History of origin, formation of Gestalt psychology. Experimental research in the field of Gestalt psychology

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS

Educational institution "Gomel State University named after Francis Skaryna"

Department of Psychology

by discipline

"History of Psychology"

on the topic: “Gestalt psychology”

2nd year students

PS groups - 23

Bondarenko A.

Gerasimova N.

Guseva A.

Popovich Yu.

Tirishkova O.

Gomel 2014

Introduction

Basic methodological principles of Gestalt psychology

Gestalt theory as a reaction against atomism in psychology

Studying patterns of perception

Perception of motion, phi phenomenon (M. Wertheimer)

Problems of thinking: M. Wertheimer, W. Köhler

Gestalt studies of learning: insight and intelligence in apes

The fight against behaviorism

Kurt Lewin's "field" theory

K. Lewin and social psychology

Dissemination of the principles of Gestalt psychology in the field of psychotherapy

Conclusion

List of used literature

atomism gestalt psychology perception thinking movement

Maintaining

Gestalt psychology was the most productive option for solving the problem of integrity in German and Austrian psychology, as well as philosophy of the late 19th - early 20th centuries.

The founders of Gestalt psychology (from German Gestalt - image, structure), which arose as an opposition to structuralism with its atomistic understanding of consciousness, are considered to be German psychologists M. Wertheimer (1880-1943), W. Köhler (1887-1967) and K. Koffka (1886- 1941), K. Levin (1890-1947).

These scientists established the following ideas of Gestalt psychology:

The subject of psychology is consciousness, but its understanding should be based on the principle of integrity.

Consciousness is a dynamic whole, that is, a field, each point of which interacts with all the others.

The unit of analysis of this field (i.e. consciousness) is the gestalt - a holistic figurative structure.

The method of researching gestalts is objective and direct observation and description of the contents of one’s perception.

Perception cannot come from sensations, since the latter does not really exist.

Visual perception is the leading mental process that determines the level of mental development and has its own laws.

Thinking cannot be considered as a set of skills formed through trial and error, but is a process of solving a problem, carried out through the structuring of the field, that is, through insight in the present, in the “here and now” situation. Past experience has no bearing on the task at hand.

K. Levin developed field theory and using this theory, he studied personality and its phenomena: needs, will. The Gestalt approach has penetrated into all areas of psychology. K. Goldstein applied it to the problems of pathopsychology, F. Perls - to psychotherapy, E. Maslow - to the theory of personality. The Gestalt approach has also been successfully used in such fields as learning psychology, perceptual psychology and social psychology.

Basic methodological principles of Gestalt psychology

Based on research into perception, two fundamental principles of Gestalt psychology were formulated.

The first of them - the principle of interaction between figure and background - states that each gestalt is perceived as a figure that has clear outlines and stands out at the moment from the surrounding world, which is a more blurred and undifferentiated background in relation to the figure. Forming a figure, from the point of view of Gestalt psychology, means showing interest in something and focusing attention on this object in order to satisfy the interest that has arisen.

The second principle, often called the law of pregnancy or equilibrium, is based on the fact that the human psyche, like any dynamic system, strives for the maximum state of stability under existing conditions.

In the context of the first principle, this means that, when isolating a figure from the background, people usually strive to give it the most “digestible” form, from the point of view of satisfying the initial interest. This kind of form is characterized by simplicity, regularity, closeness and completeness. A figure that meets these criteria is often called a “good gestalt.”

Subsequently, these principles were supplemented by the theory of learning by K. Koffka, the concept of energy balance and motivation by K. Lewin and the latter introduced by the “here and now” principle, according to which the primary factor mediating the behavior and social functionality of the individual is not the content of past experience (this is the cardinal the difference between Gestalt psychology and psychoanalysis), but the quality of awareness of the current situation. On this methodological basis, F. Perls, E. Polster and a number of other Gestalt psychologists developed the theory of the contact cycle, which became the basic model of almost all practice-oriented approaches in Gestalt psychology.

Gestalt theory as a reaction against atomism in psychology

Gestalt psychology, one of the most influential and interesting areas of the period of open crisis, was a reaction against atomism and mechanism of all varieties of associative psychology.

Gestalt psychology was the most productive option for solving the problem of integrity in German and Austrian psychology, as well as philosophy of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. The concept of “gestalt” was introduced by H. Ehrenfels in the article “On the quality of form” in 1890 while studying perceptions.

From the very beginning, Gestalt psychologists rejected the thesis about the origin of perception from sensations and declared sensation “a fiction created in psychological writings and laboratories.” The thesis about the original integrity, the structural organization of the process of perception is expressed by Wertheimer: “There is complex formations, in which the properties of the whole cannot be deduced from the properties of the individual parts and their compounds, but where, on the contrary, what happens to any part of the complex whole is determined by the internal laws of the structure of the whole. Structural psychology is just that.” In contrast to introspective psychology, subjects were required to describe the object of perception not as they know it, but as they see it at the moment. There are no items in this description.

The experiments that these psychologists carried out were probing and truly revealed the original integrity. They began on perception. For example, points were presented:......, etc. (Wertheimer's experiments). The subject combined them into groups of two points separated by an interval.

Gestalt psychology tried to develop the atomistic theory in psychology, to overcome schematism in interpretation mental processes, discover new principles and approaches to their study. Vygotsky assessed the structural principle she introduced in the sense of a new approach as “a great unshakable achievement of theoretical thought.” This is the essence and historical meaning of Gestalt theory.

Thus, analyzing the fundamental research of Gestalt psychology in the field of perception, noting the “authority and attractiveness of this direction,” it was concluded that the key to understanding the patterns identified in them may be the study of the genesis of perception. This approach allows us to understand the psychological mechanism of Gestalt, in particular in the field of perception.

The history of Gestalt psychology begins with the publication of M. Wertheimer’s work “Experimental Studies of the Perception of Movement” (1912), which questioned the usual idea of ​​the presence of individual elements in the act of perception.

According to Wertheimer, when a certain point “A” is excited in the brain, a zone is created around it, where the effect of the stimulus is also felt. If point “B” is excited soon after “A,” then a short circuit occurs between them, and the excitation is transferred from point “A” to point “B.” In phenomenal terms, these processes correspond to the perception of movement from “A” to “B”. Wertheimer's ideas became the starting point for the development of Gestalt theory.

Further research (although not all of it was carried out by Gestalt psychologists) strengthened the new trend. E. Rubin discovered the phenomenon of figure and ground (1915); D. Katz showed the role of gestalt factors in the field of touch and color vision. Köhler's experiments on chickens were of fundamental importance in order to test what was primary - the perception of the whole or the elements. The animal was trained to choose the lighter of 2 gray shades. Then came a critical experiment: in the new pair, the dark surface was replaced by a lighter one. The animal continued to choose the lighter one from this new combination, even though it was not available during training. Since the relationship between light and dark was preserved in critical experience, it means that it, and not absolute quality, determined the choice. Therefore, an element does not have a meaning, but rather receives it in the specific structure in which it is included. The fact that such structures were characteristic of chickens meant that the structures were primary primitive acts.

The whole is not the highest, as was previously thought, structuring is not the result of intelligence, creative synthesis, etc. In 1917, Köhler extended the principles of structure to the explanation of thinking (“Study of the intelligence of anthropoid apes”). In 1921, Koffka made an attempt apply the general principle of structure to the facts of mental development and build on its basis a theory of mental development in onto- and phylogenesis (“Fundamentals of Mental Development”). Development consists of the dynamic complication of primitive forms of behavior, the formation of more and more complex structures, as well as the establishment of relationships between these structures. The baby's world is already gestalted to some extent. But the baby's structures are not yet connected to each other. They, like separate molecules, exist independently of each other. As they develop, they communicate and enter into relationships with each other.

In the same year, 1921, Wertheimer, Köhler and Koffka, leading representatives of Gestalt psychology, founded the journal Psychological Research. The results of experimental studies of this school are published here. From this time on, the influence of the school on world psychology began. The generalizing articles of the 20s were important. M. Wertheimer: “Towards the doctrine of Gestalt” (1921), “On Gestalt theory” - (1925). In 1926, K. Levin wrote an article “Intentions, will and needs” - an experimental study devoted to the study of needs and volitional actions. This work is of fundamental importance: Gestalt psychology begins a real experimental study of these areas of mental life that are most difficult to experimentally study.

All this greatly increased the influence of Gestalt psychology. In 1929, W. Köhler gave lectures on Gestalt psychology in America, which were then published as the book Gestalt Psychology. This book presents a systematic and perhaps the best presentation of this theory. American psychology was also greatly influenced by K. Koffka’s book “Principles of Gestalt Psychology”, 1935.

H. Ehrenfels on the “qualities of Gestalt”

Christian Von Ehrenfels, June 20, 1859 - September 8, 1932 - Austrian philosopher and psychologist, student of Franz Brentano<#"center">Studying patterns of perception

Gestalt psychologists put forward the problem of perception as the central one, since they believed that this was the most convenient material for illustrating general patterns that apply not only to perception, but also to thinking and behavior in general. Unlike the followers of W. Wundt, the Gestaltists believed that the isolation of individual elements is a secondary process that artificially abstracts these elements from the whole.

The fundamental principle of perception, that is, the basic law of the formation of gestalts, which was discovered in Gestalt psychology, is the division of the perceptual field into figure and ground. When studying it experimentally, Gestalt psychologists used very original methods. Danish psychologist E. Rubin, to study the dynamics of figure and ground, developed a number of simple but very witty line drawings, such as, for example, Rubin's cross.

It turned out that when changing the figure and the background, a subtle transformation occurs: in the figure on the left, the white cross is perceived completely differently when it acts as a background - it appears to the subject as a light plane continuously extending behind the figure of the black cross, while the contour is attributed to the figure. The figure is perceived better than the background and has the property of constancy. The question immediately arises: what is perceived as a figure and what is perceived as a background. It was experimentally revealed that small areas of the perceptual field are perceived as a figure, straight lines are usually perceived as a background, more often emotionally colored objects become a figure, its identification is influenced by the setting and preferred color.

Gestalt psychologists began to search for factors that promote or, conversely, hinder the organization of elements into perceptual structures, that is, the laws of the formation of gestalts. In 1923, M. Wertheimer published an article “Principles of perceptual organization”, in which the basic laws of Gestalt were formulated: the law of “proximity”, the law of “similarity”, the law of “homogeneity”, the law of “inclusion without remainder”, the law of “completeness”, the law “good curves”, the factor of “common fate”, the law of “simple form”, the law of “experience”, the factor of the observer’s attitude, the direction of attention In their experiments, Gestalt psychologists presented their subjects with dotted figures or drawings of lines. Based on these experiments, they derived their laws. The same goes for sound stimuli - Gestaltists often used a metronome. It turned out that a person is not able to perceive the rare beats of a metronome unless he artificially forms some kind of rhythm, that is, a sound gestalt.

It is on the basis of the principle of integrity that music is created. In fact, melody is also a gestalt. This can be proven very simply: if individual sounds of a melody are given at long intervals, then it is not perceived as music.

Gestaltists attached great importance to the laws of Gestalt; they believed that all mental processes work according to this principle. They very successfully extended their laws to other elementary mental processes, for example to tactile sensations. If you applied three dots to the skin, it felt as if you had applied a circle. Then these laws were extended to the area of ​​communication: a person perceives whole sentences, not individual words; if there is a discussion, then the presentation as a whole is perceived, and not individual phrases.

Properties of Gestalt:

· The quality of gestalt depends on expressiveness and accuracy, that is, the mental organization will always be as good as the prevailing conditions allow (the laws of uniformity, simplicity, symmetry and isolation).

· The parts of the overall structure have different values: some parts are necessary, others are optional. If the corners of a person’s mouth droop, the facial expression (gestalt) will immediately change.

· Gestalts arise forcibly, that is, their appearance does not depend on the will of a person, he cannot perceive or not perceive it. The stronger the gestalt, the stronger the compulsion.

To explain the brain mechanism in the process of perception, W. Köhler tried to apply two approaches: the model of electromagnetic fields by M. Faraday and the theory of E. Mach, according to which all physical systems strive for simplicity and symmetry2. From the point of view of W. Köhler, the cortex cerebral hemispheres is a homogeneous electrical fluid, therefore the basis of all mental phenomena occurring in the brain is the interaction of physical fields. Morphology was not taken into account at all.

Many arguments can be made against this position. In addition, W. Köhler’s model was tested experimentally. The cerebral cortex, according to his point of view, is a homogeneous element, therefore, by connecting different parts of the brain with conductors, one can change perception. Therefore, if the dynamics of electrical processes are artificially disrupted, perception should suffer. Experiments were carried out on monkeys in which part of the brain was removed by lobotomy, and the projection zones were connected by strips of gold foil. However, there were no changes in perception.

Gestalt psychologists also tried to explain the principle of pregnancy by the interaction of physical fields. They attributed the proximity factor to a short circuit.

According to the point of view of Gestalt psychologists, all the patterns of visual perception they identified are innate.

By 1933, 114 Gestalt laws had been proposed, and after 1935 a new stage in the development of Gestalt psychology began.

New directions include research into the phenomena of figure aftereffects. For example, if a subject perceives a curved line, and then a straight line is presented in the same perceptual field, then he sees it as curved. Perception is distorted as a result of prolonged exposure to some kind of stimulation. A. Michotte worked in this direction.

The main disadvantage of Gestalt psychologists is that they used limited techniques, and the results were extended to a wide range of phenomena, trying to formulate general laws mental activity. They generally denied the development of the psyche, so they conducted their experiments only on adults.

They never managed to completely overcome the shortcomings of the receptor theory. In fact, they separated the work of the organs of perception from the activity of the brain. It turned out that the sense organs function on their own and their activity is in no way connected with brain processes. They believed that any mental phenomena are isomorphic to the dynamics physiological processes. This means, for example, that in the brain, when perceiving a white circle on a black background, an area bounded by a strong electromagnetic field appears in the projection zone of the visual analyzer. Peripheral stimulation is mechanically reflected in the spatial structure of physical fields arising in the projection zones of the cerebral cortex, and thus a holistic image of the perceived object is formed. “Both nerve impulses and processes in the cortex have the same structure as on the retina” - this is how W. Koehler formulated the principle of isomorphism.

Gestalt psychologists believed that no activity is required during perception. Thus, the analytical activity of the peripheral organs is in no way connected with the synthesis of perceived information in the cerebral cortex, but analysis cannot exist without synthesis, just as synthesis cannot exist without analysis.

All Gestaltist ideas about brain mechanisms are speculative. Biological and physiological patterns are replaced by physical ones. An image can only be formed when stimulation is applied sequentially to the same areas. However, if the same area is stimulated by different stimuli, then an image still appears.

This physicalism was especially clearly manifested in the views of K. Koffka. He actually equated physical and biological processes.

Another important drawback of Gestalt psychology is that its representatives completely ignored cultural and historical factors. “A triangle is perceived as a triangle regardless of whether a person or a fly perceives it,” they believed. But even the perceptual system of insects in the process of evolution has adapted to the conditions of its habitat: a bee distinguishes complex figures better than simple ones, because the main objects of its life activity are plants with flowers of complex geometric shapes. In the mid-30s of the 20th century, A.R. Luria conducted research in Uzbekistan, in which ordinary peasants who did not even know how to read and write took part. They perceived, for example, a torn ring not as a figure, but as a bracelet, and a triangle without one vertex as a measure for kerosene. Therefore, perception has historical meaning in both evolutionary and social aspects.

Nevertheless, the merit of Gestalt psychology is that it clearly posed many psychological problems, but these problems were not solved entirely correctly. Gestalt psychologists showed that there is perception as an independent mental process that obeys its own laws, that is, the Gestaltists actually discovered the psychology of perception. In addition, Gestalt psychology played an important role in the criticism of association theory. After studying the process of perception, the Gestaltists took up thinking; in doing so, they used the same methodology as in perception studies.

Perception of motion, phi phenomenon (M. Wertheimer)

In 1912, an article by Max Wertheimer appeared, which described a very interesting phenomenon: two strips of light were projected on a screen, and with a certain time interval between their presentations, apparent movement was observed. The modern name for this phenomenon is the stroboscopic effect. In principle, this phenomenon has been known for a long time, but M. Wertheimer proposed a fundamentally new explanation for it.

Ernst Mach and his supporters believed that the stroboscopic effect (M. Wertheimer called this type of apparent movement? - a phenomenon) arises as a result of processes occurring on the retina. M. Wertheimer explained this phenomenon central processes, because if you apply one strip of light to the retina of one eye, and another to the retina of the second, then the stroboscopic effect still occurs. He proposed the following hypothetical mechanism of the?-phenomenon: if an excited point A is formed in the brain, associated with the perception of one light strip, and if after a certain time another point B is excited, due to the appearance of a second light strip in the visual field, then a short circuit occurs between them, and this is the perception of movement. Thus, movement is a holistic image, a gestalt, qualitatively different from all its constituent elements.

