Recent Soviet Psychology

330 Pages·1961·5.115 MB·English

by  N. O'Connor (Eds.)

RECENT SOVIET
PSYCHOLOGY
Edited with an introduction by
N. O'CONNOR, M.A., Ph.D.
Social Psychiatry Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry,
The Maudsley Hospital, London
Translated from the Russian by
Mrs. RUTH KlSCH, Dr. R. CRAWFORD
and
H. ASHER, B.A., Lecturer in Physiology
The Medical School, Birmingham
PERGAMON PRESS
OXFORD · LONDON · NEW YORK · PARIS
1961
PERGAMON PRESS LTD.
Headington Hill Hall, Oxford
4 and 5 Fitzroy Square, London W.l
PERGAMON PRESS INC.
122 East 55th Street, New York 22, N.Y.
Statler Center 640, 900 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles 17, California
PERGAMON PRESS S.A.R.L.
24 Rue des Écoles, Paris Ve
PERGAMON PRESS G.m.b.H.
Kaiserstrasse 75, Frankfurt am Main
Copyright
1961
Pergamon Press Ltd.
Library of Congress Card Number 60-16487
Printed in Poland to the order
of Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe
by Drukarnia Uniwersytetu im. A. M., Poznan
PREFACE
ALTHOUGH TRANSLATIONS of Russian work in experimental psychology
have been made by Simon and by Wortis, there is still insufficient oppor-
tunity for the English-speaking psychologist to know this work as fully
as he would like. The present set of translations is to be welcomed as
a new attempt to break the barriers between the work in Russian psy-
chological laboratories and that in our own. It is to be hoped that future
publication in English of Russian experimental researches within a short
time of their being carried out will make it impossible for the English-
speaking student of psychology to be ignorant of what is happening in
the psychological laboratories of that country.
One can easily exaggerate the importance of differences in underlying
philosophy as a factor in creating separation between the Russian- and
the English-speaking currents in experimental psychology. These differences
may help to create differences in the type of problems which will be attacked
experimentally but not much in the methods of attack. In the laboratory,
we are neither idealists nor empiricists nor dialectical materialists, but
experimentalists with a range of experimental techniques accepted on
both sides.
The element of isolation created by differences in language and in
restricted opportunities for social intercourse has been more serious. It
has had one effect which cannot be regretted: that experimental enquiry
in Russia has been directed towards some problems that have been rela-
tively neglected in our own experimental laboratories. I find myself par-
ticularly interested in their work on language development and on con-
scious control. Incorporation of this interest into the work in psychological
laboratories in America and Great Britain will lead to the enrichment
of our experimental psychology.
That the breaking down of the barriers of our mutual isolation will
lead to corresponding enrichment of the Russian tradition in experimental
psychology is also to be supposed, although it is for them to judge in what
directions they can profit by our different experimental programmes.
A wider use of statistical methods may be one. In the interesting article
by Β. M. Teplov on the analysis of personality in terms of Pavlov's distinc-
tion between different properties of the nervous system, there is mentioned
[7]
δ PREFACE
an unsolved problem which awaits experimental investigation, that of
whether "mobility" is a single property. This appears to be the sort of
problem for which factor-analysis is the most rigorous and most economical
method.
Jt is obvious that we know too little about Russian experimental psy-
chology; it seems equally obvious that they do not know enough about
the experimental psychological work of the English-speaking world. There
are few references to British or American publications in these papers,
and those few neither recent nor widely representative. Plainly there is
a barrier to be overcome on both sides. This series of translations makes
a contribution to overcoming one side of the barrier; it is to be hoped
that our Russian colleagues will make equal efforts to overcome it from
their side. The result we must hope for is not only increased fruitfulness
of psychological research, but also the promotion of a mutual under-
standing which will contribute to the great cause of World Peace.
