Gestalt Psychology Today [1]

Wolfgang Khler (1959) First published in American Psychologist, 14, 727-734. In 1949, the late Herbert Langfeld gave a lecture in ur!pe in "hich he described "hat appeared t! hi# t! be the #a$!r trends in %#erican ps&ch!l!g&. He als! #enti!ned 'estalt ps&ch!l!g&( but he added that the #ain !bservati!ns, )uesti!ns, and principles characteristic !f this sch!!l had bec!#e part !f ever& %#erican ps&ch!l!gist*s #ental e)uip#ent. I "as n!t s! !pti#istic. %nd, in fact, the ver& ne+t &ear atte#pts "ere #ade t! e+plain the #!lar units in percepti!n b& pr!cesses "hich graduall& c!nnect neural ele#ents. ,!!n after"ards, a the!r& !f c!nditi!ning "as devel!ped, acc!rding t! "hich #!re and #!re c!#p!nents !f a sti#ulus !b$ect are graduall& c!nditi!ned, and the c!urse !f the "h!le pr!cess can be e+plained in this fashi!n. ,uch the!ries #a& pr!ve t! be ver& useful, but !ne can hardl& sa& that, at the ti#e, their auth!rs "ere greatl& influenced b& 'estalt ps&ch!l!g&. It is f!r this and si#ilar reas!ns that a ne" discussi!n !f !ld )uesti!ns see#s t! #e indicated. I sh!uld li-e t! begin "ith a fe" re#ar-s ab!ut the hist!r& !f 'estalt ps&ch!l!g& -because n!t all chapters !f this hist!r& are generall& -n!"n. In the eighties !f the past centur&, ps&ch!l!gists in ur!pe "ere greatl& disturbed b& v!n hrenfels* clai# that th!usands !f percepts have characteristics "hich cann!t be derived fr!# the characteristics !f their ulti#ate c!#p!nents, the s!-called sensati!ns. .h!rds and #el!dies in hearing, the shape characteristics !f visual !b$ects, the r!ughness !r the s#!!thness !f tactual i#pressi!ns, and s! f!rth "ere used as e+a#ples. %ll these /'estalt )ualities/ have !ne thing in c!##!n. 0hen the ph&sical sti#uli in )uesti!n are c!nsiderabl& changed, "hile their relati!ns are -ept c!nstant, the 'estalt )ualities re#ain ab!ut the sa#e. 1ut, %t the ti#e, it "as generall& assu#ed that the sensati!ns inv!lved are individuall& deter#ined b& their individual sti#uli and #ust theref!re change "hen these are greatl& changed. H!", then, c!uld an& characteristics !f the perceptual situati!n re#ain c!nstant under these c!nditi!ns2 0here did the 'estalt )ualities c!#e fr!#2 hrenfels* )ualities are n!t fanc& ingredients !f this !r that particular situati!n "hich "e #ight safel& ign!re. 1!th p!sitive and negative esthetic characteristics !f the "!rld ar!und us, n!t !nl& !f !rna#ents, paintings, sculptures, tunes, and s! f!rth, but als! !f trees, landscapes, h!uses, cars -- and !ther pers!ns -- bel!ng t! this class. 3hat relati!ns bet"een the se+es largel& depend !n speci#ens !f the sa#e class need hardl& be e#phasi4ed. It is, theref!re, n!t safe t! deal "ith pr!ble#s !f ps&ch!l!g& as th!ugh there "ere n! such )ualities. %nd &et, beginning "ith hrenfels hi#self, ps&ch!l!gists have n!t been able t! e+plain their nature. 3his h!lds als! f!r the #en "h! "ere later called 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists, including the present spea-er. 0erthei#er*s ideas and investigati!ns devel!ped in a different directi!n. His thin-ing "as als! #!re radical than that !f hrenfels. He did n!t as-5 H!" are 'estalt )ualities p!ssible "hen, basicall&, the perceptual scene c!nsists !f separate ele#ents2 6ather, he !b$ected t! this pre#ise, the thesis that the ps&ch!l!gist*s thin-ing #ust begin "ith a c!nsiderati!n !f such ele#ents. Fr!# a sub$ective. p!int !f vie", he

felt, it #a& be te#pting t! assu#e that all perceptual situati!ns c!nsist !f independent, ver& s#all c!#p!nents. F!r, !n this assu#pti!n, "e !btain a #a+i#all& clear picture !f "hat lies behind the !bserved facts. 1ut, h!" d! "e -n!" that a sub$ective clarit& !f this -ind agrees "ith the nature !f "hat "e have bef!re us2 7erhaps "e pa& f!r the sub$ective clearness !f the cust!#ar& picture b& ign!ring all pr!cesses, all functi!nal interrelati!ns, "hich #a& have !perated bef!re there is a perceptual scene and "hich thus influence the characteristics !f this scene. %re "e all!"ed t! i#p!se !n percepti!n an e+tre#e si#plicit& "hich, !b$ectivel&, it #a& n!t p!ssess2 0erthei#er, "e re#e#ber, began t! reas!n in this fashi!n "hen e+peri#enting n!t "ith percep- 8p. 729: tual situati!ns "hich "ere stati!nar&, and theref!re c!#parativel& silent, but "ith visual !b$ects in #!ti!n "hen c!rresp!nding sti#uli did n!t #!ve. ,uch /apparent #!ve#ents,/ "e "!uld n!" sa&, !ccur "hen several visual !b$ects appear !r disappear in certain te#p!ral relati!ns. %gain in !ur present language, under these circu#stances an interacti!n ta-es place "hich, f!r instance, #a-es a sec!nd !b$ect appear t!! near, !r c!incident "ith, a first !b$ect "hich is $ust disappearing, s! that !nl& "hen the first !b$ect, and theref!re the interacti!n, reall& fades, the sec!nd !b$ect can #!ve t!"ard its n!r#al p!siti!n. If this is interacti!n, it d!es n!t, as such, !ccur !n the perceptual scene. ;n this scene, "e #erel& !bserve a #!ve#ent. 3hat #!ve#ents !f this -ind d! n!t c!rresp!nd t! real #!ve#ents !f the sti#ulus !b$ects and #ust theref!re be br!ught ab!ut b& the se)uence !f the t"! !b$ects, "e can disc!ver !nl& b& e+a#ining the ph&sical situati!n. It f!ll!"s that, if the seen #!ve#ent is the perceptual result !f an interacti!n, this interacti!n itself ta-es place !utside the perceptual field. 