Methodology of psychology

Background. Discussion of the social origins of personality formation, based on the biological individual, is a characteristic feature of modern interdisciplinary researches at the junction of natural science and the humanities. At the same time, evolutionary aspects of the relationship between the biological (innate) and the social (acquired) — i.e., the problem of the origin of sociality — come to the forefront. 

Objective. This article presents and discusses the hypothesis that the evolutionary origins of sociality are processes of evolutionary divergence (increasing individual diversity) and convergence (symbiosis) that define two oppositely directed vectors of the development of life from its simplest forms. 

Method and Results. The theoretical and experimental data used to discuss the hypothesis are considered here from the standpoint of the historical evolutionary approach to the processes of formation (evolution) of the uniqueness of the personality and of social interpersonal relations. The approach is based on an understanding of these processes as a special case of the evolution of interacting systems on the basis of two opposing trends — towards preserving and towards changing the system. The hypothesis allows us to answer two questions about the ambivalence of human existence in society: (a) Why do all people, regardless of their social status, find it so difficult to endure loneliness, which is incompatible with both the mental and even physical health of each of us? (b) Why at the same time do all of us involuntarily protect the “boundaries” of our own physical, mental, and social “Me”, the violation of which is as destructive (unacceptable) to us as is loneliness? 

Conclusion. Systematic historical-evolutionary analysis of the sciences of nature, society, and humankind allows us to isolate general patterns of development of complex systems, leading to a more accurate understanding of the phenomenon of personality. Such an interdisciplinary approach was used in this work on the biological roots of sociality and the particular features of individual existence in the external and to some extent social environment that generates unique individuals. 

Psychology is now one of the most popular sciences for young students. But whether academic production or professional practice, it is still in crisis. When we look together at two different approaches we realize the enormous amount of syncretism. They are not only two different approaches to the same science. They are more than that, they are different areas of knowledge, with very different practical implications. Discussion of psychology with the other sciences researching the same "objects" is nonexistent. So when it comes to practice, many of young psychologists leave the profession.

This article is an invitation to colleagues for a "look inside" this interesting science that can make a significant contribution to human sciences and the better life of human beings in the 21st century. This call is supported by a re-reading of the text by Lev S. Vygotsky The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology written in 1927. The article is structured in four subtopics: the problem of general science (in Psychology), the problem of terminology, the problem of difficulty in recognizing the crisis and the problem of emptiness. Being a call, of course, it is not a complete and finished analysis. It is rather a desire that, engaging some colleagues, we can continue the dialogue with Vygotsky on this topic started by him ninety years ago.

In modern science, along with the “classic” and “non-classical” approach to solving fundamental and applied problems, there is an actively developing “postnonclassical” research paradigm. This renovation of general scientific methodology has been accompanied by the emergence of new experimental technologies and new scientific research directions based on them. “Social psychophysiology” is one such direction. It is formed within the frame of postnonclassical methodology at the intersection of neuroscience and psychology. This work is devoted to the analytical review of the methods, achievements and prospects of contemporary social neuroscience and social psychophysiology studying brain structures that are specifically related to the implementation of social forms of behavior and intercultural communication. Physiological studies of brain activity during social interaction processes, which are simulated using virtual reality environments, are analyzed, and the physiological approach to the study of the brain mechanisms associated with social perception, social cognition and social behavior is used. Along with the analysis of psychophysiological studies of the mechanisms of social perception and social cognition, we discuss the theories of “Brain Reading” and “Theory of Mind” and the underlying data concerning “Gnostic neurons recognition of persons and recognition of emotional facial expressions”, “mirror neurons”, “emotional resonance” and “cognitive resonance”. Particular emphasis is placed on the discussion of a fundamentally new trend in the study of the relationship between the brain and culture (i.e., “cultural neuroscience”). Related to this connection, the following topics are raised: physiological mechanisms protecting the “individual distance” in communication between members of a personified community, psychophysiological approaches to the study of cross-cultural differences, physiological mechanisms of social classification (particularly the formation of attitudes toward representatives of various social groups and toward the content of socially oriented information), and psychophysiological approaches to the study of processes of social classification in the field of intercultural relations (racial perception, stereotypes and prejudices).

