The method of negative instruction: Herbert S. Langfeld's and Ludwig R. Geissler's 1910-1913 insightful studies

Robert W. Proctor, Aiping Xiong

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Herbert S. Langfeld and Ludwig R. Geissler published insightful articles during the period of 1910-1913 using what they called the Method of Negative Instruction, which anticipated much current research on action control and the role of instructions. We review their studies and relate the findings to contemporary research and views concerning task-irrelevant congruency effects and deception, concluding that their work has not received the credit it warrants. We also call for contemporary researchers to revisit prior studies, especially ones conducted before the cognitive revolution in psychology, to enrich their knowledge of the field and improve the quality of their research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)11-21
Number of pages11
JournalAmerican Journal of Psychology
Volume130
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Research
Deception
Research Personnel
Psychology
Negative Instruction
Warrants
Credit
Revolution

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Cite this

@article{198b5be34f6f4a7fb42ddbe16cec7eb0,
title = "The method of negative instruction: Herbert S. Langfeld's and Ludwig R. Geissler's 1910-1913 insightful studies",
abstract = "Herbert S. Langfeld and Ludwig R. Geissler published insightful articles during the period of 1910-1913 using what they called the Method of Negative Instruction, which anticipated much current research on action control and the role of instructions. We review their studies and relate the findings to contemporary research and views concerning task-irrelevant congruency effects and deception, concluding that their work has not received the credit it warrants. We also call for contemporary researchers to revisit prior studies, especially ones conducted before the cognitive revolution in psychology, to enrich their knowledge of the field and improve the quality of their research.",
author = "Proctor, {Robert W.} and Aiping Xiong",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "130",
pages = "11--21",
journal = "American Journal of Psychology",
issn = "0002-9556",
publisher = "University of Illinois Press",
number = "1",

}

The method of negative instruction : Herbert S. Langfeld's and Ludwig R. Geissler's 1910-1913 insightful studies. / Proctor, Robert W.; Xiong, Aiping.

In: American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 130, No. 1, 01.01.2017, p. 11-21.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The method of negative instruction

T2 - Herbert S. Langfeld's and Ludwig R. Geissler's 1910-1913 insightful studies

AU - Proctor, Robert W.

AU - Xiong, Aiping

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Herbert S. Langfeld and Ludwig R. Geissler published insightful articles during the period of 1910-1913 using what they called the Method of Negative Instruction, which anticipated much current research on action control and the role of instructions. We review their studies and relate the findings to contemporary research and views concerning task-irrelevant congruency effects and deception, concluding that their work has not received the credit it warrants. We also call for contemporary researchers to revisit prior studies, especially ones conducted before the cognitive revolution in psychology, to enrich their knowledge of the field and improve the quality of their research.

AB - Herbert S. Langfeld and Ludwig R. Geissler published insightful articles during the period of 1910-1913 using what they called the Method of Negative Instruction, which anticipated much current research on action control and the role of instructions. We review their studies and relate the findings to contemporary research and views concerning task-irrelevant congruency effects and deception, concluding that their work has not received the credit it warrants. We also call for contemporary researchers to revisit prior studies, especially ones conducted before the cognitive revolution in psychology, to enrich their knowledge of the field and improve the quality of their research.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012108479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85012108479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85012108479

VL - 130

SP - 11

EP - 21

JO - American Journal of Psychology

JF - American Journal of Psychology

SN - 0002-9556

IS - 1

ER -