This paper analyzes the problems of etymology and the typology of reflection, characterizes the phenomenology and typology of empirical manifestations of reflexive processes, and offers an understanding of reflection, synthesizing its philosophical, psychological, and interdisciplinary aspects.

Despite numerous psychological studies, there is still no clear definition of the psychological reality of reflection (as opposed to thinking or consciousness); indeed, there are many, often conflicting, interpretations that have little in common with each other. This complicates the design of experiments and the interpretation of results, hinders conceptual generalizations and their integration with the interdisciplinary research of reflection, and makes impossible interfacing with the philosophical traditions and scientific trends of modern human science.

Moreover, the philosophical interpretation of reflection is often directly and uncritically borrowed without the necessary ontological psychologization. In order to define the psychological concept of “reflexivity”, so as to be able to study the phenomenology of reflexive processes and develop their theoretical typology, it is advisable to first analyze the etymological roots of the Latin word “reflection”, the transformation of its meaning ​​in European languages, and its subsequent assimilation into the Russian language. Using historiographical, etymological, subject-themed, philosophical and methodological, systematic typological, empirical phenomenological, theoretical psychological and conceptual encyclopaedic methods, this paper analyzes the problems of the etymology and typology of reflection, characterizes the phenomenology of empirical manifestations of reflexive processes, and provides an understanding of reflection, synthesizing its philosophical, psychological, and interdisciplinary aspects.

The paper’s conclusions are that the necessary prerequisites for psychologization of the philosophical category of “reflection” are: 1) explication of a philosophical understanding of reflection, 2) development of its conceptual models, 3) development of the typology of reflection based on a conceptual model, 4) differentiation of the phenomenology of reflexive processes, 5) systematization of etymological roots of the term “reflection”, 6) development of an encyclopaedic definition of “reflection”. One of the possible definitions is proposed in this paper; in fact, it formed the theoretical basis for the creation of the scientific school of reflexive humanitarian psychology of creative thinking and consciousness of creative individuality.