Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.222
Catarina Katzer
In Germany, research on the topic of ‘‘cyberbullying’’ is scarce; here, I review recent work on this topic. The first such study in Germany was by Katzer and Fetchenhauer in 2005 (Katzer, 2005). It was a standardized survey of 1,700 5th to 11th grade students (648 men and 803 women), which mainly focused on analyzing cyberbullying in Internet chatrooms. Because no scale was available for the assessment of cyberbullying in Internet chatrooms at the time, an instrument was developed based on the short version of the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1989). Two other studies of cyberbullying were conducted by online questionnaires. Jager, Fischer, Riebel, and Fluck (2007) surveyed 1,997 students from 1st to 13th grade. Staude-Muller, Bliesener, and Nowak (in press) assessed cyberbullying with data from 1,277 children and adolescents aged 6–22 years. Because the studies used different methods and measurements a comparison of the results is difficult. Nevertheless all studies made it clear that cyberbullying is an important issue in Germany (Schultze-Krumbholz & Scheithauer, 2008). Katzer and Fetchenhauer found that frequencies for victimization in chatrooms (every few months to daily) range between 5.4% (being blackmailed or put under pressure) and 43.1% (being abused or insulted). Jager et al. found a frequency of about 20% for cybervictimization in general, with instant messaging the media most frequently used for cyberbullying. Staude-Muller et al. found denigration (22%), insults (20%), and threats (17%) to be the most common forms of cybervictimization in their sample. Of particular interest waswhether bullying is to be viewed as a cross-contextual phenomenon or if cyberbullying has to be seen as a distinct form of bullying. Katzer and Fetchenhauer showed both: on the one hand, there was a correlation between bullying behavior in school and in Internet chatrooms, and also between victimization in school and in Internet chatrooms;most pupils are bullies, or victims, in both environments. On the other hand, 21% of all cyberbullies were only cyberbullies, and 37% of cybervictims were only cybervictims.Of the cyberbullyingvictims, 47% reported that they just knew their bullies from school, while 34% knew the bullies only from the Internet (their chatroom identity), with 19% knowing them from school and the Internet. There was some overlap between victim and bully behavior. Victims of cyberbullying in chatrooms showed a tendency to be a bully exclusively in the environment of the victimization (chatrooms), whereas school victims also bullied others in chatrooms. This suggests that cyberbullying behavior may be the consequence of victimization experienced in school and could be interpreted as ‘‘fighting back’’ or ‘‘letting off steam.’’ Hierarchical regression analyses found as risk factors of bullying behavior in chatrooms: a bad parent relationship, high rates of absence in class, high delinquency, positive attitude toward aggression, and a
{"title":"Cyberbullying in Germany: What has been done and what is going on.","authors":"Catarina Katzer","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.222","url":null,"abstract":"In Germany, research on the topic of ‘‘cyberbullying’’ is scarce; here, I review recent work on this topic. The first such study in Germany was by Katzer and Fetchenhauer in 2005 (Katzer, 2005). It was a standardized survey of 1,700 5th to 11th grade students (648 men and 803 women), which mainly focused on analyzing cyberbullying in Internet chatrooms. Because no scale was available for the assessment of cyberbullying in Internet chatrooms at the time, an instrument was developed based on the short version of the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1989). Two other studies of cyberbullying were conducted by online questionnaires. Jager, Fischer, Riebel, and Fluck (2007) surveyed 1,997 students from 1st to 13th grade. Staude-Muller, Bliesener, and Nowak (in press) assessed cyberbullying with data from 1,277 children and adolescents aged 6–22 years. Because the studies used different methods and measurements a comparison of the results is difficult. Nevertheless all studies made it clear that cyberbullying is an important issue in Germany (Schultze-Krumbholz & Scheithauer, 2008). Katzer and Fetchenhauer found that frequencies for victimization in chatrooms (every few months to daily) range between 5.4% (being blackmailed or put under