首页 > 最新文献

Review of General Psychology最新文献

英文 中文
Early Experimental Psychology: How did Replication Work Before P-Hacking? 早期实验心理学:在P破解之前复制是如何工作的?
IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2022-02-04 DOI: 10.1177/10892680211066468
Annette Mülberger
For many researchers, replication is still the “gold standard” that is crucial for verifying scientific findings (see, for example, Frank & Saxe, 2012; Iso-Ahola, 2020; Witte & Zenker, 2017). Indeed, Crandall and Sherman (2016) declared that: “[t]here is no controversy over the need for replication; virtually all scientists and philosophers of science endorse the notion that replication of one sort or another is absolutely essential” (p. 94). In recent decades, this has led to widespread concern because few experimental findings are actually being confirmed in this way (see, for example, Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012; Reproducibility Project: Psychology; Wiggins & Chrisopherson, 2019). Before it is possible to plan how to remedy this situation, the reasons for the lack of replications must be identified. “Questionable research practices” such as p-hacking or post-hoc hypothesizing, the “file-drawer problem,” are often cited as contributing to the problem (Romero, 2019; Wiggins & Chrisopherson, 2019). These research practices are firmly embeddedwithin a scientific culture that is characterized by a highly competitive academic environment and a reward system that dissuades rather than encouraging replication (Crandall & Sherman, 2016; Romero, 2019). This setting fosters personal ambition, urging researchers to come up with innovative and ambitious projects continually and to publish as many papers as possible. Meanwhile, most journals only publish reports of original research offering statistically significant results, which has led to a “publication bias” (Romero, 2017). Replicability problems, as Pashler and Wagenmakers (2012) stated, “reflect deep-seated human biases and well entrenched incentives that shape the behavior of individuals and institutions” (p. 529). Fraud cases, such as that involving Diederik Stapel, show just how far a person might be willing to go when succumbing to such pressures (Stroebe, Postmes, & Spears, 2012; Derksen, 2021). Whether replication is really necessary and whether the problematic research practices mentioned above are due more to the present reward system, general human biases or an incorrect statistical or philosophical understanding are still open questions (Feest, 2019; Flis, 2019; Morawski, 2019). Given such uncertainties, it seems interesting to explore how research was undertaken in the past, when the current institutional conditions did not pertain—or at least, not yet fully. Stated differently: If the current replicability problem is related to recent research practices that have appeared as part of academic life in times of neoliberal capitalism and “big science,” then we might assume that replication worked differently in the past. Thus, in the present paper, I adopt a historical stance to reveal characteristics of nineteenth-century psychology experimental research practices and to describe the way research was replicated. The original experiments I present in this paper are well known, dating from 186
对许多研究人员来说,复制仍然是验证科学发现至关重要的“金标准”(例如,参见Frank和Saxe,2012;Iso Ahola,2020;Witte和Zenker,2017)。事实上,Crandall和Sherman(2016)宣称:“复制的必要性没有争议;几乎所有的科学家和科学哲学家都赞同这样或那样的复制是绝对必要的”(第94页)。近几十年来,这引起了人们的广泛关注,因为很少有实验发现能以这种方式得到证实(例如,参见Pashler&Wagenmakers,2012;再现性项目:心理学;威金斯和克里索弗森,2019)。在计划如何补救这种情况之前,必须确定缺少复制的原因。“有问题的研究实践”,如p-黑客攻击或事后假设,即“文件抽屉问题”,经常被认为是导致该问题的原因(Romero,2019;Wiggins&Chrispherson,2019)。这些研究实践牢牢植根于一种科学文化中,这种文化的特点是竞争激烈的学术环境和鼓励而非鼓励复制的奖励制度(Crandall&Sherman,2016;罗梅罗,2019)。这种环境培养了个人的雄心,促使研究人员不断提出创新和雄心勃勃的项目,并发表尽可能多的论文。与此同时,大多数期刊只发表具有统计意义的原始研究报告,这导致了“发表偏见”(Romero,2017)。正如Pashler和Wagenmakers(2012)所指出的,可复制性问题“反映了根深蒂固的人类偏见和根深蒂固的激励因素,这些因素塑造了个人和机构的行为”(第529页)。欺诈案件,如涉及Diederik Stapel的案件,表明了一个人在屈服于这种压力时可能愿意走多远(Stroebe,Postmes,&Spears,2012;Derksen,2021)。复制是否真的有必要,以及上述有问题的研究实践是否更多地是由于目前的奖励制度、普遍的人类偏见或不正确的统计或哲学理解,仍然是悬而未决的问题(Feest,2019;Flis,2019;Morawski,2019)。考虑到这些不确定性,探索过去的研究是如何进行的似乎很有趣,当时的制度条件并不适用——或者至少还没有完全适用。换句话说:如果当前的可复制性问题与最近的研究实践有关,这些研究实践在新自由主义资本主义和“大科学”时代作为学术生活的一部分出现,那么我们可能会认为复制在过去的效果不同。因此,在本文中,我采用历史的立场来揭示19世纪心理学实验研究实践的特点,并描述研究的复制方式。我在本文中提出的最初实验是众所周知的,可以追溯到1860年至1900年,这一时期欧洲发生了重要变化,如工业化、工人运动和现代民族国家的宪法。在这一时期,德国大学的普鲁士模式(Charle,2004)在化学、物理、生理学、哲学和心理学等领域提供了广泛的人文主义和彻底的实验培训,这是一门刚刚兴起的实验科学,拥有自己的科学界(Ash,1980;Bringmann和Tweney,1980;Rieber和Robinson,2001)。当进行第一次复制时,无论是年轻的研究人员还是资深教授,都没有承受“出版或灭亡”的压力,期刊也还没有充当基于p值做出决定的看门人。通常情况下,研究人员在发表研究结果之前进行了多年的耐心实验。因此,复制在心理学研究中扮演了什么角色?
