Book contents
- Toward a Process Approach in Psychology
- Toward a Process Approach in Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Change, the Final Frontier
- Chapter 2 A (Selected) Foundation for a Process Approach
- Chapter 3 The Goal of Socrates
- Chapter 4 Esteeming Entities
- Chapter 5 A Person Acting amongst Persons
- Chapter 6 Cliffhangers and Utilitarian Infants
- Chapter 7 Causes, Kings, and Interventions
- Chapter 8 (Compl)explanation and King Alfonso’s Lament
- Chapter 9 What’s in a Name?
- Chapter 10 (Un)Certainties
- Chapter 11 Troubled Waters of Heraclitus’ River?
- Chapter 12 Psychological Science as a Complex Dynamic System
- Glossary
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 July 2022
Book contents
- Toward a Process Approach in Psychology
- Toward a Process Approach in Psychology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Chapter 1 Change, the Final Frontier
- Chapter 2 A (Selected) Foundation for a Process Approach
- Chapter 3 The Goal of Socrates
- Chapter 4 Esteeming Entities
- Chapter 5 A Person Acting amongst Persons
- Chapter 6 Cliffhangers and Utilitarian Infants
- Chapter 7 Causes, Kings, and Interventions
- Chapter 8 (Compl)explanation and King Alfonso’s Lament
- Chapter 9 What’s in a Name?
- Chapter 10 (Un)Certainties
- Chapter 11 Troubled Waters of Heraclitus’ River?
- Chapter 12 Psychological Science as a Complex Dynamic System
- Glossary
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Toward a Process Approach in PsychologyStepping into Heraclitus' River, pp. 303 - 352Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Abar, S., Theodoropoulos, G. K., Lemarinier, P., & O’Hare, G. M. (2017). Agent-based modelling and simulation tools: a review of the state-of-art software. Computer Science Review, 24, 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSREV.2017.03.001Google Scholar
Abma, R. (2012). Changes in publication culture and the Stapel fraud case. In ESHHS meeting, Montreal, August (vol. 124). www.academia.edu/6769553Google Scholar
Abma, R. (2013). De publicatiefabriek: Over de betekenis van de affaire Stapel. Nijmegen: Vantilt.Google Scholar
Abraham, F. D., Abraham, R. H., & Shaw, C. D. (1990). A visual introduction to dynamical systems theory for psychology. Santa Cruz, CA: Aerial Press.Google Scholar
Abraham, R. (2014). Agent‐based modeling of growth processes. Mind, Brain, and Education, 8(3), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/MBE.12045Google Scholar
Abrahams, B. S., & Geschwind, D. H. (2008). Advances in autism genetics: on the threshold of a new neurobiology. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(5), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2346CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adamson, J., Ozenc, C., Baillie, C., & Tchanturia, K. (2019). Self-esteem group: useful intervention for inpatients with anorexia nervosa? Brain Sciences, 9(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci9010012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adolph, K. E. (2019). An ecological approach to learning in (not and) development. Human Development, 63(3–4), 180–201. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503823CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Adolph, K. E., & Kretch, K. S. (2012). Infants on the edge. In Slater, A. M. & Quinn, P. C. (eds.), Developmental psychology: revisiting the classic studies (pp. 36–58). Los Angeles and London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Adolph, K. E., Kretch, K. S., & LoBue, V. (2014). Fear of heights in infants? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413498895Google Scholar
Ahn, W. K., Flanagan, E. H., Marsh, J. K., & Sanislow, C. A. (2006). Beliefs about essences and the reality of mental disorders. Psychological Science, 17(9), 759–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01779.xGoogle Scholar
Alberts, B., Kirschner, M. W., Tilghman, S., & Varmus, H. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(16), 5773–5777. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404402111Google Scholar
Alessandri, G., Zuffianò, A., Vecchione, M., Donnellan, B. M., & Zuffianò, A. (2016). Evaluating the temporal structure and correlates of daily self-esteem using a trait state error framework (TSE). Self and Identity, 15(4), 394–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2015.1137223Google Scholar
Allegrini, A. G., Cheesman, R., Rimfeld, K., et al. (2020). The p factor: genetic analyses support a general dimension of psychopathology in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13113Google Scholar
Allen, B. S., Otto, R. G., & Hoffman, B. (2004). Media as lived environments: the ecological psychology of educational technology. In Jonassen, D. H. (ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 215–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609519Google Scholar
Allen, J. W., & Bickhard, M. H. (2011). Normativity: a crucial kind of emergence. Human Development, 54(2), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1159/000327096Google Scholar
APA (American Psychiatric Association) (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596Google Scholar
APA (American Psychiatric Association (2009). Evolutionary theory and psychology, science briefs. www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2009/05/sci-brief.aspxGoogle Scholar
APA (American Psychiatric Association (2015). About APA: frequently asked questions about the American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association. www.apa.org/support/about-apaGoogle Scholar
Amon, M. J., Pavlov, O., & Holden, J. G. (2018). Synchronization and fractal scaling as resources for cognitive control. Cognitive Systems Research, 50, 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2018.04.010Google Scholar
Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., & McShane, B. (2019). Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature, 567(7748), 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9Google Scholar