pressure) and 43.1% (being abused or insulted). Jager et al. found a frequency of about 20% for cybervictimization in general, with instant messaging the media most frequently used for cyberbullying. Staude-Muller et al. found denigration (22%), insults (20%), and threats (17%) to be the most common forms of cybervictimization in their sample. Of particular interest waswhether bullying is to be viewed as a cross-contextual phenomenon or if cyberbullying has to be seen as a distinct form of bullying. Katzer and Fetchenhauer showed both: on the one hand, there was a correlation between bullying behavior in school and in Internet chatrooms, and also between victimization in school and in Internet chatrooms;most pupils are bullies, or victims, in both environments. On the other hand, 21% of all cyberbullies were only cyberbullies, and 37% of cybervictims were only cybervictims.Of the cyberbullyingvictims, 47% reported that they just knew their bullies from school, while 34% knew the bullies only from the Internet (their chatroom identity), with 19% knowing them from school and the Internet. There was some overlap between victim and bully behavior. Victims of cyberbullying in chatrooms showed a tendency to be a bully exclusively in the environment of the victimization (chatrooms), whereas school victims also bullied others in chatrooms. This suggests that cyberbullying behavior may be the consequence of victimization experienced in school and could be interpreted as ‘‘fighting back’’ or ‘‘letting off steam.’’ Hierarchical regression analyses found as risk factors of bullying behavior in chatrooms: a bad parent relationship, high rates of absence in class, high delinquency, positive attitude toward aggression, and a ","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"96 1","pages":"222-223"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73268188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.1
P. Sedlmeier
The mindless use of null-hypothesis significance testing – the significance test ritual (e.g., Salsburg, 1985) – has long been criticized. The main component of the ritual can be characterized as follows: Once you have collected your data, try to refute your null hypothesis (e.g., no mean difference, zero correlation, etc.) in an automatized manner. Often the ritual is complemented by the “star procedure”: If p < .05, assign one star to your results (*), if p < .01 give two stars (**), and if p < .001 you have earned yourself three stars (***). If you have obtained at least one star, the ritual has been successfully performed; if not, your results are not worth much. The stars, or the corresponding numerical values, have been door-openers to prestigious psychology journals and, therefore, the ritual has received strong reinforcement. The ritual does not have a firm theoretical grounding; it seems to have arisen as a badly understood hybrid mixture of the approaches of Ronald A. Fisher, Jerzy Neyman, Egon S. Pearson, and (at least in some variations of the ritual) Thomas Bayes (see Acree, 1979; Gigerenzer & Murray, 1987; Spielman, 1974). For quite some time, there has been controversy over its usefulness. The debates arising from this controversy, however, have not been limited to discussions about the mindless procedure as sketched above, but have expanded to include the issues of experimental design and sampling procedures, assumptions about the size of population effects (leading to the specification of an alternative hypothesis), deliberations about statistical power before the data are collected, and decisions about Type I and Type II errors. There have been several such debates and the controversy is ongoing (for a summary see Balluerka, Gómez, & Hidalgo, 2005; Nickerson, 2000; Sedlmeier, 1999, Appendix C). Although there have been voices that argue for a ban on significance testing (e.g., Hunter, 1997), authors usually conclude that significance tests, if conducted properly, probably have some value (or at least do no harm) but should be complemented (or replaced) by other more informative ways of analyzing data (e.g., Abelson, 1995; Cohen, 1994; Howard, Maxwell, & Fleming, 2000; Loftus, 1993; Nickerson, 2000; Sedlmeier, 1996; Wilkinson & Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999). Alternative data-analysis techniques have been wellknown among methodologists for decades but this knowledge, mainly collected in methods journals, seems to have had little impact on the practice of researchers to date. I see two main reasons for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. First, it appears that there is still a fair amount of misunderstanding about what the results of significance tests really mean (e.g., Gordon, 2001; Haller & Krauss, 2002; Mittag & Thompson, 2000; Monterde-i-Bort, Pascual Llobell, & Frias-Navarro, 2008). Second, although alternatives have been briefly mentioned in widely received summary articles (such as Wilkinson & Task Force on S
