DP Psychology : Rethinking Fair Dual Classification in Groups 3 and 4
Suraj Shah
IBDP Psychology Educator I TOK Educator I IB Examiner I Psychotherapist | Psychologist | Mindfulness Trainer | AS and A levels Psychology Teacher | Trainer for Teachers Professional Development | Vedantic Inquirer
As an Educator, Psychologist, and a Practitioner of Psychological Science, I am exploring the rationale behind the inclusion of psychology in Group 4 (Natural Sciences), while simultaneously recognizing its rightful place within Group 3 (Individual and Society).
The acknowledgment of psychology as a science is not a fresh idea yet its adoption into Group 4 curricula is encountering prolonged delays, which is indeed astonishing. Moreover, the classification of subjects significantly influences their perceived academic standing and subsequently constrains students' options when selecting a compulsory science from Group 4. The confinement of psychology solely to Group 3 implies a fundamental misunderstanding of its scope, methodological approaches, and epistemic value.
Currently, students are compelled to choose a subject from biology, chemistry, or physics or Environmental Systems and Societies (ESS). Despite psychology being a scientific subject and recognized as such by world-renowned associations like the American Psychological Association, advocating its classification under STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), students are being denied the flexibility to explore Psychology additionally also as a Group 4 subject.
In this article, I shall explain the epistemic position, value, and scope of Psychology as a Scientific field.
Establishing Fundamental Understanding of Scope and Methods : Exploring the Inclusion of Psychology in the Natural Sciences
The term 'the human sciences' refers to the extension of natural sciences to encompass the realm of human activities. While acknowledging that humans are part of the natural world and, therefore, subjects for natural science inquiry, the subjects in Individual and Societies (INS) specifically focus on studying human-created activities. Disciplines such as Business, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, History, Political Science etc. fall under this category, collectively known as classic Human Sciences - Individuals and Societies (under the IB Classification).
In contrast, psychology engages in a broader investigation by not only scrutinizing activities shaped by humans in social, political, and historical contexts but also delving into the intrinsic nature of human beings. This exploration extends to the domain of biological psychology and cognitive psychology, examining the biological bases of behavior, including brain and nervous system mechanisms, genetic and evolutionary processes, hormonal mechanisms, and sensory and perceptual mechanisms and processes.
"Psychology is extremely broad, merging into sociology and anthropology at one end of its spectrum and into neuro-pharmacology and neuroanatomy at the other. Some universities have exclusively organized “psychology as a life science” OR “psychology as a social science” into separate departments. Such a unilateral separation is counterproductive in our view" - Canadian Psychological Association (2001)
The Psychology course’s traditional placement in social studies departments, has due to the public misunderstanding of the nature of psychological science. (American Psychological Association, 2020)
The high school psychology course often ended up in social studies and social science departments rather than in science departments. Since the late 19th century there has been a slow but steady shift from the teaching of psychology as adjustment to the teaching of psychology as science, but there has not been a corresponding shift moving the course to the Science department (American Psychological Association, 2020)
Psychology employs scientific methodologies akin to those in physics, chemistry, and biology. These methodologies are utilized to scrutinize behavior in controlled laboratory settings and complex natural environments. The analysis spans various levels, ranging from the neuronal to societal, and covers the entire lifespan, encompassing both typical and atypical responses. By integrating scientific methodologies from multiple disciplines, psychology contributes a nuanced understanding of human phenomena, straddling the boundary between human (social) and natural sciences.
"When we teach psychology, we are teaching STEM. We should call it what it is, and each of us should take responsibility for getting this to be represented correctly in the important classification systems." -American Psychological Association (2021)
Experience plays a crucial role in all empirical (natural) sciences, which are essentially disciplines based on direct observation and experimentation. The term "experience" originates from the Greek word "empeiria," emphasizing the importance of firsthand knowledge. Wilhelm Wundt, a key figure in the development of psychology, highlighted that every concrete experience involves two aspects: the objective content and the subjective apprehension by individuals. This distinction leads to two fundamental approaches in how sciences deal with experience (Wundt,1896).