Anderson, D. I., Hubbard, E. M., Campos, J. J., et al. (2000). Probabilistic epigenesis, experience, and psychological development in infancy. Infancy, 1(2), 245–251. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0102_6Google Scholar
Anjum, R. L., & Mumford, S. (2018). Dispositionalism: a dynamic theory of causation. In Nicholson, D. J. & Dupré, J. (eds.), Everything flows: towards a processual philosophy of biology (pp. 61–75). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198779636.001.0001Google Scholar
Antonietti, A. (2010). Emerging mental phenomena: implications for psychological explanation. In Corradini, A. & O’Connor, T. (eds.), Emergence in science and philosophy (vol. 6, pp. 266–288). Abingdon and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203849408Google Scholar
Archer, M., Decoteau, C., Gorski, P., et al. (2016). What is critical realism? Perspectives: a newsletter of the ASA theory section, 23 December. www.asatheory.org/current-newsletter-online/what-is-critical-realismGoogle Scholar
Arfi, B. (2010). Linguistic fuzzy logic methods in social sciences (vol. 253). Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13343-5Google Scholar
Arocha, J. F. (2020). Scientific realism and the issue of variability in behavior. Theory and Psychology, 31(3), 375–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320935972Google Scholar
Arumugam, R., Lutscher, F., & Guichard, F. (2021). Tracking unstable states: ecosystem dynamics in a changing world. Oikos, 130(4), 525–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.08051Google Scholar
Assay, J. (2018). The role of truth in psychological science. Theory & Psychology, 28(3), 382–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354317752875Google Scholar
Assay, J. (2021). Truthmaker theory. In The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/truth-ma/Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (2006). Agent-based modeling as a bridge between disciplines: handbook of computational economics. In Judd, K. L. & Tesfatsion, L. (eds.), Agent-based computational economics: Vol. 2. Handbook of computational economics (pp. 1565–1584). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Bak, P. (1996/2013). How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-5426-1Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2016). 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533(26), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1038/533452aGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, S., & Hoffmann, J. (2002). The dynamics of self-esteem: a growth-curve analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(2), 101–113.Google Scholar
Banisch, S., & Olbrich, E. (2021). ‘An argument communication model of polarization and ideological alignment’ Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 24(1), 1. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/24/1/1.htmlGoogle Scholar
Barclay, M. W. (1997). The metaphoric foundation of literal language. Theory & Psychology, 7(3), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354397073004Google Scholar
Bareinboim, E., & Pearl, J. (2016). Causal inference and the data-fusion problem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(27), 7345–7352. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510507113Google Scholar
Barnett, W. A., Serletis, A., & Serletis, D. (2015). Nonlinear and complex dynamics in economics. Macroeconomic Dynamics, 19(8), 1749.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). Autism: The empathizing-systemizing (ES) theory. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156(1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04467.xGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, J. (2014). Bartlett’s familiar quotations (17th ed., Kaplan, J. (ed.)). Boston and New York: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
Bartsch, L. A., King, K. A., Vidourek, R. A., & Merianos, A. L. (2017). Self-esteem and alcohol use among youths. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse, 26(5), 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/1067828X.2017.1322018Google Scholar
Bassano, D., & Van Geert, P. (2007). Modeling continuity and discontinuity in utterance length: a quantitative approach to changes, transitions and intra-individual variability in early grammatical development. Developmental Science, 10(5), 588–612. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-12306-010Google Scholar
Bassano, D., Maillochon, I., Korecky-Kröll, K., et al. (2011). A comparative and dynamic approach to the development of determiner use in three children acquiring different languages. First Language, 31(3), 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723710393102Google Scholar
Batstra, L., & Frances, A. (2012a). Diagnostic inflation: Causes and a suggested cure. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200(6), 474–479. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e318257c4a2Google Scholar
Batstra, L., & Frances, A. (2012b). DSM-5 further inflates attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 200(6), 486–488. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e318257c4b6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2005). Exploding the self-esteem myth. Scientific American, 292(1), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0105-84Google Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Misguided effort with elusive implications. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 574–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652878Google Scholar
Baumgartner, M. (2009). Interdefining causation and intervention. Dialectica, 63(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.2009.01191.xGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W. (2009). Looking down, around, and up: mechanistic explanation in psychology. Philosophical Psychology, 22(5), 543–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080903238948Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. (2017). Explicating top-down causation using networks and dynamics. Philosophy of Science, 84(2), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1086/690718Google Scholar