M. Wertheimer in the article “Research related to the doctrine of Gestalt” (1923) formulated the basic principles of Gestalt psychology. The main one of these provisions was that the primary data in psychology are integral structures (gestalts) that, in principle, cannot be derived from the components that form them. Field elements are combined into a structure depending on such relationships as proximity/similarity/closedness/symmetry.

There are a number of other factors on which the perfection and stability of the figure depend: the rhythm of the construction of rows, the commonality of color, etc. The actions of these factors are subject to the basic law, which was called by M. Wertheimer the law of pregnancy (the law of good form).

Problems of thinking: M. Wertheimer, W. Köhler

New understanding of the nature of thinking and new methods of its research originate in the history of Gestalt psychology from Köhler's experiments, which he directed against Thorndike's theory of trial and error.

In contrast to Thorndike, who noted the random nature of any decision, he emphasizes its internally necessary nature. Köhler sees this internal necessity in finding a structure, a whole, in seeing this whole in a problematic situation. He proves that each stage of the solution in an experiment cannot be considered independently (as Thorndike does); in this form, any part of the decision may indeed be meaningless and be purely random. "Taken in isolation, they are meaningless in relation to the problem, but become important when considered as part of a whole." In accordance with this, Köhler considers both the nature of the use of the tool and each action performed by the animal in a dual aspect “in relation to the animals themselves and to the goal.” If the stick, which had previously been used, moved away from the target, then it lost its functional, or instrumental, character.

Thus, Köhler's new experimental method consisted of considering the various stages of a decision in relation to the whole, which corresponded to the general principles of Gestalt psychology. In Köhler, in its original form, there appears the idea, later developed by other representatives of Gestalt psychology, about the functional significance of a part of the situation in relation to the whole field of activity of the animal.

Köhler receives and analyzes numerous facts indicating that in order to use an object in a certain function, the tool and the target must be in the same field of view, that is, closed in one structure. A feature of the structure that Kohler analyzes in his experiments is its optical, visual character. In contrast to Thorndike, Köhler is the first to put forward in the most clear form the thesis about the presence in the process of thinking of purely subjective moment"understanding", "guesswork" or "insight" (Einsicht, insight). The presence of insight characteristic of thinking means the presence of experience that accompanies the reorganization, or structuring, of the problem. This position fully corresponds to Köhler’s general concept - the principle of isomorphism he developed. According to the principle of isomorphism, movement or structuring occurs in a single phenomenal mental field. Therefore, the transformation occurring in the neuroreceptor sector must correspond to a certain transformation in the subjective mental sphere, which Köhler refers to as the experience of insight.

Wertheimer, who in his book on productive thinking criticized the associative theory and argued that the mechanism of associations is devoid of any internal content, moved in the same direction as Koehler. The main difficulty that, according to Wertheimer, the associative theory cannot overcome is the inability to distinguish between the mechanisms of conscious and meaningless combination. “If the problem is reduced,” writes Wertheimer, “to a solution through memories, mechanical repetitions of what has been learned, and blind chance provides solutions, then this alone makes one hesitate to call this process meaningful. The fact that as if only such blind facts can lead to an adequate picture of the thought process." “Our method,” Wertheimer continues, “is a reorganization of the structural situation due to meaningful necessity.” Structural necessity is generated, according to Wertheimer, by the relationships within a given structure. No relationship seems necessary. “The decisive thing is that the parts must be necessary for structural relativity, when considering the whole, arising, existing and being used as parts functioning in the structure itself.” Wertheimer develops this general fundamental position through experiments, the very construction of which is determined by the tasks of criticizing the associative theory. Wertheimer applied the original method of "B-solutions". In fact, elements of this method took place even in Köhler’s experiments, when the task offered to the monkey has a purely visual, and not a real, solution. Wertheimer selects “A” and “B” problems that are similar in appearance; the latter have only meaningless solutions, blind to the internal necessity of the situation. Based on the identification of these two types of different problems, he proves the existence of two fundamentally in various ways thinking: 1) blind to the internal necessity of the situation, based on meaningless associations and 2) meaningful in relation to the internal necessity of the structure.

Solutions of type B are available not only in these and similar perception problems, but also in problems such as life problem situations presented by Wertheimer, in which a purely external solution that does not affect the essence of the problem can also be given.

In Wertheimer's book, the A - B method is also used to solve the problem of past experience. Wertheimer contrasts the internal necessity of situations, i.e., a decision according to the laws of structure, with another type of decision - a decision based on a blind attitude to the problem, or, what is the same, a decision arising from past experience. Wertheimer understands past experience as blind to this problem due to the fact that it represents a meaningless repetition of memorized knowledge.

When analyzing the problem of transference, it is discovered that the denial of the role of past experience, as well as the denial of transference, which actually represents the mechanism of its manifestation, is based on a false understanding of generalization. In other words, Wertheimer denies the role of generalization behind all experience, on the grounds that he understands generalization in the spirit of empirical theory. The generalization for it is the sum M + x, where M is the sum of common features, and x is everything that is present in objects other than M, and varies from object to object. Wertheimer quite rightly notes, however, that with this understanding two phenomena can be combined on the basis of the presence in them of the same (or identical) elements, which are completely different in essence. Wertheimer opposes this false theory of generalization not by any means with the understanding of generalization as isolating essential connections, but with the position about structuring as an internal necessity of a given situation, which leads Wertheimer to a refusal to go beyond the limits of the situation, i.e., in fact, to a refusal theoretical solution in general, on the role of ready-made generalizations contained in any system of knowledge. All this is ultimately formulated in the form of the following thesis: “The question rests not on what past experience, but which aspect of past experience plays a role: blind dependence or structural understanding as a result of a meaningful solution to the problem, the structural nature of past experience.

Wertheimer's position on the issue of past experience is the most consistent from the point of view of the principles of Gestalt psychology, since his attention is directed exclusively to the productive content of thinking, the laws of structure, and everything reproductive is completely rejected. In reality, this position is as one-sided as the recognition of the reproductive nature of thinking alone.

Since Wertheimer contrasts the mechanism of associations with another mechanism of thinking - the mechanism of structure, he gives the main place in his works to the analysis and justification of this mechanism, as well as the proof of its universality.

According to Wertheimer, an unsolved problem contains some inconsistency of elements, and therefore there is a desire to eliminate this inconsistency and make the problem clear and complete. A central part of the solution is the elimination of inconsistency, a "transition" called "structural reorganization." The content of the “transition” is that the entity receives the clearest structure. The presence of a transformation or transition will be a characteristic of productive thinking, “a good transition from a bad gestalt to a good gestalt,” as Wertheimer says.

Wertheimer describes the transition mechanism as follows. Unsolved problem contains a structural force or tension as a consequence of the structural inconsistency of its elements. The first initial situation contains the “vector”, or the direction along which the discrepancy is eliminated. The vector appears as the direction along which the correction occurs, filling this discrepancy. The next state that arises as a result of the “transition” is an already actually solved problem, where the discrepancy has been eliminated. A solved problem “is a state of phenomena that is held together by internal forces, like good structures in which there is harmony both in the totality and in individual parts, on the basis of which these parts determine the entire structure as a whole.”

Thus, it turns out that Wertheimer notes only two points - a problematic situation (an unsolved problem) and a situation where the problem has been removed, the problem has already been solved; analysis of the thought process itself is completely absent.

In the parallelogram example, Wertheimer outlines the different functional meanings that each straight line in a problem takes on at different stages of its solution. However, highlighting these various functional meanings, which is what the analysis of the material prompts him to do, Wertheimer identifies only three phases of the solution: 1) setting the problem, 2) establishing the basic relationship, 3) finding ways to implement it. Moreover, the last phase performs only a technical role in implementing the basic relationship already seen in the second phase. Thus, in the example with a parallelogram, the ends of the triangle are no longer considered as superfluous or inappropriate (which is the establishment of a basic relationship), but as those with the help of which the inconsistency is eliminated. Thus, despite the phases, the solution arises immediately, in the transition from bad to good structure: the fact that the solver sees the parallelogram as an “inappropriate” figure means that he saw it as a figure that can be “straightened” into a rectangle. The movement of triangles from one place to another as a process of this straightening actually contributes nothing to the completed solution. Thus, for Wertheimer the most important thing is to discern the basic relationship.

Thus, Gestalt psychology does not reduce thinking to perception, but refers to the principle of their explanation that is common to both stages: direct grasping of the structure acts as the main explanatory principle in relation to both perception and thinking.

Gestalt studies of learning: insight and intelligence in apes

This excerpt from the classic book Ape Intelligence examines how the chimpanzees he observes learn to use various objects to reach treats that otherwise would be out of reach. These experiments show how monkeys acquire skills in using boxes to reach a target (a complex stimulus), which was typically a banana suspended from the ceiling of the cage.

Köhler directed all his attention to the individual qualities of the observed chimpanzees and to the characteristic differences between them. He did not establish any formal design for his studies, did not perform any measurements either before or after the experiments, did not statistically analyze the results obtained, and did not make comparisons with control groups. Köhler simply described his observations of the behavior of monkeys in situations that he himself created for them.

When a chimpanzee cannot reach a suspended banana using one box, there is a possibility that he will stack two or more boxes on top of each other and thus achieve the desired result. At first glance, it seems that this task will be simple and easily solved. But when conducting an experiment, it quickly becomes clear that for chimpanzees the problem splits into two significantly different tasks. Moreover, one of them is solved quite simply, while the other causes significant difficulties. We thought that the first problem contained the whole problem, and where the monkeys actually began to have difficulties, at first we did not see any problems at all. If in the description of this curious fact special emphasis was placed on the impression it made on the observer, then the report of the experiment should have been divided into two parts in accordance with this circumstance. I'll start by answering the question that addresses the first part of the problem.

Köhler interpreted the results of this and similar experiments as evidence of the existence of insight - that is, sudden comprehension or understanding of previously unknown relationships. Sultan finally, after numerous attempts, had a hunch about understanding the connection between the boxes and the suspended banana. To describe this phenomenon, Köhler used german word“Einsicht”, which corresponded to the English “insight”, which can be roughly translated as understanding, comprehension, penetration into the essence of the task. In other experiments on independent, spontaneous understanding of a problem, American animal psychology researcher Robert Yerkes also found evidence in the behavior of orangutans for the existence of insight, which he called semantic learning.

During an interview in 1974, eighty-seven-year-old Manuel Gonzalez y Garcia, who once worked as a caretaker at the Köhler monkey barn, told many stories about the chimpanzees, especially about Sultan, who often helped him feed the other animals. Gonzales usually gave the Sultan a bunch of bananas and ordered: “Two of each!”, after which he went around all the cages and distributed two bananas to each monkey.

As can be seen from Köhler's experiments with chimpanzees, his approach to the problem of insight and methods of problem solving turned out to be different from Thorndike's method of learning through trial and error. Köhler actively criticized Thorndike's work, arguing that the experimental conditions he created were artificial and allowed only random behavior to be detected. He insisted that the cats from Thorndike's experience with<проблемным ящиком>did not provide the opportunity to conduct in-depth research, since they could only act on the basis of trial and error.

Similarly, animals in a maze could not imagine a general search plan, since they saw nothing in front of them except a narrow passage between the walls. Therefore, their actions should only be considered as attempts to seek a path blindly. From a Gestalt psychology perspective, an animal or person must see the relationships between different parts of a problem before insight can occur.

The study of insight provided support for the Gestalt molar or global concept of behavior in its struggle with the molecular or atomistic views of the behaviorists. These studies also strengthened the idea put forward by Gestalt psychologists that learning involves a reorganization or restructuring of the psychological environment.

The fight against behaviorism

When Gestaltists became acquainted with trends in American psychology, they immediately saw new goal. Since they no longer had to oppose Wundt's psychology, they could criticize the reductionism and atomism of the behaviorists.

Proponents of Gestalt psychology argued that behaviorism, like Wundt's early theory, also dealt with artificial abstractions. In their opinion, for behaviorism there is no difference whether the analysis is carried out in terms of introspective reduction to elements of the psyche or in terms of objective reduction to units of conditioned response to a stimulus. In any case, the result of these views was a molecular rather than a molar approach.

Gestalt psychologists also criticized behaviorists for denying the validity of introspection and excluding it from consideration of consciousness. Koffka argued that it was pointless to develop a psychology devoid of elements of consciousness, as the behaviorists did, since such a science could offer little more than a set of studies about animal behavior.

Scientific disputes between supporters of both directions were extremely emotional and often led to personal conflicts. One day in 1941 in Philadelphia, when Clark Hull, Tolman, Wolfgang Köhler and several other psychologists went to a bar for beer after a scientific conference, Köhler loudly announced that he had heard Hull use an offensive expression in his lectures<эти чертовы геш - тальтисты>. Hull became embarrassed and reproachfully pointed out to Koehler that scientific disputes should not escalate into military action.

To this Koehler replied that “he is ready to discuss problems from the standpoint of scientific logic, but will always struggle with attempts to imagine a person as an automaton who begins to act when a coin is thrown at him.” And to enhance the impression of his words, “he loudly hit the table with his fist.”

Kurt Lewin's "field" theory

Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) - German psychologist, representative of the school of Gestalt psychology, father of dynamic social psychology.

Lewin developed his personality theory in line with Gestalt psychology, giving it the name “psychological field theory.” Despite some common ideas with Gestalt psychologists, Kurt Lewin's field theory should be distinguished from this movement. The main category of Gestal psychologists was the image, and for Lewin such a concept was the motive.

This theory was formed under the influence of the successes of the exact sciences - physics, mathematics. The beginning of the century was marked by discoveries in field physics, atomic physics, and biology. Having become interested in psychology at university, Levin<#"justify">B = f(P,E).

Where B is behavior, P is personality, E is environment.

Based on this, Lewin developed two partially complementary models to explain behavior: the personality model and the environment model.

The personality model operates with energies and tensions, i.e. scalar quantities.

The environmental model deals with forces and goal-directed behavior, i.e. vector quantities.

The main task of these two systems is to balance the voltage at the minimum voltage level.

The personality model consists of many regions. Each region corresponds to a specific action goal. According to their location, regions are divided into central (have the most importance, most characterize a person) and peripheral (less important, closest to human behavior). An important feature of the personality model is the state of boundaries. They can have different strength and permeability. Individual regions vary in voltage status. Areas with increased stress are called a stressed system. It is characterized by a tendency to balance tension with neighboring areas.

Generally this model helps in many ways to explain which action will begin after the end of the previous one and which will be resumed after an interruption. K. Levin, using the environmental model, describes the psychological structure of the surrounding world as a space of action. L= P+E, where L is living space, P is a person, E is his environment.

K. Levin believes that psychological structure the world represents the scene of action. Psychological space, or field, consists of various areas that structure not space in the geographical sense of the word, but psychologically possible actions and events. Some areas are target regions(if they have a positive valence) and danger regions(if negative), and others - instrumental capabilitiesactions, in other words, have the meaning of means of action. The environmental model does not so much explain as it describes possible actions and the space of these actions, i.e. This model is situational.

K. Lewin and social psychology

In the 1930s, Levin began to become interested in issues of social psychology. He was a pioneer in this unknown field, and his achievements entitle him to take his rightful place in the history of science.

The main feature of Lewin's social psychology is the introduction of the concept of group dynamics, applicable to both individual and group behavior. According to his views, just as the individual and his environment form the psychological field, so the group and its environment form the social field. Social behavior occurs within a group and is determined by competing subgroups, individual members, constraints, and communication channels. Thus, group behavior at any given time is a function general condition social field.

K. Levin studied the influence of leadership styles on people's behavior. He identified 4 leadership styles: democratic, authoritarian, liberal, permissive.

In 1939, K. Levin conducted an experiment. The subjects were teenage boys, the 4 groups were identical in composition. They were a children's club in which various crafts were made. The psychological characteristics of these groups were studied depending on the nature of their management. For 7 weeks, each group was assigned a leader who implemented a specific leadership style. Then another leader was appointed, with a different style. And in each group 4 leaders were successively replaced with different style leadership, i.e. The independent variable was leadership style.

Results: a low level of aggressive behavior in children was present with an authoritarian leadership style, BUT the transition from an authoritarian leadership style to others causes a sharp increase in aggression, the level of which then decreases.

In addition, Lewin emphasized the importance of studying collective action and related problems in order to correct social behavior. Concerned about rising racial tensions, he conducted group studies on a wide range of issues related to cohabitation and equal employment opportunities for persons with disabilities. different colors skin, as well as preventing the emergence of racial prejudice in their children. His approach to studying these issues allowed him to develop rigorous experimental methods for analyzing social problems.

Experiments of this kind opened a new page in the field of social research and made a significant contribution to the development of social psychology

Dissemination of the principles of Gestalt psychology in the field of psychotherapy

Gestalt therapy - a direction in psychotherapy<#"justify">Personality in the theory of Gestalt therapy is considered as a continuously ongoing process of interaction of the organism with the environment and with itself. There are three important functions in this process:

· ID is the totality of all bodily, affective and emotional processes;

· Personality - a set of processes of mnesis;

· Ego - function of choice, decision making, is activated only when there is a need to make a decision.

From the point of view of Serge Ginger, everything that happens to a person is an event that occurs at the contact boundary, that is, the contact boundary simultaneously ensures the isolation of a person from the environment and at the same time provides the possibility of interaction with the environment.

