Self-observation method - Development of the method of introspection (self-observation)

What is introspection

Introspection is a method of conscious self-observation. The name comes from the Latin (introspecto) and means “to look inside.” That is, this is one of the methods of increasing self-knowledge. Introspection and introspection are synonymous, and both are used in psychological research. The importance of this method can hardly be overestimated, because with its help you can learn a deep perception of reality, and then the consciousness and intuition of the individual are revealed. Schizophrenics suffer from excessive introspection, replacing the real world with their own inner world.

The method of introspection in psychology is used to observe one’s own mental processes and is carried out without the help of any tools or means, only through one’s own consciousness.

Introspection in psychology is the precise knowledge and study of one’s own thoughts, feelings, experiences, mental activity, images, attitudes, and so on. The method of introspection in psychology was founded by J. Locke.

Introspection is a subjective analysis in which a person does not strive for self-judgment, which distinguishes this method from repentance.

Introspection in philosophy is a method of introspection on which retrospective philosophy is based with the aim of achieving a reflexive liberation of consciousness and the hierarchy of feelings in the structure of the personality. Too much introspection or a tendency towards in-depth introspection can contribute to a suspicious attitude towards other individuals and the world around us. Dualistic philosophy separates material nature from spiritual nature (consciousness), therefore introspection in philosophy is the basis of psychological methodology. It was of great importance for many philosophers: J. Locke, J. Berkeley, T. Hobbes, D. Hume, J. Mill and others. They all believed that consciousness is the result of inner experience, and that the presence of feelings and experiences is evidence of knowledge.

What is self-observation?

The purpose of self-analysis is to get closer to different areas of our psyche that we don't even think about on a daily basis. When a person looks at his own psyche, he must take into account which emotions will prevail over him and why. For example, when feeling an extreme degree of anger towards a loved one, a person may think about where such a pronounced degree of this negative feeling came from: is it simply hypersensitivity or is something really hurting him?

During introspection, various psychological aspects can be analyzed, such as:

• feelings that torment us;
• decisions we have made or plan to make;
• our behavior and various factors that make us behave in this way and not in another way;
• our needs;
• relationships with other people - both with loved ones and with colleagues or casual acquaintances.

In general, the purpose of introspection is the need to look at yourself from the outside and carefully analyze your own psyche. The only question that remains is: “How can this be done?”

Introspection in psychology

Previously, this method was considered not only the main, but also the only one. This belief was based on two indisputable facts: the fundamental property of conscious processes being directly presentable to the subject; and the closeness of these same processes to an external observer.

Introspection in psychology is a method of introspection, analysis, and study of mental processes through individual observation of the functioning of one’s own psyche. Introspection as a method has some features. It can only be carried out by one person on himself, in order to find out what another person feels, you need to imagine yourself in the place of this person, see yourself in the same conditions and observe your state, your reactions and draw conclusions about the feelings, thoughts and sensations of the other person . Since self-observation is a special kind of activity, it requires long-term practice in it.

This method has many advantages and was once highly regarded. Consciousness was believed to directly indicate causality in mental phenomena, and therefore the position of psychology was considered easier, in contrast to other sciences that had yet to discover cause-and-effect relationships. Introspection presents psychological facts as they are, and in this too psychology differs greatly from other sciences.

The use of introspection was supported by an appreciation of its special merits. Psychology conducted a major experiment in the late nineteenth century to test the power of introspection. In many cases, these were not facts of consciousness in life circumstances, which is no less interesting, but laboratory experiments that were carried out under strictly controlled circumstances and conditions.

The most rigorous introspectionists supplemented their experiments with additional requirements. They focused on isolating the most elementary details of consciousness (sensations and feelings). The subjects were required to avoid terms describing external objects and speak only about the sensations caused by these objects, about the quality of the sensations caused; if the answer was in terms of sensations, this was a stimulus error. As experiments progressed, serious gaps and difficulties emerged. Everything was moving towards the recognition that such “experimental psychology” was inappropriate. Conflicting results were obtained even by the same researcher while working with completely different subjects.

The basic assumptions of psychology also began to be questioned. Such contents of consciousness were revealed, such elements that could not be decomposed into any meanings, or turned out to be the sum of these elements. The systematic application of the method of introspection also revealed extrasensory elements of consciousness, and the unconscious causes of individual phenomena of consciousness began to be discovered.

It began to seem that a crisis was growing in psychology, which has such a unique method of introspection. The reason is that the arguments in favor of the method of introspection only seemed compelling at first glance. And the possibility of split consciousness turns out to be nonsense, since close observation of the process of one’s own activity only interferes with or even destroys it. Reflection has the same destructive effect. The simultaneous performance of two different types of activities is possible in two cases: when there is a rapid transition from one type of activity to another or when one of the activities is relatively simple or automatic. From the belief that introspection is also a second activity, it follows that its capabilities are very limited.

Introspection of a complete act of consciousness is possible only when it is interrupted. The possibility of splitting consciousness also exists, but with certain restrictions; it is generally impossible with complete devotion to activity or feelings, and in any case it introduces a distorting effect. For example, when a person does something and immediately notices how it looks. It turns out that the data obtained through introspection is too vague to rely on. The introspectionists themselves realized this quite quickly. They noticed that it was necessary to observe not so much the process of running, but its fading trace. In order for traces in memory to remain even more complete, it is necessary to break down the process of observed actions into smaller parts. Thus, introspection evolved over time into “fractional” retrospection.

The attempt of this method to identify cause-and-effect relationships in consciousness is limited to isolated examples of voluntary actions among the mass of inexplicable facts (thoughts, feelings) of consciousness. This leads to the conclusion that if the causes of mental processes could be directly observed, no one would study psychology. This would be completely unnecessary. The assertion that the method of introspection demonstrates knowledge of the facts of consciousness unadulterated, as they really are, may turn out to be completely incorrect in the light of data on the introduction of introspection into the research process. By creating from memory even a momentary account of a very recent experience, the researcher inevitably distorts it, since he directs his attention only to certain aspects of it. Particularly distorting is the attention of an observer who knows exactly what he is looking for. A person usually focuses on a few facts, so that other aspects of the phenomenon, which may also be of great value, remain out of focus.

Thus, practice and deep discussion of the method of introspection have revealed a number of its fundamental shortcomings. The shortcomings turned out to be so significant that scientists questioned the entire method and even with it the subject of psychology, which at that time was inseparable from the method of introspection.

Introspection is a method in which a person’s personality itself is analyzed.

Analytical introspection

Edward Bradford Titchener (1867-1927), a student of Wundt, considered representations (“traces of previous sensations”) to be elements of consciousness in addition to sensations and feelings. He proposed a more rigorous method of introspective analysis - the method of analytical introspection. In this type of introspection, the subject had to learn to distinguish the sensory mosaic of consciousness without committing a “stimulus error”, which is very characteristic of “naive subjects” and should not occur in real professional psychologists who study consciousness as the sum of states of consciousness.

According to E. Titchener, the stimulus error means that the observer, instead of describing the states of his own consciousness, usually begins to describe an external object (stimulus) as such: “We are so accustomed to living in a world of objects, we are so accustomed to putting thought into popular terms that it is difficult for us to assimilate a purely psychological view of the intensity of feeling and to consider consciousness as it is, regardless of its relation to the objective world.” “A purely psychological view” means, according to E. Titchener, that the subject should not say: “I see a book or a lamp,” but should describe only the sensations that arise in consciousness when perceiving an external object - a book or a lamp (light, darkness, etc.). The subject must be trained to recognize a sensory mosaic of images (Titchener assumed that this would increase objectivity in scientific studies of the subjective world). From sensations, like from bricks, the entire content of our mental life is formed, including more complex thought forms. He called his version of introspective psychology structuralism (the understanding that structure is actually the sum of subjective elements in the mind).

