Subliminal perception occurs whenever stimuli presented below the threshold or limen for awareness are found to influence thoughts, feelings, or actions. The term subliminal perception was originally used to describe situations in which weak stimuli were perceived without awareness. In recent years, the term has been applied more generally to describe any situation in which unnoticed stimuli are perceived.
The concept of subliminal perception is of considerable interest because it suggests that peoples' thoughts, feelings and actions are influenced by stimuli that are perceived without any awareness of perceiving. This interest was reflected in some of the earliest psychological studies conducted during the late 1800s and early 1900s. In these early studies, people were simply asked whether or not they were aware of perceiving. For example, visual stimuli such as letters, digits, or geometric figures were presented at such a distance from observers that they claimed either not to see anything at all or to see nothing more than blurred dots. Likewise, auditory stimuli such as the names of letters were whispered so faintly that observers claimed that they were unable to hear any sound whatsoever. To test whether these visual or auditory stimuli may have been perceived despite the statements to the contrary, the observers were asked to make guesses regarding the stimuli. For example, if half the stimuli were letters and half the stimuli were digits, the observers may have been asked to guess whether a letter or a digit had been presented. The consistent result found in these early studies was that the observers' guesses regarding the stimuli were more correct than would be expected on the basis of chance guessing. In other words, despite the observers' statements indicating that they were unaware of perceiving the stimuli, their guesses indicated that they did in fact perceive sufficient information to make accurate guesses regarding the stimuli. Over the years, there have been literally hundreds of studies following a similar format. Taken together, these studies show that considerable information capable of informing decisions and guiding actions is perceived even when observers do not experience any awareness of perceiving.
Another way in which subliminal perception has been demonstrated in controlled laboratory studies is by showing that stimuli can be perceived even when they are presented under conditions that make it difficult if not impossible to distinguish one stimulus from another stimulus. The classic studies were conducted in the 1970s by the British psychologist Anthony Marcel. These experiments were based on previous findings indicating that a decision regarding a stimulus is facilitated or primed when the stimulus follows a related stimulus. For example, if an observer is asked to classify a letter string as either a word (e.g., doctor, bread) or a nonword (e.g., tocdor, dreab), a letter string such as the word doctor will be classified as a word faster when it follows a semantically related word (e.g., nurse) than when it follows a semantically non-related word (e.g., butter). Marcel found that words facilitated or primed subsequent word/nonword decisions to letter strings even when the words were presented under conditions that made it difficult if not impossible for the observers to distinguish when the words were present from when the words were absent. Since the time of Marcel's original experiments, there have been many other studies that have used similar methods. Not only have these studies confirmed Marcel's original findings, but they have shown that other stimuli such as pictures, faces, and spoken words can also facilitate subsequent decisions when they are presented under conditions that make it difficult to discriminate one stimulus from another stimulus. Although questions have been raised regarding whether the observers in these studies were completely unable to discriminate one stimulus from another stimulus, the one firm conclusion that can be made on the basis of these studies is that considerable information is perceived even when observers experience little or no awareness of perceiving as indicated by their difficulty in discriminating one stimulus from another stimulus.
Examples of subliminal perception are found in studies of patients with neurological damage. A striking characteristic of a number of neurological syndromes is that patients claim not to see particular stimuli but nevertheless respond on the basis of information conveyed by these stimuli. One example is a syndrome called blindsight. Patients with blindsight have damage to the primary visual cortex. As a result of this damage, they are often unaware of perceiving stimuli within a restricted area of their visual field. For example, if the visual field is thought of as consisting of four quadrants, a blindsight patient may have normal vision for stimuli presented in three of the quadrants but be completely unaware of stimuli presented in the fourth quadrant. However, even though these patients may claim not to see stimuli located within the "blind" quadrant, they are still able to guess the size, shape or orientation of the stimuli that they claim not to see. Another neurological syndrome in which subliminal perception occurs is prosopagnosia or face agnosia. Patients with prosopagnosia are unable to recognize familiar faces. Although they may be aware that they are looking at a person's face, they are unable to say who the person may be. Thus, prosapagnosics have no awareness of perceiving any information regarding whose face they may be viewing. However, despite this absence of awareness, some patients with prosapagnosia are able to choose which of two names goes with each familiar face that they claim not to be able to recognize.
Perception without an awareness of perceiving can also occur in surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia. One goal of general anesthesia is to ensure that surgical patients are completely unaware of all events that occur during anesthesia. This goal is satisfied in the vast majority of cases because when patients are asked following surgery to report anything they remember that happened during surgery, just about every patient claims not to remember anything. However, when memory is assessed by more indirect methods, there appears to be some memory for events during anesthesia. For example, during surgery, patients may wear earphones and a tape recording of a number of repetitions of a series of words may be played to the patients. If following surgery, these patients are presented word stems such as gui _ _ or pro _ _ and asked to complete these stems to produce a common English word, there are numerous possible completions (e.g., guilt, guild, guile; prove, prowl, probe). However, if the words guide and proud had been presented during anesthesia, then the patients may be more likely to complete the stems gui _ _ and pro _ _ with letters that reproduce guide and proud than with letters that produce other possible words. Given that patients undergoing general anesthesia are unaware of events in the external environment, memory for specific stimuli presented during anesthesia shows that information is at times perceived without any awareness of perceiving during general anesthesia.
Over the years, some extraordinary claims have been made concerning the power of subliminal perception. Perhaps the most widely known claim was made in 1957 by James Vicary, a market researcher. He claimed that over a six-week period, 45,699 patrons at a movie theater in Fort Lee, New Jersey were shown two advertising messages, Eat Popcorn and Drink Coca-Cola, while they watched the film Picnic. According to Vicary, a message was flashed for 3/1000 of a second once every five seconds. The duration of the messages was so short that they were never consciously perceived. Despite the fact that the customers were not aware of perceiving the messages, Vicary claimed that over the six-week period the sales of popcorn rose 57.7% and the sales of Coca-Cola rose 18.1%. Vicary's claims are often accepted as established facts. However, Vicary never released a detailed description of his study and there has never been any independent evidence to support his claims. Also, in an interview with Advertising Age in 1962, Vicary stated that the original study was a fabrication. The weight of the evidence suggests that it was indeed a fabrication.
Other claims regarding the extraordinary efficacy of subliminal perception also lack substance. In the 1970s, Wilson Bryan Key wrote such books as Subliminal Seduction and Media Sexploitation in which he claimed subliminal sexual symbols or objects are often used to entice consumers to buy and use various products and services. One of Key's most famous claims is that the word sex was often embedded in products and advertisements. For example, he claimed that the word sex was printed on Ritz crackers and was embedded in the ice cubes of the drink shown in a well-known ad for Gilbey's Gin. According to Key, despite the fact the embedded words are not consciously perceived, they are unconsciously perceived and can elicit sexual arousal which in turn makes the products more attractive to consumers. Although Key's claims are widely known, there is no independent evidence indicating that embedded subliminal words, symbols, or objects are used to sell products. Furthermore, even if such embedded subliminal stimuli were used, there is no evidence to suggest this would be an effective method for influencing the choices that consumers make.
