Chapter 15 Chapter 10 The Gestalt Psychologist

On a train speeding through central Germany in midsummer 1910, a young psychologist named Max Wertheimer looked out the window.Electricity poles, houses and mountaintops seem to be moving with the train even though they are stationary. Why?Thousands of people took this illusion for granted, but at the time, he felt that there must be an explanation. This doubt led him to think of another kind of illusion movement—that is, the kaleidoscope, whose basic principle is similar to that of the movie, and this toy was very popular at that time.In both cases, a series of photographs taken at intervals of a fraction of a second, or a few pictures showing the slightest change, flashes past the eye, giving the impression of continuous motion.

This phenomenon, which has been known for decades, has never been satisfactorily explained.Thomas Edison and others who invented film in the 19th century were content to achieve the effect without understanding why.However, on the train that day, Weidheimer suddenly intuited the answer.He had just finished his Ph. D. in Weizburg, where some psychologists, who at the time dissented from the Wundt principle, explored the conscious mind through introspection.Now, it suddenly occurred to him that the cause of the illusion of movement may not occur on the retina as many psychologists think, but in the consciousness, some kind of advanced mental activity provides a transition between successive pictures, thus forming perception of movement.He quickly dropped his interest in moving landscapes and never returned to the subject.

At the time, Wedheimer had been working on the problem of the inability to read at the University of Vienna and was on vacation in the Rhineland.The idea, however, excited him so much that he got out of the car in Frankfurt and went to visit Professor Friedrich Schumann, who was then a specialist in perceptual problems, with whom Weidheimer had gone before leaving for Weizburg. Having studied at the University of Berlin, he has now moved to the University of Frankfurt. After entering the city, Wedheimer went to the toy store and bought a kaleidoscope, which he played with all day in his hotel. (STROBOSCOPE is now a scientific instrument used to observe the deceleration or static state of moving parts, such as in machinery as a strobe speed indicator, available in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it refers to a popular toy , can create the impression of activity.) There are pictures of horses and children in this kaleidoscope. If the speed is well controlled, you can see the horse walking slowly, and you can also see the children walking.Wedheimer replaced the drawings with pieces of paper on which he drew lines in two places, parallel to each other.He found that when turning at one speed, he first saw one line, and then saw other lines in other places; when turning at another speed, the two lines were parallel together.If it is turned at another speed, a thread moves from one position to another.In this way, he conducted an experiment of historical significance and was about to formulate a psychological theory.

The next day, Wedheimer called Schumann of the university, told him the phenomenon he observed and his guess and explanation of the phenomenon, and asked for his opinion.Schumann had nothing to say about that, but offered Wedheimer access to his laboratory and equipment, including a new speed-reading trainer of his own design.Researchers can adjust the speed of the slide-mounted wheel, expose a visual stimulus to the viewer for a short period of time, and use a wheel with slides and prisms in different positions to allow the viewer to see different transformations picture of.The speed reading trainer can be controlled very precisely, while the kaleidoscope can only demonstrate roughly.

Since Wedheimer needed some volunteers as experimental subjects, Schumann introduced him to one of his two assistants, Wolfgang Köhler, who soon brought in another assistant, Kurt Köhler. Kovka.Both of them are slightly younger than Wiedheimer (he is 30, Köhler is 28, Kofka is 24), but all three have a deep understanding of the advanced psychology neglected by the new psychological school of neuropsychology and Wundt's disciples. Psychic phenomena are of great interest.They got to work right away, and both became lifelong friends and colleagues. Single and with a separate income — his father had been the director of a successful business school in Prague — Wedheimer could do as he pleased, with his time.All he wanted now was to abandon his vacation plans and stay in Frankfurt.He let Köhler, Kofka and Kofka's wife stay here as his subjects and did a series of experiments for nearly half a year.

Based on his initial experiments in the hotel, Wedheimer's basic experiment involved projecting in turn a horizontal line 3 cm long and another line about 2 cm long below it.During short projection times, his subjects (who did not know what he was doing until much later) saw first one line and then the other; at increased speed, both lines were seen simultaneously, At intermediate speeds, a line moves smoothly from the previous line to the line below, and back again. For variety, Weldheimer used a vertical line and a horizontal line.At just the right speed, his subjects would see a line turn back and forth at a 90-degree angle.In another transformation, he used lights that, if the speed was just right enough, seemed to be the only one moving.He also experimented with multiple lines, different colors and different shapes, which in each case created the illusion of movement.Even after he told his three subjects what was going on, they couldn't keep themselves from seeing the movements.Among many other transformations, Werdheimer tried to rule out the possibility that the phenomenon was caused by eye movement or retinal remnants.

He concluded that the illusion was "a matter of mental state," which he called the o phenomenon.The letter o, he said, "suggests that something exists outside the perception of a or b" and that it comes from a "psychological short circuit" in the brain.The phenomenon, he said, arises from "a kind of mental short circuit" in the brain between the two areas stimulated by the nerve impulses from the areas of the retina stimulated by a and b. This physiological hypothesis is not prominent in his later research, what is prominent is Wedheimer's theory that the illusion of movement does not occur at the level of sensation, not in the retinal area, but in perception, that is, in consciousness.Disconnected sensations coming in from outside are seen as an organized whole, which carries its own meaning.Wedheimer called this general feeling Gestalt, a German word meaning shape, shape, or configuration, but what he meant by this word was perception as a meaningful whole A set of feelings.

In this way, what he spent months working on seemed to explain a small illusion.In fact, however, he and his colleagues had planted the seeds of the Gestalt school of psychology, a movement that would enrich and expand psychology in Germany and the United States. Wedheimer's theory, that thinking gives structure and meaning to some of the sensations that enter the brain, is clearly at odds with the anti-mind psychology that has dominated in Germany for nearly half a century and in the United States for a generation. (Gestalt psychology is often easily confused with Gestalt therapy. The former is a theory of psychology, and the latter is a technique of psychotherapy that uses some concepts borrowed from psychology, but the meaning of which has occurred a long time ago. Big Change; it additionally borrows ideas from deep psychology and existentialism.)

His theories were also out of step with the zeitgeist of 1910, when everything was centered on changing lives and minds through natural technology.Electric lights are rapidly changing nightlife in cities or even distant towns, automobiles are changing the habits of nations, airplanes are making long-duration flights (Louis Lerioyo has flown across the English Channel), Marie Curie has just separated Radium and needles, Rutherford was codifying his theory of atomic structure, Zeppelin passenger service had just begun, and Leed Forest had just recently registered his transistor.The New Psychology went hand in hand with these developments, and the Psychology of Mind seemed more metaphysical, less scientific, and more like yesterday's work than before.