This article begins by discussing the origins of the methodological crisis in psychology. In the literature the idea of a permanent methodological crisis in psychology, lasting since the 1890s, dominates. We contest this view and argue that the contemporary methodological problems in psychology should be considered within the context of the novel and larger crisis challenging all socio-humanitarian knowledge in the face of the transformations in social reality in recent decades. The nature of these transformations and their implications for the theory and methodology of the socio-humanitarian sciences are analyzed by drawing on the sociological literature, which is more sensitive to changes in social life than is psychology.

Prominent sociologists argue that the “old” theories and interpretations of the “social” are no longer relevant in the new, highly complex, and globally unstable reality; this new reality has largely transformed the dimensions of human beings’ existence. Meanwhile psychology still tends to comprehend the universal nature of the human. This position undermines the relevance of both psychology’s theoretical models and the practical implications derived from these methodological assumptions.

We argue for revision of the perennial psychological problem of the biology-culture interaction in human nature. To resolve the contemporary methodological crisis in psychology, a shift is needed from theories of universal and immutable human nature to the idea of the human as an infinitely changing creature. Because culture is, primarily, the ability to change, wherein the speed and extent of changes are unique for humans, distinguishing them from other living beings.

The postnonclassical paradigm has increasingly become a conceptual basis for social research in various fields in an attempt to overcome the limitations of the classical and non-classical approaches. Subjects of social research activities require changes in the paradigm at all levels of research: from the statement of the problem to the elaboration of the appropriate methods and the analysis of the research data. The search for new research methods, technologies and techniques plays a crucial role in this process. One of the most promising methods that has rapidly developed in recent years is the technology of virtual reality (VR). This technology is being widely applied to both natural science and social science research. In this article, we examine the possibilities of using VR technology for the resolution of current tasks in social research from the perspective of the postnonclassical approach.

The relationship of consciousness to the reflexive processes is one of the fundamental problems in psychology. To date, however, many important aspects of this problem remain poorly understood. This article attempts a theoretical study of this problem. The subject of research is the interconnection between consciousness and reflexive processes and also the structure of these processes. This study presents theoretical and empirical materials revealing the interrelatedness of these two fundamental subjects of psychological research. In connection with this issue, I introduce a new methodology for psychological research, which I refer to as the metasystem approach. This approach is grounded in the claim that reflection is the basic procedural means of consciousness and is based on a heterarchical principle. This article proposes a new structural, polyprocess method for revealing the psychological nature of reflection and the contents of reflexive processes. I propose a new explanation for the basic properties of the psyche that underlie consciousness: self-sensitiveness (sensitivity to oneself). I theoretically prove the following proposition: reflection has a fundamental heterogeneity because its processes are localized on completely different hierarchical cognitive levels of personality. In addition, I show that in the structural organization of reflection as an integral process in relation to other (“secondary,” metacognitive) processes, another basic principle is involved — the principle of hierarchy. The property of reflexivity (and the process of reflection as a procedural manifestation of this property) should be understood as a species in relation to the more common attribute inherent in the psyche: self-sensitiveness. Elementary manifestations of this property have been observed for the simplest sensory processes.

Quantitative psychological research is focused on detecting the occurrence of certain population phenomena by analyzing data from a sample, and statistics is a particularly helpful mathematical tool that is used by researchers to evaluate hypotheses and make decisions to accept or reject such hypotheses. In this paper, the various statistical tools in psychological research are reviewed. The limitations of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) and the advantages of using effect size and its respective confidence intervals are explained, as the latter two measurements can provide important information about the results of a study. These measurements also can facilitate data interpretation and easily detect trivial effects, enabling researchers to make decisions in a more clinically relevant fashion. Moreover, it is recommended to establish an appropriate sample size by calculating the optimum statistical power at the moment that the research is designed. Psychological journal editors are encouraged to follow APA recommendations strictly and ask authors of original research studies to report the effect size, its confidence intervals, statistical power and, when required, any measure of clinical significance. Additionally, we must account for the teaching of statistics at the graduate level. At that level, students do not receive sufficient information concerning the importance of using different types of effect sizes and their confidence intervals according to the different types of research designs; instead, most of the information is focused on the various tools of NHST.

The development of modern information technologies is causing changes in the structure of the human psyche, bringing about a new psychotype. The transition to a new level of evolution is accompanied by the growing manifestation of the psyche’s ontological features — nonlocality and self-determination. From a sample of more than 300 people, it was demonstrated that active Internet users are significantly different in a number of parameters from those who mostly use traditional media. This article examines the resources of media psychology as a new paradigm in the study of mass communication phenomena and the laws of the development of psyche.

