Gestalt psychology or gestaltism (German: Gestalt "shape, form") is a theory

of mind of the Berlin School. Gestalt psychology tries to understand the laws of our
ability to acquire and maintain meaningful perceptions in an apparently chaotic world.
The central principle of gestalt psychology is that the mind forms a global whole with
self-organizing tendencies. This principle maintains that when the human mind
(perceptual system) forms a percept or gestalt, the whole has a reality of its own,
independent of the parts. The original famous phrase of Gestalt psychologist Kurt
Koffka, The whole is otherthan the sum of the parts is often incorrectly translated.[1] as
"The whole isgreater than the sum of its parts" and thus used when explaining gestalt
theory, and further incorrectly applied to systems theory.[2] Koffka did not like the
translation. He firmly corrected students who substituted "greater" for "other", "This is
not a principle of addition" he said.[3] The whole has an independent existence.
In the domain of perception, Gestalt psychologists stipulate that perceptions are
the products of complex interactions among various stimuli. Contrary to
thebehaviorist approach to understanding the elements of cognitive processes,
gestalt psychologists sought to understand their organization (Carlson and Heth,
2010). The gestalt effect is the capability of our brain to generate whole forms,
particularly with respect to the visual recognition of global figures instead of just
collections of simpler and unrelated elements (points, lines, curves...).
In psychology, gestaltism is often opposed to structuralism. Gestalt theory allows
for the breakup of elements from the whole situation into what it really is. [4]
Origins[edit]
The concept of gestalt was first introduced in philosophy and psychology in 1890
by Christian von Ehrenfels (a member of the School of Brentano). The idea of gestalt
has its roots in theories by David Hume, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe,Immanuel
Kant, David Hartley, and Ernst Mach. Max Wertheimer's unique contribution was to
insist that the "gestalt" is perceptually primary, defining the parts it was composed

from, rather than being a secondary quality that emerges from those parts, as von
Ehrenfels's earlier Gestalt-Qualitt had been.
Both von Ehrenfels and Edmund Husserl seem to have been inspired by Mach's
work Beitrge zur Analyse der Empfindungen (Contributions to the Analysis of
Sensations, 1886), in formulating their very similar concepts of gestalt andfigural
moment, respectively. On the philosophical foundations of these ideas see
Foundations of Gestalt Theory (Smith, ed., 1988).
Early 20th century theorists, such as Kurt Koffka, Max Wertheimer, and Wolfgang
Khler (students of Carl Stumpf) saw objects as perceived within an environment
according to all of their elements taken together as a global construct. This 'gestalt' or
'whole form' approach sought to define principles of perceptionseemingly innate
mental laws that determined the way objects were perceived. It is based on the here
and now, and in the way things are seen. Images can be divided intofigure or ground.
The question is what is perceived at first glance: the figure in front, or the
background.
These laws took several forms, such as the grouping of similar, or proximate,
objects together, within this global process. Although gestalt has been criticized for
being merely descriptive, it has formed the basis of much further research into the
perception of patterns and objects (Carlson et al. 2000), and of research into
behavior, thinking, problem solving and psychopathology.
Gestalt therapy[edit]
The founders of Gestalt therapy, Fritz and Laura Perls, had worked with Kurt
Goldstein, a neurologist who had applied principles of Gestalt psychology to the
functioning of the organism. Laura Perls had been a Gestalt psychologist before she
became a psychoanalyst and before she began developing Gestalt therapy together
with Fritz Perls.[5] The extent to which Gestalt psychology influenced Gestalt therapy
is disputed, however. In any case it is not identical with Gestalt psychology. On the
one hand, Laura Perls preferred not to use the term "Gestalt" to name the emerging
new therapy, because she thought that the gestalt psychologists would object to it;
[6]

on the other hand Fritz and Laura Perls clearly adopted some of Goldstein's work.

[7]

Thus, though recognizing the historical connection and the influence, most gestalt

psychologists emphasize that gestalt therapy is not a form of gestalt psychology.[8]

Theoretical framework and methodology[edit]
The school of gestalt practiced a series of theoretical and methodological
principles that attempted to redefine the approach to psychological research. This is
in contrast to investigations developed at the beginning of the 20th century, based on
traditional scientific methodology, which divided the object of study into a set of
elements that could be analyzed separately with the objective of reducing the
complexity of this object.
The theoretical principles are the following:

Principle of TotalityThe conscious experience must be considered

globally (by taking into account all the physical and mental aspects of the individual
simultaneously) because the nature of the mind demands that each component be
considered as part of a system of dynamic relationships.

