Introspection is one of the most important methods of psychology. The psycho-analysis school has widely utilised this method. But the behaviourists are vehemently opposed to it. Watson, the founder of the school of behaviourism, was absolutely opposed to this method. As he said, "Introspection forms no essential part of its (of psychology) method nor is the scientific value of data dependent upon introspection in terms of consciousnes." This criticism of introspection has however not been accepted by the most of the modern psychologists, Woodworth and others have defended introspection method with laborato argument. But to assess the real value of this particular method and to find out of its limitation, it is necessary to examine is uses and limitations.
Nature of Introspection
To introspect means to look within. Thus introspection is an internal perception. In it the psychologist himself observes his internal activities and process. This method is indispensable in the description of individual experiences, e.g., man goes to see a picture andr returns after seeing it, it is only through introspection thath he can tell others how he feels about it. It is said that the advent of youth changes the behaviour, mental conditions and the psychological processes oft the individual. But how a young man feels is only a matter of introsperion and can be explained only by him who has passed through this site. This in the field of feelings, emotions, sentiments, prejudices and various types of internal experiences, eg. love hate, pleasure pain, fear, memory, thought and effort etc. a man can know them only by introspective analysis No man can know another by the observation of his overt behaviour. The pangs of separation from someone dear to us is not a matter of understanding or logic or observation, but purely of introspection. Thus introspection is indispensable for the study of internal behaviour.
Need of Introspection
Psychology not only studies the covert behaviour, but also the internal processes. It is the science of behaviour. Behaviour, as it is taken today, includes the internal experiences as well. These internal experiences can not be known by external observation. They can be known only through introspection by the subject himself. In introspection the individual himself systematically observes his inner mental processes and feelings. For this purpose the observer cannot take the help of an instrument or the observations of another person. The observer can introspect his mental processes wherever and whenever he likes to do so. Thus the method of introspection has been proved to be very valuable in the field of psychology. Introspection is a unique method of psychology. It is not found in other sciences, physical or social. In spite of what the behaviourists say against it, psychology cannot dispense with introspection.
Limitations of introspection
Introspection has its own limitations peculiar to itself. Its limitations are as follows:
1. It is truly said that the mental processes can not be directly observed through introspection. But this data cannot be the basis of generalisation since it is not necessary that the experience of other persons should be identical with that of the observer.
2. By introspection one cannot know the experience of others and so cannot compare one's own experience with it. Other's experiences can only be known through observation or experiments. Hence, introspection alone is neither sufficient nor the most important method of psychology, Observations and experiments are definitely more valuable and important methods of psychology.
Difficulties in introspection
Every method has its own difficulties particular to itself. The method of introspection has also its own difficulties. The following are some of the main difficulties of the method.
(1) It is difficult to attend the mental processes - There is difference between the perception of the object and the observation of the mental processes. The objects are material and concrete while the mental processes are psychic and abstract. Hence, it is not easy to know mental processes. One cannot observe them without much effort and concentration, and concentration is a difficult feal. Thus observation of the mental processes through introspection is a difficult effort. But this difficulty in introspection is not insurmountable. Introspection undoubtedly requires more concentration and the newcomer has only a few chances of success in it. But this difficulty can be removed by adequate practice and training. As a matter of fact introspection requires long training. Training and practice improves the capacity for abstraction and concentration. It makes introspection more valid.
(2) It is difficult to grasp mental processes - Mental processes are changeable. The thoughts, feeling, desires etc. are constantly changing. But observation requires a fixed object. It is only then that one can easily observe the external objects. But as soon as one attended to the mental process, they disappear. Then how can they be observed? If a psychologist wants to know his mental state in fear, it is likely that the fear may disappear as soon as he looks at it or introspects.
This difficulty in introspection is really valid to some extent, but it can be removed with the help of memory. In the example of fear it is a fact that it disappears as soon we attend to it, but the feeling, in the state of fear can be recalled with the help of memory and analysis. By practice and sufficient training, even the changing mental processes can be grasped. Besides, various observers can co-ordinate their observation and thus arrive at some general conclusions. A psychologist may introspect his own in the state of fear and other psychologists may also do the same. Now these statements may be gathered together and compared leaving the uncommon clements, and generalisation can be made on the basis of the common findings. Thus memory, mental alertness and the comparison of the changing mental processes during introspection.
(3) Many psychologists cannot study the same mental state - Another difficulty which has been pointed out against introspection is that many psychologists can study similar mental processes but not the same, eg, in the case of fear, every individual psychologist will study only his own personal experience of fear. How can any one arrive at some general principles by different individual psychologists? Such a description will not be the study of fear as a general state but a collection of the experience of fear in different individuals.
But a careful observation of this difficulty will make it clear that it is right to say that many persons cannot observe the same mental state, but generalisation in science depends on the common clement found in different phenomena of the same species. Uniformity of human psychology is a postulate on which the entire edifice of psychology as a science has been built up. It is a fact that no two men are the same and yet there are laws universally applicable to all human beings. It is for this reason that the results of the experiments done on Germans are equally applicable to Americans. Thus it is clear that the foregoing difficulty is not genuine.
(4) In introspection the mind is divided - Another argument against introspection is that in it the same man is the observer as well as observed and so he is divided into two parts since mind cannot look to itself without such division. It is on the basis of this argument that Comte has rejected introspection as impossible.
