Scientific Study Of Human Behavior Research Articles

Behavior-based medical diagnosis-Applying perspectives of behavioral science to clinical reasoning.

Behavioral science, the scientific study of human behavior and the elucidation of its laws, is also applied to medicine, and is included in pre‐graduate education.Understanding patient behaviors that correspond to behavior‐based medical diagnosis and interpreting the clinical information suggested by these patient behaviors can be useful in avoiding diagnostic errors in clinical practice.

“Comparative Political Theory” and the Displacement of Politics

Over the course of the past few decades, comparative political theory has acquired a measure of institutional legitimacy and intellectual recognition as part of the ongoing, interdisciplinary challenge to prevailing academic categories, coordinates, and borders. This arrival has been accompanied by a conspicuous focus on methodology both by those who claim the mantle of comparative political theory and those who reject it. The following reflections read this focus symptomatically, as revealing intellectual, institutional, and professional exigencies rather than as distinct to any particular scholar, argument, or publication. Neither a “state of the field” nor a proprietary defense of what comparative political theory is or should be, these observations toggle back and forth between reflections on my own engagement and disengagement with the topic of comparative political theory on the one hand and, on the other, concerns about how this preoccupation with method simultaneously expresses and exacerbates the displacement of politics in the very field that aims to understand it. Among the questions I raise are: What might be driving this disproportionate focus on methodological arguments in and about comparative political theory? What are the stakes of such a focus, particularly for younger scholars in political science departments decreasingly hospitable to political theory? Finally, what does this augur for the future of the study of politics broadly understood within disciplines dedicated to the scientific study of human behavior?

Role and Challenges of Objectivity in the Sociological Research: An Overview

Sociology starts with positive philosophy, founding fathers of sociology like Auguste Comte, Durkheim and Spencer strenuously advocated that methods applied to the natural sciences such as physics should be applied to the study of social behavior (Benton and Craib, 2001). As far as ‘objectivity’ is concerned, positivist methodological approaches claim that ‘objectivity’ is an ideal that is attainable, as the social reality of society can be observed it without any antecedents. Objectivity is a goal of scientific investigation. Science involves use of systematic methods of empirical investigation, the analysis of data, theoretical thinking and logical assessment of argument to develop a body of knowledge about a particular subject matter (Giddens and Sutton, 2013). So sociology is a scientific study of human behavior because both quantitative and qualitative research involved systematic method of investigation and s on. However, the concept of objectivity has increasingly been held within the field as problematic and it is still questionable because the subject matter of sociology which is not exactly as subject matter of natural science and since researchers are also part of the society, it is difficult to do research as value-free that is why Max Weber takes middle position and explain the importance of objectivity in social science with value relevance and also develop some methodological or conceptual tool to understand society. Yet still objectivity in sociological research takes a very suspicious or debatable place. In this paper I am dealing with the explanation of the roles and challenges of objectivity in sociological research and my research questions are - 1. What are the role and status of objectivity in the sociological research, 2. What are the most challenges faced while establishing objectivity. 3. What is an alternative of objectivity in sociological research, 4. Identify and distinguish theories for supporting or rejecting objectivity in sociology. This paper is based on secondary sources and descriptive in nature.

Some Behaviorial Science Measurement Concerns and Proposals

Primarily from a measurement standpoint, we question some basic beliefs and procedures characterizing the scientific study of human behavior. The relations between observed and unobserved variables are key to an empirical approach to building explanatory theories and we are especially concerned about how the former are used as proxies for the latter. We believe that behavioral science can profitably reconsider the prevailing version of this arrangement because of its vulnerability to limiting idiosyncratic aspects of observed/unobserved variable relations. We describe a general measurement approach that takes into account idiosyncrasies that should be irrelevant to the measurement process but can intrude and may invalidate it in ways that distort and weaken relations among theoretically important variables. To clarify further our major concerns, we briefly describe one version of the measurement approach that fundamentally supports the individual as the primary unit of analysis orientation that we believe should be preeminent in the scientific study of human behavior.

