Psychological Set Theory – Dmitry Uznadze

The history of psychological science is largely characterized by an enduring ontological fragmentation. Since the formal inauguration of experimental psychology in late nineteenth-century Europe, the discipline has repeatedly fractured along dualistic fault lines: mind versus body, conscious volition versus mechanical determinism, and atomistic elementism versus holistic organismic vitalism. While structuralists sought to catalog the elemental building blocks of immediate experience through controlled introspection, and early behaviorists abandoned the mental sphere altogether in pursuit of measurable stimulus-response linkages, the unified subject of psychological activity threatened to disappear entirely from scientific discourse. It was against this prevailing methodological crisis that the Georgian philosopher and psychologist Dmitry Nikolaevich Uznadze (1886–1950) constructed one of the most intellectually ambitious, structurally coherent, and experimentally grounded theoretical architectures in the history of behavioral science: the General Psychological Theory of Set (known in Georgian as Gantsyoba and in Russian as Ustanovka).

Operating from the intellectual crossroads of European phenomenology, German experimental psychophysics, and classical philosophical epistemology, Uznadze recognized that psychological science could never achieve conceptual maturity so long as it treated conscious mental phenomena as self-contained events operating in a Cartesian void or, conversely, reduced purposeful human behavior to passive physiological reactivity. Uznadze’s breakthrough was the identification and rigorous experimental demonstration of a primary, pre-reflective, and psychophysically holistic state of the organism that serves as the indispensable bridge between internal biological drives and external environmental affordances. This mediating ground—the psychological set—is not a passive mental content, a localized cognitive representation, or a simple motor posture; rather, it is an integrated, directional state of the entire personality that dynamically organizes prospective behavior prior to the emergence of conscious reflection.

Although political boundaries, ideological pressures within Soviet academia, and linguistic barriers historically constrained the global dissemination of Uznadze’s paradigm, the Georgian School of Set Psychology established a profoundly modern theoretical framework that anticipated contemporary developments in embodied cognition, predictive sensory processing, dynamic systems theory, and neuropsychology by several decades. Far from being a historical curio of twentieth-century Soviet psychological thought, Uznadze’s concept of set provides an indispensable metatheoretical blueprint for resolving the persistent impasses of contemporary cognitive science. By examining the biological, philosophical, experimental, and clinical dimensions of Set Theory, this treatise explores Uznadze’s comprehensive system—a paradigm that redeems human agency without sacrificing empirical rigor, grounds consciousness in bodily readiness, and provides a unified ontology for human action.

1. Biographical and Historical Genesis of Dmitry Uznadze’s Thought

1.1 Intellectual Milieu and Philosophical Formations

Dmitry Nikolaevich Uznadze was born in 1886 in the village of Sakara, located in the western province of Imereti, Georgia. His formative intellectual trajectory unfolded within a rapidly modernizing Europe where philosophy and empirical science were locked in a profound epistemological dialogue. In 1905, compelled by political turbulence in the Russian Empire, Uznadze matriculated at the University of Leipzig, which was then the global epicenter of scientific psychology. There, he entered the laboratory of Wilhelm Wundt, the father of experimental psychology. Under Wundt’s rigorous tutelage, Uznadze mastered the psychophysical paradigms, chronometric instrumentation, and systematic apperceptive methodologies that defined early laboratory psychology. However, while Uznadze absorbed Wundtian experimental discipline, he grew acutely skeptical of Wundt’s underlying structuralist doctrine, which attempted to dissect conscious experience into atomic sensory elements and affective tones.

Recognizing the inherent limitations of empirical atomism, Uznadze supplemented his laboratory investigations with advanced philosophical studies at the University of Halle-Wittenberg. Here, he immersed himself in German idealism and neo-Kantian epistemology, studying under prominent thinkers such as Rudolf Eucken and Alois Riehl. Uznadze was drawn to the epistemological problem of the conditions that make objective experience possible. Neo-Kantianism impressed upon him the conviction that perception is never a passive, mirror-like registration of external inputs, but rather an active, synthetic construction shaped by transcendental categories. Uznadze resolved to naturalize these synthetic categories: to transform the transcendental subject of Kantian philosophy into a living, biologically situated, psychophysical organism functioning within a concrete material ecology.

Upon completing his philosophical dissertation on Vladimir Solovyov’s epistemology at Halle in 1909 and his secondary studies in psychology, Uznadze returned to Georgia with a distinct intellectual objective: the integration of European philosophical traditions with the nascent empirical requirements of early twentieth-century psychological science. Following the geopolitical convulsions of World War I and the declaration of the Democratic Republic of Georgia, Uznadze became one of the foundational figures behind the establishment of Tbilisi State University in 1918. Recognizing that institutional autonomy was essential for sustained scientific productivity, he founded the university’s Department of Psychology and, later, the Institute of Psychology within the Georgian Academy of Sciences. Through these institutions, Uznadze trained generations of scholars, laying the structural foundations for what would become internationally recognized as the Georgian School of Set Psychology.

1.2 The Search for a Unified Psychological Ontology

The developmental trajectory of Uznadze’s theoretical framework was fueled by a profound dissatisfaction with the three prevailing psychological paradigms of the early twentieth century: Wundtian structuralism, American behaviorism, and Freudian psychoanalysis. Each of these frameworks, Uznadze argued, suffered from an unsustainable ontological reductionism that fragmented the integrity of the living human subject. Structuralist elementism, by reducing conscious life to a mosaic of discrete sensations, images, and feelings, committed the fatal error of confusing the analytic abstractions of the psychologist with the primordial reality of subjective life. In reality, human beings do not experience sensory elements that are subsequently glued together by associative bonds; they experience holistic, meaningful situations toward which they are already practically oriented.

Simultaneously, Uznadze rejected the mechanical stimulus-response (S-R) paradigm introduced by early behaviorists such as John B. Watson. Uznadze maintained that behaviorism achieved objective measurement only by emptying psychology of its legitimate subject matter. The mechanical model assumed that an identical objective stimulus would uniformly evoke an identical physiological response across different occasions. However, empirical observation demonstrates that an identical stimulus evokes radically different behaviors depending upon the internal state, biological readiness, and systemic needs of the organism. The mechanical S-R paradigm treated the organism as an empty, passive conduit, ignoring the internal systemic mediating factor that actively interprets, polarizes, and acts upon environmental inputs.

Although Uznadze shared Sigmund Freud‘s recognition that conscious awareness constitutes only a small fraction of psychological activity, he launched a penetrating critique of psychoanalytic theory. He argued that Freud’s dynamic unconscious was fundamentally flawed by an uncritical biological fatalism, an excessive pan-sexualization of human motivation, and an untenable spatial topography of the mind. In the Freudian system, the unconscious is depicted as a subterranean dungeon crowded with repressed, affect-laden mental representations, forbidden ideas, and primal drives locked in perpetual warfare with conscious censorship. Uznadze contended that this model merely duplicated the errors of introspective consciousness by populating the unconscious with the very same entities—ideas, desires, and conflicts—only stripped of the attribute of awareness. Uznadze demanded an integrative metatheoretical framework that could account for unconscious determinism without reducing the mind to a hydraulic apparatus of repressed sexual pathology, thereby finally overcoming the Cartesian mind-body dichotomy.

1.3 Chronological Evolution of Uznadze’s Research Trajectory

The development of Uznadze’s set theory unfolded over four decades of systematic philosophical inquiry and psychophysical experimentation. During the late 1910s and early 1920s, his work was largely philosophical, focusing on the ontology of truth, the problem of nominalism, and the teleological structure of human agency. In treatises such as The Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov (1909) and early Georgian-language monographs on logic and education, Uznadze wrestled with the paradox of how objective, purposeful, and normative human activities could emerge from biological substrates without appealing to theological or vitalistic mysticism.

The pivotal transition from philosophical speculation to psychophysical experimentation occurred during the mid-1920s. Uznadze recognized that if the primary organizing substrate of behavior operated below the threshold of conscious awareness, it could not be studied via introspective self-report. Drawing upon classical German sensory psychology, he initiated an exhaustive series of laboratory investigations into sensory illusions, perceptual adaptation, and contrast phenomena across various modalities, including haptic, visual, auditory, and kinesthetic domains. It was during this period that Uznadze engineered the famous haptic weight illusion protocol, which demonstrated that exposing an individual to an asymmetry in stimulus magnitude creates an unconscious, enduring bodily modification—a set—that predictably distorts subsequent perceptual judgments of identical stimuli.

Throughout the 1930s and 1940s, Uznadze consolidated these empirical findings into a comprehensive general psychological theory of set. He demonstrated that set was not an isolated sensory artifact or an experimental laboratory curiosity, but the universal operational foundation of all cognitive, affective, and volitional processes. During the challenges of the Second World War, Uznadze directed his laboratory’s resources toward applied neuropsychological rehabilitation, utilizing set metrics to assess and treat brain-damaged soldiers suffering from traumatic cortical injuries. Following his death in 1950, his lifelong work was synthesized and published in seminal monographs, most notably the posthumous Russian volume Eksperimental’nye Osnovy Psikhologii Ustanovki (1949/1961), later translated into English as The Psychology of Set (1966), cementing his status as a titan of theoretical psychology.

2. Philosophical and Epistemological Foundations of Set Theory

2.1 The Epistemological Impasse: Atomism versus Holism

The central crisis of mid-twentieth-century psychology was fundamentally epistemological, characterized by what Lev Vygotsky identified as the “historical meaning of the psychological crisis.” Psychology found itself torn between two seemingly irreconcilable paradigms: an analytical, elementistic atomism that sacrificed the living meaning of human experience in exchange for empirical precision, and an intuitive, vitalistic holism (exemplified by Diltheyan descriptive psychology) that preserved the qualitative richness of consciousness at the expense of scientific replicability. Sensory perception, memory, affective evaluation, and volitional execution were consistently treated as autonomous mental “faculties” or segregated modules, operating without a unifying ontological substrate to ground them.