Department of Education, R. H. THOULESS
17, Brookside, Cambridge
1 June 1960
RECENT SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
Method of Selection
SIMON (1) AND WORTIS (2) have already published books on post-war
psychology and psychiatry in Russia so this book is less an introduction
than a report of current Russian psychological research. It consists of
selected essays from "Problems of Psychology" (Voprosy Psikhologii), one
of the chief psychological journals of the U.S.S.R. Russian psychological
literature, unlike Russian psychology itself, has a brief and mainly post-
war history, journals such as "Problems of Psychology" and "Isvestiya",
the journals of the Pedagogical Institute, having commenced publication
in 1955 and 1954 respectively. Thus the presentation of material has
been primarily through psychological congresses and a limited number
of books Of such congresses there were at least three before 1955, but
the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences has more recently arranged psy-
chological congresses on an annual basis. Increasingly articles have been
published rather than given as lectures and now that journal publication
has become regular there is a need to review the current literature.
Both the two previous collections were somewhat in the nature of
reports of work which until then had not been known in England. At
the time of publication, only a limited number of experts had more than
a fanciful notion of the scope of Russian psychological work. These books
helped to introduce everyday Russian psychology to English readers.
Both were written in a period when western experts felt obliged either
wholeheartedly to attack the methods, the philosophy or the social at-
titudes of their Russian colleagues, or vigorously defend them. A some-
what more objective mutual appraisal has recently become possible. This
collection of articles is published with this fact in mind. The selection
of the articles has been made jointly. A list was recommended for con-
sideration by the Psychology Section of the Moscow Academy of Sciences
and a further selection of these was then made by the writer after seeking
advice from colleagues. Naturally such a selection was biased in favour
of reports which might appeal to English readers. In this respect it is pos-
tal
10 INTRODUCTION
sible that some of them may be less representative of Russian interests
than they otherwise would be. However, Russian colleagues have been
frequently consulted and at all times their views have been taken into
account.
In this introduction an attempt is made to discuss previous attitudes
to Russian psychological literature on the part of English-speaking spe-
cialists, Russian attitudes to their own psychology and finally the fields
of interest of Russian psychology as represented in this collection.
It is necessary, however, to make some fairly general observations
about the articles included. In language, interests and method of reporting
results, Russian practice frequently differs considerably from English. The
same is true* of course of French and German conventions, although this
fact seems to arouse less comment. In reports of experimental work read-
ers must expect fairly lengthy discussions of theory. The division between
journals reporting experiments and journals reporting discussions of
theoretical models or literature is not characteristic of Russian psycho-
logical literature. There may be many reasons for this and European,
including English, journals are in this respect more akin to Russian jour-
nals than are the American. Because there are relatively few journals all
types of articles are published together. Exceptions to this rule are be-
ginning to appear and as Mintz [3] notes, philosophical articles by phys-
iologists have recently appeared in "Questions of Philosophy" rather
than in physiological or psychological journals.
This division of fields of interest is not yet, however, very common
and as a result a number of articles may seem overlengthy by English
standards. Translators have usually succeeded in providing a satisfactory
English equivalent but this does not mean that they have been able to
achieve the concise clarity which editors of English scientific journals
take as their objective. Fortunately the considerable services of a number
of bilingual collaborators have been available in reviewing translations.
For this reason it is hoped that little awkwardness of expression remains
and that in most cases accuracy and clarity of translation have been
achieved. It may fairly be said therefore that any unclarity of expression
is to be attributed to the originals. In general the principles of selection
which have been followed are: the interest of the subject matter, the de-
gree to which the report is representative of Russian psychological thought
and the adequacy of the experimental method. Articles of a philosophical
nature without experimental findings have been excluded.
There is naturally a very considerable variation in individual work,
but work can often be traced to three main sources. These are the tra-
INTRODUCTION 11
dition of physiological work beginning with Sechenov and Pavlov, the
work originated by Vigotskii and carried on by Luria, Leont'ev and their
colleagues, and finally the work of the Uznadze school in Georgia. The
more physiological aspects of Pavlov's work are reported generally in the
Journal of Higher Nervous Activity and are not included here. Experi-
ments on animal conditioning are therefore not included.