Belief in the power of subliminal perception to induce changes in the way people feel and act is so widespread that a number of companies have been able to exploit this belief by marketing subliminal self-help audio and video tapes. The companies that market these tapes claim that regular use of the tapes can cure a variety of problems and aid in the development of many skills. Each company markets a number of different tapes. Presumably, what distinguishes the different tapes marketed by each company are the embedded subliminal messages that can be neither consciously seen or heard. Some of the more popular tapes are claimed to help individuals stop smoking, lose weight, or reduce stress; other tapes are claimed to help people increase their reading speed, improve their memory, or develop their skills at tennis (or golf or baseball, etc.). Given the extraordinary nature of these claims, there have been a number of controlled studies designed specifically to test of the efficacy of the tapes. All of these studies have failed to find any evidence consistent with the claims of the companies that market these tapes. There is simply no evidence that regular listening to subliminal audio self-help tapes or regular viewing of subliminal video self-help tapes is an effective method for overcoming problems or improving skills. In fact, there is even evidence to suggest that many subliminal self-help tapes do not even contain subliminal messages that could possibly be perceived under any circumstances by a human observer.
A common theme that links all extraordinary claims regarding subliminal perception is that perception in the absence of an awareness of perceiving is somehow more powerful or influential than perception that is accompanied by an awareness of perceiving. This idea is not supported by the results of controlled laboratory investigations of subliminal perception. Rather, the findings from controlled studies indicate that subliminal perception, when it occurs, reflects a person's usual interpretations of stimuli. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that people initiate actions on the basis of subliminal perception. The weight of the evidence indicates that people must be aware of perceiving stimuli before they initiate actions or change their habitual reactions to these stimuli. Thus, although subliminal perception may allow us to make accurate guesses regarding the characteristics of stimuli, subliminal perception cannot lead a person to drink Coca-Cola or to eat Ritz Crackers, and it cannot be used effectively to improve a person's tennis skills or to cure a person's bad habits.
Monday, June 2, 2008
The Physiology of Perception
The brain transforms sensory messages into conscious perceptions almost instantly Chaotic, collective activity involving millions of neurons seems essential for such rapid recognition.
When a person glimpses the face of a famous actor, sniffs a favorite food or hears the voice of a friend, recognition is instant. Within a fraction of a second after the eyes, nose, ears, tongue or skin is stimulated, one knows the object is familiar and whether it is desirable or dangerous. How does such recognition, which psychologists call preattentive perception, happen so accurately and quickly, even when the stimuli are complex and the context in which they arise varies?
Much is known about the way the cerebral cortex, the outer rind of the brain, initially analyzes sensory messages. Yet investigations are only now beginning to suggest how the brain moves beyond the mere extraction of features-how it combines sensory messages with past experience and with expectation to identify both the stimulus and its particular meaning to the individual.
My own group's studies, carried out over more than 30 years at the University of California at Berkeley, suggest that perception cannot be understood solely by examining properties of individual neurons, a microscopic approach that currently dominates neuroscience research. We have found that perception depends on the simultaneous, cooperative activity of millions of neurons spread throughout expanses of the cortex. Such global activity can be identified, measured and explained only if one adopts a macroscopic view alongside the microscopic one.
There is an analogy to this approach in music. To grasp the beauty in a choral piece, it is not enough to listen to the individual singers sequentially. One must hear the performers together, as they modulate their voices and timing in response to one another.
Our studies have led us as well to the discovery in the brain of chaos- complex behavior that seems random but actually has some hidden order. The chaos is evident in the tendency of vast collections of neurons to shift abruptly and simultaneously from one complex activity pattern to another in response to the smallest of inputs.
This changeability is a prime characteristic of many chaotic systems. It is not harmful in the brain. In fact, we propose it is the very property that makes perception possible. We also speculate that chaos underlies the ability of the brain to respond flexibly to the outside world and to generate novel activity patterns, including those that are experienced as fresh ideas.
An understanding of perception must be based on knowledge of the properties of the neurons that enact it. My colleagues and I have concentrated in many of our studies on neurons of the olfactory system.
For years it has been known that when an animal or a person sniffs an odorant, molecules carrying the scent are captured by a few of the immense number of receptor neurons in the nasal passages; the receptors are somewhat specialized in the kinds of odorants to which they respond. Cells that become excited fire action potentials, or pulses, which propagate through projections called axons to a part of the cortex known as the olfactory bulb. The number of activated receptors indicates the intensity of the stimulus, and their location in the nose conveys the nature of the scent. That is, each scent is expressed by a spatial pattern of receptor activity, which in turn is transmitted to the bulb.
The bulb analyzes each input pattern and then synthesizes its own message, which it transmits via axons to another part of the olfactory system, the olfactory cortex. From there, new signals are sent to many parts of the brain-not the least of which is an area called the entorhinal cortex, where the signals are combined with those from other sensory systems. The result is a meaning-laden perception, a gestalt, that is unique to each individual. For a dog, the recognition of the scent of a fox may carry the memory of food and expectation of a meal. For a rabbit, the same scent may arouse memories of chase and fear of attack.
Such knowledge has provided a valuable starting point for more detailed study of olfaction. But it leaves two important issues unresolved. The first is the classic problem of separating foreground from background: How does the brain distinguish one scent from all others that accompany it?
"PHASE PORTRAITS" made from electroencephalograms (EEGs)
generated by a computer model of the brain reflect the overall activity of
the olfactory system at rest (above) and during perception of a familiar
scent (right). Resemblance of the portraits to irregularly shaped, but still
structured, coils of wire reveals that brain activity in both conditions is
chaotic: complex but having some underlying order. The more circular
shape of the right-hand image, together with its greater segregation of
color, indicates that olfactory EEGs are more ordered-more nearly
periodic-during perception than during rest.
Also, how does the brain achieve what is called generalization-over- equivalent receptors? Because of turbulence in nasal air flow, only a few of the many receptors that are sensitive to an odorant are excited during a sniff, and the selection varies unpredictably from one sniff to the next. How does the brain recognize that signals from different collections of receptors all refer to the same stimulus? Our investigations begin to suggest answers to both problems.
Many of our insights were derived from intensive studies of the olfactory bulb. Those experiments show clearly that every neuron in the bulb participates in generating each olfactory perception. In other words, the salient information about the stimulus is carried in some distinctive pattern of bulbwide activity, not in a small subset of feature-detecting neurons that are excited only by, say, foxlike scents.
Moreover, although this collective neural activity reflects the odorant, the activity itself is not determined solely by the stimulus. Bulbar functioning is self-organized, very much controlled by internal factors, including the sensitivity of the neurons to input.
The experiments uncovering the collective activity were conceptually simple. By applying standard reinforcement techniques, we trained animals, often rabbits, to recognize several different odorants and to behave in particular ways when they did-for instance, to lick or chew in expectation of food or water. Before training was started, we attached 60 to 64 electrodes 0.5 millimeter apart in a gridlike array to a large part of the bulbar surface.
During training and thereafter, the array enabled us to collect sets of 60 to 64 simultaneously recorded electroencephalogram (EEG) tracings as the animals breathed in and out, sometimes sniffing familiar scents and sometimes not. Each tracing reflects the mean excitatory state of local pools of neurons lying in a well-defined layer immediately beneath the electrodes. Rises in the wavelike tracings indicate increasing excitement; dips represent diminished excitement caused by inhibition.
When a person glimpses the face of a famous actor, sniffs a favorite food or hears the voice of a friend, recognition is instant. Within a fraction of a second after the eyes, nose, ears, tongue or skin is stimulated, one knows the object is familiar and whether it is desirable or dangerous. How does such recognition, which psychologists call preattentive perception, happen so accurately and quickly, even when the stimuli are complex and the context in which they arise varies?
Much is known about the way the cerebral cortex, the outer rind of the brain, initially analyzes sensory messages. Yet investigations are only now beginning to suggest how the brain moves beyond the mere extraction of features-how it combines sensory messages with past experience and with expectation to identify both the stimulus and its particular meaning to the individual.