Uznadze grasped that this fragmentation was the direct consequence of a category error inherited from classical associationism. By treating isolated mental functions as primary data, psychologists were attempting to assemble an integrated organism out of disconnected constituent parts. Drawing upon the organismic biology of Aristotelian hylomorphism, as well as early holistic systems thinking, Uznadze argued that the fundamental starting point of psychological inquiry must be the living organism as an indivisible, functionally integrated totality confronting an equally concrete, structured environment. Mental operations do not exist in isolation; they are differentiated expressions of an underlying organismic state.

Uznadze proposed that prior to the activation of any specific mental function—such as seeing, remembering, or deciding—the organism as a whole must assume a specific, holistic orientation toward its immediate behavioral context. This overarching holistic state is precisely what Uznadze termed the set. The set is not a composite assembled from antecedent cognitive and physiological processes; rather, it is a primary, synthetic baseline state from which discrete psychological functions are subsequently differentiated and deployed. In this respect, Uznadze’s epistemology anticipated modern complex dynamic systems theory, wherein localized phenomena are understood as emergent properties governed by the global parameters of the total system.

2.2 Overcoming Cartesian Dualism via the Pre-Reflective Dimension

The philosophical significance of Uznadze’s paradigm lies in its radical deconstruction of the Cartesian mind-body dichotomy. Classical Cartesian ontology divided reality into two mutually exclusive substances: res cogitans (unextended, thinking substance accessible exclusively through conscious introspection) and res extensa (extended, non-thinking material substance governed by mechanical causality). Psychology spent centuries trapped within this dualism, alternating between a disembodied mentalism that could not explain physical action and a reductive physicalism that could not explain subjective meaning.

Uznadze resolved this philosophical impasse by locating the psychological set within the pre-reflective dimension of existence. The set belongs neither to the realm of conscious thoughts (it cannot be directly observed through introspection) nor to the domain of purely mechanical, somatic reactivity (it possesses intrinsic intentionality, directionality, and meaning). Instead, the set represents an integrated, psychophysical unity that precedes the conceptual bifurcation of subject and object, mind and matter. In the set, the physiological and the psychological are not two distinct substances interacting through mysterious causal pathways; they are dual aspects of a single, indivisible organismic reality in a state of preparatory orientation.

This formulation displays striking parallels with twentieth-century European phenomenology, particularly the existential phenomenology of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and the fundamental ontology of Martin Heidegger. Merleau-Ponty’s conceptualization of the “phenomenal body” (corps propre) and “bodily intentionality”—the realization that the body possesses its own motor-intentional directedness toward the world that operates beneath explicit intellectual representation—mirrors Uznadze’s insistence that the set is a bodily grounded orientation toward environmental affordances. Similarly, Uznadze’s rejection of the disengaged, intellectualized subject strongly reflects Heidegger’s insistence that human existence is fundamentally characterized by “being-in-the-world” (In-der-Welt-sein), wherein our primary relationship to reality is not theoretical observation, but pre-reflective, practical concern and readiness-to-hand.

2.3 Teleology and Determinism in Human Agency

A perennial challenge within naturalistic psychology has been the reconciliation of deterministic physical causality with the teleological, goal-directed nature of human action. If psychological phenomena are governed exclusively by mechanical causation, human agency, intentionality, and moral responsibility are reduced to epiphenomena. Conversely, if purposeful behavior is explained by appealing to final causes or future goals acting backward in time, psychology risks lapsing into unscientific mysticism.

Uznadze resolved this problem through an elegant operational formulation of active anticipation. He argued that teleology in human behavior does not require a future event to act causally upon the present. Rather, prospective goal-directedness is materially encoded within the organism’s present psychological set. When an organism experiences a state of need within a specific environmental milieu, the entire psychophysical apparatus undergoes an immediate structural transformation: it reorganizes itself into a state of active readiness configured precisely to achieve the required end-state.

In this framework, the set operates as a contemporary, biologically determined preparatory state that encodes prospective intentionality. Mechanical determinism is thoroughly rejected: the organism is not passively propelled forward by blind mechanical impacts from the past. Instead, Uznadze advances an active-agentic model of environmental interaction. The organism’s immediate preparedness acts as an active, filtering filter that selects, prioritizes, and structures environmental stimuli based on internal survival imperatives and cultural objectives. Teleology is thus naturalized: purpose is transformed from a metaphysical puzzle into an empirically demonstrable, forward-looking property of the living psychophysical set.

3. The Concept of Set: Ontological Definition and Core Architecture

3.1 Defining Ustanovka: The Primordial State of Preparedness

To grasp the theoretical architecture of Uznadze’s system, one must first disentangle the semantic nuances embedded within his terminology. In his native Georgian, Uznadze employed the term Gantsyoba, an expressive word denoting an internal tuning, systemic orientation, or holistic disposition of the self. In translating this construct into Russian academic discourse, the word Ustanovka was adopted, which corresponds to the English “set,” the German Einstellung, and the French attitude. However, Uznadze repeatedly cautioned that the clinical, sociological, and cognitive usages of these Western terms often failed to capture the deep ontological reality of Gantsyoba.

In Uznadze’s rigorous taxonomy, the set is defined as a holistic, non-conscious, pre-reflective state of organismic readiness to execute a specific, purposeful activity. It is not an isolated cognitive schema, an emotional mood, a motor reflex, or an intellectual expectation. Rather, it is a structural state of the entire personality. Uznadze distinguished the set from three related but ontologically distinct psychological phenomena:

• Transient mental states: Fleeting, conscious phenomena such as flashes of insight, momentary sensations, or passing affective surges, which are secondary products of deeper organizing structures.
• Permanent personality dispositions: Deep-seated characterological traits, temperamental attributes, or stable socio-moral orientations, which represent long-term sedimentations of habitual sets rather than active situational readiness.
• Situational sets: Dynamic, immediate operational organizations forged in real-time through the precise convergence of an immediate internal deficit and an objective environmental affordance.

Crucially, Uznadze insisted on the non-conscious yet entirely non-pathological nature of the set. For Uznadze, the non-conscious is not a dark, chaotic realm of repressed traumas as posited by psychoanalysis; it is the fundamental, orderly, and normative operational substrate of all healthy mental life. The set functions as the invisible, silent foundation upon which conscious cognitive architectures are erected and maintained.

3.2 Set as an Intermediary Variable between Subject and Environment

Central to Uznadze’s theoretical paradigm is the deconstruction of the traditional binary model of interaction: Subject $\leftrightarrow$ Object. Under the direct-interaction model, environmental stimuli were assumed to impinge directly upon the senses, producing an immediate behavioral or conscious reaction. Uznadze replaced this inadequate dualism with an operational functional triad: Subject $\rightarrow$ Set $\rightarrow$ Object. Within this framework, the set functions as an active intermediary variable, an indispensable systemic filter that determines how objective environmental stimuli are registered, evaluated, and mobilized.

The set is inherently non-representational. It does not consist of internal pictures, linguistic propositions, symbolic tokens, or mental models stored in an internal cognitive theater. Instead, it operates as an embodied posture of active readiness. When a tennis player prepares to return a high-velocity serve, their response is not mediated by abstract mathematical calculations of the ball’s parabolic trajectory or propositional deliberations about limb positioning. Such intellectual representations would be far too slow to execute the required behavior. Instead, the athlete’s body-mind is configured as an integrated dynamic set—a non-representational, intentional readiness that directly couples sensorimotor systems to environmental vectors.

This non-representational architecture serves an indispensable functional economy within human cognition. By pre-tuning sensory channels, activating relevant motor schemas, and suppressing irrelevant ambient noise, the set drastically reduces the computational burden imposed upon conscious processing mechanisms. Repetitive, survival-critical, or highly practiced behavioral interactions with the environment are handled fluently and adaptively at the pre-reflective level of the set, preserving the organism’s finite conscious cognitive resources for moments of genuine environmental uncertainty, behavioral breakdown, or novel problem-solving.

3.3 The Dynamic Lifecycle of a Psychological Set

A psychological set is not a static crystalline structure; it is an active, homeostatic, and temporal process that progresses through a predictable dynamic lifecycle comprising four distinct phases:

1. The Inception Stage: The set originates in the instantaneous convergence of an internal organismic need and an external environmental affordance. The moment these internal and external poles intersect, a corresponding set flashes into existence, transforming the total system from a state of neutral resting potential into a focused vector of behavioral readiness.
2. The Fixation Stage: If the environmental conditions remain consistent and the underlying need persists, or if the interaction is repeated over successive operational cycles, the set undergoes internal consolidation. The physiological and psychological parameters of the preparatory state become structurally stabilized, resisting casual disruption and developing functional inertia.
3. The Actualization Stage: When environmental cues signal the optimal moment for behavioral release, the fixated set translates directly into overt action. Motor commands fire, cognitive operations deploy, and intentional behaviors unfold along the directional contours pre-mapped by the set. This execution occurs with remarkable fluency, energy efficiency, and an absence of subjective friction.
4. The Extinction Stage: Once the objective behavior is executed and the underlying need is satisfied—or, alternatively, when external reality shifts so dramatically that the active set can no longer achieve its objective—the set undergoes systematic dissolution. It decays, yields to habituation, or undergoes structural reorganization into a novel set calibrated to the revised environmental situation.

