ReviewPsychological research2022
A neglected pioneer of psychology: Otto Selz's contribution to the psychology of thinking and the dispute with Gestalt psychologists in Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung.
Review in Psychological research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- "Scientist as a Discoverer and Explorer of Unknown Lands": Quo Vadis?Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the early decades of the twentieth century, Psychologische Forschung was primarily an outlet for researchers from the school of Gestalt psychology. Otto Selz, whose views were closer to those adopted in the cognitive/information-processing revolution in psychology that began in the 1950s, never published in Psychologische Forschung. However, his work was the subject of a negative evaluation in the journal in a book review by Wilhelm Benary, which was followed by critical assessments published elsewhere by Selz and Karl Bühler of a chapter of Kurt Koffka's. A lengthy rebuttal from Koffka then appeared in Psychologische Forschung. In the present paper, we describe Selz's system and Benary's assessment of it. We then explain the relevant aspects of Koffka's book chapter (in: Dessoir M (ed) Die Philosophie in ihren Einzelgebieten. Ullstein, Berlin, 1925) and the strong critiques of it by Bühler and Selz in 1926, followed by details of Koffka's (Psychol Forsch 9:163-183, 1927) response. This part of the history of psychology is of significance to contemporary psychology on several levels. We have embedded this episode against the historical backdrop of Selz's life and tragic end.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.