3hus, the apparent #!ve#ent c!nfir#ed 0erthei#er*s #!re general suspici!n5 "e cann!t assu#e that the perceptual scene is an aggregate !f unrelated ele#ents because underl&ing pr!cesses are alread& functi!nall& interrelated "hen that scene e#erges, and n!" e+hibits c!rresp!nding effects. 0erthei#er did n!t !ffer a #!re specific ph&si!l!gical e+planati!n. %t the ti#e, this "!uld have been i#p!ssible. He ne+t turned t! the pr!ble# !f "hether the characteristics !f stati!nar& perceptual fields are als! influenced b& interacti!ns. I need n!t repeat h!" he investigated the f!r#ati!n !f #!lar perceptual units, and #!re particularl& !f gr!ups !f such !b$ects. 7atterns "hich he used f!r this purp!se are n!" repr!duced in #an& te+tb!!-s. 3he& clearl& de#!nstrate that it is relations a#!ng visual !b$ects "hich decide "hat !b$ects bec!#e gr!up #e#bers, and "hat !thers d! n!t, and "here, theref!re, !ne gr!up separates itself fr!# an!ther. 3his fact str!ngl& suggests that perceptual gr!ups are established b& interacti!ns( and, since a naive !bserver is #erel& a"are !f the result, the perceived gr!ups, but n!t !f their dependence up!n particular relati!ns, such interacti!ns "!uld again !ccur a#!ng the underl&ing pr!cesses rather than "ithin the perceptual field. Let #e add a further re#ar- ab!ut this earl& stage !f the devel!p#ent. ,urel&, in th!se &ears, 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists "ere n!t satisfied "ith a )uiet c!nsiderati!n !f available facts. It see#s that n! #a$!r ne" trend in a science ever is. 0e "ere e+cited b& "hat "e f!und, and even #!re b& the pr!spect !f finding further revealing facts. <!re!ver, it "as n!t !nl& the sti#ulating ne"ness !f !ur enterprise "hich inspired us. 3here "as als! a

great "ave !f relief -- as th!ugh "e "ere escaping, fr!# a pris!n. 3he pris!n "as ps&ch!l!g& as taught at the universities "hen "e still "ere students. %t the ti#e, "e had been sh!c-ed b& the thesis that all ps&ch!l!gical facts =n!t !nl& th!se in percepti!n> c!nsist !f unrelated inert at!#s and that al#!st the !nl& fact!rs "hich c!#bine these at!#s and thus intr!duce acti!n are ass!ciati!ns f!r#ed under the influence !f #ere c!ntiguit&. 0hat had disturbed us "as the utter senselessness !f this picture, and the i#plicati!n that hu#an life, apparentl& s! c!l!rful and s! intensel& d&na#ic, is actuall& a frightful b!re. 3his "as n!t true !f !ur ne" picture, and "e felt that further disc!veries "ere b!und t! destr!&, "hat "as left !f the !ld picture. ,!!n further investigati!ns, n!t all !f the# d!ne b& 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists, reinf!rced the ne" trend. 6ubin called attenti!n t! the difference bet"een figure and gr!und. ?avid @at4 f!und a#ple evidence f!r the r!le !f 'estalt fact!rs in the field !f t!uch as "ell as in c!l!r visi!n, and s! f!rth. 0h& s! #uch interest $ust in percepti!n2 ,i#pl& because in n! !ther part !f ps&ch!l!g& are facts s! readil& accessible t! !bservati!n. It "as the h!pe !f ever&b!d& that, !nce s!#e #a$!r functi!nal principles had been revealed in this part !f ps&ch!l!g&, si#ilar principles "!uld pr!ve t! be relevant t! !ther parts, such as #e#!r&, learning, thin-ing, and #!tivati!n. In fact, 0erthei#er and I undert!!- !ur earl& studies !f intellectual pr!cesses precisel& fr!# this p!int !f vie"( s!#e"hat later, @urt Le"in began his investigati!ns !f #!tivati!n "hich, in part , f!ll!"ed the sa#e line( and "e als! applied the c!ncept !f Gestaltung !r ,!rgani4ati!n t! #e#!r&, t! learning, and t! recall. 0ith devel!p#ents in %#erica, 0erthei#er*s further anal&sis !f thin-ing, %sch*s and Heider*s investigati!ns in s!cial ps&ch!l!g&, !ur "!r- !n figural aftereffects, and eventuall& !n currents ;f the brain, "e are pr!babl& all fa#iliar. In the #eanti#e, une+pected supp!rt had c!#e fr!# natural science. 3! #enti!n !nl& !ne 7!int5 7arts !f #!lar perceptual units !ften have charac- 8p. 729: teristics "hich the& d! n!t e+hibit "hen separated fr!# th!se units. 