Wundt's contribution to Psychology

greenspun.com : LUSENET : History & Theory of Psychology : One Thread

I was wondering, did Wundt contribute more to Psychology than just the first research lab and establishing Psychology as its own discipline (is there anything that changed Psyc forever?; i.e. was he important in applying science to Psychology? If so how?)? Also, what did Titchener do that Wundt didn't? Any contributions would be helpful

-- (jeadam@ucalgary.ca), April 10, 2003

Answers

"Just" founding the first lab and establishing (exptl!) psych as a discipline? That isn't enough to "change psych forever"? He also taught the first course, founded the first dept., founded the first journal (Philosophsche Studien), and wrote the first textbook (Gundzüge der physiologische Psychologie). I'm not sure what you mean, exactly by "applying science to psychology," but his program was all about applying to psychology the principles that had made physiology "scientific" in the previous decades (Helmholtz, et al.) -- that's precisely what was meant by "physiological psychology". There is also the oft-forgotten "Folk Psychology" of his later years -- of the 10 volumes of that work, only one "condensed" volume ever appeared in English.

Titchener's program was strongly influenced by (part of) Wundt's, but they were hardly the same. Titchener was a much narrower (and many would say dogmatic) thinker. There was quite a lot published in the late 1970s and early 1980s on the widespread *mis*interpretation of the relation between Wundt's and Titchener's research programmes (due mainly to Boring's history of psych textbook). See esp. articles by Arthur Blumenthal, Kurt Danziger, a book edited by Robert Rieber, and, later, articles by Thomas Leahey and Adrian Brock.

-- Christopher Green (christo@yorku.ca), April 10, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