Bedau, M. A., & Humphreys, P. E. (2008). Emergence: contemporary readings in philosophy and science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262026215.001.0001Google Scholar
Beebee, H., & Sabbarton-Leary, N. (eds.). (2010). The semantics and metaphysics of natural kinds. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852330Google Scholar
Belsky, J. (2001). Emanuel Miller Lecture: Developmental risks (still) associated with early child care. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 42(7), 845–859. DOI: 10.1111/1469-7610.00782Google Scholar
Berezow, A. B. (2012). Why psychology isn’t a science. Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713Google Scholar
Bergman, L. R., & Wångby, M. (2014). The person-oriented approach: a short theoretical and practical guide. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education, 2(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2014.2.1.02bGoogle Scholar
Bessière, K., Pressman, S., Kiesler, S., & Kraut, R. (2010). Effects of internet use on health and depression: a longitudinal study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 12(1), e6. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1149Google Scholar
Betz, G. (2007). Prediction or prophecy? The boundaries of economic foreknowledge and their socio-political consequences. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8350-9053-8Google Scholar
Bickhard, M. H. (2003). Mind as process. In Riffert, F. G. & Weber, M. (eds.), Searching for new contrasts (pp. 294–303). Vienna: Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080500169306Google Scholar
Bickhard, M. H. (2009a). The interactivist model. Synthese, 166(3), 547–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9375-xGoogle Scholar
Bickhard, M. H. (2009b). Interactivism: a manifesto. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2008.05.001Google Scholar
Bickhard, M. H. (2011a). Some consequences (and enablings) of process metaphysics. Axiomathes, 21(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-010-9130-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickhard, M. H. (2011c). Systems and process metaphysics. In Hooker, C. (ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science, vol. 10: philosophy of complex systems (pp. 91–104). Amsterdam: North Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-06625-2Google Scholar
Bickhard, M. H. (2016). Inter- and en-activism: some thoughts and comparisons. New Ideas in Psychology, 41, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2015.12.002Google Scholar
Bickhard, M. H & Campbell, D. (2000). Emergence. In Andersen, P. B., Emmeche, C., Finnemann, N. O., & Christiansen, P. V. (eds.), Downward causation (pp. 322–348). Aarhus, Denmark: University of Aarhus Press.Google Scholar
Billig, M. (2013). Learn to write badly: how to succeed in the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139208833Google Scholar
Billig, M. (2019). More examples, less theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108696517Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2018). The metaphysics of natural kinds. Synthese, 195(4), 1397–1426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0833-yGoogle Scholar
Bird, A., & Tobin, E. (2018). Natural kinds. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/natural-kinds/Google Scholar
Birhane, A. (2021). The impossibility of automating ambiguity. Artificial Life, 27(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1162/artl_a_00336Google Scholar
Birkeland, M. S., Melkevik, O., Holsen, I., & Wold, B. (2012). Trajectories of global self-esteem development during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 35(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.06.006Google Scholar
Blijd-Hoogewys, E., & Van Geert, P. L. (2017). Non-linearities in theory-of-mind development. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1970. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01970CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boero, R., Morini, M., Sonnessa, M., & Terna, P. (2015). Agent-based models of the economy: from theories to applications. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137339812Google Scholar
Boker, S. M., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2006). Dynamical systems modeling: an application to the regulation of intimacy and disclosure in marriage. In Walls, T. A. & Schafer, J. L. (eds.), Models for intensive longitudinal data (pp. 195–218). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195173444.001.0001Google Scholar
Boker, S. M., & Martin, M. (2018). A conversation between theory, methods, and data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(6), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1437017Google Scholar
Bollen, K. A., & Pearl, J. (2013). Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. In Morgan, S. L. (ed.), Handbook of causal analysis for social research (pp. 301–328). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6094-3Google Scholar
Boom, J. (2015). A new visualization and conceptualization of categorical longitudinal development: measurement invariance and change. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00289Google Scholar
Boring, E. G (1923). Intelligence as the tests test it. New Republic, 36, 35–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/11491-017Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Cramer, A. O. J., & Kalis, A. (2019). Brain disorders? Not really: why network structures block reductionism in psychopathology research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42(e2), 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17002266Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & Van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203Google Scholar