The approach to resistance in Gestalt therapy is fundamentally different from the approach of analytical trends. Gestalt considers resistances as ways of interaction of the organism with the environment, which once had high effectiveness for interaction, but here and now are either inappropriate or generally the only means of interaction available to the client (for example, for a drug addict client, the most in a characteristic way interaction will be a confluence of the second type, quite organic in the interaction between mother and baby). In this regard, the client’s resistance, naturally demonstrated by him during interaction with the therapist, is used as the basis for an effective search for the client’s unconscious needs.

Another function of Gestalt therapy is to make the client aware of his true needs. (For example, a young woman, the wife of a sailor, complains of being overweight. During therapy, it turns out that she gets very fat when her husband is sailing. A habit is also noted - at the beginning of the night she goes to the refrigerator and eats “to the fullest”, after which can sleep. During the course of therapy, the client is brought to an awareness of the true bodily need - the need for sex - "eaten" by lonely nights, accordingly, she gains awareness of what exactly she needs to solve the problem with).

F. Perls developed Gestalt therapy based on the practice of psychoanalysis<#"justify">The Gestalt therapist focuses the client’s attention on the awareness of the processes occurring “here and now” at each moment of the present time. Through this, Gestalt therapy develops awareness, responsibility and restores the ability to experience one's real emotions and feelings. Gestalt therapy methods are aimed at integrating the client’s perception of his own image as a whole in five areas of his life (S. Ginger’s pentagram):

· physical (all aspects of a person’s material and physical life: material well-being, physical health, sexual maturity),

· emotional (sphere of emotional experiences, feelings and the ability to express and understand them),

· rational (ability for rational thinking, planning, analysis, creativity, ability to foresee and create oneself and the world around),

· social (relations with other people, cultural environment, the whole complex of human social relations),

· spiritual (the place and knowledge of a person about himself and the surrounding cosmos, knowledge of the laws of life and spiritual values ​​and meanings on which a person relies).

The main methods of work and techniques of Gestalt therapy are leading to awareness, identifying and separating figure and background, focusing energy in the here-and-now, taking responsibility, working on polarities, art therapy, working in metaphor, monodrama. Some work techniques overlap with other areas of psychotherapy, for example, the famous F. Perls “hot chair” technique<#"justify">Therapy results

The main results of Gestalt therapy are increased awareness and the ability to appropriate one's own experience. Expanding awareness is a very slow process. The rhythm of awareness is individual. The ability to appropriate one's own experience is described in Gestalt therapy using the cycle of experience.

A contact cycle is each specific contact with any object that is relevant for a person. J. Zinker identifies six stages in it:

sensation;

awareness;

· mobilization of energy or excitement;

·action;

·contact;

·retreat.

Complications can arise at every stage. Our awareness must be clear and distinct. If awareness is supported by enough energy, we can move directly towards what we want. Actions lead to contact with the environment and are accompanied by feelings of satisfaction, resolution and closure. We can leave the situation, relax and walk away. A clear and complete exit gives us a fresh experience and is not accompanied by a painful feeling of incompleteness. Then a new awareness comes and the cycle begins again. The therapist's job is to help understand how and where the system is inhibited and how to use collective awareness and energy to overcome where the system is inhibited.

There are other considerations of the contact cycle - according to Paul Goodman, according to Serge Ginger (Genger) and some others.

Conclusion

In conclusion, let us dwell on the general assessment of Gestalt psychology.

Gestalt psychology is a psychological direction that arose in Germany in the early 10s and existed until the mid-30s. XX century (before the Nazis came to power, when most of its representatives emigrated) and continued to develop the problem of integrity posed by the Austrian school. First of all, M. Wertheimer, V. Köhler, K. Koffka, K. Levin belong to this direction. The methodological basis of Gestalt psychology was the philosophical ideas of “critical realism” and the positions developed by E. Hering, E. Mach, E. Husserl, I. Muller, according to which the physiological reality of processes in the brain and the mental, or phenomenal, are related to each other by isomorphism.

By analogy with electromagnetic fields in physics, consciousness in Gestalt psychology was understood as a dynamic whole, a “field” in which each point interacts with all the others.

For the experimental study of this field, a unit of analysis was introduced, which began to act as a gestalt. Gestalts were discovered in the perception of shape, apparent movement, and optical-geometric illusions.

Vygotsky assessed the structural principle introduced by Gestalt psychology in the sense of the new approach as “a great unshakable achievement of theoretical thought.” This is the essence and historical meaning of Gestalt theory.

Among other achievements of Gestalt psychologists, it should be noted: the concept of “psychophysical isomorphism” (identity of the structures of mental and nervous processes); the idea of ​​“learning through insight” (insight is a sudden understanding of the situation as a whole); new concept of thinking ( new item is perceived not in its absolute meaning, but in its connection and comparison with other objects); the idea of ​​“productive thinking” (i.e. creative thinking as the antipode of reproductive, patterned memorization); identifying the phenomenon of “pregnancy” (good form in itself becomes a motivating factor).

In the 20s XX century K. Lewin expanded the scope of Gestalt psychology by introducing the “personal dimension”.

The Gestalt approach has penetrated into all areas of psychology. K. Goldstein applied it to the problems of pathopsychology, E. Maslow - to the theory of personality. The Gestalt approach has also been successfully used in such fields as learning psychology, perceptual psychology and social psychology.

Gestalt psychology had a significant influence on neobehaviourism and cognitive psychology. The theory of Gestalt psychology, mainly the interpretation of intelligence in it, was the subject of special consideration in the works of J. Piaget.

Gestalt psychology has been used in the field of psychotherapeutic practice. One of the most widespread areas of modern psychotherapy is based on its general principles - Gestalt therapy, the founder of which is F. Perls (1893-1970).

From here it is clear what a huge contribution Gestalt psychology has made to the further development of world science.

List of used literature

1. Antsiferova L. I., Yaroshevsky M. G. Development and current state of foreign psychology. M., 1994.

Wertheimer M. Productive thinking. M., 1987.

Vygotsky L.S. Collected works in 6 volumes, M, 1982.

Zhdan A.N. History of psychology: from antiquity to modernity. M., 1999.

Koehler V. Study of the intelligence of anthropoid apes. M., 1999.

Levin K, Dembo, Festfinger L, Sire P. Level of aspirations. Psychology of Personality. Texts. M., 1982.

Levin K. Field theory in social sciences. St. Petersburg, 2000.

Martsinkovskaya T.D. History of psychology., M. Academy, 2004.

Petrovsky A.V., Yaroshevsky M.G. History and theory of psychology. In 2 volumes. Rostov-on-Don, 1996.

Rubinshtein S.L. Fundamentals of general psychology. M. Peter. 2008.

Yaroshevsky M. G. History of psychology. M., 2000.

Shultz D, Shultz S.E. History of modern psychology. St. Petersburg, 1998

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

A word in defense of the empty chair, or a few words for and against an experiment in modern Gestalt therapy (published in Gestalt 2008)

Elena Petrova

Does the experiment need to restore its good name in the eyes of practicing therapists? It would seem that such a formulation of the question is almost absurd, since an experiment is the “calling card” of a Gestalt session, both in individual and group work. It is difficult to imagine a therapist devoted to Gestalt ideas (even those who prefer dialogue) who would speak out against the experiment. However, it is not so common these days to see a well-prepared and clearly executed experiment in supervision sessions. And more and more often one can come across a condescendingly fearful memory of the client’s noisy and clearly primitive conversations “with an empty chair,” which left in the minds of both the psychotherapist and the client a vague feeling of meaningless play and confusion.

Gestalt therapists often avoid not only spatial experiments with “pillows,” but even, just in case, avoid experimental work with dream images. A Gestalt session increasingly takes place as a face-to-face and face-to-face conversation on two hard chairs. Why did this happen? Is this the objective truth of the development of therapy or an accidental fashion? The author of the article believes that the experiment was rejected as a tribute to fashion and honestly needs rehabilitation. Despite all the costs and abuses that have reduced its value in the eyes of the therapeutic community. However, there are several explanations for the negative attitude towards the experiment, and they are quite convincing. Firstly, the fashion for a dialogue approach. Secondly, some fears of the therapist about the surprise that each experiment brings. And thirdly, oddly enough, the ambivalence of the experience itself that can be obtained by a person during the experiment. We argue that when used correctly, the experiment can be of great benefit to the therapist. And we offer several methodological considerations that can justify the use of the experiment. So, the experiment itself is not the monopoly of the Gestalt therapist. Psychotherapists of various directions, trainers, teachers, social workers use role-playing games, business games, symbolic or simulation experiments for a variety of purposes. We can find experiments of many different types, from frustrating to educational, from exploratory in relation to unconscious reactions to mass training tasks that offer solutions to ethical conflicts. There is an opinion that the very idea of ​​​​using an experiment in psychotherapy was borrowed by Gestalt therapists from psychodrama (“conversation with an empty chair”, constellations, dialogue of polarities) or from training on body work and mindfulness workshop (those experiments that were included in the famous Gestalt therapy workshop were developed in “body awareness” training by German psychotherapist Charlotte Silver)

Types of experiments by function and place in the session.

1. Provocative experiment (frustration).

2. An experiment aimed at gaining new experience in a given context.

3. Research experiment.

4. Focusing experiment (collection and clarification of information)

5. Creative adaptation

Types of experiments by form of work

1.An experiment with role modeling of relationships with a person or in a group.

2. Theatrical exhibition reflecting intrapersonal processes (symbolic experiments).

3. experiments on building verbal communication

4. Individual experiments with amplification of bodily experience.

5. experiments on the bodily representation of a situation (group sculpture)

6. Experiments with metaphors and dreams.

7. Experiments with polarities

Types of experiment according to the form of conduct.

1. experiment for free exploration of feelings and gaining new experiences. (participants and therapist do not have a predetermined plan about what exactly will be experienced)

2. a structured experiment to obtain a specific type of experience.

The therapist offers several operations and tasks, when performed sequentially, the person is faced with a focused experience of experience, which promotes deeper awareness. What experiments are appropriate at different phases of the contact cycle? At different stages of the contact cycle the therapist uses various experiments, having different goals. In the precontact phase, this is an experiment that focuses and excites energy. At the contact phase, the experiment is rather exploratory in nature. At the final contact phase, this is an experiment that creates a precedent for a new type of relationship or a new contact. The classification of experiments in terms of their placement according to the contact cycle is somewhat arbitrary, but the therapist can focus on it when thinking about the details of setting up the experiment. Note that this classification is based on the contact cycle that develops in the client’s personal field. If we consider the contact cycle of the relationship between the client and the therapist, then the experiment should be proposed only if the client and therapist have created a partnership, and the client is able to maintain his EGO function at the time the experiment begins.

The experiment is created in the zone emotional stress. The therapist chooses a place for the experiment if the communication tension in the session needs to be changed. This could be a gain task or a voltage decrease task. The intensity of energy in communication is easily registered by the therapist as he listens carefully to the client at different stages of the session. The therapist identifies several components and figures from those named by the client, and draws attention to them, creating the composition of the experiment. Elements of composition and connections between elements of composition in the experiment literally become a spatial reflection of the elements of tension in the mental field. In other words, it is a reflection of elements of emotional stress that are missed or inappropriate in verbal communication. As an example, let us recall the systemic constellations taken from psychodrama that have become popular recently. The Gestalt approach borrowed from psychodrama the method of creating a composition of constellations for working with dreams and metaphors. A similar type of experiment is represented by systemic constellations according to Bert Helinger, which make it possible to create compositions of fairly abstract episodes of mental life and complex existential problems. The most popular experiments are those that use the method of placement in physical space (using toys, special pillows, or even figures of participants in a group lesson)

Composition in space has several characteristics, each of which contributes to the construction of the structure of contact and reflects the structure of a person’s inner mental space. These are vector characteristics of space, the boundaries of objects, their mutual arrangement, neighborhood. Vectoring determines the direction and distance in three-dimensional space (above, below, further, closer); mutual arrangement reflects possible connections and groupings between objects. From the projection rule it is clear that such a relative arrangement of objects literally reflects in three-dimensional space the situation of interpersonal connections, which is determined by emotions and attitudes, that is, it creates a three-dimensional dynamic model of existing emotions and relationships.

When making an experiment as an action in real space and real time, let us remember Kurt Lewin. When a person makes a subjective description of his mental world, he uses spatial and temporal characteristics that are almost identical to the descriptive characteristics of the objective world. In other words, the space of internal intrapsychic reality, which can be called the internal field of the psyche, in terms of subjective perception is arranged by analogy with the field of the physical three-dimensional material world. This is a world where the laws of Newtonian mechanics apply. Let us recall that in “material, real” physical space we can deal with three-dimensional physical space and with the characteristics of time. And we use vector formulas to describe interactions.

As the topic develops, modern mathematics offers more complex constructions. The modern approach uses the concept of networks (including social networks in the field of interpersonal relationships) and a mathematical apparatus that corresponds to this description system, this is graph theory. But we will consider this system separately. In the usual form of spatial experiment within the framework of an individual or group gestalt session, we use the characteristics of time (understood as the sequence of events) and the characteristics of space (the placement of characters and objects in physical space, closer or further, higher or lower). The time characteristic can also be used in popular experiments that use a “time line”. In this case, a person is asked to arrange “along a timeline” the events that happened to him during his life. In these instructive experiments, time has a spatial projection: if we compare two objects from the point of view of them as events in time, then in the space of the experiment we will place two such objects at different distances from the observer. What was more distant (preceded) in time is located further in distance. We will not discuss the mysterious nature of such parallelism here. Some thinkers believe that man created a picture of the spatial world as a copy (in terms of the sign system) of the intrapsychic world. Other authoritative authors support the feedback hypothesis, believing that the mental picture of the world is the result of practical activity in the space of the physical world. These preliminary considerations allow us to move on to a discussion of the four nonspecific resources that make an experiment possible.

Spatial metaphor (a consequence of phenomena noticed in K. Lewin’s field theory) The effect of projecting experiences into physical space. In everyday logic, it corresponds to the idea of ​​“looking at the situation from the outside.” Integrity of movement. A common idea about the truth of the body and the truth of expressive holistic movement When a person's body is engaged in movement, its biomechanics themselves adjust the combination of muscle work. This combination suggests the composition and form of the movement. The beginning of movement increases the activity of the entire bodily complex. A body in motion can support only one “topic” without internal contradiction, so a holistic movement encourages a person to focus on one thought and push the rest into the background.. Cultural experience of morphology and syntax. Speech as an additional world Corresponds to the everyday theme of the type “as long as you tell it, you will understand it yourself.” The form of the statement suggests a continuation, following a pattern and example. And pulls the speaker along with him, focusing energy. Field Excitation Effect Contact Energy Creating an interactive dialogue excites energy. By creating changes in the system by the very fact of action

First resource: spatial metaphor. The effect of increasing energy is based on the fact that when projecting internal experience into the metaphorical space of the physical world, a person receives a spatial copy of the experience, in which the “boundaries” of the figures of mental space become the literal boundaries of physical space. This gives stimulation of feelings and creates conditions for better focusing and detailing of experience, for awareness of the details of the structure of the conflict and so on.

Second resource: physical movement activity. In Gestalt therapy this is a well-known amplification method. Or creating a spatial copy of an abstract image with movement, or simply intensifying a vague feeling and transferring it “from the depths of the body” (that is, from the area for which smooth muscles and interoreceptors are responsible) to the external, contact area. That is, in the area for which skeletal muscles are responsible, the area of ​​spatial movement. This nonspecific resource provides the basis for activation of the entire organism due to the fact that energy and muscular experience of spatial behavior are added to the solution of mental problems of the “internal mental world” type. In terms of somato-psychic regulation, we recall that the motor cortex is involved, and the entire human experience in terms of receiving feedback from the external objective environment. Experience of contact with one’s own process and experience of contact with the boundary of the physical world. An example of the beginning of such an experiment would be the therapist's proposal: “Are you feeling anxious? Express the vibration that you understand as anxiety more strongly. Increase the amplitude. Understand what your body is doing now as the beginning of a thematically organized movement. Move as if EVERYTHING your body was expressing the anxiety that you are now experiencing inside! Another suggestion from the therapist would be more succinct: “Strengthen this movement!”

Third resource: grammatical and morphological rules of speech (language). Speech proficiency, that is, free use of the sign system of native speech, automatically encourages a native speaker to use familiar, ready-made, grammatically recognized formulas. Most often, pronouncing a coherent text out loud, especially “with expression” and targeted, creates additional support for focusing attention and clarity of thought. This effect is confirmed by the famous saying “as long as I’ve told you, I’ve understood it!” The therapist can encourage the client to make a full statement! This effect is especially important for those who speak and think in Russian. Liberty grammatical rules language use in Russian (compared to Romance languages) gives the subject the freedom to increase or decrease the degree of clarity of the statement. Involving a person in the storytelling process adds energy, and the subjective pleasure of a well-formulated thought is often liberating. “Now let’s discuss what’s happening to you!” Such a proposal gives the subject the initial impulse to connect what is in the body and what is currently in the emotions.