For many years, however, some psychologists have considered Wedemeyer psychology to be lifeless and too limited because it cannot address complex forms of such vital aspects of human life as emotion, thinking, learning, and creativity.James, Galton, Binet, Freud, and members of the Würzburg school, though different in their concerns, were all interested in phenomena that could only be explained by higher mental methods, And investigations into these phenomena have been ongoing. In addition, other researchers have repeatedly presented evidence that perception is not the same as the perception received by the retina or other senses, but the mind's interpretation of the data in these senses.

As far back as 1890, the Austrian psychologist Christian Ehrenfels pointed out that when a piece of music is changed, all the notes will change, but what we hear is the same piece of music.He explained that we recognize identity in the interrelationships of the parts of the whole—what he calls the "gestaltality," or "formal quality"—in this piece of music, which comes from the mind, not the ear. Key features captured. Erest Mach, a physician interested in psychology, said in 1897 that when we look at a circle from different angles it always looks round, but on one lens it is elliptical; When we look at a table from different angles, the image on the retina changes, but our internal experience of seeing a table does not change.When the mind interprets the feeling, it describes the object as it knows it. In 1906, Vittorio Benlusi performed the famous Müller-Lille illusion experiment, in which two lines (parallel lines as shown in the picture below) appear to be different in length, but in fact they are are the same in length. He found that even when he told his subjects to focus on the parallel lines, they still couldn't bring themselves to ignore the entire figure, and they could reduce the illusion, but not eliminate it. While Wedheimer was conducting his first experiments in Frankfurt, Guttingen psychologist David Cachter was exploring "brightness norms" and "colour norms".He found that when we look at an object in shadow, we perceive it to have the same brightness and color as when we see it in bright light, even though it is objectively darker and of a different color .We see it, that is, within a known situation. Wedheimer, Koffka, and Köhler all knew this stuff in their training, having all been influenced in Berlin by Karl Stumpf, who borrowed phenomenology from philosophy and implanted it in psychology. (In phenomenological psychology, the main research material is the experience of everyday real life, rather than basic sensations and emotions.) Wiedheimer and Koffka also studied in Weizburg, and the research focus was on thought process.In addition, all three had conducted research involving higher mental functions: Wedheimer on the thinking abilities of dyslexic and retarded children and patients, Koffka's doctoral dissertation on rhythmic patterns, and Koehler on the psychology of sound. However, they are a three-person team that is completely different from each other. To attack and defeat Wundt Psychology, their intelligence level has not yet formed a climate. Wedheimer, who grew up in Prague, was Jewish.He has a boyish appearance, but he is bald, and he has a shaggy, marshal-like, Bismarck-like beard, but there is a poet in his bones, musical talent, enthusiasm, humor and joy.He is a very provocative and eloquent person, his thoughts are bubbling, and they are fleeting like bubbles.But it was so difficult and painful for him to control his thoughts and put them on paper that he found writing a terrible thing. Kofka, a Berliner, is half-Jewish.He was small, thin, with a serious look on his long and thin face, withdrawn, sensitive, and extremely easily swayed.What is inexplicable is that these features of his, which made him an uninspiring lecturer, were extremely attractive to some of his female students.He never had a moment of relaxation on the podium, but on the desk he felt comfortable with a knife and a pen, and formed a series of academic reports on Gestalt psychology on the desk. Koehler, a non-Jew born in Estonia and raised in Wolfenbütter, Germany, has a combative look and short, stiff hair parted in the middle.He was the most industrious experimenter of the three, and later became a powerful administrator of a research institute.He's haughty, prim and decent—it would take him 10 years of social friends to replace "you" with "you"—and in writing, he's surprisingly relaxed and engaging. In the end, the differences between the three had an extremely salutary effect, each serving its own merits.As one researcher on the history of Gestalt psychology put it, Wedheimer was the "father of intellect, thinker and innovator," Koffka was "the salesman of the group," and Koehler was "the