Principle of psychophysical isomorphism A correlation exists between

conscious experience and cerebral activity.
Based on the principles above the following methodological principles are
defined:

Phenomenon experimental analysisIn relation to the Totality Principle

any psychological research should take phenomena as a starting point and not be
solely focused on sensory qualities.

Biotic experimentThe school of gestalt established a need to

conduct real experiments that sharply contrasted with and opposed classic laboratory
experiments. This signified experimenting in natural situations, developed in real
conditions, in which it would be possible to reproduce, with higher fidelity, what would
be habitual for a subject.[9]
Support from cybernetics and neurology[edit]

In the 1940s and 1950s, laboratory research in neurology and what became
known as cybernetics on the mechanism of frogs' eyes indicate that perception of
'gestalts' (in particular gestalts in motion) is perhaps more primitive and fundamental
than 'seeing' as such:
A frog hunts on land by vision... He has no fovea, or region of greatest acuity in
vision, upon which he must center a part of the image... The frog does not seem to
see or, at any rate, is not concerned with the detail of stationary parts of the world
around him. He will starve to death surrounded by food if it is not moving. His choice
of food is determined only by size and movement. He will leap to capture any object
the size of an insect or worm, providing it moves like one. He can be fooled easily not
only by a piece of dangled meat but by any moving small object... He does remember
a moving thing provided it stays within his field of vision and he is not distracted. [10]
Cyberneticist Valentin Turchin points out that the gestalts observed in what we
usually imagine are 'still images' and are exactly the kind of 'moving objects' that
make the frog's retina respond:
The lowest-level concepts related to visual perception for a human being
probably differ little from the concepts of a frog. In any case, the structure of the retina
in mammals and in human beings is the same as in amphibians. The phenomenon of
distortion of perception of an image stabilized on the retina gives some idea of the
concepts of the subsequent levels of the hierarchy. This is a very interesting
phenomenon. When a person looks at an immobile object, "fixes" it with his eyes, the
eyeballs do not remain absolutely immobile; they make small involuntary movements.
As a result the image of the object on the retina is constantly in motion, slowly drifting
and jumping back to the point of maximum sensitivity. The image "marks time" in the
vicinity of this point.[11]
Properties[edit]
The key principles of gestalt systems are emergence,
reification, multistability and invariance.[12]
Appearance[edit]
This is demonstrated by the dog picture, which depicts a Dalmatian dog sniffing
the ground in the shade of overhanging trees. The dog is not recognized by first
identifying its parts (feet, ears, nose, tail, etc.), and then inferring the dog from those
component parts. Instead, the dog is appears as a whole, all at once.

Gestalt theory does not have an explanation for how this percept of a dog
appears.
Reification[edit]
See also: Reification (fallacy)

Reification
Reification is the constructive or generative aspect of perception, by which the
experienced percept contains more explicit spatial information than the sensory
stimulus on which it is based.
For instance, a triangle is perceived in picture A, though no triangle is there. In
pictures B and D the eye recognizes disparate shapes as "belonging" to a single
shape, in C a complete three-dimensional shape is seen, where in actuality no such
thing is drawn.
Reification can be explained by progress in the study of illusory contours, which
are treated by the visual system as "real" contours.
Multistability[edit]

the Necker Cube and the Rubin vase, two examples of multistability
Multistability (or multistable perception) is the tendency of ambiguous perceptual
experiences to pop back and forth unstably between two or more alternative
interpretations. This is seen for example in the Necker cube, and inRubin's

Figure/Vase illusion shown here. Other examples include the Three-legged blivet and
artist M. C. Escher's artwork and the appearance of flashingmarquee lights moving
first one direction and then suddenly the other. Again, gestalt does not
explain how images appear multistable, only that they do.
Invariance[edit]

Invariance
Invariance is the property of perception whereby simple geometrical objects are
recognized independent of rotation, translation, and scale; as well as several other
variations such as elastic deformations, different lighting, and different component
features. For example, the objects in A in the figure are all immediately recognized as
the same basic shape, which are immediately distinguishable from the forms in B.
They are even recognized despite perspective and elastic deformations as in C, and
when depicted using different graphic elements as in D. Computational theories of
vision, such as those by David Marr, have had more success in explaining how
objects are classified.
Emergence, reification, multistability, and invariance are not necessarily
separable modules to model individually, but they could be different aspects of a
single unified dynamic mechanism.[citation needed]
Prgnanz[edit]
Main article: Principles of grouping

The fundamental principle of gestalt perception is the law of prgnanz (in the
German language, pithiness), which says that we tend to order our experience in a
manner that is regular, orderly, symmetric, and simple. Gestalt psychologists attempt
to discover refinements of the law of prgnanz, and this involves writing down laws
that, hypothetically, allow us to predict the interpretation of sensation, what are often
called "gestalt laws".[13] These include:
Gestalt laws of grouping[edit]