Fourth resource: the energy of contact and meeting. Any collision between a person and another person is accompanied by excitement or the experience of a slight emotional shock. The effect of another person's presence enlivens the subject. This effect has a specifically human character. The energy of the meeting and the experience of novelty and freshness of relationships that develops this process gives a unique increase in terms of mental energy and liberation of feelings. To summarize, we note that the small increase in energy that any of the above forms of experiment gives is quite valuable. But it must be recalled that these effects are significantly reduced if the client performs the experiment only following the recommendation (following the suggestion) of the therapist mechanistically, against his own will. In this case, the experiment is performed by the client as " physical exercise", or the task of "therapeutic physical education". We also include in the area of ​​little use those forms of activity that are called "acting out" or "acting out". Although the client manifests himself quite vigorously and vividly, the lack of the effect of awareness reduces the subjective experience of energy, replacing it with a more primitive structure of the experience of arousal. Of course, part of the effect of increasing arousal still appears even with the client's involuntary participation in a formal experiment. But such an increase in energy is not convenient for the client, who can either ignore it or even use this “increase in energy” to increase resistance therapy. Therefore, as mentioned above, the therapist can recommend the principle of voluntariness in situations where he offers the client an experiment. In this case, the addition of energy gives the client pleasure and creates the preconditions for focus and awareness.

The principle of small steps in experiment. It is important to follow the principle: one experiment, one figure. Increasing the number of figures that can emerge from the unfolding of the experiment may attract the therapist with depth and completeness, but based on experience, it is worth recommending restrictions in the field of expanding the field. The positive property of the experiment is most often that the limitation (reduction of freedom and reduction of variability of the situation) of conditions creates the prerequisites for the mobilization of energy. In an experiment, the client has fewer figures to observe than in life, therefore, by increasing time and by relying on the framework of the experiment, he can use with greater effect to focus the amount of energy that he currently has at his disposal. Increasing the number of components of the experiment or changing the figure to a deeper one often confuses the client, he loses the thread of the experiment, and some symbolic action (such as “acting out”) takes the place of awareness (everenes).

The fact is that the experiment itself is most often started in a situation where the therapist is dealing with an interruption of contact and the experiment itself, obviously, serves as a tool for confronting this interruption, creating conditions for the return of freedom and awareness. Slipping from experience to experience for the client will not so much be an experience of “depth”, but also an experience of lack of boundaries and lack of focus. What should a therapist do if during an experiment the original plan begins to “float?” Natural advice: if new figures appear, you should stop the old experiment, discuss its results, and then start a new experiment with new figures! Some exceptions to the proposed rules may be research and diagnostic experiments, which may be aimed at finding hidden or avoided figures. But in these experiments, the therapist also helps the client register new figures and then discuss them in a focused manner. Responsibility of the therapist and responsibility of the client. As a rule, the therapist himself begins the experiment. that is, the therapist himself proposes to do an experiment, and obtains the client’s consent and his interest in the result of this experiment. That is, it establishes a partnership agreement regarding the upcoming action and equally distributes responsibility with the client. Common mistake The therapist begins to ask the client about the content of the future experiment in terms of thematic desire. That is, he asks whether the client wants to do an experiment, similar to how he asks the client about current desires, motives and needs. However, one must understand that a therapeutic experiment is a special tool for the therapist, it is a special form of research and it is aimed against the client’s resistance to therapy. therefore, such a naive proposal often causes confusion among the client. “I was first offered to talk to my great-grandmother, and then they asked me in what form I wanted to do this! But I did not want this very action before the therapist suggested it to me. I have always avoided, on the contrary, remembering my relationship with my great-grandmother !". Therefore, the therapist’s usual formula “I suggest you do this!”

The therapist comes up with the composition of the experiment; this is his creative contribution to the session. And the client joins in and finds the missing energy in the game. Important stage in conducting an experiment, this is its end. At this point in the session, the therapist and client complete the experiment and move on to dialogue. It often seems to the therapist that the client will “somehow” come out of the experiment when it gradually fades and loses energy. Often you can even observe situations when the therapist forgets that on his own initiative he proposed (started) an experiment to the client, and talks to one of the roles in the composition as if he were a whole person. Sometimes the therapist feels that it is possible to establish contact and relationship, hoping that the effect will continue after the experiment is completed. this is not a very smart approach. as well as a simple invitation to a person to “stay with it” ... the usual form of ending an experiment is a free discussion between the therapist and the client about the results of the experiment. I most often ask the client directly about “how he evaluates the results of the experiment, what he found interesting.” This principle of “discussion as equals” makes room for the client’s EGO function. It seems to me that there are several reasons why the therapist finds it difficult to clearly indicate the moment of completing the experiment and returning to a dialogue relationship, to a direct meeting with the client. Most often this is countertransference. For example, the therapist may like the state of the client’s emotions and feelings during the experiment, and out of kindness he will hope that the client’s state will now change and it is necessary to consolidate it so that the client does not lose it!” Or the therapist got distracted and simply forgot the moment from which he began experiment.

By the way, I recommend that therapists, before starting the experiment, tentatively plan its composition, including the tentative composition of the completion of the exit from the experiment. Although later, during the setup of the experiment, the therapist will improvise. And be sure to always discuss the results freely and as equals after the experiment, and thereby move on to dialogue! Note that the question of an indefinite type “what was that for you?” rarely provides a way to begin such a partner conversation, since it encourages the client to interpret himself, his actions, and make a self-report to the therapist. In such cases, sometimes clients feel anxious and even ask the therapist to make an interpretation. But the therapist’s question to the client is like: “Now the experiment is over. How do you feel about the experiment, what did you find interesting and useful?” promotes the idea of ​​meeting and partnership well. Why do therapists sometimes fear experimentation and prefer talking? Here are some answers to the question “why are you avoiding the experiment?”, obtained during discussions of the presented material in study groups. “Because they are afraid of the unpredictability, that the client himself will make changes without the participation of the therapist,” “That the relationship with the therapist will change, that the therapist will not keep up with the speed of the client’s feelings,” “Because the therapist has only a few seconds (5-10 seconds) and don’t have time to come up with an idea”, “Because it seems that the client still has little energy”, “That the experiment may not work out and then the client will think badly of the therapist”, “That the client will not obey or disagree ".

In general, the experiment is a risk not only for the client, but also for the therapist. It can be predictable in form, in the composition of roles or figures, but it simply must be, must be unpredictable in content!!! Otherwise, why is it needed? An experiment, by definition, contains novelty. That’s why it’s so disappointing that many therapists, as an experiment, offer something like didactic tasks or compositions that hint at successful resolution of situations! Refusal of an experiment or failure of an experiment. An experiment that is unsuccessful or too difficult for the client is more harmful than useful, despite the energy of the feeling. It is important that the client maintain an attitude of awareness and freedom while performing the experiments. if awareness is impaired, the experiment should simply be completed! Refusal of the experiment is simply a reason for a free dialogue with the client about his motives, a good start to more direct contact. And there is no need to insist on finishing the experiment. In addition, we will discuss ways to conduct an experiment in a session and the therapist’s position. The experiment is usually suggested by the therapist on his own initiative. There is no point in asking a client if he "wants" to do an experiment. however, it is always necessary to obtain consent for the experiment, otherwise it will simply be violence.

The mere suggestion of an experiment on the part of the therapist is a form of confrontation with the interruption of contact demonstrated by the client. Therefore, the therapist must propose the experiment unambiguously, clearly indicate the place, form, time of beginning and place of completion of the experiment, in order to then proceed to its discussion of the client’s motives and the therapist’s tactics. How to avoid mistakes when setting up an experiment. Possible motive for the client to participate in the experiment: The therapist can arouse the client's active curiosity to conduct an experiment in which the client will be confronted with the process being rejected. This should not be confused with the fact that the client pays attention to his gestures and explains the functions of this gesture. The task is to draw the subject's attention to his own secrets. At the same time, we remember that the therapist makes the proposal of the experiment in a completely directive manner, therefore the client carries out precisely the therapist’s order, made in an imperative form.

Example of work: situation in a session. the client finds it difficult to speak freely, experiences stiffness and tension. The therapist does not have the opportunity to directly discuss the client's feelings, and pays attention to his hand. Therapist. “I suggest you speak on behalf of the hand.” Client: “My hand... I’m tense, I’m afraid to make an unnecessary movement...” Therapist: “You may notice that it’s really difficult for you to express yourself now..” Errors in this experiment may be associated with the therapist’s excessive activity. For example, the therapist may forget that stopping a feeling has a reason. For example, shame. And if the therapist simply suggests expanding these feelings, it is a risky action for the client. After all, if you look at the situation realistically, in the actual session, there was not enough space or energy for the client before the experiment to place these feelings in the space of the relationship between the client and the therapist in a direct form. Therefore, the subject of the agreement between the therapist and the client will be the very interest in “hidden feelings”, the truth of the experiment, among which there will be a surprise for the client in the treatment from the therapist, and the conditions for how these still unknown feelings will be accepted. The therapist may ask “what do you think I can do, and what can you do so that these feelings that are found can find a suitable form and place. Errors, therefore, can be caused by the therapist’s haste and excessive directiveness, that is, by violating the contractual relationship and violating the principle of equality and meeting. The fact is that the client can enter the experiment from different self functions. Can be carried out by either ID, PERSONALITY, or EGO function. But we will be interested only in the EGO function.

It is the ego function that the therapist will address when discussing the experiment with the client. Violations in this case are an appeal from the therapist to the client like “would he be interested in talking on behalf of the hand.” If you think about it, this is an “aximoron”. A person can hardly want (in the sense of need) to speak on behalf of a part of his body. The hand has already satisfied this need with its gesture. But, as we discussed earlier, a person may be interested in doing an experiment, motivated by his own interest in his own secrets, something that is outside the contact zone. Be interested in something about yourself that is currently inaccessible to him.

Experiment function during the start of the consultation. The experiment is appropriate not only as part of long-term therapy, but also during short-term consultation. The experiment is suggested by the therapist, and this paradoxical action helps the client move from a long, ordinary and familiar conversation to action. Such an experiment has a diagnostic and educational (demonstration) function, so it does not have to be very deep and serious. Its task is to focus attention and excite energy. The experiment creates a saturation of figures with emotional energy, aggravates the composition of the conflict, if there is a conflict, and reveals unfinished actions. at the same time, it must be superficial enough so as not to frighten or “overload” the client. A provocative diagnostic experiment in the initial phase of the session creates a positive emotional mood in the client and then provides an opportunity to reveal emotions. the client understands that this is his own optics, and not a story of what could have been. Experiments are suggested by the therapist, focusing on the client’s condition and the material communicated to him. An experiment at the beginning of a session, however, can be offered to the client if he easily makes contact with the therapist and is himself in the contact phase (dynamically expresses feelings, indicates a contradiction of opinions or conflict, demonstrates interruptions such as retroflection or projection. According to the content in this experiment we join the client's relevance and in the experiment we strengthen those tendencies that have already been highlighted by the client. At the beginning of the session, it is not worth doing experiments that confront the client's beliefs or require serious competence. In fact, we collect in the composition of the experiment those elements that were already present presented by the client at the start of the experiment. Thanks to the playful and expressive form that the experiment offers, the elements of the background become more active and a figure begins to form. It is easier for the client, thanks to this organization of the background, to focus attention and more easily process such simplified material. The therapist’s position is different in that the therapist tries to guess in advance what remarks and movements the client might make during the experiment. This condition can help the therapist avoid excessive depth and complexity of the client's experiences, while maintaining freshness of feeling. It may seem paradoxical that too much complexity at the beginning of a session can drain the client's energy and deprive him of confidence in what is happening. Therefore, in the experiment it is worth choosing a fragment of psychologically significant material that is feasible for the client.

The choice of place and method of conducting the experiment and the position of the therapist. An experiment during a session is usually proposed by the therapist, this step on the part of the therapist, that is, the proposal of an experiment on the part of the therapist in itself is the introduction of a new figure into the contact situation. The experiment develops energy, supports the process of differentiation and focusing, and provides space for integrity (unification of body, emotions, mind). These positive aspects do not interfere with understanding the other side of the experiment, as an additional form of organizing contact, compared to the meeting between the client and the therapist. In this sense, often during a session, an experiment is a form of confrontation with an interruption of contact that the client demonstrates. In this case, the experiment can be understood as a variant of “suppression tactics.” The name suppression tactics was proposed by Perls to designate the therapist's overt tactics of confrontation with interruptions of contact on the part of the client. Therefore, the therapist must offer the experiment unambiguously, clearly indicate the place of beginning and place of completion.

Examples of experiments. Most popular experiments

1. Metaphorical work. Translation from one system to another using metaphor as an additional expressive “decisive semantic machine.” "Express this problem in metaphorical form!" A game. Using the translation of mental life events from one modality to another. These are suggestions from the therapist like: “speak on behalf of the hand!”, “speak on behalf of tension”, “play the role of a character from a dream!”, “express your state with sound.” Polarity effect. The introduction of a contrasting pair to the figures available to the client creates a revitalizing effect. Regardless of whether an alternative role or an abstraction is chosen, in a situation of polarities the appeal to polarity expands the field and saturates the background. Some of the risk of such techniques is that the client's attention wanders, and he sometimes has to simply switch to a new figure. Experiments are popular in which polarities “meet” in an argument, as two people might meet in a dispute. Addressing an imaginary figure (dialogue with an empty chair). This effect is based on a combination of movement and spoken text. A monologue delivered in a targeted manner and with an expression addressed to a figure designated in space by a symbol (pillow, object) encourages a person to coordinate his experiences and focus. It is possible to develop the theme as a dialogue between the figures. Group sculpture. A popular group experiment in which the client makes a story about his situation, and then creates a spatial sculptural portrait of the group members, reflecting the dynamic semantics of the internal connections of his situation. Typically, in such an experiment, the client rearranges the participants and changes places many times, thereby increasing his awareness.

2.Dog on top and dog on bottom. The name of the experiment was proposed by F. Perls, using an idiom that was popular in America and little understood in Russia. Despite the strangeness of the name, this experiment wonderfully happens in a group when two chairs are placed, and they take turns stepping onto these chairs. The example of previous participants plays a big role. The participant “gets sick” and gives their emotions and warms up those who take these “role” chairs. from one chair a person speaks on behalf of his internal position of the “must do” type; from the second chair a person speaks on behalf of his internal position of a “natural resisting” character. The benefits of working in a group with this experiment are obvious. Firstly, participants get used to improvisation. In addition, some feelings and statements are legalized. The group members get used to noticing the switching of energy from one of the figures to another. It is essential that the presenter maintains the enthusiasm of each figure and encourages them to talk about what they want!

3.Polarity. Much has been said and written about polarities. Not everyone likes experiments with polarities. The number of pairing options is endless, starting with “I’m kind - “I’m evil”, “smart-stupid”, “kindness-aggressiveness”, and ending with perfect abstractions. There are opinions that working with polarities is effective, but confuses the client. Most often, the effect of confusion , however, arises in a situation where an inattentive therapist often begins as an experiment with the poles of one semantic axis, and ends up unexpectedly for the therapist with a conflict of roles. And we must remember, take into account that the tactics of supporting experiments with internal conflict are very different from the tactics of supporting experiments with polarities In general, however, it is worth saying that the use of polarities spontaneously proposed during the session for an experiment enlivens the situation and provides additional emotional material for work.

4 “The Empty Chair” The “empty chair” has long been a byword. There is something odious about him. Of course, it is difficult to consider it a hallmark of modern Gestalt therapy, especially since it is essentially borrowed from psychodrama. And it is used in many different tasks in the practice of all modern therapy. But Gestalt therapists have their own motives for being friends with this experiment. No matter how the experiment with the arrangement of empty chairs reflects the spatial disposition. That is, it projects into physical space those vectors that take place in the emotional space of a person. When is it needed? Of course, in moments when it is necessary to clarify relationships with specific people, with a departed or deceased person. And in those cases when the therapist’s confrontation with the client’s fusion is difficult, and the person experiences a complex conglomerate of feelings that are difficult for him to differentiate. The effect of talking to an empty chair from the point of view of Gestalt therapy is primarily that composing a complete text clarifies the message and makes the experience more coherent. At the same time, we should not focus on this experiment as a topic of "behavior rehearsal." This play therapy work is not Gestalt specific. The authors believe that a meeting, a confrontation of two opposites, is necessary, which will result in the development of figures and the beginning of contact. The idea, classic for the analytical tradition, that it is necessary to develop internal conflict in external physical or fantasy space is also naturally reflected in experiments with empty chairs. A literary analogue of this method can easily be found in the works of the famous science fiction writer Robert Sheckley ("The Alchemical Marriage of Alistair Crompton" and other stories)

Conclusion. Partner dialogue and built-in experiment. Using the example of the popular experiment “talking on behalf of a body part,” we will consider an important problem in which the combination of two styles of establishing contact in one communication is discussed. One of them is the question of whether an episode of working with internal phenomenology within the framework of a partner dialogue is possible in an experiment? And more broadly, how appropriate is the experiment in the course of a partnership dialogue. As an initial hypothesis, we will propose the idea that any form of experiment can be placed within the framework of a clearly structured dialogue with a clear distribution of responsibility. An experiment is a joint action of two people who understand each other, who are ready to cooperate and who are sincerely happy to make an effort to organize change. It is an act of co-creation. Which has its own shape, its own frame (beginning and ending) and its own unique form of completion. In essence, the therapist organizes the action of the experiment as a project with a separate figure, and this project goes through all four phases of the contact cycle. Pre-contact – discussion and motivation of the client, selection of a topic for the experiment. Contacting is the arrangement of the composition of the experiment, final contact is the action in the experiment, and finally post-contact is the discussion between the therapist and the client of the experience gained in the experiment. (October 5, 2006 - January 30, 2008 St. Petersburg)

Taken from the site http://www.gestalttrening.ru/?groupMenu=221

Gestalt psychology basic principles. The concept of Gestalt psychology.

