Search

Previous research has shown that perceivers can accurately extract information about perceptually ambiguous group memberships from facial information alone. For example, people demonstrate above-chance accuracy in categorizing political ideology from faces. Further, they ascribe particular personality traits to faces according to political party (e.g., Republicans are dominant and mature, Democrats are likeable and trustworthy). Here, we report three studies that replicated and extended these effects. In Study 1a, we provide evidence that, in addition to showing accuracy in categorization, politically-conservative participants expressed a bias toward categorizing targets as outgroup members. In Study 1b, we replicate this relationship with a larger sample and a stimulus set consisting of faces of professional politicians. In Study 2, we find that trait ascriptions based on target political affiliation are moderated by perceiver political ideology. Specifically, although Democrats are stereotyped as more likeable and trustworthy, conservative participants rated faces that were categorized as Republicans in Study 1a as more likeable and trustworthy than faces categorized as Democrats. Thus, this paper joins a growing literature showing that it is critical to consider perceiver identity in examining perceptions of identities and traits from faces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies mostly investigate player's cooperative behavior as affected by game time-scale or individual diversity. In this paper, by involving both time-scale and diversity simultaneously, we explore the effect of stochastic heterogeneous interaction. In our model, the occurrence of game interaction between each pair of linked player obeys a random probability, which is further described by certain distributions. Simulations on a 4-neighbor square lattice show that the cooperation level is remarkably promoted when stochastic heterogeneous interaction is considered. The results are then explained by investigating the mean payoffs, the mean boundary payoffs and the transition probabilities between cooperators and defectors. We also show some typical snapshots and evolution time series of the system. Finally, the 8-neighbor square lattice and BA scale-free network results indicate that the stochastic heterogeneous interaction can be robust against different network topologies. Our work may sharpen the understanding of the joint effect of game time-scale and individual diversity on spatial games. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: From 1970–2012, the average age at first delivery increased from 23.2–28.5 in Norway. Postponement of first pregnancy increases risks of medical complications both during and after pregnancy. Sickness absence during pregnancy has over the last two decades increased considerably more than in non-pregnant women. The aim of this paper is twofold: Firstly to investigate if postponement of pregnancy is related to increased sickness absence and thus contributing to the increased gender difference in sickness absence; and secondly, to estimate how much of the increased gender difference in sickness absence that can be accounted for by increased sickness absence amongst pregnant women. Methods: We employed registry-data to analyse sickness absence among all Norwegian employees with income equivalent to full-time work in the period 1993–2007. Results: After control for age, education, and income, pregnant women's sickness absence (age 20–44) increased on average 0.94 percentage points each year, compared to 0.29 in non-pregnant women and 0.14 in men. In pregnant women aged 20–24, sickness absence during pregnancy increased by 0.96 percent points per calendar year, compared to 0.60 in age-group 30–34. Sickness absence during pregnancy accounted for 25% of the increased gender gap in sickness absence, accounting for changes in education, income and age. Conclusions: Postponement of first pregnancy does not explain the increase in pregnant women's sickness absence during the period 1993–2007 as both the highest level and increase in sickness absence is seen in the younger women. Reasons are poorly understood, but still important as it accounts for 25% of the increased gender gap in sickness absence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The second of two linked papers examining the interactions of psychiatry and the social sciences since World War II examines the role of NIMH on these disciplines. It analyses the effects of the prominence and the decline of psychoanalysis, and the impact of the psychotropic drugs revolution and the associated rise of biological psychiatry on relations between psychiatry and clinical psychology; and it explores the changing relationships between psychiatry and sociology, from collaboration to conflict to mutual disdain. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

