Pub Date : 2022-03-22DOI: 10.1177/10892680221077242
C. Edmunds, Adam J. L. Harris, Magda Osman
A complete understanding of decision-making in military domains requires gathering insights from several fields of study. To make the task tractable, here we consider a specific example of short-term tactical decisions under uncertainty made by the military at sea. Through this lens, we sketch out relevant literature from three psychological tasks each underpinned by decision-making processes: categorisation, communication and choice. From the literature, we note two general cognitive tendencies that emerge across all three stages: the effect of cognitive load and individual differences. Drawing on these tendencies, we recommend strategies, tools and future research that could improve performance in military domains – but, by extension, would also generalise to other high-stakes contexts. In so doing, we show the extent to which domain general properties of high order cognition are sufficient in explaining behaviours in domain specific contexts.
{"title":"Applying Insights on Categorisation, Communication, and Dynamic Decision-Making: A Case Study of a ‘Simple’ Maritime Military Decision","authors":"C. Edmunds, Adam J. L. Harris, Magda Osman","doi":"10.1177/10892680221077242","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680221077242","url":null,"abstract":"A complete understanding of decision-making in military domains requires gathering insights from several fields of study. To make the task tractable, here we consider a specific example of short-term tactical decisions under uncertainty made by the military at sea. Through this lens, we sketch out relevant literature from three psychological tasks each underpinned by decision-making processes: categorisation, communication and choice. From the literature, we note two general cognitive tendencies that emerge across all three stages: the effect of cognitive load and individual differences. Drawing on these tendencies, we recommend strategies, tools and future research that could improve performance in military domains – but, by extension, would also generalise to other high-stakes contexts. In so doing, we show the extent to which domain general properties of high order cognition are sufficient in explaining behaviours in domain specific contexts.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45873740","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 : 2022-03-04DOI: 10.1177/10892680211060027
Catrinel Tromp
Despite their negative connotation, and the pervasiveness of blue-sky, outside-the-box thinking metaphors, constraints are at the heart of creativity. Using a multidisciplinary approach, as part of the Integrated Constraints in Creativity (IConIC) model, I propose that creative outcomes emerge from the successful leveraging of different types of constraints. I introduce a new, constraint-based definition of creativity, grounded in categorization theory, and parsimonious taxonomies of constraints based on which I outline testable predictions and corroborating evidence. I argue that constraints differ in terms of their flexibility (fixed, faux-fixed, or flexible) and functions (exclusionary or focusing), and in terms of whether they apply to the problem search time or the problem search space. Within the search space, constraints can refer to specific concepts or categories. I also advance a distinction between creativity maximizers and satisficers as a function of creativity goals, semantic networks, expertise, and the new constructs of constraint leveraging power and constraint leveraging mindset, that help to explain differences in successful integration of constraints for creativity and creative achievement.
{"title":"Integrated Constraints in Creativity: Foundations for a Unifying Model","authors":"Catrinel Tromp","doi":"10.1177/10892680211060027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211060027","url":null,"abstract":"Despite their negative connotation, and the pervasiveness of blue-sky, outside-the-box thinking metaphors, constraints are at the heart of creativity. Using a multidisciplinary approach, as part of the Integrated Constraints in Creativity (IConIC) model, I propose that creative outcomes emerge from the successful leveraging of different types of constraints. I introduce a new, constraint-based definition of creativity, grounded in categorization theory, and parsimonious taxonomies of constraints based on which I outline testable predictions and corroborating evidence. I argue that constraints differ in terms of their flexibility (fixed, faux-fixed, or flexible) and functions (exclusionary or focusing), and in terms of whether they apply to the problem search time or the problem search space. Within the search space, constraints can refer to specific concepts or categories. I also advance a distinction between creativity maximizers and satisficers as a function of creativity goals, semantic networks, expertise, and the new constructs of constraint leveraging power and constraint leveraging mindset, that help to explain differences in successful integration of constraints for creativity and creative achievement.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48598105","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 : 2022-03-02DOI: 10.1177/10892680221077997
L. Malich, M. Munafo
The replication crisis has preoccupied psychology for over a decade and has led to many reform proposals. In this Special Issue, we argue that a reflexive discussion of both the replication crisis and possible reforms is crucial. With the plural ‘replication of crises’ in the title, we want to make clear that the current crisis is more than one. What is perceived as a crisis varies depending on the scientific field, theoretical background, and epistemological perspective. As a consequence, this Special Issue aims to promote both an intra-disciplinary dialogue between scientific and theoretical psychology, and an inter-disciplinary dialogue between psychology, the humanities and the social sciences. The individual contributions focus on three central questions: (1) What is specific about the replication crisis in psychology? (2) What are the connections between the replication crisis in psychology and that in other scientific fields? (3) What are possible underlying causes of the replication crisis in psychology, and what are the opportunities for improvement? Although each of the articles offers a unique and sometimes challenging perspective to understanding the replication crisis, they all share the assumption that we need to reflect in order to learn and improve.