My own group's studies, carried out over more than 30 years at the University of California at Berkeley, suggest that perception cannot be understood solely by examining properties of individual neurons, a microscopic approach that currently dominates neuroscience research. We have found that perception depends on the simultaneous, cooperative activity of millions of neurons spread throughout expanses of the cortex. Such global activity can be identified, measured and explained only if one adopts a macroscopic view alongside the microscopic one.
There is an analogy to this approach in music. To grasp the beauty in a choral piece, it is not enough to listen to the individual singers sequentially. One must hear the performers together, as they modulate their voices and timing in response to one another.
Our studies have led us as well to the discovery in the brain of chaos- complex behavior that seems random but actually has some hidden order. The chaos is evident in the tendency of vast collections of neurons to shift abruptly and simultaneously from one complex activity pattern to another in response to the smallest of inputs.
This changeability is a prime characteristic of many chaotic systems. It is not harmful in the brain. In fact, we propose it is the very property that makes perception possible. We also speculate that chaos underlies the ability of the brain to respond flexibly to the outside world and to generate novel activity patterns, including those that are experienced as fresh ideas.
An understanding of perception must be based on knowledge of the properties of the neurons that enact it. My colleagues and I have concentrated in many of our studies on neurons of the olfactory system.
For years it has been known that when an animal or a person sniffs an odorant, molecules carrying the scent are captured by a few of the immense number of receptor neurons in the nasal passages; the receptors are somewhat specialized in the kinds of odorants to which they respond. Cells that become excited fire action potentials, or pulses, which propagate through projections called axons to a part of the cortex known as the olfactory bulb. The number of activated receptors indicates the intensity of the stimulus, and their location in the nose conveys the nature of the scent. That is, each scent is expressed by a spatial pattern of receptor activity, which in turn is transmitted to the bulb.
The bulb analyzes each input pattern and then synthesizes its own message, which it transmits via axons to another part of the olfactory system, the olfactory cortex. From there, new signals are sent to many parts of the brain-not the least of which is an area called the entorhinal cortex, where the signals are combined with those from other sensory systems. The result is a meaning-laden perception, a gestalt, that is unique to each individual. For a dog, the recognition of the scent of a fox may carry the memory of food and expectation of a meal. For a rabbit, the same scent may arouse memories of chase and fear of attack.
Such knowledge has provided a valuable starting point for more detailed study of olfaction. But it leaves two important issues unresolved. The first is the classic problem of separating foreground from background: How does the brain distinguish one scent from all others that accompany it?
"PHASE PORTRAITS" made from electroencephalograms (EEGs)
generated by a computer model of the brain reflect the overall activity of
the olfactory system at rest (above) and during perception of a familiar
scent (right). Resemblance of the portraits to irregularly shaped, but still
structured, coils of wire reveals that brain activity in both conditions is
chaotic: complex but having some underlying order. The more circular
shape of the right-hand image, together with its greater segregation of
color, indicates that olfactory EEGs are more ordered-more nearly
periodic-during perception than during rest.
Also, how does the brain achieve what is called generalization-over- equivalent receptors? Because of turbulence in nasal air flow, only a few of the many receptors that are sensitive to an odorant are excited during a sniff, and the selection varies unpredictably from one sniff to the next. How does the brain recognize that signals from different collections of receptors all refer to the same stimulus? Our investigations begin to suggest answers to both problems.
Many of our insights were derived from intensive studies of the olfactory bulb. Those experiments show clearly that every neuron in the bulb participates in generating each olfactory perception. In other words, the salient information about the stimulus is carried in some distinctive pattern of bulbwide activity, not in a small subset of feature-detecting neurons that are excited only by, say, foxlike scents.
Moreover, although this collective neural activity reflects the odorant, the activity itself is not determined solely by the stimulus. Bulbar functioning is self-organized, very much controlled by internal factors, including the sensitivity of the neurons to input.
The experiments uncovering the collective activity were conceptually simple. By applying standard reinforcement techniques, we trained animals, often rabbits, to recognize several different odorants and to behave in particular ways when they did-for instance, to lick or chew in expectation of food or water. Before training was started, we attached 60 to 64 electrodes 0.5 millimeter apart in a gridlike array to a large part of the bulbar surface.
During training and thereafter, the array enabled us to collect sets of 60 to 64 simultaneously recorded electroencephalogram (EEG) tracings as the animals breathed in and out, sometimes sniffing familiar scents and sometimes not. Each tracing reflects the mean excitatory state of local pools of neurons lying in a well-defined layer immediately beneath the electrodes. Rises in the wavelike tracings indicate increasing excitement; dips represent diminished excitement caused by inhibition.
Definition of Social Psychology
Social psychology is the study of how social conditions affect human beings. Scholars in this field are generally either psychologists or sociologists, though all social psychologists employ both the individual and the group as their units of analysis.[2] Despite their similarity, the disciplines also tend to differ in their respective goals, approaches, methods, and terminology. They also favor separate academic journals and societies.
Social psychology is an interdisciplinary area. The greatest period of collaboration between sociologists and psychologists was during the years immediately following World War II.[3] Although there has been increasing isolation and specialization in recent years, some degree of overlap and influence remains between the two disciplines.
Psychology
Most social psychologists are trained within psychology. Their approach to the field focuses on the individual and attempts to explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are influenced by other people. Psychologically oriented researchers emphasize the immediate social situation, and the interaction between person and situation variables. Their research tends to be highly empirical and quantitative, and it is often centered around laboratory experiments.
Psychologists who study social psychology are interested in such topics as attitudes, social cognition, cognitive dissonance, social influence, and interpersonal behaviors such as altruism and aggression. Two influential journals for the publication of research in this area are the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Psychology (from Greek: ψυχή, psychē, “soul“, “self” or “mind”; and λόγος, logos, “speech” lit. “to talk about the psyche”) is an academic and applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes and behavior (Psychology studies human behavior, not mental processes, Cognitive Psychology studies mental processes, but psychology in general studies human behavior). There is some tension between scientific psychology (with its program of empirical research) and applied psychology (dealing with a number of areas).
Psychologists attempt to explain the mind and brain in the context of real life. In contrast neurologists utilize a physiological approach. Psychologists study such phenomena as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to various spheres of human activity including issues related to daily life—e.g. family, education, and work—and the treatment of mental health problems.
In addition to dissecting the brain’s fundamental mental functions and processes, psychology also attempts to understand the role these functions play in social behavior and in social dynamics, while incorporating the underlying physiological and neurological processes into its conceptions of mental functioning. Psychology includes many sub-fields of study and application concerned with such areas as human development, sports, health, industry, media, law, and transpersonal psychology.
Sociology
A significant number of social psychologists are sociologists. Their work has a greater focus on the behavior of the group, and thus examines such phenomena as interactions and exchanges at the micro-level, group dynamics and group development, and crowds at the macro-level. Sociologists are interested in the individual, but primarily within the context of larger social structures and processes, such as social roles, race and class, and socialization. They use a combination of qualitative research designs and highly quantitative methods, such as procedures for sampling and surveys.
Sociologists in this area are interested in a variety of demographic, social, and cultural phenomena. Some of their major research areas are social inequality, group dynamics, social change, socialization, social identity, reactance (Boomerang effect), and symbolic interactionism. The key sociological journal is Social Psychology Quarterly.
Sociology (from Latin: socius, “companion”; and the suffix -ology, “the study of”, from Greek λόγος, lógos, “knowledge” [1]) is the scientific or systematic study of society, including patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and culture[2]. Areas studied in sociology can range from the analysis of brief contacts between anonymous individuals on the street to the study of global social interaction. Numerous fields within the discipline concentrate on how and why people are organized in society, either as individuals or as members of associations, groups, and institutions. Sociology is considered a branch of social science.
