Sarvis 1

Research Paper

Alexandra Sarvis

ENC 2135

The Evolution of Writing in Psychology

Since the beginning of time, mankind has always possessed a strong curiosity for

the outside world and all of it’s components. As humans, we are constantly evolving and

questioning our surroundings, trying to find meaning it in all somehow. We gaze up at

the stars, climb to the top of mountains, and even swim to the depths of the sea in

search for something we’re missing. For many, the search is for a better understanding

of oneself. The relationship between the mind and human consciousness is one that

has puzzled mankind throughout history. As we evolved, we have gained a better un-

derstanding of this relationship between the mind and consciousness, and have discov-

ered the abilities of the mind that were never before known. The study of the human

mind and all of it’s functions is called psychology. Today, millions of people worldwide

study psychology, and benefit from all that it has taught us.

Psychology was first introduced in the late 1800’s by Wilhelm Wundt, a German

doctor who would later become known as the “Father of Psychology”. In 1879, Wundt

opened the Institute for Experimental Psychology in Leipzig, Germany. Historians mark

this moments as the introduction of modern psychology. Although at the time he did not

know it, Wundt pioneered a new way of studying the world: observing the mind and the

way it reacts to stimuli. Wilhelm’s “reaction time” study was one of the first published

Sarvis 2

studies in this field. He also introduced other groundbreaking ideas such as introspec-

tion, which is the “examination or observation of one’s own mental and emotional pro-

cesses” (Tock “Lecture"). His work set a precedent of what was to be expected from fu-

ture researchers. In fact, according to the University of Indiana Bloomington, Wundt’s

experimental laboratory was so influential that “all subsequent psychological laborato-

ries were closely modeled in their early years on the Wundt model” (Univ. Indiana

Bloomington). Wundt’s work started a catalyst effect, resulting in similar studies being

held by psychologist like Edward Titchener and William James, who were influenced

heavily by Wundt and his work.

Similar to the way Wundt’s ideas spread to fellow psychologist, most all scientific

theories and ideas stem off one another and grow into their own fields of study. There

was once a time where the world knew nothing about psychology; so many questions

were left unanswered before the world gained the knowledge to explain these natural

phenomena. The introduction of psychology kickstarted a cognitive revolution in the sci-

entific world, creating not only a smarter and more advanced society, but also a whole

new genre of academic writing in the scientific field. Today, most of the writing associ-

ated with psychology is comprised of research articles, lab reports, literature reviews,

and empirical journals. These forms of writing can vary depending on the discipline of

psychology one is involved in. For instance, according Florida State University’s Gen-

eral Psychology Professor Jamie Tock, research articles are “the most common form of

written work” in the academia side of psychology (Tock “Interview”). He says that gradu-

ate students in his position read these articles to expand their knowledge on certain

“empirical investigations of hypotheses involving research designs

Sarvis 3

and studies performed to test said hypotheses, complete with an intro, methods, results,

and discussion sections,” (Tock “Interview”). Before psychology came around, there

was never a need for behavioral or laboratory studies with live subjects. The first psy-

chological researchers completely pioneered a new genre of work. No one had studied

humans like this in the past, so psychologist were able to create a ‘template’ for psy-

chologist to follow in the future. This new genre is seen throughout researchers work,

like academic journals and published studies. As a result of the introduction of psychol-

ogy, new ideas were introduced, never before seen studies were held, and enormous

amounts of information was learned by researchers. The introduction of psychology

changed the scientific world forever.

As time goes on, more and more methods of research have been introduced.

This makes me wonder, does the psychological genre of academic writing evolve and

grow in the way scientific theories and ideas do? Is it resistant to change, or does it be-

come more complex and well-developed as time goes on? And if so, how much has it

evolved over the years? Do present day researchers still follow in Wundt’s footsteps?

Or has his original genre of writing been forgotten by present day psychologists? I think

that these are important questions to ask when considering writing in this field because

science is always expanding and evolving, which makes me wonder if the writing in-

volved in this subject does the same. To resolve these questions, I have decided to

study the relationship between psychology and the scientific writing comprised within

this field. Specifically, I am interested in how the introduction of psychology affected the

psychological scientific genre of writing, and how this genre has in return evolved over

the years. This is an area of interest to me because psychology is the study of the mind

