Pub Date : 2023-04-03DOI: 10.1080/1047840x.2023.2248860
Roberto Posada, Gustavo A. Peña
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
点击放大图片点击缩小图片披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。
{"title":"Defining Morality for Psychology: The Risk of Integrating Paradigms","authors":"Roberto Posada, Gustavo A. Peña","doi":"10.1080/1047840x.2023.2248860","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2023.2248860","url":null,"abstract":"Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135717873","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192649
J. Sheehy‐Skeffington, Lotte Thomsen
All group-living animals must coordinate securing and distributing territory, resources, rights, and care. Human society presents a ubiquitous and unsurpassed level of cooperation extending deep into our psychology, which evolved to enable and exploit the transmission of generations of accumulated cultural knowledge in part in service of securing the resources necessary for groups to survive and thrive in varied habitats (Richerson & Boyd, 2005). These processes present a series of critical questions about how reciprocal cooperation beyond immediate kin may be sustained within cultural groups so as to not be undermined by defectors (see e.g., Trivers, 1971; Van Veelen, Garc ıa, Rand, & Nowak, 2012; Sugden, 1986; Nowak & Sigmund, 2005; Panchanathan & Boyd, 2004, 2005; Boyd & Mathew, 2021; Richerson & Boyd, 2005), pointing to the importance of enforcing shared moral norms for what is a fair manner of cooperating in the production and distribution of adaptive benefits (cf. Panchanathan & Boyd, 2004; Richerson & Boyd, 2005; Boyd & Mathew, 2021; see also Rai & Fiske, 2011, Fiske & Rai, 2014). Alongside the role of history and cultural context in setting what is seen as fair, the complexity of the social world gives people considerable moral wiggle room for applying and reasoning about general justice norms in motivated, selective, opportunistic ways that best further their own particular interests (cf. Batson, 2008; Dana, Weber, & Kuang, 2007; Eftedal et al., 2022; Eftedal & Thomsen, 2021; Kahan, 2016; Kunda, 1990; Larson & Capra, 2009; Regner & Matthey, 2005; Slothuus & De Vreese, 2010), likely often without even realizing that they are doing so (cf. Eftedal & Thomsen, 2021). The result is a situation in which different parties and coalitions may be in stark ideological conflict while everybody is nevertheless convinced that universal morals and justice support their particular partisan point of view. With the goal of understanding the shared rationality and morality underlying both sides of the political spectrum, Baumeister and Bushman (this issue) connect psychological insights to those from the study of evolution, culture, history, and politics. They argue that human’s evolved readiness for culture yields two abilities and related sets of preferences concerning the generation of resources on the one hand, and their distribution, on the other. It is suggested that these opposed orientations are differentially triggered by working in jobs that are linked with resource generation versus redistribution, yielding ideological groups primarily concerned with one societal function over another, while societal flourishing in fact demands a healthy dose of both. Here, we bracket the question of the factors that lead to social and economic flourishing (whether in historical or contemporary context), one deep within the domains of history, sociology, anthropology, macroeconomics, and political science. We instead focus on efforts toward an evolutionarily att
{"title":"Ideology as a Moral-Relational Language","authors":"J. Sheehy‐Skeffington, Lotte Thomsen","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192649","url":null,"abstract":"All group-living animals must coordinate securing and distributing territory, resources, rights, and care. Human society presents a ubiquitous and unsurpassed level of cooperation extending deep into our psychology, which evolved to enable and exploit the transmission of generations of accumulated cultural knowledge in part in service of securing the resources necessary for groups to survive and thrive in varied habitats (Richerson & Boyd, 2005). These processes present a series of critical questions about how reciprocal cooperation beyond immediate kin may be sustained within cultural groups so as to not be undermined by defectors (see e.g., Trivers, 1971; Van Veelen, Garc ıa, Rand, & Nowak, 2012; Sugden, 1986; Nowak & Sigmund, 