Pub Date : 2023-12-22DOI: 10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9243
J. Szczęsna, Małgorzata Wójtowicz-Szefler
Cel: Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zaprezentowanie różnych reakcji rodziców na przejawy złości dwu- i trzyletnich dzieci (reaktywnych metod wychowawczych) oraz ustalenie, które z czynników (wiek, płeć, wykształcenie i miejsce zamieszkania) różnicują reakcje rodziców na zachowania dziecka. Ponadto celem badania było ustalenie, jakie reaktywne metody wychowawcze stosują rodzice ze względu na rodzaj sytuacji, które odzwierciedlają behawioralne przejawy autonomii małych dzieci. Metoda: Badanie kwestionariuszowe, które przeprowadzono na próbie 120 rodziców mających dwu- i trzyletnie dzieci (po 60 kobiet i mężczyzn). Wykorzystano autorski kwestionariusz, stworzony na podstawie teorii kryzysu trzeciego roku życia Lwa Wygotskiego (2002). Zadaniem osób badanych było opisanie swojej reakcji na behawioralne przejawy złości małego dziecka w siedmiu sytuacjach z życia codziennego (negatywizm, upór, krnąbrność, samowola, sprzeciw – bunt, deprecjacja i despotyzm). Wyniki: Rodzice deklarowali korzystanie ze wszystkich reaktywnych metod wychowawczych – zarówno indukcyjnych, jak i imperatywnych (punitywnych i agresji psychologicznej) w reakcji na przejawy złości swoich dwu- i trzyletnich dzieci. Istotnymi predyktorami metod indukcyjnych i punitywnych okazały się wiek i poziom wykształcenia rodzica, natomiast dla agresji psychologicznej – jego płeć i miejsce zamieszkania. Z badania wynika, iż wyłącznie kobiety posługują się w relacji z dwu- i trzylatkiem agresją psychologiczną, której stosowanie jest tym częstsze, im bardziej zagrożony jest autorytet matki, a sprzeciw dziecka wobec jej woli staje się coraz bardziej wyraźny. Konkluzje: Behawioralne przejawy autonomii dwu- i trzylatków są uwarunkowane naturalnym rozwojowo kryzysem trzeciego roku życia. To wyraz frustracji małego dziecka, nie zaś przejaw zachowań agresywnych, który wymaga zastosowania przez rodziców odpowiednich metod wychowawczych. Na podstawie badania ustalono, że rodzice w głównej mierze deklarują równoczesne korzystanie z metod indukcyjnych i punitywnych, jednak im częściej dziecko przejawia autonomię, tym deklarowana skłonność rodziców do stosowania metod karzących wzrasta.
目的：本文旨在介绍父母对两岁和三岁儿童愤怒表现的不同反应（反应式养育方法），并确定哪些因素（年龄、性别、教育程度和居住地）会使父母对孩子的行为做出不同反应。此外，本研究的目的还在于确定父母因反映幼儿自主性行为表现的情境类型而采用的反应性养育方法。方法：对 120 名有两岁和三岁子女的家长（男女各 60 名）进行了问卷调查。根据 Lev Vygotsky（2002 年）的三年级危机理论编制了一份自填式问卷。受试者被要求描述他们在日常生活中的七种情况（消极、固执、任性、自我意志、蔑视--叛逆、贬低和专横）下对幼儿愤怒行为表现的反应。结果显示针对两三岁孩子的愤怒表现，家长们宣称使用了所有反应式教养方法--包括归纳式和命令式（惩罚和心理攻击）。父母的年龄和教育水平是诱导性和惩罚性方法的重要预测因素，而父母的性别和居住地则是心理攻击的重要预测因素。研究表明，只有女性在与两三岁的孩子相处时才会使用心理攻击，而且母亲的权威越是受到威胁，孩子对母亲意愿的反抗越是明显，使用心理攻击的频率就越高。结论两三岁幼儿自主性的行为表现是受其生命第三年的自然发展危机所制约的。它是幼儿挫折感的一种表现，而不是攻击性行为的一种表现，这就要求家长采用适当的教养方法。研究发现，家长主要宣布同时使用诱导性和惩罚性方法，但孩子表现出自主性的次数越多，家长宣布使用惩罚性方法的倾向就越大。
{"title":"Różne reakcje rodziców na przejawy złości dwu- i trzyletnich dzieci","authors":"J. Szczęsna, Małgorzata Wójtowicz-Szefler","doi":"10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9243","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9243","url":null,"abstract":"Cel: Celem niniejszego artykułu jest zaprezentowanie różnych reakcji rodziców na przejawy złości dwu- i trzyletnich dzieci (reaktywnych metod wychowawczych) oraz ustalenie, które z czynników (wiek, płeć, wykształcenie i miejsce zamieszkania) różnicują reakcje rodziców na zachowania dziecka. Ponadto celem badania było ustalenie, jakie