A “two-stage” flow, the upper “stage” of which includes fig. 5. Model of consciousness, clear contents of consciousness, and the lower level includes unclear ones. Titchener suggested that in this flow there is a continuous process of transition of certain states of consciousness from the upper level to the lower and vice versa.

This is one of the models of consciousness proposed within the framework of introspective psychology. The basis of this school of thought was the Cartesian-Lockean concept of consciousness, in which consciousness was viewed as a self-sufficient world of subjective phenomena. For W. Wundt and E. Titchener, consciousness was the object of their investigation. It was studied with the help of a peculiar and subtle introspection, which broke consciousness into elements. In this case, the conscious was identified with the mental (the existence of unconscious mental processes was denied). Moreover, structuralism (like Wundt’s concept) is characterized by a clearly expressed elementary approach, i.e. the desire to decompose consciousness into elements, i.e. indivisible “atoms” of consciousness, and assemble more complex contents from them. However, since these elements were sensory in nature, this school of introspective psychology was characterized by pronounced sensationalism (there are no processes of consciousness that cannot be derived from sensations and reduced to them). The presence of other - non-sensory - content in consciousness was not recognized. Sensations arise on their own without any activity on the part of the subject, as soon as the object appears before the eyes (this position can be called mechanistic). This mechanism is also obvious when explaining complex phenomena of consciousness that arise from simple ones through their associative linking. In concept B. However, in order to understand the essence of these connections, it is necessary to turn to the history of the emergence of these concepts in psychology. Sokolova. E. E. Introduction to general psychology: a textbook for students of higher educational institutions.

Introspection in philosophy

In philosophy, introspection is the basis of the psychological methodology of the retrospective branch of this science. The essence of Augustine's method of introspection is to free the mind and systematize the individual's feelings, which his students agreed with. Fixation on one's own emotions can interfere with normal interpersonal relationships.

Introspection is translated as “self-observation,” which in philosophy helps to calm the storm of feelings within us. Introspection as a research method in psychology underlies a person’s knowledge of his personal characteristics.

History of the study

The date of the first use is difficult to determine, since initially this practice was used simply to observe one’s own behavior without correcting it.

The first mention of introspection as a psychological method can be found in the works of R. Descartes. Another researcher, John Locke, divided all human experience into external and internal.

Wilhelm Wundt combined the practice of introspection with instrumental, laboratory methods. After this, introspection became one of the main methods for studying mental states.

With the development of psychology, the technique began to quickly lose popularity. By the beginning of the 20th century, most scientists agreed that introspection is an unscientific, subjective, idealistic method that has no right to exist.

By the end of the 20th century, these judgments softened, the method of introspection began to be used again, but most experts still believe that introspection cannot exist as a separate practice due to the falsity of the information received. It can only be used in combination with other methods of psychic research.

History of the development of the method

Having figured out what the term introspection means, it is necessary to say who is the author of the introspection method.

Introspection as a method of scientific research owes its appearance to R. Descartes and J. Locke. These philosophers viewed introspection as a special type of cognition. A synonymous approach can be found in F. Brentano, who used the method of internal observation in his experimental activities.

The successors of the ideas of the creators of introspection were W. Wundt, E. Titchener and the entire Würzburg school of psychology. Wundt combined introspection with laboratory experiment and various ways of conducting it.

Later in Gestalt psychology, this type of exploration of one's inner world took the form of phenomenological introspection.

In the 19th century, introspection was used as a term to describe the subjective experiences of participants in psychological studies. This meant that researchers drew conclusions about certain psychological events and phenomena not from their own introspective experiences, but from the introspective reports of their subjects.

The method of introspection has come under severe criticism from behaviorists, who argued that only the observable behavioral reactions of individuals can serve as evidence of psychological manifestations. Proponents of self-observation have been criticized for the lack of objectivity of their method.

As a result, the original concept was slightly modified: now the participant in the experiment was only required to answer the question and report changes by pressing a special button. This change allowed us to move away from subjectivity in introspection.

Later schools of objective and cognitive psychology opposed introspection due to the low objectivity of this method. Experts in these areas argued that it is possible to obtain reliable information about a person with the help of specially organized external observation.

In the early 20th century, self-observation was considered an unscientific, idealistic method whose main problem was its lack of objectivity. But at the same time, it was used in the study of the inner world and spiritual attitudes of the individual, and was followed in reflective moments of psychological and pedagogical experiments.

It is safe to say that a method such as introspection is also used in modern psychology. For example, in the methodological literature one can find references to the practical application of self-observation techniques in humanistic and transpersonal psychology to monitor changes in the course of one’s thoughts and the formation of an individual’s moral attitudes.

The role of introspective methods of psychological research

The widespread dissemination of the introspective method over time did not lead to further development of psychology, but, on the contrary, to a certain crisis. From the position of introspective psychology, the mental is identified with consciousness. As a result of this understanding, consciousness was self-sufficient, and, consequently, there was a separation of the mental from objective being and the subject itself. Moreover, since it was argued that a psychologist could study himself, the psychological knowledge revealed in the process of such study had no practical application. Therefore, in practice, public interest in psychology has decreased. Only professional psychologists were interested in psychology.

At the same time, it should be noted that the period of dominance of introspective psychology did not leave a mark on the development of psychological science as a whole. At this time, a number of theories arose that had a significant influence on the subsequent development of psychological thought. Among them:

• the theory of the elements of consciousness, the founders of which were W. Wundt and E. Titchener;
• psychology of consciousness processes, the development of which is associated with F. Brentano;
• stream of consciousness theory created by V. Staus;
• theory of phenomenal fields;
• Descriptive psychology of V. Dilthey.

All these theories are united by the fact that consciousness is put in the place of a real person, actively interacting with the world around him, in which the real person is dissolved.

It should also be noted the role of introspective psychology in the emergence and development of experimental methods of psychological research. Within the framework of introspective psychology, Wundt created the first experimental psychological laboratory in Leipzig in 1879. In addition, introspective psychology predetermined the emergence of other promising directions in the development of psychology. Thus, in the second decade of the twentieth century, the powerlessness of the “psychology of consciousness” in the face of numerous practical problems that arose in connection with the development of industrial production, which required the development of means of controlling human behavior, led to the emergence of a new movement in psychology, the representatives of which announced a new object of psychological science - it was not the psyche or consciousness, but behavior, understood as a set of externally observable, mainly motor reactions of the individual. This movement was called “behaviorism” and became the third stage in the development of ideas about the subject of psychology. But before considering psychology as a behavioral science, let's return to introspection and note the differences in its consideration from the point of view of the psychology of consciousness and modern psychology. First of all, it is necessary to define the terms used.

Introspection literally means “self-observation.” In modern psychology there is a method of using self-observation data. There are a number of differences between these concepts. Firstly, in what and how to observe, and secondly, in how the data obtained are used for scientific purposes. The position of proponents of introspective psychology is that observation is directed at the activities of the mind and that reflection is the only way to obtain scientific knowledge. This approach follows from the peculiar view of introspectionists on consciousness. They believed that consciousness has a dual nature and can be directed both to external objects and to the processes of consciousness itself.

The position of modern psychology regarding the use of introspection data is that introspection is considered as a “monospection”, a method of understanding the facts of consciousness, and the facts of consciousness, in turn, serve as “raw material” for further understanding of mental phenomena. The term "monospection" suggests that consciousness is a single process. Introspection, as introspection of one’s internal state, exists, but is inseparable from “extraspection” - observation of external objects and human behavior. Thus, introspection is one of the methods of modern psychological science that allows one to obtain information that is the basis for subsequent psychological analysis.