Borsboom, D., Rhemtulla, M., Cramer, A. O., Van der Maas, H. L., Scheffer, M., & Dolan, C. V. (2016). Kinds versus continua: a review of psychometric approaches to uncover the structure of psychiatric constructs. Psychological Medicine, 46(8), 1567–1579. DOI: 10.1017/S0033291715001944Google Scholar
Bortolan, A. (2018). Self-esteem and ethics: a phenomenological view. Hypatia, 33(1), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12388Google Scholar
Botterill, G. (2010). Two kinds of causal explanation. Theoria, 76(4), 287–313. DOI: 10.1111/j.1755-2567.2010.01079.xGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). (Original work published 1972). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812507Google Scholar
Boyd, R. N. (2003). Finite beings, finite goods: the semantics, metaphysics and ethics of naturalist consequentialism, part I. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LXVI, 505–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2003.tb00278.xGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Gavey, N. (2008). Tribute to Feminism & Psychology’s founding editor: ‘imagining a space’: Sue Wilkinson’s contribution to feminist psychology. Feminism & Psychology, 18(1), 13–20. DOI: 10.1177/0959353507084949Google Scholar
Breslau, N., Chilcoat, H. D., Susser, E. S., et al. (2001). Stability and change in children’s intelligence quotient scores: a comparison of two socioeconomically disparate communities. American Journal of Epidemiology, 154(8), 711–717. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/154.8.711Google Scholar
Bressler, S. L., & Kelso, J. A. (2016). Coordination dynamics in cognitive neuroscience. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10, 397. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00397Google Scholar
Bressler, S. L., & Seth, A. K. (2011). Wiener-Granger causality: a well established methodology. NeuroImage, 58(2), 323–329. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.059Google Scholar
Bringmann, L. F., Ferrer, E., Hamaker, E. L., Borsboom, D., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2018). Modeling nonstationary emotion dynamics in dyads using a time-varying vector-autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 53(3), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2018.1439722Google Scholar
Bringmann, L. F., Lemmens, L. H. J. M., Huibers, M. J. H., Borsboom, D., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2015). Revealing the dynamic network structure of the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Psychological Medicine, 45(4), 747–757. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714001809Google Scholar
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Self-esteem and emotion: some thoughts about feelings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 575–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201275006Google Scholar
Budd, R., & Hughes, I. (2009). The Dodo Bird verdict–controversial, inevitable and important: a commentary on 30 years of meta‐analyses. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 16(6), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.648Google Scholar
Buhrmester, M. D., Blanton, H., & Swann, W. B. (2011). Implicit self-esteem: nature, measurement, and a new way forward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021341Google Scholar
Buss, A. T., & Spencer, J. P. (2014). The emergent executive: a dynamic field theory of the development of executive function. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79(2), vii. https://doi.org/10.1002/mono.12096Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01138.xGoogle Scholar
Byrne, D & Uprichard, E. (2012). Useful complex causality. In Kincaid, H. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of social science (pp. 109–129). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392753.001.0001Google Scholar
Campbell, R. (2010). The emergence of action. New Ideas in Psychology, 28(3), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.09.004Google Scholar
Campbell, R. (2015). The metaphysics of emergence. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137502384Google Scholar
Cannon, E. N., & Woodward, A. L. (2012). Infants generate goal‐based action predictions. Developmental Science, 15(2), 292–298. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01127.xGoogle Scholar
Carlson, G. N., & Pelletier, F. J. (eds.). (1995). The generic book. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2001). Modularity: it can–and generally does–fail. In Galavotti, M. C., Suppes, P., & Costantini, D. (eds.), Stochastic causality (pp. 65–85). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2002). Against modularity, the causal Markov condition, and any link between the two: comments on Hausman and Woodward. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 53(3), 411–453. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/53.3.411Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2006). From metaphysics to method: comments on manipulability and the causal Markov condition. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 57(1), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axi156Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2007a). Are RCTs the gold standard? BioSocieties, 2(1), 11–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1745855207005029Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2007b). Hunting causes and using them: approaches in philosophy and economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2011). A philosopher’s view of the long road from RCTs to effectiveness. The Lancet, 377(9775), 1400–1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60563-1Google Scholar
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: a practical guide to doing it better. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199841608.001.0001Google Scholar
Cartwright, N., & Munro, E. (2010). The limitations of randomized controlled trials in predicting effectiveness. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 16(2), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01382.xGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, J. P. (2013). On the semantics and the use of fuzzy cognitive maps and dynamic cognitive maps in social sciences. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 214, 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2011.12.009Google Scholar
Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., et al. (2014). The p factor: one general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702613497473Google Scholar
Castelnau, P., Albert, G., Chabbi, C., et al. (2017). Self-esteem reinforcement strategies in ADHD: comparison between hypnosis and art-therapy. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, 21(suppl 1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpn.2017.04.1290Google Scholar
Chakravartty, A. (2017). Scientific ontology: integrating naturalized metaphysics and voluntarist epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190651459.001.0001Google Scholar
Chang, H. (2017). Is pluralism compatible with scientific realism? In Saatsi, J. (ed.), The Routledge handbook of scientific realism (pp. 176–186). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, H. (2019). Relativism, perspectivism and pluralism. In Kusch, M. (ed.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of relativism (pp. 398–406). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chen, C. (2004). Searching for intellectual turning points: progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5303–5310. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307513100Google Scholar
Choi, S., & Fara, M. (2021). Dispositions. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/dispositions/.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian linguistics: a chapter in the history of rationalist thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Christensen, W. D., & Bickhard, M. H. (2002). The process dynamics of normative function. The Monist, 85(1), 3–28. www.jstor.org/stable/27903755Google Scholar
Chung, J. M., Hutteman, R., van Aken, M. A. G., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2017). High, low, and in between: self-esteem development from middle childhood to young adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 70, 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2017.07.001Google Scholar
Cigman, R. (2004). Situated self-esteem. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38(1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-8249.2004.00365.xGoogle Scholar
Clayton, P., & Davies, P. (2011). The re-emergence of emergence: the emergentist hypothesis from science to religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199544318.001.0001Google Scholar
Clearfield, M. W., Diedrich, F. J., Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (2006). Young infants reach correctly in A-not-B tasks: on the development of stability and perseveration. Infant Behavior and Development, 29(3), 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.03.001Google Scholar
Cohen, D. (2010). Probabilistic epigenesis: an alternative causal model for conduct disorders in children and adolescents. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(1), 119–129. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.07.011Google Scholar
Cohen, S. M., & Reeve, C. D. C. (2020). Aristotle’s metaphysics. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/Google Scholar
Contreras, A., Nieto, I., Valiente, C., Espinosa, R., & Vazquez, C. (2019). The study of psychopathology from the network analysis perspective: a systematic review. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 88(2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1159/000497425Google Scholar
Cook, J. (2020). A different view of the Lorenz system. Posted on 26 January 2020 www.johndcook.com/blog/2020/01/26/lorenz-system/Google Scholar
Corradini, A., & O’Connor, T. (eds.). (2010). Emergence in science and philosophy (vol. 6). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cottrell, L. S. (1941). The case-study method in prediction. Sociometry, 4(4), 358–370. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785139Google Scholar
Cozman, F. (2013). Imprecise and indeterminate probabilities. In Hájek, A. & Hitchcock, C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of probability and philosophy (pp. 296–309). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199607617.001.0001Google Scholar
Cramer, A. O., Van Borkulo, C. D., Giltay, E. J., et al. (2016). Major depression as a complex dynamic system. PloS One, 11(12), e0167490. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167490Google Scholar
Cramer, A. O., Waldorp, L. J., Van der Maas, H. L., & Borsboom, D. (2010). Comorbidity: a network perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 137. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X09991567Google Scholar
Crocker, J., & Cooper, M. L. (2011). Addressing scientific fraud. Science, 334(6060), 1182. doi:10.1126/science.1216775Google Scholar
Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: the simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14(2), 81. doi: 10.1037/a0015914Google Scholar
d’Entreves, M. P. (2019). Hannah Arendt. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Autumn 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/arendt/Google Scholar
Dafermos, M. (2015). Rethinking the crisis in social psychology: a dialectical perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(8), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12187Google Scholar
Dafermos, M. (2020). The metaphysics of psychology and a dialectical perspective. Theory & Psychology, 31(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320975491Google Scholar
Dalal, F. (2018). CBT: The cognitive behavioural Tsunami: managerialism, politics and the corruptions of science. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dale, R., & Duran, N. D. (2013). Dealing with complexity differently: from interaction-dominant dynamics to theoretical plurality. Ecological Psychology, 25(3), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2013.810099Google Scholar
