Question 40

John Wernicke criticized the analytic introspection method for producing extremely variable results from person to person.

Wernicke pointed out that the subjective nature of analytic introspection led to inconsistencies in the results, as different individuals reported their experiences in varied ways, making it difficult to establish reliable psychological insights.

A) The method was used to study questions of philosophy rather than psychology.

This option is incorrect because Wernicke's criticism was not centered on the philosophical applications of the method but rather on its scientific validity and the variability of individual reports.

B) The method produced narrow results that were easy to manipulate.

This option is also incorrect. While the method did have limitations, Wernicke's primary concern was about the variability and inconsistency in results across different individuals, rather than the narrowness or manipulability of the findings.

C) The method produced extremely variable results from person to person.

This option is correct. Wernicke believed that the subjective nature of analytic introspection led to significant variability in the data gathered, which undermined its reliability as a scientific method in psychology.

D) The method was used to study questions with no relevance or validity.

This option is incorrect. Wernicke did not argue that the method lacked relevance or validity in general; rather, his focus was on the inconsistency of results and the challenges this posed for drawing valid conclusions from introspective reports.

Conclusion

Wernicke's criticism of the analytic introspection method highlights the fundamental issue of variability in subjective reporting, which challenges the reliability of findings in psychological research. While other options address different aspects, none capture the essence of Wernicke's main concern regarding the inconsistency of results, making option C the definitive correct choice.