Introspection in Practice

During the Soviet period, introspection was the main psychological method by which people observed the work of their own psyche. Introspection is characterized by the need for lengthy preparation. This is the only way to deal with subjectivity.

The method of introspection and self-observation made it possible to reveal the content of such elements of consciousness that cannot be decomposed into feelings. Moreover, unconscious reasons for some patterns were discovered.

However, the results of self-observation of one or another mental process were contradictory not only among different individuals, but also among the same subject. Thus, the method of introspection has given rise to a serious problem of the objectivity of introspection in psychology, undermining the subject, basic concepts and provisions of this science.

Scientists have concluded that the possibilities of such observation are limited. Over time, this method transformed into retrospection.

Introspection: Criticism

In the early periods when the term introspection first appeared, this method was considered an extremely valuable psychological tool through which the various psychological states occurring in people could be carefully analyzed. There have been several different terms in the field of introspection research, one of the most interesting being extraspection. The term was defined as the ability to analyze human feelings based on a person's behavior and how they feel when they behave in a certain way.

However, both extraspection and introspection have met with significant criticism from the scientific community. It was emphasized that these methods are extremely subjective. After all, emotions and feelings, even if we call them the same, can be experienced by two different people in completely different ways. Scientists are convinced that this method is difficult to consider as a reliable and objective research tool in psychology.

Functions and role

Each person experiences different feelings during his life:

Discontent

Joy

Astonishment

Disturbance

Hatred

Love

Psychologists are interested in what it is and what a person experiences when they experience it. This is an attempt to explore consciousness as a physical object.

An important function of self-knowledge is studying oneself as an individual and knowing one’s goals in life. Introspection in psychology is the study of the content of oneself (narrow meaning) and understanding of what a person wants to achieve in the future, what he is striving for (broad meaning).

Using this method in a narrow sense allows you to find out your character traits, feelings that are important at the moment, intellectual abilities, thinking characteristics (attention, memory, concentration), etc.

This is important for understanding many things, for example, for choosing a future profession. When choosing a specific profession, it is important to know how well a person has developed the personal qualities to master it. Assessing your own abilities in your chosen field will help you adjust the level of certain qualities necessary to become a professional.

Throughout life, a person has to communicate with different categories of people. His position in society largely depends on this. Therefore, the role of self-knowledge is especially important for the development of communication skills and the ability to resolve complex conflict situations. This is also important when choosing a life partner and professional partner.

In the process of self-knowledge, it is important to set specific goals for yourself and follow the principle “I want - I can - I must.” Answering the questions: “What do I want?”, “What are my capabilities?” and “What do I need to achieve what I want?”, a person expands the boundaries of self-knowledge.

Psychologists note that the goals of self-analysis can be real and unrealistic. In the first case, a person analyzes what really exists (qualities inherent in nature), in the second, he tries to grasp what does not exist.

If it turns out that a person does not possess this quality or it is not sufficiently developed, self-knowledge can serve as a step towards further work on oneself.

Have you ever had a situation when, for example, a perfumer came to your home? He strikes up a conversation with you, talks about the product he brought, and lets you listen to different aromas. Ten minutes later, you walk into your apartment and buy groceries that you don't really need.

Without even noticing it, it happens. And such instant purchases are common. Decisions made spontaneously can lead to at least regrets, and sometimes to big problems. We are constantly influenced by the people around us. And it's not just about salespeople or intrusive advertising. We become infected with negative emotions from colleagues, get upset while standing in a traffic jam or in line at the bank, and fall under the influence of the group’s opinions.

We can easily succumb to general panic. How it works? In a situation of fear and uncertainty, in conditions of limited time, we cannot, or rather do not have time to decide where to move, although adrenaline requires us to react (to hit or run away). And then one person runs. Since we are social creatures, the instinct of self-preservation tells us to follow the leader. And all the people are running after this man.

But the problem is that this person may not have the slightest idea where he is running; he gave in to fear. But in a critical situation, we do not have time to analyze all this, and we just mindlessly follow it.

But if we have developed the skill of introspection, then in a difficult situation we can analyze it. What am I doing? What do I want? Why am I listening to a salesman who talks about the uniqueness of this men's perfume? Out of politeness? I don't want to be rude? But why do I need men's perfume if I live alone?

Or in a relationship with a toxic person. What does this person want from me? What feelings accompany me when I am next to him? Why do I need it? What do I really want? Why not leave? I can not? Should I stay with such a person? Who made me do this?

The same thing happens in a panic situation. They all ran. Where did they go? Who were they running after? They simply succumbed to the herd instinct. What I feel? Fear? Anxiety? What do I want? What would be good for me? Should I follow the crowd? Or do I need to go in a completely different direction?

All these are questions of reflection, which begins with observing one’s own feelings and thoughts.

Having mastered the skill of self-observation, you will no longer succumb to momentary impulses, the manipulative influence of other people, and you will no longer react thoughtlessly to external negative stimuli. In this way, self-analysis becomes a stimulus for improvement.

Introspection - pros and cons

What is introspection?

Although it is an obscure term used in psychology and means “looking within,” introspection is familiar to most of us. There is not a person who would not try to understand his actions in a given situation by analyzing its consequences. And few people suspect that at this moment he is immersed in a state that is simply considered the ability for introspection.

Thus, introspection is one of the methods of deep self-knowledge, when you can independently analyze:

· actions;

· emotions;

· thoughts;

· feelings;

· intentions formed in the brain.

Introspection in psychology

The ability to introspect is a great gift; Not everyone has it, and even those to whom it is given do not always use it skillfully, turning it into soul-searching, when in the course of analyzing events attention is paid only to their own negative thoughts and feelings. It can reach the point of self-criticism, when the subject blames only himself for everything that happened. In contrast to these destructive actions, introspection in psychology is an analysis that allows you to objectively assess behavior and emotional state without self-judgment and remorse.

Introspection - pros and cons

The introspection method in psychology, like any research method, can be fraught with positive and negative sides, because everyone’s psychological portrait is unique, and it is impossible to give recommendations that are suitable for absolutely everyone. However, the method of introspection used to observe the human condition revealed more characteristic features. Among the positive ones are:

· knowledge of your habits, advantages and disadvantages;

· opportunity for self-improvement;

· “closedness” from outside observation of everything that happens to a person.

As for the negative aspects of the method, the researchers name only one here: a biased attitude towards oneself in the widest range. It extends from the assessment: “I forgive myself, my beloved, everything,” to: “Only I am to blame for everything, because I am bad (loser, selfish, etc.).” While giving due credit to internal assessments that are valuable for the individual himself, experts do not consider them scientific.

Introspection and self-observation

The method of introspection and introspection are sometimes equated, implying that the aspects of study are the same for them: an internal emotional reaction to various events, where the assessment is given by the subject, who is usually called a “naive observer.” But experts believe that introspection and introspection have significant differences:

· self-observation is a way of obtaining information about the emotional and mental state of an individual from himself;

· introspection - the use of data obtained as a result of introspection.

Reflection and introspection - differences The interaction of introspection and reflection as two methods that expand the horizons of research into the emotional and mental state of an individual is interesting. Most experts agree that both are important: introspection and reflection; the differences are that the first is “responsible” for the soul, analyzing its reaction to the actions performed, and the second is for the body, giving information about its actions.

Methods for increasing the accuracy and reliability of observation.

The validity and stability of data increases if the following rules are followed:

a) Classify as granularly as possible the elements of events to be monitored, using clear indicators.

b) If the main observation is carried out by several persons, they compare their impressions and agree on assessments and interpretation of events, using a single recording technique.

c) The same object should be observed in different situations (normal, stressful, standard and conflict).

d) It is necessary to clearly distinguish and record the content, forms of manifestation of observed events and their quantitative characteristics (intensity, regularity, periodicity, frequency).

e) It is extremely important to ensure that the description of events is not confused with their interpretation. Therefore, the protocol should have special columns for recording factual data and for their interpretation.