The papers included in this volume are chosen almost exclusively
from Voprosi Psychologii and an effort has been made to represent the
major divisions of Soviet Psychology. Thus material is given showing
work in the fields of educational psychology, Pavlovian typology, think-
ing, speech, sensation and perception and attitudes or set. In addition,
work on verbal control of behaviour in subnormal patients is included.
Attitudes to Soviet Psychology
Attitudes adopted by expositors and critics of Russian psychology
have not always been directly relevant to the scientific questions involved.
In this respect, like all such attitudes and resulting statements, they are
apt to give rise to hypercritical reactions among Russian psychologists.
The expression of attitudes of a fundamentally philosophical nature is,
of course, calculated to give rise to an opposition of principles. Such op-
positions are rarely resolved because their precise relationship with the
subject matter of a particular science can seldom be accurately specified.
It seems unprofitable therefore to emphasise the points of philoso-
phical disagreement between, let us say, nominalism or positivism on the
one hand and dialectical materialism on the other, although these dif-
ferences may be important. It would seem more valuable at present to
collect examples of experimental work. In this way it may become possible
to judge the extent to which principles of scientific method influence the
ingenuity, scope and decisiveness of psychological experiments. The success
of experimental work can be judged not only by its basic assumptions
but also by its elegance, exactitude and ingenuity. Such qualities can be
appreciated by working scientists who may very well disagree profoundly
about interpretations and even about the hypotheses which gave rise to
the experiment in the first place.
In a science such as psychology, standards of experimental perform-
ance based on criteria such as exactitude and ingenuity are of vital sig-
nificance. Commonsense and everyday expectations march so closely
with experimental findings that it is easy to mistake the one for the other.
In judging a body of experimental work from a country whose national
12 INTRODUCTION
growth, development and system of government have each become a bat-
tle-ground of opposite opinion it is doubly important to look for examples
of adequate method and good and ingenious experimentation. In this
respect we are at once on somewhat less controversial ground. It may
appear to Murray, May and Cantril (1959) for example, that there is too
much unanimity of doctrinal foundation among Soviet psychologists.
However, the value of Russian psychology must depend on its interest
and fruitfulness and ultimately on its usefulness to psychologists and
others. If such standards are high, observations about a medieval attitude
of mind become irrelevant if not misleading.
Russian psychologists would certainly be willing to be judged by sim-
ilar criteria, and those who have become known in England, either through
visits or by their publications, have earned the respect of their English
colleagues. This is not to say that all Russian psychology is first-class
and without deficiencies. It has a number of shortcomings of which psy-
chologists in the U.S.S.R. are aware. For example, apart from some in-
teresting work in the field of education, there has been very little develop-
ment in social psychology. There has also been a tendency in some Uni-
versity departments, though not in all, to capitalize the very valuable
inheritance of Pavlovian techniques perhaps to the exclusion of other
sources. More recently this unbalance has been corrected and Russian
psychology has begun to spread into many different fields. Professor
Smirnov, for example, in a speech delivered at the opening of the 1959
Congress of Psychologists in Moscow, spoke of the need to develop in-
dustrial psychology, so far only studied to a limited extent in Russia.
Other shortcomings for example of quality of work, exist in all countries
and their existence need not surprise the sophisticated. Unfortunately it
sometimes happens that higher standards are demanded of work from
abroad than at home. This common attitude must not be allowed to ob-
scure the fact that although the studies presented in subsequent pages
may not all be of equal merit, many are of considerable interest.
Many of the critical attitudes adopted towards Soviet psychology in
the past have been connected with what is believed to be State interference
with theoretical issues. Criticisms have commonly been levelled at the
intelligence-testing controversy and the 1936 Decree concerning it which
has since been published in English by Wortis [2]. This is usually quoted
as an example of the way in which a State based on Communist or Marxist
doctrine brings pressure to bear on scientists. It must be said at once that
from the point of view of an old established country in which social pres-
sures are very much implicit rather than explicit, Soviet experience in
INTRODUCTION 13
the social sciences appears to demonstrate a more overt from of pressure.