Sociological research provides educators, planners, lawmakers, administrators, developers, business leaders, and people interested in resolving social problems and formulating public policy with rationales for the actions that they take.
Social psychology is an interdisciplinary area. The greatest period of collaboration between sociologists and psychologists was during the years immediately following World War II.[3] Although there has been increasing isolation and specialization in recent years, some degree of overlap and influence remains between the two disciplines.
Psychology
Most social psychologists are trained within psychology. Their approach to the field focuses on the individual and attempts to explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals are influenced by other people. Psychologically oriented researchers emphasize the immediate social situation, and the interaction between person and situation variables. Their research tends to be highly empirical and quantitative, and it is often centered around laboratory experiments.
Psychologists who study social psychology are interested in such topics as attitudes, social cognition, cognitive dissonance, social influence, and interpersonal behaviors such as altruism and aggression. Two influential journals for the publication of research in this area are the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
Psychology (from Greek: ψυχή, psychē, “soul“, “self” or “mind”; and λόγος, logos, “speech” lit. “to talk about the psyche”) is an academic and applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes and behavior (Psychology studies human behavior, not mental processes, Cognitive Psychology studies mental processes, but psychology in general studies human behavior). There is some tension between scientific psychology (with its program of empirical research) and applied psychology (dealing with a number of areas).
Psychologists attempt to explain the mind and brain in the context of real life. In contrast neurologists utilize a physiological approach. Psychologists study such phenomena as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to various spheres of human activity including issues related to daily life—e.g. family, education, and work—and the treatment of mental health problems.
In addition to dissecting the brain’s fundamental mental functions and processes, psychology also attempts to understand the role these functions play in social behavior and in social dynamics, while incorporating the underlying physiological and neurological processes into its conceptions of mental functioning. Psychology includes many sub-fields of study and application concerned with such areas as human development, sports, health, industry, media, law, and transpersonal psychology.
Sociology
A significant number of social psychologists are sociologists. Their work has a greater focus on the behavior of the group, and thus examines such phenomena as interactions and exchanges at the micro-level, group dynamics and group development, and crowds at the macro-level. Sociologists are interested in the individual, but primarily within the context of larger social structures and processes, such as social roles, race and class, and socialization. They use a combination of qualitative research designs and highly quantitative methods, such as procedures for sampling and surveys.
Sociologists in this area are interested in a variety of demographic, social, and cultural phenomena. Some of their major research areas are social inequality, group dynamics, social change, socialization, social identity, reactance (Boomerang effect), and symbolic interactionism. The key sociological journal is Social Psychology Quarterly.
Sociology (from Latin: socius, “companion”; and the suffix -ology, “the study of”, from Greek λόγος, lógos, “knowledge” [1]) is the scientific or systematic study of society, including patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and culture[2]. Areas studied in sociology can range from the analysis of brief contacts between anonymous individuals on the street to the study of global social interaction. Numerous fields within the discipline concentrate on how and why people are organized in society, either as individuals or as members of associations, groups, and institutions. Sociology is considered a branch of social science.
Sociological research provides educators, planners, lawmakers, administrators, developers, business leaders, and people interested in resolving social problems and formulating public policy with rationales for the actions that they take.
History of Sociology
Sociology, including economic, political, and cultural systems, has origins in the common stock of human knowledge and philosophy. Social analysis has been carried out by scholars and philosophers at least as early as the time of Plato.
There is evidence of early Greek (e.g. Xenophanes[3], Xenophon[4] , Polybios[5]) and Muslim sociological contributions, especially by Ibn Khaldun,[6] whose Muqaddimah is viewed as the earliest work dedicated to sociology as a social science.[7][8] Several other forerunners of sociology, from Giambattista Vico up to Karl Marx, are nowadays considered classical sociologists.
Sociology later emerged as a scientific discipline in the early 19th century as an academic response to the challenges of modernity and modernization, such as industrialization and urbanization. Sociologists hope not only to understand what holds social groups together, but also to develop responses to social disintegration and exploitation.
The term “sociologie” was first used in 1780 by the French essayist Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès (1748-1836) in an unpublished manuscript.[9]. The term was independently re-invented, and introduced as a neologism, by the French thinker Auguste Comte [10] in 1838. Comte had earlier used the term ’social physics’, but that term had been appropriated by others, notably Adolphe Quetelet. Comte hoped to unify all studies of humankind - including history, psychology and economics. His own sociological scheme was typical of the 19th century; he believed all human life had passed through the same distinct historical stages (theology, metaphysics, positive science) and that, if one could grasp this progress, one could prescribe the remedies for social ills. Sociology was to be the ‘queen of positive sciences’.[11] Thus, Comte has come to be viewed as the “Father of Sociology”.[11]
“Classical” theorists of sociology from the late 19th and early 20th centuries include Ferdinand Tönnies, Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Vilfredo Pareto, Ludwig Gumplowicz, Georg Simmel and Max Weber. Like Comte, these figures did not consider themselves only “sociologists”. Their works addressed religion, education, economics, law, psychology, ethics, philosophy and theology, and their theories have been applied in a variety of academic disciplines. Their influence on sociology was foundational.
Positivism and anti-positivism
Early theorists’ approach to sociology, led by Comte, was to treat it in much the same manner as natural science, applying the same methods and methodology used in the natural sciences to study social phenomena. The emphasis on empiricism and the scientific method sought to provide an incontestable foundation for any sociological claims or findings, and to distinguish sociology from less empirical fields such as philosophy. This methodological approach, called positivism assumes that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method.
One push away from positivism was philosophical and political, such as in the dialectical materialism based on Marx’ theories. A second push away from scientific positivism was cultural, becoming sociological. As early as the 19th century, positivist and naturalist approaches to studying social life were questioned by scientists like Wilhelm Dilthey and Heinrich Rickert, who argued that the natural world differs from the social world because of unique aspects of human society such as meanings, symbols, rules, norms, and values. These elements of society inform human cultures. This view was further developed by Max Weber, who introduced antipositivism (humanistic sociology). According to this view, which is closely related to antinaturalism, sociological research must concentrate on humans’ cultural values (see also: French Pragmatism).
Twentieth century developments
In the early 20th century, sociology expanded in the United States, including developments in both macrosociology interested in evolution of societies and microsociology. Based on the pragmatic social psychology of George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer and others (later Chicago school) inspired sociologists developed symbolic interactionism.
In Europe, in the Interwar period, sociology generally was both attacked by increasingly totalitarian governments and rejected by conservative universities. At the same time, originally in Austria and later in the U.S., Alfred Schütz developed social phenomenology (which would later inform social constructionism). Also, members of the Frankfurt school (most of whom moved to the U.S. to escape Nazi persecution) developed critical theory, integrating critical, idealistic and historical materialistic elements of the dialectical philosophies of Hegel and Marx with the insights of Freud, Max Weber (in theory, if not always in name) and others. In the 1930s in the U.S., Talcott Parsons developed structural-functional theory which integrated the study of social order and “objective” aspects of macro and micro structural factors.
Since World War II, sociology has been revived in Europe, although during the Stalin and Mao eras it was suppressed in the communist countries. In the mid-20th century, there was a general (but not universal) trend for US-American sociology to be more scientific in nature, due partly to the prominent influence at that time of structural functionalism. Sociologists developed new types of quantitative and qualitative research methods. In the second half of the 20th century, sociological research has been increasingly employed as a tool by governments and businesses. Parallel with the rise of various social movements in the 1960s, theories emphasizing social struggle, including conflict theory (which sought to counter structural functionalism) and neomarxist theories, began to receive more attention.
