Pub Date : 2020-11-30DOI: 10.1177/1089268020975024
B. Held
As the humanities suffer decline in the academy, some psychologists have turned to them as an especially apt way to advance a psychological science that reflects lived experience more accurately and robustly. Disciplinary psychology’s adoption of the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of the natural sciences is often seen as a misapplication that has resulted in a science that diminishes if not demolishes subjectivity and misrepresents many. By contrast, the humanities are taken to be well positioned to infuse scientific psychology with myriad aspects of lived experience. I applaud all efforts to take the humanities seriously, by incorporating the theories, methods, and observations of the humanities in psychological science; the question is, how best to do this. On what understanding of the humanities should scientific psychology proceed? With these questions in mind, I review arguments about how psychological science can benefit from attention to the humanities. I also consider worries about a scientistic turn within the humane disciplines themselves, which turn mirrors worries about scientism in psychology. Contemporary examples of scholarship on the origins of ancient Greek philosophy and depictions of Christ in Renaissance art illustrate how the wars over truth and evidence that plague psychology are no less fierce in the humanities. I conclude that if psychologists apprehend the humanities with the critical understandings called for in psychological science, we may not only appreciate their contributions more completely and accurately, but may also deploy those contributions more substantially, in working to broaden and deepen psychological science.
{"title":"Taking the Humanities Seriously","authors":"B. Held","doi":"10.1177/1089268020975024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020975024","url":null,"abstract":"As the humanities suffer decline in the academy, some psychologists have turned to them as an especially apt way to advance a psychological science that reflects lived experience more accurately and robustly. Disciplinary psychology’s adoption of the ontological and epistemological underpinnings of the natural sciences is often seen as a misapplication that has resulted in a science that diminishes if not demolishes subjectivity and misrepresents many. By contrast, the humanities are taken to be well positioned to infuse scientific psychology with myriad aspects of lived experience. I applaud all efforts to take the humanities seriously, by incorporating the theories, methods, and observations of the humanities in psychological science; the question is, how best to do this. On what understanding of the humanities should scientific psychology proceed? With these questions in mind, I review arguments about how psychological science can benefit from attention to the humanities. I also consider worries about a scientistic turn within the humane disciplines themselves, which turn mirrors worries about scientism in psychology. Contemporary examples of scholarship on the origins of ancient Greek philosophy and depictions of Christ in Renaissance art illustrate how the wars over truth and evidence that plague psychology are no less fierce in the humanities. I conclude that if psychologists apprehend the humanities with the critical understandings called for in psychological science, we may not only appreciate their contributions more completely and accurately, but may also deploy those contributions more substantially, in working to broaden and deepen psychological science.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"119 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020975024","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45930471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-25DOI: 10.1177/1089268020974588
M. Terre Blanche, Eduard Fourie, P. Segalo
The decolonial impulse in psychology has manifested across a variety of domains, perhaps most notably psychological theory and approaches to research methodology. In this article, we focus on how decoloniality can reshape approaches to teaching and learning. We present a case study of how we recurriculated, from 1999 to 2020, three community psychology modules using a decolonial lens. We describe three phases in the development of community psychology teaching at a university in South Africa—“Little Oxford in the veld,” “Going walkabout,” and “New voices.” In each case, we detail the “course content,” our pedagogical approach, and how students responded, and try to identify what lessons can be learnt for a more explicitly decolonial mode of teaching and learning. We conclude by asserting that to foster decoloniality among students, we have to be cognizant of the ways in which they have for a long time been taught using Euro-centric lenses and frames of knowing and therefore the process of unlearning may be slow and somewhat painful. However, we see this as a necessary step toward decolonization, as epistemic colonization was and continues to be a violent project.