In the natural sciences, researchers focus on the objective elements mediated by experience. They do this by removing the subjective aspects from concrete experience. Natural scientists take a standpoint called mediate experience, where they consider the objects of experience independently of the subjects experiencing them. This approach involves developing theories and methodologies that minimize the influence of human perception and thought in research processes. The unique characteristics of natural science phenomena, especially those related to the non-living world, allow scientists to identify general laws, consistent relationships, and constants that remain the same across time and space and can be measured and mathematically formalized (Uher 2020b).
On the other hand, psychologists study the subjects experiencing phenomena and how they interpret their experiences.
All science is done by humans and therefore inextricably entwined with and limited by human’s perceptual and conceptual abilities.
This investigation aligns with immediate experience, indicating the absence of other factors mediating perception (Wundt 1896a). Immediate experience involves interconnected processes where each process has an objective content and simultaneously represents a subjective experience.
"Psychology differs from anthropology, economics, political science, and sociology in seeking to capture explanatory generalizations about the mental functions and overt behaviour of individuals, while the other disciplines focus on creating descriptive generalizations about the functioning of social groups or situation-specific human behaviour." -Association of Psychological Science (2007)
The inherent challenges of scientific research lie in understanding the limitations and connections of human perception and thought. Psychological Scientists study these biases and provide valuable tools for scientists to reflect on their assumptions, beliefs, and language, minimizing unintentional influences on their research.
Psychology cannot be confined solely to the realms of INS (Individual and Societies), with its boundaries restricted to Group 3, akin to subjects such as History, Religion, or Global Politics. Confining Psychology within INS implies a limited understanding of the subject's scope and methods.
Exploring the Parallel Scopes of ESS and Psychology in INS and NS - If ESS, why not Psychology?
IBO defines scope of Environmental Systems and Societies as, "As an interdisciplinary course, ESS is designed to combine the methodology, techniques and knowledge associated with group 4 (sciences) with those associated with group 3 (individuals and societies). Because it is an interdisciplinary course, students can study ESS and have it count as either a group 3 or a group 4 course, or as both. If students choose the latter option, this leaves the opportunity to study an additional subject from any other group, including an additional group 3 or group 4 subject.
ESS is a complex course, requiring a diverse set of skills from its students. It is firmly grounded in both a scientific exploration of environmental systems in their structure and function and in the exploration of cultural, economic, ethical, political, and social interactions of societies with the environment." (International Baccalaureate Organization, 2017)
In the above context, if we replace "ESS" with "Psychology," the relevance and interdisciplinary nature would remain intact for Psychology as well. This raises the question: Why isn't Psychology categorized as a branch of the Group 4 Sciences alongside Group 3?
There is a Consistent Validity in Scope, even if the word ESS is simply replaced with Psychology.
"As an interdisciplinary course, Psychology is designed to integrate the methodologies, techniques, and knowledge associated with group 4 (sciences) with those linked to group 3 (individuals and societies). Being an interdisciplinary course, students have the flexibility to study Psychology and categorize it as either a group 3 or a group 4 course, or even both. Opting for the latter allows students the opportunity to study an additional subject from any other group, including an extra group 3 or group 4 subject.
Psychology is a multifaceted discipline, demanding a diverse skill set from its students. It is firmly rooted in both a scientific exploration of human behavior and mental processes, akin to the structure and function of mental processes and behavior, and an examination of the cultural, economic, ethical, political, and social dimensions of individuals and societies"
ESS delves into the intrinsic nature of ecosystems and examines how human activities intertwine with these ecosystems. Consequently, it possesses a dual scope in both Sciences and the Individuals and Societies (INS) domain. Similarly, Psychology explores the inherent nature of humans, considering both biological and cognitive perspectives. Additionally, it investigates how human interactions and the influence of societal factors shape human behavior. As a result, Psychology also exhibits a dual scope, extending into both the Sciences and INS.