{"title":"Early Experimental Psychology: How did Replication Work Before P-Hacking?","authors":"Annette Mülberger","doi":"10.1177/10892680211066468","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211066468","url":null,"abstract":"For many researchers, replication is still the “gold standard” that is crucial for verifying scientific findings (see, for example, Frank & Saxe, 2012; Iso-Ahola, 2020; Witte & Zenker, 2017). Indeed, Crandall and Sherman (2016) declared that: “[t]here is no controversy over the need for replication; virtually all scientists and philosophers of science endorse the notion that replication of one sort or another is absolutely essential” (p. 94). In recent decades, this has led to widespread concern because few experimental findings are actually being confirmed in this way (see, for example, Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012; Reproducibility Project: Psychology; Wiggins & Chrisopherson, 2019). Before it is possible to plan how to remedy this situation, the reasons for the lack of replications must be identified. “Questionable research practices” such as p-hacking or post-hoc hypothesizing, the “file-drawer problem,” are often cited as contributing to the problem (Romero, 2019; Wiggins & Chrisopherson, 2019). These research practices are firmly embeddedwithin a scientific culture that is characterized by a highly competitive academic environment and a reward system that dissuades rather than encouraging replication (Crandall & Sherman, 2016; Romero, 2019). This setting fosters personal ambition, urging researchers to come up with innovative and ambitious projects continually and to publish as many papers as possible. Meanwhile, most journals only publish reports of original research offering statistically significant results, which has led to a “publication bias” (Romero, 2017). Replicability problems, as Pashler and Wagenmakers (2012) stated, “reflect deep-seated human biases and well entrenched incentives that shape the behavior of individuals and institutions” (p. 529). Fraud cases, such as that involving Diederik Stapel, show just how far a person might be willing to go when succumbing to such pressures (Stroebe, Postmes, & Spears, 2012; Derksen, 2021). Whether replication is really necessary and whether the problematic research practices mentioned above are due more to the present reward system, general human biases or an incorrect statistical or philosophical understanding are still open questions (Feest, 2019; Flis, 2019; Morawski, 2019). Given such uncertainties, it seems interesting to explore how research was undertaken in the past, when the current institutional conditions did not pertain—or at least, not yet fully. Stated differently: If the current replicability problem is related to recent research practices that have appeared as part of academic life in times of neoliberal capitalism and “big science,” then we might assume that replication worked differently in the past. Thus, in the present paper, I adopt a historical stance to reveal characteristics of nineteenth-century psychology experimental research practices and to describe the way research was replicated. The original experiments I present in this paper are well known, dating from 186","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"131 - 145"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49527067","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}
引用次数: 2
Creators of the Vocabulary of Anglophone Psychology and Their Relationships 英语心理学词汇的创造者及其关系
IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2022-01-31 DOI: 10.1177/10892680211064293
J. Benjafield
The vocabulary of anglophone psychology largely developed during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The creators of this vocabulary include such well-known names as William James, Joan Riviere, E. L. Thorndike, and James Strachey. Along with others, they invented many new words and word meanings for psychology. The more a psychologist responded to the need for new vocabulary the more likely were they to be mentioned in publications. Moreover, linguistically creative psychologists occurred together in publications to a greater extent than less linguistically creative psychologists, with William James having the most co-occurrences. A network is presented that links each member of a sample of 59 linguistically creative psychologists to the other member of the sample with whom they most frequently co-occur (e.g., E. L. Thorndike co-occurs most frequently with William James). For each pair, we provide brief descriptions of their similarities and/or differences. There is also a cluster of translators who created new English words and word meanings in order to capture the meanings of words in other languages that had no satisfactory equivalents in English. Generally speaking, the more success psychologists have had in filling the lacunae in psychology’s vocabulary, the more they have been recognized by others.