Lev Vygotsky’s statement on the development of the higher psychological functions— from the interpsychological form to the intrapsychological form—is discussed in the article. I describe the changing of Vygotsky’s interest from nonverbal to verbal communication and his emphasis on verbal communication as an only kind of interpsychological function. I then analyze works that show the importance of nonverbal communication in this process. I raise the questions of what an interpsychological function is and who is its “owner.” I argue that immediate response to the behavior (verbal and nonverbal) of another person is a basis for the psychological functions of a child, and this basis continues to influence processes in later stages of human development, including adulthood. Thus, interpsychological function in the development of the child is inevitably connected with some kind of passivity in reactions to social stimulation.

Jean Piaget’s so-called biological perspective is often paired with the viewpoint of Lev Vygotsky when we speak of learning in humans. Both authors acknowledged the active role of children in the construction of knowledge. However, they differ in that, unlike Piaget, Vygotsky believed that the assimilation of new information does not have to wait for an appropriate level of development but must, on the contrary, produce that development through instruction; thus, cooperation between teacher and student promotes the development of higher psychological functions. The present research presents proof that school instruction is instrumental in this process. Samples of adults who had acquired distinct levels of schooling (from illiterates to university students) are differentiated experimentally through the use of four Piagetian cognitive problem-solving tasks created for adolescents and adults. The present research suggests that instructional level is the distinctive factor in the development of those problem-solving capacities that implicate higher psychological functions.

Any psychological paradigm needs a psychopathological system that helps professionals to describe and explain the behavioral expressions that deviate from “normal” (whether this term is used with the semantic property of statistical or ideal adaptations). In this work, I seek to present the system that I have been developing since 1998 among the psychologists at the Instituto Vegotsky de Lisboa (Vygotsky Institute of Lisbon), Portugal, to understand psychopathology with regard to the vygotskian approach. It was conceived and designed according to the work of Rita Mendes Leal and her contribution to socioemotional development theory, AR Luria’s systemic and dynamic theory of the human brain, the theory of Activity (dyatel’nost) of AN Leont’ev, and the psychopathological German school of E Kraepelin, presented and disseminated in Portugal in the early twentieth century by Professor Sobral Cid. It is intended to be a proposal to colleagues who are interested in postnonclassical psychology and a request for arguments.

Contemporary Russian psychology faces an uphill battle in joining the international mainstream after decades of isolation. Among Russian psychologists today, we can see traces of the “globalist” (integrative) and “counter-globalist” (isolationist) tendencies that first manifested during the Soviet period. At that time, Russian psychology was shaped as a mono-methodological trend; it addressed fundamental theoretical problems, was based on Marxist philosophy and was oriented to reflect the standards of the natural sciences. In the post-Soviet period, fundamental social changes shifted the development of psychology as a science and different standards were adopted. Contemporary Russian psychology is substantially diversified. When searching for “the optimum level of integration” with global peers, it is necessary to take into account the theoretical and methodological orientations of the scientists, as their motives and constraints with respect to integration can be substantially different. Here we explain in detail how the different theoretical understandings and predilections of Russian psychologists determine their interests, ideals and constraints with respect to integration with the mainstream.

The article discloses the main potential aspects of cooperation between psychology and culturology, which are connected through their mutual determination of the psyche (psychic reality) and culture. The paper acknowledges the key importance of the cultural-historical traditions initiated by Lev Vygotsky and his successors as well as the idea that their potential has yet to be realized by contemporary psychology. A new vision of culture is given to culturology (in comparison with traditional cultural studies) and its significance in conducting modern psychological research: a novel problematization of psychology’s subject matter and its methodological support. Different aspects of the psyche’s cultural determination, the experience with cultural psychology (historical psychology) in researching historical mental types (“Annals school”) are reviewed alongside with the role of culture knowledge in analyzing the psychological results of this determination. The consistency of culture and its components represented and internalized by mental structures is announced as a fundamental cultural basis of psychological research. The return influence of psychological phenomena on culture’s various aspects, as well as related cultural and psychological problems, are determined by the fundamental place and role of the psyche in any given cultural system as well as the contradictions that exist between a culture and the psyche. All this requires further examination. One of the most vital contemporary challenges facing psychology is the problem of the mental peculiarities of the consciousness, which can be principally explained in terms of a consistent culturological approach. Interrelationships between the psyche’s properties and conscious cultural functions are shown through example of aesthetic attitude.

