Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35833998›Full record

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.

Robert W Proctor, K Richard Ridderinkhof

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readHistorical ArticleReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. "Scientist as a Discoverer and Explorer of Unknown Lands": Quo Vadis?Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Robert W ProctorDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. rproctor@purdue.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0149-8352
K Richard RidderinkhofDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Postbox 15916, 1001 NK, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0041-6770
Purdue University West Lafayette · USUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CognitionDissent and DisputesHistory, 19th CenturyHumansPsychology

Identifiers

PMID35833998
OpenAlexW4285493901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.