insider, the do-it-yourselfer." practical people". However, only one of the three has a place in the establishment of psychology.Wedheimer was only a lecturer for many years before becoming a Distinguished Professor at the University of Berlin, because of the anti-Semitism movement blocking his path, and he had only a limited number of publications.He did not finally become a full-time professor (in Frankfurt) until 1929, when he was 49 years old, but four years later he had to flee because the Nazis had seized power in Germany.He immigrated to the United States, where he taught social studies at a new school, but never took a formal chair in the study of psychology. In Germany, Kofka only rose to become a distinguished professor at Gilson University.He gave a series of lectures in the United States, and in 1927 was awarded a full-time professorship at Smith University—not a center of psychological research—where he remained for the rest of his life. Only Koehler achieved a relatively high position in Germany.After many years of teaching and more than six years of experimental work on the island of Kalari, in 1921 at the age of thirty-four he was appointed head of the Institute of Psychology at the University of Berlin—the highest post in German psychology— — and turned it into a research center for Gestalt psychology.However, he was in office for only 14 years, and after a valiant but futile effort to free the Institute from Nazi influence in 1935, he resigned and came to America, where he spent his entire career at Swarthmore University. the rest of my life. However, long before Köhler ascended to the top positions at the University of Berlin, these three young men overcame the defenses of Wundt's psychology and established the legitimacy of their own new science of mentalism in only 10 years— — This psychology is about the brain, based on demonstration and experimental evidence, not on rationalistic argument and metaphysical speculation. Although they published relatively few articles at that time (partly because of the interference of World War I), these are enough to prove that Gestalt theory provides a more advanced cognitive psychology than the early cognitive psychology of perception and higher mental functions. good explanation.Their evidence was so strong and their reasons so strong that by 1921 Gestalt psychology had begun to replace Wundt psychology, as can be seen in the appointment of Köhler. Until the mid-1930s, Gestalt psychology was a major force in German psychology and a growing school of psychology in other countries.It had some very limited influence on American psychology, and only after all three came to America between 1927 and 1935.Then, although none of the three of them held important positions in the American psychological establishment, their ideas pervaded psychological thought and began to expand it beyond the confines of behaviorism. Gestalt laws of psychology From the outset, Wertheimer saw Gestalt theory as more than an explanation of perception, believing it would prove itself to be the key to learning, motivation, and thinking. His idea is not based only on the sporadic evidence provided by the pioneers of Gestalt theory, but on some of his own early research.Shortly after his research on motion illusions in Frankfurt, he was asked by the chief physician of the Children's Clinic of the Vienna Institute of Psychiatry to find ways to teach deaf children.One method of his experiments was to build a simple bridge by himself, with three planks on it. When the bridge was being built, a deaf-mute child watched it and then took it down.The child will then try it on his own, and usually, after making a mistake or two, he will learn and successfully build several bridges of different shapes and sizes.According to Wertheimer, the child's thinking is not based on the number and size of the things used in the demonstration, but on the perception of a stable configuration - this is the gestalt - in this way , both uprights are the same length and positioned by the end of the horizontal block.Wertheimer also read anthropological reports on the number minds of some primitive tribes and wrote a paper on the subject in 1912.He learned that some speakers of the Nanhai language had trouble counting fruit, money, animals, and men.Each method represents a gestalt suitable for this project.He also found that some peoples who lack our methods of grouping and sequencing use natural grouping as a method of number thinking.A primitive man who wants to build a hut may not be able to count the number of props required, but he does not need to count to know what the skeleton of the hut will look like and accordingly the number of props required. (Wertheimer writes down only a few of the experiments he employed, but most examples are briefly mentioned in Koffka's Principles of