reaktywne metody wychowawcze stosują rodzice ze względu na rodzaj sytuacji, które odzwierciedlają behawioralne przejawy autonomii małych dzieci. Metoda: Badanie kwestionariuszowe, które przeprowadzono na próbie 120 rodziców mających dwu- i trzyletnie dzieci (po 60 kobiet i mężczyzn). Wykorzystano autorski kwestionariusz, stworzony na podstawie teorii kryzysu trzeciego roku życia Lwa Wygotskiego (2002). Zadaniem osób badanych było opisanie swojej reakcji na behawioralne przejawy złości małego dziecka w siedmiu sytuacjach z życia codziennego (negatywizm, upór, krnąbrność, samowola, sprzeciw – bunt, deprecjacja i despotyzm). Wyniki: Rodzice deklarowali korzystanie ze wszystkich reaktywnych metod wychowawczych – zarówno indukcyjnych, jak i imperatywnych (punitywnych i agresji psychologicznej) w reakcji na przejawy złości swoich dwu- i trzyletnich dzieci. Istotnymi predyktorami metod indukcyjnych i punitywnych okazały się wiek i poziom wykształcenia rodzica, natomiast dla agresji psychologicznej – jego płeć i miejsce zamieszkania. Z badania wynika, iż wyłącznie kobiety posługują się w relacji z dwu- i trzylatkiem agresją psychologiczną, której stosowanie jest tym częstsze, im bardziej zagrożony jest autorytet matki, a sprzeciw dziecka wobec jej woli staje się coraz bardziej wyraźny. Konkluzje: Behawioralne przejawy autonomii dwu- i trzylatków są uwarunkowane naturalnym rozwojowo kryzysem trzeciego roku życia. To wyraz frustracji małego dziecka, nie zaś przejaw zachowań agresywnych, który wymaga zastosowania przez rodziców odpowiednich metod wychowawczych. Na podstawie badania ustalono, że rodzice w głównej mierze deklarują równoczesne korzystanie z metod indukcyjnych i punitywnych, jednak im częściej dziecko przejawia autonomię, tym deklarowana skłonność rodziców do stosowania metod karzących wzrasta.","PeriodicalId":508615,"journal":{"name":"Przegląd Psychologiczny","volume":"22 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139164593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-26DOI: 10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9682
Marcin Miłkowski
In light of the recent credibility crisis in psychology, this paper argues for a greater emphasis on theorizing in scientific research. Although reliable experimental evidence, preregistration, methodological rigor, and new computational frameworks for modeling are important, scientific progress also relies on properly functioning theories. However, the current understanding of the role of theorizing in psychology is lacking, which may lead to future crises. Theories should not be viewed as mere speculations or simple inductive generalizations. To address this issue, the author introduces a framework called “cognitive metascience,” which studies the processes and results of evaluating scientific practice. This study should proceed both qualitatively, as in traditional science and technology studies and cognitive science, and quantitatively, by analyzing scientific discourse using language technology. By analyzing theories as cognitive artifacts that support cognitive tasks, this paper aims to shed more light on their nature. This perspective reveals that multiple distinct theories serve entirely different roles, and studying these roles, along with their epistemic vices and virtues, can provide insight into how theorizing should proceed. The author urges a change in research culture to appreciate the variety of distinct theories and to systematically advance scientific progress.