4. The Dual Determinants of Set: Need and the Objective Situation

4.1 The Internal Pole: The Anatomy of Organismic Need

For a psychological set to emerge, two dialectically opposed yet mutually necessary conditions must be satisfied: an internal, subjective factor and an external, objective factor. The internal pole of set genesis is represented by need. In Uznadze’s theoretical framework, need is conceptualized in the broadest possible sense, extending far beyond raw biological deficits to encompass the entire spectrum of human motivational life.

At its base, need manifests as an acute somatic disequilibrium: metabolic deficits such as hunger, thirst, thermal regulation, or reproductive imperatives. At this biological tier, need is an immediate physiological deficit compelling the organism toward homeostatic restoration. However, Uznadze was emphatically non-reductionist; he recognized that as human beings develop within cultural, linguistic, and historical environments, their motivational systems undergo qualitative reorganization. Consequently, higher-order social, intellectual, aesthetic, and moral aspirations operate as authentic, non-derivative needs. An intellectual need to solve a theoretical paradox, an artistic need to construct aesthetic harmony, or an ethical need to enact social justice function with the same structural imperative in generating sets as the primary drive for caloric intake.

Ontologically, need functions as a state of functional deficit that introduces dynamic tension into the psychophysical system. In its unorganized, primordial state, this tension is diffuse, aimless, and chaotic. It is merely raw somatic unrest. The crucial function of the set is to transform this diffuse somatic tension into a structured, directed psychic vector. The set anchors the unfocused energy of need to specific environmental targets. In situations where multiple conflicting needs compete simultaneously for systemic expression—such as the conflict between biological fatigue and the professional drive to complete an urgent task—the internal pole is governed by dynamic hierarchical dominance, wherein the most imperative need recruits the organism’s resources, suppressing subordinate drives to establish an unambiguous preparatory set.

4.2 The External Pole: The Objective Situation and Environmental Affordance

Need alone, however vital and intense, is entirely incapable of generating a psychological set in a vacuum. A subjective drive floating in an internal void cannot organize behavior because behavior is, by definition, an interaction with external reality. Thus, the second mandatory determinant of set genesis is the objective situation. The external milieu must present the physical, spatial, and social conditions that offer real, practical opportunities for the satisfaction of the active need.

In this respect, Uznadze’s concept of the objective situation anticipated the groundbreaking ecological psychology of James J. Gibson by several decades. For Uznadze, the environment is not a collection of neutral, geometric objects possessing purely physical dimensions (such as wavelength, mass, or chemical composition). Rather, the environment is registered as a field of active affordances and functional values. To a thirsty individual, a vessel of water is not perceived as an abstract cylindrical glass container filled with a transparent dihydrogen monoxide compound; it is perceived immediately as “drinkable”—a direct physical affordance that invites manual grasping and oral consumption.

The objective situation acts as a structural matrix of constraints that delimits the repertoire of viable functional sets. The physical properties of the terrain, the social conventions of the surrounding culture, the spatial distribution of resources, and the presence of physical hazards all impose unyielding parameters upon behavioral execution. The objective situation polarizes the active need, channeling its diffuse energy into specific operational pathways dictated by the geometry of external reality. Without this environmental grounding, the internal energy of the subject remains an impotent, unchanneled somatic excitation.

4.3 The Dialectical Synthesis of Need and Situation

The core of Uznadze’s etiology of the set resides in his assertion that neither need nor the objective situation possesses causal priority; rather, the set is the dialectical synthesis of both poles. The co-presence of need and an appropriate situation represents both the necessary and sufficient condition for the genesis of a psychological set. If either pole is absent, set generation is impossible, and goal-directed behavioral engagement ceases.

Consider the theoretical breakdown when the synthesis fails. If an individual experiences an overwhelming internal need (e.g., severe dehydration) but is placed within an absolute void entirely devoid of situational affordances (a sterile, sensory-deprivation environment offering no moisture or functional equivalents), no functional set can crystallize. The subject cannot organize an adaptive behavioral posture toward nothingness; the need remains an agonizing, unfocused internal pathology, producing diffuse autonomic distress, disorientation, or hallucinations, but no organized action. Conversely, if an objective situation rich in affordances presents itself (e.g., an elaborate banquet of exquisite foods) to an individual whose nutritional needs are completely satiated, the environmental objects remain psychologically neutral. They fail to engage the subject’s behavioral apparatus; they are seen, perhaps, as abstract shapes, but they do not evoke an active set of culinary consumption.

Uznadze conceptualized this synthesis as an interdependent, non-linear interaction. The psychological set ($S$) can be formally understood as a continuous function of the dynamic tension of internal need ($N$) and the structured valence of the objective situation ($O$):

$$S = f(N, O)$$

Crucially, this is not an additive relationship, but an interactive, systemic coupling. When $N$ approaches zero, $S$ collapses to an inert baseline; when $O$ provides no affordance, $S$ is similarly paralyzed. Only when an active need intersects with an environmental affordance does the organism undergo the rapid, systemic phase-shift that produces the psychological set, instantly orienting the entire psychophysical apparatus toward concrete behavioral action.

5. The Experimental Paradigm of Uznadze: Methodology and Empirical Validation

5.1 The Classical Haptic Weight Illusion Experiment

Uznadze understood that the validity of any metatheoretical paradigm depends upon its empirical replicability. To demonstrate the existence, properties, and dynamics of the pre-reflective psychological set without relying on flawed introspective reports, he engineered one of the most elegant and influential methodologies in the history of experimental psychology: the Fixated Set Method, exemplified classically through the haptic weight illusion protocol.

The architecture of the classical haptic experiment is deceptively simple, yet it isolates the unconscious mechanics of the set with mathematical precision. The experimental setup unfolds in two tightly controlled, consecutive phases:

1. The Induction (Fixation) Phase: The participant is seated with eyes closed or obscured by an experimental partition, resting both hands palm-up on a testing apparatus. The experimenter repeatedly places two visually identical spheres simultaneously into the subject’s palms. Crucially, these spheres possess markedly disparate weights: for example, the sphere in the left hand weighs 100 grams, while the sphere in the right hand weighs 15 grams. The subject is instructed to passively register their weights and report which is heavier. This presentation is repeated across a predetermined sequence of trials, typically ranging from 10 to 15 exposures. Through this recurrent sensory exposure, the subject’s psychophysical apparatus actively, unconsciously adapts to the persistent environmental asymmetry: a fixated set is forged, organizing the motor-sensory apparatus to expect a heavy weight on the left and a light weight on the right.
2. The Critical (Test) Phase: On the critical test trial (e.g., trial 16), the experimenter silently introduces a decisive experimental manipulation: two objectively identical spheres, each weighing exactly 50 grams, are placed simultaneously into the subject’s hands. The subject, entirely unaware of the substitution, is asked to compare the two weights.

The results generated by this protocol are robust, cross-culturally universal, and striking. Instead of accurately perceiving the two equal spheres as identical in mass, the vast majority of healthy participants experience a powerful, involuntary perceptual illusion. This illusion manifests in two distinct modalities, depending on the temporal parameters and the subject’s individual set dynamics:

• The Contrast Illusion: The overwhelming majority of participants report that the spheres are dramatically unequal. Astonishingly, the equal sphere placed in the hand that previously received the smaller weight (15g) is perceived as drastically heavier than the equal sphere in the hand that previously received the heavy weight (100g). The underlying mechanics are clear: the hand expecting a featherweight encounters 50 grams and registers an intense, contrastive overshoot, while the hand pre-tensed to receive 100 grams finds 50 grams effortlessly light.
• The Assimilative Illusion: Under specific conditions—such as a minimal number of induction trials, low stimulus differentiation, or particular typological dispositions—the subject experiences the inverse: the equal spheres are judged to be unequal in the *same* directional configuration as the induction pairs (the hand accustomed to the heavy weight continues to perceive its sphere as heavier). The active set simply assimilates the ambiguous reality into its pre-established operational bias.

5.2 Cross-Modal Demonstrations: Optic, Acoustic, and Kinesthetic Set

A critical question confronted Uznadze: Was this illusion an isolated somatic curiosity of the peripheral neuromuscular apparatus of the hands, or did it reflect a universal, systemic property of the central nervous system and human psychology as a whole? To answer this, Uznadze and his colleagues systematically extended the Fixated Set Method across virtually every sensory and motor modality.

In the optic domain, Uznadze utilized tachistoscopic projectors to flash pairs of geometric stimuli onto a screen for fractions of a second. In the induction phase, subjects were exposed to pairs of circles of glaringly unequal circumferences (e.g., a circle of 50mm diameter on the left and a circle of 15mm diameter on the right). Following 15 rapid induction trials, the critical test pair was introduced: two objectively equal circles of 30mm diameter. Confirming the universality of the mechanism, subjects experienced a powerful optic contrast illusion: the circle displayed in the visual field previously occupied by the smaller circle was perceived as significantly larger than its objective twin.

In the acoustic domain, experimental setups exposed participants to localized sound bursts delivered through headphones, with asymmetric decibel levels distributed between the left and right ears. Following fixation, equal-decibel auditory tones were presented simultaneously. Participants routinely perceived the equal tone as markedly louder in the ear previously exposed to the softer stimulus. Parallel findings were rigorously documented in kinesthetic movements (measuring the spatial amplitude of arm extensions across horizontal gaps) and cutaneous pressure sensitivity.