Harmony with Group 4 Goals: Psychology Achieves Group 4 Objectives, Yet Faces Classification Denial
IB Group 4 aims at fostering a comprehensive set of skills and knowledge in students, and all the objectives align well with the study of IB Psychology.
In January 2023, the College Board officially reclassified Advanced Placement Psychology (AP Psychology), relocating it from the Social Sciences category to the Science category, along with Math, Physics, Chem, Biology and Environmental Sciences. (AP College Board)
Here's how each and every objective aimed behind Group 4 are met by the IB Psychology course:
Grouping Dilemma: Assessing the Fairness of Comparing Religious Studies, History, and Psychology in Group 3—Are Scientific Thinking Levels Equivalent?
IB Psychology thus aligns closely with the objectives of Group 4 by providing students with a rich scientific education, emphasizing critical thinking, problem-solving, ethical considerations, and a comprehensive understanding of the role of science in societal contexts. The question is, why isn't it also a part of Group 4?
The American Psychological Association Advocates for the Reclassification
The American Psychological Association 2009 Presidential Task Force on the Future of Psychology as a STEM Discipline was formed to articulate the rationale for consistent inclusion of psychology as a core STEM discipline. A central problem that the Task Force addressed was the inconsistent recognition of psychology as a STEM discipline. The failure to group psychology with other core STEM disciplines ignores a critical component – the human being – within scientific and technological approaches to pressing questions of national interest. (American Psychological Association, 2009)
With a strong science-based curriculum, APA recommends that high school psychology courses migrate from its usual placement in the social studies department to its logical home in the science department, and the full inclusion of high school psychology in STEM initiatives. This would allow students to earn science credit, possibly as a science elective course, towards high school graduation (American Psychological Association, 2019)
The acknowledgment of psychology as a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) discipline is inconsistent across major federal agencies that fund training and research in scientific fields to address significant challenges and maintain national competitiveness. While the National Institutes of Health recognizes psychological science as a core discipline, supporting various health-related topics, and the Institute for Education Sciences allocates significant funding for education-related research that often requires expertise in psychological theories, knowledge, and research paradigms, other agencies like the Department of Energy do not include psychology in their support for STEM education initiatives related to energy use and climate change (American Psychological Association, 2021).
The authors recommend that teachers, administrators, and departments include psychology as a STEM discipline at the high school level, just as bodies such as the National Science Foundation recognize it (American Psychological Association, 2019)
This inconsistency has tangible effects on the eligibility of psychology for new or emerging STEM programs, limiting opportunities for advancement in the field. For instance, the Department of Energy, despite funding various STEM education initiatives, excludes training in psychology and behavioral sciences relevant to their focus areas.
The larger scientific community demonstrates a similarly mixed stance on psychology's STEM status. In a premier professional organization for the sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, psychology is recognized as a science among peers. However, this recognition is not uniformly reflected in the broader community of practitioners, educators, and policy-makers. In policy-making and documents emphasizing the importance of strengthening America's STEM education and workforce, psychology is frequently excluded as a STEM discipline (Kuenzi, 2008).
These inconsistencies may have detrimental effects, particularly on students considering psychological science as a STEM career choice. The ambiguity surrounding psychology's status within the STEM framework might contribute to a shortage of scientists equipped to address the behavioral aspects of future societal challenges. Consequently, rectifying the inconsistent recognition of psychology within STEM disciplines is essential for fostering a comprehensive and inclusive approach to addressing complex scientific and societal issues.
领英推荐
?????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????????????? ?????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?????? ???????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???????????????? ???? ???????????????????? ???? ???????????????????? ???? ?????? ???????????????? ???? ???????????????????? ???? ??????????????, ?????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ?????????????????????????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????? ???????????? ???? ?????? ?????????????? ????????????????????. (???????????????? ?????????????????????????? ??????????????????????, ????????)