The current state of cognitive science is discussed in this article. It is argued that cognitive science as it currently exists is not a separate, independent science. It is represented by a scientific interdisciplinary community focused on meeting the key challenges posed by the present time. The objective of the discourse in this interdisciplinary space is to generate new knowledge that it is impossible to generate within the frameworks of separate scientific disciplines. Some features of this new (transdisciplinary) stage are emerging within on-going interdisciplinary research. One of the signs of the new stage is the outlining of a merger of humanitarian and natural-scientific knowledge. It is claimed that the transdisciplinary approach can be considered as “a creative polylogue” of monodisciplines capable of generating knowledge that is not available to any science and the acquisition of which is beyond the abilities of any science.

Contemporary psychology and cognitive neuroscience create many opportunities for studying the brain functions, but also generate numerous challenges. To date, scientists face common conceptual problems which are relevant to almost every research study/ case such as: classification of functions, unified methodological approaches, explanation of the psychological phenomenon etc. The Sino-German Workshop which took place in Hamburg in 2013 aimed to address unasked questions and unused answers, attracting scientists from different countries and different fields of psychology, neuroscience, medicine, history, and philosophy. The present discussion on the 9 unasked questions was initiated by Professor Ernst Poeppel and was held on by Russian participants from various academic institutions.

First, a disclaimer: the book I am about to review is written by my mentor. Call me biased. I was fortunate enough to attend the lectures presented in this book. It was 35 years ago. I vividly remember how sought after was a good set of lecture notes from these lectures. Now this call has been answered by the author himself. It’s been a long wait, and the new generations of Russian-speaking psychology students — and instructors alike — are so much better off for it...

The problem of consciousness is examined in the article. It is argued that all the existing approaches to consciousness do not explain the role consciousness plays in human life. An attempt of revealing and describing the principles of the mind’s work is made. Experimental phenomena observed by the author and his followers, particularly, the tendency of previously non-realized ideas not to be realized subsequently, are reviewed. The discussion of these phenomena allows to formulate a novel view on the nature of consciousness.

We suggest a united concept of consciousness and emotion, based on the systemic cognitive neuroscience perspective regarding organisms as active and goaldirected. We criticize the idea that consciousness and emotion are psychological phenomena having quite different neurophysiological mechanisms. We argue that both characterize a unified systemic organization of behavior, but at different levels. All systems act to achieve intended behavioral results in interaction with their environment. Differentiation of this interaction increases during individual development. Any behavioral act is a simultaneous realization of systems ranking from the least to the most differentiated. We argue that consciousness and emotion are dynamic systemic characteristics that are prominent at the most and least differentiated systemic levels, correspondingly. These levels are created during development. Our theory is based on both theoretical and empirical research and provides a solid framework for experimental work.

Since the late 1950s, a significant number of authors tried to use Galperin’s approach (which is well-known as the “Theory of planned stage-by-stage formation of mental actions”, or the PSFMA Theory) to improve schooling processes and results. Looking back at the more than fifty‑year history of Galperin’s approach, one may note that the 1960s and the early 1970s were the periods of the great optimism concerning effectiveness and efficiency of its practical application. It seemed possible to transform radically the way and the traditional results of learning/teaching process. To compare the 60s-70s and the 80s-90s publications one could easily discover a significant decrease of a wave of optimism concerning the PSFMA’s application. Besides the obvious social‑economic and social‑psychological reasons there exists a methodological reason concerning the ways and means of the Galperin’s approach use. Historically, the substantial pedagogical results of planned stage‑by‑stage formation of mental actions first came to the fore. However, the proponents’ enthusiasm about really unusual and hopeful results had a reverse side: it led to the serious misunderstanding of the status of Galperin’s approach and transformed the last to some absolute knowledge like a sort of “philosophers’ stone”. The successful application of the statements of PSFMA does not mean a literal reproduction of some abstract general procedure, but a creative design of a system of necessary and sufficient psychological conditions adapted to a concrete schooling situation. The elaboration of such a procedure occupies an intermediate position between the fundamental psychological knowledge and the real process of schooling. The three-model system is considered to bridge a gap between the fundamental knowledge introduced by Galperin and the real circumstances of learning/teaching situation.

The article analyzes the basic paradigms of psychology and put forward the thesis of the expansion of the subject area of psychology in the course of historical development, and describes the main features of integrative psychology. Highlighted in the article the new paradigm of psychology (transpersonal, communicative, integrative), make it possible to trace a vector of development of modern psychology as a multidimensional communicative environment that has intention to make a perusal of psychic reality.