2005; Panchanathan & Boyd, 2004, 2005; Boyd & Mathew, 2021; Richerson & Boyd, 2005), pointing to the importance of enforcing shared moral norms for what is a fair manner of cooperating in the production and distribution of adaptive benefits (cf. Panchanathan & Boyd, 2004; Richerson & Boyd, 2005; Boyd & Mathew, 2021; see also Rai & Fiske, 2011, Fiske & Rai, 2014). Alongside the role of history and cultural context in setting what is seen as fair, the complexity of the social world gives people considerable moral wiggle room for applying and reasoning about general justice norms in motivated, selective, opportunistic ways that best further their own particular interests (cf. Batson, 2008; Dana, Weber, & Kuang, 2007; Eftedal et al., 2022; Eftedal & Thomsen, 2021; Kahan, 2016; Kunda, 1990; Larson & Capra, 2009; Regner & Matthey, 2005; Slothuus & De Vreese, 2010), likely often without even realizing that they are doing so (cf. Eftedal & Thomsen, 2021). The result is a situation in which different parties and coalitions may be in stark ideological conflict while everybody is nevertheless convinced that universal morals and justice support their particular partisan point of view. With the goal of understanding the shared rationality and morality underlying both sides of the political spectrum, Baumeister and Bushman (this issue) connect psychological insights to those from the study of evolution, culture, history, and politics. They argue that human’s evolved readiness for culture yields two abilities and related sets of preferences concerning the generation of resources on the one hand, and their distribution, on the other. It is suggested that these opposed orientations are differentially triggered by working in jobs that are linked with resource generation versus redistribution, yielding ideological groups primarily concerned with one societal function over another, while societal flourishing in fact demands a healthy dose of both. Here, we bracket the question of the factors that lead to social and economic flourishing (whether in historical or contemporary context), one deep within the domains of history, sociology, anthropology, macroeconomics, and political science. We instead focus on efforts toward an evolutionarily att","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"34 1","pages":"35 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42978722","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192652
Kevin B. Smith
Baumeister and Bushman (this issue) offer a cultural animal theory of partisan hostility (hereafter CAT) with the specific aim of explaining the root drivers of political conflict. CAT posits that competition for power revolves around oppositional worldviews reflecting preferences attached to the two primary objectives of all successful societies: amassing and distributing resources. Based on this premise CAT seeks not only to help explain the persistence of the themes motivating political conflict, but also to shed light on the underlying causes of growing levels affective polarization widely documented in the United States and other liberal democracies. CAT takes on a large and complicated slice of the social world; its stated scope is to cover nothing less than the majority of political conflict. That is an ambitious goal for any theoretical project, and the sheer variety and complexity of the analytical target means explanatory gaps and exceptions are inevitable. To their credit, Baumeister and Bushman recognize this, and explicitly acknowledge that CAT makes no claims to be a universal explanatory framework, but is a formulation aimed at being, “correct far more often than not.” Within the limits hinted at, CAT is, in my judgment, quite successful. It is certainly a framework that can be readily employed to generate testable hypotheses, and may point to de-escalation opportunities. While I find much to praise in this framework, in what follows I focus on what I see as two key, and not fully acknowledged, limitations of CAT. I argue that CAT is essentially an economic theory of political conflict which, if correct, has two important implications: (1) A broad swath of the explanatory horsepower CAT is designed to provide is readily available from existing frameworks, and, (2) like other economic theories CAT’s explanatory power decreases considerably when the focus shifts from self-interested resource distribution to the conflicts anchored in social values, and it is the latter that is core to understanding hostile partisan disagreements.