Editorial: The Evolution of Interdisciplinary Research on Human Behavior, Brain, and Body

The scientific study of human behavior has traditionally been the subject of many different disciplines such as anthropology, biology, economics, psychiatry, psychology, and sociology. For a long time, researchers within each of these disciplines worked in isolation from others, such that each discipline had its own set of theories, methods, results, and explanations. Although conceptual and methodological boundaries between disciplines still exist, more behavioral scientists working in the 21st century are crossing these boundaries than ever before. Psychologists and biologists have been particularly active in establishing interdisciplinary bridges, but this has occurred only in recent history. In the early decades of the 20th century, there was only one main bridge connecting the study of human behavior in psychology and biology, although this bridge had two different names, depending on the direction in which it was crossed. Psychologists called it biological psychology, or biopsychology, while in biology it was known as psychobiology. But in the last 50 years, biopsychology has evolved and diversified into a number of new neuroscience subdisciplines (behavioral, social, affective, cognitive, and cultural neuroscience, among others), while psychobiology has hybridized with other branches of biology and produced even more subdisciplines such as psychophysiology, psychoneuroendocrinology, psychoimmunology, and behavioral genetics. Among the latest arrivals in this evolutionary process of discipline “speciation” are subdisciplines focusing on the biological substrates of social relationships such as social neuroscience and social neuroendocrinology, reflecting a historical shift in interest in the human behavioral sciences, from the study of learning in the laboratory to that of social processes in the real world. Although psychology and biology have led the way in the evolution of interdisciplinary studies of human behavior, this process has also involved other behavioral disciplines such as anthropology, economics, and psychiatry giving rise to new subdisciplines such as neuroanthropology, human biology and ecoimmunology, neuroeconomics, and biological psychiatry. As is the case of subdisciplines in psychology and biology, the range of action of these disciplines is not limited to behavior, but Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology (2015) 1:1–3 DOI 10.1007/s40750-014-0001-5

Toward a Theory of Motivated Information Management

The relationship between uncertainty and information has long been at the forefront of the social scientific study of human behavior. The last decade has seen increased attention among communication scholars to the information-management process. The result has been significant widening of ideological lenses and an impressive growth of knowledge. However, a review of the literature shows that there is the need for a framework that integrates and extends these efforts. We advance the theory of motivated information-management to fill that need. The theory proposes a 3-phase process of information-management in interpersonal encounters, emphasizes the role of efficacy, and brings attention to the interactive nature of information-management in this context. We explicate the theory's propositional structure and present a graphical model intended to capture some of the overarching principles detailed in that structure.

Foundations and Science Policy

I n recent years, private philanthropy has made important contributions to science by supporting research and by funding initiatives to support the development of careers in research. Yet foundation resources are modest in comparison with the vast resources of federal and state governments. Even so, philanthropic foundations can play an important role by linking policy leaders with the scientific community to consider the factual and analytical basis for decision-making in science policy. In so doing, foundations strengthen the dynamic interplay between our government and the nation, allowing ideas to flow through a great permeable membrane between government and nongovernment bodies and helping to provide for a mutually beneficial flow of information and people between the governmental and nongovernmental sectors. Many policy leaders have been remarkably open to new information and ideas from credible sources, whether from within or outside of government. They hold the view that democratic leaders should pay attention to and draw on all of the nation's resources for knowledge and skills. By serving a brokerage function, foundations can foster mutually beneficial contact between policy-makers and independent experts in areas of shared concern. This sort of communication is most likely to work under certain conditions, which I will state briefly as exemplified in the Carnegie Corporation's work over the past 15 years. Foundations can support research and analysis that helps to clarify issues such as how science and technology can contribute to education, economic well-being, and the prevention of war. The aim is to get the facts straight, to foster objective analysis, and to link policy-makers and specialized experts on a basis that is independent, nonpartisan, and open-minded. Above all, the aim is to strengthen the factual underpinnings for decision-making by political leaders. One example of an area that could benefit from such interplay is science policy on brain, behavior, and health. Only a few decades ago, there was much pessimism about progress in this area, and confusion still remains today despite the progress already made. In the face of formidable intellectual and technical complexity, new paths have been opened in understanding the structure and function of the brain, its relation to the rest of the body, and its relation to the world. Still, there are obstacles, including the complexity of the subject matter, the conceptual rigidities of the mind-body dichotomy, the appropriate ethical limitations of experimental control in human research, and the enduring prejudice against objective inquiry into human behavior. There is a danger that the current flowering of the life sciences may induce in us a retrospective complacency. It is important to remember that there were many difficulties in attitudes and policies that had to be overcome in order to reach today's pinnacle of understanding. Only a few decades ago, the emerging discipline of biochemistry was viewed with suspicion by chemists as weak chemistry and by biologists as weak biology. Similarly, not so long ago many leaders in medicine were highly skeptical about the future of genetics. Today, both fields are unquestionably dynamic areas of biomedical research with increasingly relevant clinical uses. Conventional wisdom once discouraged the investigation of neuroendocrinology and neurochemistry and scoffed at the idea that the brain could control circulation. The same conventional wisdom discouraged the scientific study of behavior in its own right. When it comes to any central dogma in science policy, modesty becomes us. A wide spectrum of research is needed to solve long-range, worldwide health problems. Such research requires excellent basic science at every level of biological organization, a dynamic interplay between basic and applied science, a widening of horizons to include new or neglected lines of inquiry, and commitment to the scientific study of human behavior. Foundations can help to fulfill the immense promise of this long-term enterprise by fostering direct and ongoing communication between the scientific and policy communities.

THE IMPERIALISM OF IN A NONWESTERN CULTURE

General psychology includes many areas of investigation: biologicalbases of behavior, sensation and perception, consciousness andattention, motivation and emotion, conditioning, learning, cognition,language, thinking, remembering and forgetting, intelligence, and personality.During the first half of the twentieth century, psychologistsclassified themselves as structuralists, functionalists, behaviorists,gestaltists, psychoanalysts, existentialists, humanists, or cognitivists.Today, such classifications are little used in the West. If one looks at thepublications of the American Psychological Association and the BritishPsychological Society, psychologists classify themselves according totheir fields or specific topic of hterest, such as social psychology,developmental psychology, abnormal psychology, psychotherapy,counseling, occupational psychology, psychometrics, media, women,and so on. Several tools are used in psychology to study behavior,among them surveys, questionnaires, interviews, observations, experiments,and tests.Psychology is defined as the scientific study of human behavior, andits theories and methods are considered scientific and universal.According to this understanding, there are four important terms that need ...

Is Sociology the Core Discipline for the Scientific Study of Religion?

We argue that sociology should be the integrative discipline for the scientific study of religion. Sociology has made considerable progress by incorporating specialized knowledge of from disciplines ranging from gerontology and community psychology to religious economics, church history, and even theology. Sociology has also generated insights in other disciplines concerned with the study of religion, at times shaping the types of questions asked, the concepts and research methods employed, and the conclusions reached in these fields. To elaborate our arguments, we focus on two important substantive areas: (1) research on the relationships between religion, meaning systems, and personal well-being; and (2) research on religious behavior and religious markets. We underscore the integrative role of sociology, and identify several neglected opportunities for synthesis. In addition, briefly assess the effect of sociology on work in other disciplines and on the functioning of religious organizations. We can expect controversy among sociologists over the proposition that sociology is a science, and certainly there will be even less agreement with the contention that sociology is the central discipline for the scientific study of human behavior. Critics of this thesis will turn to features of social life which seem idiosyncratic or inexplicable through the rational scientific enterprise, and religious behavior is one such feature. Less thoughtful critics poke fun at the title of a leading specialty journal, the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, as an oxymoron, suggesting that whatever the status of the discipline of sociology as a science, the sociology of would not qualify. In this article, we will argue that sociology should be considered the integrative discipline for the scientific study of religion. Our task is somewhat different from those of the other contributors, because unlike the other fields represented here (e.g., biology, psychology), religion per se is neither an explanatory science nor a clearly delineated academic discipline. Sociology has

Is Scientific Study of Religion Possible?