0ithin a larger visual entit&, a part #a&, f!r instance, be a c!rner !f this entit&, an!ther part its c!nt!ur !r b!undar&, and s! !n. It n!" see#s !bvi!us( but n!b!d& in ps&ch!l!g& had seen it bef!re5 the sa#e happens in an& ph&sical s&ste# that is pervaded b& interacti!ns. 3hese interacti!ns affect the parts !f the s&ste# until, eventuall&, in a stead& state, the characteristics !f all parts are such that re#aining interacti!ns balance !ne an!ther. Hence, if pr!cesses in the central nerv!us s&ste# f!ll!" the sa#e rule, the dependence !f l!cal perceptual facts !n c!nditi!ns in larger entities c!uld n! l!nger be regarded as pu44ling. .!#paris!ns !f this -ind greatl& enc!uraged the 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists. In %#erica, it #a& see# surprising that enthusiastic pe!ple such as the 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists "ere intensel& interested in ph&sics. 7h&sics is generall& assu#ed t! be a particularl& s!ber discipline. %nd &et, this happened t! us #!st naturall&. 3! be sure, !ur reas!ning in ph&sics inv!lved n! chan-es in the la"s !f ph&sics and n! ne" assu#pti!ns in this field. Aevertheless, "hen "e c!#pared !ur ps&ch!l!gical findings "ith the behavi!r !f certain ph&sical s&ste#s, s!#e parts !f natural science began t! l!!different. 0hen reading the f!r#ulae !f the ph&sicist, !ne #a& e#phasi4e this !r that aspect !f their c!ntent. 3he particular aspect !f the f!r#ulae in "hich the 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists beca#e interested had, f!r decades., been given little attenti!n. A! #ista-e

had ever been #ade in applicati!ns !f the f!r#ulae, because "hat n!" fascinated us had all the ti#e been present in their #athe#atical f!r#. Hence, all calculati!ns in ph&sics had c!#e !ut right. 1ut it d!es #a-e a difference "hether &!u #a-e e+plicit "hat a f!r#ula i#plies !r #erel& use it as a reliable t!!l. 0e had, theref!re, g!!d reas!ns f!r being, surprised b& "hat "e f!und( and "e naturall& felt elated "hen the ne" reading !f the f!r#ulae t!ld us that !rgani4ati!n is as !bvi!us in s!#e parts !f ph&sics as it is in ps&ch!l!g&. Incidentall&, !thers "ere n! less interested in this /ne" reading/ than "e "ere. 3hese !ther pe!ple "ere e#inent ph&sicists. <a+ 7lanc- !nce t!ld #e that he e+pected !ur appr!ach t! clarif& a difficult issue "hich had $ust arisen in )uantu# ph&sics if n!t the c!ncept !f the )uantu# itself. ,everal Bears later. <a+ 1!rn, the great ph&sicist "h! gave )uantu# #echanics its present f!r#, #ade al#!st the sa#e state#ent in !ne !f his papers. %nd, !nl& a fe" "ee-s ag!, I read a paper in "hich 1ridg#an !f Harvard interprets Heisenberg*s fa#!us principle in such ter#s that I a# te#pted t! call hi#, 1ridg#an, a 'estalt ph&sicist. 0e "ill n!" return t! ps&ch!l!g&. <!re particularl&, "e "ill inspect the situati!n in "hich %#erican ps&ch!l!g& finds itself t!da&. 3he spirit "hich "e find here differs c!nsiderabl& fr!# the !ne "hich characteri4ed &!ung 'estalt ps&ch!l!g&. Let #e tr& t! f!r#ulate "hat #e#bers !f this audience #a& have been thin-ing "hile I described that ur!pean enterprise. / nthusias#2/ the& pr!babl& th!ught. /Feelings !f relief "hen certain assu#pti!ns "ere f!und less drear& than th!se !f earlier ps&ch!l!gists in ur!pe2 1ut this is an ad#issi!n that e#!ti!nal fact!rs and e+trascientific values pla&ed a part in 'estalt ps&ch!l!g&. 0e -n!" ab!ut the !ften pernici!us effects !f the e#!ti!ns in !rdinar& life. H!", then, c!uld e#!ti!ns be per#itted t! influence scientific $udg#ents and thus t! disturb the !b$ectivit& !f research2 %s "e see it, the true spirit !f science is a critical spirit. ;ur #ain !bligati!n as scientists is that !f av!iding #ista-es. Hence !ur e#phasis !n strict #eth!d in e+peri#entati!n and !n e)uall& strict pr!cedures in the evaluati!n !f results. 3he 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists see# t! have been guilt& !f "ishful thin-ing. Cnder the circu#stances, "ere n!t s!#e !f their findings unreliable and s!#e !f their c!ncepts vague2/ I "ill at !nce ad#it t"! facts. %l#!st fr!# its beginning, %#erican ps&ch!l!g& has given #!re attenti!n t! )uesti!ns !f #eth!d and strict pr!!f than 'estalt ps&ch!l!g& did in th!se &ears. In this respect, %#erican ps&ch!l!g& "as clearl& superi!r. ,ec!ndl&, s!#eti#es the 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists did #a-e #ista-es. A!t in all cases "as the reliabilit& !f their findings up t! %#erican standards, and s!#e c!ncepts "hich the& used "ere n!t i##ediatel& )uite clear. I , #&self !nce used a certain c!ncept in a s!#e"hat #isleading fashi!n. I had better e+plain this. 0hat is insight2 In its strict sense, the ter# refers t! the fact that, "hen "e are a"are !f a relati!n, !f an& relati!n, this relati!n is n!t e+perienced as a fact b& itself, but rather as s!#ething that f!ll!"s fr!# the characteristics !f the !b$ects under c!nsiderati!n. A!", "hen pri#ates tr& t! s!lve a pr!ble#, their behavi!r !ften sh!"s that the& are a"are !f a certain i#p!rtant relati!n. 1ut "hen the& n!" #a-e use !f this /insight,/ and thus 8p.

