A Brief History of Cognitive Psychology: From Classical Thought to Modern Empiricism

Cognitive psychology is an important facet of psychology which has wide-reaching implications on diverse fields of study, such as “philosophy, anthropology, linguistics, biology, physics…neuroscience,” computer science and artificial intelligence (Lu & Dosher, 2007). By analyzing the history and development of cognitive psychology, the meanings and methods of understanding human thought become clear. Aristotle and Plato were the first Western philosophers to ruminate upon how human’s intake, process, and act on information. These simple inquiries continue to form the philosophical basis for the incredibly complex body of research and practice known today as cognitive psychology.

What sets classical thought on cognition apart from modern conceptions is the nature of evidence used. Ancient philosophers did not employ the scientific method of forming theories and gathering empirical evidence to support them. Rather, they relied on pre-scientific paradigms and logical and rhetorical methods to argue the validity of their concepts of cognition. These exercises continued through Rene Descartes, Leibniz, and Kant up to the turn of the 20th century, as cognitive psychology embraced scientific methods and, through the pioneering work of early psychologists such as Wilhelm Wundt and William James, became its own discipline. Briefly overshadowed in the early half of the 20th century by B.F. Skinner’s theory of behaviorism, cognitive psychology re-emerged during the late 1950s under Chomsky and others and has continued to dominate current psychological theory and furnishes theoretical and practical knowledge to a range of disciplines. The latest research in cognitive psychology is an outgrowth of centuries’ worth of literature concerning the true nature of the mind.

Behavioral therapy models that rely on cognitive theory have become increasingly popular among mental health care providers due to their level of effectiveness, especially when used in conjunction with other interventions such as medication (Lewis & Dirksen, 2013). The theological implications of cognitive psychology are profound: if the brain and mind are singular, then what about the human spirit or soul? Spiritual dualism cannot be elegantly combined with a monist biological theory of mind. Evolutionary biology points to the Earthly origins of human cognition and emotion, while theological discourse emphasizes a metaphysical bond between the brain and God through prayer and spiritual energy. The dual states model of current cognitive psychology theory is a far cry from Descartes’ dualistic interpretation of mind and matter, but its semantic heritage reaches back even further than such recent classical models. With the rapid development of industrial societies and the wanton destruction of the environment, it seems that human thought may currently be the strongest force on planet Earth.

Analyzing the history of cognitive psychology engages fundamental questions about why and how humans think. A historical perspective can shed light upon the shifting attitudes toward the study of cognition over time, paying particular attention to scholarly and religious interpretations. Cognitive psychology examines the following aspects of the human experience: “perception, attention, learning, memory, concept formation, reasoning, judgment and decision-making, problem solving, and language processing,” each one an integral individual component of consciousness as a whole (Lu & Dosher, 2007).

Aristotle’s ideas about cognition inspired generations of thinkers in their unique conceptions of the mind and brain. “In Scholastic tradition, there are three chambers of the brain…which are related to the Aristotelian elemental qualities,” the “cellula phantastica,” which is “hot and dry,” the “cellula rationalis,” which is “warm and moist,” and finally, the “cellula memoralis,” which take on the roles of perception, thought and language processing, and memory, respectively. (Roob, 2006, p. 458) Aristotle “divides” the mind “into nutrition, sensation, and faculty of thought, corresponding to” the plant, animal, and human minds, which have increasing levels of conscious activity. (Wundt & Titchener, 1904, p. 22) This tripartite model continued to permutate through various incarnations

Plato believed rationality to be the pinnacle of human thought, emotions being secondary, in an echo of the Atistotelian model. He thought of memory through the metaphor of an etching upon wax (Roob, 2006, p. 460). Robert Fludd, a 17th century Christian hermetic philosopher, diagrammed the mind as a microcosm with spheres of thought organized into orbits: “mundus sensibilis,” “mundus imaginibilis,” and “mundus intellectualis,” with memory and motion being processed in the final chamber (Roob, 2006, p.459). This microcosm reflects the Alchemical interest in heavenly orbits and the idea of man as a universal center: it is an evolution of the Aristotelian model which subsumes and expands upon the theory of the three chambers. Like the tripartite Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the tripartite model of thought separates human cognitive experience into three dimensions which can be more easily understood but remain part of a monistic whole.

Like Plato’s wax metaphor which preceded it, Descartes imagined memory as the impressions of sewing needles upon cloth (Roob, 2006, p. 460). He also elaborates upon the wax argument by stressing empirical methods and questioning the limits of the senses, stating: “I could not even understand through the imagination what this piece of wax is, and that it is my mind alone which perceives it” (Descartes, 1641). As the Cartesian corpuscular model superseded alchemy as an epistemological method for scientific inquiry in the area of chemistry, Descartes ideas about consciousness bore tremendous influence on Renaissance attitudes toward the corporeal basis for cognition and the unification of spirit, mind and body through biological structures such as the pineal gland (Roob, 2006). However, the scientific evidence for a physiological mechanism which furnishes cognition was sorely lacking in Descartes’ unenlightened time. Only later, through the scientific method, were philosophers and psychologists able to argue for an empirical methodology to explain the complex and contentious subject of consciousness.

