This article explores a psychological tradition inspired by or originating from Franz Brentano and which played a vital role in the development of qualitative empirical psychology. This was the psychology of acts with a focus on the analysis of mental phenomena and a first-person perspective. Brentano’s psychology directly influenced the emergence of the main schools of European psychology in the first half of the 20th century: the Würzburg School, Gestalt psychology, phenomenological psychology, the Dorpat School, and the Lvov–Warsaw School. These schools cultivated a psychology of mind and consciousness par excellence, the theoretical and methodological assumptions of which effectively inhibited reductionist tendencies. The aim of this article, however, is not so much to reconstruct the historical achievements but rather to indicate their relevance for contemporary qualitative psychology, which can be seen in a broader perspective than simply as an alternative to quantitative research.
AshM. G. (2023). Psychology and the fall of communism: The special case of (East) Germany. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 59(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.22238
6.
BaumgartnerE.BaumgartnerW. (1997). Von Brentano zu Külpe: Die Deskriptive Psychologie Brentanos und die “Würzburger Schule” der Denkpsychologie [From Brentano to Külpe: Brentano’s descriptive psychology and the “Würzburg School” of thought-psychology]. Brentano Studien, 7, 31–52. http://www.brentanostudien.com/volume-7-1997.html
7.
BayneT.MontagueM. (2011). Cognitive phenomenology: An introduction. In BayneT.MontagueM. (Eds.), Cognitive phenomenology (pp. 1–34). Oxford University Press.
8.
BitterS. (2011). Oswald Külpe (1862–1915) und die Dorpater religionspsychologische Schule [Oswald Külpe (1862–1915) and the Dorpat School of psychology of religion]. In AngermannN.LenzW.MaierK. (Eds.), Geisteswissenschaften und Publizistik im Baltikum des 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhunderts (pp. 483–511). Münster.
BrandlJ. L. (2021). The purposes of descriptive psychology. European Journal of Philosophy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12723
11.
BrentanoF. (1995a). Descriptive psychology. Routledge. (Original work published 1982)
12.
BrentanoF. (1995b). Psychology from an empirical standpoint (MüllerB., Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1874)
13.
BrożekA. (2022). Józef M. Bocheński and the categorial reconstruction of concepts in the Lvov–Warsaw school. Studies in East European Thought, 74, 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-021-09437-y
14.
BrożekA.ChybińskaA.JadackiJ.WoleńskiJ. (Eds.). (2015). Tradition of the Lvov–Warsaw school ideas and continuations. Brill.
15.
CarrH. (1930). Functionalism. In MurchinsonC. (Ed.), Psychologies in 1930 (pp. 59–78). Clark University.
16.
CavallinJ. (1997). Content and object—Husserl, Twardowski and psychologism. Kluwer.
17.
ChrudzimskiA. (2005). Intentionalität, Zeitbewusstsein und Intersubjektivität. Studien zur Phänomenologie von Brentano bis Ingarden [Intentionality, consciousness of time and intersubjectivity from Brentano to Ingarden]. Ontos Verlag.
18.
ChrudzimskiA.HuemerW. (Eds.). (2020). Phenomenology & mind. De Gruyter.
19.
ChurchillS. D. (2018). Explorations in teaching the phenomenological method: Challenging psychology students to “grasp at meaning” in human science research. Qualitative Psychology, 5(2), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000116
20.
CitlakA. (2016). The Lvov–Warsaw School—The forgotten tradition of historical psychology. History of Psychology, 19(2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/hop0000029
21.
CitlakA. (2019). The problem of mind and mental acts in the perspective of psychology in the Lvov–Warsaw School. Philosophical Psychology, 32(7), 1049–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2019.1647410
22.
CitlakA. (2022). Brentano’s psychology and Kazimierz Twardowski school: Implications for the empirical study of psychological phenomena today. Psychological Research, 87, 1665–1681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01744-1
DanzigerK. (2001). Introspection: History of the concept. In SmelserN. J.BaltesP. B. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 7888–7891). Pergamon.
25.
DavidsenA. (2013). Phenomenological approaches in psychology and health sciences. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 10(3), 318–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2011.608466
26.
del Rio CarralM.TseliouM. (2019). Mapping qualitative research in psychology across Europe: Contemporary trends. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 16(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2019.1605276
27.
DewalqueP. (2017). The unity of the Brentano school. In KriegelU. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Franz Brentano and the Brentano school (pp. 236–250). Routledge.
28.
DiltheyW. (1990). Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie [Ideas concerning a descriptive and analytic psychology]. In MischG. (Ed.), Gesammelte Schriften, V (pp. 139–240). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (Original work published 1894)
FeestU. (2014). The continuing relevance of nineteenth-century philosophy of psychology: Brentano and the autonomy of psychological methods. In GalavottiM.DieksD.GonzalezW.HartmannS.UebelT.WeberM. (Eds.), The philosophy of science in a European perspective: Vol. 5. New directions in the philosophy of science (pp. 693–710). Springer.