The concept and basic ideas of Gestalt psychology.

Gestalt psychology- a science that has become the most productive option in solving the problem of preserving the integrity of Austrian and German psychology. The main representatives of Gestalt psychology, such as M. Wertheimer, W. Köhler and K. Koffka, K. Lewin, created a science to counter structuralism.

They put forward the following ideas of Gestalt psychology:

The subject of Gestalt psychology is consciousness, the understanding of which should be built on the principle of integrity;

Consciousness is a dynamic whole where everything interacts with each other;

The unit of analysis of consciousness is the gestalt, i.e. holistic figurative structure;

The main method of studying Gestalts was direct and objective observation and description of the contents of one’s own perception;

Perception does not come from sensations because they do not exist in reality;

Visual perception is the most important mental process that can determine the level of development of the psyche, which has its own laws;

Thinking cannot be considered as a set of specific knowledge and skills formed through trial and error. Thus, thinking is the process of determining and solving the conditions of a problem, through structuring the field in real time. Experience gained in the past does not have any significance for solving a problem.

Gestalt psychology is a science that has studied integral structures consisting of the psychic field, developing the latest experimental methods. Representatives of Gestalt psychology believed that the subject of this science is undoubtedly the study of the psyche, the analysis of all cognitive processes, the dynamics and structure of personality development. The methodological approach to the study of this science is based on the concept of mental field, phenomenology and isomorphism. Mental gestalts have similar physical and psychophysical characteristics, i.e. the processes occurring in the cerebral cortex are similar to the processes occurring in the external world and which we are aware of in our experiences and thoughts. Each person is able to understand their own experiences and find a way out of the current situation. Currently, almost all properties of perception have been revealed thanks to research. The importance of this process in the formation and development of imagination, thinking and other cognitive functions has also been proven. This type of thinking is a complete process of forming imaginative ideas about the world around us, allowing us to reveal the most important mechanisms of creative thinking.

History of the emergence and development of Gestalt psychology.

For the first time, the concept of Gestalt psychology was introduced in 1890 by H. Ehrenfels while studying the processes of perception. The main property of this process was the property of transposition, i.e. transfer. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Leipzig School was created, where, in fact, a complex quality, permeated with feeling, was defined as a single experience. Gestaltists soon begin to go beyond the boundaries of psychology, thereby all By the 50s, with the advent of fascism, the manifestation of a sharp desire for Gestalt psychology subsided. This science had a huge impact on the process of formation and development of psychological science. And by 1978, the International Psychological Community was created under the name “Gestalt Theory and Its Applications,” which included the following representatives from different countries of the world: Germany (Z. Ertel, G. Portele, M. Stadler, K. Huss), USA ( A. Lachins, R. Arnheim, son of M. Wertheimer Michael Wertheimer) and others, Finland, Italy, Austria, Switzerland.

Basic ideas, facts and principles of Gestalt psychology.

One of the most important representatives of Gestalt psychology is the philosopher Max Wertheimer. His works were devoted to the study of visual perception experimentally. The data obtained during his research laid the foundations for the approach to perception (and later to other psychological processes) and stimulated criticism of associationism. Thus, the main principle of the formation of the psyche became the principle of integrity, according to which concepts and images are formed. Conducting research and perception allowed us to discover the laws of perception, and later the laws of Gestalt. They made it possible to reveal the content of mental processes during the interaction of stimuli throughout the body, correlating, structuring and preserving individual images. In this case, the relationships between object images should not be static, motionless, but should be determined by changing relationships established in the process of cognition. Further experimental studies by Wertheimer made it possible to establish that there are many factors on which the stability of the figure and its perfection depend. This includes common color, rhythm in the construction of rows, common light and much more. The action of these factors is subject to the main law, according to which actions are interpreted as a desire for stable states at the level of electrochemical processes.

Since perceptual processes are considered innate, while explaining the peculiarities of the functioning of the cerebral cortex, the necessary objectivity arises, turning psychology into an explanatory science. Analysis of problem situations, as well as methods for solving them, allowed Wertheimer to identify several stages of thinking processes:

The emergence of a directed sense of tension, mobilizing the creative forces of each person;

Conducting an analysis of the situation and awareness of the problem to create a unified image of the current situation;

Solving the current problem;

Decision-making;

Execution stage.

Wertheimer's experiments revealed the negative influence of habitual methods of perceiving structural relationships. Published publications examine the analysis of creative thinking (its mechanisms) and the problems of creativity in science.

Gestalt psychology: subject, method, areas of research, basic concepts.

The problem of integrity is the main problem of Gestalt psychology. The subject is mental integrity. The term "Gestalt" was first introduced by Enface.

The method is phenomenological.

Areas of study:

Perception (factors and laws of structure formation; principle of isomorphism)

Integrity principles:

1. the supra-summality of the whole – cannot be reduced to the sum of its component parts. It was based on the fact that the elements that make up the whole can change in their characteristics. If changes do not affect the structure of the whole, they do not change the quality of the whole

2. transposability of the whole (gestalt remains recognizable also in transposed form)

Gestalt psychology arose in the early 20s in Germany as a reaction against atomism and mechanism of all varieties of associative psychology. Founding fathers: M. Wertheimer, V. Köhler, K. Koffka - representatives of the Berlin School; and, of course, a huge contribution was made by K. Levin, who founded his own school.

The concept of “gestalt” was introduced by Ehrenfels in the article “On the quality of form” (1890) in the study of perceptions.

1912 – article on the perception of movement. This year is the birth date of Gestalt psychology. The task is not a description of the experiments, but an interpretation in the light of the principle of isomorphism, the action of multidirectional forces, the basis of which is gestalts.

1918 – Köhler conducted experiments with monkeys. This is also the beginning of Gestalt psychology. It was discovered that thinking and intelligence are different in monkeys and humans. If an animal combines the conditions and means of solution into a single whole, then after some time insight arises (sudden recognition of connections for a solution).

1920 – Köhler conducts an experiment with chickens. He showed that the chicken reacts not to individual influences, but to holistic relationships between the elements of the situation. Gestalt is a fundamental property of the psyche.

Koffka - an explanation of development from the perspective of Gestalt: initially the world is Gestalt, but Gestalts do not communicate with one another and are not perfect enough on their own.

20th - journal "psychological research". Spread of psychology. The basic principles of Gestalt psychology are formulated.

1926 – Levin publishes the book “Intentions...”

The pioneers of holistic psychology were the scientists of the Leipzig School - F. Kruger, I. Volkelt, F. Zander (late 10s - late 30s of the 20th century). The main concept of their psychology is the concept of complex quality as a holistic experience, permeated with feeling. They didn’t develop it - they were afraid of some methodological difficulties.

The history of Gestalt psychology begins with the publication of M. Wertheimer’s work “Experimental Studies of the Perception of Movement” (1912), which questioned the usual idea of ​​the presence of individual elements in the act of perception. In this work he described the effect of apparent movement (stroboscopic movement). Very entertaining.

Immediately after this, the Berlin School of Gestalt psychology developed around Wertheimer in Berlin: M. Wertheimer, K. Koffka (1886-1941), W. Köhler (1887-1967), K. Lewin (1890-1947). Research covered perception, thinking, needs, affects, and will. In general, Gestaltists have seriously gone beyond the boundaries of psychology → let’s define all the processes of reality by the laws of Gestalt!

Central to Gestalt psychology is the problem of integrity and a holistic approach, as opposed to the elementalism and mechanism of the old, associative, and new, behaviorist, psychology.

Important points:

1. A new understanding of the subject and method of psychology: it is important to start with a naive picture of the world, study reactions as they are, study experience that has not been analyzed, preserving its integrity. In this structure, individual elements stand out; they really exist. But they are secondary and stand out according to their functional significance in this whole. The whole cannot be decomposed into elements, since then it ceases to exist.

2. Criticism of the method of analytical introspection. Gestaltists believed that analysis is a continuation, initially perception gives a holistic picture. Analytical introspection was contrasted with another phenomenological method, aimed at a direct and natural description by the observer of the content of his perception, his experience. In contrast to introspective psychology, subjects were required to describe the object of perception not as they know it, but as they see it at the moment. There are no items in this description.

3. Through experiments using the phenomenological method, it was found that elements of the visual field are combined into a perceptual structure depending on a number of factors. These factors are the proximity of elements to each other, similarity of elements, isolation, symmetry, etc. The position was formulated that a holistic image is a dynamic structure and is formed according to special laws of organization. → Formulation of some laws of perception (I’m not describing it, because I think that everyone remembers this very well):

The law of differentiation of figure and background; (separation of visual sensations into an object - a figure located on the background)

Law of pregnancy (the existence of a tendency to perceive the simplest and most stable figure of all possible perceptual alternatives.)

Law of addition to the whole (amplification) (clear but incomplete structures were always complemented to a clear geometric whole.)

4. This phenomenology was explained using the principle of isomorphism. → Structures are not the result of mental activity. The mental world is an exact structural reproduction of the dynamic organization of the corresponding brain processes.

5. Experimental study of thinking (Köhler, Wertheimer, Duncker, Mayer). According to Köhler, the intellectual solution consists in the fact that the elements of the field, previously not connected, begin to unite into a certain structure corresponding to the problem situation. The structuring of the field in accordance with the problem occurs suddenly as a result of discretion (insight), provided that all the elements necessary for the solution are in the animal’s field of perception. Wertheimer extends this principle to human problem solving → identifying the main stages of thinking:

The emergence of a theme → the appearance of a feeling of “directed tension”, which mobilizes a person’s creative powers;

Analysis of the situation, awareness of the problem → creation of a holistic image of the situation;

Problem solving → largely unconsciously, although preliminary conscious work is necessary;

Insight → emergence of an idea for a solution;

Performing stage.

6. Works of K. Levin (1890-1947)

Lewin proceeded from the fact that the basis of human activity in any of its forms, be it action, thinking, memory, is intention - a quasi-need. The prefix quasi- is needed by Lewin to distinguish his understanding of need from that already established in psychology and associated mainly with biological, innate needs. A quasi-need is a certain desire, a tendency to fulfill, to realize some goal, which is set either by the subject himself or comes from someone else, for example, from an experimenter. They are formed in the current situation in connection with accepted intentions, goals and direct human activity. Quasi-need creates a system of tension in the individual. This tension system tends to discharge. According to Levin, discharge consists of satisfying a need. Hence the name of K. Lewin’s theory - “dynamic theory of personality.” The need is discharged in a certain situation. This situation was called by Levin a psychological field. Each thing in the psychological field is characterized not according to its own physical properties, but appears in some relation to the needs of the subject. It is the need that determines that one object has a motivating character, attracts to itself, has a positive valence, while another does not have such a motivating character, has a negative valence.

In connection with quasi-needs, Lewin studied the problem of goal formation and goal-directed behavior. These studies introduced into psychology a complex of the most important concepts characterizing behavior related to the achievement of goals: the target structure and target levels of the individual, including real and ideal goals, the level of aspirations, the search for success and the desire to avoid failure, and some others.

Levin enriched psychology with a number of new methods and techniques:

a. experiments on interrupted action (M. Ovsyankina);

b. experiments on remembering unfinished and completed actions (B.V. Zeigarnik);

c. replacement experiments (K. Lissner and A. Mahler);

d. experiments to identify the level of claims (F. Hoppe);

e. satiety experiments (A. Karsten), etc.

6. Gestalt psychology has been used in the field of psychotherapeutic practice. On its principles, in combination with psychoanalysis, F. Perls founded Gestalt therapy.

Year of publication and journal number:

annotation

The article is devoted to the characteristics of the Gestalt experiment as a specially organized therapeutic situation aimed at experiencing, awareness and re-interpretation by the client own experience. Descriptions of well-known psychological experiments are given, the results of which were of scientific value, but traumatized the participants. The article focuses on the systemic, complex impact of group experiments on all participants. It is emphasized that the use of a group as a single therapeutic space makes it possible to take into account and reveal many nuances of the client’s relationship with himself and others that are not directly perceptible within the framework of the dyadic relationship “therapist – client”.

Keywords: experiment in psychology, gestalt experiment, therapeutic group

Mr Vimes, this is my family axe. It's been in my family for almost nine hundred years, okay? Of course, the blade was changed a couple of times. Several times - an ax handle. Changed the design metal parts, the patterns were renewed... but does that make it no longer a nine-hundred-year-old family axe? It is only because it has changed with time that it still remains with a good ax. Understand? Very good.

T. Pratchett. Fifth Elephant

Introduction

In psychology, experiments are often carried out, which are specially organized activities under certain conditions aimed at obtaining new scientific knowledge. In this case, usually the research psychologist actively and purposefully intervenes in the life of the subject.

Everyone knows, largely thanks to the film “The Experiment” (2010), based on real events, the famous 1971 Stanford prison experiment conducted by American psychologist Philip Zimbardo. This experiment not only entered the annals of social psychology, but became a warning and a reminder that the system is stronger than man. In order to participate in a psychological experiment, several people were locked up in what appeared to be a prison. Some were “prisoners” and sat behind bars, while others were armed “guards”. After some time, the experiment began to resemble more and more the realities of prison life. The “guards” became more and more cruel, the “prisoners” became indignant...

Another cruel experiment - famous story Bruce Reimer, born in Winnipeg, Canada on August 22, 1965, is the elder of two twin brothers. During the circumcision procedure, due to a surgeon's mistake, the boy's penis was burned to the ground. American psychologist John Money, to whom the child’s parents turned to for advice, advised them a “simple” way out of a difficult situation: change the sex of the child and raise him as a girl until he grows up and begins to experience complexes due to male incompetence. However, the experiment failed. Parents who hid the truth from their child experienced severe emotional stress. The mother had suicidal tendencies, the father became an alcoholic, and the twin brother was constantly depressed. Eventually, his parents told him the truth, and Bruce began his struggle to return to normal existence as a man. In 1997, he underwent a series of reconstructive surgeries to regain the physical characteristics of his gender. Bruce married a woman and adopted her three children. However, in May 2004, following a separation from his wife, Bruce Reimer committed suicide at the age of 38 (Rawls, 2010, pp. 122–141).

A number of cruel experiments are known in psychology, the scientific return from which is incomparable with the harm caused to people or animals. Consider the following experiments:

Harry Harlow, who took baby monkeys and placed them in a cage where they were kept all alone for a year. By the way, the movement in defense of animal rights began precisely after the publication of the results of this experiment.

Aubrey Levin, from 1970 to 1989, conducted aversive experiments with soldiers of the South African army, aimed at “cleansing” the army ranks of military personnel of non-traditional sexual orientation. They were treated with electric shock, chemical castration was used, they were subjected to sex change operations, etc. About 1,000 military personnel were subjected to various prohibited experiments on human nature;

Stanley Milgram (Milgram, 1963) from Yale University conducted an experiment related to obedience to authority. The results of the experiment showed that the need to obey authorities is so deeply rooted in our minds that the subjects continued to follow instructions despite suffering and strong internal conflict.

The main conclusion that can be drawn from the results of this and many other experiments is “we cannot predict how our word will respond.” It is obvious that every person is very complex, and one can learn about his psyche only by observing its manifestations, for example, in the form of certain behavioral reactions (words, facial expressions, deeds, actions, changes in relationships with others, etc.). Considering that a person is a single indivisible system, which is part of other, larger systems (family, social groups, states), we cannot “isolate” in an experiment only one “element” - a process, property, state, feeling, reaction. A person always participates in an experiment as a whole. At the same time, he is influenced both by the experimenter as part of the external environment, and by the external environment itself. The presence of such interaction and influence leads, on the one hand, to a reduction and simplification of the multifaceted experience that the subject receives as a result of following instructions, on the other hand, to the multiplicity and ambiguity of the results obtained (multifinality).

If in experimental psychology an experiment is considered an independent method, then in psychological counseling and psychotherapy under psychological experiment refers to a specially organized situation aimed at experiencing and understanding the client’s own experience.

