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":"26 1","pages":"199 - 211"},"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":"26 1","pages":"342 - 360"},"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":"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}
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":"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}
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":"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}
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":"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}
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":"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}
Pub Date : 2022-01-04DOI: 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).
{"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}
Pub Date : 2021-12-08DOI: 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.
{"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}
Pub Date : 2021-12-07DOI: 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.
{"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}
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：