Search

The current paper investigates Psychoanalytic, Cognitive, Behaviorist, and Socio-cultural theories and critiques how they have (or might have) contributed to the study of radicalization. The paper asserts two arguments that lack emphasis in the current radicalization research: 1) radicalization refers to a process, and does not always refer to violent behavior; 2) radicalization research needs to pay tribute to socio-cultural, political, and historical context while designing research and discussing findings. These two points are essential to extend the concept of radicalization and to be sensitive to different research contexts and populations. Currently, the conceptualization of radicalization appears to be generalized to violent action among minority groups (mainly Muslims) in limited contexts (mostly Western countries). The article claims that Psychology can better contribute to this diverse field of interest with its well-established theoretical contributions to the understanding of human beings and its compassion to seek differences amongst people across different contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why are there so many controversies in evolutionary psychology? Using a couple of concepts from philosophy of science, this paper argues that evolutionary psychology has not reached the stage of mature, normal science, since it does not currently have a unifying research program that guides individual scientists working in the discipline. The argument goes against claims made by certain proponents and opponents of evolutionary psychology, and it is supported by discussion of several examples. The paper notes that just because evolutionary psychology has not reached the stage of normal science, the discipline is nevertheless a source of many progressive theoretical developments and interesting empirical discoveries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we tried to deepen Zagaria, Andò and Zennaro's reflection on the problem of integrating psychology in their paper "Psychology: A Giant with Feet of Clay" (Zagaria et al. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 3, 2020). Psychology obtained this question from the uniqueness of its objects and it is an unavoidable question because of the social reality of modernity. We went back to the philosophical transitions on subject and proposed that Karl Marx's thinking on the subjectivity of objective faculties can be the first principle for different schools and sub-disciplines, as it conceptualizes human beings as natural beings but with its consciousness of being from its social praxis. Thus, it provides a starting point of humanized psychology. Further direction and tasks for psychology is also examined under a call of psychology going back and entering into the life world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a methodological concept of phenomenological elucidation to promote the development of phenomenology as psychology. After offering a minimal review of the historical relationship between phenomenology and psychology, the first section gives a brief overview of the descriptive phenomenological approach developed by A. Giorgi and other psychologists. However, for phenomenology to evolve as a human science, the method should not remain descriptive. One needs to be able to answer the question of "why". The second section outlines the process of phenomenological elucidation on the topic of dream analysis. This process answers the question of "why" based on identifying differences between the fundamental phenomenological structure of the dream experience and that of the real experience. Husserl's classification of intentionalities is used as a heuristic for this identification. In the final section, phenomenological elucidation is defined as a way to answer the "why" question by treating the differences between the experiences in question as specific cases of more fundamental differences in phenomenological structure. This method is expected to be effective in the development of phenomenology as psychology, that is, as an empirical human science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims to develop a critical sociocultural understanding on the epistemological and historical analysis of evidence-based (EB) paradigm in contemporary psychological knowledge-production (research) and knowledge-application (practice). It firstly retraces the emergence of EB in medical disciplines, its paradigmatic status, and its subsequent adoption by mainstream psychological sciences. The description of EB historical roots and key concepts leads to the second part, where the paper reflects on key epistemological criticalities scholars have raised toward the EB paradigm. Then, we develop our sociocultural perspective to enrich the epistemological analysis and critique of EB. Specifically, we propose a hermeneutic and interpretative understanding which frames EB as a re-enactment of the positivist scientific research ambition to reach for a complete formalization of biological/psychological phenomena (endo-genetical dynamics), and of new socioeconomic, political, and individual needs posed by contemporary Western societal institutions to scientific knowledge (exo-genetical dynamics). Furthermore, building on such understanding, we suggest that EB works as a contemporary epistemic indicator and threshold, serving two functions: selective filtering and exclusion. Finally, we speculate that EB endo-genetical and exo-genetical developmental dynamics can be interpreted as an expression of the contemporary presentist regime of temporality and as a shift towards the regime of performative techniques instead of context-specific and future-oriented relational competences, also tracing a determining factor that has directed, directs and will continue to direct scientific research in psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay takes up the framework of Semiotic Cultural Psychology, which in last decade was very productive in analyzing societal phenomena. Digging into complex sensemaking mechanisms, underlying the interaction between individual and his surrounding environment, has consolidated a base of empirical data gathered from different societies. Aiming to better understand the role of culture in this interaction, the current paper proposes to bridge these findings of observable macro-processes with the ones from the Active inference theory and cognitive science. Similarities between the two frameworks, as well as possible benefits of employing them for one goal, are discussed in this paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In its overall intent, the paper aims to instantiate the Valsinerian (2018) proposal of resistance as a fundamental process of human psyche. It attempts to use the concept of resistance to challenge the dualistic axiomatic basis of traditional psychology and argues for the benefits of dialectical metatheory in which theory of resistance is grounded. As a fundamental attribute of human functioning, resistance arises