Most profoundly, the Georgian School successfully demonstrated the phenomenon of cross-modal set transfer. In these landmark experiments, an intense set was induced exclusively through one sensory modality—for instance, via the classical haptic weight apparatus. During the critical test phase, however, the testing was abruptly switched to an entirely different sensory channel, such as the visual comparison of shaded discs or auditory volume estimations. The experimental data revealed that a set fixated haptically reliably transferred to and distorted judgments in the visual and acoustic modalities. This empirical discovery delivered the definitive blow to peripheral-reflex theories of set, establishing beyond scientific doubt that the set is a centrally organized, systemic disposition of the total personality.

5.3 Methodological Significance of the Fixated Set Protocol

The methodological brilliance of Uznadze’s Fixated Set Method resides in its unique capacity to provide rigorous, quantitative, and directly observable access to the unconscious operations of the mind without relying on the highly subjective, unstandardized, and hermeneutically contaminated techniques of psychoanalytic free association or dream interpretation. In Uznadze’s laboratory, the unconscious was subjected to the microsecond precision of tachistoscopes, the milligram accuracy of calibrated balance scales, and the formal protocols of psychophysics.

The protocol allowed Uznadze to formulate precise quantitative metrics for assessing the invisible parameters of the human psyche. By varying the number of induction trials (e.g., 5, 10, 20, or 40 exposures), experimenters could map the exact rate of set acquisition. By continuously presenting pairs of equal stimuli during the test phase until the illusion completely dissolved, they could plot mathematically rigorous extinction curves, establishing the precise psychological inertia, stability, and plasticity of an individual’s internal orientations.

While Western critics occasionally questioned whether the artificial constraints of tachistoscopes and calibrated spheres compromised the ecological validity of the findings, Uznadze responded that the micro-genetic precision of the laboratory was the indispensable prerequisite for isolating the universal grammar of mental life. The fixated set illusion was not a trick of the senses; it was the empirical unveiling of the fundamental mechanism through which the living organism prepares for action in an uncertain, ever-shifting world.

6. The Structural Typology and Dynamics of Psychological Sets

6.1 Parameterization of Sets: Excitability, Stability, and Plasticity

Decades of continuous psychophysical experimentation revealed to Uznadze and his research team that while the set is a universal structural mechanism of the human mind, its concrete operational parameters vary significantly across the human population. The set is not a uniform, monolithic reflex; it is a dynamic systemic state characterized by distinct structural properties that can be quantitatively measured and profiled. Through extensive psychophysical testing, the Georgian School identified four primary parameters that govern set functioning:

• Excitability (Ease of Inception): This parameter reflects the speed and minimal stimulus threshold required for an individual to form an operational set. Highly excitable systems require a mere two to four induction trials to crystallize a powerful, directional preparatory state. In contrast, systems with low excitability require extensive, repetitive conditioning—sometimes exceeding twenty or thirty exposures—before the organism shifts from an uncommitted baseline into a consolidated set.
• Stability versus Lability: Stability denotes the temporal durability and internal coherence of a fixated set. A stable set, once established, retains its structural integrity over substantial intervals of time, resisting casual decay, sensory interference, or cognitive distraction. Conversely, a labile set is characterized by rapid internal entropy; it decays prematurely, fluctuates unpredictably in intensity, and is easily extinguished or destabilized by minor perturbations in ambient conditions.
• Plasticity versus Rigidity: Plasticity defines the capacity of an active set to dynamically reorganize or extinguish itself when environmental feedback indicates that external reality has fundamentally changed. A plastic set adapts flexibly to altered contingencies, dissolving immediately when equal stimuli are presented. In sharp contrast, a rigid set exhibits pathological inertia: it perseverates stubbornly, blinding the individual to transformed reality and continuing to impose obsolete perceptual and behavioral biases long after the environmental affordance has vanished.
• Constancy and Irradiation: This metric captures the degree to which an induced set remains tightly localized within its specific functional domain versus its propensity to spread (irradiate) across adjacent cognitive, sensory, and motor systems. High irradiation indicates a porous, highly integrated neural architecture where a visual set instantly alters kinesthetic and cognitive operations, whereas high constancy indicates strict compartmentalization.

6.2 Differential Typologies: Individual Differences in Set Dynamics

By mapping individuals along the intersecting axes of these structural parameters, Uznadze pioneered an empirically derived typology of personality and neurocognitive functioning. Unlike descriptive psychiatric typologies based on subjective behavioral observations, Uznadze’s typological taxonomy was grounded strictly in the quantitative metrics of the Fixated Set Method. He identified four major typological constellations:

1. The Harmonious (Dynamic-Plastic) Type: This profile represents the optimal baseline of healthy psychophysical adaptation. Individuals belonging to the dynamic-plastic type exhibit balanced excitability: they form functional sets rapidly upon encountering an environmental affordance, avoiding both impulsive premature fixation and sluggish hesitation. Their sets maintain sufficient stability to execute complex behavioral plans to completion without being derailed by superficial distractions. Crucially, they possess high plasticity: the moment external feedback confirms an environmental transformation (such as the arrival of equal test stimuli), their obsolete set extinguishes cleanly and effortlessly, making way for a new, reality-congruent orientation.

2. The Rigid (Static) Type: The static type is defined by profound systemic inertia. While these individuals may form sets at normal or slightly delayed rates, their sets, once established, become virtually immoveable monuments within the psyche. When exposed to altered conditions during the critical test phase, the rigid type continues to experience contrast illusions across dozens or even hundreds of continuous trials. They demonstrate severe difficulty extinguishing obsolete orientations, manifesting behaviorally as stubborn cognitive inflexibility, resistance to environmental change, and a tendency toward repetitive, compulsive routines.

3. The Labile (Unstable) Type: Individuals characterized by the labile profile form sets with rapid, sometimes excessive excitability, but they entirely lack the internal cohesion necessary to sustain them. Their sets dissolve prematurely, fluctuate erratically across trials, and are easily derailed by irrelevant sensory noise. The labile type shifts unpredictably between contrastive and assimilative illusions, reflecting a fragmented preparatory apparatus that struggles to maintain stable, goal-directed behavior over time.

4. The Coarse (Asthenic) Type: This profile reflects a profound hyporeactivity of the set apparatus. The coarse type possesses an extraordinarily high threshold for set genesis, requiring prolonged, hyper-intense environmental conditioning to forge the faintest preparatory state. Once formed, their sets are weak, ill-defined, and prone to rapid, uncoordinated dissolution. In clinical environments, this typological profile is frequently encountered in states of organic cerebral exhaustion, severe neuroasthenia, or advanced neurodegenerative decay.

6.3 Temporal Dynamics: Extinction, Remanence, and Latency

The lifespan of a psychological set is governed by complex temporal dynamics that Uznadze mapped using continuous test paradigms. When an individual with a fixated set is subjected to an unbroken series of equal stimuli, the illusory perceptual distortion does not vanish instantaneously; rather, it follows a predictable mathematical decay curve. In healthy subjects, the intensity of the contrast illusion progressively attenuates over a sequence of 10 to 25 trials, passing through an intermediate phase of perceptual ambiguity (where stimuli are judged as uncertain or fluctuating) before the system fully recalibrates to objective equality.

However, Uznadze discovered the remarkable phenomenon of set remanence and latency. If an individual has a set induced and extinguished within a morning experimental session until they perceive the test stimuli with complete objective accuracy, one might assume the set has been permanently erased. Yet, if that same subject is brought back to the laboratory hours—or even days—later, and presented immediately with the identical equal test stimuli without any preceding induction trials, the contrast illusion frequently re-emerges in full force. The set had not been destroyed; it had merely retreated into a latent state below the operational threshold, waiting to be reactivated by the re-emergence of the original situational context.

Furthermore, Uznadze and his successors documented that the operational stability and extinction velocity of sets are heavily modulated by systemic physiological and cognitive variables. Acute physical fatigue, high cognitive load, and elevated emotional distress drastically impair set plasticity, driving even dynamic-plastic individuals toward rigid, perseverative set behaviors. Chronopsychological investigations also confirmed that set excitability and extinction thresholds fluctuate in harmony with circadian and diurnal rhythms, demonstrating once again the biological embodiment of the set within the organismic substrate.

7. The Theory of Objectification: Transition from Unconscious Set to Conscious Reflection

7.1 The Impulsive Plane of Behavior and Unconscious Processing

One of Dmitry Uznadze’s most profound theoretical contributions—and one that elevated Set Theory from a psychophysical curiosity to a comprehensive philosophy of human culture—is his formulation of the two distinct hierarchical planes of psychological functioning: the Impulsive Plane and the Conscious-Reflective Plane. Uznadze designated the first level of mental functioning as the impulsive plane of behavior.

On the impulsive plane, behavior is guided directly, seamlessly, and exclusively by pre-reflective psychological sets. The individual acts in unmediated, intuitive harmony with their surrounding environment. Action flows effortlessly along the contours of environmental affordances and bodily readiness without the intervention of conscious cognitive deliberation, introspective self-monitoring, or verbalized choice. When a skilled driver navigates an open highway, an artisan carves familiar wood, or a pedestrian strolls through an uncluttered park, their actions unfold almost entirely on this primary behavioral plane.

The impulsive plane is characterized by complete somatic and kinesthetic fluency. There is no experience of internal friction, hesitation, or cognitive doubt. The subject does not experience themselves as an isolated, disembodied mind observing an external world from a detached vantage point; rather, subject and environment constitute an unbroken, functionally integrated operational circuit. Consciousness on this plane, if present at all, is purely panoramic and experiential—it is not reflective. The individual does not think *about* their action; they simply *are* the action. Most of human daily life, and virtually the entirety of non-human animal existence, unfolds upon this primary impulsive plane.