An increase in interest for German scientific psychology followed the rise of liberalism in late nineteenth-century Spain. This paper deals with Spanish scholars' endeavors to participate in German psychology: It outlines the intellectual and institutional background of Spanish preoccupation with German philosophy and psychology, and deals with the personal experience and testimony of two Spanish philosophers, Eloy Luis André and Juan Vicente Viqueira López, who traveled to Leipzig, Berlin, and Göttingen between 1909 and 1914 to gain firsthand experience in the nascent science of psychology in Germany at that time. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In 1894, Wilhelm Dilthey published an article in which he formulated a critique of what he called ‘explanatory psychology’, contrasting it with his own conception of ‘descriptive psychology’. Dilthey’s descriptive psychology, in turn, was to provide the basis for Dilthey’s specific philosophy of the human sciences (Geisteswissenschaften). In this paper, I contextualize Dilthey’s critique of explanatory psychology. I show that while this critique comes across as very broad and sweeping, he in fact had specific opponents in mind, namely, scholars who, like him, attempted to theorize about the relationship between the individual and society, between psychology and the other human sciences. Dilthey’s critique of explanatory psychology is the flipside of his critique of sociology, which he had already formulated. He challenged both because he felt that they gave the wrong kind of answer to the task of overcoming metaphysics within the human sciences. In particular, I identify the founders of Völkerpsychologie, Moritz Lazarus and Heymann Steinthal, and (more importantly) their student, Georg Simmel, as Dilthey’s targets. I provide textual and historical evidence for this thesis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Summary: This paper reviews the existing literature that seeks to conceptualize the operation of power, from modernist ideas of power as a `thing' that may be possessed, to a range of critical alternatives, including structuralist, Foucauldian and feminist psychological perspectives. This review provides the foundations on which to construct a framework by which social workers may be able to map out and work with issues of power and powerlessness more effectively in their everyday practice. • Findings: Current frameworks, such as anti-oppressive practice, may be insufficient in being able to identify the range and complexity of power relations that may be enacted within a social situation. In order to provide a more comprehensive understanding, the article presents a discussion of the application of a framework for analysing the operation of different forms of power — one that acknowledges the potential of power to be both damaging and productive. • Applications: Through a discussion of how the concepts within this framework may be applied to a practice scenario, and to issues around the use of power and authority by social workers, there is an exploration of how the framework may provide a useful tool for underpinning emancipatory social work practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As a confluence of unique values and activities, the collective practice of community psychology is difficult to characterize in a simple way. Increasingly, however, professional contexts are laden with pressure to define any practice-from library work to medical interventions-in the orderly, compact language of traditional science. This trend has historically been resisted in the field by those sensing a fundamental lack of fit between the fluid, emergent aspects of community psychological practice and the fixed, precise language of classic science. In response to this “language-practice gap,” some have attempted to adapt the traditional language of science to better fit the field’s practice, while others have explored alternative languages of practice seemingly more indigenous to the messy “swamp” of actual communities. While the former effort leaves some theoretical contradictions intact, the latter tends to discount scientific identity entirely. This paper proposes a potential step forward by resituating questions of disciplinary language and identity within a current philosophical discourse where the nature of social science itself remains sharply contested. This suggests shifting attention away from “should webe a science?” to “what kindof science might we be after all?”; in turn, alternative languages may be re-cast as legitimate contributors to a kind of science more authentic to human communities-even a viable “science in the swamp.” One such language-philosophical hermeneutics-is presented as a particularly valuable supplement to traditional science. Illustrations highlight ways that hermeneutics may advance the formal language of the field towards a closer fit of what actually happens in practice, while preserving and even bolstering the empirical rigor and scientific identity of the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There have been comparative discussions about Thorstein Veblen and Max Weber before, but not quite from the most appropriate viewpoint. The present paper treats them as theorists of action, in social and economic analysis, and this perspective yields some interesting new findings. Both theorists are to be taken as participants in the great Methodenstreit in economics, 100 years ago, and it is Veblen who suggests a more radical solution to this dispute, he suggests its final abolishment. The main difference between Veblen and Weber is in their respective appreciations of the role of psychology in social analysis. Weber does not think it important, but in so thinking he misses the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology that Veblen endorses. Accordingly, both of these classical thinkers are to be considered as theorists of action, but so that it is Veblen who proffers a more general theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper examines some of the major topics that legal psychology began to focus on at the end of the last century.Aim: The purpose is to contend that such topics (the reliability of ear-witness testimony, the conducting of identification parades/line ups, the interviewing of suspects, the interviewing of vulnerable witnesses/victims) are deserving of greater attention in this new century.Conclusions: Legal psychologists should be brave enough to research with methodological rigour complex, real-world topics of importance to society and to advise relevant professional groups on how to improve their performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With a few notable exceptions, Alexis de Tocqueville's contributions to the formation of the sociological canon have been ignored. Most sociologists are likely to recognize him as a key source for current work on social capital and the civil society. But, in this paper I argue that Tocqueville's importance for sociology extends far beyond those uses. Tocqueville is the author of a sophisticated and powerful theory of culture that solves the key problem of reconciling culture with the claims of methodological individualism. He does so by shunning the disciplinary boundaries that have sprung up after him, integrating political, historical, institutional and psychological building blocks of culture in a subtle yet powerful analytical framework. He thus avoids many of the pitfalls that plague other theories of culture, which makes his contribution to the sociological canon equal to that of many other canon-forming writers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In view of the revanchist ideology that often passes under the rubric of sociobiology, a perspective that insists on the learned nature of social behavior is welcome. Undoubtedly, a search for the causes and careers of human behavior is a legitimate enterprise in sociology, but in the context of Molm's paper, a different question must be raised regarding behaviorist sociology. The root criticism of behavioral sociology, it seems to me, is the one she attributes to symbolic interactionism. The view that human emit behavior, Molm contends, is not a mechanistic theory at all because operant behaviors are not automatically elicited by any prior stimulus, they simply occur not elicited by a stimulus. If something that is yet to happen is the cause of the behavior that is about to be emitted, then surely it is the anticipation of receiving the reinforcement that is causing the behavior. I am sure Molm is correct that the argument about behavioral sociology is really about behavioral sociology is really about the goals and aims of science.