FisetteD. (2013). Mixed feelings. Carl Stumpf’s criticism of James and Brentano on emotions. In FisetteD.FréchetteG. (Eds.), Themes from Brentano (pp. 281–305). Rodopi.
GallikerM. (2013). Das geisteswissenschaftliche Forschungsprogramm der Psychologie: Diltheys “Ideen über eine beschreibende und zergliedernde Psychologie” sowie die Antwort von Ebbinghaus [Geisteswissenschaftliches research program of psychology: Dilthey’s “Ideas Concerning a Descriptive and Analytical Psychology” and the Ebbinghaus’ answer]. In ScholtzG. (Ed.), Diltheys Werk und die Wissenschaften: Neue Aspekte (pp. 193–207). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
38.
GiorgiA. (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Duquesne University Press.
39.
GiorgiA. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Duquesne University Press.
40.
GirgensohnK. (1921). Der seelisches Aufbau des religiösen Erlebens: Eine religionspsychologische Untersuchung auf experimentaler Grundlage [The psychological structure of religious experience: An experimental study]. Hirzel.
41.
GłombikC. (2005). Die Polen und die Göttinger phänomenologische Bewegung [The Poles and the Göttinger phenomenological movement]. Husserl Studies, 21, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10743-005-4935-0
GreenwoodJ. (2020). On two foundational principles of the Berlin school of Gestalt psychology. Review of General Psychology, 24(3), 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019893972
45.
GruehnW. (1956). Die Frömmigkeit der Gegenwart: Grundtatsachen der empirischen Psychologie [The contemporary piety: Foundations of the empirical psychology]. Friedrich Bahn.
46.
HackertB.WegerW. (2018). Introspection and the Würzburg school implications for experimental psychology today. European Psychologist, 23(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000329
47.
HarkM. (2010). The psychology of thinking before the cognitive revolution. History of Psychology, 13(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017442
48.
HarringtonA. (2000). In defence of Verstehen and Erklären: Wilhelm Dilthey’s ideas concerning a descriptive and analytical psychology. Theory & Psychology, 10(4), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354300104001
49.
HorstS. (1996). Symbols, computation and intentionality: A critique of the computational theory of mind. University of California Press.
50.
HovhannisyanG. (2022). Specifying the conditions for a theory of teleology in cognitive science. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 42(3), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000184
HuemerW. (2019b). Is Brentano’s method a unifying element of the Brentano school?Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica, 4, 897–910. https://doi.org/10.26350/001050_000151
53.
HusserlE. (1901). Logische Untersuchungen [Logical investigations]. Max Niemeyer Verlag.
HusserlE. (1973). Phänomenologie der Intersubjektivität [Phenomenology of intersubjectivity]. Erster Teil: 1905–1920. Husserliana, Band XIII. Springer.
56.
JakobP. (2006). Intentionality. In BorchertD. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. IV, pp. 708–714). Thomson Gale.
57.
JamesW. (1981). The principles of psychology. Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1890)
58.
JamiesonR. K.PexmanP. M. (2020). Moving beyond 20 questions: We (still) need stronger psychological theory. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 61(4), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000223
59.
JuarreroA. (1999). Dynamics in action: Intentional behavior as a complex system. MIT Press.
60.
KantI. (1786). Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft [Metaphysical foundations of natural science]. Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.
61.
KoffkaK. (2001). Principles of gestalt psychology. Routledge. (Original work published 1935)
62.
KöhlerW. (1925). The mentality of apes. Kegan, Trench. (Original work published 1917)
63.
KriegelU. (2017). Introduction. In KriegelU. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Franz Brentano and the Brentano school (pp. 1–12). Routledge.
64.
LangdridgeD. (2007). Phenomenological psychology: Theory, research and method. Pearson Education.
65.
LückH. E. (1996). Die Feldtheorie und Kurt Lewin [Field theory and Kurt Lewin]. Psychologie Verlags Union.
66.
LückH. E. (2002). Geschichte der Psychologie: Strommungen, Schulen, Entwicklungen [History of psychology: Currents, schools, developments]. W. Kohlhammer.
MacnamaraJ.BoudewijnseG. (1995). Brentano’s influence on Ehrenfels’s theory of perceptual gestalts. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 25(4), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1995.tb00282.x
69.
MeinongA. (1960). The theory of objects. In ChisholmR. M. (Ed.), Realism and the background of phenomenology (pp. 76–117). Free Press. (Original work published 1904)
70.
MeyerA.HackertB.WegerU. (2018). Franz Brentano and the beginning of experimental psychology: Implications for the study of psychological phenomena today. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 82(2), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0825-7
71.
