person has an impact on the subject of psychology, however, he distinguished internal perception from introspection. Internal perception has its own value and cannot be attributed to science.

Introspection in psychology

Previously, this method was recognized not only as the main one, but also as the only one. This belief was based on two indisputable facts: the fundamental property of conscious processes to be directly represented to the subject; the closeness of these same processes to an outside observer.

Introspection in psychology is a method of self-observation, analysis, study of mental processes through individual observation of the functioning of one's own psyche. Introspection as a method has some peculiarities. It can be carried out only by one person on himself, in order to find out what another person feels, you need to imagine yourself in the place of this person, see yourself in the same conditions and observe your own state, your reactions and draw conclusions about feelings, thoughts and feelings of another person. Since self-observation is a special activity, it requires long practice in it.

Significant advantages are noted in the method, they used to be given great value. It was believed that consciousness directly reflects the causal-causal relationship in mental phenomena, therefore the position of psychology was recognized as easier, in contrast to other sciences, which still have to look for causal relationships.

Introspection presents psychological facts as they are, and in this is also very different from other sciences.

The use of introspection was reinforced by judgments about the special advantages of this method. Psychology at the end of the 19th century. carried out a large experiment, testing the possibilities of self-observation. In many cases, not the facts of consciousness, as they are in life circumstances, which is also of no less interest, were studied, but laboratory experiments that were carried out in demandingly controlled circumstances and conditions.

The most rigorous introspectionists complicated their experiments with additional requirements. They focused on highlighting the most elementary details of consciousness (sensations and feelings). The subjects were obliged to avoid terms that would describe external objects and speak only about the feelings caused by these objects, about the quality of the sensations caused, if the answer was in terms of sensations - this is a stimulus error. According to the degree of development of the experiments, large gaps and difficulties arose. Everything was moving towards the recognition of the inexpediency of such an "experimental psychology". Conflicting results were collected, even from one researcher working with completely different subjects.

The fundamental tenets of psychology began to be questioned. Such contents of consciousness were revealed, such elements that could not be decomposed into some feelings or were shown as the sum of these elements. Also, the systematic use of the method of introspection revealed non-sensory elements of consciousness, and unconscious causes of individual phenomena of consciousness began to be discovered.

It began to turn out, so that in psychology, which has such a unique method of introspection, a crisis was growing. The reason was that the arguments for the benefit of the method of introspection looked right only at first glance. And the possibility of a split in consciousness turns out to be imaginary, since strict observation of the process of one's own activity only hinders its implementation or even completely destroys it. Reflection has the same destructive effect. The simultaneous execution of two different types of activities is possible in two ways: a quick switch from one type of activity to another, or in such a case when one of the activities is relatively simple or is performed automatically. From the conviction that introspection is also a second activity, it follows that its possibilities are very limited.

Introspection of a complete act of consciousness is possible only if it is interrupted. The possibility of a split consciousness also exists, but with some limitations, it is completely impossible with perfect dedication to some activity or feelings, and, in any case, it introduces a distorting effect. For example, when a person does something and immediately observes how it looks. It turns out that the data obtained by applying introspection is very uncertain to be based on them. The proponents of this method, the introspectionists themselves, quickly realized this. They noticed that they had to observe not so much a flowing process as only its fading trail. In order for traces in memory to be able to retain even more completeness, it is necessary to decompose the process of observed acts into smaller parts. Thus, over time, introspection was transformed into a "fractional" retrospection.

An attempt to identify causal relationships in consciousness using this method is limited to individual examples of arbitrary actions among the mass of inexplicable facts (thoughts, feelings) of consciousness. This leads to the conclusion that if it were possible to directly observe the causes of mental processes, then no one would be engaged in psychology either. She would be completely unnecessary. The assertion that the method of self-observation seems to demonstrate knowledge about the facts of consciousness is not distorted, as they really are, may be completely wrong in light of the data on the introduction of introspection into the process of research. Making from memory even a momentary account of a very recent experienced experience, the researcher inevitably distorts it, because he directs his attention only to certain aspects of it. Particularly distorting is the attention of the observer, who knows exactly what he is looking for. A person is usually guided by several facts, so other aspects of the phenomenon, which can also be of great value, are left without attention.