Gestalt Psychology.) Using these data, together with his experiments in Frankfurt, Wertheimer sketched the outlines of a new psychology in a series of lectures in 1913.The central implication is that our mental representations consist primarily of gestalts rather than a series of related sensations and impressions, a view believed by disciples of Weydemeyer psychology and correlationists.The acquisition of knowledge is often obtained through the process of "positioning" or determining the structure, so things are seen as an orderly whole. Although Wertheimer believes that Gestalt theory is the basis of the entire psychology, most of his research, and half of the research of all Gestalt psychologists in the early years, dealt with perception problems.Over the course of a dozen years, these three prominent Gestalt psychologists discovered a series of perceptual principles, or "laws of Gestalt psychology."Wertheimer summarized some of his own and others' views, naming and discussing several major laws in his limited number of papers in 1923.Over time, he, his colleagues and students discovered other laws. (In the end, 114 gestalts were given names.) Here are some of the more important ones: Proximity law: When we look at a series of similar objects, we tend to perceive them as groups or collections that are in close proximity to each other.Wertheimer's simple demonstration follows: He found that when people were given a row of black dots to look at, they would spontaneously look at pairs of black dots that were close to each other (ab/cd/...), but in fact, they could also be seen as a pair of black dots that were far apart. Black dots and closely spaced black dots (a/bc/de/...), but no one sees in this way, and most people cannot bring themselves to do so.Here's a more convincing example: Here we see some lines of three closely spaced black dots, sloping slightly to the right in the vertical direction.People generally don't see it in another structure, or even if it is seen in other structures, it is a very laborious thing-that is, a line composed of three black spots spaced closer to each other. Lean straight to the left. Law of Similarity: When similar and dissimilar objects are placed together, we see similar objects as a group: The similarity factor can actually overcome the proximity factor.In the left frame below, we tend to see four groups of objects that are very close together; in the frame on the right, we tend to see two groups of scattered but similar objects. Direction Continuity Law: In many patterns, we tend to see lines with some internal continuity or direction, so that we can pick out a meaningful shape in a confusing background, as in the "find the dark picture" game. same as in.Such a line or shape is a "good gestalt" - one that has a coherence or need within it.For example, in the following example We can force ourselves to see two curved, pointed shapes, AB and CD, but what we tend to see is the more natural Gestalt shape, two intersecting curves AC and BD.The continuous factor can be quite an astonishing force.Consider the following examples: In the merged figure, it is almost impossible to see the original figure again, because this continuous wavy line dominates the entire figure. Find the simple law (Pragnanz): The related English word is "pregnancy," but this English word fails to convey Wertheimer's meaning, which means "the tendency to see the simplest shapes."Just as the laws of nature cause a soap bubble to take the simplest possible shape, the mind tends to see the simplest gestalt in complex patterns.As shown in the following figure: This figure can be interpreted as an ellipse and a right-angled figure whose right side has been cut off, touching a rectangle with an arc cut off on the left side.However, this is not what we see. What we see is much simpler, that is, a whole ellipse and a whole rectangle overlap each other. Law of closure: This is a special and important example of the law of simplicity.When we look at a familiar or coherent pattern, if something is missing, we add it and perceive it in the simplest and best gestalt.Like the following: We tend to think of it as a star, rather than the five Vs that make up this diagram. In the 1920s, Gestalt psychologist Kurt Lewin noticed that a waiter easily remembered the details of unpaid customer bills, but once paid, he quickly forgot them.It occurred to him that this was a case of closure in the areas of memory and motivation.As long as the transaction is not closed, it is not closed, thus creating tension and retaining the memory, but once the closure is completed, the tension is released and the memory disappears. One of Lewin's students, a Russian psychologist named Bruma Seganik, tested his conjecture in a famous experiment.She gave some volunteers simple tasks—making clay figurines, solving