无脑地使用零假设显著性检验——显著性检验仪式(例如，Salsburg, 1985)——长期以来一直受到批评。这个仪式的主要组成部分可以描述如下:一旦你收集了你的数据，试着用一种自动化的方式反驳你的零假设(例如，没有平均差异，零相关等)。通常，这个仪式是由“星级程序”补充的:如果p < 0.05，给你的结果打一颗星(*)，如果p < 0.01，给两颗星(**)，如果p < 0.001，你已经赢得了自己的三颗星(***)。如果你获得了至少一颗星，那么仪式已经成功完成;如果不是，你的成绩就没有多大价值。星星，或相应的数值，已经成为著名心理学期刊的大门，因此，这种仪式得到了强烈的强化。这种仪式没有坚实的理论基础;它似乎是Ronald a . Fisher、Jerzy Neyman、Egon S. Pearson和Thomas Bayes(至少在仪式的某些变体中)(见Acree, 1979;Gigerenzer & Murray, 1987;Spielman, 1974)。很长一段时间以来，人们对它的实用性一直存在争议。然而，从这一争议中产生的争论并不局限于对上述无意识程序的讨论，而是扩展到包括实验设计和抽样程序的问题，关于总体效应大小的假设(导致另一种假设的规范)，在收集数据之前对统计能力的审议，以及关于类型I和类型II错误的决定。有几次这样的辩论，争论仍在继续(摘要见Balluerka, Gómez， & Hidalgo, 2005;Nickerson, 2000;虽然有人主张禁止显著性检验(例如，Hunter, 1997)，但作者通常得出结论，如果进行得当，显著性检验可能有一些价值(或至少不会造成伤害)，但应该用其他更有信息量的分析数据的方法来补充(或取代)(例如，Abelson, 1995;科恩,1994;霍华德，麦克斯韦和弗莱明，2000;Loftus, 1993;Nickerson, 2000;Sedlmeier, 1996;Wilkinson & Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999)。替代数据分析技术在方法学家中已经广为人知了几十年，但这些知识主要收集在方法期刊上，迄今为止似乎对研究人员的实践几乎没有影响。对于这种令人不满意的状况，我认为有两个主要原因。首先，对于显著性检验结果的真正含义，似乎仍然存在相当多的误解(例如，Gordon, 2001;Haller & Krauss, 2002;米塔格和汤普森，2000;Monterde-i-Bort, Pascual Llobell， & Frias-Navarro, 2008)。其次，尽管在广泛接受的总结文章中(如Wilkinson & Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999)简要地提到了替代方案，但它们很少以非技术和详细的方式呈现给非专业受众。因此，原则上，研究人员可能愿意改变他们分析数据的方式，但学习替代方法所需的努力可能被认为太大了。本期特刊的主要目的是介绍由该领域专家以非技术方式描述的这些可选数据分析方法的集合。在介绍特刊内容之前，我将简要概述推理统计的理想状态，并讨论无意识和有意识显著性检验之间的区别。
{"title":"Beyond the Significance Test Ritual: What Is There?","authors":"P. Sedlmeier","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"The mindless use of null-hypothesis significance testing – the significance test ritual (e.g., Salsburg, 1985) – has long been criticized. The main component of the ritual can be characterized as follows: Once you have collected your data, try to refute your null hypothesis (e.g., no mean difference, zero correlation, etc.) in an automatized manner. Often the ritual is complemented by the “star procedure”: If p < .05, assign one star to your results (*), if p < .01 give two stars (**), and if p < .001 you have earned yourself three stars (***). If you have obtained at least one star, the ritual has been successfully performed; if not, your results are not worth much. The stars, or the corresponding numerical values, have been door-openers to prestigious psychology journals and, therefore, the ritual has received strong reinforcement. The ritual does not have a firm theoretical grounding; it seems to have arisen as a badly understood hybrid mixture of the approaches of Ronald A. Fisher, Jerzy Neyman, Egon S. Pearson, and (at least in some variations of the ritual) Thomas Bayes (see Acree, 1979; Gigerenzer & Murray, 1987; Spielman, 1974). For quite some time, there has been controversy over its usefulness. The debates arising from this controversy, however, have not been limited to discussions about the mindless procedure as sketched above, but have expanded to include the issues of experimental design and sampling procedures, assumptions about the size of population effects (leading to the specification of an alternative hypothesis), deliberations about statistical power before the data are collected, and decisions about Type I and Type II errors. There have been several such debates and the controversy is ongoing (for a summary see Balluerka, Gómez, & Hidalgo, 2005; Nickerson, 2000; Sedlmeier, 1999, Appendix C). Although there have been voices that argue for a ban on significance testing (e.g., Hunter, 1997), authors usually conclude that significance tests, if conducted properly, probably have some value (or at least do no harm) but should be complemented (or replaced) by other more informative ways of analyzing data (e.g., Abelson, 1995; Cohen, 1994; Howard, Maxwell, & Fleming, 2000; Loftus, 1993; Nickerson, 2000; Sedlmeier, 1996; Wilkinson & Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999). Alternative data-analysis techniques have been wellknown among methodologists for decades but this knowledge, mainly collected in methods journals, seems to have had little impact on the practice of researchers to date. I see two main reasons for this unsatisfactory state of affairs. First, it appears that there is still a fair amount of misunderstanding about what the results of significance tests really mean (e.g., Gordon, 2001; Haller & Krauss, 2002; Mittag & Thompson, 2000; Monterde-i-Bort, Pascual Llobell, & Frias-Navarro, 2008). Second, although alternatives have been briefly mentioned in widely received summary articles (such as Wilkinson & Task Force on S","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"24 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75097615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.6