Impact of Excluding Psychology from Group 4: Implications for the Educational Journey of DP Students
The exclusion of psychology from Group 4 at the Diploma Programme (DP) level has significant implications for students, particularly those aspiring to careers in Behavioural Economics or Law. The current framework limits students to choosing from physics, chemistry, or biology, potentially neglecting their aptitude or interest in these traditional natural sciences.
?????? ???????????? ?? ?????????????? ???????????????? ???? ???????????? ???? ?????????????????? ?????????? ???????? ?????????????? ???? ??????????????????? ??????'?? ?????? ?????????? ???? ???????????????????? ???????????????????? ???? ???????????? ?????? ???????????????????? ???? ?????????? ???
The inclusion of psychology in Group 4 could provide a valuable alternative for students pursuing paths aligned with economics or history. Being a science, psychology employs scientific methodologies and practices akin to the natural sciences. Integrating psychology within Group 4 would allow students to engage in empirical research, experimental design, data analysis, and critical thinking – core skills emphasized by Group 4.
This inclusive approach not only broadens students' academic choices but also ensures the development of essential scientific skills. Psychology's interdisciplinary nature, bridging social and natural sciences, offers a holistic understanding of human behavior. Recognizing psychology in Group 4 encourages students to appreciate the connections between different scientific disciplines, fostering a more comprehensive approach to education.
Moreover, this adjustment acknowledges the potential unfairness of imposing natural science subjects on students who may lack an aptitude or interest in physics, chemistry, or biology or ESS. It promotes a more flexible and equitable educational system, allowing students to pursue subjects aligned with their career goals and personal interests.
Psychology degrees are commonly offered under both Bachelor of Science (B.Sc ) and Bachelor of Arts (B.A) programs at the undergraduate level. Furthermore, at the postgraduate level, Master of Arts (M.A) and Master of Science (M.Sc ) degrees are available, emphasizing the interdisciplinary nature of psychology that spans both arts and sciences. This dual classification reflects the diverse and inclusive approach to studying psychology in academic institutions.
Thus, recognizing psychology in Group 4 addresses limitations for students, ensuring the acquisition of vital scientific skills and aligning with the interdisciplinary nature of psychology. The discussion around the inclusion of Environmental Systems and Societies (ESS) in both Group 3 and Group 4 further emphasizes the need to reevaluate subject categorizations. ESS, with its interdisciplinary elements, raises questions about why psychology, sharing similarities with natural sciences, is currently confined to Group 3. Reconsidering the placement of psychology in both Group 3 and Group 4 would align with the evolving understanding of the subject and offer students a more diverse range of choices, fostering the development of essential scientific skills across various academic disciplines.
Conclusion
There exists no epistemological or pragmatic justification for confining Psychology solely to Group 3. Given its distinct epistemic value and undeniable real-life applicability, Psychology rightfully holds a place within both Group 3 and Group 4.
It is imperative to reconsider our approach and provide students the flexibility to choose Psychology as part of either Group 3 or 4. Forcing subjects like chemistry, physics, or biology or ESS on individuals with a natural aptitude for psychology, who may prefer pursuing other two Group 3 subjects, seems restrictive.
Despite psychology’s foundation in science and its standing as the science of human behavior, it is not fully accepted as a science by the general public. Moreover, even among professional organizations and agencies that acknowledge psychology as a science, psychology is often — too often — excluded from STEM-related funding and activities. This oversight, in perception and in access to resources for STEM activities, fails to capitalize on the expertise of psychologists to achieve the objectives of STEM programs and restricts the contributions of a large and diverse pool of talented students and professionals in psychology to scientific and technological innovation in the present well into the future.
