Sibling relations: the role of conceptual perspective-taking in the ontogeny of sibling caregiving. The behaviors of … Expand. View 1 excerpt, references results. The effect of mandatory protective daycare on mutual attachment in maltreating mother-infants dyads. During the past two decades there has been an explosive increase in our knowledge of mother-infant attachment during the first year of life. Reactions of preschool children to an adult stranger: A behavioral systems approach.
View 1 excerpt, references methods. Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. We are grateful to the Institute of Human Development, Berkeley, and to the Society for Research in Child Development for funding that made the study of our sample at 6 years possible.
In its earlier … Expand. The ability to agree on plans for reunion seems to be instrumental in facilitating comfortable separations between mothers and late-preschool—aged children. This development in patterns of separation … Expand.
On describing relationships. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines. View 1 excerpt. Attachment and loss: retrospect and prospect. Titchener and W. Fiske W. Universita di Roma. I, by S. Statement of Meaning E. Mitchell B. Chapin and M. Thorndike L. Britan E. Busse, R. Goodell and M. Titchener and L. Meunier, R. Vaschide, R. Gregor W. Rignano, J. Dubois Theodate L.
Herrick W. Norris, Alice G. Twiss and M. Burton Edward P. Teil I, Abteilung V. Burr F. Whetham, C. Whetham S. Poulton Th. Alrutz P. Meyer H. Maigre W. Herbertz M. Ribot Theodate L. Manro and M. Reid, W. McDougall, J. Tayler, J. Thomson, P. Geddes, A. Crawley, R. Wenley, W. Beveridge, G. Webb, H. Wells M. Forel, H. Aikins P. Morat, H. Habrich M. Snider M. Ziehen E.
Coleridge-Taylor P. Gardiner E. Puffer H. The pro- in psychology in the country where the Postgraduate gram has also sought to renew its faculty by incorporating Program in Psychology of UFRGS played a very import- young, productive researchers. Twelve programs participated in the countries Brazil This journal William Gomes, and Claudio Hutz. At the time, the has been one of the most important publications on symposia were scheduled to take place every year.
At the second symposium, there ente, who also contributed so much to the research lines were 10 working groups, who gathered with great eager- on human development and neuropsychology, respect- ness in Gramado. In , the third symposium took ively. Unfortunately, she is no the growth of the area over the last 30 years. The second longer with us, but she gave us, like so many other great symposium held in Gramado, RS, in had 10 regis- masters, an inheritance.
She, like the great masters, tered working groups. For the seventeenth symposium taught us that this heritage can be transformed, leading , in Brasilia, DF, 81 working groups registered, and us to be unafraid to dare and innovate, a legacy that we 79 have currently been approved. The complete con- English language in articles of the top five Brazilian psych- ference transcript in the original Portuguese is included as ology journals, a detailed description of the Brazilian post- Additional file 1.
The ten countries with the Psychology at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil was transcribed highest access to the website in were data within in the original Portuguese and made fully available as an Additional file 1. Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Gomes, W. Remor, E. Internationalization: Towards New Horizons By maria emilia yamamoto.
Torrance conductive extensive research at the University of Minnesota, and wrote prolifically on the topic of creativity in education eg. Torrance, , 2. A number of one-off and regular academic conferences also occurred, adding unity to the quantity of academic research. The University Michigan State hosted a series of symposia, across fifteenth months in and 58, devoted to the subject of creativity.
The symposia, like most of the other collections, had a strong interdisciplinary focus, drawing on the work of psychologists, psychoanalysts, architects and a Professor of Law and Political Science Anderson, v. It gave rise to a published collection of key addresses, and the work in that publication not only bears witness to a short-term merging of scholars but also to the organised and long-term research going on in the background.
The literature arising from these gatherings was self-aware in a way that suggests not only that a movement was in motion but also that it was being deliberately shaped and promoted, and perhaps exaggerated by its members. The fact that interdisciplinary collections exist suggests that this self-awareness was present among at least some groups of scholars.
But in various places there are hints of a broader kind of awareness, a sense that there is something larger in motion. And are they biased towards more recent data by the relatively high accessibility of that data? The authors of these figures are not as diligent as Guilford in noting their answer to the first question.
The second question remains open. This essay assumes that the authors were reasonably competent statisticians, and that any biases in their figures are not great enough to significantly affect their qualitative import. These concerns would not arise unless the scientists involved felt that interest in creativity was strong, well-organised, and purposeful. But more can be said about the third trait suggested by the spontaneous conversation in Utah: the sense of a strong social purpose behind work on creativity.
A look at some of the key literature arising from academic research shows that the movement within psychology had such a purpose.
At least, such a purpose was a distinctive part of the outer trappings of psychological work on creativity, its prefaces and introductions and opening addresses. It is another question just how much this social aspect of creativity shaped the actual research that is enclosed in those trappings; the last part of this essay will address on aspect of that question.
What kind of social purpose is visible in the scholarly limbo of prefaces and guest speeches? In general, scholarly rhetoric bears a strong resemblance to that in Applied Imagination. Firstly, there was a general enthusiasm for the value that creative people can bring to industry, government and education.