But practically this objection seems to be baseless. In practice we do experience the inner states of fear,curiosity and lust etc. A man says that he feels fear, another says that he feels pain. In both these states, these men are observing their mental process. As a matter of fact, self consciousness is a characteristic of the human mind. We are self-conscious and we know that we are self conscious. This fact may not be proved by logic, but it is amply demonstrated in experience. Direct experience is self-evident and it requires no logical proof for its validity. Just as we can observe things outside us similarly, though not exactly we can observe our internal experience as well. This observation can be
This difficulty in introspection is really valid to some extent, but it can be removed with the help of memory. In the example of fear it is a fact that it disappears as soon we attend to it, but the feeling, in the state of fear can be recalled with the help of memory and analysis. By practice and sufficient training, even the changing mental processes can be grasped. Besides, various observers can co-ordinate their observation and thus arrive at some general conclusions. A psychologist may introspect his own in the state of fear and other psychologists may also do the same. Now these statements may be gathered together and compared leaving the uncommon clements, and generalisation can be made on the basis of the common findings. Thus memory, mental alertness and the comparison of the changing mental processes during introspection.
(3) Many psychologists cannot study the same mental state - Another difficulty which has been pointed out against introspection is that many psychologists can study similar mental processes but not the same, eg, in the case of fear, every individual psychologist will study only his own personal experience of fear. How can any one arrive at some general principles by different individual psychologists? Such a description will not be the study of fear as a general state but a collection of the experience of fear in different individuals.
But a careful observation of this difficulty will make it clear that it is right to say that many persons cannot observe the same mental state, but generalisation in science depends on the common clement found in different phenomena of the same species. Uniformity of human psychology is a postulate on which the entire edifice of psychology as a science has been built up. It is a fact that no two men are the same and yet there are laws universally applicable to all human beings. It is for this reason that the results of the experiments done on Germans are equally applicable to Americans. Thus it is clear that the foregoing difficulty is not genuine.
(4) In introspection the mind is divided - Another argument against introspection is that in it the same man is the observer as well as observed and so he is divided into two parts since mind cannot look to itself without such division. It is on the basis of this argument that Comte has rejected introspection as impossible.
But practically this objection seems to be baseless. In practice we do experience the inner states of fear,curiosity and lust etc. A man says that he feels fear, another says that he feels pain. In both these states, these men are observing their mental process. As a matter of fact, self consciousness is a characteristic of the human mind. We are self-conscious and we know that we are self conscious. This fact may not be proved by logic, but it is amply demonstrated in experience. Direct experience is self-evident and it requires no logical proof for its validity. Just as we can observe things outside us similarly, though not exactly we can observe our internal experience as well. This observation can be
made more exact with practice and training.
(5) It is impossible to observe the object and the mental process at the same time - In introspection sometimes one has to observe a mental state which is the result of some external object. As Stout point out, "If a man observes the object of perception he will have to attend the object of perception as well as the activity of perceiving it." In this situation the difficulty is that if one attends the object, he cannot attend the mental state and vice versa. Hence, introspection is impossible in such situations.
The argument against introspection method is valid to some extent because mind can attend one thing at a time, but even this difficulty can be removed by certain measures. One way is the rapid oscillation of the attention between the object and the mental state so that both may be observed continually, if not simultaneously. Another way is to attend the object with the aid of memory and to remember the mental state in such attention.
(6) The knowledge of introspection is subjective and personal -- Another argument against introspection is that knowledge gained by it is subjective and personal. Hence the introspective data cannot be the basis of scientific principles. This difficulty, however can be removed on the one hand by training and practice and on the other by collaboration of different psychologists in a
particular study. These efforts will remove the subjective and personal elements from psychological data. The critical analysis of the different difficulties pointed out against introspection make it amply clear that it is a useful method in psychology and can be made still more useful. But this should make one forget the limitations of this method. In many situations introspection method is entirely useless, e.g., in the study of the psychology of the children, insane and abnormal, patients and animals, the method of introspection cannot be used. It is clear that here other methods, particularly those of observation and experiment are useful. Introspection is an indispensable method in psychology, but modern psychology uses it only sparingly since its results are not so exact and verifiable as those gained by other methods. The method of introspection has its own limits and is less factual than others. But not only from the historical point of view,from the practical point of view also,introspection method cannot be eliminated from the field of psychology. Its value stands unquestioned in its own field.
(5) It is impossible to observe the object and the mental process at the same time - In introspection sometimes one has to observe a mental state which is the result of some external object. As Stout point out, "If a man observes the object of perception he will have to attend the object of perception as well as the activity of perceiving it." In this situation the difficulty is that if one attends the object, he cannot attend the mental state and vice versa. Hence, introspection is impossible in such situations.
The argument against introspection method is valid to some extent because mind can attend one thing at a time, but even this difficulty can be removed by certain measures. One way is the rapid oscillation of the attention between the object and the mental state so that both may be observed continually, if not simultaneously. Another way is to attend the object with the aid of memory and to remember the mental state in such attention.
(6) The knowledge of introspection is subjective and personal -- Another argument against introspection is that knowledge gained by it is subjective and personal. Hence the introspective data cannot be the basis of scientific principles. This difficulty, however can be removed on the one hand by training and practice and on the other by collaboration of different psychologists in a
particular study. These efforts will remove the subjective and personal elements from psychological data. The critical analysis of the different difficulties pointed out against introspection make it amply clear that it is a useful method in psychology and can be made still more useful. But this should make one forget the limitations of this method. In many situations introspection method is entirely useless, e.g., in the study of the psychology of the children, insane and abnormal, patients and animals, the method of introspection cannot be used. It is clear that here other methods, particularly those of observation and experiment are useful. Introspection is an indispensable method in psychology, but modern psychology uses it only sparingly since its results are not so exact and verifiable as those gained by other methods. The method of introspection has its own limits and is less factual than others. But not only from the historical point of view,from the practical point of view also,introspection method cannot be eliminated from the field of psychology. Its value stands unquestioned in its own field.
No comments: