This Special Issue on the study of ambivalent processes in psychology integrates issues from contemporary evolutionary, cognitive, and cultural psychology with new directions of formal models that are available in qualitative mathematics. Tribute is paid to the pioneer of the study of ambivalence—Else Frenkel-Brunswik. Her work antedates most of our contemporary efforts in this field. Becoming free from the limits of its obsession with numbers in lieu of “measurement”, psychology at our time faces the challenge of investigation of dynamic psychological complexity. Contemporary mathematics—which is qualitative in its nature—provides new opportunities for psychology. New mathematical models—based on topology (Morse functions) and from intuitionistic formal logic (theory of locales)—are shown to provide promising new directions for future research on ambivalence. The emphasis on mathematical tools as enablement devices for psychological theorizing leads psychology to the need to create new kinds of generalized understanding of complex psychological processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbeyE. A. (2006). Triadic frames for ambivalent experience.Estudios de Psicologia, 21 (1), 33–40.
2.
AslinR. N. (1993). Commentary: the strange attractiveness of dynamic systems to development. InSmithL. B.ThelenE. (Eds.), A dynamic systems approach to development (pp. 385–389). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
AtiyahM. (2002). Mathematics of the 20th Century. In ShenitzerA.StillwellJ. (Eds), Mathematical evolutions (pp. 1–15). Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.
4.
BatesA.MaxwellA. (2005). DNA topology.New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
BeekP.HopkinsB. (1992). Four requirements for a dynamic systems approach to the development of social coordination.Human Movement Sciences, 11, 425–442.
6.
BergsonH. (1889). Essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience.Paris: PUF.
7.
BergsonH. (1896/1988). Matière et mémoire.Paris: PUF. [English translation 1988 by Urzone/Zed Books].
8.
BrowerD. (1949). The problem of quantification in psychological science.Psychological Review, 56, 325–333.
9.
BrancoA. U.ValsinerJ. (1997). Changing methodologies: A co-constructivist study of goal orientations in social interactions.Psychology and Developing Societies, 9, 1, 35–64.
10.
BrushS. G. (1996). The reception of Mendeleev's Periodic Law in America and Britain.Isis, 81, 595–628.
11.
BullerA. (2006). Mechanisms underlying ambivalence: a psychodynamic model.Estudios de Psicologia, 27 (1), 49–66.
12.
ChristiansenP. V. (2000). Macro and micro-levels in physics. InAndersenP. B.EmmecheC.FinnemannN. O.ChristiansenP. V. (Eds.), Downward causation: minds, bodies, and matter (pp. 51–62). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
13.
DonnellyM. (1998). From political arithmetic to social statistics: how some nineteenth-century roots of the social sciences were implanted. InHeilbronJ.MagnussonL.WittrockB. (Eds.), The rise of the social sciences and the formation of modernity (pp. 225–239). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
14.
EilenbergS.MaclaneS. (1945). General theory of natural equivalences.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 58, 2, 231–294.
15.
FerreiraT.SalgadoJ.CunhaC. (2006). Ambiguity and the dialogical self: In search for a dialogical psychology.Estudios de Psicologia, 27 (1), 19–32.
16.
GalisT.HavivN. (submitted). The importance of doing nothing: International actors and the prevention of genocide. International Relations.
17.
GigerenzerG. (1991). From tools to theories: A heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology.Psychological Review, 98 (2), 254–267.
18.
GigerenzerG. (1993). The Superego, the Ego, and the Id in statistical reasoning. InKerenG.LewisC. (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues (pp. 311–339). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
GottliebG. (2003). Probabilistic epigenesis of development. InValsinerJ.K. JConnolly (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 3–17). London: Sage.
20.
GottmanJ. M.MurrayJ. D.SwansonC. C.TysonR.SwansonK. R. (2002). The mathematics of marriage: Dynamic nonlinear models.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
GrosserM. (1962). The discovery of Neptune.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
HentschelK. (1992). Einsteins attitude towards experiments: testing relativity theory 1907–1927.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 23, 4, 593–624
23.
HermansH. J. M. (1996). Voicing the self: From information processing to dialogical interchange.Psychological Bulletin, 119, 1, 31–50.
24.
HermansH. J. M.KempenH. J. G. (1995). Body, mind, and culture: Dialogical nature of mediated action.Culture & Psychology, 1, 1, 104–114
25.
JoyceD.KennisonJ. (2006). Mathematical concepts for analyzing ambiguous situations.Estudios de Psicologia, 27 (1), 85–100.
26.
LewinK. (1936). Principles of topological psychology.New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
LewinK. (1938). The conceptual representation and measurement in psychology.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
28.
LewisM. D. (1995). Cognition-emotion feedback and the self-organization of developmental paths.Human Development, 38, 71–102.
29.
LewisM. D. (2000). The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an integrated account of human development.Child Development, 71, 1, 36–43.
30.
LondonI. (1944). Psychologists' misuse of the auxiliary concepts of physics and mathematics.Psychological Review, 51, 266–291.
31.
MernissiF. (2002). The fear of freedom of thought. In F. Mernissi, Islam and democracy (pp. 85–103). New York: Basic Books.
32.
MichellJ. (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology.British Journal of Psychology, 88, 355–383.
33.
MichellJ. (1999). Measurement in psychology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
MolenaarP. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever.Measurement, 2, 4, 201–218.
35.
MolenaarP. C. M.HuizengaH. M.NesselroadeJ. R. (2003). The relationship between the structure of interindividual and intraindividual variability: A theoretical and empirical vindication of Developmental Systems Theory. InStaudingerU. M.LindenbergerU. (Eds.), Understanding human development: Dialoques with lifespan psychology (pp. 339–360). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
36.
PoddiakovA. N. (2006). Ambivalence and cognitive heuristics for dealing with ambiguity in complex social worlds.Estudios de Psicologia, 27 (1), 101–116.
37.
PredaA. (2005). AIDS, rhetoric, and medical knowledge.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
RudolphL. (2006). Spaces of ambivalence: qualitative mathematics in the modeling of complex fluid phenomena.Estudios de Psicologia, 21 (1), 67–83.
39.
SmithL. B.ThelenE. (Eds.) (1993). A dynamic systems approach to development.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
SovranT. (1992). Between similarity and sameness.Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 4, 329–344.
41.
StroutS. (2006). Sex in the city: the ambiguity of female mating strategies.Estudios de Psicologia, 27 (1), 41–48.
42.
TsudaI. (2001). Toward an interpretation of dynamic neural activity in terms of chaotic dynamic systems.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 793–847.
43.
ValsinerJ. (1986). Between groups and individuals: Psychologists' and laypersons' interpretations of correlational findings. InValsinerJ. (Ed.), The individual subject and scientific psychology (pp. 113–152). New York: Plenum.
44.
ValsinerJ. (1997). Culture and the development of children's action. 2nd. Ed. New York: Wiley.
45.
ValsinerJ. (2004). Transformations and flexible forms: where qualitative psychology begins Keynote lecture at theInaugural Conference of the Japanese Association of Qualitative Psychology Kyoto, September, 11th.
46.
ValsinerJ. (2005). Attractors, repulsors, and directors: making Dynamic Systems Theory developmental.Hokkaido University Science Folia, 13–25.
47.
ValsinerJ.AbbeyE. A. (2006). Ambivalence in focus: Remembering the life and work of Else Frenkel-Brunswik.Estudios de Psicologia, 27 (1), 9–17.
48.
ValsinerJ.DiriwächterR. (2005). Qualitative Forschungsmethoden in historischen und epistemologischen Kontexten In G. Mey (Hgbr), Qualitative Forschung in der Entwicklungspsychologie (pp. 35–55). Köln: Kölner Studien Verlag
49.
ValsinerJ.SatoT. (in press). Whom to Study in Cultural Psychology: From random to historically structured sampling. In StraubJ.KölblC.WeidemannD.ZielkeB. (Eds), Pursuit of Meaning. Theoretical and Methodological Advances Cultural and Cross-Cultural PsychologyBielefeld: transcript.
50.
ValsinerJ.VanDERVeerR. (1993). The encoding of distance: The concept of the zone of proximal development and its interpretations. InCockingR. R.RenningerK. A. (Eds.), The development and meaning of psychological distance (pp. 35–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51.
Van GeertP. (1994). Dynamic systems of development.Hemel Hempstead: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
52.
Van GeertP. (1998). We almost had a great future behind us: the contribution of non-linear dynamics to developmental-science-in-the-making.Developmental Science, 1, 143–159.
53.
Van GeertP. (2003). Dynamic systems approaches and modeling of developmental processes. InValsinerJ.ConnollyK. J. (Eds), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 640–672). London: Sage.
54.
WagonerB.ValsinerJ. (2005). Rating tasks in psychology: from static ontology to dialogical synthesis of meaning. InGülerçA.SteaubleI.HofmeisterA.SaundersG.KayeJ. (Eds.), Contemporary theorizing in psychology: Global perspectives (pp. 197–213). Toronto: Captus Press.
55.
WeylH. (2002). Topology and abstract algebra as two roads of mathematical comprehension. InShenitzerA.StillwellJ. (Eds), Mathematical evolutions (149–162). Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America. [German original from 1931]