Thus, the practice of application and a deep discussion of the method of introspection revealed a line of fundamental shortcomings of this method. The shortcomings turned out to be so significant that scientists questioned the whole method and even with it the subject of psychology, which at that time was inextricably linked with the method of introspection.

I SEMESTER

UNIT 2

Lecture #3 (6)

Topic: "Empirical methods of psychological research"

Plan

1. Method of observation and self-observation.

2. Method of experiment.

3. Psychodiagnostic methods.

4. Analysis of products of activity and biographical methods.

Method of observation and self-observation.

The group of empirical methods in psychology has traditionally been considered the main one since psychology emerged as an independent science.

The very first methods of studying psychological phenomena were observation, self-observation and questioning.

Observation method in psychology is one of the oldest and, at first glance, the simplest. It is based on a planned perception of the activities and behavior of people, which is carried out in ordinary life conditions without any deliberate intervention on the part of the observer. Observation in psychology involves a complete and accurate description of the observed phenomena, as well as their psychological interpretation.

Observation appears in psychology in two main forms - as introspection or introspection , and as an external, or so-called objective observation . Traditional introspective psychology considered self-observation to be the only or, in any case, the main method of psychology. When the object with which the psychologist interacts is himself. This was the realization in the methods of research of that general position, according to which the psyche turned into an inner world closed in itself.

Cognition of one's own psyche through self-observation is always carried out in one way or another by external activity mediated through observation. Thus, the possibility of turning self-observation - as radical idealism wants - into the only or main method of psychological cognition, completely disappears. At the same time, since the real process of self-observation in reality is always one of the sides and is present in objective observation, the experimenter in the course of psychological research should direct his questions to the subject not to tell him how he imagines what he is doing and experiencing , but on the fact that, on the instructions of the experimenter, he often performs unconscious patterns by himself, according to which, in reality, the corresponding processes objectively proceed. Observation in psychology should be carried out mainly by objective methods.

Objective observation. The application of the method of observation should proceed from the unity of internal and external, subjective and objective. This is the simplest and most common of all objective methods in psychology. Scientific observation is in direct contact with ordinary everyday observation. It is therefore necessary first of all to establish the general basic conditions which observation in general must satisfy in order to be a scientific method.

The first basic requirement is the presence of a clear goal setting: a clearly conscious goal should guide the observer. In accordance with the purpose, an observation plan must be defined, fixed in the scheme. The planned and systematic nature of observation is its most essential feature as a scientific method. They must eliminate the element of chance inherent in everyday observation. Thus, the objectivity of observation depends primarily on its planned and systematic nature. And, if the observation proceeds from a clearly conscious goal, then it must acquire a selective character. It is impossible to observe everything in general due to the limitless diversity of the existing. Any observation therefore has a selective, or selective, partial character.

Observation becomes a method of scientific knowledge only insofar as it is not limited to simple registration of facts, but proceeds to the formulation of hypotheses in order to test them on new observations. Objective observation is truly scientifically fruitful when it is associated with the establishment and testing of hypotheses. The separation of the subjective interpretation from the objective and the exclusion of the subjective is carried out in the very process of observation, combined with the formulation and testing of hypotheses. The psychological interpretation of external data is not itself directly given; it must be found on the basis of hypotheses that must be verified in observation, i.e. the description must turn into an explanation - the fate of scientific research depends on this.

The main advantage of the method of objective observation is that it allows the study of mental processes in natural conditions. However, objective observation, while retaining its value, for the most part should be supplemented by other research methods. The following are the requirements for the monitoring procedure:

a) definition of the task and goal (for what? For what purpose?);

b) the choice of an object, subject, situation (what to observe?);

c) the choice of the method of observation, for example, influencing the object under study and most providing the collection of the necessary information (how to observe?);

d) the choice of methods for recording the observed (how to keep records?);

e) processing and interpretation of the received information (what is the result?).

However, observation cannot be free from the subjectivity of the psychologist's position. Not being able (for various reasons, including technical ones) to fix all the changes in the situation, the psychologist singles out those elements in it that he considers the most important, involuntarily ignoring others; however, what exactly he singles out and how he evaluates these changes is determined not only by his scientific views, experience, qualifications, but also by the prevailing stereotypes of assessments, ethical principles, attitudes, etc. The trap that falls into researcher: trying to find confirmation of his hypothesis, he can unconsciously ignore events that contradict it.