{"title":"Cognitive Metascience: A New Approach to the Study of Theories","authors":"Marcin Miłkowski","doi":"10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9682","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9682","url":null,"abstract":"In light of the recent credibility crisis in psychology, this paper argues for a greater emphasis on theorizing in scientific research. Although reliable experimental evidence, preregistration, methodological rigor, and new computational frameworks for modeling are important, scientific progress also relies on properly functioning theories. However, the current understanding of the role of theorizing in psychology is lacking, which may lead to future crises. Theories should not be viewed as mere speculations or simple inductive generalizations. To address this issue, the author introduces a framework called “cognitive metascience,” which studies the processes and results of evaluating scientific practice. This study should proceed both qualitatively, as in traditional science and technology studies and cognitive science, and quantitatively, by analyzing scientific discourse using language technology. By analyzing theories as cognitive artifacts that support cognitive tasks, this paper aims to shed more light on their nature. This perspective reveals that multiple distinct theories serve entirely different roles, and studying these roles, along with their epistemic vices and virtues, can provide insight into how theorizing should proceed. The author urges a change in research culture to appreciate the variety of distinct theories and to systematically advance scientific progress.","PeriodicalId":508615,"journal":{"name":"Przegląd Psychologiczny","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139313532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-26DOI: 10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9680
Jerzy Marian Brzeziński
The interest in the global result obtained by B. Nosek’s team increased significantly, not only among psychologists, after an article presenting the results of a large-scale international replication of psychological empirical research had been published in Science (cf. Open Science Collaboration, 2015). While 97% of the original research yielded statistically significant results (p <. 05), only 36% of the results were significant in the replication. The author of the present article postulates that this result laid the ground for unjustified generalizations about the methodological weaknesses of psychology as an empirical science. Psychology is an empirical science, but it also has its peculiarities due to the specificity of the subject matter and the method (e.g. Orne, 1962, 1973; Rosenthal, 1966/2009; Rosenzweig, 1933). Equally importantly, psychology is not practiced in social or cultural isolation. Finally, psychological research is bound by rigorous ethical standards/constraints, and psychologists (as well as researchers in other fields) who publish the results of empirical research to be analyzed statistically are constrained by the editorial practices of scientific journals. Journals have an interest only in papers that present statistically significant results (where “p < .05”!), which leads to the so-called file-drawer effect (Rosenthal, 1979). As strongly emphasized by the author, the debate cannot be limited to the statistical significance of psychological research (in particular the power of statistical test which has emerged as a popular trend in recent years). In this article, the author discusses (and presents his point of view) the following problems: 1) the methodological specificity of psychology as an empirical science, 2) the triad of statistical significance (the problematic criterion of “p < .05”), effect size, and the power of a statistical test, 3) the socio-cultural context of psychological research, 4) researchers' failure to follow methodological and ethical guidelines, and 5) possible precautions and remedies.
{"title":"A credibility crisis in psychology?","authors":"Jerzy Marian Brzeziński","doi":"10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9680","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9680","url":null,"abstract":"The interest in the global result obtained by B. Nosek’s team increased significantly, not only among psychologists, after an article presenting the results of a large-scale international replication of psychological empirical research had been published in Science (cf. Open Science Collaboration, 2015). While 97% of the original research yielded statistically significant results (p <. 05), only 36% of the results were significant in the replication. The author of the present article postulates that this result laid the ground for unjustified generalizations about the methodological weaknesses of psychology as an empirical science. Psychology is an empirical science, but it also has its peculiarities due to the specificity of the subject matter and the method (e.g. Orne, 1962, 1973; Rosenthal, 1966/2009; Rosenzweig, 1933). Equally importantly, psychology is not practiced in social or cultural isolation. Finally, psychological research is bound by rigorous ethical standards/constraints, and psychologists (as well as researchers in other fields) who publish the results of empirical research to be analyzed statistically are constrained by the editorial practices of scientific journals. Journals have an interest only in papers that present statistically significant results (where “p < .05”!), which leads to the so-called file-drawer effect (Rosenthal, 1979). As strongly emphasized by the author, the debate cannot be limited to the statistical significance of psychological research (in particular the power of statistical test which has emerged as a popular trend in recent years). In this article, the author discusses (and presents his point of view) the following problems: 1) the methodological specificity of psychology as an empirical science, 2) the triad of statistical significance (the problematic criterion of “p < .05”), effect size, and the power of a statistical test, 3) the socio-cultural context of psychological research, 4) researchers' failure to follow methodological and ethical guidelines, and 5) possible precautions and remedies.","PeriodicalId":508615,"journal":{"name":"Przegląd Psychologiczny","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139313416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-26DOI: 10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9681
Jarosław Górniak, A. Białek, Piotr Wolski
Abstract
摘要
{"title":"A Few Remarks on the State of Research in Social Sciences. A Conversation with Professor Jarosław Górniak","authors":"Jarosław Górniak, A. Białek, Piotr Wolski","doi":"10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9681","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9681","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract","PeriodicalId":508615,"journal":{"name":"Przegląd Psychologiczny","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139313221","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-26DOI: 10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9679
A. Białek, Piotr Wolski
While various shortcomings and flaws in the conduct of research and analysis of results in psychology and other social sciences have been recognized for a long time, recent years have witnessed greater prevalence and wider scope of this criticism. There are also more proposals for improvement. In this article, we focus on selected, key areas of the credibility crisis in psychology. Piotr Wolski discusses those related to the improper understanding and application of significance tests, while Arkadiusz Białek characterizes some of the research practices that undermine the credibility of psychological studies and demonstrates how to counteract them. Although the use of good research practices can improve the reproducibility and replicability of research results, the proposed reform should also encompass the way theories are developed. The discussed proposal for theory development in psychology leads to a series of practical steps. Unlike the hypothetico-deductive model, it starts with the identification and description of the phenomenon. The explanation of the phenomenon formulated through abduction is then formalized in mathematical equations or computer simulations and verified. Adhering to good research practices and proper theory development has the potential to provide psychology with more solid foundations and make it a cumulatively evolving science.