Sarvis 4

and behavior, and I believe there is a lot that we can learn from the mind and all it can

do. I have a theory that the psychological genre of writing has evolved over the year and

become more complex. My hypothesis is that lab reports, for example have become

more complex over time because as time goes on, psychologists learn more and more

from the subjects they study and the discoveries they make. The more a psychologist

understands a topic, the more likely they are to go in depth in their research. I believe

that as time goes on, psychology has to have become more complex, because more

and more psychologist are publishing new work and new studies out into the scientific

community. Unless recent studies are introducing the same information as those of the

past, today’s psychological genre of writing has to be more complex and in depth; I be-

lieve that it has evolved. When I asked my psychology professor about my theory, he

too agreed that “the way research is performed and written is constantly changing” and

“within last few decades, there has been a shift in the focus of writing that is more con-

cise, focused, and more clear,” (Tock “Interview”). He believes that psychologist today

have greater resources to carry out their studies, but there is “increasing demands on

the writer to provide adequate evidence to support their claims,” (Tock “Interview”).

Before I know the truth of this matter, I have to test my theory myself. To do this,

I will analyze work in psychology from various times throughout the three eras of psy-

chology (Mental Life, Behaviorism, and the Cognitive Revolution) and make note of the

changes through time, if any. Additionally, I will review my findings with my Professor,

Jamie Tock. I feel that his first-hand experience in this field will be helpful in not only un-

derstanding the introduction of psychology as a writing genre, but also how

Sarvis 5

this genre evolved over time and what some of it’s practical uses are today. I hope that

he will be able to give a better understanding of the topics I am researching if there is

any confusion along the way. If my results show that there has been significant increase

in the level of complexity within the genre and context of the reports, then my hypothe-

sis is correct; psychology’s genre of writing has evolved over the years to become more

complex and encompass more information. If my findings do not support this claim, then

my hypothesis is not correct; here has been no evolution in the complexity of psychol-

ogy’s genre of writing.

To begin my research, I am first studying Wilhelm’s reaction time experiment, be-

cause it is the very first of it’s kind within the Mental Life era of psychology. In his experi-

ment, Wundt exposed his participants to different stimuli and asked them to record their

personal sensations from the stimuli, which could be anything from a bright light to a

soft sound in the distance. From this experiment, Wundt wished to analyze the subcon-

scious thought process and elements that constituted a reaction from his subjects so he

could gain a better understanding of the brain’s structure. Wundt referred to this method

of processing the organized mind as “voluntarism” (McLeod). According to Saul McLeod

from the University of Manchester, the introduction of Wundt’s study led to part of his

theory “[being] developed and promoted by his one-time student, Edward Titchener,

who described his system as Structuralism, or the analysis of the basic elements that

constitute the mind” (McLeod). This is the first instance where we can see one psychol-

ogist work influencing another’s. This is my first discovery of underlying proof that

Wundt’s work set a template for other psychologist to built off of, and from that new the-

ories and ideas have emerged. Titchener was a student of Wundt’s, so it only

Sarvis 6

seems natural that Wundt’s work would be influential to him; students often learn the

basics from their teachers, and then go off and use that knowledge to make their own

discoveries. Titchener’s adoption of the word “structuralism” instead of Wundt’s “volun-

tarism” shows that even in it’s early stages, the diction used by psychologist evolved as

new ideas are shared and built upon. These two men shared the same ideas, but one of

them was progressive enough to pursue thought ideas further and make changes within

their field. This is an early sign of an evolution in the written genre of psychology.

Around the same as Wundt’s reaction time experiment, William James began

practicing psychology as well. His interest in psychology was sparked by his colleague

Hermann Von Helmholtz, who he worked with in France and Germany. After graduating

from Harvard in 1869, James was offered a position as a psychology professor and

stayed in that position for 35 years. Unlike Wundt or Titchener, James did not adopt the

“structuralist” point of view in regards to psychology (Tock “Lecture”). In fact, James “op-

posed the structuralist view on introspection and breaking down mental events to the

smallest elements,” (Cherry). Instead, James focused on the “wholeness of an event,

taking into the impact of the environment on behavior” (Cherry). This point of view is re-

garded today as “functionalism”, which “stresses the whole as being greater than the in-

dividual parts” and “emphasizes peoples ability to adapt to the world and other’s behav-

ior” (Tock “Lecture”). After James’ dissension from the accepted structuralism point of

view, many other psychologist adopted his functionalism views towards psychology. Ac-

cording to “The Science of the Mind: 2001 and Beyond”, structuralist were “single-

minded adherents to a strict doctrine”, while functionalist were “eclectic on

Sarvis 7

method and pragmatic about theory” (Solso et al.). James’ dissension from Wundt and