R. L. Rosnow, R. Rosenthal
{"title":"Effect Sizes Why, When, and How to Use Them","authors":"R. L. Rosnow, R. Rosenthal","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.1.6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":"6-14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82774556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.159
E. Maris, R. Stoffers
There has been a lot of attention for the idea that the reading of a single word (visual word recognition) involves a single mechanism only. This mechanism first maps the orthographic input onto a sublexical phonological code via which, in a second step, the lexicon is accessed. This mechanism is called a single route phonological model, and it should be contrasted with a dual route model, which also assumes an orthographic route. This orthographic route maps the orthographic input onto a lexical orthographic code without phonological recoding. In this paper, both the single route phonological and the dual route models were formulated as multinomial processing tree (MPT) models. These two MPT models were applied to the data of two experiments in which the participants (children in Grades 1 and 2) had to give a combined naming and lexical decision response to four types of stimuli (words and three types of nonwords). The dual route model gave a much better explanation of these data than the single route phonological model.
{"title":"Dual and Single Route Models for Beginning Readers A Comparison by Means of Multinomial Processing Tree Models","authors":"E. Maris, R. Stoffers","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.159","url":null,"abstract":"There has been a lot of attention for the idea that the reading of a single word (visual word recognition) involves a single mechanism only. This mechanism first maps the orthographic input onto a sublexical phonological code via which, in a second step, the lexicon is accessed. This mechanism is called a single route phonological model, and it should be contrasted with a dual route model, which also assumes an orthographic route. This orthographic route maps the orthographic input onto a lexical orthographic code without phonological recoding. In this paper, both the single route phonological and the dual route models were formulated as multinomial processing tree (MPT) models. These two MPT models were applied to the data of two experiments in which the participants (children in Grades 1 and 2) had to give a combined naming and lexical decision response to four types of stimuli (words and three types of nonwords). The dual route model gave a much better explanation of these data than the single route phonological model.","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"61 1","pages":"159-174"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82072275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.73
D. O’connell, S. Kowal
The phrase becoming a science, as applied to the history of psychology, is at best a tendentious formulation of the status quaestionis. It presumes quite clearly that the direction of development has, indeed, been toward becoming more scientific. This presumption is engaged critically here. The American Psychological Association (APA), flagship of psychological organizations in the modern era, has undoubtedly become an empire. Whether the brand of psychology fostered currently by the APA is also the asymptote or endpoint of a developmental motion toward being more scientific merits inquiry and discussion. Schism and discontent in our midst have not been entirely political; there have also been aberrations and fads that have stunted growth and have accordingly fostered protests. Here, we consider some pioneers whose wisdom regarding the science of psychology has been, from time to time, influential, neglected, or even misguided. Modern psychology cannot, without further ado, be considered the inevitable pr...
