Gestalt psychology, frontloading phenomenology, and psychophysics

Abstract

In his 1935 book Principles of Gestalt Psychology, Kurt Koffka stated that empirical research in perceptual psychology should begin with “a phenomenological analysis,” which in turn would put constraints on the “true theory.” In this paper, I take this statement as a point of departure to investigate in what sense Gestalt psychologists practiced a phenomenological analysis and how they saw it related to theory construction. I will contextualize the perceptual research in Gestalt psychology vis-a-vis Husserlian phenomenology on the one hand and mainstream psychophysics on the other, and I will argue that Gestalt psychologists practiced a form of “frontloading” phenomenology: Instead of requiring experimental subjects to engage in experiential reflections, such reflections were—in a sense—already engrained in the experimental designs used by researchers. This type of phenomenology was decidedly anti-“introspectionist” and as such was compatible with some of Husserl’s basic commitments, while at the same time bearing a surprising resemblance with the methods employed by psychophysicists like E. Boring and S.S. Stevens. This latter point will prompt me to explore what the difference between Gestalt-psychology and psychophysics amounted to. My analysis will reveal some disagreements and misunderstandings, especially with regard to the notions of isomorphism and introspection.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Notice that the assumption in question is not that for every stimulus there is one and only one sensation, but rather the other way around: for every sensation there is a stimulus in the world that invariably gives rise to that particular sensation, regardless of context.

  2. 2.

    The distinction between “reflective” and “frontloading” is not entirely satisfactory as it (wrongly) suggests that no reflection occurs in frontloading phenomenology. The point is that in the case of frontloading phenomenology, the experimental subjects are not required to reflect on their experience.

  3. 3.

    Notice that this notion of introspection differs from the one so emphatically rejected by Husserl in that it does not rely on an internal/external observation dichotomy.

  4. 4.

    Gallagher (2003) uses the term “front-loaded” whereas Gallagher and Sorensen (2006) speak of “front-loading” phenomenology. Here I use the to expressions interchangeably.

  5. 5.

    Roughly: “On the theory of the perception of experiences”.

  6. 6.

    Within the history of psychology, this worry had been prominently voiced by Brentano (1973/1874), who pointed out that any experimental instruction to pay attention to an experience necessarily changes that experience.

  7. 7.

    “Ich kann es im psychologischen Versuch so einrichten, daß ich je nach der Aufmerksamkeitsrichtung ein über ein bestimmtes Feld bewegtes Objekt oder zwei Objekte sehe, von denen sich jedes nur über einen Teil des Feldes bewegt”.

  8. 8.

    While this article was published in a collected volume in 1966, it is based on a lecture Gurwitsch gave in 1934.

  9. 9.

    The idea expressed here is similar to the notion of the transparency of experience discussed in the more recent philosophical literature about introspection (e.g., Tye 2002).

  10. 10.

    Without being able to explore this further here, I would like to suggest that we can also see a parallel between the Gestalt psychological and “Husserlian” phenomenological approach here: Husserl’s distinction between a noetic and a noematic stance indicates that a distinction between “inner” and “outer” can take place within the phenomenological mode. (Husserl 1917).

  11. 11.

    “Allgemein: gute Phänomene sind gestaltete Phänomene, von ihnen unterscheiden sich die bloßen ‚ Und- Verbindungen‘und das Chaotische” (Koffka 1923, p. 393).

  12. 12.

    By this I mean here that it cannot be subsumed under the well-known laws of Gestalt perception.

  13. 13.

    The letter is undated, but since it contains reference to a letter from Boring, containing an article from 1935, it is a fair guess that it was written in, or shortly after, 1935.

  14. 14.

    Letter from Wertheimer to Köhler, op cit. Source: New York Public Library.

  15. 15.

    “Nun, das ist wunderlich. Er misversteht [sic] wohl, was wir mit Isomorphismen meinen … Nun, die einfachste Antwort waere … dass sich die Isomorphie nicht bezieht auf eine one to one relation hinsichtlich von Stucken, sondern auf Entsprechung von Ganzeigenschaften” (Letter from Wertheimer to Köhler 1935. Source: New York Public Library Archive).

  16. 16.

    Luchins and Luchins also point out that Boring’s is in fact the standard mathematical notion: “[I]n mathematics an isomorphism between two systems requires a one-to-one correspondence between their elements (that is, each element of one system corresponds to one and only one element of the other system, and conversely), which also preserves structures” (Luchins and Luchins 2015/1999, p. 70).

  17. 17.

    See Heidelberger (2003) for a discussion of this tradition. The term “parallelism” indeed might give rise to this view, since it seems to suggest two sets of independent properties—one mental one physical—that happen to be in perfect harmony. However, I would argue that what 19th-century writers like Fechner had in mind is better described as a dual-aspect theory that tries to stay neutral with respect to metaphysical issues.

  18. 18.

    I would like to thank Alistair Isaac for suggesting this to me. Isaac (2017) makes a related point when he argues that Boring and Stevens import substantive—if unacknowledged—assumptions about their subject matter into their experiments.