Content analysis and its types

Content analysis is a formalized method of studying text and graphic information, which consists of translating the studied information into quantitative indicators and its statistical processing. Characterized by great rigor and systematicity.

Types of content analysis:

By function: search – aimed at testing the hypothesis, identifying unknown trends; control – associated with a more precise definition of already known (more or less) content.

By nature: directed, when it is known exactly what needs to be measured;/ undirected, when the researcher acts intuitively without systematizing the object of research in advance.

3. Conversation method

The conversation method is a psychological verbal-communicative method that consists of conducting a thematically focused dialogue between a psychologist and a respondent in order to obtain information from the latter.

General information

In a psychological conversation, there is direct interaction between the psychologist and the respondent in the form of oral exchange of information. The conversation method is widely used in psychotherapy. It is also used as an independent method in advisory, political, and legal psychology.

During the conversation, the psychologist, being a researcher, secretly or explicitly directs the conversation, during which he asks questions to the person being interviewed.

There are two types of conversation:

· Managed

Uncontrollable

During a guided conversation, the psychologist actively controls the flow of the conversation, maintains the flow of the conversation, and establishes emotional contact. An uncontrolled conversation occurs when there is a greater return of initiative from the psychologist to the respondent compared to a controlled one. In an unguided conversation, the focus is on giving the respondent the opportunity to speak out, while the psychologist does not interfere or barely interfere with the respondent's self-expression.

In the case of both controlled and uncontrolled conversation, the psychologist is required to have verbal and nonverbal communication skills. Any conversation begins with establishing contact between the researcher and the respondent, while the researcher acts as an observer analyzing the external manifestations of the respondent’s mental activity. Based on observation, the psychologist carries out express diagnostics and adjusts the chosen conversation strategy. At the initial stages of the conversation, the main task is to encourage the subject under study to actively participate in the dialogue.

The most important skill of a psychologist in a conversation situation is the ability to establish and maintain rapport, while maintaining the purity of the study, avoiding irrelevant (interfering with obtaining a reliable result) verbal and non-verbal influences on the subject, which can contribute to an active change in his reactions. Careless statements on the part of the psychologist, made, for example, in the form of orders, threats, moralizing, advice, accusations, value judgments regarding what the respondent said, reassurances and inappropriate jokes can lead to the destruction of rapport with the respondent or to the provision of collateral suggestions on the respondent.

Types of conversation

Conversations vary depending on the psychological task being pursued. The following types are distinguished:

· Therapeutic conversation

· Experimental conversation (to test experimental hypotheses)

Autobiographical conversation

· Collection of subjective history (collection of information about the subject’s personality)

Collecting an objective history (collecting information about the subject’s acquaintances)

· Telephone conversation

Interviews are classified as both a conversational method and a survey method.

Reflective Listening

Reflective listening is a style of conversation that involves active verbal interaction between the psychologist and the respondent.

Reflective listening is used to accurately monitor the correctness of perception of the information received. The use of this style of conversation may be associated with the personal characteristics of the respondent (for example, a low level of development of communication skills), the need to establish the meaning of the word that the speaker had in mind, cultural traditions (communication etiquette in the cultural environment to which the respondent and the psychologist belong ).

Three basic techniques for maintaining a conversation and monitoring the information received:

1. Clarification (using clarifying questions)

2. Paraphrasing (formulation of what the respondent said in his own words)

3. The psychologist’s verbal reflection of the respondent’s feelings

Non-reflective listening

Non-reflective listening is a style of conversation in which only the minimum of words and non-verbal communication techniques required by the psychologist is used from the point of view of expediency.

Non-reflective listening is used in cases where there is a need to let the subject speak out. It is especially useful in situations where the interlocutor shows a desire to express his point of view, discuss topics that concern him, and where he experiences difficulty in expressing problems, is easily confused by the intervention of a psychologist and behaves in a rigid manner due to the difference in social status between the psychologist and the respondent.

4. Survey research methods

Interview

The use of interviews as a research method is associated with the psychodynamic tradition in psychiatry, since the use of the survey method is fully justified only by clinical concepts. Therefore, the most universal and general form of the survey method is an in-depth, clinical, therapeutic or unstructured interview.

The interview is conducted to obtain initial information in order to make a final judgment. In clinical practice, this is a diagnostic judgment; in legal practice, it is the qualification of an action in accordance with a certain article of the code. That is, the main task of a clinical interview is classification, a taxonomic task (to assign the interviewee to any taxon either by diagnosis or by offense). This distinguishes it from a sociological interview, the purpose of which is to obtain information. In addition, the clinical interview process is extremely intensive in its use of observational techniques, meaning that in the categorization process it is not what a person says that is important, but how he says it. The main task of the interviewer is to interpret the behavior of the interviewee (reservations, reticences, psychodynamic tension, etc.).

Since, unlike a sociological interview, the task of a clinical interview is to make a final judgment, and not to collect complete information, interpretation is included in its structure, and questions are asked not from the point of view of their logical sequence, but from the point of view of the shortest path to a categorizing judgment.

Clinical interview

The basic method for collecting primary data in empirical research on social behavior is the clinical interview. The specific way in which data is presented depends on two interrelated factors:

1. Degrees of originality for each source document (can they be grouped)

2. The quantities of these materials (the more material, the higher the likelihood of repetitions).

In general, a clinical interview is designed to collect unique data, that is, data that cannot be grouped.

The focus of the method is determined not by the method itself, but by the purpose of the research. If these goals are related to obtaining data on any population characteristics, then the clinical interview data can be presented “in your own words” in the form of a summary. If the results of the interview should reflect the state of the individual, personal, individual characteristics, then summarizing is not allowed, but the direct speech of the respondent is presented. This rule is based on the general scientific principle that the presentation must be verifiable.

All characteristics of respondents are given in a form in which they could not be identified (first letter of last name, job position...).

When materials are used to estimate a population, they can be presented in summary form. Therefore, they can be grouped. To what extent are the results generalizable? This depends on the objectives of the study and the intuition of the researcher.

Interview materials are not text. The interview includes an observation method: recording the behavioral manifestations of the respondent - facial expressions, remarks, etc., which are not text.

In a clinical interview, the most important material for analysis appears when the respondent experiences dynamic resistance (evasive answers, vague turns of phrase, avoidance of an unpleasant topic, symptoms of tension, aggression). In such cases, techniques for reducing tension are used: a joke, a release, a flattering statement for the respondent: “We are very sorry to take up your time, but you are such a unique person, with your biography, life achievements, experience, only from you can we get such information.” Next, you should move on to another topic, and towards the end, suddenly return to the issue that caused a negative reaction.

To assess the reliability of the results of a clinical interview, the attitude of the respondent to the situation (frankness) is important. It is determined by the number of topics from which the respondent avoided, by the number of “streamlined” answers, by the appearance of tension, by verbal aggression. In a semi-standardized interview, the same methods are used as in the questionnaire: subjective time of completion, direct assessment of interest/uninteresting, a request to return to the questions of the questionnaire and indicate those that caused the greatest difficulties in answering: “Let's go back to the beginning of our interview, remember, What questions were difficult for you or that you would not want to answer again?

Such assessments are summarized and show how many respondents showed interest, how many experienced tension, and which questions turned out to be difficult or stressful.

Principles for selecting interviewers:

1. Women respond more readily to men, and men to women.

2. Older people are more likely to receive answers than young people.

3. The higher the educational level of the interviewer, the more trainable he is, and therefore the better the interview.

4. The most versatile interviewer is a middle-aged woman with higher education who can interview almost any respondents: from pensioners to teenagers of any gender.