The concept of a gestalt experiment

One of the striking differences between the Gestalt approach and other directions is its use in therapeutic work specially organized experiments based on the idea of ​​moving from “talking about...” to action. Indeed, the usual version of therapy is that the client talks about his life, his difficulties, and the therapist tries to help him realize or rethink something. Unlike the purely conversational genre, in Gestalt experiments there is an opportunity not only to discuss your experience, but also to try to do something. As Irwin and Miriam Polster write: “In an experimental situation, a person can mobilize himself in the face of the current demands of life, acting out his unexpressed feelings and actions in relative safety. Safety is achieved by ensuring that the patient's risk-taking is supported by a therapist or group who alternately encourages and encourages risk-taking, depending on what is appropriate at the time" (Polster, Polster, 1997).

Gestalt experiments are a kind of “calling card” of the Gestalt approach, emphasizing its originality. However, as we have written many times before, recently there has been a decrease in interest in Gestalt experiments among Gestalt therapists themselves. And there are several reasons for this.

Firstly, in our opinion, Gestalt experiments are now “out of trend.” This is also pointed out by Elena Petrova, who, as one of the explanations for the negative attitude towards the experiment, puts forward the “fashion for the dialogue approach” being developed in GATLA.

Secondly, the methodological “fusion” of Gestalt therapy with other areas (psychoanalysis, existentialism, systemic family therapy, body-oriented approaches, etc.) is often goes the way refusal of its own uniqueness and leads to the leveling of differences.

Thirdly, often “poor execution” of experiments, which group participants observe during the learning process, also leads to refusal or avoidance of conducting Gestalt experiments. That is why, even at certification sessions, it is rare to see a beautiful and lively experiment illustrating those processes that could take months and years to discuss.

Fourthly, the lack of clear psychotechnologies for planning, conducting and discussing Gestalt experiments. After all, you won’t take seriously the words “stay with it” after the complex and often contradictory experience that the client received during the experimentation.

Fifthly, the gestalt itself today is heterogeneous. Evidence of this is the numerous texts on Gestalt therapy: from boring and indigestible ebautistic ones to clear and well-creative ones. It can be noted that now such “branches” of Gestalt continue to develop as the Gestalt-analytical approach (Daniil Khlomov), the dialogue approach (Robert Reznik, Igor Pogodin), the experimental approach (Gonzaga Masquelier, Brigitte Martel, Arthur Dombrovsky), the system-analytical approach (Natalia Olifirovich, Gennady Maleychuk) (Olifirovich, 2012), etc. Just within the framework of the “branch” we are developing Special attention focuses on group and individual Gestalt experiments.

It is obvious that Gestalt experiments, which have deservedly earned themselves a good name, need “rehabilitation”. However, this requires specially organized work on their “rebranding,” classification, description, etc. Obviously, this is complex and multi-day work. This text is devoted to only one type of experiment - group Gestalt experiments.

Group Gestalt experiments

Before proceeding with a detailed description, let us emphasize the main difference between group experiments and individual work. In contrast to experimentation directly during a therapeutic session, when the client works face to face with the therapist, in group forms of work the Gestalt therapist-client pair is in a certain field. Group members are both “witnesses of therapy” and its participants. Therefore, in group work, on the one hand, there are some advantages, consisting in the presence of a “collective mind,” and some disadvantages, since the reactions of the participants are unpredictable. Therefore, we will discuss the important methodological principles on which group Gestalt experiments are based. Common therapy questions are “with whom?”, “where?”, “how?” – when conducting group Gestalt experiments they need some clarification.

1. To begin with, I define group participants not as “extras”, obedient to the will of the group leader and following instructions and directives, but as full-fledged co-therapists. Together with the group therapist, they form a single therapeutic field and together “work for the client.” If in the traditional Gestalt therapeutic model the leader determines the direction of the Gestalt experiment, and the participants are often assigned only the role of spectators with the right to subsequently provide feedback, then the use of the group as a single therapeutic space allows us to take into account and reveal many nuances of the client’s relationship to himself and Others that are not directly accessible perception within the dyadic relationship “therapist – client”.

2. In group Gestalt experiments we are dealing with a single space-time continuum, where “here-and-now” merges with “there-and-then”. There is neither space nor time in their traditional sense - any collapses, any meetings, any changes are possible, which, as we remember, occur only in the current moment. During such an experiment, an unexpected meeting may take place between the client and other group members with emotional states and experiences, with memories and people, with the living and the departed.

3. Technique, or, using the terminology of F.E. Vasilyuk, psychotechnology in group experiments can vary from traditional monodrama using group members as “auxiliary Others” to authorized feedback included in the therapy process itself.

Let me give you an example. A member of the group, Anna, says that in her family everyone on her mother’s side was “women with an unfortunate fate.” This topic has already been raised several times in her personal therapy, Anna worked through her family history, built a genogram, but her life remains the same - she is lonely, she does not have a relationship with a man. Among the listed “women with an unfortunate fate” are herself, her mother, grandmother and great-grandmother.

After the orientation phase, Anna was offered the following experiment - to choose in the group those who would be herself for some time, her mother, grandmother and great-grandmother, and then build a sculptural composition from them and give it a name. Anna lined up all the women in a row, from “herself” to “great-grandmother”, and turned each head so that she could see those standing behind. The composition was called “Unlucky Fates”. Next, Anna and I walked around the composition, and I asked how she felt about all the women. Anna found it difficult, but then quietly answered: “Pity and irritation.” It was a difficult moment.

All this time, Anna was in the position of “observer of her own life.” From the changes in her breathing and facial expressions, it was noticeable that she was included in the process. When “The Man” turned away from “Anna,” a tear rolled down the real Anna’s cheek... “Do you want to take your place?” – I asked. Anna nodded and switched places with the girl who was standing in her place. She turned her head and began to look at “mother”, “grandmother”, “great-grandmother”. This went on for quite a long time... Finally Anna said: “That’s it, I can’t take it anymore” - and decisively turned her head so that everyone was behind her and she could no longer see them.

What's wrong with you now? – I asked.

It’s better for me,” Anna answered. - I see a man - he turned away from me, but I can approach him...

I didn’t answer anything, and Anna, after waiting a few minutes for my reaction (?), instructions (?), timidly moved towards the man... She walked around him along the widest possible perimeter, then made a second, narrower circle. The man met her gaze and they slowly began to approach each other. The whole group watched this careful, very careful progress with bated breath... Approaching each other, they stood for a while, looking into each other's eyes. And then the man extended his hand to Anna. She touched his hand carefully, then her hand sank into his. It was a very beautiful and touching moment. And suddenly, unexpectedly, Anna’s face darkened, and she said, withdrawing her hand:

I can't do that!

How – “so”? – I asked softly.

Like this - when they look, and I know that they were not happy.

I don't know... I guess I'm afraid... I'm afraid that everything will collapse... Or that they will destroy everything...

This was the key moment - Anna’s desire to be loved and to love, to be in a relationship with a man and the projection of her own envious and destructive part onto the “unfortunate” mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. At that moment I had a choice - to start working with Anna in the form of talk therapy or turn to “women of the family.” I chose the second one.

The group members, at my request, responded to everything that was happening. “Mom” said that she would only be happy if her daughter found a good match for herself. “Grandmother” shared that she had very warm feelings when Anna held a man’s hand, and that she was offended when her granddaughter said that her fate was unhappy... “Great-grandmother” simply came up and hugged Anna... And she suddenly burst into tears . “Mom” and “grandmother” came up to her, surrounding her with a ring... For several minutes they whispered something to her, and then, hugging each in turn, Anna said: “Thank you.”

After that, Anna approached the man again. And she extended her hand to him.

This concludes our experiment. We discussed Anna's experiences, as well as her unfortunate conceptualization of the women of the family as having an "unfortunate fate." But the most important thing was Anna’s simple step - a step away from her family, a step towards a man.

There are different explanations for what happened. You can find in the described action similarities with constellations, psychodrama, “isolate” the basic technique of family therapy “Family sculpture”, etc. The most important difference is ideological, which is what point 4 is about.

4. The ideology of the group Gestalt experiment is based on phenomenology and, as a consequence, on the primacy of description over explanation. Let me explain why. Having taught the course “Psychological Counseling” for more than 15 years, I often practiced with students how the same person’s behavior, attitude, action, etc. explain using different models. And then it turned out that a girl who does not marry can do this for a number of reasons:

Because of loyalty (devotion) to the family system, where all women are unhappy;

Due to aggressiveness/passivity/absence of a father in the family;

Due to early trauma (separation from mother, serious illness);

Due to family dysfunctions due to which the girl is in psychological incest with her mother;

Due to existential fear of “living and breathing deeply”;

Due to emotional immaturity, etc.

All these explanations have a right to exist - and moreover, they can all exist simultaneously. And as soon as group members are able to use their usual “lenses” to explain to the client “the root of his problems,” the latter can drown in various, wonderful, but often completely useless opinions.

The problem is different - how to help the client take a step towards change, how, dare I say it, “push” the client to leave the usual, stereotypical, long-worn path. That is why in a Gestalt experiment it is not important to us WHY the client made/did not make this or that choice in his life. It is important to us WHAT he is doing now. Explanations and conceptualizations of experience are wonderful AFTER, and not INSTEAD of real changes.

Therefore, instead of analysis, we choose actions that will lead to a change - even by one degree - in the way the client deals with his problems, with himself and with his life in general.

5. The Gestalt experiment is a risky process. We never know where asking a client to participate in an experimental activity will take us. Therefore, the work must take into account the principle of multifinality, according to which a single risk factor can lead to a number of different consequences depending on contextual and individual factors. Those thousands of cause-and-effect relationships that exist in the life of every person between different aspects of his relationships, connections, choices cannot be reduced to a simple formula A => B. Refusal to explain the cause of the client’s problem, as well as the understanding of the impossibility of controlling where it will “lead” A Gestalt experiment allows you to focus on the process, on the client’s willingness to take risks and do something a little - or radically - differently. The risk exists not only for the client, but also for other participants - members of the group and its leader. Unfortunately or fortunately, life is more complex than a laboratory experiment with fruit flies, and we never know for sure how this or that experimental action will end for the client, the therapist, the group and the field as a whole.

Let's give an example. During a group Gestalt experiment, a client, Valentina, addressed her “dead father.” However, the “dialogue” did not work out, and she ended with a feeling of hopelessness and impasse. However, group member Sergei joined the work and shared his experience and the fact that he does not communicate with his child because he is very offended by his ex-wife. Valentina burst into tears, Sergei stood up, walked up to her, squatted down next to her and said: “You know, I really want to see my daughter, but I don’t know how to change the relationship after everything that my ex-wife and I have done. I said too many bad things to my daughter... I told her that she was not my daughter, that her mother gave birth to her from another man. I hated my wife, but she got everything... Now I can’t just come to my daughter and say that I love her and that I am her father.” Valentina looked at him sadly and replied: “The most important thing is to know that your father loves you. And we must do everything before it is too late.” At that moment, the man’s face suddenly changed, and tears flowed from his eyes. He stood up abruptly and ran out of the group. An hour later, Sergei returned, apologized and said that he had found the phone number of his 22-year-old daughter, with whom he had not communicated for 9 years, and called her. They agreed to meet in the evening. The next day, Sergei told the group about the meeting. The daughter was very offended by him, but all these years she waited for his call. They talked all evening, and cried, and were able to hear, understand and forgive each other. Talking about this, Sergei repeated several times: “I did not expect this, it was not my session.”

6. Gestalt is based on the idea of ​​creativity. Therefore, in an experiment it is important not to follow templates, but to allow the field, client, group, context to be and influence us. Sometimes an experiment is born from a word, a gesture, a fleeting thought or feeling. Allowing oneself to be sensitive and ready for something larger than oneself to unfold is a necessary condition for the therapist to “guide” the Gestalt experiment. I put the word “direction” in quotation marks because the therapist directs the experiment as much as the experiment influences the Gestalt therapist. This is paradoxical, but nevertheless the truth is: not “let me do a Gestalt experiment,” but “let’s start and see what comes of it.” Not knowing in advance, not predicting the end, but simply being close to the client - that’s all you need from a presenter.

7. The Gestalt experiment is based on the unity of form and content. An experiment that is beautiful in form and successful in content raises deep layers of experience not only in the client, but also in its other participants. After its completion, you are left with a feeling of a well-done, harmonious job.

A “well-done” Gestalt experiment stimulates both the left and right hemispheres, “connecting” thinking, feelings, and physicality. This is what often leads to experiencing a Gestalt experiment as a deeply significant event. Logical and verbal aspects of awareness are combined with symbolic, non-verbal and bodily experiences, which enhances the degree of their impact on the client and group members, promoting integration and assimilation of the experience gained. And just understanding what potential and at the same time challenge lies in group gestalt experiments, how inspiring and at the same time risky and unpredictable they can be, makes me want to do them - beautifully and professionally.

Gestalt Experiment in Group

Annotation

Article is dedicated to the characteristics of gestalt experiment as specially organized therapeutic situation, directed on experience, understanding and reinterpretations the client of own experience. Descriptions of the known psychological experiments which results had scientific value are provided, but injured participants. In article system, complex impact of group experiments on all participants is accented. It is emphasized that group use as uniform therapeutic space the therapist – the client" allows to consider and show many nuances of the relations of the client to himself and Another, inaccessible to direct perception within the diadic of the relations of therapist and client.

Keywords: experiment in psychology, gestalt experiment, therapeutic group

Literature:

1. Olifirovich N.I. Psychological assistance to student youth: a systemic-analytical approach. Minsk: BSPU, 2012.
2. Petrova E. A word in defense of an empty chair, or a few words for and against an experiment in modern Gestalt therapy // Integrative Institute of Gestalt Training in St. Petersburg. URL: http://www.gestalttrening.ru/?groupMenu=221 (date accessed 04/26/12).
3. Polster I., Polster M. Integrated Gestalt therapy: contours of theory and practice. M.: Independent company "Class", 1997.
4. Rawls J. Classic cases in psychology. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2010.
5. Milgram S. Behavioral Study of Obedience // Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1963, vol. 67. P. 371–378.

In response to the limited possibilities for studying the psyche associated with the psychology of consciousness of W. Wundt, it was born in the 1920s. new direction - Gestalt psychology. Max Wertheimer (1880-1943), Wolfgang Köhler (1887-1967) and Kurt Koffka (1886-1941) met at the Psychological Institute in Frankfurt am Main. In their discussions and discussion about how the image of perception of visible movements is built, ideas for a new direction of psychological research arose.

Thus, M. Wertheimer, in his experimental studies, discovered that visible movement occurs only at a certain interval between stimuli acting on the retina. He called this phenomenon phi phenomenon and as a result of the analysis I came to the conclusion that it cannot be interpreted as a sum of sensations: the phi phenomenon is a holistic phenomenon.

The results of studying the phi phenomenon were presented in Wertheimer's article

"Experimental Studies of Apparent Motion" (1912). It is from this article that the genealogy of Gestalt psychology is usually traced. Its main postulate proclaimed holistic structures to be the primary data of psychology - gestalts, which in principle cannot be derived from their constituent components. Gestalts have their own characteristics and laws. The properties of parts are determined by the structure in which they belong; the whole is greater than the parts that form it - the idea is not new. It was important to be able to apply this position to research in psychology and to the understanding of the psyche itself.

For Gestalt psychology, the main target was structuralism with its interpretation of consciousness as a structure made of “bricks” (sensations) and “cement” (associations). However, upon closer examination, it turns out that adherents of Gestalt psychology rejected functionalism with no less decisiveness. Compared to the functionalists, the Gestaltists took the next step in cognition, namely: they abandoned additional elements (or acts) that externally organize the sensory composition of consciousness, giving it structure, form, gestalt, and approved the postulate that structure is inherently inherent this composition itself.

Gestalt psychologists and behaviorists differed in their approach to the problem of consciousness. Behaviorists eliminated consciousness from psychology, from scientific explanations of behavior. Gestaltists saw their main task as giving a new interpretation to the facts of consciousness as the only psychic reality. Gestalt critique of atomism in

Psychology was a prerequisite for reorienting the experiment in order to identify figurative structures, or wholes, in the mind. It was impossible to achieve this goal without introspection. But two previous versions of the introspective method had to be rejected (Wundt’s, which required the subject to report on the elements of “direct experience,” and the method of dividing consciousness into “fractions,” developed by the Würzburg school). Gestalt psychologists have developed their own version of the introspective method, called phenomenological. When penetrating the reality of mental life in all its fullness and immediacy, it was proposed to take the position of a “naive” observer, not burdened by preconceived ideas about its structure.

The point of view of Gestalt psychologists on the use of the introspective method was shared by a group of young researchers working at one of the main centers of experimental psychology of that time - the University of Göttingen. Among them, D. Kati and E. Rubin stood out. They and other experimental psychologists, who moved from an “atomistic” understanding of sensory perception to a holistic one, carried out their research in the same years when the school of Gestalt psychology was emerging, and this school subsequently widely used their research. In particular, discovered by Rubin figure-ground phenomenon took an honorable place among the basic laws of Gestalt. However, the Gestaltist program was much broader and more promising. They sought to transform psychology into an exact science, strictly following the general standards of natural science. Thus, M. Wertheimer, characterizing the phi phenomenon, did not limit himself to its description, but assumed that it has a physiological basis, which was seen in a “short circuit” that occurs (with an appropriate time interval) between brain zones.