Of course, psychologists try to avoid such subjectivity by resorting to various methods aimed at making the results of the study more reliable. These include, for example, the implementation of observation not by one, but by several psychologists who maintain independent protocols (subsequently, the results can be discussed and compared), the indispensable planning of observation, the compilation of special scales for assessing the behavior of an object (with justification of the assessment criteria), the use of technical means (audio- and video equipment, Gazella mirror, etc.).

Experiment method.

The history of science has proven the leading role of the experimental method in obtaining scientific knowledge. Suffice it to recall the fact that psychology separated from philosophy into an independent branch of knowledge only in the middle of the 19th century, when systematic experimentation in psychology began (W. Fechner, E. Weber, W. Wundt, etc.).

What is an experiment? An experiment is a research activity for the purpose of studying causal relationships, which involves the following:

1. The researcher himself causes the phenomenon he is studying and actively influences it, i.e. takes an active position in the organization of the research situation.

2. The experimenter can vary, change the conditions under which the phenomenon occurs.

3. In the experiment, it is possible to repeatedly reproduce the results.

4. The experiment makes it possible to establish quantitative patterns that allow mathematical formulation.

The main task of a psychological experiment is to make available to objective external observation the essential features of the internal mental process. When considering an experiment as a scientific activity, it is possible to designate a system of necessary research stages and tasks:

I- theoretical stage research (problem statement). At this stage, the following tasks are solved:

a) the formulation of the problem and the topic of the study, the title of the topic should include the basic concepts of the subject of the study,

b) definition of the object and subject of research,

c) determination of experimental tasks and research hypotheses. At the same time, it is important that the title of the topic includes the main concepts of the subject of research.

The boundaries of the subject of research should be established, simultaneously taking into account the following points:

1) the purpose and objectives of the study;

2) the object of study;

3) material and temporal opportunities for experimentation;

4) the results of the scientific development of the issue, which are fixed in a private explanatory theory.

Appeal to explanatory theory is aimed at clarifying the known facts that affect the object of study and its properties, which allows you to determine the range of solved problems and unsolved problems and formulate hypotheses and problems of a particular experiment. This stage can be considered as a relatively independent research activity of a theoretical nature;

II - methodical stage of research . At this stage, the experimental methodology and experimental plan are developed.

The development of an experimental plan involves two points:

1) drawing up a work plan and a sequence of experimental procedures;

2) mathematical model of experimental data processing, i.e. mathematical model for processing the results of the experiment.

III - pilot stage . At this stage, direct experiments are carried out, associated with the creation of an experimental situation, observation, control of the course of the experiment and measurement of the reactions of the subjects.

The main problem of this stage is to create in the subjects an identical understanding of the task of their activity in the experiment. This problem is solved through the reproduction of the same conditions for all subjects and instructions, which aims to bring all subjects to a common understanding of the task, acting as a kind of psychological attitude.

IV- analytical stage . At this stage, a quantitative analysis of the results (mathematical processing), scientific interpretation of the facts obtained is carried out; formulation of new scientific hypotheses and practical recommendations. Regarding the mathematical coefficients of statistics, it should be remembered that they are external in relation to the essence of the studied mental phenomena, describing the probability of their manifestation and the relationship between the frequencies of the compared events, and not between their essences. The essence of phenomena is revealed through subsequent scientific interpretation as a comparison of empirical facts according to the logic of cause-and-effect relationships modeled in an experimental situation.

The experiment differs from observation primarily in that it involves the organization of the research situation by the psychologist. This allows you to do something that is impossible in observation - relatively complete control of variables. The concept of "variable" needs clarification, it is one of the basic concepts for describing an experiment (although it can also be attributed to observation). A variable is understood as any reality that can change in an experimental situation (the color of the walls, the noise level, the time of day, the state of the subject, the state of the experimenter, a burnt out light bulb, etc.). If in observation the psychologist is often not even able to foresee changes, then in experiment it is possible to plan these changes and prevent the occurrence of surprises.

Thus, the factor being changed by the experimenter is called the independent variable; The factor that the independent variable causes to change is called the dependent variable.