{"title":"Introduction: Replication of Crises - Interdisciplinary Reflections on the Phenomenon of the Replication Crisis in Psychology","authors":"L. Malich, M. Munafo","doi":"10.1177/10892680221077997","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680221077997","url":null,"abstract":"The replication crisis has preoccupied psychology for over a decade and has led to many reform proposals. In this Special Issue, we argue that a reflexive discussion of both the replication crisis and possible reforms is crucial. With the plural ‘replication of crises’ in the title, we want to make clear that the current crisis is more than one. What is perceived as a crisis varies depending on the scientific field, theoretical background, and epistemological perspective. As a consequence, this Special Issue aims to promote both an intra-disciplinary dialogue between scientific and theoretical psychology, and an inter-disciplinary dialogue between psychology, the humanities and the social sciences. The individual contributions focus on three central questions: (1) What is specific about the replication crisis in psychology? (2) What are the connections between the replication crisis in psychology and that in other scientific fields? (3) What are possible underlying causes of the replication crisis in psychology, and what are the opportunities for improvement? Although each of the articles offers a unique and sometimes challenging perspective to understanding the replication crisis, they all share the assumption that we need to reflect in order to learn and improve.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46007174","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 : 2022-02-24DOI: 10.1177/10892680211055660
F. Callard
Discussions of the replication crisis in psychology require more substantive analysis of the crisis of academic labour and of social reproduction in the university. Both the replication crisis and the crisis of social reproduction in the university describe a failure in processes of reproducing something. The financial crisis of 2007–8 shortly preceded the emergence of the replication crisis, as well as exacerbated ongoing tendencies in the organisation and practices of university research (particularly the use of precarious contracts and the adjunctification of research). These provide two reasons to address these two named crises together. But many analyses of and responses to the replication crisis turn to research culture, often at the expense of adequate investigations of research labour. Today’s psychological sciences are made through multiple forms of labour: these include researchers, who range from senior principal investigators to sub-contracted, and exploited, research assistants; research participants/subjects, who include those providing labour for experiments via exploitative platforms including Amazon Mechanical Turk; and workers providing heterogeneous technical and administrative labour. Through understanding what is at stake for these multiple forms of labour, psychology might better analyse problems besetting psychology today, as well as develop different imaginaries and practices for how to address them.
{"title":"Replication and Reproduction: Crises in Psychology and Academic Labour","authors":"F. Callard","doi":"10.1177/10892680211055660","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211055660","url":null,"abstract":"Discussions of the replication crisis in psychology require more substantive analysis of the crisis of academic labour and of social reproduction in the university. Both the replication crisis and the crisis of social reproduction in the university describe a failure in processes of reproducing something. The financial crisis of 2007–8 shortly preceded the emergence of the replication crisis, as well as exacerbated ongoing tendencies in the organisation and practices of university research (particularly the use of precarious contracts and the adjunctification of research). These provide two reasons to address these two named crises together. But many analyses of and responses to the replication crisis turn to research culture, often at the expense of adequate investigations of research labour. Today’s psychological sciences are made through multiple forms of labour: these include researchers, who range from senior principal investigators to sub-contracted, and exploited, research assistants; research participants/subjects, who include those providing labour for experiments via exploitative platforms including Amazon Mechanical Turk; and workers providing heterogeneous technical and administrative labour. Through understanding what is at stake for these multiple forms of labour, psychology might better analyse problems besetting psychology today, as well as develop different imaginaries and practices for how to address them.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46853525","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 : 2022-02-23DOI: 10.1177/10892680211046517
Linda R. Tropp, F. White, Christina L. Rucinski, C. Tredoux
Intergroup contact has long been lauded as a key intervention to reduce prejudice and improve intergroup attitudes among youth. In this review, we summarize classic perspectives and new developments in the intergroup contact literature, highlighting both prospects and challenges associated with achieving desired youth outcomes through contact. First, we review literature showing how positive intergroup outcomes can be facilitated through cultivating optimal conditions for contact, as well as by attending to youth’s emotional responses to contact. We then discuss how desired contact outcomes may be inhibited by limited understanding of ways in which contact strategies may affect youth across developmental stages, as well as by limited focus on societal inequalities and intergroup conflict, which require examination of outcomes beyond prejudice reduction. We also review growing bodies of research on indirect contact strategies—such as extended contact, vicarious contact, and online contact—showing many options that can be used to promote positive relations among youth from diverse backgrounds, beyond the contact literature’s traditional focus on face-to-face interaction. We conclude this review by acknowledging how understanding both prospects and challenges associated with implementing contact strategies can enhance our capacity to prepare youth to embrace group differences and build more inclusive societies.
{"title":"Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Reduction: Prospects and Challenges in Changing Youth Attitudes","authors":"Linda R. Tropp, F. White, Christina L. Rucinski, C. Tredoux","doi":"10.1177/10892680211046517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211046517","url":null,"abstract":"Intergroup contact has long been lauded as a key intervention to reduce prejudice and improve intergroup attitudes among youth. In this review, we summarize classic perspectives and new developments in the intergroup contact literature, highlighting both prospects and challenges associated with achieving desired youth outcomes through contact. First, we review literature showing how positive intergroup outcomes can be facilitated through cultivating optimal conditions for contact, as well as by attending to youth’s emotional responses to contact. We then discuss how desired contact outcomes may be inhibited by limited understanding of ways in which contact strategies may affect youth across developmental stages, as well as by limited focus on societal inequalities and intergroup conflict, which require examination of outcomes beyond prejudice reduction. We also review growing bodies of research on indirect contact strategies—such as extended contact, vicarious contact, and online contact—showing many options that can be used to promote positive relations among youth from diverse backgrounds, beyond the contact literature’s traditional focus on face-to-face interaction. We conclude this review by acknowledging how understanding both prospects and challenges associated with implementing contact strategies can enhance our capacity to prepare youth to embrace group differences and build more inclusive societies.","PeriodicalId":48306,"journal":{"name":"Review of General Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2022-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41361539","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 : 2022-02-04DOI: 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
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-31DOI: 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.
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-21DOI: 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.
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-20DOI: 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.
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-19DOI: 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.
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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：