7.2 The Impasse Mechanism and the Emergence of Objectification

If the impulsive plane provides such seamless, energy-efficient behavioral adaptation, why did conscious reflection ever evolve? What compels the human organism to abandon the serene fluency of the primary plane and enter the computationally expensive, psychologically fraught domain of conscious deliberation? Uznadze’s answer is the impasse mechanism.

The impulsive plane functions magnificently so long as the environmental reality precisely matches the operational expectations encoded within the active set. But inevitably, the external world disrupts this harmony. The driver encounters a sudden, unmapped road closure; the artisan’s chisel strikes a hidden, structural knot in the wood; the pedestrian finds their path blocked by a collapsed bridge. In an instant, the automated execution of the set collides with an unexpected, unyielding environmental resistance. The seamless behavioral circuit is violently ruptured.

This breakdown triggers an immediate physiological and cognitive crisis: the automatic set can no longer actualize itself, yet the underlying need remains unsatisfied. The organism experiences sudden behavioral friction, motor arrest, and acute systemic inhibition. It is at this exact moment of breakdown that the evolutionary miracle of human consciousness occurs: the mechanism of objectification (ob’ektivatsiya) is activated. Objectification is defined as the deliberate, conscious conversion of an automated activity, or an environmental obstacle, into an explicit object of intellectual scrutiny and reflective analysis.

Through objectification, the human being steps back from the flow of immediate action. The individual detaches themselves from the ongoing behavioral stream, creating an internal psychological distance between the self and the situation. What was previously an unexamined, transparent component of immediate bodily activity—the road, the chisel, the path—is transformed into an explicit, externalized representation: an “object” held before the mind’s eye for theoretical evaluation. Conscious reflection, for Uznadze, is not a passive decorative ornament of the mind; it is an active emergency intervention mechanism called forth exclusively by the failure of pre-reflective behavioral sets.

7.3 The Structural Anatomy of the Conscious Act

Once objectification has suspended the impulsive plane and brought the problematic situation into the clear light of conscious awareness, the conscious act unfolds through a structured, multi-stage architecture:

1. Inhibitory Control and Pause: The immediate physical impulse to act is firmly suppressed. Conscious awareness demands the temporal suspension of motor activity to prevent the organism from wastefully battering itself against an insurmountable obstacle.
2. Theoretical Problem Representation: The nature of the impasse is conceptually mapped. The individual formulates explicit internal questions: “Why did the chisel catch?” “What is the structural composition of this knot?” “What alternative paths exist?” Language and symbolic thought are recruited to analyze the objective parameters of the problem.
3. Volitional Deliberation and Counterfactual Simulation: On the conscious plane, the human mind possesses the unique capacity to simulate prospective actions without bearing the physical risk of real-world execution. The individual generates hypothetical strategies, weighing alternatives against past experience and future projections.
4. Formation of the Intellectual Set: Once an optimal strategy is selected through conscious deliberation, the mind establishes a *secondary, intellectual set*. This is a new, consciously designed orientation engineered specifically to solve the detected problem.
5. Re-internalization into the Impulsive Plane: Crucially, consciousness does not remain permanently engaged. Once the solution is found and the intellectual set is formulated, the new behavioral pattern is deployed and, through immediate practice, is internalized back into the primary, pre-reflective plane. The artisan adjusts their grip and angle of attack; the novel movement becomes automated; and the artisan smoothly descends once more into the fluent, effortless flow of impulsive mastery. Consciousness retreats, its emergency mission accomplished.

7.4 Objectification as the Evolutionary Hall-Mark of Human Consciousness

Uznadze’s theory of objectification provides a profound evolutionary demarcation between human and non-human animal psychology. Non-human animals, Uznadze argued, are fundamentally locked within the impulsive plane of behavior. When an animal encounters an insurmountable environmental impasse, it cannot objectify the situation. It cannot step back from its immediate reality to theoretically analyze the obstacle as an objective problem. Instead, the animal’s behavior devolves into chaotic trial-and-error, frantic stereotypy, explosive emotional panic, or passive behavioral surrender.

Human beings, uniquely across the phylogenetic spectrum, developed the neurocognitive architecture necessary to arrest immediate action and objectify reality. This evolutionary breakthrough was inextricably linked to the emergence of three uniquely human cultural developments: articulate language, complex tool-making, and institutional socio-cultural structures. Language provides the symbolic categories that allow humans to extract objects from their immediate behavioral context and name them; tool-making represents the physical crystallization of an objectified operational solution preserved across generations.

Objectification bestowed upon humanity an immense survival advantage: the capacity to inhabit counterfactual realities. By suspending action, simulating prospective futures, and reorganizing obsolete sets prior to physical execution, the human species transformed from a creature passively adapted to an environmental niche into an active, world-transforming agent capable of reshaping the earth. Human consciousness is thus revealed as a dialectical dance between primary set automation and secondary conscious surveillance.

8. Uznadze’s Set vs. Psychoanalytic Unconscious: A Critical Demarcation

8.1 Topographical and Structural Divergences

Because Dmitry Uznadze insisted that the psychological set operates below the threshold of conscious awareness, superficial observers occasionally attempted to assimilate his theory into the broader stream of psychoanalytic and psychodynamic thought. Uznadze fiercely resisted this assimilation, constructing a meticulous critique that established an unbridgeable epistemological and structural chasm between his concept of the non-conscious set and Sigmund Freud’s dynamic unconscious.

The fundamental divergence begins at the level of topography and structure. The Freudian unconscious is conceptualized as a localized, subterranean domain—a psychological basement or hidden container populated by specific, banished mental contents. In the classical Freudian model, unconscious phenomena consist of repressed ideas, forbidden sexual drives, traumatic memory traces, and aggressive impulses that have been forcibly expelled from conscious awareness by an active, moralistic censorship mechanism (the Ego and Superego). The Freudian unconscious is, in essence, a repository of psychological outcasts.

In radical contrast, Uznadze’s psychological set is not a mental compartment, a hidden spatial chamber, or a container of repressed contents. The set is a structural, non-repressed, systemic predisposition of the entire psychophysical organism. It does not consist of banished ideas; it is a holistic state of bodily and psychological preparedness. Uznadze completely rejected the tripartite Freudian topography of Id, Ego, and Superego, dismissing it as an anthropomorphic mythologization of the mind that populated the psyche with warring homunculi. In Set Theory, the organism functions as a unified, indivisible systemic whole. The non-conscious set is not an isolated enclave alienated from the conscious self; it is the direct operational foundation and living interface of the personality actively engaging with objective reality.

8.2 The Mechanism of the Non-Conscious

The mechanisms governing these two concepts of the unconscious are fundamentally irreconcilable, as illustrated in the comparative structural analysis below:

Theoretical Dimension	Freudian Psychoanalytic Unconscious	Uznadze’s Psychological Set Theory
Ontological Status	Secondary; derived from conscious repression and censorship.	Primary; primordial evolutionary substrate of all mental life.
Mechanisms Involved	Defense mechanisms: repression, sublimation, displacement, reaction formation.	Organismic adaptation: synthesis of internal need and external affordance.
Functional Role	Source of intrapsychic conflict, symptom formation, and neurosis.	Functional economy, behavioral fluency, and adaptive readiness.
Methodological Access	Hermeneutic: free association, dream interpretation, parapraxes.	Experimental: psychophysical illusions, chronometry, quantitative extinction curves.
Temporal Direction	Etiological: backward-looking; determined by past childhood trauma.	Teleological: forward-looking; organized around prospective behavioral goals.

As the table demonstrates, the unconscious in Set Theory does not require defensive operations such as repression or sublimation to exist. An individual’s set is not unconscious because it is “forbidden,” “shameful,” or “morally intolerable” to the conscious ego; it is non-conscious simply because bringing every micro-parameter of motor preparedness into explicit conscious awareness would be computationally catastrophic, utterly paralyzing the organism. Non-conscious processing in Set Theory is an index of optimal biological efficiency and healthy adaptation, whereas in classical psychoanalysis, the unconscious is almost universally framed as the engine of neurosis, distortion, and psychological illness.

8.3 Teleology of Action versus Determinism of Trauma

The divergence between the two paradigms extends deeply into their conceptualizations of human time and agency. Psychoanalysis is fundamentally characterized by an etiological, backward-looking determinism. In the Freudian universe, adult personality, neurotic pathology, and behavioral choices are largely treated as passive, inevitable consequences of past historical events—specifically, psychosexual developmental arrests and childhood traumas suffered in the deep familial past. The human being is perpetually haunted and driven by ancient, unresolved ghosts residing in the unconscious cellar.

Uznadze’s Set Theory, while fully acknowledging the role of past experience in tuning the stability and plasticity of sets, advances a thoroughly teleological and prospective model of human action. The set is not a dead, mechanical residue of the past; it is an active, forward-looking orientation focused squarely on the prospective realization of future goals. The set is organized around the immediate resolution of an active need through the navigation of current and future environmental affordances. Even the concept of “fixation” reveals this radical conceptual difference: in psychoanalysis, fixation denotes an infantile, emotionally regressive trap that binds the patient to an archaic past; in Uznadze’s laboratory, fixation denotes the healthy, empirical, and adaptive sensorimotor stabilization of behavioral readiness required to execute complex tasks in the real world.

9. The Georgian School of Psychology: Context within Soviet and Western Psychology

9.1 The Historical and Institutional Architecture of the Georgian School

The institutionalization of Uznadze’s ideas transformed the Georgian scientific landscape, establishing an autonomous and intellectually formidable enclave within the broader matrix of Soviet psychological science. In 1941, under Uznadze’s visionary leadership, the Institute of Psychology was formally established within the Georgian Academy of Sciences in Tbilisi. Following Uznadze’s death in 1950, the institute was named in his honor, serving as the administrative and intellectual fortress of the Georgian School for over half a century.

