Scientists: Their Psychological World

Eiduson, Bernice T.; Seeger, Raymond J.

doi:10.1119/1.1941863

Cited by 29 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies have shown a firstborn advantage in terms of educational and occupational achievement (Altus, 1966;Schachter, 1963). This general finding then has as a special case the recurrent result indicating that firstborns are more likely to become eminent scientists (Eiduson, 1962;Galton, 1874;Roe, 1953;Simonton, 2008a;Terry, 1989). Yet it is also true that literary creators may have higher odds of being laterborns (Bliss, 1970).…”

Section: Varieties Of Creativity 17mentioning

confidence: 93%

Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity: A Hierarchical Model of Domain-Specific Disposition, Development, and Achievement

Simonton

2009

Perspect Psychol Sci

182

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT-Prior research supports the inference that scientific disciplines can be ordered into a hierarchy ranging from the "hard" natural sciences to the "soft" social sciences.This ordering corresponds with such objective criteria as disciplinary consensus, knowledge obsolescence rate, anticipation frequency, theories-to-laws ratio, lecture disfluency, and age at recognition. It is then argued that this hierarchy can be extrapolated to encompass the humanities and arts and interpolated within specific domains to accommodate contrasts in subdomains (e.g., revolutionary versus normal science). This expanded and more finely differentiated hierarchy is then shown to have a partial psychological basis in terms of dispositional traits (e.g., psychopathology) and developmental experiences (e.g., family background). This demonstration then leads to three hypotheses about how a creator's domain-specific impact depends on his or her disposition and development: the domain-progressive, domain-typical, and domainregressive creator hypotheses. Studies published thus far lend the most support to the domainregressive creator hypothesis. In particular, major contributors to a domain are more likely to have dispositional traits and developmental experiences most similar to those that prevail in a domain lower in the disciplinary hierarchy. However, some complications to this generalization suggest the need for more research on the proposed hierarchical model.

show abstract

Section: Varieties Of Creativity 17mentioning

confidence: 93%

Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity: A Hierarchical Model of Domain-Specific Disposition, Development, and Achievement

Simonton

2009

Perspect Psychol Sci

182

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, many investigators have administered to famous persons such instruments as the Rorschach, the Thematic Apperception Test, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the California Psychological Inventory, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, and other commonplace measures (e.g., R. B. Cattell, 1965;Gotz & Gotz, 1979;Gough, 1976Gough, , 1979Helmreich, Spence, Beane, Lucker, & Matthews, 1980;Eiduson, 1962). It might seem, therefore, that the psychometric examination of famous persons offers no methodological problems that are not already present in standard psychological research.…”

Section: Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On occasion significant samples may be subjected to direct assessment in precisely the same way. Such assessments were first introduced by Gallon (1874), who sent questionnaires to Fellows of the Royal Society of London to discern the personal and developmental basis for scientific achievement (see also Eiduson, 1962;Roe, 1952). On the other hand, often assessment must be indirect, using what have been called "unobtrusive" or "nonreactive" measures (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, Sechrest, & Grove, 1981).…”

Section: Confirmatory Versus Exploratory Investigationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals.

Simonton

1999

Psychological Methods

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychologists occasionally study eminent individuals, such as Nobel laureates, U.S. presidents, Olympic athletes, chess grandmasters, movie stars, and even distinguished psychologists. Studies using such significant samples may be differentiated along 7 distinct dimensions: qualitative versus quantitative, single versus multiple case, nomothetic versus idiographic, confirmatory versus exploratory, crosssectional versus longitudinal, micro versus macro analytical units, and direct versus indirect assessments. However, the vast majority of psychological inquiries may be clustered into just 4 types: historiometric, psychometric, psychobiographical, and comparative. After presenting the intrinsic and extrinsic justifications for studying famous persons, the main methodological issues concerning sampling, measurement, and analysis are discussed. The future prospects of significant samples in psychological research are then briefly examined.Empirical journal articles in psychology almost invariably commence their methods section with a subsection in which the researchers define the "subjects" or "participants" of the study (American Psychological Association, 1994). This sample specification comes first because all subsequent procedures and analytical strategies are usually contingent on that choice. An experimental manipulation or psychometric instrument that is indubitably appropriate for one sample might be manifestly inappropriate for another (e.g., whether to use an intelligence test designed for children or adults). In psychology, this sample description is especially critical. Few sciences feature the same diversity of entities that might serve as subjects in psychological research: human beings of every age, gender, ethnicity, occupation, and capacity; animals ranging from mammals, birds, and fish to insects, mollusks, and worms. Yet as diverse as these various subject pools may be, they all seem to have one thing in common: The individuals that compose This article is based on a paper read at the Internationa!

show abstract

“…Los miembros de la comunidad científica se caracterizan, en término medio, por una considerable implicación emocional con su tarea (Eiduson 1962;McClelland 1979;Roe 1953). Sobre la base de esa implicación, se desarrollan largas jornadas de trabajo, y en realidad, se difuminan las fronteras entre obligación y placer.…”

Section: La Vocación: Definición E Implicaciones Prácticasunclassified

Género y vocación científica. Un estudio de caso basado en mecanismos

León

Mora

2010

Rev. int. sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumenA pesar de los avances hacia la igualdad, la plantilla del personal académico de las universidades españo-las continua siendo fundamentalmente masculina. De los distintos filtros que actúan impidiendo el progreso académico de las mujeres hacia categorías superiores, aquellos que tienen lugar en el periodo de solicitud y disfrute de las becas de investigación son especialmente importantes. En ese periodo tiene lugar un proceso diferencial de construcción de subjetividades para mujeres y hombres cuyo efecto principal es una elaboración diferencial de las expectativas y preferencias profesionales para el futuro. Basándonos en el análisis de 40 entrevistas (18 realizadas al personal becario y 22 al profesorado de la Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona) y de una encuesta online realizada a 258 becarios/as de la UAB, tratamos de identificar algunos mecanismos causales que pueden ayudarnos a explicar por qué se produce una diferencia en las probabilidades de formación de un orden de preferencias que sitúe a la actividad científica como objetivo profesional prioritario, es decir, por qué los hombres desarrollan más frecuentemente que las mujeres una vocación científica. PalabRas ClaveCarrera académica, Ethos científico, Personal becario, Sexo. abstRaCtDespite the advances towards equality, the academic staff of the Spanish universities is still predominant by masculine. From the different filters that are avoiding the academic progress of women towards superior categories, those that take place in the application and enjoyment of research grants are especially important. In that period, it is taking place a differential process of subjectivities construction for women and men, the principal effect of which is a differential elaboration of professional expectations and preferences for the future. From the analysis of 40 interviews (18 conducted with grant staff and 22 with academic staff of the Autonomous University of Barcelona), and an online survey made to 258 scholarship holders of the AUB, we try to Revista inteRnaCional de soCiología (Ris) VoL.68, nº 2, Mayo-agosto, 399-428, 2010

show abstract

Scientists: Their Psychological World

Cited by 29 publications

References 0 publications

Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity: A Hierarchical Model of Domain-Specific Disposition, Development, and Achievement

Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity: A Hierarchical Model of Domain-Specific Disposition, Development, and Achievement

Significant samples: The psychological study of eminent individuals.

Género y vocación científica. Un estudio de caso basado en mecanismos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About