{"title":"Teaching Community Psychology Decolonially: A Pedagogical Journey","authors":"M. Terre Blanche, Eduard Fourie, P. Segalo","doi":"10.1177/1089268020974588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020974588","url":null,"abstract":"The decolonial impulse in psychology has manifested across a variety of domains, perhaps most notably psychological theory and approaches to research methodology. In this article, we focus on how decoloniality can reshape approaches to teaching and learning. We present a case study of how we recurriculated, from 1999 to 2020, three community psychology modules using a decolonial lens. We describe three phases in the development of community psychology teaching at a university in South Africa—“Little Oxford in the veld,” “Going walkabout,” and “New voices.” In each case, we detail the “course content,” our pedagogical approach, and how students responded, and try to identify what lessons can be learnt for a more explicitly decolonial mode of teaching and learning. We conclude by asserting that to foster decoloniality among students, we have to be cognizant of the ways in which they have for a long time been taught using Euro-centric lenses and frames of knowing and therefore the process of unlearning may be slow and somewhat painful. However, we see this as a necessary step toward decolonization, as epistemic colonization was and continues to be a violent project.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"369 - 384"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020974588","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44890709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-11DOI: 10.1177/1089268020963622
P. Hegarty, M. Prandelli, Tove Lundberg, L. Liao, S. Creighton, K. Roen
Human rights statements on intersex characteristics distinguish legitimate “medically necessary” interventions from illegitimate normalizing ones. Ironically, this binary classification seems partially grounded in knowledge of anatomy and medical interventions; the very expertise that human rights statements challenge. Here, 23 European health professionals from specialist “disorder of sex development” (DSD) multidisciplinary teams located medical interventions on a continuum ranging from “medically essential” to nonessential poles. They explained their answers. Participants mostly described interventions on penile/scrotal, clitoral/labial, vaginal, and gonadal anatomy whose essential character was only partially grounded in anatomical variation and diagnoses. To explain what was medically necessary, health care professionals drew on lay understandings of child development, parental distress, collective opposition to medicalization, patients “coping” abilities, and patients’ own choices. Concepts of “medical necessity” were grounded in a hybrid ontology of patients with intersex traits as both physical bodies and as phenomenological subjects. Challenges to medical expertise on human rights grounds are well warranted but presume a bounded and well-grounded category of “medically necessary” intervention that is discursively flexible. Psychologists’ long-standing neglect of people with intersex characteristics, and the marginalization of clinical psychologists in DSD teams, may contribute to the construction of some controversial interventions as medically necessary.
{"title":"Drawing the Line Between Essential and Nonessential Interventions on Intersex Characteristics With European Health Care Professionals","authors":"P. Hegarty, M. Prandelli, Tove Lundberg, L. Liao, S. Creighton, K. Roen","doi":"10.1177/1089268020963622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020963622","url":null,"abstract":"Human rights statements on intersex characteristics distinguish legitimate “medically necessary” interventions from illegitimate normalizing ones. Ironically, this binary classification seems partially grounded in knowledge of anatomy and medical interventions; the very expertise that human rights statements challenge. Here, 23 European health professionals from specialist “disorder of sex development” (DSD) multidisciplinary teams located medical interventions on a continuum ranging from “medically essential” to nonessential poles. They explained their answers. Participants mostly described interventions on penile/scrotal, clitoral/labial, vaginal, and gonadal anatomy whose essential character was only partially grounded in anatomical variation and diagnoses. To explain what was medically necessary, health care professionals drew on lay understandings of child development, parental distress, collective opposition to medicalization, patients “coping” abilities, and patients’ own choices. Concepts of “medical necessity” were grounded in a hybrid ontology of patients with intersex traits as both physical bodies and as phenomenological subjects. Challenges to medical expertise on human rights grounds are well warranted but presume a bounded and well-grounded category of “medically necessary” intervention that is discursively flexible. Psychologists’ long-standing neglect of people with intersex characteristics, and the marginalization of clinical psychologists in DSD teams, may contribute to the construction of some controversial interventions as medically necessary.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"101 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020963622","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43809390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-22DOI: 10.1177/10892680211046514
B. Haig
In this article, I critically examine a number of widely held beliefs about the nature of replication and its place in science, with particular reference to psychology. In doing so, I present a number of underappreciated understandings of the nature of science more generally. I contend that some contributors to the replication debates overstate the importance of replication in science and mischaracterize the relationship between direct and conceptual replication. I also claim that there has been a failure to appreciate sufficiently the variety of legitimate replication practices that scientists engage in. In this regard, I highlight the tendency to pay insufficient attention to methodological triangulation as an important strategy for justifying empirical claims. I argue, further, that the replication debates tend to overstate the closeness of the relationship between replication and theory construction. Some features of this relationship are spelt out with reference to the hypothetico-deductive and the abductive accounts of scientific method. Additionally, an evaluation of the status of replication in different characterizations of scientific progress is undertaken. I maintain that viewing replication as just one element of the wide array of scientific endeavors leads to the conclusion that it is not as prominent in science as is often claimed.