Titchener’s accepted “structuralist” point of view shows that psychology not only evolves

and grows, but it also changes and shifts focus as times goes on. This initially seems

like evidence that psychology has not gradually evolved over the years; the introduction

of James’ “functionalist” point of view discredited the commonly accepted theory and

made psychologist question who was correct. However, constant change and question-

ing of accepted norms over the years is the only way a field like psychology ever could

evolve and encompass more that it did originally. Psychologists like James who were

not afraid to share new ideas with the scientific community are mainly responsible for

the changes made within that community. As more and more people accepted James’

“functionalist” theory, alternative ideas emerged across the scientific spectrum, resulting

in new studies being conducted and new forms of research being held, meaning that

new writing was produced. When I consulted my professor about this evolution of the

written work in psychology, he agreed that “science moves in a more continuous way

rather then a jumpy manner,” and that “the psychologist who develops a novel proce-

dure that changes the field often kickstarts a great deal of similar studies being held,”

(Tock “Interview”). This leads to new research articles being published and psychologist

building off each other’s work.

The first major shift in psychology was introduced by John B. Watson, who be-

lieved that “science should be rooted in observation” and that “psychology should be the

study of behavior and not the mind” (Tock “Lecture”). This theory is known as Behavior-

ism, which lasted from 1920-1960, and it is marked as the second stage of psychology

following Mental Life, which only lasted from 1979-1920. Watson’s

Sarvis 8

introduction to Behaviorism led to a revolution in the way psychologist study the world.

Behaviorist believed that studying live subjects was the best way to learn more about

them. Also, behaviorist challenged the concept of the black box in psychology and how

psychologist should approach it. The “black box” in psychology is term that psychologist

use in reference to the system the human mind uses to form a response to a stimulus.

The issue that arises with behaviorism is that prior to it, psychologist sought out discov-

ery of the box’s content and very nature of it through their work and research. They be-

lieved that understanding of the black box and how it operates was essential to under-

standing the mind. Behaviorist, on the other hand, believe that we can never know the

true nature of the box, so there is reason for it to be known (Tock “Lecture”). According

to researches at Penn State, behaviorist believed that “the learner is a black box and

nothing is known about what goes on inside. Knowing what's inside the black box is not

essential for determining how behavior is governed” (Ho). Their research article pro-

vides concrete evidence that the study of psychology has evolved and become multifac-

eted through years of revolutionary, and sometimes even radical, ideas. This is reflected

in the opposition of lab work by James and all of the fellow behaviorist in the scientific

community (Tock “Lecture”). Their opposition lab work limited the different writing styles

behaviorist had when writing in this field. If no one was studying something in a lab,

then no lab work was being published. Instead of studying part of the body through lab

work like structuralists, this new wave of psychology promoted studying the behavior of

subjects instead of the parts that make up the subject.

According to psychologist William Stephenson, behaviorism is an “objective ap-

proach to psychology” (Williams). By this, he means that behaviorist seek out

Sarvis 9

different information and knowledge than other psychologists do; their very methods of

gathering data and studying the world differ significantly. In his novel Postulates of Be-

haviorism, Stephenson adds that within behaviorism is “an opposition to introspection-

ism” which further divides behaviorist from other psychologists (Williams). This affected

the writing in psychology in that it began to encompassed research articles studying be-

havior and how a person’s behavior transcends into their thought process, which was a

new concept at the time. Also, a reader could tell if a researcher was or was not a be-

haviorist by the style and format of the work they were publishing. More and more psy-

chologists like Williams and those at Penn State began publishing their ideas on behav-

iorism out towards the scientific community. In this rhetorical situation, the behavioralist

psychologists have an audience that is eager to hear new ideas because it is the nature

of the scientific community to be fast-paced and fluid enough to evolve quickly to

change. Even my psychology professor agreed that their audience was “anybody that

will take the time to read their work, and hopefully apply it to their own thinking and re-

search,” (Tock “Interview”). The application of another’s ideas onto one’s own work is

how changes are made in both psychology and it’s written components. Scientists in

this field are constantly learning more from each other’s work because in one way or an-

other it all overlaps and influences all aspect of this field.