Following Uznadze’s passing, a cadre of brilliant students and collaborators systematically expanded the boundaries of Set Theory, demonstrating its explanatory power across diverse sub-disciplines of psychology. Revaz Natadze (1903–1984) conducted groundbreaking experimental investigations into the role of set in higher-order conceptual thinking, imaginative processes, and aesthetic perception. Natadze demonstrated that psychological sets could be induced not merely through physical stimuli, but through internally imagined and cognitively simulated scenarios, proving that human imagination possesses its own genuine psychophysical reality. Ivan Prangishvili (1907–1987) focused extensively on the structural typology of set, investigating its links to psychiatric pathology and differential personality structures.

Other distinguished scholars pushed the paradigm into innovative applied domains. Shota Chkhartishvili (1905–1986) formulated a sophisticated theory of motivation and volitional behavior grounded in set dynamics, mounting a robust critique of drive-reduction theories. Boris Khachapuridze applied set paradigms to pedagogical psychology, developing revolutionary educational methodologies that optimized classroom learning by deliberately cultivating harmonious, dynamic-plastic learning sets in young children. The Georgian School maintained an extraordinary intellectual coherence and programmatic autonomy, resisting the crude ideological pressures of the Stalinist and post-Stalinist eras while establishing Tbilisi as a globally unique center of psychological research.

9.2 Theoretical Friction with the Vygotsky-Leontiev-Rubinstein Activity Theory

The prominence of the Georgian School within Soviet psychology inevitably precipitated intense, decades-long theoretical disputes with the dominant psychological paradigm established by the Moscow-Leningrad axis: the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory spearheaded by Alexei N. Leontiev, Lev Vygotsky, and Sergei L. Rubinstein. This conflict, which defined Soviet psychological discourse from the late 1930s through the 1970s, turned on an existential ontological question: What is the primary, irreducible category of psychological science—Socially Mediated Activity (*Deyatelnost*) or the Psychological Set (*Ustanovka*)?

Alexei Leontiev launched severe ideological and theoretical critiques against Uznadze’s system. Leontiev accused Set Theory of biological reductionism and pre-Marxist idealism. He argued that human consciousness is born out of external, objective, socio-historically mediated labor activity. In Leontiev’s view, human beings transform their environment through tools and social cooperation, and this external activity is subsequently internalized to create conscious mental processes. By placing the set—an internal, pre-reflective, organismic state—at the very beginning of the behavioral chain, Leontiev alleged that Uznadze had bypassed the primacy of material, social activity, collapsing human culture into a series of quasi-biological preparatory states.

The Georgian School, led by Uznadze, Natadze, and Prangishvili, mounted an intellectually devastating defense. They argued that Leontiev’s Activity Theory suffered from its own mechanical flaw: it could not explain how activity itself is initiated. An organism cannot embark upon an activity—whether hunting, utilizing a tool, or speaking a sentence—as an empty, unconfigured vessel. Activity does not emerge from a vacuum. Before the very first physical movement of an activity can occur, the subject must already be oriented, prepared, and tuned toward that specific behavioral execution. That primary, preparatory tuning is precisely the set. Without an antecedent set, human activity would be impossible, dissolving into disconnected, spastic motor twitches.

Sergei Rubinstein attempted a philosophical synthesis between the two warring camps. Rubinstein formulated his famous dialectical principle: “External causes act through internal conditions.” Rubinstein recognized that while external social activity and environmental stimuli certainly determine human development, they can do so only by acting upon the living, internal systemic conditions of the subject. Rubinstein credited Uznadze with having discovered and empirically validated the precise nature of these “internal conditions”—namely, the psychological set.

9.3 Set Theory and Western Psychological Paradigms

Beyond the borders of the Soviet Union, Uznadze’s Set Theory maintained fascinating, often unacknowledged parallels with major Western psychological developments. The most striking convergence can be found in the Topological Field Theory of Kurt Lewin. Lewin posited that human behavior is a function of the total “life space,” wherein the psychological person and their psychological environment exist in a state of continuous, dynamic interdependence ($B = f(P, E)$). Lewin’s concept of “valence”—the attractive or repulsive quality that environmental objects exert upon an individual experiencing an internal tension state (*Bedürfnis*)—is virtually identical to Uznadze’s concept of the objective situation meeting an organismic need to forge a set.

Furthermore, strong intellectual affinities existed between Set Theory and European Gestalt Psychology, as developed by Max Wertheimer, Wolfgang Köhler, and Kurt Koffka. Both paradigms shared an uncompromising commitment to holism and an absolute rejection of associationist atomism. However, Uznadze advanced beyond classical Gestaltism. While the Gestaltists focused primarily on the holistic structural laws governing *perceptual fields* (such as figure-ground segregation and proximity), Uznadze extended holistic structuralism to the entire *behavioral and personality apparatus*, transforming perceptual Gestalts into dynamic motor and cognitive preparatory sets.

In American psychology, the concept of set appeared primarily in localized, task-specific contexts, most famously demonstrated in the water-jar experiments of Abraham Luchins (1942) illustrating the Einstellung (mental set) effect in problem-solving. Yet, Luchins and his American contemporaries treated the mental set almost exclusively as a cognitive liability—a rigid, blinded habit that prevented subjects from discovering elegant, creative solutions. Western psychology largely failed to grasp Uznadze’s profound realization that set is not a pathological cognitive rigidity, but the primary, indispensable, and universal foundation of all adaptive human functioning.

Why did Uznadze’s monumental work remain relatively obscure in mainstream Anglo-American academia for so long? The explanations are socio-political and linguistic. The geopolitical curtain of the Cold War severely restricted scholarly exchange between the USSR and the West. Furthermore, the vast majority of Uznadze’s extensive writings were published in Georgian and Russian, remaining largely untranslated into English until the late 1960s. By the time The Psychology of Set was finally published in New York in 1966, the American cognitive revolution was already in full swing, dominated by computational metaphors that viewed the mind as a digital computer manipulating abstract symbols—a paradigm profoundly hostile to Uznadze’s embodied, holistic, and pre-reflective vision of the psychophysical organism.

10. Neurophysiological Correlates and Contemporary Cognitive Parallels

10.1 Neurobiological Grounding of Set Mechanisms

While Dmitry Uznadze formulated his theory primarily through behavioral, phenomenological, and psychophysical methodologies, modern neuroscience has increasingly uncovered the exact neuroanatomical substrates and physiological circuits that embody the psychological set. Far from being a metaphysical abstraction, the set is anchored in complex, distributed neural networks spanning cortical, subcortical, and neuromodulatory systems.

At the cortical tier, the prefrontal cortex (PFC)—specifically the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) and the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC)—plays an indispensable role in the generation, maintenance, and flexible updating of behavioral sets. The dlPFC maintains active representations of behavioral contexts, rules, and prospective goals in working memory, effectively serving as the executive neural conductor of the set. Meanwhile, the OFC continuously evaluates the fluctuating biological and cultural value of environmental affordances against internal homeostatic need states, actively computing the dialectical synthesis between subject and situation.

Subcortically, the basal ganglia and their reciprocal cortico-striatal-thalamic loops provide the critical motor and cognitive gating architecture necessary for set actualization. The striatum acts as a biological filter that stabilizes active motor programs while inhibiting competing motor impulses, enabling the smooth, uninhibited fluency that characterizes Uznadze’s impulsive plane of behavior. Neuromodulatory systems provide the dynamic parameters of set functioning:

• Dopaminergic signaling: Originating in the substantia nigra and ventral tegmental area (VTA), dopamine modulates the delicate balance between set stability and set plasticity. Tonic dopamine levels in the prefrontal cortex stabilize the active set against sensory distraction, while phasic dopamine bursts in the striatum facilitate rapid set-shifting and the behavioral actualization of new reward-congruent orientations.
• Noradrenergic modulation: The locus coeruleus-norepinephrine (LC-NE) system acts as a global neural interrupt mechanism. When an environmental impasse is encountered, a surge of noradrenaline destabilizes obsolete cortical networks, triggering the neural reset required for the emergence of objectification.

At the electrophysiological level, Uznadze’s set finds its definitive neural signatures in slow cortical preparatory potentials. The Contingent Negative Variation (CNV), first documented by W. Grey Walter in 1964, represents a sustained negative electrical shift across the frontal and central scalp areas during the anticipatory interval between a warning stimulus and an imperative action trigger. Similarly, the Bereitschaftspotential (Readiness Potential), identified by Hans Helmut Kornhuber and Lüder Deecke, manifests as a progressive negative electrical polarization of the motor cortex hundreds of milliseconds *before* an individual experiences the conscious intention to execute a voluntary movement. These electrophysiological markers provide definitive empirical evidence for Uznadze’s foundational thesis: that an integrated, non-conscious psychophysical state of preparatory readiness systematically precedes conscious volition and overt physical action.

10.2 Predictive Processing and the Bayesian Brain Hypothesis

Perhaps the most breathtaking vindication of Uznadze’s theoretical architecture has arrived through twenty-first-century computational neuroscience, specifically through the Predictive Processing Framework and the Bayesian Brain Hypothesis formulated by theorists such as Karl Friston and Andy Clark. This modern computational revolution has decisively rejected the classical view of the brain as a passive stimulus-response engine, reconceptualizing it instead as an active, self-organizing “prediction machine.”

