The Decline and Fall of Introspectionism

  • Christian BeenfeldtEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Philosophy book series (BRIEFSPHILOSOPH)


Why did introspectionism fall? “The approach failed,” a typical philosophy of science explanation will inform us, “because its methodology lacked reliability.” In Pathways to Knowledge, for example, Goldman offers the following account of the failure of what he calls classical introspectionism:


Psychological Experiment Psychological Analysis Qualitative Experiment Mental Element Negative Strategy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Berman D, Lyons W (2007) The first modern battle for consciousness: J. B. Watson's rejection of mental images. J Conscious Stud, 14(11):4–26Google Scholar
  2. Boring EG (1921) The stimulus-error. Am J Experimental Psychol, 32(4):449–471Google Scholar
  3. Boring EG (1927) Edward Bradford Titchener: 1867–1927. Am J Psychol 38(4):489–506Google Scholar
  4. Boring EG (1937) Titchener and the existential. Am J Psychol 50(1/4):470–483Google Scholar
  5. Costall A (2006) ‘Introspectionism’ and the mythical origins of scientific psychology. Conscious Cogn 15(4):634–654Google Scholar
  6. Danziger K (1980) The history of introspection reconsidered. J Hist Behav Sci 16(3):241–262Google Scholar
  7. Danziger K (2001) Introspection: history of the concept. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB (eds) International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, Elsavier Science, Pergamon, pp 7888–7891Google Scholar
  8. English HB (1921) In aid of introspection. Am J Psychol 32(3):404–414Google Scholar
  9. Evans RB (1990) The scientific and psychological positions of E. B. Titchener. In Evans and Leys (eds) Defining American psychology: The correspondence between Adolf Meyer and Edward Bradford Titchener. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldman AI (2004) Epistemology and the evidential status of introspective reports. J Conscious Stud 11(7–8):1–16Google Scholar
  11. Schwitzgebel E (2002) How well do we know our own conscious experience? The case of visual imagery. J Conscious Stud 9(5–6):35–53Google Scholar
  12. Schwitzgebel E (2004) Introspective training apprehensively defended: reflections on Titchener’s Lab Manual. J Conscious Stud 11(7–8):58–76Google Scholar
  13. Schwitzgebel E (2005) Difference tone training: a demonstration adapted from Titchener’s Experimental Psychology. Psyche 11(6)Google Scholar
  14. Schwitzgebel E (2007) Eric Schwitzgebel's contribution to Describing inner experience: Proponent meets skeptic (Hurlburt and Schwitzgebel), MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Schwitzgebel E (2011) Perplexities of consciousness. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Titchener EB (1896) Outline of psychology. The Macmillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Titchener EB (1899) Structural and functional psychology. Philos Rev 8(3):290–299Google Scholar
  18. Titchener EB (1901–1905) Experimental psychology: a manual of laboratory practice. The Macmillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Titchener EB (1910) The past decade in experimental psychology. Am J Psychol 21(3):404–421Google Scholar
  20. Titchener EB (1912a) Prolegomena to a study of introspection. Am J Psychol 23(3):427–448Google Scholar
  21. Titchener EB (1912b) The schema of introspection. Am J Psychol 23(4):485–508Google Scholar
  22. Titchener EB (1914) A primer of psychology. The Macmillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Titchener EB (1920a) A beginner’s psychology. The Macmillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Titchener EB (1926) A text-book of psychology. The Macmillan Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media, Cognition and CommunicationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations