The Roots and Branches of Psychology:

Historical and Contemporary Views on Human Nature and Psychology

by Mark F. Griffin

The Roots of Psychology

Introduction

Morton Hunt (1993) begins his comprehensive and entertaining history of

psychology by recounting the story of a “psychological experiment” conducted by
an ancient king of Egypt in the seventh century B.C. Through this experiment,
which involved an exploration of the development of language in infancy, the king
hoped to find evidence to support his hypothesis that Egyptians were the most
ancient of the “human races.” While the experiment failed to support the king’s
hypothesis, Hunt suggests that it does illustrate perhaps the first evidence in written
history that as long as 2700 years ago there was at least one individual who had the
“highly original notion” that mental processes could be systematically investigated
and studied. As Hunt recounts, many generations would pass before the idea that
“human beings could study, understand, and predict how their thoughts and feeling
arose” (p. 2) would become widely embraced and accepted. This was true despite
the fact that “many other complex natural phenomena” (p. 2) had been studied and
mastered for tens and even hundreds of centuries. As Hunt suggests, this was
principally because the ancients viewed their thoughts and emotions as originating
in the activities of various spirits and deities. In the sixth century B.C. (according
to Hunt) a rather remarkable development seems to have occurred independently
and simultaneously in various parts of the world – a development that he refers to
as “the discovery of the mind” (p. 5). Among those whom he credits with making
this “discovery” are the Buddha in India who taught that our sensations and
perceptions gradually and automatically combine themselves into ideas and
thoughts, and Confucius in China who emphasized the power of thinking and the
ability that each person has to make decisions. Such developments were also
taking place in Greece at this time and it is the ancient Greeks who Hunt suggests
most fully developed such a perspective. Among those whom Hunt cites as
introducing these ideas were the poet, Sappho, the poet and lawgiver, Solon, and
the philosopher, Thales. This period saw the rapid development in Greece of art,
science, and thought. One outgrowth of this development was the emergence of a
new area of knowledge that became known as philosophy. While the ancient
philosophers did not use the term psychology (Hunt reports that the term did not
exist until approximately 1520 A.D.) nor did they view it as a distinct area of
knowledge, they did explore nearly all aspects of psychology that have engaged the

1
interests of scholars and scientists since that time. Among the questions that the
philosophers investigated and developed hypotheses about were the following:

Is there only one substance, or is “mind” something different from “matter”?

Do we have souls? Do they exist after the body dies?
How are mind and body connected? Is mind part of soul, and if so can it
exist apart from the body?
Is human nature the product of inborn tendencies or of experience and
upbringing?
How de we know what we know? Are our ideas built into our minds, or do
we develop then from our perceptions and experiences?
How does perception work? Are our impressions of the world around us
true representations of what is out there? How can we know whether they
are or not?
Which is the right road to true knowledge – pure reasoning or data gathered
by observation?
What are the principles of valid thinking?
What are the causes of invalid thinking?
Does the mind rule the emotions, or vice versa? (Hunt, 1993, pp. 6-7)

We will begin our exploration of the roots of psychology with a brief review of the
contributions of the ancient Greek philosophers and trace the development of
philosophical thought regarding human nature until we reach the last quarter of the
nineteenth century, the period in which historians agree that psychology as we
know it today – the scientific study of behavior and mental processes – emerged.
We will also acknowledge the contributions of that other group of scholars – the
physiologists - who are credited as the other parent (along with the philosophers)
of psychology.

Section 1: The Roots of Psychological Thought

Ancient Greek Era

While psychology is interested in the nature of humanity, in understanding how

human beings function, psychology is by no means the only field of inquiry that
seeks answers to the puzzles of human nature. Even though psychology as an
independent field of study is only 125 or so years old, as indicated above, the
questions that interest psychologists have been asked for centuries. The
psychology that you are studying developed in Western Europe and is largely
derived from and influenced by Western European cultural traditions, which can be

2
traced back to the ancient Greeks. Some of the earliest records of the attempt to
understand human psychology can be found in works of literature. The Iliad and
The Odyssey, the epic poems of the Greek poet Homer, are filled with the poet's
insights about human nature. The field of psychology derives its very name from
the Greek myth of Psyche. Psyche is variously translated as soul or spirit (or
sometimes mind) - the very essence of what it means to be human (Sternberg,
1998)

Though ancient literature often provides insights into early views of human
behavior, the earliest roots of the modern discipline of psychology can be traced to
two different approaches to human behavior. Philosophy is a means of exploring
and understanding various aspects of the nature of the world in general - including
human nature. Philosophy operates primarily through introspection - the self-
examination of ideas and inner experiences. The second field from which
psychology derives is physiology (a subfield of biology)- the scientific study of
living organisms and of life sustaining processes and functions. Physiologists seek
knowledge primarily through observation - an approach known as empiricism. In
ancient Greece these fields were closely allied and even physiology relied more on
introspection than on observation. The fields gradually diverged from one
another.

Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.), who is known as the father of modern medicine, had
an impact on both philosophy and physiology (which were still closely connected
in his time). He proposed the then "radical" ideas that disease is not a punishment
sent by the gods and that physical malfunctions rather than demons caused mental
illness. Hippocrates used what were at the time unorthodox methods - empirical
observations - to study medicine. These included dissection (operating on human
cadavers) and vivisection (operating on living organisms). He was interested in the
nature of the mind and what its source is. He viewed it as an entity that controls
the body. The philosophical belief that the mind (or spirit or soul) is qualitatively
different from the body is known as mind-body dualism. According to this view
the body is composed of physical substance but the mind is ethereal or intangible -
not composed of physical substance. Hippocrates was the first to suggest that the
mind resides in the brain (Sternberg, 1998).

Two famous contemporaries of Hippocrates, Plato (428-348 B.C.) and Aristotle

(384- 322 B.C.) also believed that the mind was to be found within the body. Plato
located it in the brain and Aristotle placed it in the heart. Plato and Aristotle had a
profound effect on modern thinking not only in psychology but also in many
fields. With regard to psychology they particularly impacted three areas:

3
1. The relationship between mind and body.

2. The use of observation versus introspection as a means of discovering truth.

3. The question of what is the original source of our ideas (Sternberg, 1998).

Plato and Aristotle had different views on the nature of reality. Plato believed that
reality lies not in concrete objects that we are aware of through our senses but in
the ideal, abstract forms that these objects represent. These ideal forms exist in a
timeless dimension of pure abstract thought. The objects we sense are simply
poor, imperfect and transient copies of the "real" idea that exists in our minds.
Plato reasoned that the head must be the seat of the mind because it resembles a
sphere, which he considered to be a perfect abstract form. Mind and body interact
with one another according to Plato but they are essentially different and the mind
is superior to the body. Truth is found in our thoughts (via introspection) not
through our senses (via observation). Aristotle, in contrast, believed that reality
lies only in the concrete world of objects that we apprehend through our senses.
From Aristotle's point of view, Plato's abstract forms derive from concrete objects.
He believed that reality is a unified whole, that it is not separated into physical
substance versus the non-physical mind. His position on this issue is known as
monism. (Plato's position was a form of dualism). According to Aristotle, the mind
(soul) doesn't exist apart from the body. It is an illusion, a byproduct of anatomical
and physiological activity. Because Aristotle held to this physically-based view of
reality, he believed that the study of the mind and body are one and the same. He
believed that we understand the mind by studying the body and that we rely on
observation of concrete objects and actions (rather than on our own thoughts -
introspection) to discover truth (Sternberg, 1998)

Aristotle was an empiricist. Empiricists hold that knowledge is gained by

experience, observation and experimentation. Plato was a rationalist. Rationalists
believe that knowledge is gained through thinking and analyzing in an effort to
understand the world and people's relationship to it. Aristotle's view formed the
foundation for the methods of empirical psychological research. Plato's view
formed the foundation for theorizing about psychological processes, an activity
that may or may not lead to subsequent empirical investigation. Today most
psychologists (and most scientists in general) would agree that both approaches
have merit. Most would agree that theorizing needs empirical research to confirm
its conclusions while empirical research needs theorizing to organize and make
sense of its observations (Sternberg, 1998).

4
With regard to the origin of ideas, Aristotle believed that ideas come from
experience. Plato believed that ideas are innate and need to be "dug out" of the
places in the mind where they might be "hiding." This foreshadowed the modern
debate (known as the nature-nurture controversy) over whether abilities and
dispositions such as athletic skills or intelligence are innate or acquired through
various kinds of experiences. Today most psychologists would say that innate
ability and experience interact with one another to produce many aspects of
personality, skills and abilities (Sternberg, 1998).

Early Christian Era and the Middle Ages

The ideas of Plato and Aristotle continued to form the basis of debate about human
nature during the period from 200-450 A.D. (the early Christian era) and 400-1330
A.D. (the Middle Ages). In these periods scientific efforts were often discouraged
unless their results confirmed what scripture was understood to say about various
phenomena. The Christian philosophers of this era agreed with Plato that
introspection not observation was the better path to discover truth. After centuries
of domination by religious dogmatism, the Christian philosopher and theologian
Thomas Aquinas revived Aristotelian ideas and tried to integrate faith and
empiricism. He tried to establish a sort of Christian science in which empiricism
could operate within the boundaries of Christian theology. He believed that
reasoning is important and acceptable because reasoning can lead to God. This set
the stage for Renaissance thinkers who emphasized reasoning as a route to truth
(Sternberg, 1998).

The Renaissance

The period from 1300-1600 A.D. is known as the Renaissance. During this period,
critical thought was revitalized in Europe and science, as we know it was born.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626) proposed the viewpoint that scientific study must be
purely empirical. It should not be guided at all by theory. Bacon thought that
theories color our vision and interfere with our perception of the "truth." Studies of
nature and of humanity should be wholly unbiased and atheoretical (not based on
any particular theoretical approach). Today most scientists support a model of
inquiry in which theory is used to guide and give meaning to observations and in
which observations provide data which is used to form, modify and even discard
theory. Psychology today depends on an interaction between theory and data
(Sternberg, 1998)

Early Modern Period

5
In the early modern period (1600-1850) the debate between Aristotelian and
Platonic approaches continued to thrive. Rene' Descartes (1596-1650), a French
mathematician and philosopher, disagreed with Bacon's emphasis on empirical
methods. He took up Plato's viewpoint that introspection and reflection as
investigatory methods were superior to observation. Descartes revived the Platonic
ideas of mind-body dualism and innate (versus acquired) knowledge. He said that
what separates humans from animals is that humans have a non-material, spiritual
mind and a material body. The human mind and its powers were supreme. He is
known for coining the famous phrase "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am).
Though he gave supremacy to the mind he agreed that the body could influence the
mind so he is considered both mentalistic because he viewed the mind as superior
to the body, and interactionistic because he suggested there is a two way
interaction between mind and body (Sternberg, 1998).

John Locke (1632-1704), an Englishman, believed that the interaction between

mind and body is a symmetrical relationship between two aspects of the same
unified phenomenon. The mind depends on the body through the senses for its
information while the body depends on the mind to process and store sensory
experience for later use. Locke was also an empiricist and believed that humans
are born without knowledge, which is subsequently acquired through experience
and empirical observation. He proposed the term tabula rasa (blank slate) to
describe this condition. Life and experience, according to Locke, "write"
knowledge on each of us. James Mill (1773-1836) was Locke's philosophical
successor. He took British empiricism to its philosophical extreme. He was
known as an associationist and believed that events that occur close to one another
in time become associated in the mind and can be recalled in tandem. He viewed
the mind in entirely mechanistic terms and thought that the laws of the physical
universe can explain everything - even the workings of the mind. The idea of a
separate mind or soul that exists independently of the body is both unnecessary and
wrong. This form of monism is known as reductionism. It reduces the role of the
mind to the status of a mere cog in a large physiological machine and reduces the
vast complexity of human behavior to a mere by-product of physiological activity
(Sternberg, 1998).