In the late 20th century, some sociologists embraced postmodern and poststructuralist philosophies. Increasingly, many sociologists have used qualitative and ethnographic methods and become critical of the positivism in some social scientific approaches.[citation needed] Much like cultural studies, some contemporary sociological studies have been influenced by the cultural changes of the 1960s, 20th century Continental philosophy, literary studies, and interpretivism. Others have maintained more objective empirical perspectives, such as by articulating neofunctionalism, social psychology, and rational choice theory. Others began to debate the nature of globalization and the changing nature of social institutions. These developments have led some to reconceptualize basic sociological categories and theories. For instance, inspired by the thought of Michel Foucault, power may be studied as dispersed throughout society in a wide variety of disciplinary cultural practices. In political sociology, the power of the nation state may be seen as transforming due to the globalization of trade (and cultural exchanges) and the expanding influence of international organizations (Nash 2000:1-4).
However, the positivist tradition is still alive and influential in sociology. In the U.S., the most commonly cited journals, including the American Journal of Sociology and American Sociological Review, primarily publish research in the positivist tradition. There is also a minor revival for a more independent, empirical sociology in the spirit of C Wright Mills, and his studies of the Power Elite in the USA, according to Stanley Aronowitz.
Social network analysis is an example of a new paradigm in this tradition which can go beyond the traditional micro vs. macro or agency vs. structure debates. The influence of social network analysis is pervasive in many sociological subfields such as economic sociology (see the work of J. Clyde Mitchell, Harrison White, or Mark Granovetter for example), organizational behavior, historical sociology, political sociology, or the sociology of education.
Throughout the development of sociology, controversies have raged about how to emphasize or integrate concerns with subjectivity, objectivity, intersubjectivity and practicality in theory and research. The extent to which sociology may be characterized as a ‘science‘ has remained an area of considerable debate, which has addressed basic ontological and epistemological philosophical questions. One outcome of such disputes has been the ongoing formation of multidimensional theories of society, such as the continuing development of various types of critical theory. Another outcome has been the formation of public sociology, which emphasizes the usefulness of sociological analysis to various social groups.
Scope and topics of sociology
Sociologists study society and social action by examining the groups and social institutions people form, as well as various social, religious, political, and business organizations. They also study the social interactions of people and groups, trace the origin and growth of social processes, and analyze the influence of group activities on individual members and vice versa. The results of sociological research aid educators, lawmakers, administrators, and others interested in resolving social problems, working for social justice and formulating public policy.
Sociologists research macro-structures and processes that organize or affect society, such as, but is not limited to race or ethnicity, gender, globalization, and social class stratification. They study institutions such as the family and social processes that represent deviation from, or the breakdown of, social structures, including crime and divorce. And, they research micro-processes such as interpersonal interactions and the socialization of individuals. Sociologists are also concerned with the effect of social traits such as sex, age, or race on a person’s daily life.
Most sociologists work in one or more specialties, such as, but is not limited to social stratification, social organization, and social mobility; ethnic and race relations; education; family; social psychology; urban, rural, political, and comparative sociology; sex roles and relationships; demography; gerontology; criminology; and sociological practice. In short, sociologists study the many dimensions of society.
Although sociology was informed by Comte’s conviction that sociology would sit at the apex of all the sciences, sociology today is identified as one of many social sciences (such as anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, etc.). At times, sociology does integrate the insights of various disciplines, as do other social sciences. Initially, the discipline was concerned particularly with the organization of complex industrial societies. In the past, anthropology had methods that would have helped to study cultural issues in a “more acute” way than sociologists.[17] Recent sociologists, taking cues from anthropologists, have noted the “Western emphasis” of the field. In response, sociology departments around the world are encouraging the study of many cultures and multi-national studies.
Methods of sociological inquiry
Sociologists use many types of social research methods, including:
* Archival research - Facts or factual evidences from a variety of records are compiled.
* Content Analysis - The contents of books and mass media are analyzed to study how people communicate and the messages people talk or write about.
* Historical Method - This involves a continuous and systematic search for the information and knowledge about past events related to the life of a person, a group, society, or the world.
* Experimental Research - The researcher isolates a single social process or social phenomena and uses the data to either confirm or construct social theory. The experiment is the best method for testing theory due to its extremely high internal validity. Participants, or subjects, are randomly assigned to various conditions or ‘treatments’, and then analyses are made between groups. Randomization allows the researcher to be sure that the treatment is having the effect on group differences and not some other extraneous factor.
* Survey Research - The researcher obtains data from interviews, questionnaires, or similar feedback from a set of persons chosen (including random selection) to represent a particular population of interest. Survey items may be open-ended or closed-ended.
* Life History - This is the study of the personal life trajectories. Through a series of interviews, the researcher can probe into the decisive moments in their life or the various influences on their life.
* Longitudinal study - This is an extensive examination of a specific group over a long period of time.
* Observation - Using data from the senses, one records information about social phenomenon or behavior. Qualitative research relies heavily on observation, although it is in a highly disciplined form.
* Participant Observation - As the name implies, the researcher goes to the field (usually a community), lives with the people for some time, and participates in their activities in order to know and feel their culture.
The choice of a method in part often depends on the researcher’s epistemological approach to research. For example, those researchers who are concerned with statistical generalizability to a population will most likely administer structured int
erviews with a survey questionnaire to a carefully selected probability sample. By contrast, those sociologists, especially ethnographers, who are more interested in having a full contextual understanding of group members lives will choose participant observation, observation, and open-ended interviews. Many studies combine several of these methodologies.
The relative merits of these research methodologies is a topic of much professional debate among practicing sociologists.
Combining research methods
In practice, some sociologists combine different research methods and approaches, since different methods produce different types of findings that correspond to different aspects of societies. For example, the quantitative methods may help describe social patterns, while qualitative approaches could help to understand how individuals understand those patterns.
An example of using multiple types of research methods is in the study of the Internet. The Internet is of interest for sociologists in various ways: as a tool for research, for example, in using online questionnaires instead of paper ones, as a discussion platform, and as a research topic. Sociology of the Internet in the last sense includes analysis of online communities (e.g. as found in newsgroups), virtual communities and virtual worlds, organizational change catalyzed through new media like the Internet, and social change at-large in the transformation from industrial to informational society (or to information society). Online communities can be studied statistically through network analysis and at the same time interpreted qualitatively, such as though virtual ethnography. Social change can be studied through statistical demographics or through the interpretation of changing messages and symbols in online media studies.
[edit] Sociology and other social sciences
Sociology shares deep ties with a wide array of other disciplines that also deal with the study of society. The fields of economics, psychology, and anthropology have influenced and have been influenced by sociology and these fields share a great amount of history and common research interests.
Today sociology and the other sciences are better contrasted according to methodology rather than objects of study. Additionally, unlike sociology, psychology and anthropology have forensic components within these disciplines that deal with anatomy and other types of laboratory research.
Sociobiology is the study of how social behavior and organization has been influenced by evolution and other biological processes. The field blends sociology with a number other sciences, such as anthropology, biology, zoology, and others. Although the field once rapidly gained acceptance, it has remained highly controversial within the sociological academy. Sociologists often criticize the study for depending too greatly on the effects of genes in defining behavior. Sociobiologists often respond by citing a complex relationship between nature and nurture.
Sociology is also widely used in management science, especially in the field of organizational behavior.