73D: s!lve their pr!ble#, sh!uld this achieve#ent be called a solution by insight? A! -- it is b& n! #eans clear that it "as als! insight "hich #ade that particular relati!n emerge. In a given situati!n, "e !r a #!n-e& #a& bec!#e a"are !f a great #an& relati!ns. If, at a certain #!#ent, "e !r a #!n-e& attend t! the right !ne, this #a& happen f!r several reas!ns, s!#e entirel& unrelated t! insight. .!nse)uentl&, it is #isleading t! call the "h!le pr!cess a /s!luti!n b& insight./ 3his "ill be particularl& !bvi!us "hen the s!luti!n !f the pr!ble# is arbitraril& ch!sen b& the e+peri#enter. 3a-e Harl!"*s e+cellent e+peri#ents in "hich pri#ates are e+pected t! ch!!se the !dd ite# in a gr!up !f !b$ects. /;ddit&/ is a particular relati!nal fact. ;nce a #!n-e& attends t! it, he "ill perceive it "ith insight. 1ut "h& sh!uld he d! s! during his first trials2 His first ch!ices "ill be deter#ined b& !ne fact!r !r an!ther, until he happens t! attend, !nce !r repeatedl&, t! the !ddit& relati!n $ust "hen he ch!!ses =!r d!es n!t ch!!se> the right !b$ect. 'raduall&, he "ill n!" attend t! this particular relati!n in all trials( and he #a& d! s! even "hen entirel& ne" !b$ects are sh!"n. ,urel&, such a pr!cess sh!uld n!t si#pl& be called /learning b& insight./ If Harl!" "ere t! sa& that, under the circu#stances, it is learning !f !ne -ind !r an!ther "hich gives the right relati!n and c!rresp!nding insight their chance t! !perate, I sh!uld at !nce agree. 0hat, I believe, the #!n-e&s d! n!t learn is insight int! "hich !b$ect in a given gr!up is the !dd !ne( but the& #ust learn t! pa& attenti!n t! the !ddit& fact!r in the first place. I h!pe that this "ill clarif& #atters. 3he& have n!t al"a&s been s! clear t! #e. 0hen the s!luti!n !f a pr!ble# is n!t arbitraril& ch!sen b& the e+peri#enter, but #!re directl& related t! the nature !f the given situati!n, insight #a& pla& a #!re i#p!rtant r!le. 1ut, even under these circu#stances, it is n!t insight al!ne "hich brings ab!ut the s!luti!n. 3he #ere fact that s!luti!ns !ften e#erge t! the sub$ects* !"n surprise is clear pr!!f that it cann!t be insight al!ne "hich is resp!nsible f!r their !rigin. 1ut I intended t! discuss s!#e trends in %#erican ps&ch!l!g&. <a& I c!nfess that I d! n!t full& appr!ve !f all these trends2 First, I d!ubt "hether it is advisable t! regard cauti!n and a critical spirit as the virtues !f a scientist, as th!ugh little else c!unted. 3he& are necessar& in research, $ust as the bra-es in !ur cars #ust be -ept in !rder and their "indshields clean. 1ut it is n!t because !f the bra-es !r !f the "indshields that "e drive. ,i#ilarl&, cauti!n and a critical spirit are li-e t!!ls. 3he& !ught t! be -ept read& during a scientific enterprise( h!"ever, the #ain business !f a science is gaining #!re and #!re ne" -n!"ledge. I "!nder "h& great #en in ph&sics d! n!t call cauti!n and a critical spirit the #!st i#p!rtant characteristics !f their behavi!r. 3he& see# t! regard the testing !f bra-es and the cleaning !f "indshields as #ere precauti!ns, but t! l!!- f!r"ard t! the ne+t trip as the business f!r "hich the& have cars. 0h& is it !nl& in ps&ch!l!g& that "e hear the slightl& disc!uraging, st!r& !f #ere cauti!n !ver and !ver again2 0h& are $ust ps&ch!l!gists s! inclined t! greet the ann!unce#ent !f a ne" fact =!r a ne" "!r-ing h&p!thesis> al#!st "ith sc!rn2 3his is cauti!n that has g!ne s!ur and has al#!st bec!#e negativis# -- "hich, !f c!urse, is n! less an e#!ti!nal attitude than is enthusias#. 3he enthusias# !f the earl& 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists "as a virtue, because it led t! ne" !bservati!ns. 1ut virtues, it has been

said, tend t! breed little acc!#pan&ing vices. In their enthusias#, the 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists "ere n!t al"a&s sufficientl& careful. In %#erican ps&ch!l!g&, it is rightl& regarded as a virtue if a #an feels great respect f!r #eth!d and f!r cauti!n. 1ut, if this virtue bec!#es t!! str!ng, it #a& bring f!rth a spirit !f s-epticis# and thus prevent ne" "!r-. 3!! #an& &!ung ps&ch!l!gists, it see#s t! #e, either "!r- !nl& against s!#ething d!ne b& !thers !r #erel& var& slightl& "hat !thers have d!ne bef!re( in !ther "!rds, pre!ccupati!n "ith #eth!d #a& tend t! li#it the range !f !ur research. 0e are, !f c!urse, after clear evidence. 1ut n!t in all parts !f ps&ch!l!g& can evidence i##ediatel& be clear. In s!#e, "e cann!t &et use !ur #!st e+act #eth!ds. 0here this happens, "e hesitate t! pr!ceed. +peri#entalists in particular tend t! av!id "!r- !n ne" #aterials resistant t! appr!ved #eth!ds and t! the i##ediate applicati!n !f perfectl& clear c!ncepts. 1ut c!ncepts in a ne" field can !nl& be clarified b& "!r- in this field. ,h!uld "e li#it !ur studies t! areas alread& fa#iliar fr!# previ!us research2 ;bvi!usl&, "!uld #ean a -ind !f c!nservatis# in ps&ch!l!g&. 