Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences Davood Gozli Jaan Valsiner   Editors Experimental Psychology Ambitions and Possibilities Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences Series Editor Jaan Valsiner Communication and Psychology Aalborg University AALBORG, Denmark Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences will fill in the gap in the existing coverage of links between new theoretical advancements in the social and human sciences and their historical roots. Making that linkage is crucial for the interdisciplinary synthesis across the disciplines of psychology, anthropology, sociology, history, semiotics, and the political sciences. In contemporary human sciences of the 21st there exists increasing differentiation between neurosciences and all other sciences that are aimed at making sense of the complex social, psychological, and political processes. Thus new series has the purpose of (1) coordinating such efforts across the borders of existing human and social sciences, (2) providing an arena for possible inter-disciplinary theoretical syntheses, (3) bring into attention of our contemporary scientific community innovative ideas that have been lost in the dustbin of history for no good reasons, and (4) provide an arena for international communication between social and human scientists across the World. Davood Gozli • Jaan Valsiner Editors Experimental Psychology Ambitions and Possibilities Editors Davood Gozli Jaan Valsiner University of Macau Communication and Psychology Taipa, Macau S.A.R., China Aalborg University AALBORG, Denmark ISSN 2523-8663 ISSN 2523-8671 (electronic) Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences ISBN 978-3-031-17052-2 ISBN 978-3-031-17053-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17053-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Contents 1 Finding the Place of Experimental Psychology: Introduction . . . . . . 1 Davood Gozli and Jaan Valsiner 2 From Introspection to Experiment: Wundt and Avenarius’ Debate on the Definition of Psychology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Chiara Russo Krauss 3 Truth and Mind: How Embodied Concepts Constrain How We Define Truth in Psychological Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Heath Matheson 4 Operationalization and Generalization in Experimental Psychology: A Plea for Bold Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Roland Pfister 5 The Role of Social Context in Experimental Studies on Dishonesty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Carol Ting 6 What Is a Task and How Do You Know If You Have One or More? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Eliot Hazeltine, Tobin Dykstra, and Eric Schumacher 7 The Problem of Interpretation in Experimental Research . . . . . . . . . 97 Davood Gozli 8 Methodology of Science: Different Kinds of Questions Require Different Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Aaro Toomela 9 Conclusion: From Experimental to Experiential Psychology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Jaan Valsiner and Davood Gozli Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 v Chapter 1 Finding the Place of Experimental Psychology: Introduction Davood Gozli and Jaan Valsiner The present volume puts together a diverse set of viewpoints, all of which are addressing fundamental concerns in psychological science. Each chapter on its own provides a pathway into thinking about experimental psychology, its promises and strengths, and its limits and potential risks. We read about the historical roots of— and early debates regarding—experimental psychology (Chap. 2), the role of con- cepts and operational definitions (Chap. 3 and 4), the problems of external validity (Chap. 5), the organization of behavior in an experiment (Chap. 6), the interpreta- tion of behavior in an experiment (Chap. 7), and broader philosophical frameworks that could warrant or undermine a particular line of research (Chap. 8). Together, the chapters will equip the reader to think about experimental research in a balanced, complex, and cautious manner. From the perspective of someone strongly attached to a particular method of research, there might be no apparent limit to the application of the method. When confronting various objects of study, instead of becoming aware of the limits of the method, the researcher only considers how objects are given within the framework of the method. Insisting that universal applicability of the method, researchers unknow- ingly distort and limit their view of the phenomena. It would be fair to ask whether such an attitude, such rigid application of method, which never raises the question of limitation and suitability, should be called “research,” given that it is more akin to the exercise and extension of power within a domain. Initial statements, like “our method works here,” are soon replaced by “only our method ought to work here!” Regardless of the particular positions taken by the authors of this volume, what is more important is the very engagement with fundamental issues. The type of writ- ing represented in the following chapters goes beyond the strict forms in which the D. Gozli (*) University of Macau, Taipa, Macau S.A.R., China J. Valsiner Communication and Psychology, Aalborg University, AALBORG, Denmark © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1 Switzerland AG 2022 D. Gozli, J. Valsiner (eds.), Experimental Psychology, Theory and History in the Human