However, the writing of Taylor, Guilford and others suggest that more specific concerns were at stake for the proponents of creativity. One such concern was the contemporary shortage of creative talent. The poverty of contemporary education is a recurring theme, with speakers emphasising the tendency of education to reward conformity and memory rather than independent thought Guilford , ; Toynbee, And the dire shortage of science teachers was one of the official reasons for the National Science Foundation's funding of the Utah Conference series Taylor , The shortage of skilled scientists, usually blamed on the war eg.
But changes in the pool of creative talent were not the only historically specific source of social purpose in the creative movement, at least not according to the scholarly rhetoric of the time.
Changes in economic, social and political patterns were also a spur to editors and speechmakers. In another article he speculates that the end of geographical exploration has forced humans to look inwards for their adventures Guilford , And in their retrospective writings, both Barron , and Guilford , saw World War Two as a key formative experience for psychology, since it showed the variety for Guilford and positivity for Barron of the mental capabilities of humans.
As Taylor tells us in the preface to the first two sets of Proceedings, the steering committee decided to take verbatim record of the conference on the grounds that all ideas should be considered as valuable Taylor , v; , vi ; similarly for the spontaneous scribe Taylor , 25 If these complaints are not repeated elsewhere in the conference proceedings, this does not weaken the feelings that they express: one would not expect members of a formal, planned discussion to question the integrity of the whole project; and one can only guess at how often, in informal and unrecorded conversation, the same feelings were aired.
This feeling is especially strong in a lecture written by the British historian Arnold Toynbee, who submitted his ideas for publication in the collection of Utah Conference papers. The theme is generally muted in the Utah conference proceedings, with speakers making an effort to avoid rashness and jingoism Taylor , 10; , It would be easy to exaggerate, through strategic selection of quotes, the sense of social urgency in the rhetoric of creativity research.
Invited speakers are likely to discover social purpose whether there is any real purpose of not, and to overstate the real purposes that's why they are invited. In addition, the rhetoric should be judged by its silences as well as its shouts: in the preface to the first Utah Conference Proceedings, Calvin Taylor has little to offer in the way of rousing polemic , v-vi ; and at the conference the NSF representative gave nothing more than a general statement of solidarity with creativity researchers Taylor , Nevertheless, we have seen that three of the leading researches of the time Barron, Guilford and Taylor expressed strong feelings about the social implications of their work; and the invited speakers Professors Toynbee and Olpin were respected academics and not arbitrary rabble- rousers.
It is hard to say in general just what proportion of psychologists' interest in creative research lay in its social implications, and what proportion in its inherent intellectual appeal: for those who dared to enter the field, it certainly offered excitement and stimulation in its own right. The picture given so far of the creativity movement is one of programmatic unity. According to this picture, there existed a general popular readiness for something like the creative movement; Alex Osborn drew on and enlarged this readiness, translating a nebulous idea into a concrete network of books, videos and teaching programs; Guilford and others came into contact with Osborn's vision, and through the pioneering work of Guilford various psychologists coalesced around the theme of creativity and articulated the social need for the movement, simultaneously lifting it to a higher intellectual plane and directing their academic resources towards the urgent problems of the day.
This picture is a good sketch, but it needs refinement. The psychological movement consisted in a number of different approaches to the topic, leading to differences not just 27 Taylor , 2 cf. Taylor's early prefaces stress the novelty and difficulty of field, and both of those qualities are likely to appeal to inquiring minds. In particular, Guilford's approach was not typical of the psychological movement. Insofar as the literature on Guilford treats him as part of a movement, it suffers from a mild case of hero-worship.
A more accurate account of the creativity will show that other elements in the movement, especially humanistic and psychoanalytic elements, not only moulded its interests and sensibilities but also did so independently of Guilford's work.
This is not to say that Guilford showed hostility towards his minded colleagues, or that the movement suffered from internal dissent. In fact, the end result of the revised picture is possibly a reaffirmation of the togetherness of the movement, its ability to overlook the lower-level differences between its members. Nevertheless, this revised picture entails a rejection of the simple view that creativity researchers were led forward by a single figure or a single approach: the movement was unified, but not centralised.
Before discussing the humanistic psychologists in more detail, it is worth tracing out the legacy of Guilford's address, which became the symbolic centre of the movement. It would be foolish to deny the significance of the address itself. A Presidential address is surely one of the most visible annual addresses in American Psychology; and Guilford's was not just an inquiry into the subject but also a call for further inquiry. Moreover, comments on the address by psychologists of the time bear out this expectation.
Taylor's two other Utah prefaces do not give special attention to Guilford, and hence do not add any further layers to the Guilford story. Nor does Harold Anderson's preface to the collection associated with Michigan University. But Osborn makes the address the starting-point for his preface. And it is likely that other references appeared prior to the , when the Journal of Creative Behaviour first appeared in print. From this point it is not hard to see how Guilford's name became attached, by later writers within psychology, to the renewed twentieth-century attention to creativity; and why, for example, the year volume of the Creativity Research Journal was devoted to Guilford as a mark the fiftieth anniversary of the address.
It is easy to make too much of these references to Guilford and his address. It does not take too much imagination to misread an innocent literary device as an attempt to retell a founding myth for the purposes of professional consolidation. And the aim here is not to tell a historian's myth about how certain groups within psychology used the Guilford myth as an instrument of inter- 30 Calvin Taylor, Frank, Barron, and Guilford himself all comment on the significance of the event.
See also Guilford , 6. In citing the address, Barron chooses his words carefully. This reading may be overstating things a little.
0コメント