Search

The college transition is a multifaceted experience. Navigating the unfamiliar terrain of college allows for tremendous growth and self‐discovery while simultaneously evoking fear and uncertainty as students encounter new struggles. How students come to make sense of their transition experiences, especially moments of struggle, informs how they come to define who they are, who they can become, and where they belong. Robust psychological investigation has advanced three motivations for making sense of struggle: the need to understand, the need for self‐integrity, and the need to belong. Scholars target these motivations to design educational interventions and improve outcomes for students from marginalized backgrounds. What is missing is an exploration of how the uncertainty and marginalization arising from negotiating multiple social worlds can incite paradoxical expectations, messages, and cues that shape these three motivations for meaning‐making. In this paper, we aim to nuance these three motivations by attending to paradoxes. Unearthing the paradoxes lurking within each motivation advances a better understanding of what it means to make meaning from the margins and, consequently, offers new directions and possibilities for psychological research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the sustained flourishing—both in terms of quantity and quality—of qualitative research in psychology, psychology's establishment 'gatekeepers' seem to still be wedded to the dogma that only experimental research and quantitative data are sufficiently robust to be taken seriously. In this paper we make the case against this contempt and call for qualitative research and data to be recognized as valid and epistemologically sound in its own right. Given that its ontology is based upon constructionist assumptions about the nature of the social world, its power to provide nuanced insight into the complexity of humankind is not a problem, but its greatest strength. Our paper therefore starts with a brief review of the ontological and epistemological differences between the two approaches to demonstrate that they are complementary rather than competition. We then make our case, based on two key strategies: first by shedding light on the fact that many (perhaps even most) of psychology's classic experimental studies actually collected qualitative data (in the form of debriefing interviews and the like) and used it to understand what was going on; and then by recent studies that have expressly sought feedback about the hypothesis being purportedly tested. We then recognize the extent to which contemporary researchers are expressing their frustration at the way that they are being forced into a methodological straight jacket, by carrying out their research in ways they view as inauthentic. We end with a call to kerb the methodological dogma that has taken hold of psychology, and to move to a more inclusive approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consideration of how interrelated social structures relate with personality has been limited. In this paper, we discuss how researchers might apply an intersectional framework–which uses a social justice lens to examine how social structures are interconnected and impact individuals—at three distinct levels of personality including traits, characteristic adaptations, and integrative life narratives. We begin by providing conceptualizations of personality and intersectionality and describe considerations for their integration, including the need to widen the methodological and epistemological scope of personality science. Key areas of research that demonstrate the promise of an intersectional framework for unpacking structures of power and oppression in relation to the person are then described for each level of personality. Specifically, recommendations for how an intersectional framework may be used to examine structural identity domains in relation to trait levels, values and goals, as well as the content and process of narrated lives are offered. We conclude with discussion of how application of an intersectional framework is crucial for promoting inclusion and generalizability in personality science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I present some preliminary analyses of what is at stake in the growing use of digital methods in psychology. Their exponential rise in the discipline has scientific consequences, because such methods embody unarticulated assumptions that derive from their cultural, technical, or commercial origins. Such methods also rearticulate researcher-participant relations in new ways, and reframe what it means to take part in psychological research. Additionally, strong calls for psychologists to exploit the potentials of Big Data to analyze and influence human action in real time signal the growing entanglement of psychology, computer science, and the accumulative tactics of the digital economy. As part of a larger project to trace the social life of digital methods in psychology, my aim here is to link disparate literature in psychology, science and technology studies, and critical data studies, to situate such methods in the broader context of technologically afforded shifts in modes of economic and knowledge production. I argue that digital methods are in urgent need of analysis, not only in terms of the interpretive frames, modes of participation, and courses of action they afford, but as research media that circulate in a larger digital and political economic ecosystem, and with associations that span multiple sociotechnical assemblages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1950, the President of the American Psychological Association emphasised the economic and political importance of creativity for US society. His account of creativity exhibits a number of tensions that can be identified in other psychologists' theories and conceptualisations of creativity. This paper considers the tensions from the perspective of critical discursive psychology. In the terms of that approach, the tensions derive from multiple non‐academic discourses around creativity, including popular discourses of creativity and art. The paper argues that conceptualisations of creativity from academic psychology have in turn entered wider discourses, invoked, for example, in recent celebrations of the global sector of the creative and cultural industries (CCI). The tensions within psychology's conceptualisations are significant, however, because they raise questions about the extent to which the psychology of creativity has a common reference and coheres around the study of a single phenomenon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Principles and applications of open science (also referred to as open research or open scholarship) in psychology have emerged in response to growing concerns about the