arithmetic problems—and asked them to complete some tasks while interrupting others until they could complete them all.Hours later, when she asked them to recall those tasks, they remembered the unfinished tasks twice as clearly as the completed tasks, which established Lewin's speculation.This study made her famous. To this day, when writing about the issue of motivation, psychologists generally refer to the "Seggarnik effect". Graphics - Background Awareness: When we pay attention to an object, we generally pay little or no attention to its background.We see a face, not the room or landscape behind it. In 1915, psychologist Edgar Rubin of Guttingen University explored the phenomenon of "figure-background"—the brain's ability to focus on a meaningful pattern while ignoring other data.He used many test patterns, one of which, the so-called Rubin bottle, is almost universally known: If you look at the bottle, you can't see the background.However, if you look at the background—the silhouette of two faces—you can't see the bottle.Plus, you can look at the one you choose if you want; the will is clearly there, regardless of what the new psychologists and behaviorists say. The law of size and balance: An object of known size, if taken to a distance, will leave a smaller image on the retina, but what we perceive is the real size.How do we do this?An associationist would say that we know from experience that distant objects appear smaller and darker, and we associate these cues with distance.Gestalt scholars find this explanation too simplistic and in conflict with new evidence.Train very young chicks to only peck at large pellets.When this habit is fully formed, place the larger pellets far away so that they appear smaller than the smaller pellets closer up.However, the chick went straight to the big feed in the distance without hesitation.An 11-month-old baby girl was trained (by means of rewards) to choose the larger of two juxtaposed boxes.The larger box was brought far enough away that its retinal image was one-fifteenth the size of the smaller box, but the baby chose the larger box that was farther away. We perceive distant objects to be as large as they are near, because the brain organizes this data in relational ways—such as comparisons with nearby known objects, or comparisons with properties that provide perspective .The two diagrams in Figure 12, taken from a recent textbook on perception, are illustrative: in the diagram on the left, the relationship of the distant person to the objects around him and to the walkway makes us see him as As big as the guy next door.On the retina, however, the image of the person in the distance is much smaller, as shown on the right. Unreachable bananas and other problems Salton is a male orangutan living at the Orangutan Research Center. He has eaten nothing all morning and is already very hungry.The breeder let him come to a room with a bunch of bananas hanging on the roof, but he couldn't get it.Salton hopped a few times towards the banana, but couldn't reach it.Then it circled the room, roaring discontentedly.Not far from the ground where the bananas hung, it found a short stick and a large wooden box.It took the stick and tried to hit the bananas, but it was still too high.For a while it jumped up and down, very angry, and then suddenly it ran to the box, dragged it under the bananas, climbed up, and took the prize with a little hop. A few days later: same situation, only this time, where the bananas hang much higher.Now, there were no sticks, but there were two boxes, one a little larger than the other.Salton knew what to do, or thought he knew what to do.It moved the larger boxes under the bananas, climbed up, squatted down, and seemed to jump up.However, it looked at it but didn't jump, and the banana was still far away from it.It jumped down, grabbed the crate, and dragged it around the room, growling angrily and kicking the walls.Obviously, it didn't grab the second box with the intention of stacking it on top of the first box, but just used it to deflate. Suddenly, however, the barking ceased, and he dragged the smaller box to the other box, stacked it up with some difficulty, and climbed up.He solved the problem.Wolfgang Köhler observed and took detailed notes, which pleased him from the bottom of his heart. Koehler's series of studies on orangutan intelligence between 1914 and 1920 are almost as famous as Pavlov's dog experiments and Watson's experiments with Albert Jr.Koehler's experiment was not only of great value in itself, but also led to many similar studies on solving human problems, and these Gestalt psychologists made a series of important discoveries. The nature of thinking as it relates to problem solving has fascinated philosophers and psychologists over the past 24 centuries, but in Germany the subject is already somewhat