Most humanists and some social scientists are skeptical of a truly scientific study of human behavior, especially religious behavior. Competent scholars have raised questions which deserve serious consideration. Their main points relate to human freedom of choice and self-consciousness, to the importance of covert behaviors, and to a Biblical image of man that conflicts with that required by science. It is argued here that many scholars are misled by an outdated, mechanistic, deterministic view of science. In contrast, post-Heisenberg philosophy of gives us a perspective complementary to that of theology. Review of scientific ontology and epistemology from Karl Pearson to Stephen Hawking leads to the conclusion that twentieth-century scientific is suitable for the study of human behavior, including religious behavior. Is it really possible to study religious behavior scientifically? Most humanists are suspicious of such studies. Some social scientists also have their doubts. Reservations are strongest if by science is meant the of fields like astronomy and physics; and that is what I mean. The purpose of this essay is to defend the legitimacy of applying basic natural to the study of human behavior, including religious behavior. By is meant the basic aims, assumptions, logic, and other canons which guide specific observational and analytic procedures. The lat1ter must always be appropriate to the particular phenomena under study, and hence will vary. Pulsars and positrons, votive behavior, and violence in the streets - each has its special requirements. method begins with the formulation, based on prior knowledge and theory, of one or more hypotheses stating possible relationships between two or more variables. Observations are then made to test specific hypotheses. Such facts applied with rigorous logic (preferably mathematical) can disprove a hypothesis. If they do not, it becomes a working theory about how things happen (never in any ultimate sense why they happen), until later observations contradict it. Integrated with other such theories, *This article developed from the plenary address at a meeting of the Southwest Commission on Religious Studies, composed of the regional societies of the American Academy of Religion, Society of Biblical Literature, American Schools of Oriental Research, and the Association for the Scientific Study of Religion: Southwest. tMorton B. King is a professor of sociology, emeritus, at Southern Methodist University. Correspondence should

Preventive Health Psychology: Reconciling the Psychologist's and the Health Professional's Perspectives

Abraham's three criticisms of my paper about the new field of preventive health psychology represent misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and conceptual confusion. Three points are reiterated in this paper. First, the unique feature of the new field is the interface between social and clinical psychologists that focuses on prevention. Second, we must use all of the effective therapeutic interventions available for the field to be successful. Third, psychologists have a unique background in the scientific study of human behavior that makes us valuable members of the health professional team. The most important point is that preventive health psychologists and other health care professionals share common goals but possess complementary skills to meet these goals. These goals are sufficiently challenging for all of our professions to play major roles in disease prevention and health promotion.

Review of Psychology: A Scientific Study of Human Behavior. 5th ed.

Review of Psychology: A Scientific Study of Human Behavior. 5th ed.

Review of Psychology: A scientific study of human behavior. 5th ed.

Review of Psychology: A scientific study of human behavior. 5th ed.

Dusting off Darwin: Can We Still Afford to Ban Him from the Schools?

CAN THE NEXT GENERATION of American adults survive in ignorance of laws of evolution by natural selection? Perhaps, but it won't be easy. As permanence of our tenure on planet grows increasingly questionable, it is time that we took seriously Alexander Pope's dictum that the proper study of mankind is man. And we will never fully grasp human nature until we are willing to marry findings of evolutionary biology to insights of social science in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of biological as well as social and cultural forces that influence human behavior. As a longtime observer of poverty of social education in this country, I am increasingly pursuaded that our best hope for saving planet's most endangered species, homo sapiens is to integrate teaching of science and social studies around study of human nature. To achieve this we can no longer avoid teaching human evolution in our schools. Mixing science with social studies is hardly a new idea. The era of educational reform that began with Sputnik-inspired revolution in science and mathematics teaching swept all educators into its wake, and for a time it appeared as if liberal education was to be equated with teachings of science. Most social science reformers of that period accepted without question premise that scientific approaches to learning were better approaches. The rise of inquiry-based teaching, search for Jerome Bruner's structure of and stress upon introduction of quantifiable data into social studies classroom were all influences of science curriculum reform movement, and new approach quickly eclipsed older social studies commitment to political socialization and transmission of values. The humanists, it seemed, were willing to throw over historic distinction between what C.P. Snow called cultures while hardly questioning social implications of new educational reforms. Today we inhabit an entirely different educational environment-one in which tide has turned sharply away from science teaching as core of liberal studies. Indeed, we can sense a disturbing tendency among educators and parents alike to abandon intellectual goals of past two decades in favor of a return to rote learning of skills and teaching of traditional values. This trend sounds ominously reminiscent of abortive life-adjustment movement of 1930s and 1940s. Few educators would argue that science curriculum reform movement of 1960s was sufficiently sensitive to social needs, but new atmosphere threatens to undermine solid intellectual gains of period, and this current mood may limit our opportunities to develop new educational approaches that combine perspectives from both sciences and humanities. As I see it, integration of science and social science teaching has not yet gone far enough. The reforms of 1960s exposed social science educator to substance and methods of science and in so doing brought increased intellectual rigor to social studies classroom. Enormous gains were made in introduction of social science methods and in exposing students to new ways of analyzing social world. The old, narrow focus on history and geography was now broadened to include perspectives drawn from anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and economics, and with these new disciplines came an issueoriented and less ethnocentric approach to study of human behavior. With it also came fragmentation and a diffusion of focus to point that it became increasingly difficult to identify a unifying purpose for social studies teaching. The time has now come, therefore, to reintegrate disciplines, not by a return to outworn socializing methods of past, but by reorganizing social studies curriculum around scientific study of human behavior. Only through a further integration of science and social studies teaching can this objective be achieved.

