In order to legitimate itself as a science, psychology has faced the ongoing problem of establishing its proper method of investigation. In this context, debates on introspection have emerged that have remained intense since the 18th century. However, contemporary debates and historical investigations on this topic have not done justice to the richness and diversity of positions, leading to oversimplifications and hasty generalizations, as if the terms “introspection” and “introspectionism” referred to one and same thing. The central goal of this article is to offer an analysis of William James’s position on the introspective method within the intellectual context of his time, covering the period from his early writings until the publication, in 1890, of The Principles of Psychology. Our results indicate that James used two different types of introspection. We conclude by discussing divergences in the secondary literature and the implications of our study for historical and theoretical debates in psychology.
AraujoS. F. (2016). Wundt and the philosophical foundations of psychology: A reappraisal. New York, NY: Springer.
2.
BaarsB. (2009). William James on the mind and its fringes. In BanksW. P. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of consciousness (Vol. 2, pp. 459–468). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
3.
BarzunJ. (1983). A stroll with William James. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BaumgartenA. G. (2004). Metaphysik [Metaphysics]. Jena, Germany: Scheglmann. (Original work published 1783)
5.
BenekeF. (1845). Die neue Psychologie [The new psychology]. Berlin, Germany: Mittler.
6.
BjorkD. (1983). The compromised scientist: William James and the development of the American psychology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
7.
BoerJ. A.ReindersA. A. T. S.GlasG. (2008). On looking inward: Revisiting the role of introspection in neuroscientific and psychiatric research. Theory & Psychology, 18, 380–403.
8.
BordognaF. (2008). William James at the boundaries: Philosophy, science, and the geography of knowledge. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
9.
BoringE. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50(3), 169–188.
10.
BrentanoF. (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt [Psychology from an empirical standpoint]. Leipzig, Germany: Dunkler und Humblot.
11.
ButlerJ. (2013). Rethinking introspection: A pluralist approach to the first-person perspective. New York, NY: Palgrave.
12.
ChirimuutaM. (2014). Psychophysical methods and the evasion of introspection. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 914–926.
13.
CleggJ. (Ed.). (2013). Self-observation in social sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
14.
ComteA. (1830). Cours de philosophie positive: Vol. 1. Paris, France: Bachelier.
15.
CoonD. (1993). Standardizing the subject: Experimental psychologists, introspection, and the quest for a technoscientific ideal. Technology and Culture, 34(4), 757–783.
16.
CooperW. (2002). The unity of James’ thought. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
17.
CostallA. (2006). “Introspectionism” and the mythical origins of scientific psychology. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 634–654.
18.
CostallA. (2013). Introspection and the myth of methodological behaviorism. In CleggJ. (Ed.), Self-observation in social sciences (pp. 67–80). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
19.
CroceP. (1995). Science and religion in the era of William James. Eclipse of certainty: 1820–1880. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
20.
DanzigerK. (1980). The history of introspection reconsidered. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 16, 241–262.
21.
DunkelH. (1970). Herbart and Herbartianism: An educational ghost story. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
22.
EvansR. (1990). William James, The principles of psychology, and experimental psychology. American Journal of Psychology, 103(4), 433–447.
23.
FeestU. (2012). Introspection as a method and introspection as a feature of consciousness. Inquiry, 55(1), 1–16.
24.
FeestU. (2014). Phenomenal experiences, first-person reports, and the artificiality of experimental data. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 927–939.
25.
FortlageK. (1855). System der Psychologie [Systems of psychology] (2 vols.). Leizpig, Germany: Brockhaus.
26.
GarmoC. (1895). Herbart and the Herbartians. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
27.
GibsonW. R. B. (1904–05). Self-introspection. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 5, 38–52.
28.
GiorgiA. (1992). A phenomenological reinterpretation of the Jamesian schema for psychology. In DonnellyM. E. (Ed.), Reinterpreting the legacy of William James (pp. 119–236). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29.
GoodwinJ. (2012). A history of modern psychology (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
30.
HatfieldG. (2005). Introspective evidence in psychology. In AchinsteinP. (Ed.), Scientific evidence: Philosophical theories and application (pp. 259–286). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
31.
HatfieldG. (2014). Psychological experiments and phenomenal experience in size and shape constancy. Philosophy of Science, 81(5), 940–953.
32.
HerbartJ. F. (1824–25). Psychologie als Wissenschaft [Psychology as a science] (2 Vols.). Königsberg, Germany: Unzer.
33.