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), a German philosopher, began the process of trying to

reconcile or synthesize the competing viewpoints of dualism vs. monism and
empiricism vs. rationalism. He redefined the mind-body question by asking how
the mind and body are related rather than whether the mind is in control. Kant
proposed that humans have a set of faculties or mental powers - senses,
understanding, and reasoning. These faculties working together control and

6
provide a link between mind and body thus integrating the two. Kant believed that
to understand the mental faculties we must use both rationalistic and empirical
approaches. He believed that there were two types of knowledge: experiential
(which he called "a posteriori" knowledge - meaning from afterward - after the
fact) and "a priori" (from beforehand) or general knowledge that exists regardless
of one's experience. An example of the latter type of knowledge would be our
knowledge of time. Kant thought that understanding requires both types of
knowledge. A priori knowledge permits us to make use of a posteriori knowledge.
For example, with respect to time, we link together our fleeting sensations into a
seemingly continuous stream of existence in which one event precedes and causes
another event (cause and effect relationships). Understanding involves both nature
(innate concepts and abilities) and nurture (knowledge gained through
experience). Kant's influence on philosophy was enormous. Philosophy in the
19th century worked together with the science of the time in exploring the body
and how it works to set the stage for the eventual establishment of psychology as a
separate discipline in the late 1800's (Sternberg, 1998).

The issues confronted by philosophers, physicians, and psychologists are so

intertwined that when psychology was starting out as a field of study in the late
1800's it was viewed by some as a branch of philosophy and by others as a branch
of medicine. Gradually the psychological branches of philosophy and medicine
broke away from their parent disciplines and psychology increasingly became a
distinct, unified scientific discipline focused on the study of the mind and
behavior. Contemporary psychology continues to wrestle with the same issues that
its ancestor disciplines of philosophy and physiology wrestled with. As you
explore the field you will hear echoes of these debates. One thing that the diverse
points of view on human behavior and mental processes have in common,
however, is the view that humans are organisms that have adapted to their
environment. Charles Darwin in his theory of natural selection suggested that only
those organisms that adapt well to their environment thrive. Humans, thus far,
both as a species and as individuals have adapted and thrived.

Section 2: Early Theoretical Perspectives in Psychology

The year 1879 is generally regarded as the year in which psychology as a formal
science was officially born. A German scholar named Wilhelm Wundt (1832-
1920), who was trained in both philosophy and medicine, had written in his first
book on sense perception in 1862 that psychology could become science only if it
employed the experimental method in the study of its subject matter (at the time
the workings of the mind) and that, furthermore, the mind could be studied

7
experimentally (Hunt, 1993). In a subsequent publication in 1873, he announced
that that he intended to make psychology a science and he established the first
psychology laboratory in Leipzig, Germany in 1879. Others in both North
America and Europe were also doing psychological research at this time but
Wundt's was the first laboratory to be formally established and to have its research
results published in a scholarly journal. These are among the reasons that he is
credited as the primary founder of the modern discipline of psychology. Many of
America's early psychologists received their training in Wundt's lab. The focus of
research in the Leipzig Laboratory was on sensation, perception, reaction times,
imagery and attention (Wade & Tavris, 2002). These were viewed as the basic
elements of psychological functioning. Wundt doubted that more complex
processes could be studied experimentally.

One of Wundt's favorite research methods was "trained introspection." Wundt and
his associates and students trained research subjects to carefully observe and
analyze their own mental experiences - including sensations, mental images, and
emotional reactions - under controlled conditions. The training of subjects in
introspection was rigorous and exhaustive. Wundt hoped that by providing such
training he could produce reliable, verifiable, objective results. In the long run,
however, it proved to be impossible to use introspection to produce reliable results
and the approach was abandoned as a research technique by other psychologists
(Wade & Tavris, 2002).

In the early days of psychology there were two dominant theoretical perspectives.
Structuralism was the name given to the approach pioneered by Wundt. The term
was not used by Wundt himself but originated with Edward Titchener, an
American psychologist who had been trained by Wundt. The goal of structuralism
was to understand the structure of the mind. It was thought that this could be
accomplished by analyzing sensations, images and feelings into their basic
elements. Despite extensive research efforts this approach proved to a dead end.
Once you've found the basic building blocks of a particular sensation or image,
what do you do with that information? As it turned out, not much. Structuralism
relied on trained introspection, a research method that proved to be unreliable
because there was too much individual variation in the experiences and reports of
research subjects (Wade & Tavris, 2002).

