Beliefs,personality, and person perception: A theory of individual differences

The hypothesis tested was that we attend to aspects of our interpersonal environment that correspond to prominent features of our own personality. One hundred fifty-four men and women rated the way in which they typically communicate and interact with significant other people (e.g., mother, father, lover) on 11 bipolar adjective scales and the way in which those other people interact with them. An individual differences multidimensional scaling analysis of interstimulus distances among the significant other people based on the ratings of the subject's interaction with those other people indicated that subjects who weighted a particular dimension tended to think they possessed a personality trait corresponding to the dimension. Reasons for the individual difference hypothesis were given.     

Images of the disciplining of psychology, 1890–1940

Over the course of psychology’s first several decades, the language used to convey the subject matter gradually shifted from being free and literary to being strictly constrained and disciplined by increasingly focused theoretical demands. The project described here, “Disciplining Psychology,” aimed to depict this transformation by generating images of the faces of three highly influential psychologists—William James, Sigmund Freud, and B. F. Skinner. Each image is composed of the words used in one of each individual’s most important books. The tightening of the disciplinary vocabulary is revealed in the differences among the three arrays of words themselves, but I have also striven to reflect it in the aesthetic aspects of each image. The method used here could easily be extended to a wider array of authors, texts, and psychological topics.     

詹姆斯心理学的现象学转向及其理论意蕴

本文在阐明詹姆斯心理学的出发点、并考察其心理学思想的探索和突破的基础上指出,詹姆斯关于心理学的思想历程无疑经历了一个根本的转向;又结合与胡塞尔现象学的比较认为,转向之后的詹姆斯的心理学思想的潜在意义,只有借用胡塞尔现象学的思想框架和概念工具,才能得到有效的表达和进一步的发展。文章最后还暗示了詹姆斯心理学思想的现象学转向对于理解并构建心理学的学科同一性的潜在意义。     

Jung before Freud, not Freud before Jung: the reception of Jung's work in American psychoanalytic circles between 1904 and 1909

A review is first presented of the new Jung scholarship – that Jung is to be properly understood, not as a disciple of Freud, but as the twentieth century exponent of the symbolic hypothesis in the tradition of the late nineteenth century psychologies of transcendence. This is followed by an outline of the so-called French-Swiss-English and American psychotherapeutic alliance, of which Jung was a part, and the cross-cultural mediumistic psychology of the subconscious it promoted, chiefly through the works of William James, F. W. H. Myers, and Théodore Flournoy. Focusing on the experimental work of the Swiss-American pathologist Adolph Meyer and the American neurologist Frederick Peterson, evidence is then produced to show that Jung, before Freud, was more important in American psychotherapeutic circles. His experimental researches into the association method and the psychogalvanic reflex, his study of mediums and connection to Swiss psychiatry had numerous unique alliances with the American scene, particularly because of their similar historical relation between psychology and religion. Therefore, to understand Jung, one must consider the archetypal significance which America held for Jung's own individuation process, as well as the Americanization of Jungian ideas that followed.     

Religion and Science in America: Struggling for Coherence

James Gilbert has provided fascinating and valuable historical sketches of the interactions of science and religion in American culture in this century, especially those taking place between 1945 and 1962. Yet, taken together, it is unclear what conclusion is to be drawn from these interactions. Ambiguity about the variety of forms of the science-and-religion relationship and about the referent of the term religion make the task of apprehending a coherent pattern among these sketches very difficult.     

Measuring the visual angle of the mind's eye

People in these experiments claimed to be able to imagine moving only a given distance toward some imaged object before it seemed to “overflow,” not remaining all visible at once in their mental images. In addition, the larger the imaged object, the further away it seemed at the point of overflow. Although the angle subtended by the imaged objects at the point of overflow did not vary systematically with the size of the object, it did vary with different stimuli and instructions. These disparities in the size of the angle estimated seemed partly due to differences in criterion of “overflow”: Images seem to fade off gradually toward the periphery and not to occur in a spatial medium with sharply defined edges. When subjects were given a relatively strict definition of “overflow,” similar estimates of the “visual angle of the mind's eye” were obtained with three distinct methods: (1) Asking subjects to estimate the apparent distance at which an imaged horizontal ruler began to overflow; (2) Measuring how much time subjects required to scan across each degree of an imaged line, and then inferring the maximal angle from the time required to scan an image of a longest nonoverflowing line; and, (3) Simply asking subjects to hold up their hands to indicate the subjective size of an image of the longest possible nonoverflowing line. Finally, the maximal subjective size of images seemed related to the scope of “focal” vision, and images tended to be constructed spontaneously at about the maximal size.