Law of proximity

Law of similarity

Law of closure

A major aspect of Gestalt psychology is that it implies that the mind understands
external stimuli as whole rather than the sum of their parts. The wholes are structured

and organized using grouping laws. The various laws are called laws orprinciples,
depending on the paper where they appearbut for simplicity's sake, this article uses
the term laws. These laws deal with the sensory modality vision. However, there are
analogous laws for other sensory modalities including auditory, tactile, gustatory and
olfactory (Bregman GP). The visual Gestalt principles of grouping were introduced
in Wertheimer (1923). Through the 1930s and '40s Wertheimer, Kohler and Koffka
formulated many of the laws of grouping through the study of visual perception. [14]
Law of ProximityThe law of proximity states that when an individual perceives
an assortment of objects they perceive objects that are close to each other as forming
a group. For example, in the figure that illustrates the Law of proximity, there are 72
circles, but we perceive the collection of circles in groups. Specifically, we perceive
there is a group of 36 circles on the left side of the image, and three groups of 12
circles on the right side of the image. This law is often used in advertising logos to
emphasize which aspects of events are associated.[14][15]
Law of SimilarityThe law of similarity states that elements within an
assortment of objects are perceptually grouped together if they are similar to each
other. This similarity can occur in the form of shape, colour, shading or other qualities.
For example, the figure illustrating the law of similarity portrays 36 circles all equal
distance apart from one another forming a square. In this depiction, 18 of the circles
are shaded dark and 18 of the circles are shaded light. We perceive the dark circles
as grouped together, and the light circles as grouped together forming six horizontal
lines within the square of circles. This perception of lines is due to the law of similarity.
[15]

Law of ClosureThe law of closure states that individuals perceive objects

such as shapes, letters, pictures, etc., as being whole when they are not complete.
Specifically, when parts of a whole picture are missing, our perception fills in the
visual gap. Research shows that the reason the mind completes a regular figure that
is not perceived through sensation is to increase the regularity of surrounding stimuli.
For example, the figure that depicts the law of closure portrays what we perceive as a
circle on the left side of the image and a rectangle on the right side of the image.
However, gaps are present in the shapes. If the law of closure did not exist, the image

would depict an assortment of different lines with different lengths, rotations, and
curvaturesbut with the law of closure, we perceptually combine the lines into whole
shapes.[14][15][16]
Law of SymmetryThe law of symmetry states that the mind perceives objects
as being symmetrical and forming around a center point. It is perceptually pleasing to
divide objects into an even number of symmetrical parts. Therefore, when two
symmetrical elements are unconnected the mind perceptually connects them to form
a coherent shape. Similarities between symmetrical objects increase the likelihood
that objects are grouped to form a combined symmetrical object. For example, the
figure depicting the law of symmetry shows a configuration of square and curled
brackets. When the image is perceived, we tend to observe three pairs of
symmetrical brackets rather than six individual brackets. [14][15]
Law of Common FateThe law of common fate states that objects are
perceived as lines that move along the smoothest path. Experiments using the visual
sensory modality found that movement of elements of an object produce paths that
individuals perceive that the objects are on. We perceive elements of objects to have
trends of motion, which indicate the path that the object is on. The law of continuity
implies the grouping together of objects that have the same trend of motion and are
therefore on the same path. For example, if there are an array of dots and half the
dots are moving upward while the other half are moving downward, we would
perceive the upward moving dots and the downward moving dots as two distinct
units.[17]
Law of ContinuityThe law of continuity states that elements of objects tend to
be grouped together, and therefore integrated into perceptual wholes if they are
aligned within an object. In cases where there is an intersection between objects,
individuals tend to perceive the two objects as two single uninterrupted entities.
Stimuli remain distinct even with overlap. We are less likely to group elements with
sharp abrupt directional changes as being one object. [14]
Law of Good GestaltThe law of good gestalt explains that elements of objects
tend to be perceptually grouped together if they form a pattern that is regular, simple,
and orderly. This law implies that as individuals perceive the world, they eliminate