以英语为母语的心理学词汇主要是在19世纪和20世纪初发展起来的。这些词汇的创造者包括威廉·詹姆斯、琼·里维埃、e·l·桑代克和詹姆斯·斯特雷奇等知名人士。他们和其他人一起为心理学发明了许多新词和词义。心理学家对新词汇的需求反应越强烈,他们就越有可能在出版物中被提及。此外,具有语言创造力的心理学家比缺乏语言创造力的心理学家在出版物中一起出现的程度更大,其中威廉·詹姆斯(William James)的共同出现次数最多。本文提出了一个网络,将59名语言创造性心理学家样本中的每一位成员与他们最常共同出现的样本中的另一位成员联系起来(例如,E. L.桑代克与威廉·詹姆斯最常共同出现)。对于每一对,我们都简要描述了它们的相似点和/或不同点。还有一群翻译人员创造了新的英语单词和词义,以便捕捉其他语言中没有令人满意的英语对等词的意思。一般来说,心理学家在填补心理学词汇的空白方面越成功,他们就越得到别人的认可。
{"title":"Creators of the Vocabulary of Anglophone Psychology and Their Relationships","authors":"J. Benjafield","doi":"10.1177/10892680211064293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211064293","url":null,"abstract":"The vocabulary of anglophone psychology largely developed during the 19th and early 20th centuries. The creators of this vocabulary include such well-known names as William James, Joan Riviere, E. L. Thorndike, and James Strachey. Along with others, they invented many new words and word meanings for psychology. The more a psychologist responded to the need for new vocabulary the more likely were they to be mentioned in publications. Moreover, linguistically creative psychologists occurred together in publications to a greater extent than less linguistically creative psychologists, with William James having the most co-occurrences. A network is presented that links each member of a sample of 59 linguistically creative psychologists to the other member of the sample with whom they most frequently co-occur (e.g., E. L. Thorndike co-occurs most frequently with William James). For each pair, we provide brief descriptions of their similarities and/or differences. There is also a cluster of translators who created new English words and word meanings in order to capture the meanings of words in other languages that had no satisfactory equivalents in English. Generally speaking, the more success psychologists have had in filling the lacunae in psychology’s vocabulary, the more they have been recognized by others.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"104 - 121"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48452212","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}
引用次数: 0
The Function of Literature in Psychological Science 文学在心理科学中的作用
IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2022-01-21 DOI: 10.1177/10892680211066466
I. Flis
The recent reform debates in psychological science, prompted by a widespread crisis of confidence, have exposed and destabilized the so-called myth of self-correction, that is, the problem that most scientists perceive their disciplines as self-correcting without engaging in actual practices that correct the scientific record. In this paper, building on the idea of self-correction as a myth, I propose another myth common to psychological science: the myth of self-organization. The myth of self-organization is the idea that scientific literature will organize itself into something the community adding to it would recognize as systematic knowledge; while the actual members of those communities do not engage in effective ways of organizing it. I argue for the existence of the myth self-organization by taking a historical look at how the scientific literature was construed by psychologists during the 20th century. In my view, the literature, and behaviors of scientists related to it, becomes a social institution exerting influence over the science it belongs to. I conclude with a critical discussion of self-organization through the debates about preregistration and theory formalization in psychology’s reform movement.
