0

Summary and Critique of Alan Costall ’s Study of ‘Introspectionism’ and the Mythical

Origins of Scientific Psychology

Michael Cummings

Department of Psychology, Keiser University

PSY502: History and Systems of Psychology

Dr. Fernandez

Week 3: Article Critique

July 23rd, 2023

Summary and Critique of Alan Costall ’s Study of ‘Introspectionism’ and the Mythical

Origins of Scientific Psychology

The following article provides an overview of Alan Costall’s (2006) study on

Introspectionism and the mythical origins of Scientific Psychology. The summary will cover the

study's main ideas and key points.

Article Summary

Costall (2006) conducted a study to explore the relationship between introspectionism

and scientific psychology. In the earlier days of psychology, the field focused on exploring the

mind by looking inward. However, some disagree with this approach, as it is believed to be

unreliable and ineffective. As a result of this disagreement with this approach, psychology was

then redefined as the study of behavior. Later on, the cognitive revolution replaced the mind as

the subject of study, rejecting both introspectionism and behaviorism. However, this article

contends that all three stages are largely mythical (Costall, 2006).

Article Critique

According to Costall's (2006) study, modern scientific psychology can be divided into

three stages: introspectionism, behaviorism, and cognitivism. Initially, psychology focused on

the study of the mind through introspection. However, due to the unreliability of this method,

behaviorism emerged and redefined psychology as the study of behavior using objective

experimentation. However, behaviorism had limited research and theoretical scope, leading to

the cognitive revolution. This stage restored the mind as the proper subject of psychology while

incorporating the rigorous experimental and statistical methods developed within behaviorism.

This three-stage history is characterized by a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (Costall, 2006).

Although this explanation seems straightforward, there are a few problems with it when it comes
2

to our disciplinary history. Nowadays, a growing number of psychologists are challenging the

idea that the third stage is the ultimate goal as it was once believed to be. This is because the

notion of the "mind", which cognitive psychology has brought back into the picture is proving

difficult to define. It seems to be mainly unconscious and may only exist as a theoretical concept

(Costall, 2006). This article aims to debunk the notion that modern psychology stages are mostly

myths.

Research Issues

According to Ericsson and Crutcher (1991), introspectionism involves skilled observers

providing detailed descriptions and analyses of thinking. However, there are several major

problems with this approach. Firstly, it is unclear whether subjects can provide detailed

descriptions of their thoughts as the nature of thinking is too dynamic. Secondly, the validity of

the reported characteristics is questionable as introspection gives subjects' reports a privileged

status inconsistent with traditional science based on reliable inter-subjective observations. Lastly,

there is a concern that the act of introspection may change the thinking process itself, as efforts

to uncover specific information about a thought may transform the corresponding mental state

(Ericsson & Crutcher, 1991).

Alternative Method

Rather than following the conventional approach of psychology's objective methods,

Kroker's (2003) research delves into the cultural, social, and technological factors that influenced

self-examination in early 20th-century America. The study specifically looks at Edmund

Jacobson's "progressive relaxation" as an illustration of this practice. Originally developed by

Jacobson, a Chicago-based clinician, as a cure for nervousness, this technique emerged from his

previous research conducted under E.B. Titchener, an experimental psychologist at Cornell

University. Titchener's "experimental introspection" aimed at transforming practitioners'

perceptions through recurring simple tasks, but eventually, experimental psychologists

abandoned introspection as the basis of their discipline. Nevertheless, the American populace

welcomed progressive relaxation as a practical method of coping with the challenges of modern

life. Titchener's approach to psychology centered around elementism, reductionism, and

sensationism. He strongly believed in these ideas and sought to provide a thorough scientific

explanation of human mental processes, based on a pre-experimental theoretical framework

(Beenfeldt, 2011).

Potential Results

Costall (2006) mentions that the emergence of consciousness studies has led to the

possibility of a new error in the history of scientific psychology. This new four-stage history

would include the familiar stages of Introspectionism, Behaviorism, and Half-baked

Cognitivism. However, the fourth stage of true cognitivism would involve the return of

consciousness as a subject of psychological study through the use of introspection. This proposed

history, while perpetuating mythical beliefs, would also delay the necessary conceptual work

needed to properly integrate consciousness into psychology. Currently, mainstream psychology

lacks a sensible, non-dualistic explanation of the practices of self-observation that are socially

shared. Our ability to think and communicate with ourselves is dependent on our interactions

with others and our own self-reflection (Costall, 2006).

Conclusion

In 2006, Costall conducted a study that effectively dispels the myth that modern

psychology is mostly made up of stages. While introspectionism was not a prominent movement

in modern psychology, this historical account raises important conceptual concerns, particularly
4

regarding the contemporary view of "behavior." This can make the scientific examination of

consciousness appear peculiar. To enhance the outcomes or possible outcomes of this study,

conducting additional research with a thorough methodology to refine and elucidate its

proceedings would be more efficient.

References

Beenfeldt, C. (2011). Introspection, Theory, and Introspectionism. Danish Yearbook of

Philosophy, 46(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1163/24689300_0460103

Costall, A. (2006). 'Introspectionism' and the mythical origins of scientific

psychology. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 15(4), 634–

654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.09.008

Ericsson, K. A., & Crutcher, R. J. (1991). Introspection and verbal reports on cognitive processes

—two approaches to the study of thinking: A response to Howe. New Ideas in

Psychology, 9(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(91)90041-J

Kroker, K. (2003). The progress of introspection in America, 1896–1938. Studies in History and

Philosophy of Science Part C: Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 34(1), 77–108.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8486(02)00072-9

Overgaard, M., & Mogensen, J. (2017). An integrative view on consciousness and

introspection. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8(1), 129–

141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-016-0303-6

Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2015). A History of Modern Psychology (11th ed.). Cengage

Learning.