{"title":"The Evolution of Modern Psychology","authors":"D. O’connell, S. Kowal","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.73","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.73","url":null,"abstract":"The phrase becoming a science, as applied to the history of psychology, is at best a tendentious formulation of the status quaestionis. It presumes quite clearly that the direction of development has, indeed, been toward becoming more scientific. This presumption is engaged critically here. The American Psychological Association (APA), flagship of psychological organizations in the modern era, has undoubtedly become an empire. Whether the brand of psychology fostered currently by the APA is also the asymptote or endpoint of a developmental motion toward being more scientific merits inquiry and discussion. Schism and discontent in our midst have not been entirely political; there have also been aberrations and fads that have stunted growth and have accordingly fostered protests. Here, we consider some pioneers whose wisdom regarding the science of psychology has been, from time to time, influential, neglected, or even misguided. Modern psychology cannot, without further ado, be considered the inevitable pr...","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"30 1","pages":"73-78"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75555655","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.224
Anja Schultze-Krumbholz, H. Scheithauer
With almost all German households owning mobile phones (99%), personal or laptop computers (99%), and having Internet access (96%) (MPFS, 2008), electronic media play a central role in children’s and adolescents’ lives in Germany and also pose a new venue for potentially harmful behavior and experiences such as cyberbullying. Beside first prevalence studies on cyberbullying (Katzer, 2009), there is a lack of studies on risk and protective factors. Impulses for research on this issue can be gained from research on traditional bullying which has shown low scores on empathy to be associated with the status of bully (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). Empathy is viewed as the combination of two functionally different aspects: cognitive and affective empathy, with cognitive empathy being the ability to understand another person’s emotions (perspective taking) and affective empathy being the affective response to someone else’s emotions (Hoffman, 1977). Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham (1999) hypothesized that (traditional) bullies are able to process social information very accurately and can use it to their advantage rather than
{"title":"Social-Behavioral Correlates of Cyberbullying in a German Student Sample","authors":"Anja Schultze-Krumbholz, H. Scheithauer","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.224","url":null,"abstract":"With almost all German households owning mobile phones (99%), personal or laptop computers (99%), and having Internet access (96%) (MPFS, 2008), electronic media play a central role in children’s and adolescents’ lives in Germany and also pose a new venue for potentially harmful behavior and experiences such as cyberbullying. Beside first prevalence studies on cyberbullying (Katzer, 2009), there is a lack of studies on risk and protective factors. Impulses for research on this issue can be gained from research on traditional bullying which has shown low scores on empathy to be associated with the status of bully (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006). Empathy is viewed as the combination of two functionally different aspects: cognitive and affective empathy, with cognitive empathy being the ability to understand another person’s emotions (perspective taking) and affective empathy being the affective response to someone else’s emotions (Hoffman, 1977). Sutton, Smith, and Swettenham (1999) hypothesized that (traditional) bullies are able to process social information very accurately and can use it to their advantage rather than","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"26 4 1","pages":"224-226"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78047238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.85
J. Belzen
Taking the history of the psychology of religion as a case, two theses are presented: (1) Psychology has always been determined by a multitude of contextual factors, among them seemingly trivial ones such as "market" and "fashion," and (2) research on its history readily turns into critical reflection on contemporary psychology. Psychology of religion is discussed as a subdiscipline of psychology at large, and it is pointed out that it is both a field of application of psychology in general and a part of theoretical psychology. To explain the lack of institutionalization of this subdiscipline in Germany, a comparison is made with the neighboring country of the Netherlands (where institutionalization has been remarkable). It is claimed that work on the history of psychology is necessary for the development of psychology itself and that if it is to make an impact within psychology it should not be left to professional historians without training in psychology.