Review of Psychology: A scientific study of human behavior. 4th Ed.

Review of Psychology: A scientific study of human behavior. 4th Ed.

Operant Psychology and the Study of Culture

Anthropologists have not adequately explored the possibility of adapting the procedures developed in operant psychology laboratories to study free societies. These procedures are based on assumptions consonant with those in the biological sciences, and provide mechanisms for the scientific study of human behavior. They are particularly useful in dynamic, as opposed to static, structural approaches.

In search of an organizing principle for the behavioral science literature

Knowledge about man, the philosophical concern of the "anthropological sciences" in the early 19th century, has now become a unifying concept for the scientific study of human behavior. The literature of the behavioral sciences and of the field of mental health, however, remains to be unified. The worldwide system of bibliographic organization, conceptually rooted in the late 19th century, needs to be supplemented by a bibliographic superstructure that can show the progress of the behavioral sciences. The paper proposes an orbital rather than a classified system as a bibliographic organizing principle, suited to the "anthropotropic" orientation of the behavioral science literature.

Correctional psychiatry and the scientific study of human behavior

Correctional psychiatry and the scientific study of human behavior

On Dollars and the Behavioral Sciences

T HE planners for university development can learn something from the response of a comely woman student when interviewed for a study of occupational choice. What do you expect to be doing ten years from now? asked the researcher. I'll be married and have a couple of children, was her confident reply. How can you predict the future ? the interviewer inquired. Do you have a steady boy friend? Not yet, but I know what I want, and from then on the future is only a matter of probability. No faculty, no president, and no board of trustees can predict the future of their university with certainty, but they can plan purposefully. They can greatly increase the probability that future development will take place within the range of what is desired. Such long-range planning is particularly urgent in the behavioral sciences. This fact was recognized by the Ford Foundation, which in I953 granted funds to five universities, Chicago, Harvard, Michigan, North Carolina, and Stanford, to review the development of this field of knowledge in their institutions. The behavioral sciences is a relatively new label. The Ford Foundation adopted it to describe the activities of their recently created division for the scientific study of human behavior. Psychology, sociology and anthropology, economics, and political science are near the center of this field of inquiry, but as we move to the periphery, no sharp boundaries can be drawn. There are common frontiers with biology and medicine, with the physical sciences and mathematics, and with the humanities. The concept of behavioral sciences is not a faddish substitute of a new term for others that are familiar and with which we feel comfortable. Its emergence is symptomatic of the recognition that the study of man cannot be done well within the limits of any of the traditionally defined social-science fields. A multidisciplinary approach and terminology are the result. In many universities the scientific study of man is not much above a minimum subsistence level. Even at the University of Chicago, which has given special attention to this field of knowledge, a faculty self-study committee reported:

Psychological contributions to world understanding.

The problems of the present world must be approached in a spirit of humility. To indicate the changes which have occurred, the 10 principles of a manifesto to which 2000 psychologists subscribed in the summer of 1944 are examined. Though the principles remain true, they do not come to grips with to-day's problem of peace. As the limitations of the propositions of the manifesto of 1944 are examined several lines of counsel emerge which may be utilized for an improvement of prediction and public advisement. Four suggestions are made in the scientific study of human behavior: (1) a wider grasp of social sciences, (2) direct research at the power problems of society, (3) become participant observers in a wider range of social action projects, (4) apply knowledge and practice to the building of an effective world wide organization of psychologists. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)