There is evidence of early Greek (e.g. Xenophanes[3], Xenophon[4] , Polybios[5]) and Muslim sociological contributions, especially by Ibn Khaldun,[6] whose Muqaddimah is viewed as the earliest work dedicated to sociology as a social science.[7][8] Several other forerunners of sociology, from Giambattista Vico up to Karl Marx, are nowadays considered classical sociologists.
Sociology later emerged as a scientific discipline in the early 19th century as an academic response to the challenges of modernity and modernization, such as industrialization and urbanization. Sociologists hope not only to understand what holds social groups together, but also to develop responses to social disintegration and exploitation.
The term “sociologie” was first used in 1780 by the French essayist Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès (1748-1836) in an unpublished manuscript.[9]. The term was independently re-invented, and introduced as a neologism, by the French thinker Auguste Comte [10] in 1838. Comte had earlier used the term ’social physics’, but that term had been appropriated by others, notably Adolphe Quetelet. Comte hoped to unify all studies of humankind - including history, psychology and economics. His own sociological scheme was typical of the 19th century; he believed all human life had passed through the same distinct historical stages (theology, metaphysics, positive science) and that, if one could grasp this progress, one could prescribe the remedies for social ills. Sociology was to be the ‘queen of positive sciences’.[11] Thus, Comte has come to be viewed as the “Father of Sociology”.[11]
“Classical” theorists of sociology from the late 19th and early 20th centuries include Ferdinand Tönnies, Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer, Vilfredo Pareto, Ludwig Gumplowicz, Georg Simmel and Max Weber. Like Comte, these figures did not consider themselves only “sociologists”. Their works addressed religion, education, economics, law, psychology, ethics, philosophy and theology, and their theories have been applied in a variety of academic disciplines. Their influence on sociology was foundational.
Positivism and anti-positivism
Early theorists’ approach to sociology, led by Comte, was to treat it in much the same manner as natural science, applying the same methods and methodology used in the natural sciences to study social phenomena. The emphasis on empiricism and the scientific method sought to provide an incontestable foundation for any sociological claims or findings, and to distinguish sociology from less empirical fields such as philosophy. This methodological approach, called positivism assumes that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method.
One push away from positivism was philosophical and political, such as in the dialectical materialism based on Marx’ theories. A second push away from scientific positivism was cultural, becoming sociological. As early as the 19th century, positivist and naturalist approaches to studying social life were questioned by scientists like Wilhelm Dilthey and Heinrich Rickert, who argued that the natural world differs from the social world because of unique aspects of human society such as meanings, symbols, rules, norms, and values. These elements of society inform human cultures. This view was further developed by Max Weber, who introduced antipositivism (humanistic sociology). According to this view, which is closely related to antinaturalism, sociological research must concentrate on humans’ cultural values (see also: French Pragmatism).
Twentieth century developments
In the early 20th century, sociology expanded in the United States, including developments in both macrosociology interested in evolution of societies and microsociology. Based on the pragmatic social psychology of George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer and others (later Chicago school) inspired sociologists developed symbolic interactionism.
In Europe, in the Interwar period, sociology generally was both attacked by increasingly totalitarian governments and rejected by conservative universities. At the same time, originally in Austria and later in the U.S., Alfred Schütz developed social phenomenology (which would later inform social constructionism). Also, members of the Frankfurt school (most of whom moved to the U.S. to escape Nazi persecution) developed critical theory, integrating critical, idealistic and historical materialistic elements of the dialectical philosophies of Hegel and Marx with the insights of Freud, Max Weber (in theory, if not always in name) and others. In the 1930s in the U.S., Talcott Parsons developed structural-functional theory which integrated the study of social order and “objective” aspects of macro and micro structural factors.
Since World War II, sociology has been revived in Europe, although during the Stalin and Mao eras it was suppressed in the communist countries. In the mid-20th century, there was a general (but not universal) trend for US-American sociology to be more scientific in nature, due partly to the prominent influence at that time of structural functionalism. Sociologists developed new types of quantitative and qualitative research methods. In the second half of the 20th century, sociological research has been increasingly employed as a tool by governments and businesses. Parallel with the rise of various social movements in the 1960s, theories emphasizing social struggle, including conflict theory (which sought to counter structural functionalism) and neomarxist theories, began to receive more attention.
In the late 20th century, some sociologists embraced postmodern and poststructuralist philosophies. Increasingly, many sociologists have used qualitative and ethnographic methods and become critical of the positivism in some social scientific approaches.[citation needed] Much like cultural studies, some contemporary sociological studies have been influenced by the cultural changes of the 1960s, 20th century Continental philosophy, literary studies, and interpretivism. Others have maintained more objective empirical perspectives, such as by articulating neofunctionalism, social psychology, and rational choice theory. Others began to debate the nature of globalization and the changing nature of social institutions. These developments have led some to reconceptualize basic sociological categories and theories. For instance, inspired by the thought of Michel Foucault, power may be studied as dispersed throughout society in a wide variety of disciplinary cultural practices. In political sociology, the power of the nation state may be seen as transforming due to the globalization of trade (and cultural exchanges) and the expanding influence of international organizations (Nash 2000:1-4).
However, the positivist tradition is still alive and influential in sociology. In the U.S., the most commonly cited journals, including the American Journal of Sociology and American Sociological Review, primarily publish research in the positivist tradition. There is also a minor revival for a more independent, empirical sociology in the spirit of C Wright Mills, and his studies of the Power Elite in the USA, according to Stanley Aronowitz.
Social network analysis is an example of a new paradigm in this tradition which can go beyond the traditional micro vs. macro or agency vs. structure debates. The influence of social network analysis is pervasive in many sociological subfields such as economic sociology (see the work of J. Clyde Mitchell, Harrison White, or Mark Granovetter for example), organizational behavior, historical sociology, political sociology, or the sociology of education.
Throughout the development of sociology, controversies have raged about how to emphasize or integrate concerns with subjectivity, objectivity, intersubjectivity and practicality in theory and research. The extent to which sociology may be characterized as a ‘science‘ has remained an area of considerable debate, which has addressed basic ontological and epistemological philosophical questions. One outcome of such disputes has been the ongoing formation of multidimensional theories of society, such as the continuing development of various types of critical theory. Another outcome has been the formation of public sociology, which emphasizes the usefulness of sociological analysis to various social groups.
Scope and topics of sociology
Sociologists study society and social action by examining the groups and social institutions people form, as well as various social, religious, political, and business organizations. They also study the social interactions of people and groups, trace the origin and growth of social processes, and analyze the influence of group activities on individual members and vice versa. The results of sociological research aid educators, lawmakers, administrators, and others interested in resolving social problems, working for social justice and formulating public policy.
Sociologists research macro-structures and processes that organize or affect society, such as, but is not limited to race or ethnicity, gender, globalization, and social class stratification. They study institutions such as the family and social processes that represent deviation from, or the breakdown of, social structures, including crime and divorce. And, they research micro-processes such as interpersonal interactions and the socialization of individuals. Sociologists are also concerned with the effect of social traits such as sex, age, or race on a person’s daily life.
Most sociologists work in one or more specialties, such as, but is not limited to social stratification, social organization, and social mobility; ethnic and race relations; education; family; social psychology; urban, rural, political, and comparative sociology; sex roles and relationships; demography; gerontology; criminology; and sociological practice. In short, sociologists study the many dimensions of society.