outdated.Like all higher mental processes, it lies outside the boundaries of scientific psychology defined by the physiological psychologists and the Wundt school.In the United States, although William James and John Dewey had written about problem solving, Thorndike's puzzle box experiment with cats had led many psychologists to consider it the result of a trial-and-error exercise, This is true even among humans, rather than conscious planning and problem solving.Wertheimer, who had read and admired Spinoza growing up, took a different view: He believed in the power of the thinking mind.He was also influenced by the statement of Galileo and other great discoverers that their breakthroughs were often the result of a new perspective on a problem that produced sudden understanding. To illustrate how such a perception can generate a solution, Wertheimer likes to give an example of the famous mathematician Carl Gauss.This story is that when Gauss was 6 years old, his teacher asked the students in the class who could first calculate the sum of 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10.Little Gauss raised his hand in a few seconds. "How did you figure it out so quickly?" the teacher asked.Gauss said: "If I add 1 plus 2 plus 3, it will take a lot of time to calculate, but one plus 10 equals 11, 2 plus 9 equals 11, 3 plus 8 equals 11, and so on - there are five 11s in total. Answer It's 55." He saw a structure that led him quickly to a solution to the problem. Wertheimer was interested in reasoning and problem solving throughout his life, and in his later years he wrote "Productive Thinking" (1945), which is a general discussion of this topic from the standpoint of Gestalt psychology.However, other Gestalt scholars, led by Koehler, have carried out extensive experimental work on this problem. Köhler stayed in Frankfurt for another 3 years after experimenting with the illusion of motion with Wertheimer.Then, at the age of 26, he was appointed station chief of the orangutan research station of the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Trilev, part of the Spanish possession of Conlari Island off the coast of Northwest Africa.Koehler set off to sea in 1913, but he never imagined that a world war and the chaotic conditions after the war in Germany would trap him on the island for six years. However, he made good use of this time.He was deeply moved by Wertheimer's ideas, and later recalled: "My feeling is that his work may turn psychology, which was not attractive at the time, into a fundamental change for human beings." The most lively subject of study on fundamental issues.” These ideas were constantly in his mind during his days at Trilev, and his work on primates, though not formally described in Gestalt psychological terms , but it strongly confirms the Gestalt theory and is extremely suitable for problem-solving research.He kept investigating and researching, changing repeatedly, protractedly, and repeated for several years.Some British intelligence officers believed he was a German spy because no scientist would have spent so long studying how some orangutans grasped hard-to-reach bananas. (Ronald Ray, a psychologist at the State University of New York in Alban Ray, recently spent nearly 15 years trying to establish whether Koehler was a spy. He collected gossip and rumors among the inhabitants, but neither in Germany nor on the island he was able to find any convincing proof of this. Ray thought Koehler was most likely a spy, but other scholars were skeptical.) Koehler set up many different problems for the orangutans to solve.Some of the simplest problems are the detour problem. The orangutan has to take some roundabout paths to get the bananas, which is not a problem for the orangutan.A little more complicated problem is the use of "tools", that is, the orangutans have to use tools to access the bananas hanging high - such as a stick, the orangutan can use it to drop the banana, or a ladder, they can hold it against the wall (they never figured out how to set up the ladder securely, and always leaned sideways against the wall) and boxes. Some orangutans took longer to see that the box could be used to fetch bananas, and they never made good use of the box.Some orangutans often do things that have no effect, such as stacking the boxes far away from the bananas, or stacking them at a poor level. When it climbs up, the boxes often fall to the ground.另外一些猩猩很明显就聪明一些，做得也好些，它们学会以更安全的方式码放箱子，哪怕取到香蕉所需的箱子数目超过两个。格兰德这头雌猩猩实际上在需要的时候已经可以使用4只箱子了，虽然码放的时候有一些困难。 一次又一次，一只猩猩好像突然在某个时候看到解决问题的办法，克勒解释说，这是猩猩对情形的观点重新构造引起的。他把这突然的领悟叫做“理解力”，定义它为“某种相对于整个问题的布局而出现的一个完整解决办法”，很明显，这是与桑代克的猫试误学习法不同的一个方法。 克勒认为，猫在不同的情形之下可能会展示出一些理解力，可是，迷箱却是一个它们无法用智力来解决的问题，因为它包含一些它们看不出来的机械元素在里面。然而，他的确肯定理解力思维并不能在简单动物中发生。他搭了一道与房子的墙成直角的篱笆，再加一道拐弯的篱笆与外侧的一端成直角，形成一个L形。当他把一只鸡放进L形里，再把饲料放在L的外面，鸡会沿着篱笆L里面来回跑动，不知道暂时离开饲料绕过障碍去取食物。