With the publication of his seminal work on the subject of “physiological psychology,” Wundt developed the basis for an empirical study of thought that would later evolve into cognitive psychology (Wundt & Titchener, 1904). Wundt believed that it was psychology can no more “separate the processes of bodily life from conscious processes than we can mark off an outer experience, mediated by sense perceptions, and oppose it, as something wholly separate and apart,” from “‘inner’ experience, the events of our own consciousness” (Wundt & Titchener, 1904, p. 1). Recognizing the disparities between both inner and outer experience and the mind\body dualism of the Cartesian paradigm, Wundt hoped that evidence-based science would shed light on the oneness of psychological processes and biology. Standing on the shoulders of the philosophical giants who preceded him, Wundt developed the first psychological laboratory in order to study thought through true empiricism, rather than the “pure introspection” of prior thinkers (Wundt & Titchener, 1904, p.8). Seeking to elucidate the psychological basis for religious beliefs and actions, William James is the founding father of the psychology of religion. James takes a consequentalist, or pragmatic approach to religious practice, contending that if religion confers a psychological benefit to an individual, then it is a rational choice to participate; conversely, it would be irrational for one to practice religion if it is not effective for improving one’s psychological health. William James contributed brought cognitive psychology to America, developed a theory of consciousness that predates Freud, and most importantly, worked to incorporate the richness of theological discourse into the scientific realm (Fadiman & Frager, 2005). William James’ teachings fell into obscurity for a time, as psychoanalysis and behaviorism came on the scene.

Behaviorism’s failings in theory and practice led many psychologists to look back upon the cognitive model as a valuable tool for identifying and shaping thought and behavior and in the 1950s, a cognitive psychology revolution took place. Chomsky is a polarizing figure in the field of politics due to his socialist leanings, but his contributions to cognitive psychology starting in the late 1950s regarding linguistics and the human capacity to acquire, process, and utilize language in a seemingly greater manner than all other animals laid the building blocks for current cognitive theory. From the 1960s onward, cognitive psychology exploded as a tool for both research and to guide therapy. The preponderance of empirical evidence offered by statistics, utilizing technologies such as eye-tracking, EEG, fMRI, and neural nets, has led to the growth and development of several novel fields related to cognitive psychology, such as neurobiology and computational cognitive science, which seek to understand thought through materialist paradigms (Lu & Dosher, 2007).

Contemporary models of cognitive psychology, such as the dual processes model, implicate two separate thought patterns which give rise to the emergent properties of consciousness: an automatic or instinctual track, and a rational or critical process (Evans & Frankish, 2009). If this sounds familiar, it is because it is remarkably similar on its surface to the Platonic or Aristotelian model, however, years of hard empirical data have shed light upon the specific areas and neural circuits responsible for these faculties. Like a seed which contains the instructions to grow and transform a giant tree, or a dendritic branch of neurons, the simplest models of thinking have flourished as ever modified iterations, selectively pruned by elements supported or discounted through empirical evidence (Calvin, 1996). Cognitive psychology is currently at the forefront of interdisciplinary research, with the paradigm shift of artificial intelligence hanging just beyond humanity’s grasp. Like Aristotle, Descartes, and Wundt before them, today’s cognitive psychologists are endeavoring to explore the possibilities of the mind in a world of infinite data.

References

Calvin, W. H. (1996). How brains think: evolving intelligence, then and now. New York: Basic Books.

Descartes, R., & Soly, M. (1641). Renati Des-Cartes Meditationes de prima philosophia: in qua Dei existentia et anima immortalitas demonstratur.. Paris: Apud Michaelem Soly, viâ Iacobeâ, sub signo Phoenicis.

Evans, J. B. T., & Frankish, K. In two minds: dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Fadiman, J., & Frager, R. (1976). Personality and personal growth. New York: Harper & Row.

Lewis, S. M., & Dirksen, S. R. (2013). Medical-surgical nursing: assessment and management of clinical problems (Ninth ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Mosby.

Lu, Z., & Dosher, B. (2007). Cognitive psychology. Scholarpedia, 2(8), 2769.

Roob, A. (1997). Alchemy & mysticism: the hermetic museum. Köln: Taschen.

Wundt, W. M., & Titchener, E. B. (1904). Principles of physiological psychology,. London: S. Sonnenschein & co., lim.; New York, The Macmillan co.