complexity and unfamiliarity so they can observe a reality in its most simplistic form.
Eliminating extraneous stimuli helps the mind create meaning. This meaning created
by perception implies a global regularity, which is often mentally prioritized over
spatial relations. The law of good gestalt focuses on the idea of conciseness, which is
what all of gestalt theory is based on. This law has also been called the law of
Prgnanz.[14] Prgnanz is a German word that directly translates to mean "pithiness"
and implies the ideas of salience, conciseness and orderliness. [17]
Law of Past ExperienceThe law of past experience implies that under some
circumstances visual stimuli are categorized according to past experience. If two
objects tend to be observed within close proximity, or small temporal intervals, the
objects are more likely to be perceived together. For example, the English language
contains 26 letters that are grouped to form words using a set of rules. If an individual
reads an English word they have never seen, they use the law of past experience to
interpret the letters "L" and "I" as two letters beside each other, rather than using the
law of closure to combine the letters and interpret the object as an uppercase U. [17]
The gestalt laws of grouping have recently been subjected to modern methods of
scientific evaluation by examining the visual cortex using cortical algorithms. Current
Gestalt psychologists have described their findings, which showed correlations
between physical visual representations of objects and self-report perception as the
laws of seeing.[17]
Gestalt views in psychology[edit]
Gestalt psychologists find it is important to think of problems as a whole. Max
Wertheimer considered thinking to happen in two ways: productive and reproductive.
[13]

Productive thinking is solving a problem with insight.

This is a quick insightful unplanned response to situations and environmental
interaction.
Reproductive thinking is solving a problem with previous experiences and what
is already known. (1945/1959).

This is a very common thinking. For example, when a person is given several
segments of information, he/she deliberatelyexamines the relationships among its
parts, analyzes their purpose, concept, and totality, he/she reaches the "aha!"
moment, using what is already known. Understanding in this case
happens intentionally by reproductive thinking.
Another gestalt psychologist, Perkins, believes insight deals with three
processes:
1.

Unconscious leap in thinking.[13]

2.

The increased amount of speed in mental processing.

3.

The amount of short-circuiting that occurs in normal reasoning. [18]

Views going against the gestalt psychology are:

1.

Nothing-special view

2.

Neo-gestalt view

3.

The Three-Process View

Gestalt psychology should not be confused with the gestalt therapy of Fritz Perls,
which is only peripherally linked to gestalt psychology. A strictly gestalt psychologybased therapeutic method is Gestalt Theoretical Psychotherapy, developed by the
German gestalt psychologist and psychotherapist Hans-Jrgen Walter.
Fuzzy-trace theory[edit]
Fuzzy-trace theory, a dual process model of memory and reasoning, was also
derived from Gestalt Psychology. Fuzzy-trace theory posits that we encode
information into two separate traces: verbatim and gist. Information stored in verbatim
is exact memory for detail (the individual parts of a pattern, for example) while
information stored in gist is semantic and conceptual (what we perceive the pattern to
be). The effects seen in Gestalt psychology can be attributed to the way we encode
information as gist.[19]

Gestalt and Design[edit]

Composition showing the Gestalt Principles, graphic design (Gestalt Educational

Program, 2011).

Central motif from theBauhaus logo, 192122

Gestalt in the Eye, digital montage, 2011

Uses in humancomputer interaction[edit]

The gestalt laws are used in user interface design. The laws of similarity and
proximity can, for example, be used as guides for placing radio buttons. They may
also be used in designing computers and software for more intuitive human use.
Examples include the design and layout of a desktop's shortcuts in rows and
columns. Gestalt psychology also has applications in computer vision for trying to
make computers "see" the same things as humans do. [20]
Quantum cognition modeling[edit]
Main article: Quantum cognition Gestalt perception
Similarities between Gestalt phenomena and quantum mechanics have been
pointed out by, among others, chemist Anton Amann, who commented that
"similarities between Gestalt perception and quantum mechanics are on a level of a
parable" yet may give useful insight nonetheless. Physicist Elio Conte and co-workers
have proposed abstract, mathematical models to describe the time dynamics
of cognitive associations with mathematical tools borrowed from quantum
mechanics[21][22]and has discussed psychology experiments in this context. A similar
approach has been suggested by physicists David Bohm, Basil Hiley and
philosopher Paavo Pylkknen with the notion that mind and matter both emerge
from an "implicate order".[23][24] The models involve non-commutative mathematics;
such models account for situations in which the outcome of two measurements
performed one after the other can depend on the order in which they are performed
a pertinent feature for psychological processes, as it is obvious that an experiment
performed on a conscious person may influence the outcome of a subsequent
experiment by changing the state of mind of that person.
Criticism[edit]
In some scholarly communities, such as cognitive psychology and computational
neuroscience, gestalt theories of perception are criticized for being descriptive rather
than explanatory in nature. For this reason, they are viewed by some as redundant or
uninformative. For example, Bruce, Green & Georgeson[25] conclude the following
regarding gestalt theory's influence on the study of visual perception:
The physiological theory of the gestaltists has fallen by the wayside, leaving us
with a set of descriptive principles, but without a model of perceptual processing.

Indeed, some of their "laws" of perceptual organisation today sound vague and
inadequate. What is meant by a "good" or "simple" shape, for example?