Manipulation of variables is one of the important advantages of the experimenter over the observer. Indeed, if the researcher is interested, as we said, mainly in the connection of phenomena with each other, then the experimenter can, having created a certain situation, introduce a new element into it and determine whether the change in the situation that he expects as a result of the change he has made arises; the psychologist, who uses observation, is compelled in a similar situation to wait for the occurrence of a change - one that the experimenter has produced at his own discretion.

The hypothesis being tested in the experiment is formulated as an assumed relationship between the independent and dependent variables; to test it, the experimenter must introduce the dependent variable and find out what will happen to the independent. For example, it has been hypothesized that the noise level in a room affects the rate of fatigue (the higher the noise level, the faster fatigue occurs). In this case, the experimenter organizes the situation by offering, for example, invited subjects to perform some activity (say, multiply numbers) under a certain noise background; according to the level of productivity and accuracy of work, after a certain time, it fixes fatigue (this time can be individual for each subject), the results are summarized. The next time the experimenter invites the subjects, offers them a similar activity, but increases the noise level relative to the previous one, i.e. introduces an independent variable, and, having identified the time of onset of fatigue, concludes that this time has decreased on average, i.e. the hypothesis is confirmed (decrease in time - change in the dependent variable). However, the conclusion about the validity of the initial hypothesis may turn out to be premature if one important condition is not met: in this situation, the remaining variables must be controlled, i.e. they must be equivalent in the first and second experiments. Indeed, many things can affect the rate of onset of fatigue: time of day, family quarrel, weather, well-being, etc. That is, what is commonly called “ceteris paribus” must be observed. Of course, perfect reproduction is impossible: however, the control of variables - if not all, then many - the experiment allows.

So, we have described the main advantages of the experiment. A natural question arises, what are its shortcomings. As in the situation with observation, the disadvantages are the reverse side of the advantages. It is extremely difficult to organize an experimental study in such a way that it is a test subject: a relatively complete control of variables is possible only under special conditions, for example, in an equipped laboratory ( laboratory experiment ), but the person who came to the laboratory, as a rule, knows why. This means more than likely stiffness of the subject, conscious or unconscious anxiety, fear of evaluation, etc.

In this regard, they are distinguished from a laboratory experiment natural experiment , the idea of which belongs to the Russian psychologist A.F. Lazursky (1874-1917): an intermediate research method between observation and experiment is proposed, in which the psychologist actively influences the situation, but in forms that do not violate its naturalness for the subject (for example, testing hypotheses regarding factors that determine the success of learning can be carried out in a learning situation, when the student will perceive its changes as a natural course of the lesson).

In addition to the laboratory and natural experiment, sometimes a field experiment is distinguished, involving the use of a minimum of equipment in a situation close to natural.

On a different basis, a stating and forming experiment is distinguished. This distinction is especially important for developmental and educational psychology, although not only for them. The fact is that the development of the psyche can be approached as a phenomenon relatively independent of training and upbringing (assuming that training should, as it were, adapt to development, follow it, and then the task of the psychologist is to state the connections that develop in the process of development (for example, , in the studies of J. Piaget), but development can be considered as “led” by training and education (L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev, P. Ya. Galperin), and then the psychologist who sets up the experiment cannot ignore the process itself learning that determines development.The formative experiment involves identifying the patterns of development of the child's psyche in the process of active, purposeful influence of the experimenter on the subject, i.e. the formation of his psyche.Another name for the formative experiment is psychological and pedagogical, teaching, educating.

Similar information.

Gippenreiter Yu.B.
INTRODUCTION TO GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY, M., 1996
Section I
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PSYCHOLOGY. MAIN STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF PSYCHOLOGY

Lecture 3
THE INTROSPECTIVE METHOD AND THE PROBLEM OF SELF-OBSERVATION

How I told before, in the psychology of consciousness, the method of introspection (literally, “looking inside”) was recognized not only as the main, but also as the only method of psychology.

This conviction was based on the following two indisputable circumstances.

First, the fundamental the property of the processes of consciousness to be directly opened (represented) to the subject. Secondly, "closedness" of the same processes for an external observer. The consciousnesses of different people were compared at that time with closed spheres, which are separated by an abyss. No one can cross this abyss, no one can directly experience the states of my consciousness as I experience them. And I will never penetrate into the images and experiences of other people. I can't even establish if red is red for the other as well; it is possible that he calls by the same word a feeling of a completely different quality!