{"title":"Economic Values, Social Values and Cultural Animal Theory","authors":"Kevin B. Smith","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192652","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192652","url":null,"abstract":"Baumeister and Bushman (this issue) offer a cultural animal theory of partisan hostility (hereafter CAT) with the specific aim of explaining the root drivers of political conflict. CAT posits that competition for power revolves around oppositional worldviews reflecting preferences attached to the two primary objectives of all successful societies: amassing and distributing resources. Based on this premise CAT seeks not only to help explain the persistence of the themes motivating political conflict, but also to shed light on the underlying causes of growing levels affective polarization widely documented in the United States and other liberal democracies. CAT takes on a large and complicated slice of the social world; its stated scope is to cover nothing less than the majority of political conflict. That is an ambitious goal for any theoretical project, and the sheer variety and complexity of the analytical target means explanatory gaps and exceptions are inevitable. To their credit, Baumeister and Bushman recognize this, and explicitly acknowledge that CAT makes no claims to be a universal explanatory framework, but is a formulation aimed at being, “correct far more often than not.” Within the limits hinted at, CAT is, in my judgment, quite successful. It is certainly a framework that can be readily employed to generate testable hypotheses, and may point to de-escalation opportunities. While I find much to praise in this framework, in what follows I focus on what I see as two key, and not fully acknowledged, limitations of CAT. I argue that CAT is essentially an economic theory of political conflict which, if correct, has two important implications: (1) A broad swath of the explanatory horsepower CAT is designed to provide is readily available from existing frameworks, and, (2) like other economic theories CAT’s explanatory power decreases considerably when the focus shifts from self-interested resource distribution to the conflicts anchored in social values, and it is the latter that is core to understanding hostile partisan disagreements.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"34 1","pages":"43 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42861639","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192643
Karl Aquino, Maja Graso, Stefan Thau
Baumeister and Bushman (this issue) present a parsimonious explanation for why the conflict between the left and right is inevitable, sometimes hostile, and prone to escalation. They propose that one way to reduce the intensity of the political polarization is for people on the political right and left to accept a turn-taking arrangement. Central to their argument for why alternations in power can be effective for reducing intergroup conflict is that both parties endorse values that are functional for society, even if their aims are not always reflected in their policies. The core assumption of their cultural animal theory is that the right prioritizes amassing resources, while the left prioritizes sharing or redistributing resources. If each side is given a chance to lead and translate their priorities into policy, the excesses of one regime can be counterbalanced by the excesses of the next, and society will improve as a result. We offer a few observations about their analysis and suggest some plausible amendments to their theory. The model Baumeister and Bushman introduce as being most advantageous for promoting group survival, flourishing, and social stability in a democracy is dialectical. In this regard, they occupy the same territory as thinkers like Hegel (1807/2019) and Marx (1867/2004), who also believed that historical progress toward a superior end-state results from conflict between competing groups. We can imagine how a political dialectic could produce healthier, more prosperous collectives. For instance, people might wish to indulge their desire for voting-based social experimentation, allowing them to learn from the positive and negative outcomes of translating one party’s values into action. We also find merit in the authors’ argument that exchanges in power between political opponents are generally preferable to a prolonged single party rule (like the authors, we acknowledge that there are historical exceptions where such a rule can produce stable and prosperous societies). That said, we suggest an alternative to the process of political turn-taking that Baumeister and Bushman did not sufficiently explore, but that could also reduce political animosity: moderation. Moderation can be defined as “the deliberate effort not to seek the greatest emotion or the fullest accomplishment” (Fukuyama, 2022, p. 154). We maintain that regardless of which party is in power, it is less disruptive to society if neither one attempts to steer it in a direction too far from what most people can reasonably endure without becoming existentially threatened, morally confused, and cynically disengaged from political life. Through political debate and other institutionally mediated processes, a workable society is one that can integrate competing views to create mutually beneficial solutions that are not at the extremes (Carrese, 2016). Importantly, an alternation in power is not essential for a course of moderation to be followed.