由于普遍的信心危机,最近心理科学领域的改革辩论暴露并破坏了所谓的自我纠正神话,即大多数科学家认为他们的学科是自我纠正的,而没有参与纠正科学记录的实际实践。在这篇论文中,基于自我修正作为一个神话的观点,我提出了另一个心理学常见的神话:自组织神话。自组织的神话是这样一种观点,即科学文献会将自己组织成一种社区认为是系统知识的东西;而这些社区的实际成员并没有以有效的方式组织它。我通过对20世纪心理学家如何解释科学文献的历史考察,为神话自组织的存在辩护。在我看来,文学以及与之相关的科学家的行为,成为了一种对其所属科学产生影响的社会制度。最后,我通过心理学改革运动中关于预注册和理论形式化的辩论,对自组织进行了批判性的讨论。
{"title":"The Function of Literature in Psychological Science","authors":"I. Flis","doi":"10.1177/10892680211066466","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211066466","url":null,"abstract":"The recent reform debates in psychological science, prompted by a widespread crisis of confidence, have exposed and destabilized the so-called myth of self-correction, that is, the problem that most scientists perceive their disciplines as self-correcting without engaging in actual practices that correct the scientific record. In this paper, building on the idea of self-correction as a myth, I propose another myth common to psychological science: the myth of self-organization. The myth of self-organization is the idea that scientific literature will organize itself into something the community adding to it would recognize as systematic knowledge; while the actual members of those communities do not engage in effective ways of organizing it. I argue for the existence of the myth self-organization by taking a historical look at how the scientific literature was construed by psychologists during the 20th century. In my view, the literature, and behaviors of scientists related to it, becomes a social institution exerting influence over the science it belongs to. I conclude with a critical discussion of self-organization through the debates about preregistration and theory formalization in psychology’s reform movement.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"146 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41627468","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}
引用次数: 3
Making Sense of Culture for the Psychological Sciences 心理科学的文化意义
IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2022-01-20 DOI: 10.1177/10892680211066473
Nandita Chaudhary, G. Misra, P. Bansal, J. Valsiner, Tushar Singh
In this article, we examine the place of culture in the human sciences with specific reference to psychology and the cultural histories of India. Despite the depth of scholarly writing on the intimate and inextricable ties between culture and psychological processes, core advancements and definitive positions in psychology have remained elusive. The privileging of a single culturally specific world-view alongside the exclusion of others has seriously hindered the authentic internationalization of psychology. We propose that linkages between culture and psychology need to be visualized as a dialogue between different cultural traditions. In the dialectics between bheda–abheda (difference and non-difference), structural-developmental, dispositional-relational, and social-collective processes will be invoked to develop our arguments for a human-science approach to the study of persons in culture. We argue that it is through the inclusion, rather than suppression, of diverse ideologies that generalizability can be best achieved. This is a call for an audit and reconstruction of psychology and its practices as an international discipline with a roadmap for theory construction and research informed by a cultural psychological approach toward human phenomena.
在这篇文章中,我们考察了文化在人文科学中的地位,具体涉及心理学和印度的文化历史。尽管关于文化和心理过程之间密切而不可分割的联系的学术著作有深度,但心理学的核心进步和明确立场仍然难以捉摸。对一种特定文化世界观的特权,以及对其他文化世界观的排斥,严重阻碍了心理学的真正国际化。我们建议,文化与心理学之间的联系需要被可视化为不同文化传统之间的对话。在差异与非差异之间的辩证法中,结构-发展、倾向-关系和社会-集体过程将被引用,以发展我们对文化中人的人类科学研究方法的论点。我们认为,正是通过包容而不是压制不同的意识形态,才能最好地实现普遍性。这是对心理学及其实践作为一门国际学科进行审计和重建的呼吁,并为理论建设和研究提供路线图,并通过文化心理学方法来了解人类现象。
{"title":"Making Sense of Culture for the Psychological Sciences","authors":"Nandita Chaudhary, G. Misra, P. Bansal, J. Valsiner, Tushar Singh","doi":"10.1177/10892680211066473","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211066473","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we examine the place of culture in the human sciences with specific reference to psychology and the cultural histories of India. Despite the depth of scholarly writing on the intimate and inextricable ties between culture and psychological processes, core advancements and definitive positions in psychology have remained elusive. The privileging of a single culturally specific world-view alongside the exclusion of others has seriously hindered the authentic internationalization of psychology. We propose that linkages between culture and psychology need to be visualized as a dialogue between different cultural traditions. In the dialectics between bheda–abheda (difference and non-difference), structural-developmental, dispositional-relational, and social-collective processes will be invoked to develop our arguments for a human-science approach to the study of persons in culture. We argue that it is through the inclusion, rather than suppression, of diverse ideologies that generalizability can be best achieved. This is a call for an audit and reconstruction of psychology and its practices as an international discipline with a roadmap for theory construction and research informed by a cultural psychological approach toward human phenomena.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"399 - 415"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42166996","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}
引用次数: 6
Decoloniality and Disruption of the Scientific Status Quo: Dissemination of Universal Theoretical Assumptions in International Research 非殖民化和科学现状的破坏:国际研究中普遍理论假设的传播
IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2022-01-19 DOI: 10.1177/10892680211065169
Ana Luiza de França Sá, Giuseppina Marsico
The challenges faced by science in the international communication process range from the choice of philosophical and epistemological assumptions used in scientific research to the choice of participants who comprise the sample of the studies produced. There is, in the hierarchy of scientific production, Westernized trends of theoretical assumptions that predominate. The challenge of producing and communicating scientific knowledge is now guided by a review that geographically and philosophically shifts the Western prominent place. The purpose of this article is use a decolonial perspective to theoretically problematize scientific practice and the process of publishing its results. It criticizes the assembly line in which psychology ends, especially in the publication of results as a condition for the constitution of scientific communities. The scientific community can assist in the dissemination of a certain theory, but it can also constitute an obstacle to new ideas. It points to decoloniality as an alternative path as a possibility of breaking with the production-line logic of publications. By presenting the example of González Rey’s theory of subjectivity, it advocates the history-education-time tripod as necessary elements to address contemporary crises studied by psychology. The article demonstrates the possibility of rupture with the market-related scientific status quo.