{"title":"Understanding Replication in a Way That Is True to Science","authors":"B. Haig","doi":"10.1177/10892680211046514","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211046514","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I critically examine a number of widely held beliefs about the nature of replication and its place in science, with particular reference to psychology. In doing so, I present a number of underappreciated understandings of the nature of science more generally. I contend that some contributors to the replication debates overstate the importance of replication in science and mischaracterize the relationship between direct and conceptual replication. I also claim that there has been a failure to appreciate sufficiently the variety of legitimate replication practices that scientists engage in. In this regard, I highlight the tendency to pay insufficient attention to methodological triangulation as an important strategy for justifying empirical claims. I argue, further, that the replication debates tend to overstate the closeness of the relationship between replication and theory construction. Some features of this relationship are spelt out with reference to the hypothetico-deductive and the abductive accounts of scientific method. Additionally, an evaluation of the status of replication in different characterizations of scientific progress is undertaken. I maintain that viewing replication as just one element of the wide array of scientific endeavors leads to the conclusion that it is not as prominent in science as is often claimed.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"224 - 240"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41508127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-17DOI: 10.1177/1089268020963597
Jason D. Reynolds (Taewon Choi), Nicole T. Elimelech, S. P. Miller, Megan E. Ingraham, Bridget M. Anton, Chiroshri Bhattacharjee
This qualitative study explored the experiences of transracial Chinese adoptees who were born in China, separated from their biological families, raised in the United States by White families, and given an Anglicized name at the time of their adoption. This study focused on participant experiences as they navigated being raised in the United States as transracial Chinese adoptees, their feelings related to their Chinese names, thoughts about China and birth family search, and experiences of ethnic and racial socialization within their adoptive families. Data were collected from in-depth, semi-structured interviews via Skype that integrated a constructivist–interpretivist and critical epistemological paradigm and coded using grounded-theory methods. Participants (N = 8) were transracial Chinese adoptees with ages ranging from 18 to 25 years (M = 21.5 years) who were between 6 and 17 months (M = 10.6 months) at the time of adoption. Results from the interviews revealed eight axial categories and three overarching selective categories related to their experience as transracial Chinese adoptees: (a) experiences of race and adoption, (b) factors influencing racial–ethnic socialization, and (c) recommendations for adoptive parents. Limitations of the study, future areas of research, and clinical and practice implications are discussed.
{"title":"In Their Own Voices: Identity and Racial Socialization Experiences of Young Adult Chinese Adoptees","authors":"Jason D. Reynolds (Taewon Choi), Nicole T. Elimelech, S. P. Miller, Megan E. Ingraham, Bridget M. Anton, Chiroshri Bhattacharjee","doi":"10.1177/1089268020963597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020963597","url":null,"abstract":"This qualitative study explored the experiences of transracial Chinese adoptees who were born in China, separated from their biological families, raised in the United States by White families, and given an Anglicized name at the time of their adoption. This study focused on participant experiences as they navigated being raised in the United States as transracial Chinese adoptees, their feelings related to their Chinese names, thoughts about China and birth family search, and experiences of ethnic and racial socialization within their adoptive families. Data were collected from in-depth, semi-structured interviews via Skype that integrated a constructivist–interpretivist and critical epistemological paradigm and coded using grounded-theory methods. Participants (N = 8) were transracial Chinese adoptees with ages ranging from 18 to 25 years (M = 21.5 years) who were between 6 and 17 months (M = 10.6 months) at the time of adoption. Results from the interviews revealed eight axial categories and three overarching selective categories related to their experience as transracial Chinese adoptees: (a) experiences of race and adoption, (b) factors influencing racial–ethnic socialization, and (c) recommendations for adoptive parents. Limitations of the study, future areas of research, and clinical and practice implications are discussed.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"85 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020963597","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42556678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-07DOI: 10.1177/1089268020953622
J. Jackson, A. Winston
Recent discussions have revived old claims that hereditarian research on race differences in intelligence has been subject to a long and effective taboo. We argue that given the extensive publications, citations, and discussions of such work since 1969, claims of taboo and suppression are a myth. We critically examine claims that (self-described) hereditarians currently and exclusively experience major misrepresentation in the media, regular physical threats, denouncements, and academic job loss. We document substantial exaggeration and distortion in such claims. The repeated assertions that the negative reception of research asserting average Black inferiority is due to total ideological control over the academy by “environmentalists,” leftists, Marxists, or “thugs” are unwarranted character assassinations on those engaged in legitimate and valuable scholarly criticism.