Dale, R., & Spivey, M. J. (2006). Unraveling the dyad: using recurrence analysis to explore patterns of syntactic coordination between children and caregivers in conversation. Language Learning, 56, 391–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2006.00372.xGoogle Scholar
Damm, L., Varoqui, D., De Cock, V. C., Dalla Bella, S., & Bardy, B. (2020). Why do we move to the beat? A multi-scale approach, from physical principles to brain dynamics. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 112, 553–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.024Google Scholar
Danziger, K. (1990). Constructing the subject. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511524059Google Scholar
Davidson, M. (2017). Vaccination as a cause of autism–myths and controversies. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 19(4), 403. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2017.19.4/mdavidsonGoogle Scholar
De Bordes, P. F., Cox, R. F., Hasselman, F., & Cillessen, A. H. (2013). Toddlers’ gaze following through attention modulation: intention is in the eye of the beholder. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(2), 443–452. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.008Google Scholar
De Carvalho, E. M., & Rolla, G. (2020). An enactive-ecological approach to information and uncertainty. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00588Google Scholar
De Felice, G., Giuliani, A., Halfon, S., et al. (2019). The misleading Dodo Bird verdict. How much of the outcome variance is explained by common and specific factors? New Ideas in Psychology, 54, 50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2019.01.006Google Scholar
De Greene, K. B. (1993). A systems-based approach to policymaking. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3226-2Google Scholar
De Jaegher, H. (2013). Rigid and fluid interactions with institutions. Cognitive Systems Research, 25, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2013.03.002Google Scholar
De Jaegher, H., & Rohde, M. (2010). Enaction: toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Jesus, P. (2018). Thinking through enactive agency: sense-making, bio-semiosis and the ontologies of organismic worlds. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 861–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-018-9562-2Google Scholar
De Ruiter, N. M. P., Den Hartigh, R. J. R., Cox, R. F. A., Van Geert, P. L. C., & Kunnen, E. S. (2015). The temporal structure of state self-esteem variability during parent–adolescent interactions: more than random fluctuations. Self and Identity, 14(3), 314–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2014.994026Google Scholar
De Ruiter, N. M. P., & Gmelin, J.-O. H. (2021). What is real about ‘real time’ anyway? A proposal for a pluralistic approach to studying identity processes across different timescales. Identity, 21(4), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2021.1969937Google Scholar
De Ruiter, N. M. P., Hollenstein, T., Van Geert, P. L. C., & Kunnen, E. S. (2018). Self-esteem as a complex dynamic system: intrinsic and extrinsic microlevel dynamics. Complexity, 2018, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4781563Google Scholar
De Ruiter, N. M. P., Van Geert, P. L. C., & Kunnen, E. S. (2017). Explaining the ‘how’ of self-esteem development: the self-organizing self-esteem model. Review of General Psychology, 21(1), 49–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000099Google Scholar
De Ruiter, N. M., Van der Steen, S., Den Hartigh, R. J., & Van Geert, P. L. (2017). Capturing moment-to-moment changes in multivariate human experience. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(5), 611–620. DOI: 10.1177/0165025416651736Google Scholar
De Weerth, C., & Van Geert, P. (2001). Changing patterns of infant behavior and mother–infant interaction: intra-and interindividual variability. Infant Behavior and Development, 24(4), 347–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00083-8Google Scholar
De Weerth, C., Van Geert, P., & Hoijtink, H. (1999). Intraindividual variability in infant behavior. Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 1102. DOI: 10.1037//0012-1649.35.4.1102Google Scholar
De Wolf, T., & Holvoet, T. (2004). Emergence versus self-organisation: different concepts but promising when combined. In Brueckner, S. A., Di Marzo Serugendo, G., Karageorgos, A., & Nagpal, R. (eds.), International workshop on engineering self-organising applications (pp. 1–15). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005Google Scholar
DeFife, J. A., Peart, J., Bradley, B., et al. (2013). Validity of prototype diagnosis for mood and anxiety disorders. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(2), 140–148. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.270Google Scholar
Delignières, D., Fortes, M., & Ninot, G. (2004). The fractal dynamics of self-esteem and physical self. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, 8(4), 479–510.Google Scholar
Delmas, E., Besson, M., Brice, M. H., et al. (2019). Analysing ecological networks of species interactions. Biological Reviews, 94(1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12433Google Scholar
Den Hartigh, R. J. R., Cox, R. F., & Van Geert, P. L. (2017). Complex versus complicated models of cognition. In Magnani, L., & Bertolotti, T. (eds.), Springer handbook of model-based science. (pp. 657–669). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30526-4Google Scholar
Den Hartigh, R. J. R., Gernigon, C., Van Yperen, N. W., Marin, L., & Van Geert, P. L. (2014). How psychological and behavioral team states change during positive and negative momentum. PloS One, 9(5), e97887. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097887Google Scholar