科学在国际交流过程中面临的挑战范围广泛,从科学研究中使用的哲学和认识论假设的选择到所产生的研究样本的参与者的选择。在科学生产的等级制度中,理论假设的西方化趋势占主导地位。生产和传播科学知识的挑战现在受到一种审视的指导,这种审视在地理上和哲学上改变了西方的突出地位。这篇文章的目的是用一个非殖民化的角度来从理论上对科学实践和发表其结果的过程提出问题。它批评了心理学终结的流水线,尤其是将结果的发表作为构成科学共同体的条件。科学界可以帮助某种理论的传播,但它也可能成为新思想的障碍。它指出,非殖民化是一种替代途径,是打破出版物生产线逻辑的一种可能性。本文以González雷伊的主体性理论为例,倡导将历史-教育-时间三脚架作为解决心理学研究的当代危机的必要要素。文章论证了与市场相关的科学现状决裂的可能性。
{"title":"Decoloniality and Disruption of the Scientific Status Quo: Dissemination of Universal Theoretical Assumptions in International Research","authors":"Ana Luiza de França Sá, Giuseppina Marsico","doi":"10.1177/10892680211065169","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211065169","url":null,"abstract":"The challenges faced by science in the international communication process range from the choice of philosophical and epistemological assumptions used in scientific research to the choice of participants who comprise the sample of the studies produced. There is, in the hierarchy of scientific production, Westernized trends of theoretical assumptions that predominate. The challenge of producing and communicating scientific knowledge is now guided by a review that geographically and philosophically shifts the Western prominent place. The purpose of this article is use a decolonial perspective to theoretically problematize scientific practice and the process of publishing its results. It criticizes the assembly line in which psychology ends, especially in the publication of results as a condition for the constitution of scientific communities. The scientific community can assist in the dissemination of a certain theory, but it can also constitute an obstacle to new ideas. It points to decoloniality as an alternative path as a possibility of breaking with the production-line logic of publications. By presenting the example of González Rey’s theory of subjectivity, it advocates the history-education-time tripod as necessary elements to address contemporary crises studied by psychology. The article demonstrates the possibility of rupture with the market-related scientific status quo.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"416 - 425"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41539874","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}
引用次数: 1
Meaning-Change Through the Mistaken Mirror: On the Indeterminacy of “Wundt” and “Piaget” in Translation 从错误的镜子看意义的变化——论“冯特”和“皮亚杰”翻译中的不确定性
IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2022-01-04 DOI: 10.1177/10892680211017521
Jeremy Trevelyan Burman

What does a name mean in translation? Quine argued, famously, that the meaning of gavagai is indeterminate until you learn the language that uses that word to refer to its object. The case is similar with scientific texts, especially if they are older; historical. Because the meanings of terms can drift over time, so too can the meanings that inform experiments and theory. As can a life’s body of work and its contributions. Surely, these are also the meanings of a name; shortcuts to descriptions of the author who produced them, or of their thought (or maybe their collaborations). We are then led to wonder whether the names of scientists may also mean different things in different languages. Or even in the same language. This problem is examined here by leveraging the insights of historians of psychology who found that the meaning of “Wundt” changed in translation: his experimentalism was retained, and his Völkerpsychologie lost, so that what Wundt meant was altered even as his work—and his name—informed the disciplining of Modern Psychology as an experimental science. Those insights are then turned here into a general argument, regarding meaning-change in translation, but using a quantitative examination of the translations of Piaget’s books from French into English and German. It is therefore Piaget who has the focus here, evidentially, but the goal is broader: understanding and theorizing “the mistaken mirror” that reflects only what you can think to see (with implications for replication and institutional memory).