At the same time a good case can be made for saying that the pattern
and method of direction of research in England are not basically dissimilar
from those in Russia. In England, however, the pattern is better under-
stood, works more smoothly and results in fewer extreme trends.
If we turn to the administrative application of theories, a case in point
might be the use of intelligence tests for selection at 11-plus. In recent
years emphasis on the value of intelligence testing in grammar school
selection has been reduced. Inefficiency in selection by this method has
been acknowledged and a number of local education authorities have
reviewed their selection policy in favour of comprehensive schools. This
means delaying selection and increasing educational opportunity. The
positions of Britain and Russia on this question have therefore gone through
similar phases. Britain has been slower, less decisive and less complete.
In keeping with its philosophical tradition it has also remained more
empirical. In its discussion it has tended to ignore theory and to concen-
trate on the technicalities of measurement, of practice effects, of normality
of distribution of samples and similar questions. However, in practical
and administrative development the trends have been similar. In effect
it could be argued that behind the reduction in emphasis on intelligence
and selection lies the development of a more liberal educational policy
in both countries.
Obviously much more could be said about this question but it is perhaps
enough to show that it is possible to over-emphasize the differences in
social structure between Western countries and Russia so far as the
relationship between political or administrative and academic questions
are concerned. For a further example we might look to the United States
of America, where the State of Tennessee once passed an Act forbidding
the teaching of Evolution in High Schools. This Act was soon disputed
and the outlook of Tennessee High School pupils is at present somewhat
more informed than it was in the 1920s when the Act was passed. The
Americans took a very short time to reject the implications of the Act
in practice. The Russians took somewhat longer to develop a more liberal
approach to the question of individual ability. The reasons for this are
complex because the question is by no means so clear-cut. Russians do
not accept the prevalent English view of a given quantum of intelligence
present from birth or from an early age. However, theoretically speaking
the statement of such a view would not be followed by shocked silence
or violent condemnation on political grounds. Most Russian psychologists
would regard such a view as backward-looking but would argue against
14 INTRODUCTION
it on the basis of evidence. It might be said, therefore, that we should
not too readily criticise the limitations on academic freedom in Russia
today. They do not seem to exist in any greater degree than in England
or America, whatever may have been true of certain Institutes during
the war and shortly after.
For quite another reason also, it might be said that research trends
in the two economically and socially different countries have a certain
communality of pattern. This is because research, whether for health,
education or war, is frequently inspired by the need to answer practical
questions. Often practical questions do not differ greatly from country
to country despite considerable differences in social organisation. It is
even true that social pressures much discussed by contemporary sociologists
act in a similar manner in both countries in so far as the social organisation
of groups remains the same and even when the class structure has changed
radically. At present Russian academic opinions reflect experimental
results about as much as our own do here.
It is hoped therefore that the time has now come when English readers
can examine these reports as they would if reading an English journal
and not be confused by the political aura which the undoubtedly widely
different systems of government often seem to impose on our thinking.
Without withdrawing any of the force of this observation it must none
the less be said that the starting-point and the conclusions of Russian
experiments are frequently very different from our own. These differences
are discussed in the next section.
Russian Attitudes and Sets in Psychology
Reports of visits to Russia have recently described a decrease in the
partisan expression of philosophical views. There has been a tendency to
move away from philosophical prolegomena in journal articles and towards
a direct discussion of experimental material. This tendency is a natural
response to increasing involvement with the subject matter of the science
and its technical problems as well as a result of increasing liberal trends
in the Universities. It also reflects an increase in the complexity of the
material studied.
As the number of scientists has increased their studies have in some
cases departed so far from their sources that they represent a completely
novel trend. Such new investigations may have originally resulted from
some suggestions for example made by Pavlov, but their development
usually leads them into fields of experiment where Pavlov did not go.