Den Hartigh, R. J. R., Van Dijk, M. W., Steenbeek, H. W., & Van Geert, P. L. (2016). A dynamic network model to explain the development of excellent human performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 532. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00532Google Scholar
Deventer, R., Denzler, J., & Niemann, H. (2002). Application of Bayesian controllers to dynamic systems. In Abraham, A. & Köppen, M. (eds.), Hybrid information systems (pp. 555–569). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-1782-9Google Scholar
Di Paolo, E. (2009). The social and enactive mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8(4), 409–415. DOI: 10.1007/s11097-009-9143-5Google Scholar
Di Paolo, E. A. (2005). Autopoiesis, adaptivity, teleology, agency. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 429–452. DOI: 10.1007/s11097-005-9002-yGoogle Scholar
Di Paolo, E. A., Cuffari, E. C., & De Jaegher, H. (2018). Linguistic bodies: the continuity between life and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11244.001.0001Google Scholar
Di Paolo, E. A., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2010). Horizons for the enactive mind: values, social interaction, and play. In De Jaegher, H. & Rohde, M. (eds.), Enaction: toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 33–89). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Didonato, M. D., England, D., Martin, C. L., & Amazeen, P. G. (2013). Dynamical analyses for developmental science: a primer for intrigued scientists. Human Development, 56(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1159/000342936Google Scholar
Donnellan, B. M., Kenny, D. A., Trzesniewski, K. H., Lucas, R. E., & Conger, R. D. (2012). Using trait-state models to evaluate the longitudinal consistency of global self-esteem from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 634–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.07.005Google Scholar
Dotterer, H. L., Beltz, A. M., Foster, K. T., Simms, L. J., & Wright, A. G. (2019). Personalized models of personality disorders: using a temporal network method to understand symptomatology and daily functioning in a clinical sample. Psychological Medicine, 1–9. doi: 10.1017/S0033291719002563Google Scholar
Douven, I. (2021). Abduction. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/abduction/Google Scholar
Dowe, P. (2000). Physical causation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570650Google Scholar
Dowe, P. (2007). Causal processes. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/sum2010/entries/causation-process/Google Scholar
Dowe, P. (2009). Causal process theories. In Beebee, H., Hitchcock, C., & Menzies, P. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199279739.001.0001Google Scholar
Dowe, P. (2018). Causal processes. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/causation-process/Google Scholar
Dreyfus, H. L. (2005). How Heidegger defends the possibility of a correspondence theory of truth with respect to the entities of natural science. In Schatzki, T. R., Cetina, K. K., & Von Savigny, E. (eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 159–171). Abingdon and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203977453Google Scholar
Duckworth, A. L., Quinn, P. D., Lynam, D. R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2011). Role of test motivation in intelligence testing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(19), 7716–7720. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018601108Google Scholar
Dumas, G., de Guzman, G. C., Tognoli, E., & Kelso, J. S. (2014). The human dynamic clamp as a paradigm for social interaction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(35), E3726–E3734. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407486111Google Scholar
Dupré, J., & Nicholson, D. J. (2018). A manifesto for a processual philosophy of biology. In Nicholson, D. J. & Dupré, J. (eds.). Everything flows: towards a processual philosophy of biology (pp. 4–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198779636.001.0001Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Riger, S. (2014). Feminism and psychology: critiques of methods and epistemology. American Psychologist, 69(7), 685–702. doi: 10.1037/a0037372Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2005). Discursive psychology. In Fitch, K. L. & Sanders, R. E. (eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 257–273). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Elgaard Jensen, T. (2019). Exploring the knowledge practices of psychology: reflections on a field study. Theory & Psychology, 29(4), 466–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319853630Google Scholar
Ellis, G. (2016). How can physics underlie the mind: top-down causation in the human context. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49809-5Google Scholar
Emmeche, C., Køppe, S., & Stjernfelt, F (2000). Levels, emergence, and three versions of downward causation. In Andersen, P. B., Emmeche, C., Finnemann, N. O., & Christiansen, P. V. (eds.), Downward causation: minds, bodies and matter (pp. 13–34). Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
English, L. Q. (2017). There is no theory of everything: a physics perspective on emergence. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59150-6Google Scholar
Érdi, P. (2008). Complexity explained. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-35778-0Google Scholar
Erol, R. Y., & Orth, U. (2011). Self-esteem development from age 14 to 30 years: a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024299Google Scholar
Eronen, M. I. (2020). Causal discovery and the problem of psychological interventions. New Ideas in Psychology, 59, 100785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2020.100785Google Scholar
Eronen, M. I., & Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The theory crisis in psychology: how to move forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 779–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620970586Google Scholar