References
Alexandrova, A., & Haybron, D. M. (2016). Is construct validation valid? Philosophy of Science, 83(5), 1098–1109. 10.1086/687941
Bohr N. Causality and complementarity. Philosophy of Science. 1937;4(3):289–298. doi:?10.1086/286465. [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Brody N, Oppenheim P. Application of Bohr’s principle of complementarity to the mind-body problem. Journal of Philosophy. 1969;66(4):97–113. doi:?10.2307/2024529. [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Capra F. The web of life: A new synthesis of mind and matter. New York: Anchor Books; 1997. [Google Scholar ]
Fahrenberg, J. (1979). The complementarity principle in psychophysiological research and somatic medicine. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 27(2), 151–167. [PubMed ]
Fahrenberg J. Zur Kategorienlehre der Psychologie: Komplementarit?tsprinzip; Perspektiven und Perspektiven-Wechsel. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers; 2013. [Google Scholar ]
Fahrenberg, J. (2019). Wilhelm Wundt (1832 – 1920). Introduction, quotations, reception, commentaries, attempts at reconstruction . Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.
Fanelli D, Gl?nzel W. Bibliometric evidence for a hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(6):e66938. doi:?10.1371/journal.pone.0066938. [PMC free article ] [PubMed ] [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Gauch, H. G. J. (2015). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context. American Psychologist, 56(10), 803–813. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.10.803. [PubMed ]
Ginge, B. (1996). Identifying gender in the archaeological record: Revising our stereotypes. Etruscan Studies, 3, Article 4.
Hartmann N. Der Aufbau der realen Welt. Grundriss der allgemeinen Kategorienlehre (3. Aufl.) Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 1964. [Google Scholar ]
Heisenberg, W. (1927). über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43(3–4), 172–198. 10.1007/BF01397280.
Kant, I. (1798/2000). Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (Reinhard Brandt, ed.). Felix Meiner.
Kelley TL. Interpretation of educational measurements. Yonkers: World; 1927. [Google Scholar ]
Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs. W.W. Norton.
Koffka K. Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World; 1935. [Google Scholar ]
Lamiell, J. (2003). Beyond individual and group differences: Human individuality, scientific psychology, and William Stern’s critical personalism. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781452229317.
Lamiell, J. (2019). Psychology’s misuse of statistics and persistent dismissal of its critics. Springer International. 10.1007/978-3-030-12131-0.
Lewin K. Principles of topological psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1936. [Google Scholar ]
Molenaar PCM. A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective. 2004;2(4):201–218. doi:?10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1. [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Morin E. On complexity. Cresskill: Hampton Press; 2008. [Google Scholar ]
Omi Y. Tension between the theoretical thinking and the empirical method: Is it an inevitable fate for psychology? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2012;46(1):118–127. doi:?10.1007/s12124-011-9185-4. [PubMed ] [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Peirce, C. S. (1901/1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (CP 7.218—1901, On the logic of drawing history from ancient documents especially from testimonies). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1997). The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. Free Press.
Robinson OC. The idiographic/nomothetic dichotomy: Tracing historical origins of contemporary confusions. History & Philosophy of Psychology. 2011;13:32–39. [Google Scholar ]
Royce, J. (1891). The religious aspect of philosophy: A critique of the bases of conduct and of faith. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin.
Salvatore S, Valsiner J. Between the general and the unique. Theory & Psychology. 2010;20:817–833. doi:?10.1177/0959354310381156. [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Simonton DK. Psychology as a science within Comte’s hypothesized hierarchy: Empirical investigations and conceptual implications. Review of General Psychology. 2015;19(3):334–344. doi:?10.1037/gpr0000039. [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Slaney KL, Garcia DA. Constructing psychological objects: The rhetoric of constructs. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 2015;35(4):244–259. doi:?10.1037/teo0000025. [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Thorndike EL. Notes on child study. 2. New York: Macmillan; 1903. [Google Scholar ]
Toomela, A., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? Information Age Publishing.
Uher J. Personality psychology: Lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts reveal only half of the story-Why it is time for a paradigm shift. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2013;47(1):1–55. doi:?10.1007/s12124-013-9230-6. [PMC free article ] [PubMed ] [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Uher, J. (2015a). Agency enabled by the psyche: Explorations using the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals. In C. W. Gruber, M. G. Clark, S. H. Klempe, & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Constraints of agency: Explorations of theory in everyday life. Annals of Theoretical Psychology (Vol. 12) (pp. 177–228). 10.1007/978-3-319-10130-9_13.