{"title":"Taboo Religion? A contextual analysis of the marginalization of German psychology of religion","authors":"J. Belzen","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.85","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.2.85","url":null,"abstract":"Taking the history of the psychology of religion as a case, two theses are presented: (1) Psychology has always been determined by a multitude of contextual factors, among them seemingly trivial ones such as \"market\" and \"fashion,\" and (2) research on its history readily turns into critical reflection on contemporary psychology. Psychology of religion is discussed as a subdiscipline of psychology at large, and it is pointed out that it is both a field of application of psychology in general and a part of theoretical psychology. To explain the lack of institutionalization of this subdiscipline in Germany, a comparison is made with the neighboring country of the Netherlands (where institutionalization has been remarkable). It is claimed that work on the history of psychology is necessary for the development of psychology itself and that if it is to make an impact within psychology it should not be left to professional historians without training in psychology.","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"224 1","pages":"85-94"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76434794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.136
A. Bröder
Source memory (i.e., memory for context) has been studied with recognition tasks almost exclusively. However, encoding context affects recall stronger than recognition, presumably because of more complex retrieval strategies in the former task. An extension of Batchelder and Riefer (1980) pair-clustering model is proposed which is intended to measure the storage and retrieval of clusterable word pairs as well as the memory for the sources in which these were presented. In two experiments, the construct validity of the central model parameters is demonstrated. Furthermore, there was a strong stochastic dependency between recalling the sources of the first and the second word of a clustered pair, respectively, suggesting that not only semantic but also contextual features are bound together in clustered pairs. Advantages of using recall tests in source monitoring research are discussed.
{"title":"Semantically clustered words are stored with integrated context. Validating a Measurement Model for Source Memory, Storage, and Retrieval in Free Recall","authors":"A. Bröder","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.136","url":null,"abstract":"Source memory (i.e., memory for context) has been studied with recognition tasks almost exclusively. However, encoding context affects recall stronger than recognition, presumably because of more complex retrieval strategies in the former task. An extension of Batchelder and Riefer (1980) pair-clustering model is proposed which is intended to measure the storage and retrieval of clusterable word pairs as well as the memory for the sources in which these were presented. In two experiments, the construct validity of the central model parameters is demonstrated. Furthermore, there was a strong stochastic dependency between recalling the sources of the first and the second word of a clustered pair, respectively, suggesting that not only semantic but also contextual features are bound together in clustered pairs. Advantages of using recall tests in source monitoring research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"87 1","pages":"136-148"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79043460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.234B
M. Walrave
{"title":"Research on cyberbullying in Belgium, and Internet Rights Observatory advice.","authors":"M. Walrave","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.234B","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.234B","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"211 1","pages":"234-235"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90478555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2009-01-01DOI: 10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.108
E. Erdfelder, Tina Auer, B. Hilbig, André Aßfalg, Morten Moshagen, Lena Nadarevic
Multinomial processing tree (MPT) models have become popular in cognitive psychology in the past two decades. In contrast to general-purpose data analysis techniques, such as log-linear models or other generalized linear models, MPT models are substantively motivated stochastic models for categorical data. They are best described as tools (a) for measuring the cognitive processes that underlie human behavior in various tasks and (b) for testing the psychological assumptions on which these models are based. The present article provides a review of MPT models and their applications in psychology, focusing on recent trends and developments in the past 10 years. Our review is nontechnical in nature and primarily aims at informing readers about the scope and utility of MPT models in different branches of cognitive psychology. In a