HerbartJ. F. (1834). Lehrbuch zur Psychologie [Textbook of psychology]. Königsberg, Germany: Unzer.
34.
HothersalD. (2003). History of psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
JamesH. (1920). The letters of William James (2 vols.). Boston, MA: The Atlantic Monthly Press.
39.
JamesW. (1880a). The association of ideas. Popular Science Monthly, 16, 577–593.
40.
JamesW. (1880b). The feeling of effort. Boston, MA: Society of Natural History.
41.
JamesW. (1884a). On some omissions of introspective psychology. Mind, 9, 1–29.
42.
JamesW. (1884b). What is an emotion?Mind, 9, 188–205.
43.
JamesW. (1888). What the will effects. Scribners, 3(2), 240–249.
44.
JamesW. (1981). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890)
45.
JamesW. (1985). The varieties of religious experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1902)
46.
KantI. (1917). Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht [Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view]. In AdickesE. (Ed.), Kant’s Gesammelte Schriften: Vol. 7 [Kant’s collected works: Vol. 7] (pp. 117–333). Berlin, Germany: Reimer. (Original work published 1798)
47.
KantI. (1923). Reflexionen zur Anthropologie [Reflections on anthropology]. In AdickesE. (Ed.), Kant’s Gesammelte Schriften: Vol. 15/2 [Kant’s collected works: Vol. 15/2]. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.
48.
KrokerK. (2003). The progress of introspection in America, 1896–1938. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 34, 77–108.
49.
LyonsD. (1986). The disappearance of introspection. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
50.
MaudsleyH. (1867). The physiology and pathology of the mind. New York, NY: Appleton and Company.
51.
MillJ. S. (1882). Auguste Comte and positivism (3rd ed.). London, UK: Trübner.
52.
MyersG. (1986a). Pragmatism and introspective psychology. In PutnamR. A. (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to William James (pp. 11–24). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
53.
MyersG. (1986b). William James: His life and thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
54.
PerryR. B. (1935). The thought and character of William James (2 vols.). London, UK: Oxford University Press.
55.
SchorrA. (Ed.). (1994). Die Psychologie und die Methodenfrage: Reflexionen zu einem zeitlosen Thema [Psychology and the question of method: Reflections on a timeless theme]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
56.
SchullJ. (1992). Selection – James’s principal principle. In DonnellyM. E. (Ed.), Reinterpreting the legacy of William James (pp. 139–151). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
ShustermanR. (2005). William James, somatic introspection, and care of the self. The Philosophical Forum, 36(4), 419–440.
59.
SkrupskelisI. K.BerkeleyE. (Eds.). (2004). The correspondence of William James (12 vols.). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
60.
SmithiesD.StoljarD. (Eds.). (2012). Introspection and consciousness. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
61.
StanleyS. (2012). Intimate distances: William James’s introspection, Buddhist mindfulness, and experiential inquiry. New Ideas in Psychology, 30, 201–211.
62.
SullyJ. (1881). Illusions: A psychological study. London, UK: Kegan Paul & Co.
63.
TaylorE. (1996). William James on consciousness beyond the margin. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
64.
TetensJ. N. (1777). Philosophische Versuche über die menschliche Natur und ihre Entwickelung [Philosophical essays on human nature and its development]. Leipzig, Germany: Weidmann.
65.
TitchenerE. (1912). Prolegomena to the study of introspection. American Journal of Psychology, 23(3), 427–448.
66.
TitchenerE. (1914). On “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 53(213), 1–17.
67.
UeberwegF. (1857). System der Logik [Systems of logic]. Bonn, Germany: Marcus.
68.
VarelaF.ShearJ. (1999). The view from within: First-person approaches to the study of consciousness. Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic.
69.
VolkeltJ. (1887). Psychologische Streitfragen [Psychological disputes]. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 90, 1–49.
70.
WolffC. (1968). Psychologia empirica [Empirical psychology]. In ÉcoleJ. (Ed.), Christian Wolff: Gesammelte Werke (Série II, Vol. 5). Hildesheim, Germany: Olms. (Original work published 1738)
71.
WundtW. (1862). Beiträge zur Theorie der Sinneswahrnehmung [Contributions to the theory of sense perception]. Leipzig, Germany: Winter.
72.
WundtW. (1882). Die Aufgabe der experimentellen Psychologie [The task of experimental psychology]. Unsere Zeit, 3, 389–406.
YoungJ. (2013). A brief history of self-report in American psychology. In CleggJ. (Ed.), Self-observation in social sciences (pp. 45–65). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
