No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Recent proposals for a return to introspective methods make it neces- sary to review the central problems that led psychologists to abandon those meth- ods as sources of scientific data in the early twentieth century. These problems and other related challenges to verbal reports collected during the cognitive revolution during the 1960s and 1970s were discussed in Ericsson and Simon s (1980; 1993) proposal for a theoretically motivated procedure to elicit valid and non- reactive concurrent verbalization of thoughts while subjects were performing tasks. The same proposal explains why other verbal reports, such as introspections, detailed descriptions or explanations, require additional cognitive activity that often leads to reactivity and invalid reports. Finally, a new proposal is sketched for how the generation of introspective reports might be incorporated within a framework for non-reactive and valid verbalization of thoughts. The contributions to this special issue demonstrate rapidly growing interest in introspective methods for studying experience and cognitive phenomena. As long as the procedures for collecting evidence are consistent with existing cogni- tive theories, scrutiny of them is often limited. The real test of the validity of the data-collection procedures comes when the uncovered findings are in conflict with prevailing theories and investigators with opposing views attempt to repli- cate each other's findings. This paper argues that it is necessary to understand the fierce controversies over introspective evidence in order to allow the develop- ment of improved methods that will meet the standards for reproducible scien- tific data.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 76 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.