Vygotsky's Nonclassical Psychology

Nonclassical psychology has laws that differ from those in classical psychology. Nonclassical psychology uncovers the specifically human course of development and views people as self-regulated individuals. Vygotsky's writings reveal his lifelong engagement with the psychology of art, which for him was the essence of the new nonclassical psychology. The author looks at "play" and "positioning" as two key units in understanding nonclassical psychology.     

What do evolutionary researchers believe about human psychology and behavior?

We investigated the prevalence of beliefs in several key and contested aspects of human psychology and behavior in a broad sample of evolutionary-informed scholars (N = 581). Nearly all participants believed that developmental environments substantially shape human adult psychology and behavior, that there are differences in human psychology and behavior based on sex differences from sexual selection, and that there are individual differences in human psychology and behavior resulting from different genotypes. About three-quarters of participants believed that there are population differences from dissimilar ancestral ecologies/environments and within-person differences across the menstrual cycle. Three-fifths believed that the human mind consists of domain-specific, context-sensitive modules. About half of participants believed that behavioral and cognitive aspects of human life history vary along a unified fast-slow continuum. Two-fifths of participants believed that group-level selection has substantially contributed to human evolution. Results indicate that there are both shared core beliefs as well as phenomena that are accepted by varying proportions of scholars. Such patterns represent the views of contemporary scholars and the current state of the field. The degree of acceptance for some phenomena may change over time as evolutionary science advances through the accumulation of empirical evidence.     

Interactionism and Innateness in the Evolutionary Study of Human Nature

While most researchers who use evolutionary theory to investigatehuman nature especially human sexuality describe themselves as ``interactionists', there is no clear consensus on the meaning of thisterm in this context. By interactionism most people in the fieldmean something like, both nature and nurture ``count' in thedevelopment of human psychology and behavior. Nevertheless, themultidisciplinary nature of evolutionary psychology results in a widevariety of interpretations of this general claim. Today, mostdebates within evolutionary psychology about the innateness of agiven behavioral characteristic or over its development turn as muchon which conception of ``innateness' and ``interactionism' theresearcher holds as on any empirical data they might derive.     

Adaptive and Genomic Explanations of Human Behaviour: Might Evolutionary Psychology Contribute to Behavioural Genomics?

Evolutionary psychology and behavioural genomics are both approaches to explain human behaviour from a genetic point of view. Nonetheless, thus far the development of these disciplines is anything but interdependent. This paper examines the question whether evolutionary psychology can contribute to behavioural genomics. Firstly, a possible inconsistency between the two approaches is reviewed, viz. that evolutionary psychology focuses on the universal human nature and disregards the genetic variation studied by behavioural genomics. Secondly, we will discuss the structure of biological explanations. Some philosophers rightly acknowledge that explanations do not involve laws which are exceptionless and universal. Instead, generalisations that are invariant suffice for successful explanation as long as two other stipulations are recognised: the domain within which the generalisation has no exceptions as well as the distribution of the mechanism described by the generalisation should both be specified. It is argued that evolutionary psychology can contribute to behavioural genomic explanations by accounting for these two specifications.     

Preventing Ultimate Harm as the Justification for Biomoral Modification

Most advocates of biogenetic modification hope to amplify existing human traits in humans in order to increase the value of such traits as intelligence and resistance to disease. These advocates defend such enhancements as beneficial for the affected parties. By contrast, some commentators recommend certain biogenetic modifications to serve social goals. As Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu see things, human moral psychology is deficient relative to the most important risks facing humanity as a whole, including the prospect of Ultimate Harm, the point at which worthwhile life is forever impossible on the planet. These risks can be mitigated, they say, by enhancing moral psychology in novel ways. Persson and Savulescu argue that some parents should modify the underlying biogenetics of their children's moral psychology, if such measures were safe and effective, but they admit these interventions may not decouple humanity from Ultimate Harm. Neither are these modifications the only options, they concede, for addressing risks to humanity. Even with these concessions, saving humanity from itself is a fairly poor reason to modify the moral psychology of children. In most ways, adults would be better candidates, morally speaking, for modifications of psychology. Even then, there is no direct link between morally enhanced human beings and the hoped‐for effect of better protection from Ultimate Harm. Asserting a general duty of all to contribute to the avoidance of Ultimate Harm is a better moral strategy than intervening in the moral psychology of some, even though meeting that duty may involve substantial interference with the free exercise of one's interests.     