Behavioral sociology has developed unique features which have caused controversy and confusion in the discipline. In this paper, we briefly describe the history of behavioral sociology, and show how its major forms have been applied to behavioral analysts in complex organizations, laboratory experimental analysis of social exchange and social process, and behavioral macrosociology and theoretical extensions We also briefly examine criticisms of behavioral sociology on grounds of tautology, reduction, the omission of internal states as relevant data, and behavior control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moscovici has ushered in the 'era of social representations', widely welcomed as a European alternative to what are increasingly regarded as the shortcomings of mainline' American social psychology. The rapid and enthusiastic adoption by many psychologists of Moscovici's theoretical approach has not so far evoked a great deal of critical appraisal of the ideas he put forward. The present paper seeks to make a start in filling this gap by an examination of the conceptual structure and sonic of its underlying assumptions. There appear to be a number of internal inconsistencies and some doubt concerning the logical status of social representations'. It is suggested that clarification of such issues, together with the establishment of closer links with the findings of neighbouring disciplines, would help to strengthen what is undoubtedly one of the most stimulating new departures in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of the literature attempting to explain revival phenomena has resorted to psychological explanations to the exclusion of sociological factors. The purpose of this paper is to provide an explanation of revival behavior employing a normative framework. Four propositions are stated, each the prerequisite for the next. First, sinner and the revival culture must interact, and definitions of self and others must be forged. Second, structural facilities must be available for learning the Christian role. Third, opportunity structures must present themselves to afford the expression of appropriate behaviors that are in accord with pre-established patterns. Fourth, the status passage from salvation to sanctification is an orderly one, requiring that a sinner be saved before sanctified. The position taken Is that in order to arrive at adequate explanation, revival behavior must be observed as a social process. Therefore, the necessary requisite of the participant observation strategy is noted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports developments related to behavioral science as of October 1993. Calls for papers announced by the American Association for the History of Medicine for the 1994 Annual Meeting; Venue of the World Congress of Sociology; Schedule of the meeting of the Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry.

The article presents information on the comments of the editor for the journal "Human Studies." This special issue began with an idea proposed by George Psathas over lunch an intentionally open and broad call for papers to all contributors, editors and friends of "Human Studies." The present volume displays the many different ways that call was answered. As a sociologist have generally found it advisable to reject what in traditional academic circles is called interdisciplinary but in practice seems a way for one discipline to steal, and often distort in the process, ideas from other disciplines and claim them as their own. When, for instance, sociologists make use of psychological theories to explain children, rather than displaying interdisciplinarianism, they, from perspective, simply fill in gaps neglected by sociologists by stuffing in handy ideas from psychology, doing justice to neither.

The article presents information on culture identity and dress. The sociology of dress is a vibrant field, exploring intriguing theoretical, methodological, and empirical domains. During the mid-twentieth century, clothing scholars began investigating the sociological and psychological implications of dress and appearance. In 1989, a group met to discuss the direction of the analysis of dress. The published papers from that meeting considered a wide range of topics, including identity, social psychology, cultural anthropology and sociology, semiotics, affect and cognition, social construction of gender, literary analysis, as well as qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Recent textbooks in the area continue to thaw from sociology and other fields to refine theories of dress and human behavior. Related to the misperception that dress only applies to the psychology of the self is the notion that dress is trivial both substantively and theoretically. Perhaps sociologists' neglect of dress might also be linked to a misperception that it is nonrational behavior similar to other actions that do not lend themselves to systematic analysis. Again these articles provide a contrasting view. In organizational and institutional settings, such as greedy organizations, total institutions, and mass media, dress and all it symbolizes are debated and discussed in ways that can be studied scientifically. Further, all of the articles have identified patterns in how dress is used in identity embracing and distancing that can be incorporated into broader theoretical frameworks.

We welcome Forshaw's reply to our paper because it opens up debate about psychology and its relationship with the development of an emancipatory disability studies. In our paper we aimed to: (1) raise possibilities for disability studies researchers' engagement with psychology (rather than psychology colonizing disability studies); (2) trace some of the epistemological journeys we underwent in carrying out disability research and community psychology research; (3) consider these possibilities and journeys in relation to previous literature on emancipatory disability research. Forshaw's reply appears to ignore aims (2) and (3) and instead focuses on the ways in which we (mis)represent psychology. He suggests that we: present an inaccurate account of qualitative research in contemporary psychology; make a divisive argument for a 'breakaway group' of community psychologists; epistemologically contradict ourselves because of our concern with 'reality' and social constructionism; argue for only adopting participatory action research; not least, adopt 'simplistic' and 'outdated' views of psychology. We will respond to these criticisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]