Within this contemporary framework, the brain does not passively wait to receive sensory inputs from the world. Rather, it actively generates top-down priors (probabilistic predictions) regarding the sensory causes of environmental inputs. The brain constantly projects these anticipatory hypotheses down the neural hierarchy, comparing them against incoming bottom-up sensory streams. The differences between top-down predictions and bottom-up signals are computed as prediction errors. The system’s primary computational imperative—formalized mathematically under Friston’s Free Energy Principle—is the continuous minimization of these prediction errors through active inference and perceptual updating.

The conceptual mapping between Uznadze’s Set Theory and Predictive Processing is virtually identical, as revealed in the operational dynamics below:

Uznadze’s Set Theory (1920s–1950s)	Predictive Processing Framework (2010s–Present)
Psychological Set (Ustanovka)	Top-down Prior Probability Distribution (Generative Model)
Environmental Affordance Encounter	Sensory Observation Sampling via Active Inference
Impasse / Sudden Resistance	High-Magnitude Prediction Error (Free Energy Spike)
Objectification (Ob’ektivatsiya)	Metacognitive Executive Intervention and Model Revision
Contrast Illusion	Bayesian Perceptual Update Under a Strong, Misaligned Prior

Seen through this contemporary lens, Uznadze’s classical contrast illusion is not an inexplicable sensory error; it is the natural, mathematically predictable consequence of Bayesian perceptual inference. During the induction phase of the haptic experiment, the repeated presentation of unequal spheres constructs an exceptionally strong, precise prior expectation within the neural hierarchy. When the objectively equal spheres arrive on the test trial, the sensory input strongly violates this hyper-tuned prior, generating a massive prediction error. The brain, seeking to reconcile this severe mismatch within an updated perceptual inference, experiences an extreme perceptual over-correction—the contrast illusion. Uznadze, working with rudimentary mechanical apparatuses in Tbilisi, had experimentally discovered the operational mechanics of the predictive, Bayesian brain.

10.3 Connections to Contemporary Cognitive Science Paradigms

Beyond predictive processing, Uznadze’s set theory anticipated several core pillars of contemporary cognitive science, demonstrating a conceptual maturity decades ahead of its historical epoch. Consider modern Dual-Process Theories of Cognition, popularized by Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, and Jonathan Evans. Dual-process architecture posits two fundamental modes of mental processing: System 1 (fast, automatic, effortless, implicit, and unconscious) and System 2 (slow, deliberate, analytical, computationally expensive, and conscious).

Uznadze’s hierarchical model of the Impulsive Plane and the Conscious Plane (Objectification) represents an exceptionally sophisticated, embodied formulation of this exact dual architecture. System 1 corresponds precisely to Uznadze’s impulsive plane, wherein behavior is orchestrated smoothly by automated, pre-reflective sets. System 2 represents the deployment of objectification, which halts automatic execution to theoretically analyze an impasse. Crucially, Uznadze’s framework possesses an explanatory elegance that contemporary dual-process models often lack: he provides an organic, operational explanation for the switching mechanism between the two systems. System 2 is not an arbitrary module; it is dynamically mobilized only when the pre-reflective sets of System 1 strike an environmental impasse, and it gracefully relinquishes control back to System 1 the moment a new adaptive set has been forged and automated.

Furthermore, Uznadze’s system seamlessly aligns with the contemporary paradigm of 4E Cognition (which views the mind as Embodied, Embedded, Enacted, and Extended). Set Theory rejects the computationalist view of the mind as a disembodied software program running on cerebral hardware. The set is deeply embodied in somatic and neural preparedness; it is embedded in real environmental ecologies; it is enacted through sensorimotor interactions that bring forth a meaningful world; and it is extended through the cultural technologies and tools that human beings create through objectification. In the domains of executive function, task-switching costs, and implicit procedural memory, modern researchers are continually rediscovering the fundamental truths first charted by the Georgian School.

11. Pathopsychological and Clinical Applications of Set Theory

11.1 Set Pathology in Psychiatric Disorders

Dmitry Uznadze and his clinical successors recognized early that if the psychological set represents the fundamental structural mechanism of normal, adaptive mental life, then psychiatric disorders and psychopathological states must fundamentally represent pathologies of the set apparatus. By deploying the Fixated Set Method within psychiatric clinics and neuropsychological hospitals, the Georgian School unlocked revolutionary diagnostic and etiological insights into major mental disorders.

In Schizophrenia, Uznadze’s team discovered profound, structural disintegrations of the set apparatus. Schizophrenic patients routinely exhibit severe set fragmentation and extreme operational instability. When subjected to the classical induction protocol, individuals with schizophrenia often fail completely to form a consolidated set, even after dozens of exposures. When a set does manage to form, it is deeply bizarre: it fluctuates wildly between chaotic assimilative and contrastive judgments, dissolves prematurely, or fails to transfer across modalities. This finding provided an empirical psychophysical grounding for the core clinical symptoms of schizophrenia: cognitive derailment, thought disorder, splitting of mental faculties (spaltung), and the inability to maintain a coherent, forward-looking orientation toward reality. The schizophrenic mind suffers from an inability to stabilize the pre-reflective baseline of mental organization.

In Major Depressive Disorder, the psychopathological architecture presents the precise inverse: a state of pathological hyper-rigidity and hyporeactivity. Depressive patients exhibit an extraordinarily high threshold for forming new, adaptive sets calibrated to positive environmental affordances. Their set apparatus is dominated by a monolithic, inert, and unyielding negative set that stubbornly perseverates in the face of contradictory positive reality. Environmental rewards and opportunities are systematically assimilated into a pre-existing preparatory stance of hopelessness, helplessness, and psychomotor retardation. The depressive set resists extinction, trapping the patient within a frozen, unadaptable psychological posture.

In Bipolar Disorder (Maniacal States), the set apparatus enters a state of catastrophic hyper-excitability combined with extreme lability. Manic patients form sets with hyper-accelerated velocity, often requiring only a single, fleeting exposure to crystallize an intense preparatory orientation. However, these sets possess zero internal cohesion; they are obliterated by the next incoming sensory stimulus. The patient careens through an uncontrollable torrent of fleeting, unactualized sets, manifesting clinically as flight of ideas, extreme distractibility, and hyperactive, disorganized motor impulsivity.

Within the Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum, clinical testing reveals an unyielding pathological set perseveration accompanied by a profound impairment of the extinction mechanism. The obsessive-compulsive individual forms sets that exhibit immense inertia. Once a set—whether cognitive or motoric—is fixated, it continues to fire long after its functional utility has expired. The patient becomes trapped within repetitive, compulsive behavioral loops (washing, checking, cognitive ruminations) that represent frantic, failed attempts to satisfy an archaic set that the executive apparatus lacks the plasticity to dissolve.

11.2 Diagnostic Methodologies Derived from Set Paradigms

The profound clinical utility of the Fixated Set Method lies in its capacity to serve as an objective, culture-fair, and non-verbal differential diagnostic battery. Traditional neuropsychological and psychiatric evaluations rely heavily upon subjective clinical interviews, patient self-reports, and culturally biased verbal tests. In contrast, Uznadze’s psychophysical set protocols assess the raw, pre-reflective operational integrity of the central nervous system without requiring introspective sophistication, verbal fluency, or high literacy on the part of the patient.

By measuring the precise mathematical parameters of a patient’s set lifecycle—recording the exact number of trials required for inception, the amplitude of the initial contrast illusion, the slope of the extinction curve, and the degree of cross-modal transfer—clinicians can construct an objective neurodynamic profile of the patient. For instance, in patients suffering from traumatic brain injury (TBI) or localized cerebral lesions, set testing accurately identifies damage to specific cortical and subcortical networks:

• Frontal Lobe Lesions: Patients with lesions in the prefrontal cortex exhibit normal or hyperactive set inception, but suffer from a catastrophic, complete collapse of set plasticity. When the test phase introduces equal stimuli, these patients perseverate stubbornly, displaying profound cognitive inertia and an inability to shift mental sets. This mirrors the classic deficits observed in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, but extracts the metric at the raw psychophysical level.
• Organic Dementia vs. Functional Depression: Set testing provides a crucial differential diagnostic tool for distinguishing between early-stage organic neurodegenerative dementia (such as Alzheimer’s disease) and functional “pseudodementia” associated with severe geriatric depression. Patients with organic cerebral deterioration exhibit severe set asthenia—an inability to consolidate a set, characterized by erratic, coarse perceptual judgments—whereas depressed patients maintain the structural capacity to form sets, but exhibit characteristic depressive rigidity and delayed extinction.

11.3 Psychotherapeutic and Rehabilitative Implications

The insights generated by Set Theory translate directly into powerful clinical strategies for psychotherapeutic intervention and neuropsychological rehabilitation. Within modern psychotherapy, Uznadze’s framework provides a profound metatheoretical lens for understanding the true mechanisms of therapeutic change, particularly within Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and modern mindfulness-based practices.

Psychological suffering frequently arises from maladaptive, obsolete sets that operate automatically below conscious awareness, dictating distorted interpretations of reality and triggering rigid, self-defeating behaviors. Traditional cognitive restructuring can be understood as the systematic training of the patient’s capacity for objectification. Therapy teaches the patient to recognize the moments of behavioral breakdown—the emotional distress, interpersonal conflicts, or behavioral failures that signal an active impasse. Instead of remaining locked within the impulsive execution of the maladaptive set, the patient is taught to execute an intentional pause: to step back, objectify the automatic thought or relational posture, examine it as a hypothesis rather than absolute reality, and consciously formulate an alternative, adaptive set.