I want to emphasize the seemingly crystal clarity and rigor conclusions of the psychology of that time about her method. The entire argument is contained in a few short sentences: the subject of psychology is the facts of consciousness; the latter are directly open to me - and to no one else; therefore, they can be studied by the method of introspection - and nothing else.

However, the simplicity and obviousness of each of these statements, as well as the entire conclusion as a whole, is only apparent. In fact, they contain one of the most complex and intricate problems of psychology - the problem of self-observation.

We have to deal with this problem. I would like you to see how much criticality and at the same time flexibility of approach mean in science by examining this problem. So, at first glance, an obvious thesis begins to be shaken by the fact that they approach it from other points of view and find previously unnoticed shades, inaccuracies, etc.

Let's take a closer look at the question of what introspection is, how it was understood and used as a method of psychology at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.

The ideological father of the method of introspection is the English philosopherJ. Locke (1632-1704), although its foundations were also contained in the Cartesian thesis about the direct comprehension of thoughts.

J. Locke believed that there is two sources of all our knowledge: the first source is the objects of the external world, the second is the activity of our own mind. To the objects of the external world we direct our external senses and as a result receive impressions (or ideas) in external things. The activity of our mind, to which Locke ranked thinking, doubt, faith, reasoning, knowledge, desires, is known: with the help of a special, internal, feeling; - reflections. Reflection, according to Locke, is “observation to which the mind subjects its activity”.

J. Locke notes that reflection implies a special focus on the activity of one's own soul, as well as a sufficient maturity of the subject. Children have almost no reflection, they are mainly busy with the knowledge of the outside world. It may not develop even in an adult if he does not show a tendency to reflect on himself and does not direct special attention to his internal processes.

“For although it (i.e., the activity of the soul. - Yu. G.) proceeds constantly, but, like passing ghosts, it does not make an impression deep enough to leave clear, distinct, strong ideas in the mind.”

So, Locke makes at least two important claims.

1. Exists the possibility of a split, or "doubling", of the psyche. Mental activity can proceed, as it were, at two levels:
processes of the first level - perceptions, thoughts, desires;
processes of the second level - observation, or "contemplation" of these perceptions, thoughts, desires.

2. Every person and even a child has the activity of the soul of the first level. Mental activity of the second level requires special organization. This is a special activity. Without it, knowledge of the life of the soul is impossible. Without it, the impressions of mental life are like "flying ghosts" that do not leave "clear and solid ideas" in the soul.

Both of these theses, namely the possibility of a split in consciousness and the need to organize special activities in order to comprehend inner experience, were adopted by the psychology of consciousness. The following scientific and practical conclusions were made:

1) a psychologist can conduct psychological research only on himself. If he wants to know what is happening to the other, he must place himself in the same conditions, observe himself and, by analogy, conclude about the content of the consciousness of another person;

2) since introspection does not happen by itself, but requires special activity, then it must be practiced, and practiced for a long time.

Psychologists of the time noted important additional advantages of the introspection method.

First, it was believed that the causal relationship of mental phenomena is directly reflected in consciousness. For example, if I wanted to raise my hand and raised it, then the reason for the action is directly known to me: it is present in consciousness in the form of a decision to raise my hand. In a more complicated case, if a person arouses compassion in me and I strive to help him in every possible way, it is obvious to me that my actions are caused by a feeling of compassion. I not only experience this feeling, but I know its connection with my actions.

Hence, the position of psychology was considered much easier than the position of other sciences, which still have to search for causal connections.

The second merit noted is that introspection supplies the psychological facts, so to speak, in their pure form, without distortion. In this respect, psychology also compares favorably with other sciences. The fact is that when cognizing the external world, our sense organs, interacting with external objects, distort their properties. For example, behind the sensations of light and sound are physical realities - electromagnetic and air waves, which are completely different from either color or sound. And they still need to be somehow "cleaned" of the introduced distortions.

“In the sphere of the immediate data of consciousness, there is no longer any difference between the objective and the subjective, the real and the apparent, everything is here, as it seems, and even precisely because it seems: after all, when something seems to us, that is the very real fact of our inner mental life."