When presenting the data obtained, all characteristics and features of the group must be indicated. This is done to evaluate the work of other specialists: the level of language development of respondents, the correctness of interpretations, etc.

Sociological interview

1). Establishing contact with the respondent.

- Performance.

— Statement of the purpose of the meeting. The task of this stage is to configure the respondent to begin giving information. To do this, you need to quickly move on to what is interesting to the respondent himself. (For example: “We all know very well how high the level of crime and burglary is... our institute is conducting research to improve the safety of apartments where, like yours, there is free access to the entrance..."). The respondent should feel that the study is being conducted for him. Exceptions are cases when the respondent begins to be indignant, saying that he does not have time to discuss all sorts of nonsense with unknown people. Then it is useful to say that if it were not for work, you would also hardly have the desire to talk to him.

- Security guarantee. Contact with a stranger, especially when it comes to some disturbing topic, usually causes tension. It must be said right away that the research will in no way be directed against the respondent, that the data will be processed anonymously, etc.

— After providing a guarantee of safety, the respondent needs to be told that you appreciate his high contribution to the development of science.

— At the stage of establishing contact, the interviewer must choose a model of behavior that he will adhere to during the interview process.

There are three main models:

a) Neutral (not interfering), without behavioral manifestations. It is the best in terms of reliability, but many respondents do not work with this model.

b) Authoritarian (coercive), pushing and stimulating behavior. Used for passive and evasive respondents.

c) Participative, aimed at cooperation, joint work with the respondent, stimulating answers. Used for those who doubt or give vague answers.

2) The logic of conducting a non-standardized interview.

It is used when too little is known about an object to make hypotheses about causality. The interviewer has only abstract ideas about the information he would like to receive. The guide contains only the most general formulations so as not to lose details that may be decisive for the entire study.

The only requirement is that the logic of the questions must correspond to the logic of natural conversation.

In a clinical interview, there are questions that do not carry any semantic load at all, and they are used only to create in the respondent a feeling of continuity and logic of the conversation, or to set him up to continue the conversation.

Questions that cause tension are best asked in the second third of the interview, when the respondent is already in the mood to give information.

Mid-interview techniques:

a) Confrontation - personal or situational with the aim of provoking a response.

b) False clarification - a deliberately distorted repetition of the answer to a question to which the respondent answered unsatisfactorily, in order to provoke him to clarify the answer.

c) A literal repetition of the answer after the respondent, but in a more detailed form, for the purpose of clarification.

d) Asking again - control questions.

Typically, a clinical interview has an average duration of 2.5 to 3.5 hours. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that during this time the respondent’s attention naturally changes.

1/4 - inattention due to an indicative reaction.

2-3/4 - main work.

4/4 - fatigue. Used to clarify painful information, neutral and tuning questions are asked first.

Sometimes interviews have to be divided into 2-3 meetings.

Disadvantage: the respondent has to be configured again each time.

The advantage is that the respondent forgets what he said the first time, which allows the interviewer to ask follow-up questions.

3) End of the interview.

The respondent should be left with a feeling of satisfaction, a feeling that he did not work in vain.

Normal option: gratitude, positive assessment of the respondent’s participation in the interview and emphasizing the importance of the information he provided.

An option with insistence on the continuation of the conversation on the part of the respondent. With this option, you should draw the respondent’s attention to your instrumental function, that is, that you are an agent, and not a great scientist, or that you cannot go beyond the scope of the topic without the consent of the manager, etc. A gentle departure is possible: “Thank you for the interview, we have exhausted the topic” or relegating the conversation to the future with the implication of the value of new information. 4) Recording the results of the interview.

a) Recording on paper. The negative side of this method of recording results is the loss of contact with the respondent during recording.

b) Audio recordings - the connection between speech and behavior is lost.

c) Video - unnatural behavior of the respondent during video recording in the direction of demonstrating socially desirable behavior. Hidden recording is not permissible for moral reasons.

d) Recording immediately after the interview - considered highly reliable (3-5 hours). In a methodological sense, an adequate way of recording results is valuable in that it allows other specialists to assess the reliability of the data obtained. The reliability of an interview is the attitude of the interviewer to the interview situation, his disposition and readiness to talk.

Questioning is a procedure for conducting a survey in writing using pre-prepared forms. Questionnaires (from the French “list of questions”) are filled out independently by respondents.

This method has the following advantages:

— high efficiency of obtaining information;

— the possibility of organizing mass surveys;

— relatively low labor intensity of procedures for preparing and conducting research, processing their results;

— the absence of influence of the personality and behavior of the interviewer on the work of respondents;

- lack of expression of the researcher’s relationship of subjective bias towards any of the respondents,

However, questionnaires also have significant disadvantages:

- the lack of personal contact does not allow, as, say, in a free interview, to change the order and wording of questions depending on the answers or behavior of the respondents;

— the reliability of such “self-reports” is not always sufficient, the results of which are influenced by the respondents’ unconscious attitudes and motives or their desire to appear in a more favorable light, deliberately embellishing the real state of affairs.

Let's look at the main types of questions in the questionnaire.

Based on the content (or focus) of questions, there are three types:

1) about the personality of the respondent, regarding his gender, age, education, profession, marital status, etc. Their presence makes it possible to further process the survey material within a particular subgroup of people, if necessary, comparing similar information from different subgroups;

2) about facts of consciousness intended to identify the opinions, motives, expectations, plans, and value judgments of respondents;

3) about facts of behavior that reveal real actions, actions and results of people’s activities.

When processing data from large contingents of respondents, coding of answers to closed questions is used. To do this, all answers are accompanied by three-digit numbers, in which the first two digits indicate the serial number of the question, and the third indicates the serial number of the answer. In practice, coding is also common in which all numbers serve to indicate the serial numbers of the answers. The subject is asked to underline or circle the codes of the selected answers.

The use of closed questions in the questionnaire allows you to effectively compare the results of respondents. However, they lack the fullness of expression of individual opinions or assessments, which sometimes causes dissatisfaction among the subjects, and it is also known that such questions can provoke a series of not properly thought out, “mechanical” answers.

A semi-closed question is used if the compiler is not aware of all possible answer options or intends to more accurately and completely clarify the individual points of view of the persons being surveyed. In addition to the list of ready-made answers, such a question contains a column “other answers” ​​and a certain number of empty lines (usually five to seven);

An open question assumes that the answer to it will be formulated entirely by the respondent himself,

Of course, this will greatly hinder the comparability of responses. Therefore, such questions are used either in the early stages of compiling a questionnaire, or when there is a need for the most complete expression of all individual answer options available in the group. Such questions are also inappropriate in cases where the anonymity of respondents is of particular importance.

Depending on the way of formulation, questions can be direct or indirect.

A direct question is aimed at directly, openly obtaining information from the respondent. It is expected that it will be answered in an equally direct and honest manner.

However, where it is necessary to express a fairly critical attitude towards oneself and others, many tend to limit themselves to socially approved answers, sometimes to the detriment of sincerity. In fact, what will be the teacher’s answer to the question “What prevents you from conducting your classes well?” or the student’s response “Why do you often miss lectures?”

In such cases, an indirect question is made, which is usually associated with the use of some imaginary situation that masks the critical potential of the information being transmitted. For example: “It’s no secret that some students in your course rarely attend lectures.” Why do you think?” or “Sometimes you can hear the opinion that some teachers conduct their classes poorly. What explains this attitude towards work?

Based on their function, the questionnaire questions are divided into informational (basic), filters, and control (clarifying).

Moreover, most questions are aimed at obtaining information from each of the respondents. This is the so-called main questions.

Filter questions are used when information is needed not from the entire population of respondents, but only from a part of them. This is a kind of “questionnaire within a questionnaire”. The beginning and end of the filter are usually clearly marked graphically. For example:

“The next three questions are only for psychology students.