0hen I "as his student, <a+ 7lanc- repeated this "arning !ver and !ver again in his lectures. 8p. 731: ;ur "ish t! use !nl& perfect #eth!ds and clear c!ncepts has led t! <eth!d!l!gical 1ehavi!ris#. Hu#an e+perience in the phen!#en!l!gical sense cann!t &et be treated "ith !ur #!st reliable #eth!ds( and, "hen dealing "ith it, "e #a& be f!rced t! f!r# ne" c!ncepts "hich, at first, "ill !ften be a bit vague. <!st e+peri#entalists, theref!re, refrain fr!# !bserving, !r even fr!# referring t!, the phen!#enal scene. %nd &et, this is the scene !n "hich, s! far as the act!rs are c!ncerned, the dra#a !f !rdinar& hu#an living is being pla&ed all the ti#e. If "e never stud& this scene, but insist !n #eth!ds and c!ncepts devel!ped in research /fr!# the !utside,/ !ur results are li-el& t! l!!- strange t! th!se "h! intensel& live /*inside./ 3! be sure, in #an& respects, the graphs and tables !btained /fr!# the !utside/ c!nstitute a #!st satisfact!r& #aterial( and, in ani#al ps&ch!l!g&, "e have n! !ther #aterial. 1ut this #aterial as such c!ntains n! direct evidence as t! the pr!cesses b& "hich it is br!ught ab!ut. In this respect it is a slightl& defective, I a# te#pted t! sa&, a #eager, #aterial. F!r it !"es its particular clearness t! the fact that the data fr!# "hich the graphs and tables are derived are severel& selected data. 0hen sub$ects are t!ld t! sa& n! #!re than /l!uder,/ /*s!fter,/ and perhaps /e)ual/ in certain e+peri#ents, !r "hen "e #erel& c!unt h!" #an& ite#s the& recall in !thers, then "e can surel& appl& it precise statistical techni)ues t! "hat the& d!. 1ut, as a less attractive c!nse)uence, "e never hear under these circu#stances h!" the& d! the c!#paring in the first case and "hat happens "hen the& tr& t! recall in the sec!nd case. %re such )uesti!ns n!" t! be ign!red2 %fter all, n!t all phen!#enal e+periences are entirel& vague( this ,cheerer has rightl& e#phasi4ed. %nd, if #an& are n!t &et accessible t! )uantitative pr!cedures, "hat !f it2 ;ne !f the #!st fascinating disciplines, devel!p#ental ph&si!l!g&, the science investigating the gr!"th !f an !rganis# fr!# !ne cell, seld!# uses )uantitative techni)ues. %nd &et, n!b!d& can den& that its #erel& )ualitative descripti!n !f #!rph!genesis has e+tra!rdinar& scientific value. In ne" fields, n!t !nl& )uantitative data are relevant. %s t! the initial vagueness !f .!ncepts in a ne"

field, I sh!uld li-e t! add an hist!rical re#ar-. 0hen the c!ncept !f energ& "as first intr!duced in ph&sics, it "as far fr!# -ing a clear c!ncept. F!r decades, its #eaning c!uld n!t be sharpl& distinguished fr!# that !f the ter# /f!rce./ %nd "hat did the ph&sicists d!2 3he& "!r-ed and "!r-ed !n it, until at last it did bec!#e perfectl& clear. 3here is n! !ther "a& !f dealing "ith ne", and theref!re n!t &et perfect, c!ncepts. Hence, if "e refuse t! stud& the phen!#enal scene, because, here, fe" c!ncepts are s! far entirel& clear, "e thereb& decide that this scene "ill never be investigated -- at least n!t b& us, the ps&ch!l!gists. A!", I had better return t! 'estalt ps&ch!l!g&. Let #e tr& t! sh!" &!u h!" 'estalt ps&ch!l!g& tends t! "!r- t!da& b& discussing, a #!re specific issue, an issue !n "hich sc!res !f %#erican ps&ch!l!gists have "!r-ed f!r &ears. 0e shall thus be enabled t! c!#pare the "a& in "hich the& appr!ach this issue "ith the 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists* appr!ach. 3he issue in )uesti!n refers t! the c!ncepts !f c!nditi!ning and #!tivati!n. ;ne sch!!l see#s t! regard c!nditi!ning as al#!st the pr!cess "ith "hich the ps&ch!l!gist has t! deal. In a fa#!us b!!- "ith the general title Principles of Behavior, the late .lar- Hull, then the #!st influential #e#ber !f the sch!!l, actuall& dealt "ith little else -- alth!ugh he !ften used !ther ter#s. He felt that even such facts as thin-ing, insight, intenti!ns, striving, and value "!uld eventuall& be e+plained b& a c!nsistent investigati!n !f the vari!us f!r#s !f c!nditi!ning. 0e are all fa#iliar "ith the basic c!ncepts !f his the!r&. Hence I "ill sa& !nl& a fe" "!rds ab!ut it. 0hen c!nditi!ns in an ani#al*s tissue deviate fr!# an !pti#al level, a state !f need is said t! e+ist in this tissue. ,uch needs pr!duce, !r si#pl& are, drives -- "hich #eans that the& tend t! cause acti!ns in the nerv!us s&ste#, s!#e #!re !r less prescribed b& inherited neural c!nnecti!ns, !thers !f a #!re rand!# nature. ?rives are als! called #!tivati!ns. A!ne !f these ter#s is t! be underst!!d in a phen!#en!l!gical sense. 3he& al"a&s refer t! assu#ed states !f the tissue. 3he #ain p!int is that, f!r bi!l!gical reas!ns, states !f need #ust, if p!ssible, be reduced and that this #a& be achieved b& certain resp!nses !f the !rganis# t! the given situati!n. In case first resp!nses are !f a rand!