Uher J. Conceiving “personality”: Psychologist’s challenges and basic fundamentals of the Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2015;49(3):398–458. doi:?10.1007/s12124-014-9283-1. [PubMed ] [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Uher J. Developing “personality” taxonomies: Metatheoretical and methodological rationales underlying selection approaches, methods of data generation and reduction principles. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2015;49(4):531–589. doi:?10.1007/s12124-014-9280-4. [PubMed ] [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Uher J. Interpreting “personality” taxonomies: Why previous models cannot capture individual-specific experiencing, behaviour, functioning and development. Major taxonomic tasks still lay ahead. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2015;49(4):600–655. doi:?10.1007/s12124-014-9281-3. [PubMed ] [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Uher, J. (2015e). Comparing individuals within and across situations, groups and species: Metatheoretical and methodological foundations demonstrated in primate behaviour. In D. Emmans & A. Laihinen (Eds.), Comparative Neuropsychology and Brain Imaging (Vol. 2), Series Neuropsychology: An Interdisciplinary Approach (pp. 223–284). 10.13140/RG.2.1.3848.8169
Uher, J. (2016a). Exploring the workings of the Psyche: Metatheoretical and methodological foundations. In J. Valsiner, G. Marsico, N. Chaudhary, T. Sato & V. Dazzani (Eds.), Psychology as the science of human being: The Yokohama Manifesto (pp. 299–324). 10.1007/978-3-319-21094-0_18.
Uher J. What is behaviour? And (when) is language behaviour? A metatheoretical definition. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2016;46(4):475–501. doi:?10.1111/jtsb.12104. [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Uher J. Quantitative data from rating scales: An epistemological and methodological enquiry. Frontiers in Psychology. 2018;9:2599. doi:?10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02599. [PMC free article ] [PubMed ] [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Uher J. Taxonomic models of individual differences: A guide to transdisciplinary approaches. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2018;373(1744):20170171. doi:?10.1098/rstb.2017.0171. [PMC free article ] [PubMed ] [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Uher, J. (2018c). The Transdisciplinary Philosophy-of-Science Paradigm for Research on Individuals: Foundations for the science of personality and individual differences. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences: Volume I: The science of personality and individual differences (pp. 84–109). 10.4135/9781526451163.n4.
Uher J. Human uniqueness explored from the uniquely human perspective: Epistemological and methodological challenges. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2020;50:20–24. doi:?10.1111/jtsb.12232. [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Uher, J. (2020b). Measurement in metrology, psychology and social sciences: data generation traceability and numerical traceability as basic methodological principles applicable across sciences. Quality & Quantity. International Journal of Methodology, 54, 975-1004. 10.1007/s11135-020-00970-2.
Uher J, Addessi E, Visalberghi E. Contextualised behavioural measurements of personality differences obtained in behavioural tests and social observations in adult capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) Journal of Research in Personality. 2013;47(4):427–444. doi:?10.1016/j.jrp.2013.01.013. [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Uher J, Werner CS, Gosselt K. From observations of individual behaviour to social representations of personality: Developmental pathways, attribution biases, and limitations of questionnaire methods. Journal of Research in Personality. 2013;47(5):647–667. doi:?10.1016/j.jrp.2013.03.006. [CrossRef ] [Google Scholar ]
Wundt, W. (1896a). Grundriss der Psychologie. Stuttgart: K?rner. Retrieved from https://archive.org/ .
Wundt W. über die Definition der Psychologie. Philosophische Studien. 1896;12:9–66. [Google Scholar ]
Designer and Consultant in Education and General Systems Design
8 个月Thanks Suraj for this article, I also think Psychology should be a part of STEM or STEAM education and as an important part it plays in design of products and services and man-machine interface and user- experience in all technologies to make it User-friendly.