Are you studying at the Faculty of Psychology? ...

What is the quality of practical classes in the psychology of communication?…

To what extent can the knowledge gained from them help you in your work in your specialty?

Attention! Questions for everyone."

Limiting the range of respondents carried out by the filter allows one to avoid distortions of information introduced by the answers of insufficiently competent persons.

Control questions make it possible to clarify the correctness of the information provided by respondents, as well as exclude unreliable answers or even questionnaires from further consideration.

These usually include questions of two types. The first are repetitions of information questions formulated in different words. If the answers to the main and control questions are diametrically opposed, they are excluded from subsequent analysis. Other control questions serve to identify individuals who have an increased tendency to choose socially approved answers. They offer a variety of answers where in practice there may only be a single answer. Eg:

“Have you ever been naughty as a child?”

As can be seen from the nature of these questions, the likelihood of receiving an honest, but not actually common, answer to them is very small.

There are several ways to improve control efficiency:

— in the questionnaire, the main and control questions should not be placed side by side, otherwise their relationship will be discovered;

— answers to direct questions are better controlled by indirect questions;

- only the most significant questions in the questionnaire should be subject to control;

- the need for control, as a rule, is reduced if a significant part of the questions allows for evasion of answers, expressions of uncertainty of opinion (such as “I don’t know”, “I find it difficult to answer”, “when how”, etc.).

Stages of preparing the questionnaire.

I. Analysis of the survey topic, highlighting individual problems in it;

II. Development of a pilot questionnaire with a predominance of open questions;

III. Pilot survey. Analysis of its results;

IV. Clarification of the wording of instructions and the content of questions;

V. Questionnaire;

VI. Generalization and interpretation of results. Preparing of report.

Composition of the questionnaire. Such a standardized and correspondence conversation with the respondent has a fairly stable scenario. It usually begins with a brief introduction - an address to the respondent, which outlines the topic of the survey, its goals, the name of the organization or person conducting the survey, and the strict confidentiality of the information received.

Then, as a rule, instructions for filling out the form are given. If the nature of the questions or their form changes throughout the questionnaire, instructions may be not only at the beginning, but also in other parts of the form.

It is very rare that the process of filling out a questionnaire itself is of particular benefit to the persons being interviewed. Therefore, usually the first questions are made as easy and interesting as possible. It is important to make sure that the majority of respondents want to answer them. The functions of such contact questions are:

a) formation of an attitude towards cooperation;

b) stimulating the interest of subjects;

c) introducing respondents to the range of problems discussed in the questionnaire;

d) obtaining information.

These are followed by more complex questions that form the main content of the questionnaire.

And finally, in the final part of the form, easier questions again follow, which is associated with the onset of exhaustion of attention, with increasing fatigue of respondents.

Requirements for the wording of questions for the questionnaire:

Does the question contain hints, either explicitly or implicitly? (After all, a question like “What do you like about ...?” already has a certain external predetermination, since it presupposes that something is “liked”)

Does the question exceed the respondent's level of memory or thinking? (As an example, you could try to accurately answer a question such as “How many hours a month do you spend preparing for seminars?”)

Does it contain words that are incomprehensible to the respondents or have extremely vague content? (For example, such as “tolerance”, “altruism”, “rating”, “infantilism”, etc., or words like “often”, “rarely”, “on average”..., the content of which is very ambiguous for different people. Not like a schoolboy, not every student will answer the question “Do you often show conformity?” And how is it “often”? Once a day, a week, a year?)

Does the question hurt the respondent’s dignity and self-esteem? Will it cause an excessive negative emotional reaction?

Is the size question too long? Are the answers to it too detailed?

Are several different subjects being asked at the same time? Is there an error in the logic of presentation?

Will the question apply to everyone? Is a filter necessary?

Does the issue need control? Which one exactly?

What type of question (in terms of answer form and method of formulation) is most preferable in this particular case?

Are there options for avoidance in a closed question? Are they necessary?

Is there grammatical agreement between the question and its answers?

Were there any distortions when reprinting the questionnaire?

5. Testing as a method of psychology.

A test is a short-term task, the completion of which can serve as an indicator of the perfection of certain mental functions. The purpose of the tests is not to obtain new scientific data, but to test and verify.

Tests are more or less standardized short-term tests of personality traits. There are tests aimed at assessing intellectual, perceptual abilities, motor functions, personality traits, the threshold for anxiety, frustration in a certain situation, or interest in a particular type of activity. A good test is the result of a lot of preliminary experimental testing. Theoretically based and experimentally tested tests have scientific (differentiation of subjects according to the level of development of a particular property, characteristics, etc.) and, most importantly, practical (vocational selection) significance.

The most widely known and popular are personality tests aimed at determining the level of intellectual development of an individual. However, nowadays they are used less and less for selection, although they were originally created for this very purpose. This limitation in the use of these tests can be explained by a number of reasons. But it is through their use, criticism of the abuse of tests and measures taken to improve them that the nature and functioning of intelligence has become much better understood.

When developing the first tests, two main requirements were put forward that “good” tests must satisfy: validity and reliability.

The validity of a test lies in the fact that it must measure exactly the quality for which it is intended.

The reliability of the test lies in the fact that its results are reproduced with good consistency in the same person.

The requirement for test normalization is also very important . This means that standards must be established for it in accordance with the test data of the reference group. Such normalization can not only clearly define the groups of individuals to whom a given test can be applied, but also place the results obtained when testing subjects on the normal distribution curve of the reference group. Obviously, it would be absurd to use norms obtained on university students to assess (using the same tests) the intelligence of primary school children, or to use norms obtained from children from Western countries when assessing the intelligence of young Africans or Asians.

Thus, the intelligence criteria in this kind of tests are determined by the prevailing culture, that is, by the values ​​that originally developed in Western European countries. This does not take into account that someone may have a completely different family upbringing, different life experiences, different ideas (in particular, about the meaning of the test), and in some cases, poor command of the language spoken by the majority of the population.

Personality tests

The first type of individual tests - personality tests are designed to determine a person’s qualities, which are mainly independent of the situation and constant over time. Unlike ability tests, which are focused on the subject completing a given task and achieving high results, they are designed for an open and free reaction of a person, revealing his relatively stable traits. The main purpose of personality tests is to identify how a person behaves in certain situations or solves a certain range of problems. Personality tests can examine, for example, such psychological qualities of a person as temperament, aggressiveness, anxiety, level of aspirations, self-esteem, etc.

In subjective personality tests

the assessment principle is clear to the subject. Therefore, if he is insincere with his answers, he can influence the result and distort it. Questions about sincerity (lies) are designed to prevent this. If, in an effort to create a good impression of himself, the test taker exceeds the permissible limit of (primarily accidental) insincerity in his answers, then the test results are considered invalid. An example of subjective tests is the “Personality Temperament” test.

A widely used type of subjective test is personality questionnaires.

.
They contain a set of questions focused on a common goal. Depending on the purpose of the test, there are multifactorial
(giving a comprehensive comprehensive assessment of the psychological qualities of a person),
single-factor
(identifying individual stable characteristics of a person, for example, his temperament) and
projective
(when the test taker is asked, for example, to complete unfinished sentences, give an interpretation to a particular image or or draw a house, animal or some other object).

Tests for interests and aptitudes

This method has huge advantages

• With its help, everyone can know themselves better than anyone else;
• awareness of one's own level of development is epistemically reliable;
• a person can regulate his mental states.

The difference between introspection and other methods of cognition is that it gives a person direct access to the object of study.

Introspection has its advantages over other methods of self-knowledge

Methods

The choice of self-observation method depends on the person’s age. The child cannot fully describe his feelings and emotions, since he encounters many of them for the first time and does not know what they are called. At the same time, the child will tell more truth than an adult, who may want to hide information, characteristics of his own behavior, personal shortcomings, shameful actions.