So, the application of the method of introspection was reinforced by considerations about the special advantages of this method.

The experiments of the most rigorous introspectionists (E. Titchener and his students) were complicated by two additional requirements.

Firstly, introspection had to be directed towards isolating the simplest elements of consciousness, that is, sensations and elementary feelings. (The fact is that the method of introspection from the very beginning was combined with the atomistic approach in psychology) i.e. the conviction that to explore means to decompose complex processes into their simplest elements.)

Secondly, the subjects had to avoid in their answers terms describing external objects, and speak only about their sensations, which were caused by these objects, and about the qualities of these sensations. For example, the subject could not say: "I was shown a large, red apple." A should have reported something like this: “At first I got a feeling of red, and it eclipsed everything else; then it gave way to the impression of a round one, at the same time as a slight tickling in the tongue, apparently a trace of a taste sensation. There was also a rapidly transient muscular sensation in the right arm...”.

The answer in terms of external objects was called by E. Titchener "stimulus error" - a well-known term of introspective psychology, reflecting its atomistic focus on the elements of consciousness.

As this type of research expanded, major problems and difficulties began to emerge.

Moreover, the foundations of psychology - the elements of consciousness - were shaken. Psychologists began to find such contents of consciousness that could in no way be decomposed into separate sensations or represented as their sums. Take a melody, they said, and take it to another key; every sound in it will change, but the melody will remain. This means that it is not individual sounds that determine the melody, not their simple combination, but some special quality that is associated with the relationship between sounds. This is the quality of an integral structure (German - “Gestalt”), not the sum of elements.

Finally, the unconscious causes of some phenomena of consciousness began to be revealed (more on them below).

Thus, instead of the triumph of science, which has such a unique method, a situation of crisis began to mature in psychology.

Isn't it less known that does observation of the course of one's own activity interfere with this activity, or even completely destroy it? By following the handwriting, we can lose the thought; trying to read with expression - stop understanding the text.

It is known how destructively reflection acts on the flow of our feelings: from it they turn pale, distorted, or even completely disappear. Conversely, how “giving back to feeling” excludes the possibility of reflection!

In psychology, the question of the possibility of the simultaneous implementation of two activities has been specially studied. It has been shown that this is possible either through rapid transitions from one activity to another, or if one of the activities is relatively simple and proceeds "automatically". For example, you can knit and watch TV, but the knitting stops at the most exciting places; while playing the scales one can think of something, but this is not possible when performing a difficult piece.

If we apply everything that has been said to introspection (and it is also a second activity), then we will have to admit that its possibilities are extremely limited. Introspection of a real, full-blooded act of consciousness can be carried out only by interrupting it. I must say that the introspectionists quickly realized this. They noted that it was not so much the immediate process itself that had to be observed, but rather its fading trail. And in order for memory traces to retain as complete as possible, the process must be broken up (by acts of introspection) into small portions. Thus, introspection turned into a "fractional" retrospection.

Let us dwell on the following statement - supposedly the possibility of revealing cause-and-effect relationships in the sphere of consciousness with the help of introspection.

And in general, if a person could directly perceive the causes of mental processes, then psychology would not be needed at all! So, the thesis about the direct openness of causes to verification turns out to be incorrect.

It is this distorting influence of attention, especially the attention of an observer who knows what he is looking for, that has been persistently noted by critics of the method under discussion.

introspectionist, they wrote not without irony, finds in the facts of consciousness only those elements that correspond to his theory. If this is a theory of sensuous elements, he finds sensations; if ugly elements, then the movements of “pure” thought, etc.

So, the practice of using and in-depth discussion of the method of introspection revealed a number of its fundamental shortcomings. They were so significant that they called into question the method as a whole, and with it the subject of psychology - the subject with which the method of introspection was inextricably linked and the natural consequence of the postulation of which it was. In the second decade of our century, i.e., a little over 30 years after the founding of scientific psychology, a revolution took place in it: change in the subject of psychology.It was not consciousness, but the behavior of man and animals.

J. Watson, the pioneer of this new direction, wrote: “... psychology must ... abandon the subjective subject of study, the introspective method of research and the old terminology. Consciousness with its structural elements, indecomposable sensations and sensual tones, with its processes, attention, perception, imagination - all these are just phrases that cannot be defined.