# character, learning !r c!nditi!ning "ill !ften select such resp!nses as d! reduce the needs in )uesti!n. In a si#ple f!r#ulati!n, the "ell--n!"n rule "hich g!verns such devel!p#ents is as f!ll!"s5 "hen a resp!nse has repeatedl& !ccurred in te#p!ral c!ntiguit& "ith the neural effects !f a certain sti#ulus, then this sti#u- 8p. 732: lus "ill tend t! ev!-e the sa#e resp!nse in the future -- pr!vided the resp!nse has caused a reducti!n !f the need. I "ill n!t define such further c!ncepts as habit strength, reacti!n p!tential, afferent sti#ulus interacti!n, reactive inhibiti!n, and s! f!rth, because the& "ill pla& n! r!le in #& discussi!n. 1ut !ne ter# see#s t! #e particularl& i#p!rtant. <an& recent, and i#p!rtant, investigati!ns are c!ncerned "ith s!-called /learned drives,/ an e+pressi!n "hich has, !f c!urse, this #eaning5 if a neutral sti#ulus is repeatedl& f!ll!"ed b& c!nditi!ns "hich cause a pri#ar& state !f drive such as pain, and the c!rresp!nding fear, then the fear "ith its usual effects !n behavi!r "ill graduall& bec!#e c!nnected "ith that neutral sti#ulus, s! that the sti#ulus al!ne n!" ev!-es the fear and its !vert c!nse)uences. .ertain drives are theref!re said t! be /learnable/ in the sense that the& can be attached t! facts "hich,

as such, are n!t related t! the drive and hence "!uld !riginall& n!t ev!-e c!rresp!nding resp!nses. ,!#e e+peri#ents in the field !f c!nditi!ning in general are #!st interesting. I "ill !nl& discuss the c!ncepts used in the interpretati!n !f this "!r- and the c!nclusi!ns "hich it is said t! $ustif&. 3! begin "ith these c!nclusi!ns5 3he& refer t! certain hu#an e+periences "hich, if the c!nclusi!ns "ere $ustified, "!uld have t! be regarded as strange delusi!ns. I #ean !ur c!gnitive e+periences. ,upp!se s!#eb!d& disc!vers b& accident that, ever& ti#e he subtracts the s)uare !f a given integer fr!# the s)uare !f the ne+t integer in the series, the result is an !dd nu#ber. % #!re learned friend n!" e+plains t! hi# "h& this is a necessar& rule, und!ubtedl& valid be&!nd an& tests ever d!ne b& a pers!n. 3he e+planati!n refers t! si#ple relati!ns and t! relati!ns a#!ng relati!ns -- all readil& understandable -- and the final !utc!#e is c!nvincing. A!", is the understanding !f the relati!ns inv!lved t! be e+plained in ter#s !f c!nditi!ning2 A!thing in c!nditi!ning see#s t! give us access t! the ps&ch!l!gical fact "hich I $ust called understanding( and, since an understanding !f relati!ns is essential t!, all c!gnitive achieve#ents, the sa#e applies t! the "h!le field. +planati!n !f !ur intellectual life in ter#s !f c!nditi!ning "!uld si#pl& #ean5 its reducti!n t! the !perati!ns !f an !ften #!st practical, but intrinsicall& blind, c!nnecti!n !f #ere facts. 7r!#ises that such an e+planati!n "ill nevertheless be achieved cause in the present spea-er a #ild, incredul!us h!rr!r. It is n!t the business !f science t! destr!& evidence. 1ehavi!rists "!uld perhaps ans"er that argu#ents "hich refer t! hu#an thin-ing as an e+perience are irrelevant, because science is !nl& c!ncerned "ith facts !bservable fr!# the !utside, and theref!re !b$ective. 3his ans"er "!uld hardl& be acceptable. 3he 1ehavi!rist*s !"n !b$ective !bservati!ns are invariabl& !bservati!n !f facts in his perceptual field. A! !ther f!r# !f !b$ective !bservati!n has ever been disc!vered. .!nse)uentl&, the 1ehavi!rist cann!t, "ith!ut giving #!re particular reas!ns, re$ect reference t! !ther individual e+periences #erel& because the& are such e+periences. 3hus "e are $ustified in c!nsidering a further e+a#ple !f hu#an e+perience. % need !r drive, "e are s!#eti#es t!ld, is a #!tivati!n. I d! n!t entirel& agree "ith this state#ent f!r the f!ll!"ing reas!ns. % need !r drive, "e re#e#ber, is supp!sed t! be a particular state in the tissue. 3here is n! indicati!n in Hull*s "ritings that such a state /p!ints be&!nd itself/ t!"ard an& !b$ects -- alth!ugh it #a&, !f c!urse, cause #!ve#ents, !r acti!ns !f glands. A!" it is true that the sa#e h!lds f!r certain needs as hu#an e+periences( because, "hen a need is felt, it d!es n!t al"a&s p!int t!"ard an !b$ect, attain#ent !f "hich "!uld satisf& the need. %t the ti#e, n! such !b$ect #a& be in sight5 in fact, n! such !b$ect #a& &et be -n!"n. 1ut "hen the pr!per !b$ect appears, !r bec!#es -n!"n. then the situati!n changes. F!r, n!" the sub$ect feels attracted !r =in certain instances> repelled b& this !b$ect. In !ther "!rds, an !b$ect #a& have characteristics "hich establish a d&na#ic relati!n bet"een the sub$ect and that !b$ect. %cc!rding t! c!##!n e+perience, it is this d&na#ic relati!n "hich #a-es the sub$ect