and Social Sciences, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17053-9_1 2 D. Gozli and J. Valsiner findings of experimental psychology are presented and discussed. As such, they can serve as an opening for dialogue both for people within the field who have philo- sophical interests and for people outside of the field who are interested in a philo- sophical and critical engagement with experimental psychology. Questions regarding fundamental issues are rarely raised by experimental researchers, but when they are raised, we can soon see how current research practices are connected, and arise from, certain tacit answers—given without much reflection—to those fun- damental questions. How should we think about the relationship between research participant and researchers? How is that relationship grounded in our view of self/ other distinction? Is there any connection and resemblance between the experimen- tal situations, the communication between the two parties involved, and the broader context of our social-political lives outside of the laboratory? Is it possible for experimental researchers to fixate on topics that are “artificial” inventions of the field, and if so, what is the way out of such fixations? The chapters that follow begin with a historical contextualization. Russo Krauss (this volume) gives an account of the development of scientific psychology during the late nineteenth century, with particular reference to a disagreement between Wilhelm Wundt and Richard Avenarius (see also Araujo, 2016; Russo Krauss, 2019). While that debate is relevant to questions about the place of experimentation in psychology, Russo Krauss shows why it arises from disagreements over funda- mental epistemological issues, including how we think about the self/other distinc- tion. Wundt regarded experimentation as a necessary supplement to self-observation, whereas Avenarius saw experimentation as the primary method of investigation. For Avenarius, psychology must begin with the experience of others and must maintain a third-person perspective toward the phenomena under investigation. This is, for the most part, the stance adopted by contemporary psychological science, which provides an easy bridge to neuroscientific discourse about experience and behavior. This approach encourages a third-person view of even oneself. When one thinks about one’s mental life or feelings in terms of brain activity, one is adopting such a third-person scientific perspective, which might side-step the view of oneself as a person among, and in relationships with, other people. Wundt’s insistence on first-person experience, and the necessity to ground psy- chological science in intelligible first-person experience, is instructive for contem- porary psychologists. With Avenarius, the experimental situation involves one person observing another. With Wundt, one person is setting up the conditions to help another make observation. Thus, for Wundt, the subject of the experiment remains at the center, while the two persons work together to understand one kind of experience. The distinction between first- and third-person perspectives loses its significance for Wundt, and this is reinforced by the close positions the two adopt in relation to each other, i.e., as fellow researchers. Russo Krauss concludes by remind- ing us that the history of psychology should teach us about the importance of main- taining a relationship between philosophy and psychology. Heath Matheson (Chap. 3) centers his discussion on concepts. Concepts, he argues, serve as the foundation of any science, just as they serve as the foundation of our social-political lives. Matheson draws attention to the sensorimotor, 1 Finding the Place of Experimental Psychology: Introduction 3 embodied basis of concepts. Pointing out the sensorimotor aspect of conceptual understanding involves acknowledging a set of constraints, which leads to the rec- ognition of both intra-individual and inter-individual differences in understanding. It would not be surprising, Matheson argues, that crises about truth arise, if we appreciate the underlying psychological capacities that enable our evaluation of truth. His discussion shows the relevance of our topic with broader issues, e.g., political debates. He advocates moving from a realist approach to a pragmatist approach to science and taking conceptual disagreements seriously at the outset of our investigations. Matheson’s contribution emphasizes concepts, largely postpon- ing questions of methodology. It is, nonetheless, a useful demonstration of the con- nection between philosophy of science and psychological science. Whether or not we agree with Matheson, his argument shows that the ambitions and optimism of a psychological scientist must be grounded in some view of how science operates, why scientists disagree, and how they ought to address their disagreements. Complementing Matheson’s chapter, Roland Pfister (Chap. 4) shifts the center of discussion to methods. He points out two problematic tendencies in experimental psychology: (1) downplaying the role of tasks (i.e., method) in research and con- versely (2) investigating tasks for their own sake. Downplaying the role of tasks will create a naïve sense of external validity for the research. For example, in a line of research related to human memory, not paying attention to experimental tasks can strategically replace the statement, “we are studying how participants remember these items in task