Over time, behaviorism died out within the scientific community because it lacked

adequate explanations for certain phenomena, and better developed technology taught

psychologist more about the human brain than behavior studies ever could (Tock “Lec-

ture”). This second shift in psychology is know as the Cognitive Revolution, and it

ranged from the early 1960’s to present day. From this time period, psychologists were

Sarvis 10

focused on unlocking the black box’s contents, and fully understanding the processes

used by the mind to encode, process, store, and retrieve information. Some new fields

that emerged from this revolution were Neuroscience, Social Psychology, and Evolu-

tionary Psychology (Tock “Lecture”). One major study held in the Social Psychology

field was the Stanford Prison Experiment, held by Professor Phillip Zimbardo in 1973. In

this experiment, volunteers were assigned roles of either a guard or a prisoner and were

expected to participate in a realistic scenario depicting life in prison for two weeks. The

goal of this study was “to understand the psychology of imprisonment through simula-

tion” (Zimbardo et al.). Throughout this study, the volunteers easily transitioned to their

roles and even began changing their personality traits to match the role they were as-

signed. Even though the study was intended to last two weeks, it was terminated after 6

days. Participants in this study were experiencing real symptoms of depression and

were harmed by the treatment received from the study. This study resulted in the mer-

gence of ethical criticism towards Zimbardo for subjecting humans to this type of treat-

ment. Before the emergence of Social Psychology, studies with goals like this were not

held, because there was no field that held the interest to pursue them; the outcomes of

unpredictable events like this could not be known by anyone. As more and more similar

experiments were held, the cause for ethical concern became more and more prevalent.

This resulted in many people critically reviewing similar studies because of the ethical

concerns they caused. Ethical concerns called for a new style of writing being published

in this field. For example, Heather Lench, Ph.D. published an article examining the

ethics involved in the study. In her article, Lench said that “volunteer prisoners suffered

physical and psychological

Sarvis 11

abuse” and that “the intensity and duration of this suffering [qualifies] the Stanford

Prison Experiment for scrutiny for violations of the ethics of human experimentation”

(Lench). After more and more people criticized researchers for their questionable stud-

ies and practices, new laws and regulations were passed in regards to ethical concerns.

Now, subjects in a study are fully aware of possible outcomes of the study, and have

consented to all aspects of the study. In this specific scenario, writing was used by psy-

chologist to get the attention of their audience and expose the questionable methods of

study used by their colleagues. Their work, which was usually written to spread aca-

demic ideas across the spectrum, was now written with the intent to protect human

rights and prevent malpractice in the psychology community.

From my time researching psychology and the evolution of it’s writing, I believe

that I have found substantial evidence to support my previously mentioned claim that

the writing in psychology has become more complex over time because as time goes

on, psychologists learn more and more from the subjects they study and the discoveries

they make. I have concluded that there is a relationship between psychology and scien-

tific writing; psychology’s genre of writing has evolved over the years to become more

complex and encompass more information just as psychology itself has grown and

taken on more meaning. From each source I reviewed, I found that it provided a newer

and more evolved style of writing than the previous. Each new source brought to the ta-

ble something the other did not, and these differences are proof of the ever changing

genre of writing in psychology. What started as one man’s idea blossomed into one of

the largest fields of science ever studied, and it is reflected in the work it has produced.

Sarvis 12

Works Cited

Cherry, Kendra. "William James Biography." About Education. About, 2010. Web. 16 July 2015.

Ho, Wenyi. ”Behaviorism: A Psychological Perspective.” Behaviorism. Penn State, n.d. Web. 18 July 2015.

Lench, Heather. "On the Ethics of Intervention in Human Psychological Research: With Special Reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment." (2008): 1-13.

Heather Lench. Web. 18 July 2015.

McLeod, Saul. "Stanford Prison Experiment." Simple Psychology. Simple Psychology, 2008. Web. 20 July 2015.

McLeod, Saul. “Wilhelm Wundt - Father of Psychology.” Simple Psychology. Simple Psychology, 2008. Web. 16 July 2015.

Solso, Robert L., and Dominic W. Massaro. The Science of the Mind: 2001 and beyond. New York: Oxford UP, 1995. Print.

Tock, Jamie. Personal Interview. 19 July 2015.

Tock, Jamie. “General Psychology Lecture.” Florida State University. Psychology Department, Tallahassee, Fl. July 2015

University of Indiana Bloomington. Human Intelligence: Wilhelm Wundt. Human Intelligence, 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 16 July 2015

William, Stephenson. "Postulates of Behaviorism." Philosophy of Science. 2nd ed. Vol. 20. N.p.: U of Chicago, 1953. 110-20. Print.

Wilson, Robert A., and Frank C. Keil. Page 77. The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1999. Print.

Zimbardo, Phillip, and Craig Haney. "The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Stimulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment." THE STANFORD PRISON

EXPERIMENT (1971): Stanford University, 1971. Web. 18 July 2015.