名字在翻译中是什么意思?奎因提出了一个著名的观点,即gavagai的含义是不确定的,直到你学会了用这个词来指代它的对象的语言。这种情况与科学文献类似,尤其是那些年代较长的文献;历史。因为术语的含义会随着时间的推移而变化,所以为实验和理论提供信息的含义也会随着时间的推移而变化。一生的工作和贡献也是如此。当然,这些也是名字的含义;作者描述的快捷键,或者他们的想法(或者他们的合作)。于是,我们不禁要问,科学家的名字在不同的语言中是否也有不同的含义。甚至用同一种语言。这个问题是通过利用心理学历史学家的见解来检验的,他们发现“冯特”的含义在翻译中发生了变化:他的实验主义被保留了下来,他的Völkerpsychologie丢失了,所以冯特的意思被改变了,即使他的作品和他的名字告诉了现代心理学作为一门实验科学的学科。这些见解随后被转化为一般性的论点,关于翻译中的意义变化,但通过对皮亚杰著作从法语翻译成英语和德语的定量研究。因此,皮亚杰显然是这里的焦点,但目标更广泛:理解和理论化“错误的镜子”,它只反映了你能想到的东西(包括复制和制度记忆)。
{"title":"Meaning-Change Through the Mistaken Mirror: On the Indeterminacy of “Wundt” and “Piaget” in Translation","authors":"Jeremy Trevelyan Burman","doi":"10.1177/10892680211017521","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211017521","url":null,"abstract":"<p>What does <i>a name</i> mean in translation? Quine argued, famously, that the meaning of <i>gavagai</i> is indeterminate until you learn the language that uses that word to refer to its object. The case is similar with scientific texts, especially if they are older; historical. Because the meanings of terms can drift over time, so too can the meanings that inform experiments and theory. As can a life’s <i>body of work</i> and its contributions. Surely, these are also the meanings of a name; shortcuts to descriptions of the author who produced them, or of their thought (or maybe their collaborations). We are then led to wonder whether the names <i>of scientists</i> may also mean different things in different languages. Or even in the same language. This problem is examined here by leveraging the insights of historians of psychology who found that the meaning of “Wundt” changed in translation: his experimentalism was retained, and his <i>Völkerpsychologie</i> lost, so that <i>what Wundt meant</i> was altered even as his work—and his name—informed the disciplining of Modern Psychology as an experimental science. Those insights are then turned here into a general argument, regarding meaning-change in translation, but using a quantitative examination of the translations of Piaget’s books from French into English and German. It is therefore Piaget who has the focus here, evidentially, but the goal is broader: understanding and theorizing “the mistaken mirror” that reflects only what you can think to see (with implications for replication and institutional memory).</p>","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"35 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138512545","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}
引用次数: 0
Reducing Prejudice Through Promoting Cross-Group Friendships 通过促进跨群体友谊减少偏见
IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-12-09 DOI: 10.1177/10892680211061262
M. Killen, Katherine V Luken Raz, S. Graham
Around the globe, individuals are affected by exclusion, discrimination, and prejudice targeting individuals from racial, ethnic, and immigrant backgrounds as well as crimes based on gender, nationality, and culture (United Nations General Assembly, 2016). Unfortunately, children are often the targeted victims (Costello & Dillard, 2019). What is not widely understood is that the intergroup biases underlying systemic racism start long before adulthood with children displaying notable signs of intergroup bias, sometimes before entering grade school. Intergroup bias refers to the tendency to evaluate members of one’s own group more favorably than someone not identified with one’s group and is typically associated with prejudicial attitudes. Children are both the victims and the perpetrators of bias. In this review, we provide evidence of how biases emerge in childhood, along with an analysis of the significant role of intergroup friendships on enhancing children’s well-being and reducing prejudice in childhood. The review focuses predominantly on the context of race, with the inclusion of several other categories, such as nationality and religion. Fostering positive cross-group friendships in childhood helps to address the negative long-term consequences of racism, discrimination, and prejudice that emerges in childhood and continues through to adulthood.