replicability, transparency, reproducibility, and robustness of psychological research alongside global moves to open science in many fields. Our objective in this paper is to inform ways of collectively constructing open science practices and systems that are appropriate to, and get the best out of, the full range of qualitative and mixed‐method approaches used in psychology. We achieve this by describing three areas of open research practice (contributorship, pre‐registration, and open data) and explore how and why qualitative researchers might consider engaging with these in ways that are compatible with a qualitative research paradigm. We argue it is crucial that open research practices do not (even inadvertently) exclude qualitative research, and that qualitative researchers reflect on how we can meaningfully engage with open science in psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I encourage consideration of a self‐structure singularity such that structural forces like racism or capitalism do not bear influence on individual actors in a given social field. Instead, individuals enact those forces through carrying out even the smallest of everyday occurrences. Structural forces emergent as individual actions and lived experiences can be understood through the lens of Karen Barad's agential realism as a materially discursive apparatus in lieu of being conceptualized as separate, mutually exclusive indices of social behavior worthy of theoretical consideration in their own right. Further, I propose autoethnography as a method by which critical psychologists can initially engage with the mutual instantiation of structures and lives. I encourage self‐structure examination through critical autoethnographic practices as an initial way to recognize self‐structure singularity in one's own life so as to facilitate a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the societal groups or individuals a critical psychologist desires to study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past 3 decades, cultural psychologists have empirically investigated the influence of cultural meaning systems on human psychology. Under the rubric of holistic versus analytic thought, researchers have demonstrated that there are substantial cultural variations in social cognition, and that such variations are observable even in so-called fundamental psychological processes, such as attention. The aim of this paper is to review 3 major themes in culture and attention: (1) culture and attention to nonsocial scenes, (2) culture and attention to social scenes, and (3) culture and aesthetics. The paper also discusses 4 major strands of research that could be considered important candidates to further advance the understanding of culture and attention: (1) research on 'culture ➔ human psychological processes,' where we investigate how culture influences modes of attention; (2) research on 'human psychology ➔ cultural processes,' where we investigate how those who hold a specific mode of attention create cultural products and tangible representations of culturally shared meanings; (3) research on cultural neuroscience, where we investigate underlying mechanisms and processes of specific modes of attention; and (4) research on cultural transmission processes, where we investigate how specific modes of attention is taught by adults and internalized by children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides an overview of Jacques Lacan's views on psychology, paying particular attention to how such critiques support a distinctively Lacanian view of the subject. Lacan attacked various facets of psychology, including: psychology's objectifying (and objectivistic) tendencies; the discipline's historical attempt to model itself on the natural sciences; its conceptual and practical prioritizations of the ego and consciousness; its frequent prioritization of developmental, biological and physiological paradigms above a careful analysis of the structures and operations of language and speech. The aim of the paper is not to systematically work through Lacan's various criticisms, still less to refute them. Ultimately, Lacan's historical attacks against psychology-apposite as they are-have their greatest value in helping us to strike some distance from commonplace assumptions and psychological assumptions about the nature of the subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Many current and past theories of social categorization acknowledge and even underline the critical role that visual processing plays in intergroup misperceptions and biases, yet research that directly measures or manipulates these processes is limited. In the present paper, we reviewed the current literature on visual attention to own and other group faces. First, we explored the development of preferential attention in face processing. Next, we examined these processes in adults and show different patterns of attention for own and other group faces. Although we briefly consider cross‐cultural variations, the focus of this review is on within‐culture differences in visual attention. In particular, we explore preferential attention to specific features on own versus other group faces and to their overall faces. We also discuss potential determinants for differential attention such as experience, threat, individuation and a desire to know in‐groups, and liking. Finally, we explore the implications of differential attention to own and other groups. These consequences range from reduced recognition of other group faces, to impaired identification of emotional expressions, to impeded interaction intentions, and to increased discrimination. Together our analyses provide strong evidence for differences in attention to the faces and eyes of own versus other group members and their role in intergroup biases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atheists represent an inconspicuous minority, identifiable only by their disbelief in God(s). Despite being highly stigmatized and disliked, until recent scientific endeavors, little has been known about this group including why they don't believe, how many people are atheists, and why they trigger intense reactions. Thus, this paper aims to synthesize what is known about atheists (so far) and to help explain the widespread negative attitudes and prejudice towards atheists; the possible cognitive, motivational, and cultural origins of disbelief; and the unique challenges facing the study of religious disbelievers. To do so, we will explore current findings in psychological research on atheism by considering the complex interactions of cultural learning, motivations, and core cognitive processes. Although significant scientific progress has been made in understanding the factors underlying atheism, there remains much to be explored in the domain of religious disbelief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditionally, self-forgiveness