X, Y, Z” with “we are studying memory!” At the same time, Pfister rightly points out, tasks can be over-emphasized, playing too large a role in motivating research, to a degree that the goals for which they were originally designed (i.e., knowledge about psychological phenomena) are forgotten. It might be difficult for some readers to see how these two tendencies can co-exist in the same research community, given that they seem to contradict each other. The two tendencies, however, represent two styles of engagement adopted at different times and in different settings. When discussing research with members of their own field (at conferences, in articles published in specialty journals), discussion is focused heavily on methods and tasks, such that the tasks themselves—their limitations and the uncertainties regarding their use—creates the motivation to continue research. By contrast, when researchers take a position to talk with general audiences (writing articles in more popular journals, writing grant proposals), they set aside concerns about the tasks and refer to their research as if it has perfect external validity. Consequently, we have researchers who switch from paying too little attention to their method (high- lights the aims of their research with unrealistic optimism) to paying exclusive attention to their method (forgetting the aim of their research). Pfister proposes a solution. He argues that introducing variety in operational definitions can help over- come this problem. If one psychological concept, such as rule violation, is defined in three different ways, it becomes difficult to ignore the differences in those three definitions, insofar as we remain interested in the concept that unifies them, and it becomes easier to remember why those (different) methods were constructed in the first place. Pfister also argues in favor of paying close attention to the details of 4 D. Gozli and J. Valsiner action, as well as arguing in favor of continued critical engagement with psycho- logical research. From a more critical standpoint, Carol Ting (Chap. 5) points out the inevitable tradeoff between, on the one hand, the ease of identification, and on the other hand, the artificiality of the behavior under investigation. In general, the easier it is for researchers to categorize behavior, the more artificial the situation has become. Ting chooses the case of dishonesty to clarify the tradeoff. Dishonesty has a social- relational dimension, which is essential to it; it is dynamic and continually respon- sive to what is going on. Some might continue a lie for a length of time, trying to adjust, extend, and elaborate the lie while remembering what the recipients of the lie already know. The meaning and consequences of dishonesty change with context. These consequences might include social harm, harm to one’s self-image or social status, punishment, and harm to the existing trust in communities and institutions which operate on the basis of trust. Ting reviews several approaches to the experi- mental study of dishonesty and shows what they are missing and what they system- atically exclude, by placing “dishonesty” in an experimental setting. For instance, experiments with “dishonesty” often take place in rather contrived situations, with researchers going out of their way to ensure anonymity of the participants. The experimenters isolate the “dishonest act” as much as possible from the social con- text, and they encourage its occurrence, in many cases, by tying it to monetary reward. Ting’s argument is applicable to other areas of experimental research, whenever there is discrepancy between the operational definition of the behavior and its meaning and consequence outside of the laboratory (Gozli, 2019). It also has implication for the discussion of how concepts differ within and outside of experi- mental settings. Beginning with Ting’s arguments, researchers could see how they could apply a similar analysis to other fields of research. In Chap. 6, Hazeltine, Dykstra, and Schumacher (this volume) trace the develop- ment of the notion of task in recent decades in cognitive psychology. They observe that a reliance on stimulus-response (SR) associations, or “task set,” is insufficient for understanding the existing evidence. A better understanding of task, they argue, is in terms of an organization of SR associations. Unfortunately, the word “response” is somewhat ambiguous, and it is not easy to see how much meaning can or should be attached to a response when we describe behavior in an experimental situation. Even though the whole (tasks) determines the meaning of the part (response), the part has a role in determining the character of the whole. What we usually mean by “response” is closer to the physical description of the movement, which risks neglect- ing the character of the whole (task) and the meaning assigned to individual responses. Hazeltine et al. propose that the organization of the behavior is maintained by inter- nal representation, rather than the environment, which is why they propose the idea of “task files.” The chapter includes an experiment that demonstrates how switch costs relate to task structures. The authors provide a visual representation of the asso- ciation (grouping) between individual responses, which is an effective demonstration of the limits of the SR approach to understanding tasks. Moreover, their demonstra- tion shows the limits of relying on response times as a one-dimensional variable.