out of the tension of contradictions between opposites within the same whole. To grasp its nature and operation, the dialectical metatheory is needed rather than a dualistic metatheory which is endemic in traditional Psychology. The paper contrasts the two metatheories with each other and outlines the basic premises of dialectical metatheory. It also further elaborates the theory of resistance by addressing the three significant questions about the nature of resistance: Is resistance present in all encounters between persons and between persons and culture? Is resistance limited to negation or is it generative? Is resistance central to making development possible and bringing about transformational change? Through the application of dialectical framework in conceptualizing individual and collective relations, the dualistic thinking in cultural psychology about individualism and collectivism as mutually exclusive categories is questioned. Also, it opens out the space for finding the hidden transcripts of resistance in collectivist culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this commentary paper I try to make complementarily more discussion on two question. First, the target paper (Zagaria, Andò, & Zennaro, 2020) points out the lack of continuity in the concepts used in psychology. The authors aim for a rigorous definition which is necessary to rebuild mud figures of psychology, but is that the only direction? Second, the evolutionary psychology seems to allow for a diversity of methodologies, but is there any limitations and possibilities of approaching the origin of the mind from biologically based methods? To answer this question, I went back and examined Freud's earlier studies and Vygotsky's theoretical considerations from the history of psychology. As a result, it was pointed out that the shift from the biological world to the psychological world had a fundamental problem of conversion from quantity to quality. As a clue to its elucidation, I considered on the semiotic mediation, the psychological causality, and the work of apperception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary society has blurred the territorial borders that colonialism used to divide nation-states. Information about different peoples that have survived the impact of brutal violence perpetrated for centuries reaches everywhere in the world through information networks and disputes visibility. The modernization of the sciences happened during the period of consolidation of the so-called modern societies, in a process directly linked to the invasion of the indigenous territories of Abya Yala/Pindorama. Contemporary science is descendant of a large-scale colonialist process. The territory of knowledge has been colonized by economic and political interests that put researchers to work for purposes increasingly far from the desired freedom of thought. This paper argues that a escape from the entrapments of psychological methodolatry depends on the implication of a researcher connecting science to ethics, breaking the vicious cycle of reaffirmation of supposed scientific truths when they prove to be insufficient to approach basic human questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This deliberately essayistic paper deals with strengths of and limits to cultural psychology, especially in its application to research on religion. It is presented as only one possible approach, composite in itself and drawing on a variety of theories, insights, methods and techniques, but working on one of the fundamental aspects of human psychological functioning, and therefore as indispensable to efforts to explore and understand anything called religious as any other psychological approach may be. Furthermore, the paper makes an explicit plea for an interdisciplinary approach to psychology. Whether researchers will employ cultural psychology or another approaches from contemporary psychological sciences will depend on their personal preferences, their professional training, the type of context they are functioning and hopefully also on the kind of phenomenon pointed out to them as religious by a certain (sub)culture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present comment of the paper by Zagaria, Andò and Zennaro (2020) invests in the possible pragmatic entry of language in the problem of Psychology as a scientific enterprise, concerning the impossibility of consensus on its key constructs/concepts, and, consequently, the little cumulative capacity of the knowledge produced. Thus, the necessary discussion on the ambiguity, the cloudiness of the fundamental concepts of Psychology are reflected through the contributions of Wittgenstein II (2009) and the neopragmatism of Rorty (1999, 1995). Rorty offers a contemporary landscape on the purpose of knowledge production through his propositions on the relationship among truth, ethics and science in the humanities. The psychology of creativity is placed in the discussion as a field that well illustrate how the diversity of language games in Psychology reflects ethical perspectives in dealing with the phenomena, in this case related to the emergence of novelty, and the Rortian ironist reading on the relationship between objectivity and solidarity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ontological issues have a bad reputation within mainstream psychology. This paper, however, is an attempt to argue that ontological reflection may play an important role in the development of cultural psychology. A cross-reading of two recent papers on the subject (Mammen & Mironenko, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(4), 681-713, 2015; Simão Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50, 568-585, 2016), aimed at characterizing their respective approaches to ontological issues, sets the stage for a presentation of Cornelius Castoriadis' ontological reflections. On this basis, a dialogue is initiated with E.E. Boesch's Symbolic Activity Theory that could contribute to a more refined understanding of human psychological functioning in its full complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to put forward the foundation for building a theory of meaning-making based on emptiness. The theoretical perspective underlying the discussion is the cultural psychology of semiotic mediation. According to this perspective, meaning-making is the result of the process through witch human beings use signs to build their relationship with their environment. Three topics unfold in the paper. First, emptiness is defined as a potential absence. Second, the paper identifies the two ways in which emptiness enters into the meaning-making process, either fostering it or, to the contrary, blocking it. When it fosters meaning construction, emptiness acts as a catalytic factor, that is, as a reservoir of possibilities, in the sense of a future-oriented set of new meanings to be built by the agent. However, when emptiness plays the role of a blocking or anti-catalytic factor, emptiness become a hyper-generalized sign, i.e., an