دانلود مقاله دیدگاهی جدید در مورد گرایش های روانشناسی
خلاصه
1. تاریخچه تحلیل های تجربی روندهای روانشناسی
2. محدودیت های مطالعات قبلی
3. روش
4. نتایج
5. بحث
6. محدودیت ها
7. نتیجه گیری
منابع مالی
تایید اخلاق
رضایت برای انتشار
بیانیه مشارکت نویسنده CRediT
اعلامیه منافع رقابتی
در دسترس بودن داده ها
منابع
Abstract
1. History of the empirical analyses of trends in psychology
2. Limitations of previous studies
3. Method
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Limitations
7. Conclusion
Funding
Ethics approval
Consent for publication
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Declaration of competing interest
Data availability
References
چکیده
هدف مقاله حاضر تحلیل کمی روند چهار مکتب فکری اصلی در روانشناسی علمی (علوم اعصاب، شناخت گرایی، رفتارگرایی، روانکاوی) و تقاطع‌های آنهاست که دوره 1979 تا 2020 را پوشش می‌دهد. ما از یک روش دقیق در سه منبع متمایز استفاده کردیم: جریان اصلی: روانشناسی (MP)، مجله بسیار تأثیرگذار (HIJ) و مقالات غیر انگلیسی (NEP). یافته‌های ما از دو جنبه با تحقیقات قبلی همخوانی دارد: روانکاوی و رفتارگرایی به طور قابل‌توجهی کاهش یافته است، شناخت گرایی همچنان یک روند برجسته است. با این حال، با تشخیص اینکه علم اعصاب ممکن است تأثیرگذارترین روند در نظر گرفته شود و روندها خطی کمتری نسبت به آنچه قبلاً فرض شده بود، از مطالعات قبلی منحرف می‌شویم. ما همچنین اهمیت NEP را تصدیق می‌کنیم که در مقایسه با سایر منابع، الگوی مستقلی را نشان می‌دهد و ممکن است آنچه را که در «پیرامون» روانشناسی اتفاق می‌افتد، آشکار کند. نکته قابل توجه این است که NEP نقشی پر جنب و جوش از روانکاوی نشان داد. مطالعه ما همچنین بر انزوا و عدم لقاح متقابل در میان رشته‌های فرعی روان‌شناختی، علی‌رغم ادعاهای گسترده بر خلاف آن، تأکید می‌کند. در نهایت این استنباط را تأیید می کند که روانشناسی علمی یک رشته غیرپارادایمی یا پیش پارادایماتیک است، و به تسلط روانشناسی کاربردی اشاره می کند و مفهوم کلی "نظریه های بزرگ" را ابطال می کند.
Abstract
The current paper aimed to analyze quantitatively the trends of four major schools of thought in scientific Psychology (neuroscience, cognitivism, behaviorism, psychoanalysis) and their intersections, covering the period from 1979 to 2020. We utilized a rigorous methodology across three distinct sources: Mainstream Psychology (MP), Highly Influential Journal (HIJ), and non-English papers (NEP). Our findings align with previous research in two aspects: psychoanalysis and behaviorism have significantly declined, cognitivism remains a prominent trend. However, we deviate from prior studies by recognizing that neuroscience may be considered the most influential trend and that trends exhibit less linearity than previously assumed. We also acknowledge the significance of NEP, which manifest an independent pattern as compared to the other sources and that may reveal what happens in the “periphery” of Psychology. It is noteworthy that NEP demonstrated a still lively contribution from psychoanalysis. Our study also highlights the insularity and lack of cross-fertilization among psychological subdisciplines, despite the widespread claims to the contrary. It eventually supports the inference that scientific Psychology is a non-paradigmatic or pre-paradigmatic discipline, pointing out the dominance of applied psychology and confuting the notion of overarching "grand theories".
History of the empirical analyses of trends in psychology
The study conducted by Friman et al. (1993) was one of the pioneering empirical investigations into the trends of subdisciplines within the field of Psychology. The authors specifically focused on psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and cognitivism during the years 1979–1988, utilizing data obtained from the Social Science Journal of Citation Reports (SSJCR). In their research, the authors selected four influential journals that represented each subdiscipline, taking into consideration various criteria, including a relatively high Impact Factor (IF)1 (for further details see Friman et al., 1993, pp. 659-660). For instance, Cognitive Psychology, Cognition, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and Memory & Cognition, aligned with the cognitive approach.
In the study conducted by Friman et al. (1993), the four selected journals representing each sub-discipline were examined using four different indexes: IF, Immediacy Index (II),2 citation number (the number of times the journal has been cited during a given year), and source items (the number of citable items the journal has produced during a given year). These indexes were calculated for each journal on an annual basis, and then averaged across the four journals to obtain single indexes for each sub-discipline. The three indexes were eventually plotted against each other. The main finding of the study indicated a significant increase in prominence for the cognitive school of thought. However, it was observed that the citation numbers and source items for behaviorism and psychoanalysis, although lower than those of cognitivism, were not substantially inferior. Despite the rise of the cognitive school, the study did not provide evidence for a clear-cut Kuhnian paradigmatic shift. Additionally, when considering the broader context of the social sciences, all three sub-disciplines (cognitive, behaviorism, and psychoanalysis) performed relatively well in comparison to other indexed journals in the SSJCR.
Conclusion
Taking a more speculative and substantial perspective on the history of Psychology, it can be inferred from the current data that over the past 40 years, the major scientific discourses have predominantly centered around the brain. Many recent studies (Bittermann & Fischer, 2018; Tracy et al., 2004; Yeung, Goto, & Leung, 2017; Wieczorek et al., 2021) suggest an increasing importance in neuroscience within Psychology and more widely across all natural sciences, and Benjafield (2020) highlights how the vocabulary of Psychology is more dependent on Biology than vice versa. These observations suggest an imbalance favoring biologically-based theories over emergentist/spiritualistic ones, although it does not necessarily imply a complete endorsement of materialism by neuroscientists. Rather, it might signify only an informal inclination towards biologically-based explanations. It is noteworthy that psychological researchers rarely adopt a clear ontological standpoint on "mind" and "behavior" and generally avoid extensive engagement with philosophical and theoretical issues (Henriques, 2011; Zagaria et al., 2020).
All things considered, the enduring and relatively stable patterns observed over a 40-year period are indicative of the robustness and vitality of Psychology as a discipline. These patterns demonstrate that the theoretical assumptions regarding the mind have exhibited relative stability over an extended duration.