#!ve t!"ard, !r a"a& fr!#, the !b$ect. 0e !ught t! use different ter#s f!r a #ere need per se and the situati!n in "hich a sub$ect is attracted !r repelled b& an !b$ect. ;ther"ise, the d&na#ic aspect !f the latter situati!n #ight easil& be ign!red. I suggest that "e reserve the ter# /#!tivati!n/ f!r this d&na#ic situati!n. Here "e are, !f c!urse, !n fa#iliar gr!und. <!tivati!n as $ust described "as @urt Le"in*s #ain c!ncern in ps&ch!l!g&. He clearl& rec!gni4ed the part "hich certain characteristics !f an !b$ect pla& in establishing the d&na#ic relati!n bet"een this !b$ect and the sub$ect. He called such charac- 8p. 733: teristics !f !b$ects Aufforderungscharaktere, a ter# "hich then beca#e /valences/ in nglish. ,! far as I -n!", there are n! valences in !b$ects n! attracti!ns and n! repulsi!ns bet"een !b$ects and sub$ects in the 1ehavi!rist*s v!cabular&. I a# afraid that, in this fashi!n, he #isses a p!int n! !nl& i#p!rtant in hu#an e+perience but als! relevant t! "hat he regards as true science. H!" "!uld a 'estalt ps&ch!l!gist handle #!tivati!n in the present sense2 He "!uld bein "ith the f!ll!"ing ps&ch!l!gical facts. I d! n!t -n!" up t! "hat p!int Le"in "!uld have accepted "hat I a# n!" g!ing t! sa&. <& facts are these5 =a> In hu#an e+perience, #!tivati!n is a d&na#ic vect!r, that is, a fact "hich has a directi!n and tends t! cause a displace#ent in this directi!n. (b Cnless there are !bstacles in the "a&, this directi!n c!incides "ith an i#aginar& straight line dra"n fr!# the !b$ect t! the sub$ect. =c> 3he ,directi!n !f the e+perienced vect!r is either that t!"ard the !b$ect !r a"a& fr!# it. In the first case, the vect!r tends t! reduce the distance in )uesti!n( 1 the sec!nd, t! increase it. =d> 3he strength !f b!th the need present in the sub$ect and !f the valence e+hibited b& the !b$ect can var&. 1!th in #an and in ani#als it has been !bserved that, "hen the strength !f the valence is l!", this reducti!n can be c!#pensated f!r b& an increase !f the need in the sub$ect( and, c!nversel&, that, "hen the need is l!"ered, an increase !f the strength !f the valence #a& c!#pensate f!r this change "hen c!nsidering these si#ple state#ents, an&b!d& fa#iliar "ith the ele#ents !f ph&sics "ill be re#inded !f the behavi!r !f f!rces. (a In ph&sics, f!rces are d&na#ic vect!rs "hich tend t! change distance bet"een !ne thing =!r event> and an!ther. (b Cnless there are !bstacles in the "a&, f!rce !perates al!ng a straight line dra"n fr!# first !b$ect =!r event> t! the !ther. =c> 3he acti!n in "hich a f!rce !perates is either that !f attracti!n !r !f a repulsi!n !f a reducti!n !r !f increase !f the given distance. =d> 3he f!r#ula "hich the intensit& !f a f!rce bet"een t"! !b$ects is given c!ntains t"! ter#s "hich refer t! the si4es !f a decisive pr!pert& =f!r instance, an electric charge> in !ne !b$ect and in the !ther. It is al"a&s the pr!duct !f these t"! ter#s !n "hich, t! the f!r#ula, the intensit& !f the f!rce depends. .!nse)uentl&, a reducti!n !f the crucial ter# !n !ne side can be c!#pensated f!r b& an increase in the ter# !n the !ther side. 0e have $ust seen that the behavi!r !f vect!rs #!tivati!nal situati!ns is the sa#e as the behavi!r !f f!rces in nature. 'estalt ps&ch!l!gists are, theref!re, inclined t! interpret #!tivati!n in ter#s !f such f!rces !r, rather, !f f!rces "hich !perate be bet"een certain perceptual pr!cesses and pr!cesses an!ther part !f the brain, "here a need #a& be ph&si!l!gicall& represented. 0e have n! ti#e t! discuss the )uesti!n h!" c!rtical fields !r f!rces "!uld cause !vert #!ve#ents !f the !rganis# in the directi!n !f these f!rces.

A!", n!t ever&b!d& li-es the ter# /f!rce./ Its #eaning, it has been said, has anthr!p!#!rphic c!nn!tati!ns. 1ut, in hu#an ps&ch!l!g&, "e si#pl& #ust use ter#s "hich -- if I #a& use this e+pressi!ns -- /s!und hu#an./ If "e refused t! d! s!, "e "!uld n!t d! $ustice t! !ur sub$ect #atter "hich =t! a high degree> is hu#an e+perience. 3! be sure, in ph&sics, Heinrich Hert4 !nce tried t! d! "ith!ut the c!ncept /f!rce./ He actuall& "r!te a treatise !n #echanics in "hich he av!ided this ter#. %nd "hat happened2 He had t! p!pulate the ph&sical "!rld "ith un!bservable #asses, intr!duced !nl& in !rder t! #a-e their hidden presence substitute f!r the #uch si#pler acti!n !f f!rces. ver since that ti#e, ph&sicists have happil& returned t! the !ld c!ncept /f!rce,/ and n!b!d& has ever been har#ed b& the fact. 3he present reas!ning leads t! a c!nclusi!n "hich distinguishes this reas!ning fr!# the treat#ent !f #!tivati!n in the 1ehavi!rist*s s&ste#. .lar- Hull "as a great ad#irer !f science( but, t! #& -n!"ledge, he hardl& ever used the c!ncepts characteristic !f field ph&sics. 3he funda#ental distincti!n bet"een ph&sical facts "hich are scalars =that is, facts "hich have a #agnitude but n! directi!n> and vect!rs ="hich have b!th an intensit& and a directi!n> pla&ed n! decisive part in his the!ri4ing. His #ain c!ncepts "ere !bvi!usl& #eant t! be scalars. 3here is n! particular spatial directi!n in a habit strength, n!ne in a reacti!n p!tential, and n!ne even in "hat he called a drive state. Hence, the c!re !f #!dern ph&sics as devel!ped b& Farada& and <a+"ell had n! influence !n his s&ste#. F!r this reas!n, and als! because he refused t! c!nsider #!tivati!n as an e+perienced vect!r, he c!uld n!t disc!ver that the !perati!ns !f #!tivati!n appear t! be is!