empty meaning. Third, this paper illustrates the applicability of these theoretical reflections on emptiness through the example of work. Specifically, both the burnout and the so-called 'placardisation' phenomena are analyzed in terms of the anti-catalytic factors at play in work, which lead to feeling it as empty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even though the concept of behavior is central to modern psychology, there is no consensus regarding what the term behavior means. The current paper focuses on disentangling two separate conceptions of the term that have added to the confusion. One meaning of the term behavior pertains to natural scientific epistemology, specifically the requirements of empirical methodology and its reliance on data that are measurable and available to public observation. The second meaning pertains to ontology and relates to the fact that at a descriptive level there are different kinds of behavioral patterns in the universe. Put simply, inanimate material objects behave differently from living organisms, which behave differently from animals, which behave differently from people. This paper introduces a "Periodic Table of Behavior" derived from Henriques', Review of General Psychology, 7, 150–182, (2003, 2011) Tree of Knowledge System to map the different kinds of behaviors that are described and examined by different sciences. It concludes by using the formulation to clarify the relationship between the methodological and ontological description of behavior and argues how the basic science of psychology can be effectively defined as the science of mental behavior going forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Taking departure in the author's recent book "A New Logical Foundation for Psychology" the paper proposes a solution to the long-standing so-called crisis in psychology. The causes to this crisis are above all found in a ruling reductionist and mathematically supported mechanistic understanding of nature with roots in European Renaissance, and following that, of man's embedment in nature. This leaves no place for non-mechanistic relations to unique and irreplaceable persons and objects defining the human psyche or soul, and fundamental phenomena as love and grief are consequently not understood. No humanistic superstructure of language or systems of signs and concepts can repair this loss of a vital dimension in basic human practical relations to the world. However, it is just in modern mathematics and mathematical logic, that the reductions of mechanicism are surmounted, at the same time leaving a place for mechanicism within a broader conceptual frame and defining a rich practical basis for understanding the role of language and human concepts. The wider perspectives comprise a new union of natural and human sciences. Finally the paper presents replies to two important commentaries to the author's abovementioned book. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article stems from an interest taken in discussing the usage of the terms ambivalence and ambiguity, which are very present in Psychology's publications and savoir faire. It is important to reiterate that in common sense and even in scientific publications these terms are often used as synonyms or notions of little conceptual delimitation. The relevance of such differentiation is proposed once these notions participates of the emergence of the new in human subjective experience, and, in a methodological approach, ambiguity and ambivalence are dimensions that leads the researcher goes beyond a repetitive sterile description of the subject's speech, moving towards new perspectives of the psychological data. This paper aims to retrieve the qualifying power of such notions by making a broader reflection on the functions of language in the production of interpretive realities. We also propose to bring up a reflection about ambiguity in the construction of meaning and to reiterate ambivalences as inherent to human nature, its affective record and the process of human becoming. As a way to explain the proposed themes, we will analyse an excerpt from the documentary "Últimas Conversas", produced by the Brazilian filmmaker Eduardo Coutinho, in which high school students from public state schools in Rio de Janeiro tell their stories, speaking of dreams and shared challenges. The character Rafaela was selected for this article because of the emergence of unspeakable emotions from her narrative about an expected future as a promise of reconciliation with the alterity of her life story. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we reflect on current trends and anticipate future prospects regarding qualitative research in Psychology. We highlight various institutional and disciplinary obstacles to qualitative research diversity, complexity and quality. At the same time, we note some causes for optimism, including publication breakthroughs and vitality within the field. The paper is structured into three main sections which consider: 1) the positioning of qualitative research within Psychology; 2) celebrating the different kinds of knowledge produced by qualitative research; and 3) implementing high quality qualitative research. In general we accentuate the positive, recognising and illustrating innovative qualitative research practices which generate new insights and propel the field forward. We conclude by emphasising the importance of research training: for qualitative research to flourish within Psychology (and beyond), students and early career researchers require more sophisticated, in-depth instruction than is currently offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper has a dual focus. One, is to use India as a case study to reflect upon the political, economic and socio-cultural structures of the country and how they shape the particular vulnerabilities in the society which have been aggravated in the COVID19 crisis-scape. Stories about Indian democracy, Casteism and Untouchability, Hindutva and Islamophobia emerging from the pandemic scenario have been extended to show global parallels. Stories of cultural resourcefulness and examples of people's power in the Indian context have also been represented to provide a formative assessment of how India is faring in the pandemic crisis. Two, it gathers emergent questions about human and social life which are being re-emphasized and created by the pandemic for Psychology to focus on. It makes use of Indian psychological concepts to re-envision self-other relationships in Post Coronial world. It makes a plea for strengthening the critical-cultural approach in 'Post-Coronial' Psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The questionable state of psychology as a science has been pointed out repeatedly over last hundred years. Sometimes programs to overcome the obvious limitations of psychology have been also proposed. So far, in vain. Zagaria with coauthors (this issue) bring the subject up again. They demonstrate that psychology today is characterized by the incoherence of definitions of core constructs and lack of consensus in the scientific community. The authors also suggest that psychology would do better by adopting a research program of a specific form of evolutionary psychology. In this paper I show, mostly on the basis of my earlier works on the same subject, that shortcomings of psychology today go much deeper than the authors of the target article have discussed. Psychology today is characterized by fundamental epistemological and methodological problems. As the same shortcomings characterize the version of evolutionary psychology advocated by Zagaria and coauthors, it is not the best candidate to ground the future of psychology. I suggest the psychology misses unifying psychology of a specific kind, which basic principles were outlined by Vygotsky almost a century ago. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychology has great potential for contributing to rural development, particularly through supporting rural extension (RE). In this paper, the types of expectations extensionists have of psychology are identified, as well as possible ways of integrating psychosocial knowledge into the RE context. Rural extensionists from 12 Latin American countries were surveyed ( n = 654). Of them, 89.4 % considered psychology could contribute to rural extension and commented on how this would be possible. Expectations were categorised and the nine mentioned by more than 20 % of them were utilized to conduct a two-steps cluster analysis. Three types of extensionists' expectations were identified: one wherein working with extensionists was highlighted; another characterised by a focus on working with farmers; and a third featuring a traditional, diffusionist extension approach, which views farmers as objects of psychologists' interventions. With the first type, psychologists should not neglect working with farmers and with the second, with extensionists. With the third type, reflecting on the expectations themselves and their underlying assumptions seems essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of whether psychology can properly be regarded as a science has long been debated (Smedslund in Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 50, 185-195, 2016). Science is typically understood as a method for producing reliable knowledge by testing falsifiable claims against objective evidence. Psychological phenomena, however, are traditionally taken to be 'subjective' and hidden from view. To the extent that science relies upon objective observation, is a scientific psychology possible? In this paper, I argue that scientific psychology does not much fail to meet the requirements of objectivity as much as the concept of objectivity fails as a methodological principle for psychological science. The traditional notion of objectivity relies upon the distinction between a public, observable exterior and a private, subjective interior. There are good reasons, however, to reject this dichotomy. Scholarship suggests that psychological knowledge arises neither from the 'inside out' (subjectively) nor from the outside-in (objectively), but instead intersubjective processes that occur between people. If this is so, then objectivist methodology may do more to obscure than illuminate our understanding of psychological functioning. From this view, we face a dilemma: Do we, in the name of science, cling to an objective epistemology that cuts us off from the richness of psychological activity? Or do we seek to develop a rigorous intersubjective psychology that exploits the processes through which we gain psychological knowledge in the first place? If such a psychology can produce systematic, reliable and useful knowledge, then the question of whether its practices are 'scientific' in the traditional sense would become irrelevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In reference to commentaries on the paper (Mammen and Mironenko, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 49(4):681-713, ) some clarifications are introduced concerning the general landmarks and objectives in the development of psychological science, in respect to which activity theories (AT) can be assessed and evaluated. Contemporary psychological science is developing along the path of integration, as part of the emerging global world. AT has some special value and importance in this respect. It can contribute to the development of the emerging multi-paradigmatic system of the global psychological science because it combines two aspirations, which are rarely combined in psychological theories: a) consistent focus on scientific method, objectivity and conclusiveness; b) the pursuit of a holistic and complete, not simplified and not one-sided comprehension of the subject. The former provides good bases for dialogue with 'objective' psychological approaches, close to natural sciences. The latter is suggesting dialogue with teleological humanitarian psychologies. Therefore, AT can engage in networking with a wide range of theories, facilitating the integration of psychological knowledge. It can contribute to resolve the much discussed collision of reductionist 'scientific' theoretical models and loose 'comprehensive' descriptions in contemporary psychological science. Developing dialogue and cooperation with other schools is of special importance for the RAT, which should return to the international science, where it was rooted, overcoming the language and conceptual barriers. Some new considerations are suggested regarding the theory of the two types of categories of Jens Mammen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I want to draw attention to the works of the German neo-Kantian philosopher Paul Natorp, who, in his writings about psychology, developed a unique understanding of the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity. Despite the many decades that have passed since the original publication of Natorp's work, I want to show that his ideas can still be influential today, if we want to re-orient psychology as a discipline and examine the higher psychological functions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debates about replication in psychology have focused on methodological issues and how to strengthen the replication culture. In most cases, these discussions have tended to assume that the phenomena being investigated are universal. In this paper, we are going to propose a theoretical distinction of different types of replication. The distinction is based on the assumption that besides of universal psychological phenomena there are also phenomena, especially in social and cultural psychology, that are expected to vary between socio-cultural contexts and across history. Taking this insight to its logical conclusion it implies that the main purpose of a replication and interpretation of its results depends on the phenomenon being studied. In the case of the universal phenomena, the replication serves to validation purpose, while in the case of the socio-cultural phenomenon it serves to advance our theoretical understanding of how the given phenomenon is formatted by the socio-cultural-historical context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theoretically as well as alongside empirical research, this paper outlines a reflective research stance that has been thriving among cultural psychologists in Vienna since the turn of the millennium. The focus is on a specific methodological facet of this stance tentatively termed 'tracking one's own path' – a metaphor for taking the starting point of research in one's own life world, for a re-embedding of reasoning into the socio-cultural context out of which we reason, and thus for situated knowledge. The text brings forward epistemological considerations from deconstruction and phenomenology to support the methodological argument and unfolds implications for teaching and research. Three connected examples are provided to document how such research can be conducted within a critical discourse analytical frame. Upon this basis, the final section discusses the potential of the approach for cultural psychology, in particular in regard to conceptualizing an encompassing meta-theoretical frame and a coherent research programmatic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The book Jerome S. Bruner beyond 100: Cultivating Possibilities immerses the reader in an epistemic, historical, and affective portrait delivered by authors from various fields and distinct perspectives on Bruner's work, in celebration of his hundredth birthday. If, on the one hand, it is possible to say that Bruner's life story intertwines with the history of Psychology itself, on the other hand, it is possible to recognise the author as a great ironist, according to Rorty's perspective, in his way of approaching the transformation process in psychological science. The present paper constructs a pragmatics dialogue with Bruner's Cultural Psychology discussing contemporary Western society in its way of understanding cultural diversity and communality citizenship. In times of media customisation and the fluid and agile environment of virtual communities, bubbles have become arenas for the reification of beliefs and meanings based on validation by peers and not by the dialectical, transformative tension towards their possible opposites. The present discussion builds up a reflection concerning possible affective-semiotics process in contemporary culture, highlighting Bruner's grammar on intersubjectivity and narrative interpretation of reality on the basis of Rorty's pragmatics-ethical philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper starts from the recognition of Bruner's contribution to the development of psychological science. It is claimed here that to proceed in that direction requires the building of an analytical notion of meaning. This analytical notion should distinguish between meaning-making and sensemaking, namely between the processes of elaboration and use of meaning (meaning-making) and the processes that makes the meaning emerge to be lived as psychological reality (sense-making). In order to discuss this distinction, two main issues are addressed – the limit of the hypostatized view of meaning and the dynamics of presentification through which meaning is endowed with value of life. These two issues are complementary – together they push psychology to search for a theoretical and methodological framework where meaning can be investigated as an emergent psychological phenomenon, and not only taken for granted as a premise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"An old melody in a new song: aesthetics and the art of psychology" provides comprehensive analysis of the history of 'psychological aesthetics' and considers ways of its future growth. Jovanovic (2018) and Allesch (2018) trace the process of the conception of Aesthetics by Baumgartner, who related aesthetic experiences with sensual and cognitive processes. Subsequently, studies on aesthetic experiences developed predominantly either in objectivist or subjectivist directions, rejecting systematic approaches. Reductionist views prevailed till the appearance of the theory of imagination in cultural psychology. Imagination is considered as a higher mental process. It is the process of exploration through and by means of systematically organized thinking-feeling-acting processes, beyond what is already known, available, achieved or typical. Imagination is activated occasionally, when existing conditions aren't satisfactory in some way or new challenges arise. Imagination is the synthesis of top-down and bottom up processes (Tateo 2018b) and has a transformative power for individuals and sociocultural systems. Particular case studies of the role of music (Klempe 2018), participatory art and the exploration of the meaning of pilgrimage to Ikea (Kristensen 2018) illustrate the work of imagination in terms of systematic interrelatedness of sociocultural factors with individual meaning-making and affective processes. This paper provides the review of inspirational theoretical and empirical material which could serve as a foundation for further advancement of culturally and psychologically informed theory of aesthetics and imaginative processes. It aims to contribute in building ground for moving beyond the reductionist limits and in the construction of systematic approach to human mind. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attachment theorists believe that children rely on their caregivers for protection and exploration. Due to this emphasis on independent exploration, however, the extent to which this notion of secure-base behavior is valid in societies emphasizing belongingness, such as Japan, has been questioned. By conducting an in-depth exploration of two Japanese collectivistic concepts, amae and ie, the present paper reexamines the relevance of secure-base behavior in Japan. Current discussions of amae have relied on psychoanalytic concepts that were developed in Western culture, and thus may not accurately represent Japanese parent-child relations. By examining another traditional concept of the family system, ie, this paper proposes that attachment theory is relevant in Japanese culture because children's individual competence is important to their families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews seventy years of theoretical research and proposes systematic curiosity as an integrative tool for human flourishing with a focus on four key aspects: firstly, acknowledge curiosity’s multidimensional nature instead of harmonizing its complex taxonomy; secondly, emphasizing intentional curiosity as opposed to impulsive curiosity; thirdly, prioritizing domain-general curiosity for broader applicability across educational, organizational, and therapeutic settings; and lastly, focusing on curiosity as a developable skill rather than an innate trait. By segmenting systematic curiosity into cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components, and relating these to interactions with the self, others, and the world, the framework aims to apply across the spectrum of human experience. Furthermore, the framework encourages an exploration of various evidence-based activities for flourishing so individuals can discover the most suitable strategies for their specific context. Implications for both theory and practice are examined, limitations are discussed, and avenues for future research are suggested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Education is a human activity that is continuously developing. This is the core of the Cultural Psychology of Education framework. There are no ready-made, perpetual solutions that work everywhere and for every person. Two central themes dominate this chapter: (1) Education is cultural in nature, and (2) Educational Psychology is culturally guided. The Cultural Psychology approach to education reflects the interdisciplinary nature of Educational Psychology and informs its application in a variety of cultural contexts. Cultural Psychology of Education is international and global, promoting cultural sensitivity within the educational environment and the idea that in any society, the application of knowledge in the area of education is locally based. Nevertheless, the field strives to contribute to the discussion about education on a global scale. Cultural Psychology of Education has a necessary moral commitment to the dignity, integrity and diversity of human life. The promotion and protection of the well-being of individuals and diverse human communities is a core aspect inherent in both the theoretical applications and the professional practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We now live in the era of big data, and according to its proponents, big data is poised to change science as we know it. Claims of having no theory and no ideology are made, and there is an assumption that the results of big data are trustworthy because it is considered free from human judgement, which is often considered inextricably linked with human error. These two claims lead to the idea that big data is the source of better scientific knowledge, through more objectivity, more data, and better analysis. In this paper I analyse the philosophy of science behind big data and make the claim that the death of many traditional sciences, and the human scientist, is much exaggerated. The philosophy of science of big data means that there are certain things big data does very well, and some things that it cannot do. I argue that humans will still be needed for mediating and creating theory, and for providing the legitimacy and values science needs as a normative social enterprise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper extends on six aspects of an article on neoliberal school reforms, their possible influences on schools and school psychologists, and options for dealing with these challenges (Szulevicz, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Sciences 2018). First, the reductions implied in the neoliberal view of the student as homo economicus and of an ideal student as self-regulated learner are described and alternative views of the student as a person (e.g., homo moralis) and of the ideal student (e.g., as intentional self-developer) are presented. Secondly, several promoting and inhibiting influences on neoliberal school reforms are discussed: competence-based school education, output-oriented school governance, and standardized school performance testing on the one hand, and critical discourses about these phenomena on the other. Third, attention is directed towards impending disadvantages of the aforementioned reforms (e.g., insufficient preparation of students for the fullness of life). Fourth, goals for interventions are discussed (e.g., reducing neoliberal influences on schools, creating an awareness of the disadvantages of neoliberal reforms, forming coalitions to promote alternatives to these reforms). Fifth, some intervention approaches for reaching these goals are considered with special emphasis on different system levels and stakeholders at which these interventions may be targeted (e.g., education policy makers, teachers and parents associations). Sixth, evaluations of the interventions are called for to monitor their effects and to refine the guiding goals, problem analyses, and strategies. In closing, some transferable principles of the preceding approach are highlighted that could be used to better understand and manage other educational problems as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article I address some more aspects regarding Boesch's ontological predication aiming to clarify mistaken comprehensions as appeared in Perez-Campos' (2017) detailed work on my former paper about this issue (Simão 2016b). With this purpose, the following three aspects will be approached: the philosophical roots of my former proposal; the place of Boesch's symbolic action theory in that proposal and the relevance of this discussion for the relationship between ontology and psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I introduce the outlines of our new type of theoretical framework named 'Cultural psychology of Differences' for understanding cultural others and dialogically reconstructing interactions among cultural others. In order to understand cultural others, it is necessary for us to reconstruct a new concept which enables us to analyze dynamic generation processes of culture. We propose the concept of Expanded Mediational Structure, EMS, as an elementary unit for understanding human social interactions. EMS is composed of subjects who interacts each other using objects of some kind as mediators, and a normative mediator, NM, which mediates their interactions. It is necessary to generate, share and adjust a NM to keep social interactions stable, and culture will appear when interaction malfunction is attributed to a gaps of NMs. The concept of EMS helps us to understand how culture is functionally substantialized in the plane of collective (or communal) intersubjectivity and how cultural conflicts develop and intensify. Focusing on the generation process of culture through interactions provides us with another option to understand cultural others through dialogical interactions with them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article sketches the history of the study of Vygotsky's legacy in the Soviet Union and the West and then switches to a brief discussion of the origin of the book Understanding Vygotsky published 30 years ago. Several features and shortcomings of the book are discussed and it is shown that recent publications partly fill the gaps in our knowledge. This is illustrated by a succinct discussion of the contributions to the special issue which show that Vygotsky's legacy continues to inspire the modern researcher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article asks what kind of science psychology should be and what new readings of Vygotsky can contribute to answering this question. Methodology and method are key to constituting psychology as a science. Hence, the focus is on three major methodologic-methodic approaches to what Vygotsky referred to in his Notebooks towards the end of his life as his and his colleagues' "acmeist psychology" – the objective-analytical, the method of double stimulation and the semic method. Each will be discussed in its own right, followed by a discussion of the interrelatedness of the three in order to provide stimulation for future possibilities. These possibilities – it will be argued – lie in decisively re-orienting psychology as a science that brings single cases and complex semiotic analyses to the fore and thereby also rethinks psychology's relation towards the arts, especially literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From a historical perspective, 'psychology' can be studied from an abundance of angels. Thus, a selected perspective requires some historiographical reflections, but also a conscious awareness of the actual chosen terms that are at stake. In this study, the historiographical perspective follows an emergent understanding of the history, which implies that the actual chosen terms are dynamically contributing to a web of terms, in which all of them may change in more or less unpredictable directions. In line with this, the aspect of music is consciously chosen, as it probably is one of the most ignored aspects of psychology in historical research. Thus, the findings in this study reveal that music as the 'direct factor' played an overarching role in the nineteenth centuries experimental psychology, but also that the changes in the understanding of music in the early sixteenth century is comparable with the changes the understanding of the soul underwent along with the introduction of the neologism 'psychology'. In the understanding of both music and the soul the sensational aspects replaced the mathematical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper explores that CHT contains at least three dialectical concepts and principles; (1) development as drama (dialectical contradiction) and the principle of dramatic construction of the personality, (2) the concept of mediating activity and the principle of qualitative transition and reorganisation and (3) the concept of perezhivanie and the principle of refraction. Rethinking the status of 'the social' creates opportunities to overcome a dualism of two groups of factors (biological and social) and introduces the principle of dramatic construction of the personality, which is an intrapsychological result of overcoming social dramatical interpsychological collisions (dramas of life). Rethinking 'the individual' in relation to mediating activity leads to the conclusion that by creating and using cultural signs an individual not only creates artificial stimuli-devices for mastering his psychological processes, but actively reorganizes the whole social situation. Dialectics of the individual and social is explained as interpsychological and intrapsychological are dimensions of one 'social-individual' or 'individual-social' continuum. Drama of real life refracted through the prism of perezhivanie becomes a drama of a personality; intrapsychological higher mental function develops, but remains quasi-social. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to reflect on the relation between autobiographical memory (ME) and autobiographical narrative (NA), examining studies on the effects of narrating on the narrator and showing how studying these relations can make more comprehensible both memory's and narrating's way of working. Studies that address explicitly on ME and NA are scarce and touch this issue indirectly. Authors consider different trends of studies of ME and NA: congruency vs incongruency hypotheses on retrieving, the way of organizing memories according to gist or verbatim format and their role in organizing positive and negative emotional experiences, the social roots of ME and NA, the rules of conversation based on narrating. Analysis of investigations leads the Authors to point out three basic results of their research. Firstly, NA transforms ME because it narrativizes memories according to a narrative format. This means that memories, when are narrated, are transformed in stories (verbal language) and socialised. Secondly, the narrativization process is determined by the act of telling something within a communicative situation. Thus, relational situation of narrating act, by modifying the story, modifies also memories. The Authors propose the RE.NA.ME model (RElation, NArration, MEmory) to understand and study ME and NA. Finally, this study claims that ME and NA refer to two different types of processes having a wide area of overlapping. This is due to common social, developmental and cultural roots that make NA to include part of ME (narrative of memory) and ME to include part of NA (memory of personal events that have been narrated). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the name as an issue of interest in the psychology field. In thinking about the role played by names for some of the most important approaches on the psychology panorama, it has been found that the analysis of names can be used as an instrument for the investigation of thought formation processes, or as an element in the process of constructing personal identity. In the first case, the focus is on the so-called 'common' names, which designate objects; in the second case, instead, it is on people's given names and on the way they are perceived by their bearers and those who surround them. We have examined both domains, since it is essential to understand how the psychological concepts related to names develop in children's minds, if we aim to grasp their importance as designators of people's internal and external realities. Lastly, we have proposed our own view of the person's name, linked to the relational systems perspective which essentially sees the name as a signifier or 'representative' of the child-parent relationship, while the 'relationship' is the signified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although our environments and ourselves are usually thought about as relatively stable over time, there is always a tension between sameness and non-sameness in our lives. Because any development is considered as emerging non-sameness, I report that the inquiry into the development of human mind must regard this tension as essential. In this paper, first I show that this tension is a highly relational and dynamic phenomenon that cannot be fixed or measured in numerical terms. Non-sameness is not only a result of development but also a ground that leads to further development in the future. After illustrating the function and regulation of the {same <> non-same} tension in development by analyzing an excerpt from a mother-child conversation, I explain that this tension, or more generally the dialectic nature, is within the core of psychological phenomena, in terms that were introduced to psychology by James Mark Baldwin a century ago. These discussions imply the importance of inquiring into the process of development that emerges from the dialectic tension and fluctuations of our movements and that is observable in various relationships, including the relationship between researchers and study participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to propose the notion of culture as a symbolic moving border. Departing from both, Boesch's (1991) concept of culture as a symbolic field of action, and Herbst's (1995) co-genetic logic, I will discuss the dynamics of self-other relationships in terms of their potentiality as sources of movement in culture. A brief analysis of an empirical material is given in illustrative character of the ideas here exposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper the notion of border will be examined in a cultural life course perspective. I will investigate borders as psycho-cultural constructions created to enable and control meaning-making in the intersection between subjects engagements and concerns and collectively constructed and guiding meanings. An empirical analysis of one boy's life course in and between home, school and a Leisure Time Activity Center in the years 1st to 3rd grade demonstrates a systemic construction of borders involving him, his teachers and his parents and renders the boy to choose between becoming an engaged pupil or a dedicated son. As such, the analysis can illuminate processes of school - home interactions that work opposite of what is intended and become detrimental to children's life. In a cultural life course perspective borders show how life is maintained as meaningful and not only guide the present living but also serve as directional guides into the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper questions to what extent borders are to be understood from a philosophical or a psychological perspective. This is done by investigating the distinction between philosophy and psychology that comes up as a result of Immanuel Kant's investigation of the pure reason. Ontology is found as a demarcation criterion between the two fields in the sense that it is of crucial importance in philosophy, but not of certain interest from a psychological point of view. An investigation of three assumptions in the perspective of affective loading follows this up, which confirms the efficiency of borders in psychological meaning production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper addresses several aspects discussed in the special issue on the future of qualitative research in psychology. Particularly, it asks whether in light of the overhomogenization of the term 'qualitative methods' researchers actually can still assume that they talk about the same thing when using this terminology. In addressing the topic of what constitutes the object of psychological research and what accordingly could be a genuinely psychological qualitative research it acknowledges the need to return to the study of persons' unique experience. In light of the risk of 'McDonaldization' in present qualitative research, it argues that we need to return to learning research methods as craft skills. It will then give an outlook on how recent developments in discursive and narrative psychology offer a fruitful avenue for studying unique psychological experience as people manage to 'move on' in a material world and in irreversible time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When they discuss the Danish academic situation, Szulevicz, Lund and Lund (2021) address three questions about the academic training of psychology researchers: (a) why do Danish master's students in psychology more frequently choose the qualitative method for their research?; (b) what are psychology students working on?; and (c) what are they interested in? These three questions have led us to reflect on researcher training and the political and educational model universities adopt for psychology master's courses, not only in the Danish context, but also in other general contexts. In this commentary, we will discuss one strictly normative issue: what should the scientific ideal be for training researchers in psychology? Or more accurately: how can psychology contribute to discussions about the scientific ideal of researcher training in this knowledge area? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Zagaria, Andò & Zennaro (2020) raise several issues for the study of the human condition, highlighting the precarious status of psychology on account of a core weakness: The absence of consensus about fundamental concepts. Using the metaphor of a giant, albeit one with feet of clay, the authors develop an argument about how evolutionary psychology is the best possible candidate to advance a unified paradigm on account of theoretical consistency. In this commentary we examine the metaphors and models invoked in the article and suggest alternative perspectives on the grounds that a grand singular solution and consistency in definitions are not urgent requirements for understanding the complexity, diversity, and nuances of the human condition. We argue that plurality and low consensus can be taken as productive and functional; precisely because psychological and cultural phenomena are always characterized by uncertainty in irreversible time. Cultural psychology is a valuable paradigm, inclusive of universal and individual processes in ways that provide more appropriate resolution for cultural pluralism. Every definition of psychological phenomena, however obscure and contested, has arisen from theoretical speculation arising from a specific perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Zagaria, Andó́ and Zennaro (in this issue) have offered that the discipline of psychology is fraught with conceptual chaos and a multiplicity of constructs. They have also assessed psychology to be a soft science, with much potential to be a hard science, should it allow itself to be unified by the principles offered by evolutionary psychology. With this approach, psychology would transition from its pre-paradigmatic to a paradigmatic status. In this commentary, we question their premise, method and conclusion, and finally submit that the preoccupation with paradigm is connected with a positivist view of scientific knowledge production. Psychological constructs are not ostensive in nature and cannot be treated as matter is in the hard sciences. This is neither possible, nor desirable. Additionally, such constructs are located in various theoretical perspectives, necessary to understand their multifaceted nature. We question the proposal of evolutionary psychology as an alternative meta-theory. Psychology is essentially a human endeavor, and we must step out of our need to follow the acultural Euro-American vision of positivist science, and instead build an enterprise that can be plural, contextually sensitive and incorporate the complexity and interdisciplinarity needed to be truly successful at approaching the human condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]