可是，一只狗却很快能够识别这个情形，知道绕过障碍取食物。把一个一岁的女孩子放在L里面，再在篱笆的对面放一个她最喜欢的玩具小人，她一开始会透过篱笆取玩具，可接着会笑哈哈摇晃晃地绕过障碍去取它。 在猩猩的情况下，一些最为显著的理解力的例子会由另外一个问题诱发出来。克勒常常把一只猩猩放在一只笼子里，再把一串香蕉放在笼子外面它抓不到的地方。笼子里会放一些棍子。一只猩猩可能会在相当长一段时间里不知道可以用棍子去取食物，可是，突然间，它会想到这一点。一只叫谢果的雌猩猩先用手试着抓香蕉，半个小时后，她没有信心了，于是就躺了下来。可当别的几只猩猩出现在笼子外面的时候，她一下子跳了起来，抓住一根棍子，猛地把香蕉拨到跟前来了。很明显，看见其它猩猩靠近食物起了一种促进的作用，从而引发了理解力。 在另一个棍子问题中，想到问题的解决办法的方式更为突然。如克勒自己的记述： 光凭它手中的一根短棍子，萨尔顿拿不到食物，因为食物在外面。栅栏外面有一根稍长些的棍子。（它）用手还抓不到这根长根子，可是，它可以用手中的短棍拨过来这根长棍子。萨尔顿想用稍短些的棍子去拨食物。这没有成功，它撕咬从它的笼子上投射过来的一根铁丝，可这也是徒劳的。然后，它打量着四周（在这些测试当中总是有些很长的停止间隔，这时，动物们会盯住整个可见的地区看）。突然间，它又一次拿起棍子，直接走到有长根子的那道铁丝网跟前，用这根“辅助”短根拨动那根长根，抓住了它，再走到对准目标的网跟前，用长棍子牢牢地取到了食物。 在一个更为复杂的问题中，用可以拿到手的两根棍子都取不到香蕉。可是，其中一根却比另一根细些，可以插到另一根里面去增加长度。哪怕聪明的萨尔顿也没有很快地看出这个办法。它花了约一个小时的时间想拿到食物，可没有用。克勒给了它一个暗示，他用一根手指插到一根棍子里面去，可萨尔顿还是没有明白过来。then: 萨尔顿以不同的姿势蹲在箱子上，箱子离铁栅稍有些距离。接着，它爬了起来，捡起那两根棍子，拿在手上随便玩着。玩着玩着他突然发现自己的两只手上都拿着一根棍子，根子的位置使它们成了一条直线。它把较细的那根棍子插入较粗的那根里面，跳了起来，并直奔铁栅，到目前为止它对铁栅只是稍稍回过一次头，并用这加长了一倍的棍子拨到了香蕉。 克勒最重要的发现之一对有关学习的心理学具有极大的意义，那就是，理解力的学习不一定依靠奖励办法，不一定像桑代克在对猫进行的刺激－反应实验中那样。当然，猩猩都在寻找奖励，可是，它们学习的结果却并不是奖励品带来的，它们在吃到食物之间就解决了这个问题。 另一项重要的发现是，当动物得到某个理解力时，它们不仅知道了解决问题的办法。它们还会概括并把稍加改变的方法应用到其它不同的情形之中。按照心理学的术语来说，理解力的学习是能够进行“积极传递”的，按照一般人的说法，猩猩已经学会应付考试了。 克勒在1917年的一份专论中报告了他的发现，接着又在1921年出版了一本书，《猩猩心智》。专论和书籍都给心理学界留下了深刻的印象，而且不光是在动物解决问题方面独有见解。克勒的观察为格式塔研究人类解决问题的办法铺好了道路，他使用的技巧跟以前是一样的。 1928年，哥伦比亚大学师范学院的一位心理学家利用克勒式的情形对一些从1岁半－4岁不等的孩子进行了实验。最希望得到的东西不是香蕉，而是一些玩具，她把这些玩具放在孩子们拿不到的地方，要么在小围栏的铁栅外面，要么放在某个架板上。在小围栏的实验中，有一些棍子可以让孩子们拿到，还有用于爬到架板上的椅子和箱子。有时候，孩子们立刻就看到了解决办法，有时候只是在四处转了半天之后才看出来。这个过程与猩猩大脑里发生的事情惊人地相似，不过，毫不令人奇怪的是，哪怕这都是些未成熟的孩子，他们比成熟的猩猩更为容易得到解决办法。 对年龄更小一些的8个孩子也做了类似的实验，他们的年龄从8－13个月不等。这些实验是稍晚些时候由卡尔·登卡尔这位年轻的德国心理学家进行的，他曾在伯林与韦特海默和克勒一起进行过研究。他使用了一个简单的问题情形。孩子们围着桌子坐着，桌上摆满伸手拿不到的一些可爱的玩具。手上有根棍子。只有两个孩子立即想到了解决办法，其他的5个孩子拿着棍子玩，直到他们不管是有意还是无意地把棍子弄到玩具跟前时，他们才突然想到可以使用棍子来达到目的。最小的那个孩子从头到尾都没能解决这个问题。 登卡尔最为重要的一些研究是他1926年到1935年之间对一些成人受试者进行的解决问题的研究。他的研究方法之一是提出一个问题，然后让他的受试者在解决问题的时候把思考的过程志出来。登卡尔把说过的话记录下来，然后分析他的“原型”或者文字记录，以期发现受试者们如何看待这个问题然后寻找解决办法的。他的两个问题之一是： 假设一个人得了无法动手术的胃癌，然而可以用足够剂量的射线来杀灭有机细胞，一个人可以通过什么样的步骤来利用这些射线消除自己的癌肿瘤可同时又避免杀灭围绕肿瘤的正常组织呢？ 一位典型的受试者的建议资料（这里已经加以大幅删节和简略）如下所示： 从食道里输送射线。 动手术把肿瘤暴露出来。 人们得逐渐减少射线；例如——这可能有用吗？——等找到肿瘤时再把射线开满。 要么射线得进入身体，要么肿瘤得露出来。也许人们可以改变肿瘤的位置——可是怎样做到这一点呢？通过压力？no. 射线强度得有所变化。 对健康组织得把射线强度调到以前的弱位。 我只看到了两种可能性：要么保护身体，要么使射线无害。 ［实验者：人们怎样才能在进行途中减少射线的强度呢？ （如各位前面所言）总得想法转变射线的方向，消散它……分散它，停止！让一束宽带弱光通过一个透镜，这样的话，肿瘤就居于焦点位置，并接受到强度最大的放射。 ] 这个建议和其它一些建议显示出，当面对这样一个问题时，人们使用一系列不同的启发式（探索型）技巧。他们最常见是的使用一些机械式或者常见的启发办法，如以问题中最紧急和最明显的特征为基础进行随机可能尝试。这样一些启发办法通常得出很差的解决办法，或者根本就没有办法。在上述的建议中，通过食管输送射线或者通过动手术把肿瘤暴露出来，这些就是这类的办法。 最后，在走入了好几条死胡同之后，许多受试者都转着圈子来考虑更具有实效的“功能性”的启发办法（另有一些人一开始就这么干了），比如他们试图辨认出问题的关键性质。比如，他们自问，基本的目标是什么，只有到这时候，他们才开始寻找一些具体的解决办法。在上述的建议中，受试者开始考虑以这种方式解决问题，他说：“人们得逐渐减少射线强度。”然后他又回到了第一种思维之中（“也许人们可以改变肿瘤的位置”），可是，在实验者提醒他想象自己更为基础的一些启发后，他突然把自己的理解转变成可行的解决办法。机械启发与小鸡沿着篱笆转来转去差不多，功能性的启发办法也与以广泛的眼光来看待问题并且看见一个不那么直接可是有效实现目的的办法差不多。 登卡尔的其它主要研究方法是把受试者带入一个房间里，房间里面堆满一大堆乱七八糟的东西，桌上也摆着一些材料，他请受试者完成一些任务，而这些材料或者物体里面没有一样东西是适合这个任务的。目的是要看看受试者在什么情况下惦量用一种或者多种可能拿到的东西用作其它一些可能的用途，而在哪些情况下进行这样的重组是不允许的。 例如，在一情况下，要求受试者把三根小蜡烛安装到门上齐眼高的地方，表面是要进行“视力实验”。桌上有一些蜡烛，一些不干胶，一些纸夹，几张纸，绳索，铅笔和其它一些东西，包括一些关键的东西：三只空的小纸板箱。每位受试者在里面乱翻一阵子后，都重新构造了自己对这些东西的观点，并看出纸箱可以贴到门上面，然后用它作平台，再把蜡烛放上去。 可是，在这个问题的另一个变换方式中，三只箱子都装有东西，一只里面装有小蜡烛，第二只里面装有一些不干胶，第三只里面装有火柴。这次，他的受试者中只有一半不到的人解决了问题。他们曾看到过这个只箱子用作了一个专门用途，这使他们很难看出除了箱子以外的其它用途。登卡尔把这种解决问题当中出现的常见但很严重的障碍叫做“功能性粘滞”，一个解决问题的人如果认为一个物体有专门的用途，让他看出它的其它用途就是一件困难得多的事情。 这是一个非常值得注意的发现。它解释了为什么一些最熟悉自己那一行的人却最不太可能在自己的领域里找到一个解决问题的新办法。教育创造了专业知识，可同时也创造了功能性粘滞。一位专家看他手中的工具时，是以各个工具的专业用途来看待它们的，一个生手尽管会出一些不着边际甚或荒诞不经的主意，可是，他往往也提出极有创见的观察方法。毫不奇怪，科学家们一般都是在早年提出他们最有创见和重要的见解的。 尽管许多人认为登卡尔是30年代格式塔心理学者群中最有天才的一个，如果他没有不幸英年早逝的话，他在寻求解决问题的途中也可能走得更远。他是一位政治自由主义者，1935年从德国先逃到英国，然后，1938年又到美国的斯瓦特摩教书去了。1940年，他37岁，因为战争的爆发深感压抑，自杀身亡。 由克勒、登卡尔和其它一些格式塔心理学家进行的解决问题研究看起来相当简单，可是，他们的含义却是十分深远的。他们展示出，人类的问题解决（在某种程度上也包括动物的问题解决）并不限于试误法，也不限于条件反射法，而经常包括一些较高层次的思维，它会产生新的视野，思维和解决办法。对于问题解决的研究是格式塔心理学家们把思维恢复到心理学关心的中心位置的最为重要的方法之一。 许多世纪以来，对知识是如何获取的研究一直是一些心理哲学家和心理学家们最为关心的问题之一。可是，随着生理心理学家和冯特的到来，其中的大多数都被与其它一些过时的测心术话题一起束之文化高阁了。 生理学家和冯特的门徒们就学习所说的少数几句话，大多数都只不过是二手的联想主义。他们认为学习只不过是一些经验的连接或者镶嵌。行为主义者们认为学习是他们研究的主题——但只不过是刺激-反应条件中无意识的学习。人类学习当中涉及的较高级的精神活动都被忽视了，以迎合旧有的说法，即计算增多的试验次数与已有习惯的力量之间的相互关系。 在格式塔心理学的贡献之中，也许是他们最大的贡献，即是把意义和思想恢复到了学习之中。尽管格式塔运动只在德国有过瞬间的辉煌，并没有代替美国的行为主义学说，可是，他使认知传统重放光辉，并对它进行了革新。它为60年代的认知革命铺平了道路。 可是，并不是由人脑，而是由一只母鸡的思想提供出来了第一份有力的证据，证明联想主义者和刺激-反应的学习学说严重不足。克勒在特里莱夫岛上的日子里用4只鸡进行了无聊却极有启发意义的实验。他让其中两只鸡去啄散在一张浅灰色纸上的米粒，而且一发现它们去啄另外一张深灰色的纸上的米粒就赶走它们。他让另外两只鸡接受相反的训练。一般都知道鸡特别傻，可是，经过400－600次的试验后，开始的两只鸡就只啄浅色纸上的米粒了，而后边的两只鸡也就只啄深色纸上的米粒了。 接着，克勒把两种情形都换了一下。他让鸡学会吃食的那张纸的背景色保持不变，但把另外一张纸的色调换了一下，在第一种情况下，换了更浅一些的颜色，在第二种情况下换了更深一些的颜色。联想主义者和条件反射主义者会预测说，由于鸡已经学会将吃食与某种特别的灰度联系起来了，它们应该继续这样做。可是，在百分之七十的试验中，这些鸡都在新的背景而不是旧背景上啄米。那对经过训练，在两种背景中较轻的背景上吃食的鸡现在大多选择新的、颜色更浅的背景。那对学会在较暗的背景上吃食的鸡现在大多选择新的、更深的背景。格式塔学说可以提供答案：鸡已经学会不是把食物与某种特别的颜色而是与某种关系联系起来了——在一种情况下是较浅颜色的背景，在另一种情况下是较深颜色的背景。 克勒用猩猩和一个3岁的孩子重复了这个实验。他给他们每人两只箱子，一只是暗色，一只是亮色。当一只猩猩做受试者的时候，亮色的箱子里有一些食物在里面。当孩子当受试者的时候，箱子里面放一些糖果。猩猩和孩子都知道亮色箱子里有奖品的时候，克勒拿走了暗色箱子，用一只比奖品箱更亮一些的箱子代替它。