在全球范围内,个人受到针对种族、族裔和移民背景的排斥、歧视和偏见的影响,以及基于性别、国籍和文化的犯罪(联合国大会,2016年)。不幸的是,儿童往往是目标受害者(Costello&Dillard,2019)。尚未被广泛理解的是,系统性种族主义背后的群体间偏见早在成年之前就开始了,儿童表现出明显的群体间偏差迹象,有时在进入小学之前。群体间偏见是指对自己群体成员的评价比不认同自己群体的人更有利的倾向,通常与偏见态度有关。儿童既是偏见的受害者,也是偏见的肇事者。在这篇综述中,我们提供了偏见如何在儿童时期出现的证据,并分析了群体间友谊在增强儿童幸福感和减少儿童时期偏见方面的重要作用。审查主要侧重于种族背景,包括国籍和宗教等其他几个类别。在童年时期培养积极的跨群体友谊有助于解决儿童时期出现并持续到成年的种族主义、歧视和偏见的负面长期后果。
{"title":"Reducing Prejudice Through Promoting Cross-Group Friendships","authors":"M. Killen, Katherine V Luken Raz, S. Graham","doi":"10.1177/10892680211061262","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211061262","url":null,"abstract":"Around the globe, individuals are affected by exclusion, discrimination, and prejudice targeting individuals from racial, ethnic, and immigrant backgrounds as well as crimes based on gender, nationality, and culture (United Nations General Assembly, 2016). Unfortunately, children are often the targeted victims (Costello & Dillard, 2019). What is not widely understood is that the intergroup biases underlying systemic racism start long before adulthood with children displaying notable signs of intergroup bias, sometimes before entering grade school. Intergroup bias refers to the tendency to evaluate members of one’s own group more favorably than someone not identified with one’s group and is typically associated with prejudicial attitudes. Children are both the victims and the perpetrators of bias. In this review, we provide evidence of how biases emerge in childhood, along with an analysis of the significant role of intergroup friendships on enhancing children’s well-being and reducing prejudice in childhood. The review focuses predominantly on the context of race, with the inclusion of several other categories, such as nationality and religion. Fostering positive cross-group friendships in childhood helps to address the negative long-term consequences of racism, discrimination, and prejudice that emerges in childhood and continues through to adulthood.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"361 - 376"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49504039","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}
引用次数: 13
The AMIGAS Model: Reconciling Prejudice Reduction and Collective Action Approaches Through a Multicultural Commitment in Intergroup Relations AMIGAS模型:通过群体间关系中的多元文化承诺调和偏见减少和集体行动方法
IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-12-08 DOI: 10.1177/10892680211056321
Ana Urbiola, C. McGarty, Rui Costa-Lopes
Social psychology’s search for ways to address intergroup inequality has grappled with two approaches that have been considered incompatible: (a) the prejudice reduction approach, that argues that changing individual negative attitudes will undermine the basis for discrimination and lead to intergroup harmony; and (b) the collective action approach, that argues that social protest and activism can improve the position of disadvantaged groups. The problem is that efforts toward prejudice reduction may serve to suppress genuine efforts to change. We propose the Achieving Multicultural Integration of Groups Across Society (AMIGAS) model, in which a multicultural commitment is proposed as a driver of both improved intergroup evaluations and promotion of collective action for reduced inequality, especially in contexts where there are conditions for a respectful intercultural dialogue. The AMIGAS model is a theoretical advance in the field of intergroup relations and a basis for implementing effective egalitarian policies and practices.
社会心理学在寻找解决群体间不平等的方法时,遇到了两种被认为不兼容的方法:(a)减少偏见的方法,认为改变个人的消极态度将破坏歧视的基础,并导致群体间和谐;以及(b)集体行动方法,认为社会抗议和行动主义可以改善弱势群体的地位。问题是,减少偏见的努力可能会压制真正的变革努力。我们提出了“实现跨社会群体的多文化融合”(AMIGAS)模式,在该模式中,多元文化承诺被提议作为改进群体间评估和促进减少不平等的集体行动的驱动力,特别是在有条件进行尊重的跨文化对话的情况下。AMIGAS模型是群体间关系领域的理论进步,也是实施有效的平等主义政策和实践的基础。
{"title":"The AMIGAS Model: Reconciling Prejudice Reduction and Collective Action Approaches Through a Multicultural Commitment in Intergroup Relations","authors":"Ana Urbiola, C. McGarty, Rui Costa-Lopes","doi":"10.1177/10892680211056321","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211056321","url":null,"abstract":"Social psychology’s search for ways to address intergroup inequality has grappled with two approaches that have been considered incompatible: (a) the prejudice reduction approach, that argues that changing individual negative attitudes will undermine the basis for discrimination and lead to intergroup harmony; and (b) the collective action approach, that argues that social protest and activism can improve the position of disadvantaged groups. The problem is that efforts toward prejudice reduction may serve to suppress genuine efforts to change. We propose the Achieving Multicultural Integration of Groups Across Society (AMIGAS) model, in which a multicultural commitment is proposed as a driver of both improved intergroup evaluations and promotion of collective action for reduced inequality, especially in contexts where there are conditions for a respectful intercultural dialogue. The AMIGAS model is a theoretical advance in the field of intergroup relations and a basis for implementing effective egalitarian policies and practices.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"68 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44853538","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}
引用次数: 3
Developmental Prevention of Prejudice: Conceptual Issues, Evidence-Based Designing, and Outcome Results 偏见的发展性预防:概念问题、循证设计和结果
IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-12-07 DOI: 10.1177/10892680211056314
A. Beelmann, Sebastian Lutterbach
This article reviews conceptual and empirical issues on the developmental prevention of prejudice in childhood and adolescence. Developmental prejudice prevention is defined as interventions that intentionally change and promote intergroup attitudes and behavior by systematically recognizing theories and empirical results on the development of prejudice in young people. After presenting a general conception of designing evidence-based interventions, we will discuss the application of this model in the field of developmental prejudice prevention. This includes the legitimation, a developmental concept of change, and the derivation of intervention content and implementation. Finally, we summarized recent evaluations results by reviewing meta-analytical evidence of programs and discuss important issues of future research and practice.