Personality: bridging the literatures from human psychology and behavioural ecology

The concept of personality has recently begun to attract a great deal of interest in behavioural ecology. However, there is also a large and mature literature on personality within human psychology. These two bodies of work have developed independently and at present make rather little reference to one another. The current paper has two main objectives. First, we seek to acquaint behavioural ecologists with the principal ideas and issues found in the human personality psychology literature. Second, we explore how ideas from the behavioural ecology literature might help advance research in human personality psychology. We suggest strong potential for convergence between the two literatures in the near future. Common themes of this future unified science of personality include the conception of personality traits as reaction norms, a commitment to the importance of direct measurement of behaviour, investigation of both proximate and ultimate explanations for personality variation, and a concern with the impact of personality variation on survival and reproductive success.     

Psychological Manifestations of the Basic Properties of the Nervous System in Work

There can be no doubt that the individual psychological distinctions among human beings and, in particular, one area of these differences — the psychological manifestations of the intensity, lability, and equilibrium of nervous processes — are manifested in one form or another in work, that activity which most completely expresses the nature of man. Therefore, study of these peculiarities is a matter of pressing importance in labor psychology. "Investigation of the individual differences among men," writes B.M. Teplov, "is one of the most important tasks of psychology. The importance of this undertaking has become particularly obvious since psychology undertook to become a science of practical value (educational and child psychology, labor psychology, pathopsychology)." (19; p. 108)     

On the Subject Matter of Social Psychology

Psychology and sociology (in that they have to do with social consciousness) study general problems of human consciousness. Both sciences investigate, in the final analysis, the same thing, inasmuch as all human consciousness is socially conditioned, and this is the meaning of all consciousness of the social. Soviet psychology has long since adopted this thesis.     

Responsibility and punishment: whose mind? A response.

Cognitive neuroscience is challenging the Anglo-American approach to criminal responsibility. Critiques, in this issue and elsewhere, are pointing out the deeply flawed psychological assumptions underlying the legal tests for mental incapacity. The critiques themselves, however, may be flawed in looking, as the tests do, at the psychology of the offender. Introducing the strategic structure of punishment into the analysis leads us to consider the psychology of the punisher as the critical locus of cognition informing the responsibility rules. Such an approach both helps to make sense of the counterfactual assumptions about offender psychology embodied in the law and provides a possible explanation for the human conviction of the existence of free will, at least in others.     

Neuropsychology: A New Branch of Psychological Science

The achievements of modern psychology in analyzing the structure of human mental activity, as well as the achievements of modern neurophysiology, paved the way for the investigation of the cerebral mechanisms of various mental processes and led to the creation of a new branch of psychological science — neuropsychology [neyropsikhologiya]. This branch of psychology has begun to grow in the past few decades in diverse countries, but has had an especially flourishing development in the USSR.     

Reminiscences of a journeyman scientist: studies of thermoregulation in non-human primates and humans

After graduating from Mount Holyoke College in 1948 where I majored in experimental psychology I worked at the College for 2 years with the Johns Hopkins Thermophysiological Unit. My graduate work later at the University of Wisconsin, centering on sensory psychology, culminated in my 1955 PhD thesis on human dark adaptation. I continued work in sensory psychology later with Neal Miller at Yale and then moved to the John B. Pierce Foundation--a Yale affiliate--where I began the studies of thermoregulation that constitute the center of my scientific career. Those studies were largely--later wholly--conducted using microwave energy as a thermal load and were thus published in Bioelectromagnetics even as I played an active role in the Bioelectromagnetics Society. In the beginning this work was centered on the responses of Squirrel Monkeys to thermal loads. Later, serving as Senior Scientist at the Air Force Research Laboratory at San Antonio, I completed an extensive analysis of thermal regulation in humans. I consider this work of special note inasmuch as the extraordinary human thermoregulatory ability was surely among the attributes that were paramount in initially separating humans from the other anthropoid primates.     