#!rphic "ith th!se !f fields !r f!rces in the brain. 1ut, if #!tivati!n is t! be interpreted in this fashi!n, certain assu#pti!ns !ften #ade b& 1ehav-8p. 734: i!rists #a& n! l!nger be acceptable. 3a-e the c!ncept !f learned drives. %s I understand this ter#, it #eans that learning can attach a drive state t! a great variet& !f sti#uli "hich, as such, are neutral facts. A!", s! l!ng as a drive is n!t regarded as a vect!r, this see#s indeed )uite p!ssible. 1ut, if the drive in Hull*s sense is replaced b& a #!tivati!nal f!rce "hich !perates bet"een a sub$ect and s!#e perceptual fact, n! arbitrar& c!nnecti!ns !f this -ind can be established. F!r, n!" #!tivati!n bec!#es the e+perienced c!unterpart !f a f!rce in the brain, and this f!rce depends entirel& up!n the relati!n bet"een c!nditi!ns in the sub$ect and the characteristics !f the perceived !b$ect. 3here can be n! such f!rce if the !b$ect is, and re#ains, a neutral !b$ect. F!rces !nl& !perate bet"een !b$ects "hich have the right pr!perties. %n& e+a#ple !f a f!rce in nature illustrates this fact. H!", then, are the !bservati!ns t! be e+plained "hich are n!" interpreted as a learning !f drives2 %fter all, s!#e learning #ust be inv!lved "hen an !riginall& neutral !b$ect graduall& begins t! attract !r repel a sub$ect. EFr!# the present p!int !f vie", !nl& !ne e+planati!n is p!ssible. ,upp!sing that the sub$ect*s need d!es n!t var&, learning #ust change the characteristics !f the !b$ect, and thus transf!r# it int! an ade)uate #!tivati!n !b$ect. ;ne instance "!uld be "hat 3!l#an calls a sign 'estalt( in !ther "!rds, the neutral !b$ect "!uld bec!#e the signal f!r the appearance !f s!#ething else "hich is a pr!per #!tivati!nal !b$ect. 3his e+pected !b$ect "!uld n!" be the !b$ect !f the #!tivati!n. ;r als!, "hen a neutral !b$ect is !ften acc!#panied b& facts "hich are

natural #!tivati!nal !b$ects, the characteristics !f such facts #a& graduall& /creep int!/ the ver& appearance !f the f!r#erl& neutral !b$ect and thus #a-e it a pr!per #!tivati!nal !b$ect. Bears ag!, c!#parative ps&ch!l!gists in ngland stressed the i#p!rtance !f such pr!cesses, t! "hich the& gave the na#e /assi#ilati!n./ 3he& regarded assi#ilati!n as a particularl& effective f!r# !f an ass!ciati!n. %nd is it n!t true that, as a c!nse)uence !f learning, a c!ffin looks f!rbidding !r sinister2 I als! -n!" s!#eb!d& t! "h!# a b!ttle c!vered "ith dust and $ust br!ught up fr!# the cellar looks #!st attractive. %s a further and particularl& si#ple p!ssibilit&, the sub$ect #ight $ust learn #!re ab!ut the characteristics !f the given !b$ect itself than he -ne" in the beginning( and the characteristics revealed b& this learning #ight be such that n!" the sa#e !b$ect fits a need. It see#s t! #e that all these abilities !ught t! be c!nsidered bef!re "e accept the thesis that #!tivati!ns in the present sense can be attached t! actuall& neutral !b$ects. Incidentall&, si#ilar changes !f !b$ects #a& als! be resp!nsible f!r the devel!p#ents "hich '!rd!n %llp!rt !nce regarded as evidence !f /functi!nal aut!n!#&./ B!u "ill as- #e "hether #& suggesti!ns lead t! an& c!nse)uences in actual research. <!st surel&, the& d!. 1ut, since I have lived s! l!ng in %#erica, and have theref!re graduall& bec!#e a #!st cauti!us scientist, I a# n!" preparing #&self f!r the stud& !f #!tivati!n b& investigating, first !f all, the acti!n !f d&na#ic vect!rs in si#pler fields, such as c!gniti!n and percepti!n. It is a #!st interesting !ccupati!n t! c!#pare #!tivati!nal acti!n "ith d&na#ic events in th!se !ther parts !f ps&ch!l!g&. 0hen &!u d! s!, ever&thing l!!-s different, n!t !nl& in percepti!n but als! in certain f!r#s !f learning. ,pecific "!r-2 3here is, and "ill be #!re !f it than I al!ne can p!ssibl& #anage. .!nse)uentl&, I need help. %nd "here d! I e+pect t! find this help2 I "ill tell &!u "here. 3he 1ehavi!rist*s pre#ises, "e re#e#ber, lead t! certain e+pectati!ns and e+peri#ents. 0hat I have $ust said invites us t! pr!ceed in an!ther directi!n. I suggest that, in this situati!n, "e f!rget ab!ut sch!!ls. 3he 1ehavi!rist is c!nvinced that his functi!nal c!ncepts are th!se "hich "e all !ught t! use. 3he 'estalt ps&ch!l!gist, "h! deals "ith a greater variet& !f b!th phen!#enal and ph&sical c!ncepts, e+pects #!re fr!# "!r- based !n such pre#ises. 1!th parties feel that their pr!cedures are scientificall& s!und. 0h& sh!uld "e fight2 <an& e+peri#ents d!ne b& 1ehavi!rists see# t! #e t! be ver& g!!d e+peri#ents. <a& I n!" as- the 1ehavi!rists t! regard the use !f s!#e phen!#enal facts, and als! !f field ph&sics, as perfectl& per#issible2 If "e "ere t! agree !n these p!ints, "e c!uld, I a# sure, d! e+cellent "!r- t!gether. It "!uld be an e+tra!rdinar& e+perience -- and g!!d f!r ps&ch!l!g&.