{"title":"The Mythical Taboo on Race and Intelligence","authors":"J. Jackson, A. Winston","doi":"10.1177/1089268020953622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020953622","url":null,"abstract":"Recent discussions have revived old claims that hereditarian research on race differences in intelligence has been subject to a long and effective taboo. We argue that given the extensive publications, citations, and discussions of such work since 1969, claims of taboo and suppression are a myth. We critically examine claims that (self-described) hereditarians currently and exclusively experience major misrepresentation in the media, regular physical threats, denouncements, and academic job loss. We document substantial exaggeration and distortion in such claims. The repeated assertions that the negative reception of research asserting average Black inferiority is due to total ideological control over the academy by “environmentalists,” leftists, Marxists, or “thugs” are unwarranted character assassinations on those engaged in legitimate and valuable scholarly criticism.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"3 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020953622","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47696975","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-07DOI: 10.1177/1089268020954372
Ulrich W. Weger, Klaus Herbig
The self is a multifaceted phenomenon that manifests in a complex configuration of character traits, roles, orientations, and other psychological components. The entity that is binding these subcomponents together has mostly eluded systematic enquiry. In an effort to approach this Gestalt-like whole in an empirical manner, we here introduce the concept of the “peripheral self”: the moments of growth and expansion where the current self grows beyond the horizon of already successful mastery. Over the course of 1 year, we have pursued an empirical first-person approach to explore this continuously shifting horizon of self-development. Our main result is a collection of signature qualities—“experiential echoes”—that demarcate the peripheral self as it advances from potentiality to conscious insight. We provide a roadmap for other researchers to follow up on this approach and relate our findings to the still sparse literature on what constitutes the overarching character of the self.
{"title":"The Self in the Periphery","authors":"Ulrich W. Weger, Klaus Herbig","doi":"10.1177/1089268020954372","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020954372","url":null,"abstract":"The self is a multifaceted phenomenon that manifests in a complex configuration of character traits, roles, orientations, and other psychological components. The entity that is binding these subcomponents together has mostly eluded systematic enquiry. In an effort to approach this Gestalt-like whole in an empirical manner, we here introduce the concept of the “peripheral self”: the moments of growth and expansion where the current self grows beyond the horizon of already successful mastery. Over the course of 1 year, we have pursued an empirical first-person approach to explore this continuously shifting horizon of self-development. Our main result is a collection of signature qualities—“experiential echoes”—that demarcate the peripheral self as it advances from potentiality to conscious insight. We provide a roadmap for other researchers to follow up on this approach and relate our findings to the still sparse literature on what constitutes the overarching character of the self.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"73 - 84"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020954372","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45539747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-30DOI: 10.1177/1089268020961763
V. Glăveanu
The present article gives an overview of sociocultural approaches to creativity and advances a particular theory of the creative process grounded in the notions of difference, position, perspective, dialogue, and affordance. If sociocultural psychology challenges old dichotomies between mind and body, individual and society, then creativity is ideally placed to demonstrate their interdependence. While sociocultural thinking in creativity research has traditionally emphasized the social or collaborative nature of creative processes, recovering old scholarship and reviewing it in light of current empirical developments shows how socio-materiality can properly inform psychological theory in this area. The article starts with an outline of sociocultural principles before considering their application to creativity. It then formulates four propositions regarding the creative process: (a) differences of perspective increase creative potential; (b) exchanging positions and perspectives, within and between individuals, fosters creative processes; (c) these exchanges result in perspectives that reveal previously unperceived affordances; and (d) oftentimes, it is the affordances of material objects or of unique idea combinations that guide the development of novel perspectives in creative work. Evidence supporting these key hypotheses of the perspective-affordance theory of creativity (PAT) comes from research conducted in a variety of areas within psychology and in related fields. In the end, the methodological and practical implications of considering creativity as a process of recognizing differences, exchanging positions, developing perspectives and discovering affordances will be discussed, as well as the broader implications of building theories that bring together, rather than keep separate, the social, the material, and the psychological.
