Gozli Davood G, Deng Wei Sophia
Department of Psychology, University of Macau, Macau, SAR, China.
Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2018 Mar;52(1):1-24. doi: 10.1007/s12124-017-9405-7.
The appeal and popularity of "building blocks", i.e., simple and dissociable elements of behavior and experience, persists in psychological research. We begin our assessment of this research strategy with an historical review of structuralism (as espoused by E. B. Titchener) and behaviorism (espoused by J. B. Watson and B. F. Skinner), two movements that held the assumption in their attempts to provide a systematic and unified discipline. We point out the ways in which the elementism of the two schools selected, framed, and excluded topics of study. After the historical review, we turn to contemporary literature and highlight the persistence of research into building blocks and the associated framing and exclusions in psychological research. The assumption that complex categories of human psychology can be understood in terms of their elementary components and simplest forms seems indefensible. In specific cases, therefore, reliance on the assumption requires justification. Finally, we review alternative strategies that bypass the commitment to building blocks.
“积木”,即行为和经验中简单且可分解的元素,在心理学研究中一直具有吸引力且颇受欢迎。我们对这一研究策略的评估始于对结构主义(由E. B. 铁钦纳所支持)和行为主义(由J. B. 华生和B. F. 斯金纳所支持)的历史回顾,这两个运动在试图提供一门系统且统一的学科时秉持了这一假设。我们指出了这两个学派的元素主义在选择、构建和排除研究主题方面的方式。历史回顾之后,我们转向当代文献,强调心理学研究中对积木式研究以及相关的构建和排除的持续存在。认为人类心理学的复杂范畴可以根据其基本成分和最简单形式来理解的假设似乎站不住脚。因此,在特定情况下,依赖这一假设需要有正当理由。最后,我们回顾了绕过对积木式研究的承诺的替代策略。