For children

Self-observation for children is best organized in the form of a game. If a child does not know what certain feelings and emotions are called, you can make crafts with their image and sign what they are called. The adult should ask the child about his feelings, and the child should point out suitable crafts.

Also, if the child does not know how to describe his feelings, you can ask him to express them in the form of drawings, which will be studied by a psychologist depending on different criteria - lines, shapes, colors, the presence of additional elements.

For older children, it will be interesting to keep a personal diary. In it, the child will be able to record his experiences, negative moments, and features of communication with peers.

For adults

An adult can perform introspection regardless of time and place. When self-observing, you need to note the characteristics of the mental state, and not the physical manifestations of the body.

It is important to be impartial when introspecting. You can't cut yourself any slack. It is important to evaluate everything sensibly, not to hold anything back, and try not to lie to yourself.

Experienced psychologists advise first to speak out the feelings and emotions that bother you, and then analyze them. This makes it easier to perceive the current situation and difficult moments.

You can also first write down experiences, feelings, emotions on a separate sheet, and then analyze them separately. You can break them down into separate blocks and compare strengths and weaknesses.

If it is difficult to communicate with yourself on exciting topics, or there are any difficulties, you can make a list of questions in advance that will need to be answered. It is best to write down your answers so that you can analyze them after completing the personal survey.

Method of introspection and self-observation

Reflection involves special attention to the activity of one’s own soul, as well as to the sufficient maturity of the subject. Children have virtually no reflexivity; they are mainly busy exploring the outside world. It cannot develop in an adult if he does not show a tendency to think about himself and does not pay special attention to his internal processes.

So there are two important statements.

1. There is a possibility of bifurcation, or “doubling” of the psyche. The activity of the soul can proceed, as it were, on two levels: the processes of the first level are perceptions, thoughts, desires; second-level processes are observation, or “contemplation” of these perceptions, thoughts, desires.
2. Every person, and even a child, has a first level of mental activity. The second level of mental activity requires special organization. This is a special activity. Without this, knowledge of the life of the soul is impossible. Without it, impressions from the life of the soul are like “fleeting ghosts” that do not leave “clear and lasting ideas” in the soul.

These two theses, namely the possibility of split consciousness and the need to organize special activities to understand internal experience, were accepted by the psychology of consciousness. The following scientific and practical conclusions were made:

1. a psychologist can conduct psychological research only on himself. If he wants to find out what is happening to another person, he must put himself in the same conditions, observe himself and, by analogy, deduce the content of the other person’s consciousness;
2. Since introspection does not happen by itself, but requires special activity, it must be practiced, and for a long time.

The experiments of the most strict introspectionists (E. Titchener and his students) were complicated by two additional requirements.

• Firstly, introspection should have been aimed at isolating the simplest elements of consciousness, namely sensations and elementary feelings. (The fact is that the method of introspection from the very beginning was associated with the atomistic approach in psychology, that is, with the conviction that to study means to decompose complex processes into their simplest elements).
• Second, respondents were required to avoid using terms that describe external objects in their responses, and instead talk only about their sensations caused by these objects and the characteristics of these sensations. For example, respondents could not say: “They showed me a big red apple. He should have said something like: “First I had a sensation of red color, which overpowered everything else, and then gave way to a circular sensation, followed by a slight tickling in the tongue, apparently a trace of the sense of taste. There was also a rapidly passing muscle sensation in the right arm...”

The answer in terms of external objects was called by E. Titchener the “stimulus fallacy,” a familiar term of introspective psychology reflecting its atomistic focus on the elements of consciousness.

As this type of research developed, serious problems and difficulties began to arise. Firstly, the meaninglessness of such “experimental psychology” became increasingly obvious. According to one author, those who did not consider psychology a profession turned away from it. Another unpleasant consequence was the growing contradiction in the results. The results not only did not coincide among different authors, but sometimes even among the same author when working with different subjects.

Moreover, the foundations of psychology began to shake and develop further. Psychologists began to find contents of consciousness that cannot be decomposed into individual sensations or presented as their sum. They said: take the melody and put it in another key; Every sound in it will change, but the melody will remain. Melody, therefore, is determined not by individual sounds, not simply by their sum, but by a special quality associated with the relationships between sounds. It is the quality of the overall structure (gestalt), not the sum of the elements.

Moreover, the systematic use of introspection began to reveal the non-sensory, or non-substantial, elements of consciousness. These include, for example, “pure” movements of thought, without which the thinking process cannot be reliably described. Thus, instead of the triumph of science with such a unique method, a crisis situation arose in psychology.

This is because the arguments put forward in defense of the method of introspection have not been thoroughly tested. These were statements that only at first glance seemed true.

In psychology, in particular, the question of the possibility of simultaneous occurrence of two types of activities has been studied. This has been shown to be possible either when there is a rapid transition from one activity to another, or when one of the activities is relatively simple and performed "automatically". For example, you can knit and watch TV, but knitting stops at the most interesting moments.

If we apply all this to introspection, we must admit that its capabilities are very limited. Introspection of a real, full-blooded act of consciousness can only be accomplished by interrupting it. Admittedly, introspectionists realized this quite quickly. They noticed that it is necessary to observe not so much the ongoing process as its disappearing trace. And in order for memory traces to remain as complete as possible, the process must be broken down (by acts of introspection) into smaller parts. Thus, introspection turned into “fractional” retrospection.

Let us dwell on the following statement - about the supposed possibility of identifying cause-and-effect relationships in the sphere of consciousness with the help of introspection.

Thus, the practice of application and in-depth discussion of the introspection method have revealed a number of its fundamental shortcomings. They were so significant that they undermined the method as a whole, and with it the subject of psychology - a subject with which the method of introspection was inextricably linked and the postulation of which was a natural consequence.

In modern research, the opposite is true. The main burden falls on the experimenter, who must show ingenuity. He organizes the selection of special objects or special conditions for their presentation; uses special equipment, selects special items, etc. On the other hand, the experimenter is obliged to give the usual answer under normal conditions.

The theory of introspection in psychology is one of the leading methods of self-analysis

Systematic introspection

Between 1901 and 1905 in Würzburg, under the leadership of Külpe, what became known as systematic introspection developed. Külpe, who like Titchener was influenced by Mach's positivism, moved from Leipzig to Würzburg with the conviction that experimental psychology should also study thinking. The new experimental psychology could deal with sensations, perceptions and reactions, and Ebbinghaus added memory to this list in 1885. Wundt said that thought cannot be studied experimentally. The positivist Külpe, however, was confident that all he had to do was find subjects willing to think under controlled conditions and then obtain from them an introductory report of their thinking processes.

This was followed by a brilliant series of works on associations (1901), written by Külpe's students: Mayer and Orth on judgment (1901), Marbe on feeling (1903), Watt on thinking (1905), Ach on action and thinking (1905). Each of these works argued that so-called classical introspection does not meet any of the above problems. Mayer and Orth described the chain of associated images in the process of thinking, but did not find any indication in introspection of how thinking is directed towards its goal. Marbe noted that although judgments are easily expressed in terms of images, introspection gives no indication of how or why they are formed. In Orth's research, emotions "resisted" introspective analysis, so he had to coin the controversial term "conscious attitude" to describe emotional life.