这次，他在两只箱子里都放些奖品，这样的话，除了一只箱子与另一只箱子的颜色关系外，没有其它的激励因素让他们在两者之间进行挑选——而事实上，猩猩和孩子通常都选新箱子，即亮些的箱子。 行为主义学者和冯特的门徒都已经知道，一个动物可以通过训练在两种不同颜色的东西中选择一种，可他们不愿相信，动物学会的东西是两种颜色之间的关系。对于这些“自然力说”的心理学家们而言，一种关系不可能成为基本的心理学事实。如韦特海默的学生所罗门·阿什所言：“这个前提的力量足以弥盖经验的无穷证据。” 可是，克勒的实验无一例外地证明，颜色之间的关系的确是动物们学会的基本事实，因为它们会在不同的情形之下应用同一个原理。阿什说，这是一个普遍定律的例子，即，动物和人类都是以相互关系来感知学习几乎任何东西的。此物体堆在彼物体上，居于两者之间，大于其它的物体，小于其它的物体，比另一个早些或晚些等等。关系是感知、学习和记忆的关键。这个事实以前被排除在心理学之外，可现在又由格式塔学者们找回来了。 韦特海默、克勒、科夫卡和他们的许多学生都在学习上进行了许多研究，可是，宣布该观点的许多功绩都归到科夫卡名下了。这位害羞、自疑、其貌不扬的小个子男人，性格古怪，嗓门特大，可当他坐在桌前编辑这些事实和学说的时候却感到心旷神恰，游刃有余。他在印刷品里像是位力拔千军的大师和尖刻严酷的刀笔吏。 科夫卡本人并没有进行值得注意的认知研究。他几乎所有的实验工作都是在深层感知、色彩和运动当中。可是，因为他的英语极好，《心理学快报》的编辑罗伯特·奥格登（他曾与科夫卡在维尔茨堡学习过）邀请他准备第一次用英语讲解格式塔心理学。这篇文章出现在1921年，从那以后，科夫卡就成这了个运动非正式的代言人。格式塔心理学的研究发现和有关学习的一些思想为行业所知，大多是因为他的报道文章和两本著作。 在这些著作中，科夫卡在1921年用德语出版，1924年又用英语出版的《思维的成长》里，用格式塔心理学的眼光回顾了有关精神成长的现存知识。在他提供的许多新思想和解释中，有两点特别突出： 第一点：本能行为不是一串由某种刺激通过机械原理激发的一系列条件反射，而是一组或者一种反射的模式——由这个动物强加到自己的行动上的一种格式塔——旨在实现一个特别的目标。一只小鸡在某些它“知道”可食的东西上啄，可是，本能是趋向目标的，由饥饿所驱动，而不是看见食物时产生的机械和自动反应。小鸡饱的时候不啄食，尽管它看见食物，尽管有反射。 第二点：科夫卡反对行为主义的教理，即所有的学习都是由一连串由奖品创造的联想构成的，他反驳说，许多学习都是发生在奖品出现之前，通过思维里面的组织和重新组织进行的。他用克勒进行的猩猩解决问题研究和小孩子的、可比的解决问题研究作为证据。然而，他承认，组织过程准确的原因还不太清楚。 14年之后，在《格式塔心理学原理》（1935年）一书中，科夫卡勇敢地尝试从格式塔心理学的观点来回顾所有现存的心理学知识，他准备提出一种学说，用以解释思维中的组织和重新组织的准确原因。这个理论最早由克勒提出来，他又加以精确化。其理论是，大脑固有的“心理物理学”力量——神经能量场——跟自然界其它地方的力场一样作用，它们总是在寻找最简单的或者最合适的配置（如我们在肥皂泡中或者在磁力线中所见的一样）。因此，思维倾向于以“好的格式塔”形态建构或者重新建构所得的信息。 可是，这些好的格式塔形态是对外部世界真实的反映吗？科夫卡对这个古老的问题表示了明确的肯定态度。他拿出了由韦特海默提出并由克勒发展下去的这个理论，即我们对这个世界的想法与这个世界本身是异种同形的——人的思想是一些大脑活动的结果，它们与所代表的外部事物在结构上是有一定相似性的。如果我们看到两只分开的灯，就有两处分开的脑刺激产生。如果我们看到运动，则在大脑里面相应产生一个被唤醒的场的运动。思维的内容并非某种与外部世界绝然不同的东西，而是对外部世界形成的神经影像。 思想是一个与外部的物质世界不同的现象，可是，它是怎样代表这个世界的呢？现在，这个古老的问题终于有了答案，或者，在科夫卡和他的同事们看来，这个经典问题好像就这么给解决掉了。可是，在50年代，卡尔·拉什利和其他一些神经生理学家们进行了一些实验，实验设计原理是要干扰异质同构理论中假定存在的电子场。他们在一些动物的视力脑回中植入云母片，在另一些动物的大脑表层放上银箔，然后让所谓会刺激感知到的世界的那些不同的电势发生短路。动物们在哪种情况下对视觉经验都没有不同反应。异质同构说和力场的理论被有效地击破了。 可是，如果不把力场学说看成生理现实而看作一种有见解的比喻，则它有真正的价值。它所要表达的意思是，我们按照某种与力场的运行相类似的方式，对经验进行编组，分类并重新组织，并且让我们的思维内容保持最简单和最有意义的构成。作为一种指导性的图景，它比联想主义理论，比条件反射学说，或者比早期的任何认识论学说都更接近于描述我们感知、理解、存储和利用信息的方式。场学说并不是最高的真理，可是，它比早期的理论更接近真理，它也是未来更接近真理的一些学说的基础。 记忆是认识论的一个方面，格式塔心理学为此提供了一些特别有用和有见解的思想。 其一是由科夫卡详细提供出来的一个假说，即，记忆的生理学基础是中枢神经系统中形成的“痕迹”——即一些由经验促发的永久性的神经改变。这是个大胆的猜想，几十年后，神经生理学者们会慢慢发现构成痕迹的那些细胞和分子的实际变化。 另一项极具创意的猜想是关于记忆的心理学基础的。科夫卡说，事先埋下来的一些记忆痕迹会影响新经验被感知和记忆的方式，这跟联想主义的观点不一样。联想主义认为，新经验只是增加到旧的经验上而已，而科夫卡说，新经验与痕迹相互作用，痕迹与新经验也相互作用，其方式在生命的早期是思维所不具有的，而且，这种相互作用是精神发展的原因所在。他的思想将被瑞士儿童心理学家让·皮亚杰当时还在收集的大量观察数据所证实。 科夫卡用大量实验证据证明，记忆不光是把经验粘在一起或者聚集在一起，如联想学说所言，而是通过有意义的联系把它们编织起来。他所出示的一些证据当中，有艾宾豪斯和他的门徒做的一些实验，实验说明，学习一串没有意义的音节比学习一些通过意义连接起来的词语要困难得多。科夫卡拿出了一条简单而有说服力的例证：如果项目之间每一种联系都只是一种联想，则下面这两行是一样容易学习： pud sol dap rus mik nom A thing of beauty is a joy for ever． 科夫卡的评论：“联想理论不太容易解释，为什么第二行比第一行学习和记忆起来要容易得多，这个困难，如我所知，是联想主义者从来没有明确提出来过的。”跟格式塔心理学的许多其它例子一样，由这两行字演示出来的真理好像如此明显，以致于人们得问，它为什么还需要重新发现。可是，在从无知到知识的进程中，心理学还没有进入一个稳定的阶段，它的进程多少还更像是在某个未知的土地上跌跌撞撞的探索者，他试着向远处一个目标进发，顺着这个山谷或者那个山谷，沿着这条河道或者那条河道，而且经常还得绕几个弯子，在发现已经选择的道路太难走的时候还得折回来另谋出路。冯特的弟子和行为主义者们向着远处的目标迈出了重要的开头几步，可是，他们走入了一条死胡同；格式塔心理学者们把心理学又扳回到了稍为正确一些的路线上。波林在他权威性的心理学史中用一个不同的比喻说明了这一点：“看起来好像是这样的，正统学说沿着感官分析这条笔直和狭窄的通道已经走入了迷途。而正是敞开的大门和宽广的现象学大道通向了人生。”尽管格式塔心理学家并不是第一批也不是惟一作出了这个发现的人，然而，是他们以如此令人信服的形式作出这个发现的，它已经被并入科学心理学的结构之中了。 在德国，如我们所见，格式塔心理学成了本世纪20年代处于领导地位的学派，可是，在它的三位创立者及其许多学生离开德国后，格式塔心理学在30年代中期几乎消失了。在美国，科夫卡于1922年发表了介绍性的文章以后，格式塔心理学一开始引起了人们极大的兴趣，甚至激起了很大的热情。科夫卡和克勒接受邀请到美国几乎所有重要的研究中心进行讲座和开研讨会。克勒当时是1925年克拉克大学的访问学者，哈佛后来还授予他访问教授的头衔，对此他只得婉言谢绝。 可是，行为主义学说就在当时也还在快速地成为美国心理学中最具影响的学派，当时还没有格式塔思想的一席之地。大多数行为主义学者都认为格式塔不过是一种倒退，倒退到一种已经失去了名誉的、不科学的先天论中去了。如果先天论是指对天生思维的信仰，那这么说就完全错了。如果说先天论指一种信仰，认为思维根据其本质而对经验加上某些秩序，那就对了。格式塔理论在某种方法上来说是康德先验论的现代版本。 几十年之后，格式塔心理学的这个中心信条会被好多种形式的研究强有力地确证下来。比如，对于获取语言能力的研究就证明，儿童感觉到句子中的语法结构，并开始按语法结构说话，这都是远在他们被教授语法之前的事情。更值得人注意的是，对一些没有学习过任何手势语的聋哑儿童的研究发现，当他们长到3－4岁的时候，他们会用一串手势——一些难句子——来交流，这些手势在主语、动词和宾语之间有明显的区别，正如书面语言一样。 行为主义对格式塔心理学的反感也遭到了回报：科夫卡、克勒和韦特海默都对行为主义学说（和其它心理学）不屑一顾，并把他们自己的学说当作惟一有效的理论提出来，因此触犯了美国许多心理学家。心理学家迈克尔·索科尔回顾美国对格式塔心理学的态度时说： 美国心理学家们对格式塔学者的态度尤其反感……最近，“官气”这个词就是专门用来形容当时的许多德国大学教授的态度和行为的。整个格式塔运动在某种程度上代表对传统德国大学文化的反叛，可是，在另外一方面，在更深一层的地方，格式塔学者又有德国大学教师里的一些典型特征。 结果是，到本世纪30年代末，格式格心理学尽管已经在美国心理学界扎下根来，可终究处于二流位置。跟结构主义、功能主义、弗洛伊德主义和其它许多学派一样，格式塔学者在美国这块由行为主义主导的地方处于少数派的地位。可是，他们对心理学的发展产生了超过其人数和位置的影响。 韦特海默是个热情的人，可当教师又不是个有耐心的人，他在社会研究新学院中只有极少数忠实的信徒，可没有任何值得一提的研究设备。然而，按照他杰出的学生阿拉巴马·鲁琴斯的说法，在美国的10年（他死于1943年）生活中，他在行为主义场合里是个“引人注目而又令人不安的人物”。 科夫卡虽然是个枯燥无味，作为一名教师也过于教条的人，可他却受到他教书的史密斯大学女生的亲睐。然而，因为这所大学的重点在本科生教育上，他在这里的几年只指导了一位博士生。可他的确通过写作而对心理学圈产生了广泛的影响，尤其是通过百科全书式的《格式塔心理学原理》一书。如果他的生命不是在1941年他55岁时因为一场心脏病而突然结束，他无疑会写出更多有影响的书来。 克勒尽管有德国人的古板之处，可他却是三人中最容易渗入传统学术圈子的人。他在斯瓦特摩创立了一个心理学研究中心和一份奖学金，吸引了好多一流的博士生，其中有大卫·克莱奇、里查德·克拉奇费尔德，雅各布·纳奇米亚斯和阿尔里克·莱萨。克勒1958年退休，可一直积极地从事研究工作，直到9年以后他80岁。退休以后，他得到美国心理学界最高的颂扬，被选为美国心理学协会的主席，这是对他的个人成就和格式塔运动对心理学的贡献的承认。 很可疑惑的是，尽管到本世纪中期，这个运动已经失去了它的身份，而且消隐无踪，可它最为重要的一些思想却成了心理学主流的一部分，尤其是在下面三个领域里： 感知： 研究和理论继续朝着格式塔心理学家们指明的道路前进。机械主义心理学曾认为，在局部刺激与局部感觉之间有点对点的对应；对视网膜每个点施加的每种刺激都会形成一个对应的感觉，每种感觉都是由一个刺激产生的。可是，这种纯粹的神经学解释不