has been framed as a process that helps facilitate psychological as well as physiological well-being following wrongdoing. In the present paper, we outline the limits and boundaries of this presupposition. Specifically, we outline contexts in which self-forgiveness might yield negative consequence that include, among other things, a continuation of the wrongful behavior. First, we provide evidence that self-forgiveness for ongoing, wrongful behavior (e.g., smoking) alleviates negative feelings associated with acknowledged wrongs committed by the self, which does little to motivate behavioral change. We then discuss the complication that is pseudo-self-forgiveness - a situation in which people shift some responsible away from the self for wrongs committed by the self. This outward shift in responsibility lets the self 'off the hook', which increases the likelihood that the wrongful behavior will continue. Drawing on these discussions, a path model for behavioral change that places self-forgiveness at its core is offered. Although we present some pessimism regarding the outcome of the self-forgiveness process, this paper points to situations and attributions that maximize its positive effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monogamous pair bonds helped solve ancestral problems pertinent to our survival as a species. In order for these pair bonds to succeed, biological systems were co-opted to support and reinforce attachment bonds through feelings of pleasure and reward. One of the major biological systems that may play an important role in the formation of romantic attachments is the stress response system (autonomic nervous system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis). Research suggests attraction, mate preference, and emotional connectedness may be supported by the activation or inhibition of the stress response system. Further, as romantic relationships progress, new findings suggest partners' physiological patterns coalesce, potentially serving a regulatory function that reinforces the pair bond and affects overall well-being. Based on this evidence, the current paper puts forth the Physiology of Romantic Pair Bond Initiation and Maintenance Model, which will provide researchers with a new perspective on the function of the stress response system in romantic relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Engel presented a compelling case for a biopsychosocial model of health. This challenged a biomedical model that he saw as reductionistic, physicalistic, and exclusionist. Yet despite its laudable goals and popularity, the biopsychosocial model can be faulted for being incremental, imprecise, and individualistic. Ultimately, this means it is no less reductionist than the biomedical model which it sought to supplant. In this paper, we present a reformulation of this model that foregrounds the capacity for social groups—and the social contexts in which those groups are embedded—to structure psychology and, through this, biology and health. This sociopsychobio model argues that the three elements of Engel's framework are not fixed and immutable but rather dynamic and interdependent. The model is consistent with a range of recent approaches to health that have focused on the important role that social class, social inequality, social structure, and social networks play in shaping health outcomes. In this paper, though, the concrete value of this reformulation is illustrated through a discussion of recent research that focuses on the role of group memberships and associated social identities in shaping the psychology and biology of stress. This review underlines two key points that are central to the general case for a sociopsychobio model of health. First, that groups are a force in the world that shape the psychology and biology of their members (as well as members of other groups) in ways that cannot be reduced to those group members' functioning as individuals. Second, that groups provide their members with a basis for seeking to change the world rather than simply accepting it. In this, group life is not merely an appendage to psychology and biology but is instead a basis for collective experiences that have the potential to unleash new expressions of both. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper advances a critical social psychological approach to the study of citizenship. It builds upon recent social psychological work on the subject, particularly in discursive and rhetorical psychology but also other critical approaches such as social representations theory. The paper also borrows insights from the interdisciplinary field of citizenship studies in order to conceptualise citizenship in both its conventional (enacting well‐established scripts of political action) and its transformative aspects (making rights claims that are disruptive of established scripts). The paper is divided in five sections. The first section considers the relationship between social psychology and citizenship; the second section offers a conceptualisation of citizenship that takes under consideration citizens' practices from the ground up and constraints posed by existing norms and laws; the third section considers the value of adding citizenship into the social psychological conceptual toolkit. The fourth more substantive section advances a critical social psychological approach to citizenship which focuses on the study of the different ways that "ordinary" political actors engage with political matters in the mundane practices of everyday life. The last section concludes the paper and makes some suggestions for future directions, such as the study of emerging forms of citizenship through a more nuanced examination of intersecting political affiliations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we show how discursive psychology can be used to show how 'facts' are used rhetorically by politicians. That is, they are more than neutral reflections of an objective reality—these 'facts' are highly attuned to the local context of political argumentation. We draw upon examples from two studies that used discursive psychology to analyse two different political contexts: (1) Islamophobia in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack and (2) debates over Great Britain and the European Union. In both contexts, the analysis uncovers how politicians challenge both the context and the relevance of a fact. The context of 'facts' is reconstructed to undermine their original argumentative strength, whereas questioning the relevance of a 'fact' undermines it both as fact and as a rhetorical tool to be used in a debate. These findings show how discursive psychology can contribute to knowledge about political communication, as well as the benefits of applying discursive psychology to political discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]