{"title":"Not by Bread Alone: Immoderate Politics and the Roots of Suffering","authors":"Karl Aquino, Maja Graso, Stefan Thau","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192643","url":null,"abstract":"Baumeister and Bushman (this issue) present a parsimonious explanation for why the conflict between the left and right is inevitable, sometimes hostile, and prone to escalation. They propose that one way to reduce the intensity of the political polarization is for people on the political right and left to accept a turn-taking arrangement. Central to their argument for why alternations in power can be effective for reducing intergroup conflict is that both parties endorse values that are functional for society, even if their aims are not always reflected in their policies. The core assumption of their cultural animal theory is that the right prioritizes amassing resources, while the left prioritizes sharing or redistributing resources. If each side is given a chance to lead and translate their priorities into policy, the excesses of one regime can be counterbalanced by the excesses of the next, and society will improve as a result. We offer a few observations about their analysis and suggest some plausible amendments to their theory. The model Baumeister and Bushman introduce as being most advantageous for promoting group survival, flourishing, and social stability in a democracy is dialectical. In this regard, they occupy the same territory as thinkers like Hegel (1807/2019) and Marx (1867/2004), who also believed that historical progress toward a superior end-state results from conflict between competing groups. We can imagine how a political dialectic could produce healthier, more prosperous collectives. For instance, people might wish to indulge their desire for voting-based social experimentation, allowing them to learn from the positive and negative outcomes of translating one party’s values into action. We also find merit in the authors’ argument that exchanges in power between political opponents are generally preferable to a prolonged single party rule (like the authors, we acknowledge that there are historical exceptions where such a rule can produce stable and prosperous societies). That said, we suggest an alternative to the process of political turn-taking that Baumeister and Bushman did not sufficiently explore, but that could also reduce political animosity: moderation. Moderation can be defined as “the deliberate effort not to seek the greatest emotion or the fullest accomplishment” (Fukuyama, 2022, p. 154). We maintain that regardless of which party is in power, it is less disruptive to society if neither one attempts to steer it in a direction too far from what most people can reasonably endure without becoming existentially threatened, morally confused, and cynically disengaged from political life. Through political debate and other institutionally mediated processes, a workable society is one that can integrate competing views to create mutually beneficial solutions that are not at the extremes (Carrese, 2016). Importantly, an alternation in power is not essential for a course of moderation to be followed.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"34 1","pages":"17 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48561578","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192647
Christine Reyna, Miguel Ángel Vázquez, Kaelan J. Vazquez, Kara Harris
left and right leaning Americans agree on a wide variety of specific policy details (e.g., aspects of the ACA, gun laws, police reform: see Bartekian & Reyna, 2022). In countries around the globe with parliamentary systems, rival parties often form coalitions to further common goals. Coalition building was a more widely used strategy than conflict (Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001), so finding ways to promote cooperative coalitions of ideological groups is a more lasting and time-tested solution. Bipartisanship produces stable policies that are less likely to change when COMMENTARIES 31
{"title":"Moving Beyond a W.E.I.R.D Psychology: A Multicultural Perspective on the Evolution of Ideology","authors":"Christine Reyna, Miguel Ángel Vázquez, Kaelan J. Vazquez, Kara Harris","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192647","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192647","url":null,"abstract":"left and right leaning Americans agree on a wide variety of specific policy details (e.g., aspects of the ACA, gun laws, police reform: see Bartekian & Reyna, 2022). In countries around the globe with parliamentary systems, rival parties often form coalitions to further common goals. Coalition building was a more widely used strategy than conflict (Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001), so finding ways to promote cooperative coalitions of ideological groups is a more lasting and time-tested solution. Bipartisanship produces stable policies that are less likely to change when COMMENTARIES 31","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"34 1","pages":"27 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45996588","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192642
R. Baumeister, B. Bushman
Abstract Seeking to understand and reduce partisan hostility, we propose that humans evolved to benefit from cultural societies. Societies perform two crucial tasks, which have grown apart and are now championed by political opponents: (1) amassing resources, and (2) distributing resources. The political right focuses on amassing resources, whereas the political left focuses on redistributing resources. Both tasks are needed for society to flourish, but they foster contrary policies. This explains how left and right disagree on moral emphases, attitudes about time, rights versus responsibilities, manipulative strategies, and societal enemies—and why sharing or alternation in power benefits society. Market economies use incentives to create wealth, but these increase inequality. We hope our theory will help foster mutual respect among those on the left and right as both sides come to appreciate what the other side does to benefit society.
{"title":"Cultural Animal Theory of Political Partisan Conflict and Hostility","authors":"R. Baumeister, B. Bushman","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192642","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192642","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Seeking to understand and reduce partisan hostility, we propose that humans evolved to benefit from cultural societies. Societies perform two crucial tasks, which have grown apart and are now championed by political opponents: (1) amassing resources, and (2) distributing resources. The political right focuses on amassing resources, whereas the political left focuses on redistributing resources. Both tasks are needed for society to flourish, but they foster contrary policies. This explains how left and right disagree on moral emphases, attitudes about time, rights versus responsibilities, manipulative strategies, and societal enemies—and why sharing or alternation in power benefits society. Market economies use incentives to create wealth, but these increase inequality. We hope our theory will help foster mutual respect among those on the left and right as both sides come to appreciate what the other side does to benefit society.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"34 1","pages":"1 - 16"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49567381","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192645
Jarret T. Crawford
In their target article, Baumeister and Bushman (BB; this issue) describe a “cultural animal” theory of political partisan conflict and hostility. There is little positive I can say about this article. My critique focuses on six primary problems: (1) ignoring relevant scientific evidence that challenges their thesis; (2) shoe-horning contradictory psychological evidence to fit their thesis; (3) lack of specificity in their predictive model; (4) ignoring or ignorance of political realities that challenge their thesis; (5) logical incoherence in examples provided to bolster their thesis; and (6) statements or claims that are politically tone deaf at best, and offensive at worst.
{"title":"Baumeister and Bushman’s Conflicted Theory of Political Conflict","authors":"Jarret T. Crawford","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192645","url":null,"abstract":"In their target article, Baumeister and Bushman (BB; this issue) describe a “cultural animal” theory of political partisan conflict and hostility. There is little positive I can say about this article. My critique focuses on six primary problems: (1) ignoring relevant scientific evidence that challenges their thesis; (2) shoe-horning contradictory psychological evidence to fit their thesis; (3) lack of specificity in their predictive model; (4) ignoring or ignorance of political realities that challenge their thesis; (5) logical incoherence in examples provided to bolster their thesis; and (6) statements or claims that are politically tone deaf at best, and offensive at worst.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"34 1","pages":"23 - 26"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48357728","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192654
R. Baumeister, B. Bushman
We thank all the commentators for their diligent and thoughtful efforts on our article. The detailed and scholarly work by several of them went far beyond the call of duty, which was most gratifying. In this brief response, we seek to articulate what can be learned from them and to resolve some misunderstandings. Our article was motivated by the recognition that partisan hostility has increased in recent years, particularly in the United States of America (USA). We thought social psychologists might be well positioned to seek ways of reducing the conflict, given the field’s accumulated expertise regarding human interactions and group processes. Judging by these commentaries, we were perhaps overly optimistic about social psychology’s potential for promoting social harmony in this fashion. Indeed, only the Aquino et al. (this issue) commentary took up the theme of how to reduce partisan conflict.
{"title":"Resources and Partisanship: Response to Commentaries","authors":"R. Baumeister, B. Bushman","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192654","url":null,"abstract":"We thank all the commentators for their diligent and thoughtful efforts on our article. The detailed and scholarly work by several of them went far beyond the call of duty, which was most gratifying. In this brief response, we seek to articulate what can be learned from them and to resolve some misunderstandings. Our article was motivated by the recognition that partisan hostility has increased in recent years, particularly in the United States of America (USA). We thought social psychologists might be well positioned to seek ways of reducing the conflict, given the field’s accumulated expertise regarding human interactions and group processes. Judging by these commentaries, we were perhaps overly optimistic about social psychology’s potential for promoting social harmony in this fashion. Indeed, only the Aquino et al. (this issue) commentary took up the theme of how to reduce partisan conflict.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"34 1","pages":"47 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42472690","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 : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2023.2172277
I. Grossmann
s of the target articles, first determining common topics and subsequently calculating relative weight of twelve most frequently mentioned topics over time. Figure 1 shows themes which have dominated the discourse so far. Constant features are the topics of motivation (incl. needs and goals) and self-control, cognitive processes and their metacognitive regulation, mental health and well-being, individual differences and social cognition, as well as theoretical issues concerning research methods in psychology. Dominance of some themes reflects the Zeitgeist. The topic of meta-science—present in the journal since the first issue—become especially prominent in the last decade of Open Science movement. On the other hand, the topic of mental health and well-being was pronounced around the time of the discussions about well-being and the subsequent emergence of the Positive Psychology field in late 1990searly 2000s. In the new millennium, cultural diversity and related societal issues became salient, with the trend continuing to this day. Further, judgment and decision-making made a big entry in the last 15 years, possibly due the Nobel Prize in economics to Kahneman in 2002, and greater focus on behavioral economics thereafter. Toward Greater Equity and Diversity of Submissions The original idea behind Psychological Inquiry—a dialogue through open peer exchange about contentious ideas and theories—remains as important today as it was over three decades ago. Interdisciplinary research is on the rise (Van Noorden, 2015). Therefore, concepts and theories have an opportunity to be enriched by perspectives coming from different fields of studies. At the same time, intellectual silos and cultural echo-chambers remain—while more scholars today work in interdisciplinary teams of specialists than before (“Why Interdisciplinary Research Matters,” 2015), focus on specialization can also produce intellectual silos within one’s discipline. Such silos are often not conducive to the cumulative advancement of science. Scientific silos may be especially damaging for psychology (Cacioppo, 2007), where theoretical approaches touch on many neighboring disciplines, from anthropology and economics, to biology, linguistics, and neuroscience, to philosophy and education, to sociology and political science, to health studies, and so on (Boyack, Klavans, & B€orner, 2005). Scholars connecting closer to one of the neighboring fields may diverge in their grand theories, favor methodological paradigms others may find peculiar or simply be unfamiliar with, and develop their own jargon, all contributing to confusion about the concepts, methods, and evaluation of the results. How can we combat such disciplinary isolationism? An idea pursued by Psychological Inquiry since its inception has been to provide scholars with an opportunity for a civil discussion and debate of diverse ideas, and promoting a dialogue to clarify misunderstandings about theories, methods, or interpretation of c
{"title":"Transparency and Inclusion in Psychological Inquiry: Reflecting on the Past, Embracing the Present, and Building an Inclusive Future","authors":"I. Grossmann","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2023.2172277","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2172277","url":null,"abstract":"s of the target articles, first determining common topics and subsequently calculating relative weight of twelve most frequently mentioned topics over time. Figure 1 shows themes which have dominated the discourse so far. Constant features are the topics of motivation (incl. needs and goals) and self-control, cognitive processes and their metacognitive regulation, mental health and well-being, individual differences and social cognition, as well as theoretical issues concerning research methods in psychology. Dominance of some themes reflects the Zeitgeist. The topic of meta-science—present in the journal since the first issue—become especially prominent in the last decade of Open Science movement. On the other hand, the topic of mental health and well-being was pronounced around the time of the discussions about well-being and the subsequent emergence of the Positive Psychology field in late 1990searly 2000s. In the new millennium, cultural diversity and related societal issues became salient, with the trend continuing to this day. Further, judgment and decision-making made a big entry in the last 15 years, possibly due the Nobel Prize in economics to Kahneman in 2002, and greater focus on behavioral economics thereafter. Toward Greater Equity and Diversity of Submissions The original idea behind Psychological Inquiry—a dialogue through open peer exchange about contentious ideas and theories—remains as important today as it was over three decades ago. Interdisciplinary research is on the rise (Van Noorden, 2015). Therefore, concepts and theories have an opportunity to be enriched by perspectives coming from different fields of studies. At the same time, intellectual silos and cultural echo-chambers remain—while more scholars today work in interdisciplinary teams of specialists than before (“Why Interdisciplinary Research Matters,” 2015), focus on specialization can also produce intellectual silos within one’s discipline. Such silos are often not conducive to the cumulative advancement of science. Scientific silos may be especially damaging for psychology (Cacioppo, 2007), where theoretical approaches touch on many neighboring disciplines, from anthropology and economics, to biology, linguistics, and neuroscience, to philosophy and education, to sociology and political science, to health studies, and so on (Boyack, Klavans, & B€orner, 2005). Scholars connecting closer to one of the neighboring fields may diverge in their grand theories, favor methodological paradigms others may find peculiar or simply be unfamiliar with, and develop their own jargon, all contributing to confusion about the concepts, methods, and evaluation of the results. How can we combat such disciplinary isolationism? An idea pursued by Psychological Inquiry since its inception has been to provide scholars with an opportunity for a civil discussion and debate of diverse ideas, and promoting a dialogue to clarify misunderstandings about theories, methods, or interpretation of c","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"33 1","pages":"233 - 238"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41524667","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 : 2022-10-02DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2022.2160595
Iftach Amir, Noga Aviad, Amit Bernstein
Abstract In response to the Attention to Thoughts (A2T) model, scholars reflected on and raised critical questions about the proposed complex dynamic systems theory, its computational formalization, and its implications for theory and study of internal attention and internally-directed cognition (IDC). We identify and reflect on three major themes that cut across these response papers related to, complexity, temporal dynamics, and internal states as a focus of scientific inquiry. (1) As Simple As Possible, But No Simpler: Necessary Complexity. We delineate the importance of developing formalized and dynamic systems theory to model behavioral complexity in IDC. Specifically, behavioral variations or processes which exhibit a range of trajectories and states of variable levels of temporal stability, that emerge from reciprocal and (often) non-linear interactions between attentional, mnemonic and affective processes, that unfold over time and context. (2) Complex Dynamical Systems Emerge in Time . We reflect on the observation that temporal trajectories, that self-organize into relatively stable patterns, across time-scales, emerge from moment-to-moment interactions within the system over micro time-scales; and that through circular causality that facilitates systemic self-regulation, emergent higher-level structures or macro time-scale trajectories function to constrain these moment-to-moment interactions within the system. In turn, we relate to future developments of A2T to model developmental, learning and plasticity processes in IDC that emerge over macro time-scales. (3) The Elephant in the Lab: Is Robust Scientific Theory and Study of Internal States Possible? We reflect on the conditions wherein external attention is, and is not, likely a meaningful proxy for internal attention, and the implications therein for the study of attention in mental health and related phenomena sub-served by IDC. Finally, we relate to future developments of A2T that could reflect theorized computational heterogeneity in objects competing for internal attentional selection.
{"title":"Complex, Dynamic, & Internal: As Simple As Possible, But No Simpler Than That","authors":"Iftach Amir, Noga Aviad, Amit Bernstein","doi":"10.1080/1047840X.2022.2160595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2022.2160595","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In response to the Attention to Thoughts (A2T) model, scholars reflected on and raised critical questions about the proposed complex dynamic systems theory, its computational formalization, and its implications for theory and study of internal attention and internally-directed cognition (IDC). We identify and reflect on three major themes that cut across these response papers related to, complexity, temporal dynamics, and internal states as a focus of scientific inquiry. (1) As Simple As Possible, But No Simpler: Necessary Complexity. We delineate the importance of developing formalized and dynamic systems theory to model behavioral complexity in IDC. Specifically, behavioral variations or processes which exhibit a range of trajectories and states of variable levels of temporal stability, that emerge from reciprocal and (often) non-linear interactions between attentional, mnemonic and affective processes, that unfold over time and context. (2) Complex Dynamical Systems Emerge in Time . We reflect on the observation that temporal trajectories, that self-organize into relatively stable patterns, across time-scales, emerge from moment-to-moment interactions within the system over micro time-scales; and that through circular causality that facilitates systemic self-regulation, emergent higher-level structures or macro time-scale trajectories function to constrain these moment-to-moment interactions within the system. In turn, we relate to future developments of A2T to model developmental, learning and plasticity processes in IDC that emerge over macro time-scales. (3) The Elephant in the Lab: Is Robust Scientific Theory and Study of Internal States Possible? We reflect on the conditions wherein external attention is, and is not, likely a meaningful proxy for internal attention, and the implications therein for the study of attention in mental health and related phenomena sub-served by IDC. Finally, we relate to future developments of A2T that could reflect theorized computational heterogeneity in objects competing for internal attentional selection.","PeriodicalId":48327,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Inquiry","volume":"33 1","pages":"285 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":9.3,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42645157","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：