{"title":"Two Voices on the Credibility Crisis in Psychology","authors":"A. Białek, Piotr Wolski","doi":"10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9679","url":null,"abstract":"While various shortcomings and flaws in the conduct of research and analysis of results in psychology and other social sciences have been recognized for a long time, recent years have witnessed greater prevalence and wider scope of this criticism. There are also more proposals for improvement. In this article, we focus on selected, key areas of the credibility crisis in psychology. Piotr Wolski discusses those related to the improper understanding and application of significance tests, while Arkadiusz Białek characterizes some of the research practices that undermine the credibility of psychological studies and demonstrates how to counteract them. Although the use of good research practices can improve the reproducibility and replicability of research results, the proposed reform should also encompass the way theories are developed. The discussed proposal for theory development in psychology leads to a series of practical steps. Unlike the hypothetico-deductive model, it starts with the identification and description of the phenomenon. The explanation of the phenomenon formulated through abduction is then formalized in mathematical equations or computer simulations and verified. Adhering to good research practices and proper theory development has the potential to provide psychology with more solid foundations and make it a cumulatively evolving science.","PeriodicalId":508615,"journal":{"name":"Przegląd Psychologiczny","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139313286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-26DOI: 10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9731
B. Paulewicz
The main goal of basic research is to answer causal questions. Generally, only the statistical part of this process tends to proceed in a partially formal way and according to clearly defined rules. At the same time, the causal relations are often treated informally or implicitly in a way that is prone to difficult-to-detect errors. This introduction aims to show psychology researchers some of the great benefits of approaching causal issues using a formal theory of causal inference. In this part, I discuss the non-obvious status and role of causal and statistical assumptions in causal inference. After covering, in a simple setting, the general shape of inference from causal assumptions, statistical assumptions, and data to causal effects, I outline, from a contemporary perspective, the limits of applicability of the general linear model. Then, I introduce the formal part of Pearl’s theory that relies on graphs. Using these tools, I show how one can analyze and interpret the results of an experiment on short-term memory search, and I discuss the back-door and front-door adjustments. To present the mathematical part of the theory in an accessible way without overly simplifying it, I illustrate some issues by using simulations written in R.
基础研究的主要目标是回答因果问题。一般来说，这一过程中只有统计部分倾向于以部分正式的方式并按照明确规定的规则进行。同时，因果关系往往被非正式地或隐含地处理，容易造成难以发现的错误。本导论旨在向心理学研究人员展示使用正式的因果推理理论来处理因果问题的一些巨大好处。在这一部分，我将讨论因果推理中因果假设和统计假设的非显性地位和作用。在简单介绍了从因果假设、统计假设和数据到因果效应的一般推论形式之后，我从当代的角度概述了一般线性模型的适用局限。然后，我将介绍珀尔理论中依赖图形的形式部分。利用这些工具，我展示了如何分析和解释短时记忆搜索实验的结果，并讨论了 "后门 "和 "前门 "调整。为了以通俗易懂的方式介绍该理论的数学部分，同时又不过分简化，我使用 R 编写的模拟来说明一些问题。
{"title":"Introduction to Causal Inference for Psychologists: Testable and Non-Testable Causal and Statistical Assumptions","authors":"B. Paulewicz","doi":"10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31648/przegldpsychologiczny.9731","url":null,"abstract":"The main goal of basic research is to answer causal questions. Generally, only the statistical part of this process tends to proceed in a partially formal way and according to clearly defined rules. At the same time, the causal relations are often treated informally or implicitly in a way that is prone to difficult-to-detect errors. This introduction aims to show psychology researchers some of the great benefits of approaching causal issues using a formal theory of causal inference. In this part, I discuss the non-obvious status and role of causal and statistical assumptions in causal inference. After covering, in a simple setting, the general shape of inference from causal assumptions, statistical assumptions, and data to causal effects, I outline, from a contemporary perspective, the limits of applicability of the general linear model. Then, I introduce the formal part of Pearl’s theory that relies on graphs. Using these tools, I show how one can analyze and interpret the results of an experiment on short-term memory search, and I discuss the back-door and front-door adjustments. To present the mathematical part of the theory in an accessible way without overly simplifying it, I illustrate some issues by using simulations written in R.","PeriodicalId":508615,"journal":{"name":"Przegląd Psychologiczny","volume":"90 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139313630","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","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：