Lewin's Theory Research Articles

Minority Group Identification and Intergroup Relations: An Examination of Kurt Lewin's Theory of Jewish Group Identity.

Minority Group Identification and Intergroup Relations: An Examination of Kurt Lewin's Theory of Jewish Group Identity.

Suitability of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale for High-School Use

KOFFKA (8), through expanding concept of figure and ground, focused attention on struc ture of cognitive and social, as well as perceptual fields. Tolman (12), using objective procedures, attempted to infer cognitive maps of rats and thus term cognition received respectable atten tion. Lewin's (9) topological theory of personality has dealt with regions of ego and life space, with their differentiation and their overlapping. His in sights have provided meanings which have been expanded, leading to another significant approach to thinking, Open and Closed Belief Systems. This new approach studies thinking indirectly. It as sumes a dynamic relationship between person ality and way person thinks. He thinks as he does because of kind of person he has become. Thinking per se is not focus but ameans of studying whole person in action, (5, 6). The approach known as Open-Closed Belief Systems was developed on premise that each in dividual is motivated both rational and rational izing forces, and assumed that all belief-disbe lief systems serve two powerful and conflicting sets of motives at same time; need for a cogni tive framework to know and to understand and need to ward off threatening aspects of reality (11: 67). The belief-disbelief systems are open to the extent to which person can receive, evalu ate, and act on relevant information received from on its own intrinsic merits unencum bered by irrelevant factors in situation, arising from within person or from outside (11:57).

On Lewin's Method and Theory

Journal of Social IssuesVolume 15, Issue S13 p. 3-13 On Lewin's Method and Theory Fritz Heider, Fritz HeiderSearch for more papers by this author Fritz Heider, Fritz HeiderSearch for more papers by this author First published: December 1959 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1959.tb02189.xCitations: 10AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume15, IssueS13December 1959Pages 3-13 RelatedInformation

A note on the Rethlingshafer scale of tendency-to-continue.

In a series of recent articles (3, 4, 5), Dr. Rethlingshafer compares the behavior following the interruption of activities of normal and feebleminded children of the same mental ages, in the attempt to test Lewin's theory of the rigidity of behavior in the feebleminded (2). The basis of the majority of the comparisons made is the difference between the groups in terms of scale values of the classes of behavior distinguished by Dr. Rethlingshafer. The percents of behavior in each of 17 classifications were converted into standard deviation values. This method of converting a classificatory system into a scale of equal units presupposes two conditions: (a) that the distribution is normal, and (b) that the classes are ordered in a hierarchical sequence (1, pp. 97,99-102). The assumption of a normal distribution is the best assumption that can be made for an unknown distribution. The second assumption is the point at issue in the present • instance. There is considerable doubt that the 17 classes are ordered from strong to weak in tendency-to-continue, as Dr. Rethlingshafer contends (3, p. 118). There are two reasons for this doubt. First, the order was determined by the judgment of only one individual, the experimenter. In ranking the order of items on a scale, the judgments of a large group of judges is necessary. The second, and perhaps more important reason for the doubt, lies in the possibility, or probability, that two variables are involved in the behavior classified in the scale. As indications of tendency-to-continue, Dr. Rethlingshafer utilizes behavior in two situations: (a) response to being interrupted, or resistance to interruption, and (b) resumption of the interrupted activity when opportunity was provided. She apparently realized that these two kinds of behavior might not be identical or highly related, since in one report (5) she deals with this question, and concludes that the use of refusal-to-be-interrupted as a criterion of tendency-tocontinue is justified. Her findings do indicate that there is some relationship, but on the other hand they suggest that this relationship is not particularly close. To the present writer the combination of these two kinds of behavior in a single scale is not justifiable, and results in a rank order that is not true for either the combined or double variable nor for either separately. Tendency to continue an activity may be measured by refusal to be interrupted in this activity. Tendency to return to an activity may be measured by its resumption after interruption. These two tendencies may or may not be correlated. It is quite