In his subjects, feelings, of course, did not appear in the form of sensations or images. Watt and Ach independently came to consistent conclusions. To make introspection more effective, Watt invented the technique of fragmentation: he divided psychological events into successive periods and examined each of them separately, thereby achieving a reduction in the amount of memory and inferences included in the introspective report. But the nature of thought remained elusive to him until he realized that the goal orientation of thought is given by a task or instruction (he called it a task that the subject accepted before the start of the thought process). Ach developed the concept of deterministic tendency as a guiding unconscious principle that directs conscious processes along a predetermined path to solving a problem. He also developed a partitioning procedure with chronoscopic control and formulated the method - systematic experimental introspection. Both the defining, essentially unconscious tendency and the conscious processes directed by it turned out to be impossible for Akha’s subjects in terms of classical introspection, i.e. in the language of sensations and images. For these vague, elusive contents of consciousness, Ach had to introduce the concept of consciousness, and his subjects learned to describe their consciousness in terms of unobservable experiences of consciousness.

Representatives of the Würzburg school believed that they had discovered a new type of psychic principle using the method of introspection, but the concept of consciousness did not achieve the status of being recognized in terms of sensation and image. Instead, they talked about the discovery of ugly thought by the Würzburg school, and many blamed it for this: the discovery is purely negative, even though thoughts are not images, but what is it? Titchener, however, believed that he knew the answer to this question. According to Titchener, the thoughts that Wurzburger speaks of are partly conscious relations, which are vague, fleeting patterns of sensations and images, partly meanings and judgments, which should be excluded from psychology because the task of studying them is not adequate to description.

Types of introspection in psychology

Over time, several variants of introspection have been identified in psychology. These include:

1. Phenomenological introspection is a method of Gestalt psychology. Its goal is to describe mental phenomena in all their completeness and immediacy in order to extract basic feelings and sensations. This type of introspection later found application in descriptive and humanistic psychology.
2. Introspective psychology or self-knowledge. This direction was developed by R. Maharshi. The researcher's experiments were aimed at studying his own feelings and determining their causes.
3. Analytical introspection, the founder of which is E. Titchener. The scientist's experimental activities were aimed at decomposing the sensory image into component parts that were resistant to the influence of a stimulus. This method became the basis of structuralism.
4. Systematic self-observation is a method of mental analysis used in the Würzburg School. It focuses on the control of mental activity and is based on retrospective reporting.

Characteristics and properties

Self-analysis has as its main characteristic the fact of subjectivity, that is, the individual who observes himself based on his criteria and from his own view of reality.

There is no person in the world who could analyze your traits just as you could not fully understand the psyche of another person.

Thus, it also has a certain degree of flexibility, since we consider ourselves the object of analysis during this technique, but at the same time we are the researcher. We are responsible for documenting the data found. Likewise, the real application of what we find applies to our own lives, since we cannot impose our minds and thoughts on the thoughts of another person.

Introspection in everyday life

Anyone can use this method in everyday life to find harmony with themselves. If you listen closely to your feelings and emotions in certain situations, you can identify areas for self-development. If you combine introspection with meditation, you can develop your emotional-volitional sphere. For example, using the method of introspection, you can fight auto-aggression (causing moral or physical harm to yourself).

In addition, systematic practice, working with your own inner world, develops observation, helps to cope with absent-mindedness and raise self-esteem. People who have mastered this method look at the world differently: they notice details inside, learn to notice changes in the mood of the interlocutor and read his emotions by facial expressions. Their ability to work with information improves.

However, teaching children this method is an almost impossible task, since their psyche is flexible and it is very difficult for them to focus on their own feelings, thoughts and emotions.

Examples of introspection

Introspection has no rigid forms to use. This form of self-observation can be practiced under any circumstances: both independently and during psychotherapy under the supervision of a specialist. Methods of self-observation can be very diverse. It could be:

• Writing a diary. In this case, the diary can be paper or electronic (for example, a blog). The author has a chance to organize his thoughts and show emotions in this way.
• Writing a letter. The letter must be sent to a person who has harmed the sender in some way. It is good to express your attitude towards the recipient’s behavior. You can send it or leave the letter for yourself.
• Fairy tale. Speaking your thoughts and feelings out loud is an effective form of self-reflection. The story can be self-directed (recorded) or shared with someone you trust.

Any problem that a person wants to project must be viewed from the point of view of cause and effect. When solving life issues or psychological problems, you need to ask yourself only two questions: why and for what purpose.

Advantages and disadvantages of the method

The advantages of this method are as follows

• This method is based on the study of one’s own inner feelings and personal attitudes (no one else can know these qualities better than the person being studied);
• Often helps to get out of a state of frustration;
• it represents mental facts as they exist.

These advantages of this method, however, do not make it ideal. As a method of psychological research, self-observation has significant disadvantages:

• High degree of subjectivity;
• the experimenter cannot be sure of the respondent’s honesty and self-criticism;
• It cannot be used in a group form of experimentation;
• the experimenter has no way to check whether the person taking the test understood the instructions correctly;
• the method was used mainly in artificial conditions; in the natural environment, the results of laboratory tests were not confirmed;
• non-reproducibility of the results of the method, even for the same participant after some time;
• The method can provide some information about a person, but it cannot be quantified or assessed qualitatively;
• If the experimenter conducts experiments on himself, then there is a high probability of distortion of the thought process and falsification of the results due to the initial attitude and duality of the researcher;

Petr Osipov: introspection

One of the founders of the largest and most famous business community in Russia and the CIS, “Business Youth,” Petr Osipov, recently released a new book. It’s called “Self-observation”. This is not just another information product on the market based on made-up stories and inflated expectations. The book is a whole collection of various techniques and skills, a whole range of psychological tools. The author himself introduced them into his business and made sure that each one worked.

Peter Osipov’s diary “Self-Observation” will be of interest to both established and successful entrepreneurs and businessmen just beginning their journey, who simply need to have a large supply of nerves and mental energy to go through the difficult path of establishing their company. He talks about introspection precisely from the point of view of a business manager, so here you can find a large number of articles in which various situations, people, their businesses are literally analyzed bit by bit, and philosophical issues of self-development and individual growth are discussed. Osipov’s “self-observation” resembles a diary, the same one that psychologists recommend keeping for those who want to apply the method of introspection in practice.

The problem of self-observation

In the course of numerous tests, it turned out that the self-observation method does not meet such criteria as repeatability and the ability to accurately record results. This was due to the fact that the participants were ordinary people who were distracted during the experiment and did not always provide accurate and timely feedback to the experimenter.

Thus, introspection turned out to be a method of studying not the mental processes themselves, but the traces that these processes leave in the human mind.

Another problem with using this method is its limitations: the results of self-observation establish the presence of a sign, but do not explain it. It can only be used to study perception, associations and feelings.

conclusions

Sometimes it can be difficult to cope with yourself, your emotions, shortcomings and fears in difficult circumstances. Recently, psychologists have noted quite a lot of cases where people lose themselves and cannot understand their internal problems. But a specialist cannot always get to those remote corners of the patient’s mind and soul, because only the person himself can determine what his main problem is and where it comes from. In order to accurately determine this, it is enough to listen to yourself. Self-reflection and the process of introspection are important elements of psychological introspection.

Of course, this is not a panacea and introspection can hardly be called a way out of any difficult situation. However, you need to understand that with a skillful approach it can bring very good results, including in business. This is perfectly demonstrated by Peter Osipov’s book “Self-Observation.” In addition, introspection will help you look at yourself from the outside in relationships and other important areas of life.

Psychological theories and schools

The concept of introspection has been discussed for a long time. Back in ancient Greece, the philosopher Plato asked himself the question: “Why not calmly and patiently examine the foundations of our thoughts and examine them carefully to find out what these aspects are in us?”

In the early days of psychology, researchers such as Wilhelm Wundt already used the introspective method.

Since the birth of psychology as a science, a large number of different theories and methods have appeared that try to explain the analysis and study of the human psyche. Different theories and schools have focused on different aspects and methods of work:

Kinds

Throughout the history of the development of psychology as a science, introspection has been viewed from different angles. And psychologists have identified some types of introspection: