Search

The article is devoted to the study of the activities of pedologists of the Chuvash ASSR and aims to analyze the historically first study devoted to the intelligence of Chuvash children. The study is based on the publications of the first pedologists from Chuvashia F. P. Petrov and M. E. Efimov. In accordance with the historical and psychological methods described by V. A. Koltsova, the work uses problematic and source study methods. The study is written in the aspect of the history of pedagogy. A graduate student of the Kazan Oriental Pedagogical Institute, F. P. Petrov with a team of students, for the first time carried out a comprehensive study of the intellectual development of Chuvash children using the Binet-Simon test method, widely known among Soviet pedologists. At first, pedologists took the test method in Russian, then it was translated into the Chuvash language with appropriate text changes in relation to the everyday and speech characteristics of the Chuvash. The result of the study was the book published in Cheboksary, "The experience of studying the intellectual development of Chuvash children using the Binet-Simon method", published in 1928. The book caused serious objections from the head of the pedological office at the Chuvash Scientific Research Institute M. E. Efimov; he believed that the author was biased against Chuvash children and violated the methodological principle of making tests. The correspondence polemic between two Chuvash pedologists about the measurement of children’s intelligence, along with similar cases in the country’s republics, prompted L. S. Vygotsky to call for an understanding of the problems of national pedology, with its leading problem – the measurement of intelligence.

Abstract The increasing popularity of the Bayesian approach in Psychology has prompted metascientific efforts to quantify its prevalence. However, despite enduring debates between proponents of Frequentist and Bayesian schools of thought, no systematic comparison of their prominence has been conducted in existing literature. This brief report fills this gap, examining Bayesian and Frequentist trends in the period from 1964 to 2023 through a meticulous search in PsycINFO. The findings reveal that the Frequentist approach has consistently been more popular than the Bayesian approach in the realm of Psychometrics and Statistical Psychology. However, Bayesian contributions steadily increased from the 80’s onward and appear to be almost as important or even surpassing the Frequentist counterparts in the latest years investigated (2019–2023). Although this observation applies primarily to specialized literature rather than the entire domain of Psychology, it underscores the growing prevalence of the Bayesian approach, signaling attention among specialists in the field.

The increasing popularity of the Bayesian approach in Psychology has prompted metascientific efforts to quantify its prevalence. However, despite enduring debates between proponents of Frequentist and Bayesian schools of thought, no systematic comparison of their prominence has been conducted in existing literature. This brief report fills this gap, examining Bayesian and Frequentist trends in the period from 1964 to 2023 through a meticulous search in PsycINFO. The findings reveal that the Frequentist approach has consistently been more popular than the Bayesian approach in the realm of Psychometrics and Statistical Psychology. However, Bayesian contributions steadily increased from the 80's onward and appear to be almost as important or even surpassing the Frequentist counterparts in the latest years investigated (2019–2023). Although this observation applies primarily to specialized literature rather than the entire domain of Psychology, it underscores the growing prevalence of the Bayesian approach, signaling attention among specialists in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the concept of unconscious imagination and challenges the notion that imagination can only occur consciously. The author critiques previous arguments for unconscious imagination and proposes an alternative view using the Predictive Processing framework. The article emphasizes the importance of understanding the cognitive processes underlying imagination and suggests that further exploration within frameworks like Predictive Processing is needed to fully comprehend the role of imagination in cognition. [Extracted from the article]

In 2023 year, the world scientific community celebrates the 130th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding Russian scientist Vladimir Nikolayevich Myasishchev (1893-1973). The preservation and integration of his heritage into modern Russian and world science remains a pressing issue. This study allows us to assert that A. Adler’s individual psychology was a common source in the genesis of psychotherapy methods of V.N. Myasishchev and A. Ellis. The material of this research consists of previously unknown correspondence documents of V.N. Myasishchev, stored in the Central State Archive of Scientific and Technical Documentation. V.N. Myasishchev’s works were of great interest to American psychotherapists and psychologists. This fact was confirmed by A. Ellis’s invitation to V.N. Myasishchev in 1964 on a month-long scientific tour to the Ivy League University and leading psychotherapeutic centers of the USA. This clearly indicates a certain contribution made by V.N. Myasishchev to the formation of the second wave of cognitive behavioral therapy methods.

Introduction. The first study of the history of Saratov organizational psychology was carried out by L. N. Aksenovskaya, who traced the development of the industrial and organizational direction at Saratov State University from 1971 to the present. The purpose of our research was to analyze the process of formation of organizational and psychological science in Saratov in the 1920s–1930s. Such historical and psychological methods as the analysis of information presented in scientific and reference publications, historical reconstruction, interpretation of factual material were used. Theoretical analysis. A study was conducted on the development of Saratov organizational psychology in the 1920s–1930s as an integral part of two directions – scientific organization of labor and psychotechnics. Conclusion. It is established that organizational psychology in Saratov developed in accordance with the general trends of the scientific process for the whole country. For research and practical work, divisions were created at provincial administrative institutions, regional branches of All-Russian scientific communities, experimental laboratories. The article presents the activities of three Saratov laboratories organized by engineers at the Saratov Institute of National Economy, doctors at the Provincial Department of Public Education, psychologists at the Department of Philosophy and Psychology of Saratov University (the heads respectively N. M. Dyakonov, I. L. Stychinsky, A. A. Krogius).

This article examines the relationship between sexology, censorship, and the regulation of sexual knowledge in early twentieth-century Britain and Germany. It argues that while censorship posed a threat to the dissemination of sexological knowledge, many sex researchers actually supported the careful regulation of sexual knowledge. They believed that scientific understanding of human sexuality was important and should guide sexual life. The article also discusses how appeals to nature were used to justify the dissemination of sexual scientific ideas and counter arguments against such knowledge. The understanding of the sexual instinct as changeable and open to influence shaped sex researchers' views on censorship and the emergence of sexology as a field. The article concludes by highlighting the complexities and contradictions surrounding censorship and the dissemination of sexual scientific knowledge. [Extracted from the article]

The history of the relationship between psychology and education in Chile has been documented with emphasis on the period from 1850 to 1950. This research adds to these efforts and explores the contributions of Professor Amanda Labarca, particularly those orientations that prioritized the application of psychology over its conceptualization. To do this, various primary sources from the first half of the 20th century are used, with a focus on the text Nuevas Orientaciones de la Enseñanza (New Teaching Orientations). Additionally, reception studies are incorporated to understand the circulation of these proposals. The results highlight the importance of the text as a means of disseminating psychological ideas, directed towards the application of the psychological discipline within schools. Students and teachers are also identified as key actors and the target population of these psychological trends. Teaching methods, variables prioritized in the learning process, as well as the principles of the new school, which were attempted to be implemented first as proposals and later observed in the implementation of the Liceo Experimental Manuel de Salas, are highlighted. The findings invite further exploration of this transitional period in psychology to understand the practices that were well-received in the school environment, as well as to identify processes that could not be replicated. This reinforces the need to pay greater attention to women's proposals, from which direct links with psychology continue to be visible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history of psychology in Ghana has received research attention. However, documentation of regional or provincial history of psychology in Ghana has not received enough scholarly attention. In a resource-constrained setting, the least developed areas are often neglected, especially in terms of service provision and historical research. It is important that the progress of psychology in Northern Ghana, one of the least developed regions in Ghana, is examined to inform public policy decisions. In this paper, we discuss the history of psychology and its practice in Northern Ghana. We present the challenges faced by the profession in the region and some recommendations for improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper supports the idea that the epistemology of Psychology had a relatively progressive line of development, and it was not only a constant swing between the primacy of two opposing perspectives: from out-side in and from in-side out. Although the recessive dynamics of these two metaphysical principles of Person Constructs Reality and Reality Constructs Person (Buss, 1978) was the critical marker of any significant paradigm change from the history of psychology, the development of psychological thinking has presupposed, in addition, a general evolutive path. I will demonstrate that these combined movements of alternation and progression form a unique complex sense of epistemological development of psychology accompanying the corresponding development of human personality level of self-reflection. Contrary to pessimistic views that interpret the reflexivity embedded in this dual paradigm shift to entrapping psychology to an eternal return, it actually propels the advancement of human self-reflective consciousness to a collective level of self-understanding. The final considerations are made about the current mainstream of psychological research and unreflexively practices detrimental to the substantiation of a Humanistic Psychological Science, which has become vital in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. This study discusses one of the last Vygotsky`s works — the fourth chapter in «Fascism in Psychoneurology» bulletin (1934). Motivation of the author to write this text is analyzed in the broad context of sociopolitical and personal aspects of his life: general growth of sociopsychological tension, repressions that touched Vygotsky`s family in 1930s, personally significant Jewish question and antisemitism in nazi Germany. In addition, joint letter from R.N. Vygodskaya and L.S. Vygotsky to D.I. Vygodsky published for the first time. This letter mentioned the arrest of Vygotsky`s cousin L.I. Vygodsky. Objective. The aim of the study was to reconstruct personal meanings and circumstances of L.S. Vygotsky in writing a chapter for «Fascism in Psychoneurology» bulletin. Methods. Elements of source analysis, search and analysis of archival documents, theoretical analysis of literature on L.S. Vygotsky`s biography. Results. The analysis showed that Vygotsky and Luria`s criticism of Fascism in psychology is built around several topics: criticism of the basic anthropological idea of the Third Reich about the predestination of human development depending on «blood and race»; an analysis of the process of politicization and ideologization of science, exemplified by the concept of «Integrationstypologie» introduced by E.R. Jaensch, which Vygotsky criticizes; political self-defense of Soviet scientists against possible persecution; the issue of national self-determination of Soviet Jewish scientists. Conclusion. Authors of this article suggested that this work may be seen not only as a scientific criticism and assertion of humanistic values in psychology but also as an act of political self-defense from sanctions and persecution that took place during the second half of the 1930s.

Additionally, sexologists like Ellis categorized cases of homosexuality as congenital or innate or as late acquired, whereas in 1920 Freud wanted to eliminate this question altogether; he believed that the patient's sexual and psychological history revealed just how "fruitless and inapposite" congenital or acquired homosexuality was.[59] Can the 1920 case of this young woman's homosexuality be labeled a late-acquired inversion, as these sexologists could have claimed? Historians of sexuality repeatedly focus on Freud's writings on male homosexuality, largely omitting his views on female homosexuality, which fluctuated between sexual conventionalism and the relative radicalism vis-à-vis male homosexuality.[8] Freud demonstrated a persistent, unresolved tension between seeing homosexuality as a fixation at an early stage of development on the way to mature heterosexuality and not seeing deviations as necessarily pathological. In 1905, however, Freud's starting point was a direct challenge to the hegemony of the congenital theory.[32] By 1935 Freud had even famously written to a mother concerned about the homosexuality of her son: "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we [psychoanalysts] consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by certain arrest of sexual development.... It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime."[33] Thus, Freud viewed homosexuals as different but not as sinners, criminals, or ill; he described them in increasingly nonjudgmental and neutral terms.[34] The 1920 text should be seen as part of this change, providing a missing link between the 1905 hypothesis and 1935 perspective while maintaining Freud's 1905 view that sexual object choice is more important than character inversion. [Extracted from the article]

Personal names and naming practices are among the linguistic topics that have occupied scholarly attention from diverse fields: philosophy, history, anthropology, linguistics, and psychology. This paper investigates personal names from a linguistic perspective. It examines Kemunasukuma personal names by focusing on their structural patterns and the morphological processes involved in their formation. The study followed a qualitative approach as it deals with textual data (personal names). Data was collected through interviews and documentary review, and morphological approaches were adopted in data analysis. Personal names were broken down into meaningful morphemes to trace their structural patterns as well as determine the word-formation processes involved. The findings indicate that Kemunasukuma personal names exhibit seven structural patterns that range from simple to complex. Also, the findings indicate that three word-formation processes: inflection, derivation, and compounding are productive and responsible for the formation of Kemunasukuma personal names. The structure of Kemunasukuma personal names not only points to the structure of the Sukuma language but also gives vital clues about their semantics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the 145th anniversary of the outstanding philosopher of the 20th century S. L. Frank (28.01.1877–10.12.1950), who preserving the pre–revolutionary traditions of teaching psychology as part of philosophy at the historical and philological faculties of Russian universities, in 1918 for the fi rst time in Saratov began teaching psychology at Saratov University, thus becoming the founder of the regional psychological school. An apologist for philosophical (idealistic) psychology, Frank invited Professor A. A. Krogius (1919), an experimental psychologist known in Europe, to work at the Saratov Department of Philosophy, thereby creating conditions for a versatile psychological education. In the spring of 1919, through Frank’s eff orts a philosophical department was opened at Saratov University, which began professional university training of psychologists for the first time in the region. In the autumn of 1919, with Frank’s participation, Saratov psychology was institutionalized for the first time – the Department of Philosophy and Psychology appeared at the university. After Frank’s expulsion from Russia in 1922, his name and works as alien to the Marxist worldview in his homeland began to be hushed up. His merit to Saratov psychology was also consigned to oblivion for a long time. This work was carried out in order to express grateful memory to the founder of the Saratov University Psychological School.

Beginning in the late 18th century and continuing through to the mid-20th century, a movement was undertaken by psychology’s pioneers to establish a mathematical basis for research modeled after the physical sciences. It is argued that this movement arose through sociopolitical pressures to legitimize psychology as an independent discipline; demarcate its disciplinary boundaries within academia; and distinguish psychology from philosophy and spiritualism. It is argued that an ahistorical view of how the quantitative paradigm gained ascendancy leaves it largely unquestioned and unchallenged within mainstream psychology. Because of this, qualitative research has endured a long and continuing struggle to gain disciplinary recognition and epistemological parity. It is proposed that despite being sidelined by decades of quantitative hegemony, qualitative research has a long history in psychology and in the last 40 years has continued to prove itself as a necessary and valuable contributor to research in psychology.

This article casts a spotlight on various stages of the entangled history of German Protestantism and psychology from the 16th to the 19th centuries to make visible the hitherto neglected religious past of this discipline and the educational aspirations tied to it. In broad strokes, it retraces how the idea of psychology emerged in the wake of the Reformation and continued to be shaped by German Protestant thinkers for centuries to come. First, the article reconstructs how, after Luther, the term "psychology" came to denote Protestant attempts to construct a non-Catholic scientia de anima. The dissemination and popularization of this endeavor in the writings of German Protestants is discussed in the second section. The third and fourth sections are devoted to shifts in reasoning about the soul during the early German Enlightenment and the subsequent flourishing of attempts at establishing psychology as a scientific discipline in its later stages. Finally, the last section looks at the further "scientification of the soul" during the 19th century, which, as will be argued, was crucial to the constitution of the modern educational field in Germany. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wilhelm Wundt and Sigmund Freud are the founders of psychological modern thought. The concept citation context method was used to analyse the mutual influence. The results show that Wundt's work was important to explain the hallucinatory character of the dream. On the other side, Wundt's quotations about Freud show his refusal to recognize the unconscious as a valid hypothesis to explain any kind of psychological phenomenon. In conclusion, the Freudian unconscious is the excess of the lack of the Wundt's system to explain phenomena that exceed the study of normal consciousness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Sophia, Colección de Filosofía de la Educación is the property of Universidad Politecnica Salesiana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Psychology & Sociology is the property of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Critical Hermeneutics: Biannual Journal of Philosophy is the property of Universita degli Studi di Cagliari and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Comparative psychology, in its narrow meaning, refers to the study of the similarities and differences in the psychology and behavior of different species. In a broader meaning, it includes comparisons between different biological and socio-cultural groups, such as species, sexes, developmental stages, ages, and ethnicities. This broader meaning originated by extension from the former narrow meaning, which historically was the original meaning of the phrase (interspecies psychological and behavioral comparisons) and which still today is the focus of the field. Currently, comparative psychology is a subject of study in hundreds of universities all over the world. Nevertheless, a question that is often asked but seldom answered is: when did the phrase comparative psychology first appear and where did it come from? In the present work, we tracked down the origins of the phrase comparative psychology. In order to do so, at first we described the origin of the word psychology, coined in the decade 1510–1520 in the Republic of Venice by Dalmatian Renaissance humanist Marko Marulić Splićanin (1450–1524). Then, to explain where, within the phrase comparative psychology, the term comparative came from, we outlined the origin of the use of the word comparative in reference to interspecies comparisons. Finally, we reported the origin of the combination of the words comparative and psychology to form the phrase comparative psychology, the first usage of which was in 1778 by German scholar Michael Hissmann (1752–1784) from the University of Göttingen. Origins of the phrase in Latin, German, French and English languages are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the XIX century, different sciences were structured or consolidated in their modern form. Until then, biology, earth sciences, social sciences, and even physics, chemistry, and mathematics did not exist as autonomous disciplines as we know them today. In that century, the notion of "science" was utterly separated from natural philosophy, theology, and other forms of traditional knowledge. The consolidation of scientific disciplines was characterized by deep debates on the possibilities and methods of knowing the natural and human worlds. In their process of consolidation, all life sciences faced a dichotomy related to the best way to approach their object of study: should they follow the model of physics --considered the scientific model par excellence-- or not take that model into account? This dichotomy provoked intense debates in all disciplines. The way this debate was resolved had lasting consequences in the subsequent development and the epistemological scope of the new sciences in consolidation. Comparing how this debate took place in biology and psychology is relevant to understanding the disciplinary trajectory followed by each science and the possibilities of integration in each field of knowledge. There is a generalized assumption in the history of psychology that the experimental paradigm adopted extensively in psychology at the end of the XIX century would have placed the discipline under the scientific status of natural sciences. However, in biology and psychology, there was a tension between a physiological-experimental paradigm and a historical-evolutionary paradigm. Understanding those debates within biology, and the comprehension of how biology achieved its disciplinary integration, shows why the experimental connection of psychology with physiology did not mean an explicit connection with the whole of the natural sciences. Disciplinary integration in biology was possible because of adopting the evolutionary principle under a historic paradigm instead of a physical-chemical one. That is why the experimental connection of psychology with physiology eventually became an obstacle for psychology in adopting the unifying principle of biology, the Theory of Evolution, as their basis for disciplinary integration. The first part of this article describes how two branches emerged in the process of consolidation of biology: physiological-experimental and historical-evolutionary. Each one had a different approach to its object of study, but both were necessary to form what is now modern biology. The second part focuses on unifying biology as a field of scientific knowledge, bringing the two branches of this science together under the evolutionary paradigm. The third part outlines the central debates in the consolidation of psychology as a scientific discipline at the end of the XIX century and the beginning of the 20th century. It introduces implications of how these debates on knowledge in psychology developed, as opposed to how it happened in biology. Finally, the difficulties of psychology connecting with the theory of evolution are addressed, as are the impossibility of integrating the different branches of the discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focus of the article is the research program of B. F. Lomov, viewed through the prism of Russian scientific culture, while taking into account the nuances of the late Soviet period. Scientific culture is analyzed in accordance with a model that singles out practices as a typical and stable way of doing things, and patterns as cognitive elements that integrate culture into a concise whole. Viewed via this model, any innovation appears to involve introduction of new practices into the culture. That means the risk of the introduced practices colliding with existing patterns. There are three main patterns of the Russian scientific culture that operated in the Soviet period, which are described as formulas analogous with the themes of S. Moskovichi: (a) science is a state matter, (b) basic science creates groundwork for the technologies of the future, (c) science is a selfless service. The practices promoted within Lomov's program were largely associated with American engineering psychology as practiced by A. Chapanis, and, as such, collided with the organization of the Soviet scientific establishment, built around the patterns mentioned. As a consequence of this contention, the article examines the tension that arose in Soviet psychology in the 1970s and 1980s between the supporters of the activity theory of A. N. Leontiev on one side and B. F. Lomov’s systems approach on the other. It draws parallels between this collision and the collision of the practices promoted by Lomov with the patterns of the science culture of the late Soviet period. Both external and internal perspectives are employed: the article examines the theoretical contradictions between the activity theory and the systems approach, and at the same time investigates the context of the theoretical argument: the transfer of the leadership in the psychological science from the Academy of the Pedagogical Sciences to the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the mosaic outlay of the newly established Institute of Psychology, the influence of new approaches to the organization of research.

Background. This article is dedicated to the 120th anniversary of the birth of Piotr Yakovlevich Galperin (1902–1988), an outstanding Soviet psychologist, the author of an original psychological concept and scienti" c school, and an organizer of psychological science. Objective. To reconstruct the main stages of the scienti" c biography of Piotr Yakovlevich Galperin. Results. The paper demonstrates the internal logic of P.Ya. Galperin’s developing scienti" c views in creating the theory of stage-by-stage formation of mental actions and concepts, which analyzes the process of formation of the main components of mental activity and develops a system of conditions for transforming an objective action into a psychological phenomenon. This biography is based on Galperin’s publications and speeches, memoirs of associates and family members, and numerous archival materials. All the periods of Galperin’s life are presented, re# ecting his participation, starting from the mid-1920s, in scienti" c and scienti" c-practical events. Particular attention is paid to Galperin’s work at M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University (MGU): 55 years of Galperin’s professional and personal life (from 1943 until his death in 1988) were associated with the Philosophy Faculty, and then with the Psychology Faculty. Conclusion. ! e importance of preserving P.Ya. Galperin’s scienti" c legacy is shown and steps taken in this direction are indicated.

The article is devoted to the life and work of Nikolai Vladimirovich Krogius who was an international grandmaster (1964), European champion as part of the team (1965); two-time champion of the RSFSR (1952, 1964); Doctor of Psychological Sciences (1980), Head of the Department of Psychology of SSU (1978–1980), head of the Department of Chess of SCOLIPE (State Central Order of Lenin Institute of Physical Education) (1981–1983), Head of the Chess Department of the USSR State Sports Committee (1981–1989), Vice-President of FIDE (1986–1990). The objective of the article is to reflect on the life and creative work of Nikolai Vladimirovich viewing it as a successful chess game. The article presents several stages: the debut, including his childhood and studies in Saratov, his passion for chess and the first chess victories, studies at the Faculty of Philosophy of LSU; middlegame devoted to teaching in Saratov, serious sports and coaching work, doctoral dissertation defense, responsible management activities in the USSR State Sports Committee and FIDE; endgame including retirement, participation and prizes in the World Chess Championships among veterans, moving to New York, publishing books, articles and memoirs. The article pays special attention to the scientific activity of N. V. Krogius and the issues that are in the focus of his research interest. It shows theoretical and practical significance of his scientific works for the development of social and sports psychology, as well as the psychology of chess, which was founded in Russia by N. V. Krogius.

Beginning in the late 18th century and continuing through to the mid-20th century, a movement was undertaken by psychology’s pioneers to establish a mathematical basis for research modeled after the physical sciences. It is argued that this movement arose through sociopolitical pressures to legitimize psychology as an independent discipline; demarcate its disciplinary boundaries within academia; and distinguish psychology from philosophy and spiritualism. It is argued that an ahistorical view of how the quantitative paradigm gained ascendancy leaves it largely unquestioned and unchallenged within mainstream psychology. Because of this, qualitative research has endured a long and continuing struggle to gain disciplinary recognition and epistemological parity. It is proposed that despite being sidelined by decades of quantitative hegemony, qualitative research has a long history in psychology and in the last 40 years has continued to prove itself as a necessary and valuable contributor to research in psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comparative psychology, in its narrow meaning, refers to the study of the similarities and differences in the psychology and behavior of different species. In a broader meaning, it includes comparisons between different biological and socio-cultural groups, such as species, sexes, developmental stages, ages, and ethnicities. This broader meaning originated by extension from the former narrow meaning, which historically was the original meaning of the phrase (interspecies psychological and behavioral comparisons) and which still today is the focus of the field. Currently, comparative psychology is a subject of study in hundreds of universities all over the world. Nevertheless, a question that is often asked but seldom answered is: when did the phrase comparative psychology first appear and where did it come from? In the present work, we tracked down the origins of the phrase comparative psychology. In order to do so, at first we described the origin of the word psychology, coined in the decade 1510–1520 in the Republic of Venice by Dalmatian Renaissance humanist Marko Marulić Splićanin (1450–1524). Then, to explain where, within the phrase comparative psychology, the term comparative came from, we outlined the origin of the use of the word comparative in reference to interspecies comparisons. Finally, we reported the origin of the combination of the words comparative and psychology to form the phrase comparative psychology, the first usage of which was in 1778 by German scholar Michael Hissmann (1752–1784) from the University of Göttingen. Origins of the phrase in Latin, German, French and English languages are described.

Background. The relevance of the article is connected with the necessity to reflect on the content of the main scientific and organizational stages in the evolution of the research activity of the Psychological Institute on the eve of its 110th anniversary. Objective. On the basis of documentary sources to carry out a historical and psychological reconstruction of the Psychological Institute activity in 1912-2021. Methods. Compiling a database of documentary sources, synchronous and comparative data analysis, content slices, problemological and bibliographic methods. Results. The article provides a historical and psychological analysis and a brief review of the scientific activity of the Psychological Institute during 1912-2021. The authors reconstruct a historical context of the key events in the formation of the Psychological Institute as a unified intellectual and moral entity. They commemorate the names of the first Russian psychologists and present the personalistic aspect of the institute activity from the standpoint of synchronic analysis. The article includes the time cross-section of the content of scientific and practical problems and considers the main results of the innovative scientific activity of the Institute in different historical periods. The study demonstrates the inseparability of intergenerational intellectual connection of the institute scientists, which conditioned the theoretical and methodological continuity of scientific trends, profound development of traditional scientific schools and creation of the modern ones, as well as consistent advancement to new frontiers of psychological science. Conclusion. At all stages of its historical existence, the Psychological Institute demonstrated its best qualities of a subject of historical development, managing to preserve the priority of science as the basic value and scientificity as the basis of unity of theoretical search, experimental development, creation of conditions and programs for preparing future psychological personnel.

Introduction: Within the history of psychology and phenomenology, people with lived experience of mental illness have often served as participants in research, but far less as co-researchers themselves. There is now a growing movement focused on "participatory" research, where people with lived experience directly contribute to various stages of the research process. This article presents such a qualitative, participatory research study, led by members of a large psychosocial rehabilitation clubhouse--Fountain House in New York City--and informed by phenomenological research principles. The study focused on collaboratively assessing and improving the clubhouse program for its members. Methods: A key feature of the project was the extent of lived experiencer involvement, for instance, in designing and conducting the study, and cowriting this research report. Members of Fountain House were trained in phenomenologically-informed research methods and developed a research study that focused on the quality improvement of their clubhouse program. Member researchers conducted a series of focus groups with fellow clubhouse members, generating qualitative data that were analyzed and written up by member researchers in collaboration with staff and university partners. Results: Overall, study findings place emphasis on the theme of action in members' experiences--both with respect to how action, agency, and valued activity were key drivers of meaning and recovery for people facing severe mental illness, and with respect to the key component of the research process itself [i.e., participatory action research (PAR)]. Four major subthemes emerged from the study. First, findings revealed how members with mental illness experienced the clubhouse as a "new hope" and "the place for me," to counteract their experience of inactivity, stigma, depression, and hopelessness prior to that point. Second, findings showed how, as members' life goals changed, so did the precise meaning and role of Fountain House in their lives. Third, findings portrayed members' need for, and pursuit of, transformation within the clubhouse space itself to provide more opportunities for meaningful work rather than what they viewed as merely busy-work. Finally, member researchers viewed their direct participation in this project as an opportunity to actively combat stigma, to be a driver of research, and to engage in what they viewed as a generative activity. Discussion: These action-oriented themes serve as a counter to the historical view of people with mental illness as merely passive experiencers of symptoms and passive recipients of mental health care. We discuss how the process and content of participatory research can help enhance the relevance of research for stakeholders' lives and contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to present guidelines for reading and writing behavior-analytic historical texts. It was updated and adapted from the published material used by S. R. Coleman for the analysis of literature in the History of Psychology. In addition to the contextualization of Behavior Analysis as a psychological school, 11 thematic categories are presented, namely: Biographical History, Conceptual History, Institutional History, History of Disciplines, History of Research Topics, History of Methods, History of Apparatus, History of Events, History of Social Processes, History of Texts, and History of Debates. Thus, this guide seeks to assist those interested in History of Behavior Analysis by defining and delimiting different objects of study in this field. It can also encourage historiographical production by indicating new research problems, showing the absence of certain phenomena and/or the lack of historiographical studies on them. It also serves as a tool for readers of the History of Behavior Analysis in identifying the interrelationships between phenomena and the historical limits of a text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study traces the historical elements that have influenced the development of political-critical thinking in Colombian Psychology. Four historical periods have been identified and discussed: The intellectual colonialism of Colombian Psychology (1947-1960); the social Psychiatry in the years of La comisión [The commission] (1961-1980); the community Psychology and the coexistence (1980-1991); and the psychosocial studies after recent peace processes between government and armed groups (1991-2018). Colombian political Psychology did not follow a homogeneous and linear development. The reality experienced by Colombians during more than five decades of armed conflict required Psychology to abandon the direct paths of politics and opt for psychosocial studies that promise to be the most radical heirs of a generation of Latin American critical thinking as represented by Ignacio Martín-Baró, Maritza Montero and Silvia Lane. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article aims to discuss the "Social Commitment" Project of Brazilian Psychology (PCSP) in the current conjuncture. The PCSP comes from the process of historical battles of Psychology in the 1970s, which also occurred in other areas, aiming for a knowledge committed to Brazilian and Latin American reality, and with its social transformation. Such assumptions demanded a theoretical-political movement with new methodological and ontological bases. Thus, we aim to discuss some of its limitations and potentialities: first, there is a historical presentation and contextualization of the PCSP and, later, a debate about its linkage to the scope of social policies. Anchored in the present situation, of intensifying barbarism, we conclude by signaling the need not only for a social commitment, but for an ethical-political project in Psychology that is oriented and contributes to another societal project [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents the biographies of nine professionals who contributed to the development of Psychology in Puerto Rico and that are included in The Palgrave Biographical Encyclopedia of Psychology in Latin America, edited by Ana Jacó-Vilela, Hugo Klappenbach y Rubén Ardila, the whose projected publication is for 2023. The Puerto Rican contribution includes the biographies of 54 professionals that contributed to the academic development of Psychology in Puerto Rico. The search for these pioneers started at the beginning of the Twentieth Century, with the development of the University of Puerto Rico, our first university, founded in 1900. The article presents biographical sketches of the lives of these nine pioneer university professors, their academic formations, their professions, their multiple theoretical perspectives, and the visions that they brought to Psychology. The professionals included in this article are: Domingo Rubio Arana, Charles W. St. John, Juan B. Soto, Fred C. Walters, Malvina Monefeldt, Alfredo Silva Cofresí, Néstor I. Vincenty, Ana María O'Neill and Teobaldo Casanova. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Memorandum: Memória e História em Psicologia is the property of Memorandum: Memoria e Historia em Psicologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)