The idea of ​​gestalt was not considered unique and peculiar only to the field of consciousness. Science was on the threshold of new views on the nature of the world in which man lives: a systems approach was emerging, and with it a new understanding of the relationship between part and whole, external and internal, cause and purpose. Gestalt psychologists tested their ideas in studies on the mental development of children.

From the point of view of Gestaltists, the leading mental process, which actually determines the level of development of the child’s psyche, is perception. Depending on how a child perceives the world, his behavior and understanding of situations change. K. Koffka believed that the process of mental development itself is divided into two independent and parallel processes - maturation and learning. He emphasized their independence, arguing that in the process of development, learning can advance or lag behind maturation, although more often they run parallel to each other, creating the illusion of interdependence. It was believed that training cannot accelerate the process of maturation and differentiation of gestalts, and the maturation process does not accelerate learning.

Gestalt psychologists studied not only cognitive processes, but also the development of the child’s personality. Studying the process of perception, they argued that its main properties appear gradually, with the maturation of gestalts. Indeed, such properties as the constancy of the image, its meaningfulness, and dependence on experience are formed gradually and in a certain sequence.

Studies of perception in children, which were carried out in the laboratory of K. Koffka, showed that newborn children have a vague image of a person, the gestalt of which includes the voice, face, hair, and characteristic movements. A child one or two months old may not recognize even a close adult if he changes his hairstyle or changes his usual clothes to unfamiliar ones. But by the end of the first half of the year, this vague image is fragmented, turning into a series of clear images: a face in which eyes, mouth, and hair stand out as separate gestalts; images of the voice and body also appear.

Research has also been conducted on the development of color perception. At first, children perceive their surroundings only as colored or uncolored, while the uncolored is perceived as a background, and the colored as a figure. Gradually, what is colored is divided into warm and cold, and in the environment children already distinguish several “figure-ground” sets. Koffka formulated one of the laws of perception, which was called transduction. This law stated that children do not perceive colors themselves, but their relationships.

V. Köhler believed that learning leads to the formation of a new structure and, consequently, to a different perception and awareness of the situation. If this or that phenomenon enters another situation, they acquire a new function. The awareness of new combinations and new functions of objects is the formation of a new gestalt, the awareness of which is the essence of thinking. Köhler called this process restructuring of the gestalt and believed that it occurs instantly and does not depend on the past experience of the subject. In order to emphasize the instantaneous, rather than time-extended, nature of thinking, Koehler gave this moment the name “insight,” i.e. insight.

Kohler conducted an experiment with children in which they were asked to reach a typewriter located high on a cabinet. You could use different objects - a ladder, a box, a chair. If there was a staircase in the room, then the children quickly solved the proposed problem. It took more time if you had to figure out how to use the box. The biggest difficulty was caused by the option when there were no other objects in the room except a chair, which had to be moved away from the table and used as a stand. Köhler explained these results by the fact that the ladder is recognized from the very beginning functionally as an object that helps to reach something located high, so its inclusion in the gestalt with the closet does not present any difficulty for the child. The inclusion of the box already requires some rearrangement, since the box can be realized in several functions. As for the chair, the child is aware of it not by itself, but already included in another gestalt - with the table with which he is presented

To the child as a whole. The solution to this problem assumes that children must first break the integral “table-chair” image into two, and then combine the chair with the cabinet into a new image, realizing its new functional role.

M. Wertheimer studied the process of creative thinking in children and adults. He also discovered an insight and came to the conclusion that it was associated with a moment of restructuring the situation. In Gestalt psychology, the concept of insight(from the English insight - discretion) became key. Insight meant a transition to a new cognitive, figurative structure, according to which the nature of adaptive reactions immediately changes. It was given a universal character. This concept became the basis for the explanation of adaptive forms of behavior among Gestaltists, while the concept of “trial and error” of behaviorists ignored understanding (i.e., the figurative-orientative basis of action), whatever it may be, instantaneous or gradual. Adaptation was considered achievable due to the same factors that ensure the organism’s adaptation to the environment at all levels of life, including at levels where there is no image at all. Gestalt psychologists and behaviorists also disagreed on the problem of the whole and the part: Gestaltism defended the idea of ​​integrity as opposed to the behaviorist view of a complex reaction as the sum of elementary reactions.

Gestaltism really put a lot of effort into the fight against “atomistic” ideas about consciousness and behavior, but there are differences between these two directions of a more significant, categorical order. Behaviorists tend to ignore the mental image. They see in it not a psychic reality, not a regulator of behavior, but an elusive, illusory product of introspection. For Gestaltism, the doctrine of motor acts, devoid of figurative orientation in relation to the environment, seemed to remove its core from mental activity.

V. Köhler wrote the book “Physical Gestalts at Rest and Stationary State,” in which he sought to find a natural scientific explanation for the idea of ​​gestalt. Then K. Koffka’s book “Fundamentals of Mental Development” (1921) was published, and then a programmatic article by M. Wertheimer

“Studies relating to the doctrine of Gestalt” (1923). These works outlined the program of the new direction, which organized its own journal - “ Psychological research"(before its closure under the Hitler regime, 22 volumes were published).

Serious experimental achievements of Gestalt psychology, associated mainly with the study of perception processes (mostly visual), are characterized by studies conducted in the 1920s. Many Gestalt laws have been proposed (there are 114 of them). These included, in particular, the already familiar “figure and ground” and transposition(reaction not to individual stimuli, but to their ratio). Under pregnancy implied the tendency of the perceived image to take on a complete and

“good” shape (“good” was considered a complete figure that could not be made more

Simple or more streamlined.) Constancy meant the constancy of the image of a thing when the conditions of its perception change.

M. Wertheimer argued that creative thinking depends on a drawing, a diagram, in the form of which the condition of a task or problem situation is presented. The correctness of the decision depends on the adequacy of the diagram, and a good diagram makes it possible to look at it from different points of view, i.e. allows you to create different gestalts from the elements that enter the situation. This process of creating different images with constant elements is the process of creativity, and the more different meanings the objects included in these images receive, the more high level The child will demonstrate creativity. Since such restructuring is easier to carry out on figurative (rather than verbal) material, it is not surprising that Wertheimer came to the conclusion that an early transition to logical thinking interferes with the development of creativity in children. He also said that the exercise kills creative thinking, since when repeated, the same image is fixed and the child gets used to viewing things in only one position. Therefore, it is incomparably more difficult for children who studied geometry at school on the basis of a formal method to develop a productive approach to problems than for those who did not study at all. Wertheimer sought to clarify the psychological side of mental operations (different from logical operations), which were described in traditional Gestalt terms: “reorganization,” “grouping,” “centering,” etc. The determinants of these transformations remained unclear.

Regarding the connection between Gestalt psychology and behaviorism M.G. Yaroshevsky writes that the ideas of Gestaltism significantly influenced the transformation of the original behaviorist doctrine and prepared the way for neobehaviorism, which began to take shape at the turn of the 1930s. By this time, the main representatives of the Gestalt movement, fleeing Nazism, immigrated to the United States and settled in various universities and research centers. This was an external circumstance that determined the final collapse of the school.

12.2. Lewin's dynamic theory of personality and group

Later, the largest experimentalist and theorist in the history of psychology joined the three German Gestalt psychologists - M. Wertheimer, K. Koffke and W. Köhler Kurt Lewin(1890–1947). The focus of his scientific interests was not cognitive processes, but the personality as a whole. Levin was educated at three universities in Germany, studying at the faculties of medicine and philosophy with in-depth teaching of psychology, and was a student of K. Stumpf. The main provisions of Gestalt psychology are reflected in Lewin’s theory in the following provisions.

1. The image of the world, a phenomenon (in other words, a gestalt) is not created through the synthesis of individual elements, individual sensations, but arises immediately as a holistic phenomenon. In other words, Gestalt is not a simple sum of parts, but represents a holistic structure. Whole

It is not determined by the characteristics of its parts, acquiring other qualities that are different from the sum of the properties of its parts. This is the gestalt weaving called supersummability, Lewin extended not only to the individual, but also to the group as a dynamic whole. Groups, Lewin argued, have properties of their own that differ from the properties of their subgroups or their individual members.

2. The image is created at the “given moment” through insight; past experience plays a less significant role in its creation.

Finally, Levin applied the principle of isomorphism, which asserts the identity of laws in different sciences. Following him, the scientist used a system for describing mental phenomena adopted in physics, chemistry, and mathematics. He called his theory psychological field theory.

Levin proceeded from the position that a person lives and develops in the psychological field of objects surrounding him, each of which has its own charge (valence). Lewin's experiments showed that for each person this valence has its own sign, i.e. represents positive or negative significance. Objects, influencing a person, evoke needs in him - they can be represented as a kind of energy charges that cause tension in a person, which is why he strives for discharge, i.e. to meet needs.

Levin chose physics and mathematics as an objective basis for describing the psychological field of the individual. One of the most famous equations he derived describes the following pattern: behavior is both a function of the personality and the psychological field.

Levin identified two types of needs: biological and social, which he called quasi-needs. Needs are arranged in a certain hierarchy. Those quasi-needs that are interconnected can exchange energy. The scientist called this process communication of charged systems, thanks to which personal flexibility is achieved, a person is not attached to a certain way of solving a situation, and his adaptive capabilities are thus expanded. This happens due to the fact that the tension arising from some needs can be discharged by updating others. Levin confirmed these conclusions experimentally.

To study the formation of substitution actions, Lewin developed a series of experiments in which children were asked to help an adult by completing a particular task, for example, washing the dishes. As a reward, the child received some kind of prize that was significant to him. In the control experiment, when the child was about to help an adult, he was told that someone had already washed the dishes. Children tended to become upset or make aggressive comments toward perceived competitors. In this situation, the adult asked the children to perform some other task that was meaningful to them, which they had not completed before. Most children quickly forgot previous grievances, instantly switching to performing another task, in

As a result, the tension caused by the previously formed need was discharged. Some children, however, could not quickly form a new need, and their tension increased and anxiety increased.

Based on numerous experiments, Lewin came to the conclusion that neuroses, as well as such mental phenomena and types of activity as features of cognitive processes, preservation, forgetting and volitional behavior, are associated with the release or tension of needs.

In experiments by Lewin and his students, it was proven that unfulfilled needs are better remembered than realized ones. The most significant discoveries under Levin's leadership were made in the graduation works of his students. So, one of the works in the 1920s. proved that an unfinished action is remembered longer than a completed one, due to the persistence of tension until it is discharged in action. This was discovered and proven by Russian researcher B.V. Zeigarnik, who studied psychology in Germany. She discovered a clue for her discovery while sitting in the Berlin Swedish Café, when Lewin, who often discussed psychological phenomena with his students here during a casual conversation, once joked that the waiter remembers the customer’s entire order, down to the smallest detail, but only until he paid for it.

The area of ​​Levin's research and discoveries turns out to be quite wide. He is responsible for the development of the theory of conflicts, the disclosure of the meaning of the system of educational techniques for the formation of a child’s personality, the discovery of concepts level of aspirations And affect of inadequacy. These and other discoveries of his played a huge role in personality psychology, understanding the causes of deviant behavior and its correction.

Levin's work made it possible to analyze the factors underlying the volitional behavior of the individual, which allows the individual to overcome the pressure of the environment, other people, and circumstances. Such leading factors turned out to be intellectual activity, the adequacy of self-image, allowing not only to understand the situation, but also to rise above it, realizing one’s quasi-needs. To denote the opposite in form to volitional behavior, Levin introduced the concept field behavior, which arises under the influence of the immediate momentary environment and is completely subordinate to it.

After being forced to emigrate to the United States due to the looming threat of fascism in Germany in the 1930s. Levin dealt with problems group dynamics, the theory of which began to be actively used in group psychotherapy and other types of group work. The scientist discovered a phenomenon in his experiments risk shift, i.e. tendency to make riskier decisions in group discussions than alone. Individually, a person tends to make more conservative decisions. This is where Lewin's famous statement comes from: that individuals are easier to change in a group than individually.

Levin was responsible for the discovery of the effect and the introduction of the concept feedback, study and description of leadership styles. The research program he developed in the United States made it possible to study ways to increase group productivity and methods of preventing group distraction from

Intended goals; explore types of communication and ways of spreading rumors, social perception and interpersonal relationships in a group. He also pioneered the development of leadership training programs. The work he performed in line with these directions allowed many of Lewin's followers to call him the founder of American social psychology.

Topic 13. PSYCHOANALYSIS AND ITS DEVELOPMENT IN THE XX CENTURY

S. Freud's theory

Depth psychology includes a number of schools and is a broad area in modern psychological science. The scientific schools of this direction are based on the position about the leading role of unconscious, irrational, affective-emotional, instinctive and intuitive processes, impulses, motives, aspirations in the mental life and activity of a person, in the formation of his personality.

In the 19th century the prevailing idea was of man as a rational being and aware of his behavior. This tradition prompted V. Wundt, when deciding on the subject of psychology, to put forward consciousness as exactly what psychology should study. Sigmund Freud(1856–1939) put forward a completely different understanding of the causes of human behavior and introduced into the circle of interests of psychology a different area of ​​the psyche from consciousness. He compared the psyche to an iceberg, most of which is under water and comparable to the unconscious, and a small part located above the “surface of the ocean” is comparable in scale to the sphere of consciousness. It was Freud who first characterized the psyche as a battlefield between the irreconcilable forces of instinct, reason and consciousness. It is not without reason that the psychology created by Freud is called psychodynamic direction.

The term "psychodynamic" refers to the ongoing struggle between different aspects of our psyche. Human personality is a dynamic configuration of processes in endless conflict. The concept of dynamics in relation to personality implies that human behavior is deterministic rather than arbitrary or random. Determinism applies to everything we do, feel or think, including even events that many people think of as random. Freud emphasizes the crucial importance of unconscious mental processes in the regulation of human behavior. He points out that not only are our actions often irrational, but also the very meaning and reasons for our behavior are rarely accessible to consciousness.

Freud's theory is based on the idea that people are complex energy systems. Human behavior is activated by a single energy, in accordance with the law of conservation of energy (i.e. it can move from one state to another, but its quantity remains the same). Freud translated this principle into psychological terms and concluded that the source of psychic energy is a neurophysiological state of excitation. He further postulated that each person has a certain limited amount of energy that fuels mental activity. The goal of any form of individual behavior is to reduce the stress caused by

The accumulation of this energy is unpleasant for him. Therefore, human motivation is entirely based on the arousal energy produced by bodily needs.

According to Freud, the main amount of psychic energy generated by the body is directed to mental activity, which helps reduce the level of arousal caused by need. According to Freud, mental images of bodily needs expressed as desires are called instincts. Freud argued that all human activity is determined by instincts. People behave in one way or another because they are prompted by unconscious tension - their actions serve the purpose of reducing this tension.

To explain observed mental phenomena, Freud created topographical model of the psyche. In accordance with this model, three levels can be distinguished in a person’s mental life: consciousness, preconscious and unconscious. Level consciousness consists of sensations and experiences that you are aware of at a given moment in time. Region preconscious sometimes called "available memory"; it includes all experiences that are not currently conscious, but can easily return to consciousness either spontaneously or as a result of minimal effort. Unconscious represents a repository of primitive instinctual urges plus emotions and memories that are so threatening to consciousness that they have been suppressed or repressed into the unconscious.

Subsequently, Freud created another model of human mental life, which was called structural. According to this model, three structures can be distinguished in the psyche: Id (“It”), Ego (“I”), and Super-Ego (“super-I”). The id signifies exclusively the primitive, instinctual and innate aspects of the personality; operates entirely in the unconscious and is closely related to the instinctive biological drives that energize our lives. The ego is the part of the psyche that is responsible for making decisions. The ego seeks to express and satisfy the desires of the id in accordance with the restrictions imposed by the external world. The Ego receives its structure and function from the Id, arises from it and borrows part of the energy of the Id for its needs. The super-ego in personality development appears later than other structures and is actually an internal version of social norms and standards of behavior. Children acquire a superego through interactions with parents, teachers, and other “formative” figures.

The development of the psychoanalytic direction led to the emergence of a number of theories, the authors of which sought to either expand Freud's approach to understanding the nature of human mental life or revise it. The most prominent theorists who diverged from Freud and chose to create their own original theories are Alfred Adler(1870-1937) and Carl Gustav Jung(1875-1961), who participated in the psychoanalytic movement from the very beginning and actively supported Freud's theoretical views. However, over time, they came to the conclusion that Freud attaches too much importance to sexuality and aggression, considering them the center of human life. Adler and Jung

Freud's views were revised and completely independent theories were created that can compete with Freud's in terms of the scope of coverage of the main aspects of human behavior.

13.2. Jung's Analytical Psychology

K.G. Jung studied the dynamics of unconscious drives and their influence on human behavior and experience. But unlike Freud, he argued that the content of the unconscious is more than just repressed sexual and aggressive impulses. In Jung's theory, called analytical psychology, individuals are motivated by intrapsychic forces and images whose origins go back deep into evolutionary history.