本文综述了儿童和青少年期偏见的发展预防的概念和实证问题。发展性偏见预防被定义为通过系统地认识青少年偏见发展的理论和实证结果,有意改变和促进群体间态度和行为的干预措施。在介绍了设计循证干预措施的一般概念之后,我们将讨论该模型在发育性偏见预防领域的应用。这包括合法化,变革的发展概念,以及干预内容和实施的衍生。最后,我们通过回顾项目的元分析证据总结了最近的评估结果,并讨论了未来研究和实践的重要问题。
{"title":"Developmental Prevention of Prejudice: Conceptual Issues, Evidence-Based Designing, and Outcome Results","authors":"A. Beelmann, Sebastian Lutterbach","doi":"10.1177/10892680211056314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211056314","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews conceptual and empirical issues on the developmental prevention of prejudice in childhood and adolescence. Developmental prejudice prevention is defined as interventions that intentionally change and promote intergroup attitudes and behavior by systematically recognizing theories and empirical results on the development of prejudice in young people. After presenting a general conception of designing evidence-based interventions, we will discuss the application of this model in the field of developmental prejudice prevention. This includes the legitimation, a developmental concept of change, and the derivation of intervention content and implementation. Finally, we summarized recent evaluations results by reviewing meta-analytical evidence of programs and discuss important issues of future research and practice.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"298 - 316"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48298423","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}
引用次数: 8
Ethnic-Racial Identity as a Source of Resilience and Resistance in the Context of Racism and Xenophobia 在种族主义和仇外心理背景下,族裔-种族认同是恢复力和抵抗力的源泉
IF 4.2 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Pub Date : 2021-12-06 DOI: 10.1177/10892680211056318
Deborah Rivas‐Drake, Bernardette J. Pinetta, Linda P. Juang, Abunya C. Agi
How youth come to understand their social identities and their relation to others’ identities can have important implications for the future of our society. In this article, we focus on how ethnic-racial identities (ERI) can serve to promote (or hinder) collective well-being. We first describe the nature of change in ethnic-racial identities over the course of childhood and adolescence. We then delineate three pathways by which youths’ ERI can be a mechanism for productive intergroup relations and thereby collective well-being as a: (a) basis for understanding differences and finding commonalities across groups; (b) promotive and protective resource for marginalized youth; and (c) springboard for recognizing and disrupting marginalization. This article concludes with how youths’ ERI can be nurtured into a source of resilience and resistance in the face of racism and xenophobia. Moreover, we urge researchers to consider the role ERI plays in guiding youth to challenge and resist marginalization.
年轻人如何理解他们的社会身份,以及他们与他人身份的关系,对我们社会的未来有着重要的影响。在这篇文章中,我们关注种族认同(ERI)如何促进(或阻碍)集体福祉。我们首先描述了在童年和青少年时期种族认同变化的本质。然后,我们描绘了三种途径,通过这些途径,青年的ERI可以成为生产性群体间关系的机制,从而作为集体福祉:(a)理解差异和发现群体之间的共同点的基础;(b)为边缘青年提供促进和保护资源;(c)承认和破坏边缘化的跳板。本文总结了如何将青年的ERI培养成面对种族主义和仇外心理的韧性和抵抗力的源泉。此外,我们敦促研究人员考虑ERI在指导青年挑战和抵制边缘化方面所起的作用。
{"title":"Ethnic-Racial Identity as a Source of Resilience and Resistance in the Context of Racism and Xenophobia","authors":"Deborah Rivas‐Drake, Bernardette J. Pinetta, Linda P. Juang, Abunya C. Agi","doi":"10.1177/10892680211056318","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211056318","url":null,"abstract":"How youth come to understand their social identities and their relation to others’ identities can have important implications for the future of our society. In this article, we focus on how ethnic-racial identities (ERI) can serve to promote (or hinder) collective well-being. We first describe the nature of change in ethnic-racial identities over the course of childhood and adolescence. We then delineate three pathways by which youths’ ERI can be a mechanism for productive intergroup relations and thereby collective well-being as a: (a) basis for understanding differences and finding commonalities across groups; (b) promotive and protective resource for marginalized youth; and (c) springboard for recognizing and disrupting marginalization. This article concludes with how youths’ ERI can be nurtured into a source of resilience and resistance in the face of racism and xenophobia. Moreover, we urge researchers to consider the role ERI plays in guiding youth to challenge and resist marginalization.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"317 - 326"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2021-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41835881","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}
引用次数: 17
期刊
Review of General Psychology
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1