An American psychologist named William James (1842-1910), who like Wundt

was trained in both medicine and philosophy, developed a competing approach,
which came to be known as functionalism. He took the position that because the
brain and mind are constantly changing it is foolish to look for the basic building

8
blocks of experience as the structuralists were doing. Instead, James said, the
important questions were how and why an organism does something. What
purpose or function does the organism's behavior serve? Functionalists, who were
influenced by the work of the evolutionist, Charles Darwin, asked how specific
behaviors or mental processes help an animal or a person adapt to the
environment. Consequently, they looked for underlying causes and practical
consequences of behavior and mental processes. They felt free to use a variety of
research methods and broadened the field to focus on children, animals, religious
experiences, and what James called "the stream of consciousness" - the way
thoughts flow like a river sometimes placid and calm and at other times turbulent
and murky. Functionalism also didn't last long as a school of psychology because
it lacked a precise theory and program of research to hold it together. But it has
left its mark on the field with its emphasis on the causes and consequences of
behavior, both of which are prominent features in particular theoretical
perspectives in contemporary psychology (Wade & Tavris, 2002).

Another early theory in psychology was developed by the Austrian physician,

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Originally trained as a neurologist, Freud became
interested in how psychological factors might contribute to some of his patients'
problems. He became convinced that many of his patients' symptoms had mental
rather than physical explanations. In particular, he believed that early experiences
such as conflicts and traumas had caused such distress for his patients as children
that the memory of them was extremely threatening and therefore the patients were
unable to consciously recall these events. Despite their inability to remember
childhood experiences, the memories and the feelings associated with them exerted
a powerful influence on the patients' behavior and emotions. Freud argued that
conscious awareness is only the "tip of the iceberg" when it comes to
psychological functioning. He believed that even more important than our
conscious thoughts in determining how we react and respond to events are forces
that operate unconsciously. Such unconscious material as repressed wishes,
conflicts, guilty secrets, yearnings and desires exert a powerful influence on our
behavior and emotional reactions. Freud gradually developed his ideas into a
broad theory of human psychological functioning and a method for treating
patients with psychologically based disorders. Both the theory and the treatment
method became known as psychoanalysis (Wade & Tavris, 2002).

A very different approach to psychology emerged in the early twentieth century.

The work of several scholars contributed to the development and growth of this
approach but one of them, the American John B. Watson (1878-1958) is typically
credited as the “father of behaviorism.” Behaviorism is a theoretical perspective

9
that is “based on the premise that scientific psychology should study only
observable behavior” (Weiten, 2004, p. 6). As Weiten observes, it is important to
understand that this was a radical departure from the ways in which psychology
had been defined up until this point. Watson, who in 1913 published an article that
has since become known as “The Behaviorist Manifesto”, argued that psychology
should altogether abandon the study of consciousness (mental processes) and
attend only to directly observable and, therefore verifiable, behavior. A strict
empiricist, Watson proposed a revolutionary re-definition of what psychology
should be about arguing that mental processes were not a proper subject of study
for a scientific discipline because they were private events that could not be
examined by an impartial observer. He proposed that psychology should instead
be the science of behavior. Under the influence of Watson and others (especially
the American psychologist B.F. Skinner [1904-1990] ) behaviorism became the
dominant theoretical perspective in much of psychology from the 1920’s to the
1960’s.

The Branches of Psychology

Section 3: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives

None of the early theoretical perspectives described above “won” the battle for
supremacy in psychology. Contemporary psychology has no single unifying
theoretical perspective. Rather, it is a field comprised of various theoretical points
of view. Though sometimes it seems that these perspectives are competing with
each other, most current day psychologists are likely to agree that the various
perspectives are better understood as complementary: The most complete and
accurate picture of human behavior and mental processes can be created by
integrating these various perspectives together. That being said, it remains true
that individual psychologists tend to specialize in and emphasize a particular
theoretical perspective. Myers (2004) organizes psychology's current theoretical
perspectives as follows:

Neuroscience: The neuroscience perspective in psychology emphasizes the role of

the brain and other bodily systems in creating our emotions, our memories and our
sensory experiences. From this perspective human beings are best understood as
biological organisms. Every aspect of human behavior and every human mental
process can be traced back to biological events.