In physical rehabilitation, particularly in post-stroke motor recovery, the Georgian School pioneered rehabilitation protocols that utilize set dynamics to retrain compromised motor circuits. When a hemiplegic or paretic stroke patient attempts to regain manual dexterity, direct conscious effort often produces counterproductive muscular tension and spasticity. By utilizing the principles of set induction—exposing the uninjured limb to specific sensory sets and exploiting the mechanisms of bilateral and cross-modal set transfer—rehabilitation specialists can induce preparatory motor states in the damaged hemisphere, dramatically accelerating the reactivation of functional motor pathways.

Similarly, in neurodevelopmental conditions such as Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), therapeutic interventions are designed to provide the external scaffolding necessary to stabilize labile sets. By structuring physical environments with clear, unambiguous situational cues and minimizing ambient sensory noise, clinicians help children with ADHD consolidate their goal-directed sets, bridging the gap between internal intention and sustained behavioral execution.

12. Contemporary Relevance, Synthesis, and Future Directions in Set Theory

12.1 The Epistemic Utility of Set Theory in Human-Machine Systems

As human society becomes increasingly integrated with complex automated technologies, algorithmic interfaces, and artificial intelligence, the epistemological utility of Uznadze’s Set Theory has expanded far beyond the clinic into the critical domains of Cognitive Ergonomics, Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), and Human Factors Engineering.

In the design of modern user interfaces (UI) and digital user experiences (UX), successful systems are those that leverage pre-existing human sets. When software interfaces conform to the established, pre-reflective sets of the user—such as standardized navigation patterns, intuitive spatial arrangements, and consistent functional affordances—the human operator interacts with the system on the fluent, effortless impulsive plane. The technology becomes transparent; it functions as a natural extension of the user’s body-mind. Conversely, poorly designed interfaces violate the user’s active sets, causing continuous, unnecessary micro-impasses that force the user into exhausting, conscious objectification, producing cognitive fatigue, frustration, and catastrophic operational error.

In high-stakes, safety-critical environments—such as commercial aviation cockpits, nuclear power plant control rooms, and robotic surgical suites—Uznadze’s concept of set inertia provides the definitive framework for understanding catastrophic human error. In highly automated environments, human operators spend prolonged periods monitoring systems operating under normal, stable conditions, which induces a deeply fixated “normal-state” set. When a sudden, high-velocity automation failure occurs, the human operator is often blindsided by severe cognitive and perceptual inertia. The operator’s active set continues to interpret anomalous alarm signals through the lens of the obsolete normal-state set—a deadly cognitive vulnerability known in aviation as “automation-induced complacency” or “perceptual tunneling.” Cognitive ergonomics utilizes Set Theory to design intelligent alarm architectures that deploy multimodal disruptors explicitly engineered to shatter obsolete sets, instantly evoking the objectification required to diagnose complex industrial crises.

Furthermore, in the vanguard field of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Agents, Set Theory offers an indispensable architectural blueprint. Contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs) and deep reinforcement learning agents often suffer from brittle, disembodied reasoning: they excel at statistical pattern matching within static datasets, but stumble when confronted with dynamic, real-world embodied contexts. AI researchers are increasingly recognizing that to build truly autonomous, adaptive agents, machines must possess the functional equivalent of a psychological set—a global, pre-reflective state of contextual readiness that dynamically integrates internal energetic constraints (battery power, computational resources) with external environmental affordances, allowing the agent to act fluently without computationally crippling real-time deliberation.

12.2 Social, Cultural, and Ideological Sets

While Uznadze spent decades analyzing sets at the psychophysical level of weights, circles, and sounds, he was acutely aware that the very same operational mechanics govern the highest, most complex strata of human social, cultural, and political life. Human beings do not navigate society as isolated biological units; they are enculturated into vast ecosystems of collective and social sets.

A social set is a shared, pre-reflective orientation toward social reality that is tacitly absorbed by individuals through enculturation, language, institutional traditions, and demographic group membership. These social sets determine how human beings automatically register, interpret, and respond to other individuals, social classes, ethnic groups, and cultural ideas long before explicit conscious reflection occurs. Through this theoretical lens, the pervasive psychological mechanics of implicit bias, prejudice, and stereotyping are unmasked as fixated social sets.

When an individual holds a fixated racial, gender, or cultural stereotype, that stereotype does not primarily operate as an explicit, intellectual proposition held in conscious awareness. Rather, it operates as a deeply buried, non-conscious set—a perceptual-cognitive tuning of the entire psychophysical apparatus. When a member of a marginalized group is encountered, the perceiver’s active set immediately polarizes the objective situation, filtering incoming sensory and behavioral data to conform to the fixated expectation. Ambiguous behaviors are assimilated into the stereotype, while behaviors that directly contradict the bias trigger contrastive misjudgments or are disregarded entirely. The individual is literally blind to the authentic human reality before them, trapped within the perceptual inertia of an unexamined social set.

This dynamic reaches its most perilous manifestation in the domains of media framing, propaganda, and political indoctrination. Autocratic regimes, hyper-partisan media ecosystems, and sophisticated digital algorithmic networks operate through the deliberate, systematic induction of anticipatory social sets. By inundating populations with relentless, emotionally charged narratives depicting specific political opponents or foreign nations as existential threats, these systems forge rigid, hyper-stable collective sets. Once established, these ideological sets render the populace virtually impervious to contradictory factual evidence. The critical challenge confronting modern democratic societies is the development of cultural, educational, and institutional mechanisms designed to induce collective social objectification—creating deliberate reflective pauses that disrupt dogmatic social sets and compel citizens to evaluate socio-political realities with conscious, self-critical clarity.

12.3 Concluding Synthesis and the Future of Set Research

Dmitry Nikolaevich Uznadze stands as one of the true intellectual giants of twentieth-century behavioral science, a visionary thinker who dared to construct a unified psychological ontology capable of bridging the chasm between physiological bodily reactivity, unconscious psychological processing, conscious intellectual deliberation, and socio-cultural human activity. Through his formulation of the Psychological Set (Gantsyoba / Ustanovka), Uznadze redeemed the living human subject from the alienating reductions of structuralist atomism, mechanical behaviorism, and psychoanalytic fatalism.

Uznadze’s enduring achievement was the empirical demonstration that beneath the dazzling theater of conscious reflection and above the blind mechanics of cellular biology lies a foundational, pre-reflective realm of psychophysical readiness. The set is the silent, ubiquitous conductor of human life: it transforms raw biological need into directed purpose, translates inert environmental physical geometry into active affordances, ensures the effortless fluency of daily action, and calls forth the miracle of conscious reflection precisely at the moment of life’s impasses.

The contemporary scientific trajectory is unmistakably converging toward the foundational insights of the Georgian School. As cognitive science sheds the obsolete dogmas of disembodied computationalism and re-embraces the embodied, predictive, enactive, and dynamic systems nature of mind, Uznadze’s theoretical architecture provides the indispensable overarching metatheory that modern science desperately requires. Unresolved questions remain for the future of set research: mapping the micro-genetic firing of individual cortical columns during the transition from set inception to objectification; utilizing optogenetics to manipulate the neurochemical switches of set plasticity in real time; and designing neuromorphic artificial intelligences that embody the set lifecycle.

Yet, the foundational roadmap has been drawn. The mandate for contemporary psychology is nothing less than the systematic rediscovery and radical advancement of Dmitry Uznadze’s holistic vision: a science of the mind that honors the deep, unbroken unity of the living organism, grounded in the bodily wisdom of the pre-reflective set, and elevated by the evolutionary capacity to objectify the world, transcend the immediate situation, and consciously shape the destiny of humanity.

References

• Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1037/10024-000
• Clark, A. (2016). Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217013.001.0001
• Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory?. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787
• Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
• Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1927).
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kornhuber, H. H., & Deecke, L. (1965). Hirnpotentialänderungen bei Willkürbewegungen und passiven Bewegungen des Menschen: Bereitschaftspotential und rückmeldende Potentiale. Pflügers Archiv für die gesamte Physiologie des Menschen und der Tiere, 284(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00412364
• Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice-Hall.
• Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality: Selected papers. McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1037/10048-000
• Luchins, A. S. (1942). Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54(6), i–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093502
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception (D. A. Landes, Trans.). Routledge. (Original work published 1945). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203720714
• Natadze, R. (1960). The problem of set in Soviet psychology in the light of the research of D. N. Uznadze’s school. Psychology in the Soviet Union, 114–128.
• Prangishvili, I. V. (1967). The concept of set in Soviet psychology in the light of the research of the Georgian school. Metsniereba.
• Rubinstein, S. L. (1957). Бытие и сознание [Being and consciousness]. USSR Academy of Sciences.
• Uznadze, D. N. (1931). Über die Gewichtstäuschung und ihre Analoga im optischen und anderen Gebieten. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 122, 257–277.
• Uznadze, D. N. (1961). Eksperimental’nye osnovy psikhologii ustanovki [Experimental foundations of the psychology of set]. Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR. (Original work drafted 1949).
• Uznadze, D. N. (1966). The psychology of set (B. Haigh, Trans.). Consultants Bureau. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-1650-3
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology: A methodological investigation. In R. W. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 3. Problems of the theory and history of psychology (pp. 233–343). Plenum Press. (Original work written 1927). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5893-4_19
• Walter, W. G., Cooper, R., Aldridge, V. J., McCallum, W. C., & Winter, A. L. (1964). Contingent negative variation: An electric sign of sensorimotor association and expectancy in the human brain. Nature, 203(4943), 380–384. https://doi.org/10.1038/203380a0
• Wertheimer, M. (1938). Gestalt theory. In W. D. Ellis (Ed.), A source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 1–11). Harcourt, Brace & Co. (Original work published 1925).