Although sociology was informed by Comte’s conviction that sociology would sit at the apex of all the sciences, sociology today is identified as one of many social sciences (such as anthropology, economics, political science, psychology, etc.). At times, sociology does integrate the insights of various disciplines, as do other social sciences. Initially, the discipline was concerned particularly with the organization of complex industrial societies. In the past, anthropology had methods that would have helped to study cultural issues in a “more acute” way than sociologists.[17] Recent sociologists, taking cues from anthropologists, have noted the “Western emphasis” of the field. In response, sociology departments around the world are encouraging the study of many cultures and multi-national studies.
Methods of sociological inquiry
Sociologists use many types of social research methods, including:
* Archival research - Facts or factual evidences from a variety of records are compiled.
* Content Analysis - The contents of books and mass media are analyzed to study how people communicate and the messages people talk or write about.
* Historical Method - This involves a continuous and systematic search for the information and knowledge about past events related to the life of a person, a group, society, or the world.
* Experimental Research - The researcher isolates a single social process or social phenomena and uses the data to either confirm or construct social theory. The experiment is the best method for testing theory due to its extremely high internal validity. Participants, or subjects, are randomly assigned to various conditions or ‘treatments’, and then analyses are made between groups. Randomization allows the researcher to be sure that the treatment is having the effect on group differences and not some other extraneous factor.
* Survey Research - The researcher obtains data from interviews, questionnaires, or similar feedback from a set of persons chosen (including random selection) to represent a particular population of interest. Survey items may be open-ended or closed-ended.
* Life History - This is the study of the personal life trajectories. Through a series of interviews, the researcher can probe into the decisive moments in their life or the various influences on their life.
* Longitudinal study - This is an extensive examination of a specific group over a long period of time.
* Observation - Using data from the senses, one records information about social phenomenon or behavior. Qualitative research relies heavily on observation, although it is in a highly disciplined form.
* Participant Observation - As the name implies, the researcher goes to the field (usually a community), lives with the people for some time, and participates in their activities in order to know and feel their culture.
The choice of a method in part often depends on the researcher’s epistemological approach to research. For example, those researchers who are concerned with statistical generalizability to a population will most likely administer structured int
erviews with a survey questionnaire to a carefully selected probability sample. By contrast, those sociologists, especially ethnographers, who are more interested in having a full contextual understanding of group members lives will choose participant observation, observation, and open-ended interviews. Many studies combine several of these methodologies.
The relative merits of these research methodologies is a topic of much professional debate among practicing sociologists.
Combining research methods
In practice, some sociologists combine different research methods and approaches, since different methods produce different types of findings that correspond to different aspects of societies. For example, the quantitative methods may help describe social patterns, while qualitative approaches could help to understand how individuals understand those patterns.
An example of using multiple types of research methods is in the study of the Internet. The Internet is of interest for sociologists in various ways: as a tool for research, for example, in using online questionnaires instead of paper ones, as a discussion platform, and as a research topic. Sociology of the Internet in the last sense includes analysis of online communities (e.g. as found in newsgroups), virtual communities and virtual worlds, organizational change catalyzed through new media like the Internet, and social change at-large in the transformation from industrial to informational society (or to information society). Online communities can be studied statistically through network analysis and at the same time interpreted qualitatively, such as though virtual ethnography. Social change can be studied through statistical demographics or through the interpretation of changing messages and symbols in online media studies.
[edit] Sociology and other social sciences
Sociology shares deep ties with a wide array of other disciplines that also deal with the study of society. The fields of economics, psychology, and anthropology have influenced and have been influenced by sociology and these fields share a great amount of history and common research interests.
Today sociology and the other sciences are better contrasted according to methodology rather than objects of study. Additionally, unlike sociology, psychology and anthropology have forensic components within these disciplines that deal with anatomy and other types of laboratory research.
Sociobiology is the study of how social behavior and organization has been influenced by evolution and other biological processes. The field blends sociology with a number other sciences, such as anthropology, biology, zoology, and others. Although the field once rapidly gained acceptance, it has remained highly controversial within the sociological academy. Sociologists often criticize the study for depending too greatly on the effects of genes in defining behavior. Sociobiologists often respond by citing a complex relationship between nature and nurture.
Sociology is also widely used in management science, especially in the field of organizational behavior.
History of psychology
The study of psychology in a philosophical context dates back to the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece, China and India. Psychology began adopting a more clinical[1] and experimental[2] approach under medieval Muslim psychologists and physicians, who built psychiatric hospitals for such purposes.
Beginning of scientific psychology
Though the use of psychological experimentation dates back to Alhazen’s Book of Optics in 1021,[2][4] psychology as an independent experimental field of study began in 1879, when Wilhelm Wundt founded the first laboratory dedicated exclusively to psychological research at Leipzig University in Germany, for which Wundt is known as the “father of psychology”.[5] 1879 is thus sometimes regarded as the “birthdate” of psychology. The American philosopher William James published his seminal book, Principles of Psychology,[6] in 1890, while laying the foundations for many of the questions that psychologists would focus on for years to come. Other important early contributors to the field include Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850–1909), a pioneer in the experimental study of memory at the University of Berlin; and the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936), who investigated the learning process now referred to as classical conditioning.
Auguste Rodin's The Thinker, bronze cast by Alexis Rudier, Laeken Cemetery, Brussels, Belgium.
Meanwhile, during the 1890s, the Austrian physician Sigmund Freud, who was trained as a neurologist and had no formal training in experimental psychology, had developed a method of psychotherapy known as psychoanalysis. Freud’s understanding of the mind was largely based on interpretive methods, introspection and clinical observations, and was focused in particular on resolving unconscious conflict, mental distress and psychopathology. Freud’s theories became very well-known, largely because they tackled subjects such as sexuality, repression, and the unconscious mind as general aspects of psychological development. These were largely considered taboo subjects at the time, and Freud provided a catalyst for them to be openly discussed in polite society. But Karl Popper argued that Freud’s psychoanalytic theories were presented in untestable form.[7] Due to their subjective nature, Freud’s theories are of limited (mostly historical) interest to modern academic psychology departments. Followers of Freud who accept the basic ideas of psychoanalysis but alter it in some way are called neo-Freudians.
Rise of behaviorism
Partly in reaction to the subjective and introspective nature of Freudian psychodynamics, and its focus on the recollection of childhood experiences, during the early decades of the 20th century, behaviorism gained popularity as a guiding psychological theory. Founded by John B. Watson and embraced and extended by Edward Thorndike, Clark L. Hull, Edward C. Tolman, and later B.F. Skinner, behaviorism was grounded in animal experimentation in the laboratory. Behaviorists shared the view that the subject matter of psychology should be operationalized with standardized procedures which led psychology to focus on behavior, not the mind or consciousness.[8] They doubted the validity of introspection for studying internal mental states such as feelings, sensations, beliefs, desires, and other unobservables.[8] In “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It” (1913),[9] Watson argued that psychology “is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science,” that “introspection forms no essential part of its methods”, and that “the behaviorist recognizes no dividing line between man and brute.” Skinner rejected hypothesis testing as a productive method of research, considering it to be too conducive to speculative theories that would promote useless research and stifle good research.[10]
Behaviorism reigned as the dominant paradigm in psychology throughout the first half of the 20th century. However, the modern field of psychology is largely dominated by cognitive psychology. Linguist Noam Chomsky helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, in which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of behavior and language dominant in the 1950s. Chomsky was highly critical of what he considered arbitrary notions of ’stimulus’, ‘response’ and ‘reinforcement’ which Skinner borrowed from animal experiments in the laboratory. Chomsky argued that Skinner’s notions could only be applied to complex human behavior, such as language acquisition, in a vague and superficial manner. Chomsky emphasized that research and analysis must not ignore the contribution of the child in the acquisition of language and proposed that humans are born with an natural ability to acquire language.[11] Work most associated with psychologist Albert Bandura, who initiated and studied social learning theory, showed that children could learn aggression from a role model through observational learning, without any change in overt behavior, and so must be accounted for by internal processes.[12]
Existential-humanist movement
Humanistic psychology was developed in the 1950s in reaction to both behaviorism and psychoanalysis, arising largely from existential philosophy and writers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Søren Kierkegaard. By using phenomenology, intersubjectivity and first-person categories, the humanistic approach seeks to get a glimpse of the whole person and not just the fragmented parts of the personality or cognitive functioning.[13] Humanism focuses on uniquely human issues and fundamental issues of life, such as self-identity, death, aloneness, freedom, and meaning. Some of the founding theorists behind this school of thought were Abraham Maslow who formulated a hierarchy of human needs, Carl Rogers who created and developed Client-centered therapy, and Fritz Perls who helped create and develop Gestalt therapy. It became so influential as to be called the “third force” within psychology (preceded by behaviorism and psychoanalysis).[14)
Cognitivism
The rise of computer technology also promoted the metaphor of mental function as information processing. This, combined with a scientific approach to studying the mind, as well as a belief in internal mental states, led to the rise of cognitivism as a popular model of the mind.