Evolutionary Psychology: From the perspective of evolutionary psychology,

human behavior and mental processes have evolved because they have adaptive

10
value. Behavioral tendencies and human mental abilities and capacities have
evolved through a process of natural selection in the same way that physical traits
evolve. These behavioral tendencies and mental abilities are ultimately rooted in
biological structures and processes.

Behavior Genetics: Evolutionary psychology has its effect through the process of
genetic transmission. Among the psychological abilities we have inherited are
those that help us to adjust or adapt to environmental demands. Sometimes,
however, psychological factors that are not so helpful are also genetically
influenced. Individuals also differ in the extent to which they exhibit various
psychological traits. Behavioral geneticists are interested in determining the extent
to which psychological factors such as intelligence, personality traits, sexual
orientation, and even psychological disorders are attributable to our genes and how
those genetic factors interact with the environment.

These first three perspectives all share in common an emphasis on biological

processes and their influence on behavior and mental life though each perspective
emphasizes a different aspect of biological activity. Together they represent what
many consider the result of a recent biological revolution in psychology (Myers,
2004).

The Psychodynamic Perspective: Psychodynamic psychology traces its origins to

Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. There are several different versions of
psychodynamic theory today. What they share in common is an emphasis on early
childhood experiences as being critical for the formation of personality and on the
role of unconscious mental processes in affecting behavior and emotions.

The Behavioral Perspective: Behavioral psychologists emphasize the role that

experience plays in shaping our responses to environmental events. They study the
processes by which our observable actions and reactions become associated with
particular environmental variables and how our behavior produces consequences
that in turn exert an influence on subsequent behavior. Though this perspective
grew out of behaviorism, modern behavioral psychologists acknowledge the role of
mental and biological processes in influencing behavior.

The Cognitive Perspective: Cognitive psychology emphasizes the ways in which

we process information. This includes the ways that we perceive and interpret
experiences, the ways that we store and organize information in our memories, the
ways that we use information to make decisions and solve problems, and the ways
in which these processes affect our behavior and our emotional reactions. In many

11
respects modern cognitive psychology is responsible for once again (following the
influence of behaviorism) making the study of mental processes a principal focus
of psychology

The Social-Cultural Perspective: Behavior and thinking are affected by the social
and cultural environment. Social-cultural psychologists emphasize the role that
social and cultural forces play in influencing behavioral patterns as well as such
cognitive variables as attitudes and values.

One additional contemporary theoretical perspective that Myers does not include in
his list is the perspective known as humanistic psychology. Humanistic
psychologists view human nature as innately good and people as capable of taking
charge of their lives and, by acting on their free will, choosing the type of life that
they will live and the type of person that they will be. Humanistic psychology has
been influential in the fields of counseling, education, and organizational
dynamics.

At times psychologists blend particular combinations of these theoretical

perspectives together. For example, some psychologists are interested in studying
how cognitive processes are related to various brain structures. These
psychologists might refer to themselves as cognitive neuroscientists. Other
psychologists might combine cognitive and behavioral approaches in treating
psychological disorders such as depression or anxiety. They might refer to
themselves as cognitive-behavioral therapists. Still other psychologists might
describe themselves as eclectic in their orientation which means that they draw
upon several theoretical perspectives in their work.

References

Hunt, M. (1993). The story of psychology. New York: Random House.

Myers, D.G. (2004). Psychology: Seventh edition in modules. New York: Worth
Publishers.

Sternberg, R.J. (1998) In search of the human mind (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace.

Wade, C. & Tavris, C. (2002). Psychology (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

12
Weiten, W. (2004). Psychology: Themes and variations (6th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

This page is © 2005 by Mark F. Griffin. Students are welcome to print copies of
this page for their own personal use. Further reproduction of the contents of this
page is prohibited without the express permission of the author. You are, however,
welcome to use links to direct students to this page.

The author of this page is Mark F. Griffin, Ed.D., Assistant Professor of

Psychology at Georgia Perimeter College. You may e-mail me at
mgriffin@gpc.edu

13