References

  1. Albertazzi, L., Jacquette, D., & Poli, R. (Eds.). (2001). The School of Alexius Meinong. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ash, M. (1995). Gestalt psychology in German culture, 1890–1967. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baumgartner, W. (2015). The young Carl Stumpf. His spiritual, intellectual, and professional development. In D. Fisette & R. Martinelli (Eds.), Philosophy from an empirical standpoint: Essays on Carl Stumpf. Studien zur Österreichischen Philosophie (Vol. 46, pp. 61–74). Netherlands: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Beenfeldt, C. (2013). The philosophical background and scientific legacy of E. B. Titchener’s psychology. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Boring, E. (1933). The physical dimensions of consciousness. New York: The Century Co.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boring, E. (1935). The relation of the attributes of sensation to the dimensions of the stimulus. Philosophy of Science, 2, 236–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Boring, E. (1942). Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brentano, F. (1973/1874). Psychology from an empirical standpoint. London: Routledge (first published 1874 in German: Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt).

  9. Bühler, K. (1907). Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge I. Über Gedanken. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, IX(4), 297–365.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chirimuuta, M. (2014). Psychophysical methods and the evasion of introspection. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 914–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ehrenfels, C. V. (1890). Über Gestaltqualitäten. Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, XIV, 249–292.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Feest, U. (2005). Operationism in psychology—What the debate is about, what the debate should be about. Journal for the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(2), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Feest, U. (2007). Science and experience/science of experience: Gestalt psychology and the anti-metaphysical project of the Aufbau. Perspectives on Science, 15(1), 38–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Feest, U. (2012). Husserl’s crisis as a crisis of psychology. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 43(2), 493–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feest, U. (2014). Phenomenal experiences, first-person methods, and the artificiality of experimental data. Philosophy of Science, 81, 927–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gallagher, S. (2003). Phenomenology and experimental design. Toward a phenomenologically enlightened experimental science. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9–10), 85–99.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gallagher, S., & Schmicking, D. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of phenomenology and cognitive science. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gallagher, S., & Sorensen, J. (2006). Experimenting with phenomenology. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gurwitsch, A. (1966). Some aspects and developments of Gestalt psychology. Studies in phenomenology and psychology (pp. 3–55). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hatfield, G. (2005). Introspective evidence in psychology. In P. Achinstein (Ed.), Scientific evidence: Philosophical theories and applications (pp. 259–286). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Heidelberger, M. (2003). The mind-body problem in the origin of logical empiricism: Herbert Feigl and psychophysical parallelism. In Paolo Parrini, Wesley C. Salmon, & Merrilee H. Salmon (Eds.), Logical empiricism: Historical and contemporary perspectives (pp. 233–262). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Husserl, E. (1913). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung, 1(1), 1–323.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Husserl, E. (1987). Phänomenologie und Psychologie. In Husserliana: Edmund HusserlGesammelte Werke. Aufsätze und Vorträge (19111921). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff (pp. 82–124). (First published in 1917).

  24. Isaac, Alistair. (2017). Hubris to humility: Tonal volume and the fundamentality of psychophysical quantities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 65–66, 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Käufer, S., & Chemero, A. (2013). Phenomenology. An introduction. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Koffka, K. (1923). Zur Theorie der Erlebnis-Wahrnehmung. Annalen der Philosophie, 3, 375–399.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Koffka, K., (2001). Principles of gestalt psychology. Routledge: London. (first published in 1935).

  28. Köhler, W. (1913). Über unbewusste Empfindungen und Urteilstäuschungen. Zeitschrift für Psychologie (Vol. 66, pp. 51–80). (Reprinted as “On Unnoticed Sensations and Errors of Judgment” in Mary Henle (Ed.), The Selected Papers of Wolfgang Köhler (pp. 13–39). Liveright Publishing Corporation.

  29. Luchins, A. & Luchins, E. (2015). Isomorphism in gestalt theory: Comparison of Wertheimer´s and Köhler´s concepts. Gestalt Theory, 37(1), 69–100. (reprint of article from 1999).

  30. Sprung, H., & Sprung, L. (1997). Carl Stumpf (1848–1936) und die Anfänge der Gestaltpsychologie an der Berliner Universität. In S. Jäger, I. Stäubele, L. Sprung, & H.-P. Brauns (Eds.), Psychologie im soziokulturellen Wandel—Kontinuitäten und Diskontinuitäten (pp. 259–268). Frankfurt/M: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sprung, H., & Sprung, L. (2003). ‘Wir brauchen einen Mann, welcher heimisch ist in … der experimentellen Psychologie‘: Carl Stumpf in seiner Berliner Zeit. In L. Sprung & W. Schönpflug (Eds.), Zur Geschichte der Psychologie in Berlin (pp. 201–226). Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Stevens, S. S. (1935a). The operational definition of psychological concepts. Psychological Review, 42, 517–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stevens, S. S. (1935b). The relation of pitch to intensity. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 6, 150–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tye, M. (2002). Representationalism and the transparency of experience. Nous, 36, 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Wagemans, J., Elder, J., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S., Peterson, M., Singh, M., et al. (2012). A century of gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure–ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1172–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wundt, W. (1907). Über Ausfrageexperiments und über die Methoden der Psychologie des Denkens. Psychologische Studien, 3, 301–360.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank audiences in Edinburgh and Lübeck as well as two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. In particular, I thank Dave Ward and Alistair Isaac for inviting me to the conference this paper was written for, Gary Hatfield for helpful bibliographical references and Alistair Isaac for additional insightful feedback. The article draws on archival research that was made possible by the MPI for the History of Science in Berlin.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Uljana Feest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feest, U. Gestalt psychology, frontloading phenomenology, and psychophysics. Synthese 198, 2153–2173 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02211-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Gestalt psychology
  • Psychophysics
  • Experimental phenomenology
  • Introspection
  • History of psychology