Take modern research on human perception as an illustration. How do they differ in principle from the experiments of introspectionists?

Introspectionists at least caught some nuance and detail."

But this is only the beginning. The purpose of the psychologist-experimenter is to come up with an experimental technique that will force the mysterious process to open up and expose its mechanisms. For example, he places inverting prisms on the subject's eyes, or pre-places the subject in conditions of "sensory hunger", or uses special subjects - adults who first saw the world as a result of a successful eye operation, etc.

And so, in the experiments of introspectionists, an ordinary object was presented under ordinary conditions; from the subject, a sophisticated analysis of "internal experiments, an analytical setting, avoidance of" stimulus errors ", etc. was required.

In modern research, the opposite is true. The main burden falls on the experimenter, who must show ingenuity. He organizes the selection of special objects or special conditions for their presentation; uses special devices, selects special subjects, etc. The subject is required to give the usual answer in ordinary terms.

If E. Titchener were to appear these days, he would say: “But you fall into the stimulus error all the time!” To which they would answer me: “Yes, but this is not a“ mistake ”, but real psychological facts; you fell into the error of analytical introspection.”

So let's make a clear distinction again. two positions in relation to introspection - that which was occupied by the psychology of consciousness, and ours, modern.

We'll call the first one method of introspection. The second is how use of self-observation data. Each of these positions can be characterized by at least two of the following points: first, by what is observed and how; secondly, by how the data obtained are used for scientific purposes.

Thus, we get the following simple table.

In our position, "data of self-observation" means facts of consciousness that the subject knows about by virtue of their property of being directly revealed to him. To be aware of something is to know it directly. Supporters of introspection, from our point of view, make an unnecessary addition: why should the subject specifically consider the contents of his consciousness, when they are already open to him? So, instead of reflection - the effect of direct knowledge.

And the second point of our position: in contrast to the method of introspection, the use of self-observation data involves referring to the facts of consciousness as phenomena or as “raw material”, and not as information about regular connections and causal relationships. Registration of the facts of consciousness is not a method of scientific research, but only one of the ways to obtain initial data. The experimenter must in each individual case apply a special methodical technique that will allow him to reveal the connections of interest to him. He must rely on the ingenuity of his mind, and not on the sophistication of the subject's self-observation. This is the sense in which we can talk about the use of self-observation data.

After this conclusion, I want to dwell on some difficult questions. They may arise or have already arisen in you by captious consideration of both positions.

The first question, which we have already touched a little: “Well, is the split of consciousness possible or not? Isn't it possible to do something - and at the same time watch what you are doing? I answer: this possibility of splitting consciousness exists. But first, it does not always exist: for example, splitting of consciousness is impossible with full dedication to any activity or experience. When it does succeed, then observation as a second activity introduces distortion into the main process. It turns out something similar to a “fake smile”, “forced gait”, etc. After all, even in these everyday cases, we split our consciousness: we smile or we walk - and at the same time we watch how it looks.

“Different feelings - anger, fear, pity, love, hatred, shame, tenderness, curiosity, surprise - we experience constantly: and now you can argue and more or less hopelessly argue about what exactly these feelings consist of and what we are in do we perceive them? Is there a need for better proof of that sad truth for a psychologist that in our inner world, although it is completely open to our self-consciousness, far from everything is clear to us and far from everything fits into distinct and definite formulas?

These words refer specifically to the data of introspection. Their author writes like this: “to argue about what we perceive in these feelings.” The feelings themselves are full-blooded, full-fledged, he emphasizes. Observation of them gives fuzzy, unformed impressions.

Second question. It may arise especially in connection with the examples given above, examples from the studies of perception.

In this area of experimental psychology, reports of subjects about what they see, hear, etc. are widely used. Are these reports of introspection? It is this question that the famous Soviet psychologist B.M. Teplov in his work on the objective method in psychology.

“No sane person,” he writes, “will say that a military observer who gives such a statement, for example: “An enemy tank appeared near the edge of the forest,” is engaged in introspection and gives evidence of self-observation. ... It is quite obvious that here a person is engaged not in introspection, but in “extrospection”, not in “internal perception”, but in the most ordinary external perception”)