MichellJ. (1999). Measurement in psychology: A critical history of a methodological concept. Cambridge University Press.
MoranD. (2013). Intentionality: Some lessons from the history of the problem from Brentano to the present. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 21(3), 317–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2013.812605
74.
NosekB. A.EbersoleC. R.DeHavenA. C.MellorD. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 115(11), 2600–2606. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114
75.
PickrenW.RutherfordA. (2010). A history of modern psychology in context. Wiley & Sons.
76.
RollingerR. (2019). Christian von Ehrenfels. In ZaltaE. N.NodelmanU. (Eds.), Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ehrenfels/
77.
RzepaT.StachowskiR. (1993). Roots of the methodology of Polish psychology. Poznań Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 28, 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004457270_011
78.
SchultzD.SchultzS. (2011). A history of modern psychology. Cengage Learning.
79.
SearleJ. (1984). Minds, brains and science. Harvard University Press.
80.
SearleJ. (1990). Collective intentions and actions. In CohenP.MorganJ.PollackM. E. (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 401–415). MIT Press.
81.
SearleJ. (2011). Making the social world: The structure of human civilization. Oxford University Press.
82.
SeronD. (2017). Brentano’s project of descriptive psychology. In KriegelU. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of Franz Brentano and the Brentano school (pp. 35–40). Routledge.
83.
SiewertC. (2021). Why we need descriptive psychology. European Journal of Philosophy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12689
84.
SmithB. (Ed.). (1988). Foundations of gestalt theory. Philosophia Verlag.
85.
StevensS. (1951). Mathematics, measurement, and psychophysics. In StevensS. (Ed.), Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 1–49). John Wiley.
SussmanE. J. (1962). Franz Brentano—Much alive, though dead. American Psychologist, 17(7), 504–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0038881
89.
TaiebH. (2021). Brentano on the individuation of mental acts. European Journal of Philosophy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12698
TeoT. (2003). Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) and Eduard Spranger (1882–1963) on the developing person. The Humanistic Psychologist, 31(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873267.2003.9986920
92.
TwardowskiK. (1977). On the content and object of presentations. A psychological investigation. Nijhoff. (Original work published 1894)
93.
TwardowskiK. (1979). Actions and products. Comments on the border area of psychology, grammar, and logic. In PelcJ. (Ed.), Semiotics in Poland 1984–1969 (pp. 13–27). Springer. (Original work published 1912)
94.
UherJ. (2019). Data generation methods across the empirical sciences: Differences in the study phenomena’s accessibility and the processes of data encoding. Quality & Quantity. International Journal of Methodology, 53(1), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0744-3
95.
UherJ. (2021). Psychology’s status as a science: Peculiarities and intrinsic challenges. Moving beyond its current deadlock towards conceptual integration Integrative. Psychological and Behavioral Science, 55(1), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09545-0
96.
ValentineE. (2000). Carl Stumpf and English music psychology. Brentano Studien, 9, 251–265.
VargaP. (2008). Brentano’s influence on Husserl’s early notion of intentionality. Studia Universitatis Babse-Bolyai. Philosophia, LIII(1–2), 29–48. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/78838565.pdf
99.
WegerU.WagemannJ.MeyerA. (2018). Introspection in psychology: Its contribution to theory and method in memory research. European Psychologist, 23(3), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000296
100.
WertheimerM. (1912). Experimentelle Studien über das Sehen von Bewegung [Experimental studies on the seeing of motion]. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 61, 161–265.
101.
WertheimerM. (2014). Music, thinking, perceived motion: The emergence of Gestalt theory. History of Psychology, 17(2), 131–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035765
WertzF. (2014). Qualitative inquiry in the history of psychology. Qualitative Psychology, 1(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1037qup0000007
104.
WertzF. (2023). A new look at William Stern’s critical personalism: On the value of philosophical foundations for psychology [Review of the book Uncovering critical personalism: Readings from William Stern’s contributions to scientific psychology, by J. T. Lamiell]. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 43(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000211
105.
WetterstenF. (2019). The Würzburg school today: The three—now four—world theory and new psychological research. Theory & Psychology, 29(3), 396–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319851562
106.
WikstromO. (1993). The psychology of religion in Scandinavia. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0301_7
107.
WitwickiW. (1939). La foi des eclaires [The faith of lightning]. Alcan.
108.
WitwickiW. (1962). Psychologia [Psychology]. PWN.
109.
WoleńskiJ. (1990). Anton Marty and the Lvov–Warsaw school. In MulliganK. (Ed.), Mind, meaning and metaphysics (pp. 215–223). Kluwer Academic.
110.
WoleńskiJ. (2017). Brentanian motives in Kazimierz Twardowski and his students. In WoleńskiJ.StadlerF.BrożekA. (Eds.), The significance of the Lvov–Warsaw school in the European culture (pp. 47–64). Springer.