{"title":"A Sociocultural Theory of Creativity: Bridging the Social, the Material, and the Psychological","authors":"V. Glăveanu","doi":"10.1177/1089268020961763","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020961763","url":null,"abstract":"The present article gives an overview of sociocultural approaches to creativity and advances a particular theory of the creative process grounded in the notions of difference, position, perspective, dialogue, and affordance. If sociocultural psychology challenges old dichotomies between mind and body, individual and society, then creativity is ideally placed to demonstrate their interdependence. While sociocultural thinking in creativity research has traditionally emphasized the social or collaborative nature of creative processes, recovering old scholarship and reviewing it in light of current empirical developments shows how socio-materiality can properly inform psychological theory in this area. The article starts with an outline of sociocultural principles before considering their application to creativity. It then formulates four propositions regarding the creative process: (a) differences of perspective increase creative potential; (b) exchanging positions and perspectives, within and between individuals, fosters creative processes; (c) these exchanges result in perspectives that reveal previously unperceived affordances; and (d) oftentimes, it is the affordances of material objects or of unique idea combinations that guide the development of novel perspectives in creative work. Evidence supporting these key hypotheses of the perspective-affordance theory of creativity (PAT) comes from research conducted in a variety of areas within psychology and in related fields. In the end, the methodological and practical implications of considering creativity as a process of recognizing differences, exchanging positions, developing perspectives and discovering affordances will be discussed, as well as the broader implications of building theories that bring together, rather than keep separate, the social, the material, and the psychological.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"24 1","pages":"335 - 354"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020961763","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48653145","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-24DOI: 10.1177/1089268020959033
L. Heu, Martijn van Zomeren, N. Hansen
Loneliness is a common experience with major negative consequences for well-being. Although much research has examined protective and risk factors for loneliness, we know little about its cultural underpinnings. The few studies that exist seem paradoxical, suggesting that loneliness is higher in cultures where tighter and more demanding (i.e., more restrictive) cultural norms about social relationships decrease the risk of social isolation. At the same time, loneliness is lower among individuals who hold more restrictive norms or perceive such norms among others around them. We move beyond previous research by generating the culture-loneliness framework, suggesting that loneliness occurs across all levels of restrictiveness, but through different predominant types of isolation. More restrictive (i.e., more, tighter, or more demanding) norms about social relationships may better protect from physical isolation (i.e., a lack of social interaction or relationships) but increase the likelihood of emotional and perceived isolation (i.e., a lack of individually satisfying relationships or relationships that do not fulfill cultural ideals). We evaluate this framework by reviewing research at both the individual and the cultural levels, and discuss its theoretical and practical implications.
{"title":"Does Loneliness Thrive in Relational Freedom or Restriction? The Culture-Loneliness Framework","authors":"L. Heu, Martijn van Zomeren, N. Hansen","doi":"10.1177/1089268020959033","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020959033","url":null,"abstract":"Loneliness is a common experience with major negative consequences for well-being. Although much research has examined protective and risk factors for loneliness, we know little about its cultural underpinnings. The few studies that exist seem paradoxical, suggesting that loneliness is higher in cultures where tighter and more demanding (i.e., more restrictive) cultural norms about social relationships decrease the risk of social isolation. At the same time, loneliness is lower among individuals who hold more restrictive norms or perceive such norms among others around them. We move beyond previous research by generating the culture-loneliness framework, suggesting that loneliness occurs across all levels of restrictiveness, but through different predominant types of isolation. More restrictive (i.e., more, tighter, or more demanding) norms about social relationships may better protect from physical isolation (i.e., a lack of social interaction or relationships) but increase the likelihood of emotional and perceived isolation (i.e., a lack of individually satisfying relationships or relationships that do not fulfill cultural ideals). We evaluate this framework by reviewing research at both the individual and the cultural levels, and discuss its theoretical and practical implications.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"60 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020959033","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41807012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-19DOI: 10.1177/1089268020958686
M. A. Foley
Empirical studies of the power of photographs on recollections of the personal past have produced a complicated set of results, with reports of both costs and benefits on recollection accuracy. The purpose of the selective review offered in the current paper is to cast in new light this complicated pattern of findings by calling for close attention to the acts of looking, including the timing of the looking in relation to acts of remembering. Incorporating a broad range of scholarly perspectives, the current article’s interdisciplinary component points to specific features of photograph-looking experiences that warrant further study. The current review provides an overview of benefits in memory for event and event details, indexed by enhancements in recall and recognition measures. The overview of costs includes reductions in the amount remembered as well as changes in belief about event occurrences. Reconstruction accounts of the basis for these effects follows the analysis of benefits and costs. The new perspective in the current review leads to intriguing directions for future research involving content of photographs, the ways they are obtained, and aspects of the photograph review experience.
{"title":"Effects of Photographic Reviews on Recollections of the Personal Past: A New Perspective on Benefits and Costs","authors":"M. A. Foley","doi":"10.1177/1089268020958686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020958686","url":null,"abstract":"Empirical studies of the power of photographs on recollections of the personal past have produced a complicated set of results, with reports of both costs and benefits on recollection accuracy. The purpose of the selective review offered in the current paper is to cast in new light this complicated pattern of findings by calling for close attention to the acts of looking, including the timing of the looking in relation to acts of remembering. Incorporating a broad range of scholarly perspectives, the current article’s interdisciplinary component points to specific features of photograph-looking experiences that warrant further study. The current review provides an overview of benefits in memory for event and event details, indexed by enhancements in recall and recognition measures. The overview of costs includes reductions in the amount remembered as well as changes in belief about event occurrences. Reconstruction accounts of the basis for these effects follows the analysis of benefits and costs. The new perspective in the current review leads to intriguing directions for future research involving content of photographs, the ways they are obtained, and aspects of the photograph review experience.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"24 1","pages":"369 - 381"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2020-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1089268020958686","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49647738","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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：