The use and abuse of Darwinian psychology: Its impact on attempts to determine the evolutionary basis of human rape

This paper evaluates the impact of the recent theoretical shift to Darwinian psychology on attempts to determine the evolutionary basis of human rape. The first step in this evaluation is a summary of the debate over whether human rape is an adaptation or a by-product of other evolved differences between men and women as it was presented in a pre-Darwinian psychological framework. These early evolutionary explanations are then contrasted with more recent works addressing the same issue from the perspective of Darwinian psychology. It is concluded that while the new approach may have helped generate new predictions, it has also led to the unwarranted exclusion of relevant data, led to questionable interpretations of new types of data, introduced ambiguous jargon, and potentially jeopardized the testability of certain evolutionary explanations. The root of most of these problems is suggested to exist, not in the principles of Darwinian psychology, but in the exaggeration of the differences between Darwinian psychology and earlier evolutionary approaches.     

Carl Rogers and Contemporary Humanism

Carl Rogers (1902-1987) was an outstanding American psychologist, the creator of nondirective psychotherapy, which has gained worldwide recognition, and one of the founders of humanist psychology. Thanks to Rogers's works (Rogers, 1951, 1970, 1977, 1980, 1983), a new conception of man and human nature was formulated in scientific psychology. This new conception differed radically from the psychoanalytic and behaviorist notions that had predominated; according to them, human nature was essentially evil and imperfect from the outset. Traditionally, the opponents of such notions, which go back to the postulates, deeply rooted in Western culture, of socialized (ecclesiastical) Christianity about the sinfulness of human nature, have been philosophers.     

The Psychology of the Self-Actualizing Personality in the Work of Abraham Maslow

The second and third quarters of this century saw the appearance of a number of different concepts of personality in foreign psychology. Most of these were spawned by pathopsychology as a result of attempts to understand the personality of the neurotic and as a practical offshoot of psychotherapy. Although these theories were generalizations based on studies of the psychopathological personality, they began to be propagated by their creators as general theories of personality. Material gathered from the investigation of mental patients was used as the foundation for what are now standard personality tests — the Rorschach test and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) — used chiefly to discover neurotic tendencies in the individual. An extremely exaggerated evaluation of the significance of the pathopsychological method has been the hallmark of personality theory in foreign psychology. Yet the neurotic and, even more so, the pathological personality are qualitatively, not quantitatively, distinct from the personality of a normal human being. We must therefore concur with Maslow, who shows how the "study of mutilated, sickly, immature and unhealthy subjects will also give rise to a mutilated psychology and philosophy" (9, p. 234).     

The Theory of Set in the Light of Reflex Theory

It is well known to all those acquainted with D. N. Uznadze's theory of set [ustanovka] (1) that this theory was meant to answer the question of "the character and inner structure of human activity" [11; 79]. But, as A. T. Bochorishvili correctly noted, we do not yet have "clarity in basic concepts. … Soviet psychology cannot yet go so far as to speak of the content of the basic concept of the psychology of set, of the content of set itself" [5: 15]. As a panacea for overcoming these differences of opinion, Bochorishvili proposes that we "widely and actively develop investigations of the theoretical bases of the psychology of set as D. N. Uznadze understood if" (ibid.).     