Cognitive psychology is radically different from previous psychological perspectives in two key ways.
* It accepts the use of the scientific method, and generally rejects introspection as a valid method of investigation, unlike symbol-driven approaches such as Freudian psychodynamics.
* It explicitly acknowledges the existence of internal mental states (such as belief, desire and motivation) unlike behaviorism.
Links between brain and nervous system function were also becoming understood, partly due to the experimental work of people such as Charles Sherrington and Donald Hebb, and partly due to studies of people with brain injury (see cognitive neuropsychology). With the development of technologies for accurately measuring brain function, neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience have become some of the most active areas in contemporary psychology[citation needed]. With the increasing involvement of other disciplines (such as philosophy, computer science and neuroscience) in the quest to understand the mind, the umbrella discipline of cognitive science has been created as a means of focusing such efforts in a constructive way.
Beginning of scientific psychology
Though the use of psychological experimentation dates back to Alhazen’s Book of Optics in 1021,[2][4] psychology as an independent experimental field of study began in 1879, when Wilhelm Wundt founded the first laboratory dedicated exclusively to psychological research at Leipzig University in Germany, for which Wundt is known as the “father of psychology”.[5] 1879 is thus sometimes regarded as the “birthdate” of psychology. The American philosopher William James published his seminal book, Principles of Psychology,[6] in 1890, while laying the foundations for many of the questions that psychologists would focus on for years to come. Other important early contributors to the field include Hermann Ebbinghaus (1850–1909), a pioneer in the experimental study of memory at the University of Berlin; and the Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936), who investigated the learning process now referred to as classical conditioning.
Auguste Rodin's The Thinker, bronze cast by Alexis Rudier, Laeken Cemetery, Brussels, Belgium.
Meanwhile, during the 1890s, the Austrian physician Sigmund Freud, who was trained as a neurologist and had no formal training in experimental psychology, had developed a method of psychotherapy known as psychoanalysis. Freud’s understanding of the mind was largely based on interpretive methods, introspection and clinical observations, and was focused in particular on resolving unconscious conflict, mental distress and psychopathology. Freud’s theories became very well-known, largely because they tackled subjects such as sexuality, repression, and the unconscious mind as general aspects of psychological development. These were largely considered taboo subjects at the time, and Freud provided a catalyst for them to be openly discussed in polite society. But Karl Popper argued that Freud’s psychoanalytic theories were presented in untestable form.[7] Due to their subjective nature, Freud’s theories are of limited (mostly historical) interest to modern academic psychology departments. Followers of Freud who accept the basic ideas of psychoanalysis but alter it in some way are called neo-Freudians.
Rise of behaviorism
Partly in reaction to the subjective and introspective nature of Freudian psychodynamics, and its focus on the recollection of childhood experiences, during the early decades of the 20th century, behaviorism gained popularity as a guiding psychological theory. Founded by John B. Watson and embraced and extended by Edward Thorndike, Clark L. Hull, Edward C. Tolman, and later B.F. Skinner, behaviorism was grounded in animal experimentation in the laboratory. Behaviorists shared the view that the subject matter of psychology should be operationalized with standardized procedures which led psychology to focus on behavior, not the mind or consciousness.[8] They doubted the validity of introspection for studying internal mental states such as feelings, sensations, beliefs, desires, and other unobservables.[8] In “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It” (1913),[9] Watson argued that psychology “is a purely objective experimental branch of natural science,” that “introspection forms no essential part of its methods”, and that “the behaviorist recognizes no dividing line between man and brute.” Skinner rejected hypothesis testing as a productive method of research, considering it to be too conducive to speculative theories that would promote useless research and stifle good research.[10]
Behaviorism reigned as the dominant paradigm in psychology throughout the first half of the 20th century. However, the modern field of psychology is largely dominated by cognitive psychology. Linguist Noam Chomsky helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, in which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of behavior and language dominant in the 1950s. Chomsky was highly critical of what he considered arbitrary notions of ’stimulus’, ‘response’ and ‘reinforcement’ which Skinner borrowed from animal experiments in the laboratory. Chomsky argued that Skinner’s notions could only be applied to complex human behavior, such as language acquisition, in a vague and superficial manner. Chomsky emphasized that research and analysis must not ignore the contribution of the child in the acquisition of language and proposed that humans are born with an natural ability to acquire language.[11] Work most associated with psychologist Albert Bandura, who initiated and studied social learning theory, showed that children could learn aggression from a role model through observational learning, without any change in overt behavior, and so must be accounted for by internal processes.[12]
Existential-humanist movement
Humanistic psychology was developed in the 1950s in reaction to both behaviorism and psychoanalysis, arising largely from existential philosophy and writers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Søren Kierkegaard. By using phenomenology, intersubjectivity and first-person categories, the humanistic approach seeks to get a glimpse of the whole person and not just the fragmented parts of the personality or cognitive functioning.[13] Humanism focuses on uniquely human issues and fundamental issues of life, such as self-identity, death, aloneness, freedom, and meaning. Some of the founding theorists behind this school of thought were Abraham Maslow who formulated a hierarchy of human needs, Carl Rogers who created and developed Client-centered therapy, and Fritz Perls who helped create and develop Gestalt therapy. It became so influential as to be called the “third force” within psychology (preceded by behaviorism and psychoanalysis).[14)
Cognitivism
The rise of computer technology also promoted the metaphor of mental function as information processing. This, combined with a scientific approach to studying the mind, as well as a belief in internal mental states, led to the rise of cognitivism as a popular model of the mind.
Cognitive psychology is radically different from previous psychological perspectives in two key ways.
* It accepts the use of the scientific method, and generally rejects introspection as a valid method of investigation, unlike symbol-driven approaches such as Freudian psychodynamics.
* It explicitly acknowledges the existence of internal mental states (such as belief, desire and motivation) unlike behaviorism.
Links between brain and nervous system function were also becoming understood, partly due to the experimental work of people such as Charles Sherrington and Donald Hebb, and partly due to studies of people with brain injury (see cognitive neuropsychology). With the development of technologies for accurately measuring brain function, neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience have become some of the most active areas in contemporary psychology[citation needed]. With the increasing involvement of other disciplines (such as philosophy, computer science and neuroscience) in the quest to understand the mind, the umbrella discipline of cognitive science has been created as a means of focusing such efforts in a constructive way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