Freud and Jung had different views on sexuality as a dominant force in the structure of the human psyche. Freud interpreted libido primarily as sexual energy, while Jung saw it as a diffuse creative life force, manifesting itself in a variety of ways, such as religion or the desire for power. In other words, in Jung's understanding, libidinal energy is concentrated in various needs - biological or spiritual - as they arise. As a result of Jung's processing of psychoanalysis, a whole complex of complex ideas appeared from such diverse fields of knowledge as psychology, philosophy, astrology, archeology, mythology, theology and literature.

Jung argued that the soul is composed of three separate interacting structures: the ego, the personal unconscious, and the collective unconscious. Ego is the center of the sphere of consciousness; this is a component that includes those thoughts, feelings, memories and sensations through which we feel our integrity, constancy and perceive ourselves as people. The ego serves as the basis of our self-awareness, and thanks to it we are able to see the results of our ordinary conscious activities.

Personal unconscious contains conflicts and memories that were once conscious but are now suppressed or forgotten. It also includes those sensory impressions that do not have enough brightness to be noted in consciousness. Jung went further than Freud, emphasizing that the personal unconscious contains complexes, or accumulations of emotionally charged thoughts, feelings and memories that are associated with the individual’s personal past or with ancestral, hereditary experience. He argued that the material of each of us’s personal unconscious is unique and, as a rule, accessible to awareness. As a result, the components of the complex or even the entire complex can be realized.

Collective unconscious the deepest layer in the structure of the human psyche. It is a repository of latent memory traces of humanity and even of our anthropoid ancestors. It reflects thoughts and feelings common to all human beings and resulting from our common emotional past. Content

The collective unconscious is formed due to heredity and is the same for all humanity. Jung hypothesized that the collective unconscious consists of powerful primary mental images - archetypes – innate ideas or memories that predispose people to perceive, experience, and respond to events in a certain way. Jung described many archetypes. Among them there are such as mother, child, sage, hero, rogue, death, etc. The number of archetypes in the collective unconscious can be unlimited. However, the most important for the individual are the archetypes of the individual psyche: Ego (the central element of personal consciousness, which collects disparate data from personal experience into a single whole), Persona (how a person strives to appear in the eyes of other people), Shadow (the center of the personal unconscious), Self (the central archetype of the entire personality, connects the conscious and unconscious parts), Anima and Animus (archetypes reflecting intersex relationships, ideas about the opposite sex).

Jung created his own typology of personalities, identifying 2 types: extroverts and introverts. In addition, he divided people into those for whom certain decision-making processes predominate: thinking, feelings, intuition or sensations. In recent years, analytical psychology has had a great influence on the intellectual searches of scientists in various fields of science.

13.3. Adler's individual psychology

The central tenet of Adlerian psychology is that man is a unified and self-consistent organism. This statement is reflected in the name itself, since “individual” means “indivisible” in Latin. The individual is an indivisible whole, both in relation to the relationship between the brain and the body and in relation to mental life. According to Adler, the main requirement for individual psychology is to prove this unity in every individual: in his thinking, feelings, actions, the so-called consciousness and the unconscious, in every manifestation of personality. Adler defined the structure of a self-consistent and unified personality as a lifestyle.

Considering a person as an organic whole requires a single psychodynamic principle. Adler derived it from life itself, namely from the fact that life cannot be imagined without continuous movement in the direction of growth and development. Only in moving towards personally significant goals can an individual be perceived as a unified and self-consistent whole.

Recognizing the importance of heredity and environment in the formation of personality, Adler insisted that the individual is more than just the product of these two influences. He believed that people have creative power, which provides the ability to manage their lives: free, conscious activity is the defining feature of a person.

The leading position in Adler’s theory is the position according to which all human behavior occurs in a social context and is human nature can only be comprehended through an understanding of social relationships. Moreover, every person has a natural sense of community, or interest, i.e. innate desire to enter into mutual social relations cooperation. Thus, individual psychology believes that harmony of unification and cooperation between a person and society is necessary, and considers conflict between them unnatural. The emphasis on social determinants of behavior is very important in Adler's concept.

Firmly in the phenomenological tradition, Adler believed that behavior always depends on people's opinions about themselves and about the environment in which they must fit. People live in a world they themselves created, in accordance with their own apperception scheme.

Individual psychology is based on several basic concepts and principles. In his work “A Study of Organ Inferiority and Its Mental Compensation,” Adler developed a theory about why one disease bothers a person more than another, and why some areas of the body are more likely to be affected by the disease than others. He observed that people with severe organic weakness or defect often try to compensate for these defects by training and exercise, which often leads to the development of skill or strength. Of course, the idea that the body tries to compensate for its weakness was nothing new. Doctors have long known that if, for example, one kidney functions poorly, the other takes over its functions and bears double the load. But Adler pointed out that the process of compensation takes place in the mental sphere: people often strive not only to compensate for organ failure, but they also develop a subjective feeling of inferiority , which develops from a feeling of one’s own psychological or social powerlessness.

Adler believed that feelings of inferiority originate in childhood. He explained it this way: the child goes through a very long period of dependence, when he is completely helpless and must rely on his parents to survive. This experience causes in the child deep feelings of inferiority in comparison with other people in the family environment who are stronger and more powerful. The appearance of this early feeling of inferiority marks the beginning of a long struggle for achieving excellence over the environment, as well as the desire for perfection and impeccability. Adler argued that the desire for excellence is the primary motivational force in human life. The desire for superiority and the feeling of inferiority, according to Adler's theory, are innate unconscious feelings and two main sources of personality energy. They come into conflict with each other, which forces the formation compensation mechanism – the main mechanism of mental development. Adler identifies several types of compensation: full compensation, incomplete compensation, overcompensation and imaginary compensation.

Thus, according to Adler, virtually everything that people do is aimed at overcoming feelings of inferiority and strengthening a sense of superiority. However, feelings of inferiority for various reasons can become overwhelming for some people. As a result, it appears inferiority complex – exaggerated sense of one’s own weakness and inadequacy. Adler distinguished three types of suffering experienced in childhood that contribute to the development of an inferiority complex: inferiority of organs, excessive care and rejection by parents.

The scientist came to the conclusion that the desire for superiority is a fundamental law of human life. He was convinced that this desire is innate, but this feeling must be nurtured and developed if we want to realize our human potential.

Adler put forward the concept lifestyle . It presents a unique way for an individual to adapt to life, especially in terms of the goals set by the person himself and how to achieve them. Lifestyle includes a unique combination of traits, behaviors and habits that, taken together, define a unique picture of a person’s existence. According to Adler, lifestyle is based on our efforts to overcome feelings of inferiority and thereby strengthen the feeling of superiority. From Adler's point of view, a lifestyle is firmly established at the age of four or five. In the future, it is only adjusted, but does not change. Lifestyle is the main core of behavior in the future.

Another concept that occupies an important place in Adler’s theory is the concept social interest, or sense of community . It reflects Adler's strong belief that we humans are social creatures. The scientist believed that the prerequisites for social interest are innate. Social interest develops in a social environment. Other people - first of all the mother, and then the rest of the family - contribute to the process of its development. Social interest arises in the child’s relationship with his mother; her task is to cultivate in the child a sense of cooperation, a desire to establish relationships and companionship. Adler considered the father as the second most important source of influence on the child’s development of social interest. The relationship between father and mother is also of great importance in the development of a child's sociality. If a wife does not provide emotional support to her husband and gives her feelings exclusively to the children, they suffer, since excessive guardianship extinguishes their social interest. If a husband openly criticizes his wife, the children lose respect for both parents. If there is discord between husband and wife, children begin to play with one of the parents against the other. In this game, in the end, children lose: they inevitably lose a lot when their parents demonstrate a lack of mutual love. According to Adler, the severity of social interest turns out to be a convenient criterion for assessing a person's mental health: normal, healthy people are truly concerned about others; their desire for superiority is socially positive and includes

Commitment to the well-being of all people. Although they understand that not everything in this world is right, they take upon themselves the task of improving the lot of humanity.

Concept creative "I" acts as the most important construct of Adlerian theory. When he discovered and introduced this construct into his system, all other concepts took a subordinate position in relation to it. It embodied the active principle of human life; that which gives it meaning. This is exactly what Adler was looking for. He argued that lifestyle is shaped by a person’s creative abilities. Each of us has the freedom to create our own lifestyle. Ultimately, people themselves are responsible for who they become and how they behave.

Where are the sources of human creative power? What motivates her to develop? Adler did not fully answer these questions. It is possible that human creative power is the result of a long history of evolution: humans have creative power because they are human. We know that creativity flourishes in early childhood, and this accompanies the development of social interest, but exactly why and how it develops remains unexplained.

13.4. Development of psychoanalysis in 1930-1950.

S. Freud's theory gave impetus to the development of new concepts. If K.G. Jung and A. Adler emphasized that they disagreed with Freud on fundamental issues relating primarily to the structure of personality and the mechanisms of its development, then the American psychologist Karen Horney(1885–1952) said that she was only trying to push the boundaries of orthodox Freudianism. However, soon her research led to a revision of the main provisions of Freud's theory.

After graduating from the Faculty of Medicine, Horney went to work at the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute, where she worked until 1932. Then, at the invitation of F. Alexander, she moved to the USA, where many famous German scientists moved in connection with the advent of Nazism. In the USA she founded her own association, which was later transformed into the American Institute of Psychoanalysis.

Like Adler and later Fromm, Horney came to the conclusion about the dominant influence of society on the development of personality. The concept she developed was reflected in books such as “New Paths to Psychoanalysis” (1939), “Neurosis and Human Development” (1950). Horney believed that the structure of personality is dominated not by the instincts of aggression or libido, but by an unconscious feeling of anxiety, which she called feeling of fundamental anxiety. She associated this feeling with the child’s feeling of loneliness and helplessness in a potentially hostile world. The reasons for the development of feelings of fundamental anxiety can be both the alienation of parents from the child and excessive parental care. Horney distinguished between physiological and psychological anxiety. Physiological anxiety is associated with the child’s desire to satisfy his immediate needs, so it can be overcome through simple child care.

One of Horney’s most important discoveries is associated with the introduction into psychology of the concept of “image

I". This image, according to Horney, consists of two parts - knowledge about oneself and attitude towards oneself. The adequacy of the “self-image” is associated with its cognitive part and attitude towards oneself: a person’s knowledge about himself should reflect his real abilities and aspirations, and the attitude towards oneself should be positive. Psychological anxiety is associated with the development of the adequacy of the “self-image”. Horney believed that there are several “images of the self”: “the real self”, “the ideal self”, “the self in the eyes of other people”. Normal personality development and resistance to neuroses are ensured by the coincidence of these three “Images.” Therefore, both a negative attitude towards a child and excessive admiration for him lead to the development of anxiety, since the opinions of others do not coincide with the child’s real “self-image”.

To get rid of the root feeling of anxiety, a person resorts to psychological defense, which is aimed at overcoming the conflict between society and the individual. Horney identified three main types psychological protection. The first of them is the desire “for people,” which manifests itself in compliant behavior, the development of a neurotic need for affection, approval, care, and admiration. The second type of psychological defense is the desire “against people”, which expresses itself in aggressive behavior, the development of a neurotic need for the exploitation of others, for power, for achievements. The third type is the desire “to be away from people,” which leads to personal withdrawal from others, ignoring their opinions, the development of a neurotic need for autonomy and independence, and the desire to be completely invulnerable.

Two more of Freud's closest collaborators, W. Reich and O. Rank, created their own psychoanalytic concepts.

Wilhelm Reich(1897–1957) transformed Freud's ideas about the nature of neurosis. Unlike Freud, Reich believed that aggressive and destructive drives are not innate, but secondary and arise as a result of the negative impact of society on the individual. Reich was one of the first to conduct a study of the phenomenon of fascism, as a result of which he concluded that fascism is an expression of the irrational psyche of the average person brought up by an authoritarian society.

The concept created by Reich was of great importance for practical psychology and psychotherapy. character shell, i.e. a set of traits of a neurotic personality, formed as a kind of psychological defense mechanism. The body reacts to a person’s encounter with external difficulties with muscle tension and breathing problems. Repeated life situations that cause similar experiences lead to the formation of neurotic personality traits in the form of “character armor” and develop chronic tension of individual muscle groups, which Reich called body armor. The scientist believed that psychological defense mechanisms that inhibit the healthy functioning of the body can be countered by modifying them through simple bodily contact. The vital energy suppressed by the body's armor can be therapeutically released through direct manipulation of the tense area. He created techniques to reduce chronic tension in each muscle group, which in response to physical stress

They released the feelings they had camouflaged.

Reich's later work is more controversial and controversial, especially regarding his understanding of sexuality. Reich argued that the cause of neurosis is stagnant sexuality, resulting from a dysfunction of orgasm. He developed the idea of ​​the existence of universal sexual energy (“orgone energy”) as a manifestation of free-flowing biological creative cosmic energy. vitality, affecting human emotions and intelligence.

Otto Rank(1884–1939) preferred working with the emotional experience of the individual. The main source of anxiety, according to Rank, is the trauma of birth and the fear it causes. The protective mechanism in the form of blocking memories of this fear causes, in turn, internal conflict. A person’s unconscious desire for a safe state united with the mother is sublimated in various types of activities. Rank's psychotherapy was aimed at overcoming memories of the “horror of birth.”

Rank later identified as one of the main sources of neurosis the feeling of loneliness generated by the freedom obtained in the process of individualization. The feeling of loneliness can be compensated by the establishment of various connections with others and the awareness of free will as an autonomous creative force that directs human activity.

In the 1930s the first concept arises linking the principles of depth psychology and behaviorism, the author of which was an American psychologist Harry Stack Sullivan(1892–1949). According to interpersonal theory According to Sullivan psychiatry, personality is a pattern of repeated interpersonal relationships. The leading unconscious needs that drive personality development are the need for tenderness and the avoidance of anxiety. Since there are so many sources of anxiety, the need to avoid it becomes dominant.

The basis of personality is the “I-system”, consisting of three structures: “good I”, “bad I”, “not-I”. The opinion of oneself as bad is a source of constant anxiety, and therefore the person strives to personify himself as a “good self.” To protect his positive personification, a person forms a special mechanism, which Sullivan called selective attention. It allows you to regulate not only your own personification, but also the images of other people, since the main causes of anxiety lie in communication with other people. Sullivan turned to studying the role of stereotypes in people's perceptions of each other.

Despite the fact that Sullivan spoke about the unconscious nature of the leading needs that drive personal development, he disputed the idea that they are innate. The scientist argued that aggression and anxiety develop in a child already in the first days of life. Frustration of needs that are important to the child leads to the development of aggression. The method for solving a frustration situation depends on which structure of the “I-system” is more developed. At

the “bad self” takes the blame upon itself; with a “good self,” the blame is shifted to others. This idea from Sullivan formed the basis of the Rosenzweig Frustration Tolerance Test.

TEST TASKS FOR MODULE 7

Add.

main idea Gestalt psychology comes down to the fact that the psyche is based not on individual elements of consciousness, but on ……………, the properties of which are not the sum of the properties of their parts.

2. Continue the sentence.

The creation of Gestalt psychology is associated with the name ………………

3. List the properties of perception discovered by Gestaltists.

Match.

5. Add.

The phi phenomenon of perception, discovered and named ... (by whom?) proved the irreducibility of perception to the sum of sensations.

6. Add.

……………… considered the process of mental development as the growth and differentiation of gestalts.

7. Continue the sentence.

K. Koffka called the dependence he discovered on the development of color vision on the perception of color relationships, and not the colors themselves, the law...

8. Add.

……………… (who?) experimentally proved the universality of insight based on instantaneous restructuring of the gestalt, unrelated to past experience.

9. Add.

According to the field theory…………… (which scientist?), behavior is simultaneously a function of the personality and the psychological field, since it is influenced by various needs.

10. Continue the sentence.

K. Lewin came to the conclusion that neuroses, cognitive processes, forgetting, volitional behavior are associated with ……… or with ……… needs.

11. Add.

The experimental discovery of the effect of preserving tension from an imperfect action belongs to ……………… (who?).

Add.

K. Levin introduced the concept of ………… behavior, by which he understood behavior arising under the influence of …………, and contrasted it with volitional behavior.

13. Continue the sentence.

The main method of depth psychology is ………………

14. Continue the sentence.

By one of the fundamental concepts of psychoanalysis - transfer - S. Freud understood ………………

15. Add.

Z. Freud identified 2 main groups of instincts: 1) ……, 2) ……

16. Add.

Mental life, according to S. Freud’s theory, is expressed at three levels: 1)

……………, 2) ……………, 3) ……………

Match.

18. Add.

The archetype C. G. Jung called …………………

19. Add.

The main force that determines human behavior and life, according to A. Adler, is………………

20. Continue the sentence.

A. Adler introduced the idea of ​​the existence of a subjective individualized system that can change the direction of personal development, impart meaning to a person’s life, create a goal and means of achieving it, and called it ………………

27. Add.

Overcoming psychological anxiety, according to K. Horney, is achieved due to the coincidence of three images of “I”: 1) ………………, 2) ………………, 3)

….……………

28. Add.

…………………… created the concept of a “shell of character,” that is, a set of traits of a neurotic personality.

29. Match.

Related information.