now classical article, Riefer and Batchelder (1988) proposed a class of substantively motivated stochastic mod- els for categorical behavioral data which was relatively well known in statistical genetics at the time (e.g., Elandt- Johnson, 1971), but had received little attention in psycho- logical research up to the 1980s. These models are now known as multinomial processing tree (MPT) models. About 10 years later, Batchelder and Riefer (1999) already identified no less than 30 published MPT models in the psychological literature, most of which were applied to different agendas in cognitive research. The present article provides an update of Batchelder and Riefer's review and focuses on models and their applications published in the past 10 years. Our review includes 70 MPT models and model variants from more than 20 research areas. In the first section, we will present a brief conceptual outline of MPT models using a simple example to illustrate the basics and main advantages of this approach. Technical details will be omitted almost entirely because they have been described elsewhere (e.g., Batchelder & Riefer, 1999; Hu & Batchelder, 1994). The second section sum- marizes MPT models and their applications in different branches of cognitive psychology, with a special focus on models for various memory paradigms. In the third sec- tion, psychological applications of MPT models outside the realm of cognitive psychology will be briefly summarized. The fourth section describes recent developments, general- izations, and innovations in the statistical methodology of MPT models that might be useful for those interested in applying such models. The fifth and final section of our review provides a sketch of computer programs that are currently available for statistical analyses in the MPT framework, along with a summary of the main advantages of each program.
{"title":"Multinomial processing tree models: A review of the literature.","authors":"E. Erdfelder, Tina Auer, B. Hilbig, André Aßfalg, Morten Moshagen, Lena Nadarevic","doi":"10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0044-3409.217.3.108","url":null,"abstract":"Multinomial processing tree (MPT) models have become popular in cognitive psychology in the past two decades. In contrast to general-purpose data analysis techniques, such as log-linear models or other generalized linear models, MPT models are substantively motivated stochastic models for categorical data. They are best described as tools (a) for measuring the cognitive processes that underlie human behavior in various tasks and (b) for testing the psychological assumptions on which these models are based. The present article provides a review of MPT models and their applications in psychology, focusing on recent trends and developments in the past 10 years. Our review is nontechnical in nature and primarily aims at informing readers about the scope and utility of MPT models in different branches of cognitive psychology. In a now classical article, Riefer and Batchelder (1988) proposed a class of substantively motivated stochastic mod- els for categorical behavioral data which was relatively well known in statistical genetics at the time (e.g., Elandt- Johnson, 1971), but had received little attention in psycho- logical research up to the 1980s. These models are now known as multinomial processing tree (MPT) models. About 10 years later, Batchelder and Riefer (1999) already identified no less than 30 published MPT models in the psychological literature, most of which were applied to different agendas in cognitive research. The present article provides an update of Batchelder and Riefer's review and focuses on models and their applications published in the past 10 years. Our review includes 70 MPT models and model variants from more than 20 research areas. In the first section, we will present a brief conceptual outline of MPT models using a simple example to illustrate the basics and main advantages of this approach. Technical details will be omitted almost entirely because they have been described elsewhere (e.g., Batchelder & Riefer, 1999; Hu & Batchelder, 1994). The second section sum- marizes MPT models and their applications in different branches of cognitive psychology, with a special focus on models for various memory paradigms. In the third sec- tion, psychological applications of MPT models outside the realm of cognitive psychology will be briefly summarized. The fourth section describes recent developments, general- izations, and innovations in the statistical methodology of MPT models that might be useful for those interested in applying such models. The fifth and final section of our review provides a sketch of computer programs that are currently available for statistical analyses in the MPT framework, along with a summary of the main advantages of each program.","PeriodicalId":47289,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie-Journal of Psychology","volume":"368 1","pages":"108-124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76563723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：