Back to the Origins of the Repudiation of Wundt: Oswald Külpe and Richard Avenarius

Krauss, Chiara Russo

doi:10.1002/jhbs.21833

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among Wundt’s students Külpe and Titchener, Russo Krauss (2017, 2019) argues that Avenarius was much more influential than Mach on their philosophical development. The reason is that Avenarius was a colleague of Wundt’s at Leipzig whose philosophy of science initially aligned with the views of Wundt and his experimental work in psychology.…”

Section: Ebbinghaus Külpe and Titchenermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Külpe's and Titchener's repudiation of Wundt seems quite reasonable when put in light of the philosophical lineage provided by Russo Krauss (2017Krauss ( , 2019. For example, Mach (1886Mach ( /1914 describes his and Avenarius's views as self-evident: "What Avenarius puts forward, and consequently what I also put forward, appears to me to contain scarcely anything that is not self-evident" (p. 56).…”

Section: Ebbinghaus Külpe and Titchenermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mechanism and contextualism in psychology

Proctor,

Warren

2024

Theory & Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychology was established as a separate discipline when it split from philosophy. With the founding of Wundt’s lab and subsequent developments by Külpe, Titchener, and others, psychology was championed initially as a distinct science, in which controlled experiments played a major role. A parallel approach, beginning with Wundt, that eschews causal explanations established through controlled experiments and focuses on qualitative descriptions based on the subjective experiences of individuals, also developed. We describe alternative positions throughout the history of psychology as to whether these approaches accomplish the goals of treating psychology as a natural science. From a historical account, the mechanistic worldview provides a foundation for psychological science, as compared to a contextualistic worldview. We conclude that a mechanistic worldview, as seen in the history of psychology, has appropriate goals for the approach of continuing psychology’s development as a natural science, with the distinction between worldviews remaining a prominent philosophical task.

show abstract

Section: Ebbinghaus Külpe and Titchenermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ebbinghaus Külpe and Titchenermentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanism and contextualism in psychology

Proctor,

Warren

2024

Theory & Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is known that Wundt disagreed with the system of psychology spread by some of his pupils, such as Külpe (Russo Krauss, 2019, p. 65), who nevertheless played a very important role in the foundation of psychology in the 20th century and in the training and education of many European psychologists (Russo Krauss, 2017). In 1893, Külpe published his book Grundriss der Psycholog ie (Outlines of Psychology) and Wundt, who disagreed its contents, wrote a book (Wundt, 1896) with the same title, which was published three years later (Robinson, 1987).…”

Section: Wundian Psychology Questioned By His Pupilsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rewriting Wundtian psychology: Luigi Credaro and the psychology in Rome.

Foschi¹,

Romano²

2022

History of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After Rome became the capital of Italy in 1871, prestigious scientists arrived at the University of Rome. One of these scholars was the pedagogical philosopher Luigi Credaro . He was one of the rare Italian students of Wilhelm Wundt (1832Wundt ( -1920 when he went to Leipzig and attended the Institute for Experimental Psychology in the academic year 1887-1888. There he also followed the pedagogical seminars and considered the usefulness of establishing sections of practical pedagogy in Italian magisterium schools, which were teachertraining institutions. In 1904, he founded in Rome the Scuola Pedagogica (Pedagogical School). Through the school, Credaro proposed the concept of a scientific pedagogy based on the application of the results of experimental sciences in the educational field. We can suppose that this approach influenced the first generation of Italian scholars interested in experimental psychology in Rome, in particular Sante De Sanctis (1862-1935) and Maria Montessori (1870-1952. The article thus considers the hypothesis of the formation of a so-called Roman school of psychology, which created in the field of pedagogy a ground on which to develop its research and applications. It should be noted that Credaro devoted himself to the potential applications of experimental psychology in the context of the modernization of the liberal states of the 20th century. Specifically, scientific pedagogy constituted a field of application and development for Roman psychology. At the end, the foundation of psychology in Rome was influenced by a particular version of the Wundtian psychology promoted by his pupil Credaro.

show abstract

“…Although qualitative research in psychology has been instrumental in the development of central theories, schools of thought, and intervention approaches, it has not been recognized as a credible scientific tradition for most of its history (Danziger, 1979; Wertz, 2014). The emerging field of psychological science was influenced by positivist philosophy at a critical moment in its inception at the end of the 19th century (Araujo, 2016; Danziger, 1979; Russo Krauss, 2017). Although psychology did not adopt positivist philosophy in its totality, its methodological underpinnings became characterized by values tied to objectivism and the dismissal of metaphysics.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to the special section: Questioning established qualitative methods and assumptions.

Levitt¹

2021

Qualitative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Almost since its very beginning, psychological methods have been shaped by assumptions tied to objectivism and behaviorism. These epistemological perspectives have influenced not only the articulation of quantitative methods but beliefs about the logic and limitations of qualitative inquiry. In this introduction to the special section, Questioning Established Qualitative Methods and Assumptions, I consider reasons why it has been challenging to conceptualize qualitative methods coherently and the shifts in the field that have provided conceptual tools and language that have made this form of reasoning more possible. I frame articles by four authors who question prior assumptions and describe new approaches to considering qualitative methods that break from these ill-fitting confines. Each describes a method or assumption that has been seen as foundational by many in the field of qualitative research. These concern the relationship between consensus, intersubjective confirmation, and epistemic privilege; the use of member checking as an evaluation of methodological integrity; the role of replication in qualitative methods; and the contributions of qualitative methods in investigations of causality. This introduction to the section summarizes the central problem that each article is wrestling with and considers why at this point, qualitative researchers are actively engaged in a rethinking of the coherence of their methodology.

show abstract

Back to the Origins of the Repudiation of Wundt: Oswald Külpe and Richard Avenarius

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Mechanism and contextualism in psychology

Mechanism and contextualism in psychology

Rewriting Wundtian psychology: Luigi Credaro and the psychology in Rome.

Introduction to the special section: Questioning established qualitative methods and assumptions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About