Punish and Voice: Punishment Enhances Cooperation when Combined with Norm-Signalling

Material punishment has been suggested to play a key role in sustaining human cooperation. Experimental findings, however, show that inflicting mere material costs does not always increase cooperation and may even have detrimental effects. Indeed, ethnographic evidence suggests that the most typical punishing strategies in human ecologies (e.g., gossip, derision, blame and criticism) naturally combine normative information with material punishment. Using laboratory experiments with humans, we show that the interaction of norm communication and material punishment leads to higher and more stable cooperation at a lower cost for the group than when used separately. In this work, we argue and provide experimental evidence that successful human cooperation is the outcome of the interaction between instrumental decision-making and the norm psychology humans are provided with. Norm psychology is a cognitive machinery to detect and reason upon norms that is characterized by a salience mechanism devoted to track how much a norm is prominent within a group. We test our hypothesis both in the laboratory and with an agent-based model. The agent-based model incorporates fundamental aspects of norm psychology absent from previous work. The combination of these methods allows us to provide an explanation for the proximate mechanisms behind the observed cooperative behaviour. The consistency between the two sources of data supports our hypothesis that cooperation is a product of norm psychology solicited by norm-signalling and coercive devices.     

Human error on the flight deck

Despite terrorist bombs and structural failures, human error on the flight deck continues to account for the majority of aircraft accidents. The Royal Air Force (RAF) Institute of Aviation Medicine (IAM) has investigated the psychology of such error since the early 1970s, and to this end has used two principal techniques. The first has involved assisting in the official inquiries into both RAF and civil flying accidents, and the second has involved setting up a reporting system that permits any commercial pilot to report his own everyday errors, in complete confidence, to the RAF IAM. The latter system possesses the clear benefit of gathering error data untainted by considerations of culpability, and sometimes permits system rectification before the occurrence of accidents. This paper examines selected examples of errors associated with the design of equipment and with the social psychology of crews, and suggests that some consideration of the psychology of organizations may be necessary to ensure that the problems of human error are given the degree of consideration they require.     

Testing the Controversy

Critics of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology have advanced an adaptationists-as-right-wing-conspirators (ARC) hypothesis, suggesting that adaptationists use their research to support a right-wing political agenda. We report the first quantitative test of the ARC hypothesis based on an online survey of political and scientific attitudes among 168 US psychology Ph.D. students, 31 of whom self-identified as adaptationists and 137 others who identified with another non-adaptationist meta-theory. Results indicate that adaptationists are much less politically conservative than typical US citizens and no more politically conservative than non-adaptationist graduate students. Also, contrary to the “adaptationists-as-pseudo-scientists” stereotype, adaptationists endorse more rigorous, progressive, quantitative scientific methods in the study of human behavior than non-adaptationists.     

Psychological perspectives of ecosystem health

Behavior-based and person-based perspectives are integrated to summarize approaches for dealing with the human element of ecosystem health. Behavior is selected by its consequences, and therefore interventions are needed to decrease the natural reinforcing consequences (e.g., convenience, efficiency) of environment-destructive behaviors and to increase the reinforcing consequences of environment-protective behaviors. An ABC Model (for Activator-Behavior-Consequence) can be applied effectively to design intervention programs for benefiting the human behavior aspects of ecosystem health. However, intervention agents are needed to implement positive behavior-change techniques, and this requires people to actively care enough to emit other-directed (or altruistic) behaviors for the health of the ecosystem. Person factors which influence one's propensity to actively care include: self-esteem, belongingness, and empowerment, influenced by perceptions of self-efficacy (I can do it), personal control (I am in control), and optimism (I expect the best). Strategies are reviewed for increasing these person states or expectancies. The health of our ecosystem depends upon people changing their behaviors and attitudes regarding the environment. Behavior-based psychology offers the technology for changing behaviors and attitudes in desirable directions; person-based psychology offers the states or expectancies needed in people to increase their willingness to actively care for the environment. By applying the theory and principles from these subdisciplines of applied psychology, the critical human element of our ecosystem can be accounted for and managed effectively.