Fanelli, D., Costas, R., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). Meta-assessment of bias in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 3714–3719. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618569114Google Scholar
Fearon, D. (2004). The bond threat sequence: discourse evidence for the systematic interdependence of shame and social relationships. In Leach, C. & Tiedens, L. (eds.), The social life of emotions (pp. 153–206). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819568Google Scholar
Felmlee, D. H., & Greenberg, D. F. (1999). A dynamic systems model of dyadic interaction. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 23(3), 155–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1999.9990218Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. J., & Heene, M. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459059Google Scholar
Fischer, K. W. (2008). Dynamic cycles of cognitive and brain development: measuring growth in mind, brain, and education. In Battro, A. M., Fischer, K. W., & Léna, P. (eds.), The educated brain (pp. 127–150). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489907Google Scholar
Fischer, K. W., & Van Geert, P. (2014). Dynamic development of brain and behavior. In Molenaar, P. C. M., Lerner, R. M., & Newell, K. M. (eds.), Handbook of developmental systems theory and methodology (pp. 287–315). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Fish, J. M. (2000). What anthropology can do for psychology: facing physics envy, ethnocentrism, and a belief in ‘Race’. American Anthropologist, 102(3), 552–563. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2000.102.3.552Google Scholar
Fisher, A. J., Medaglia, J. D., & Jeronimus, B. F. (2018). Lack of group-to-individual generalizability is a threat to human subjects research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(27), E6106–E6115. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1711978115Google Scholar
Flora, D. B. (2020). Thinking about effect sizes: From the replication crisis to a cumulative psychological science. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 61(4), 318. doi:10.1037/cap0000218Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810503Google Scholar
Forrester, J. W. (1993). System dynamics and the lessons of 35 years. In De Greene, K. B. (ed.), A systems-based approach to policymaking (pp. 199–240). New York: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3226-2Google Scholar
Fortes, M., Delignières, D., & Ninot, G. (2004). The dynamics of self-esteem and physical self: between preservation and adaptation. Quality & Quantity, 38, 735–751. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-004-4764-9Google Scholar
Fortis, J.-M. (2015). Family resemblance and semantics: the vagaries of a not so new concept. History and Philosophy of the Language Sciences. https://hiphilangsci.net/2015/10/13/family-resemblance-and-semantics-the-vagaries-of-a-not-so-new-conceptGoogle Scholar
Frances, A. (2013). Saving normal: an insider’s revolt against out-of-control psychiatric diagnoses, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the medicalization of ordinary life. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Franck, E., & De Raedt, R. (2007). Self-esteem reconsidered: unstable self-esteem outperforms level of self-esteem as vulnerability marker for depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(7), 1531–1541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2007.01.003Google Scholar
Fried, E. I., Epskamp, S., Nesse, R. M., Tuerlinckx, F., & Borsboom, D. (2016). What are ‘good’ depression symptoms? Comparing the centrality of DSM and non-DSM symptoms of depression in a network analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 189, 314–320. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.09.005Google Scholar
Fried, E. I., van Borkulo, C. D., Cramer, A. O., et al. (2017). Mental disorders as networks of problems: a review of recent insights. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 52(1), 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s00127-016-1319-zGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. J. (2003). Learning and inference in the brain. Neural Networks, 16, 1325–1352. doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2003.06.005.Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., & Ao, P. (2012). Free energy, value, and attractors. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2012(937860), 27. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/937860Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., Kilner, J., & Harrison, L. (2006). A free energy principle for the brain. Journal of Physiology, 1–3, 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2006.10.001Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., Moran, R., & Seth, A. K. (2013). Analysing connectivity with Granger causality and dynamic causal modelling. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(2), 172–178. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.010Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., Preller, K. H., Mathys, C., et al. (2017). Dynamic causal modelling revisited. NeuroImage, 199, 730–744. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.02.045Google Scholar
Galatzer-Levy, I. R., & Bryant, R. A. (2013). 636, 120 ways to have posttraumatic stress disorder. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 651–662. doi: 10.1177/1745691613504115.Google Scholar
Galavotti, M. C. (2017). The interpretation of probability: still an open issue? Philosophies, 2(3), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2030020Google Scholar
Ganglmayer, K., Attig, M., Daum, M. M., & Paulus, M. (2019). Infants’ perception of goal-directed actions: a multi-lab replication reveals that infants anticipate paths and not goals. Infant Behavior and Development, 57, 101340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2019.101340Google Scholar
Gardner, H. E. (2011). Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. Hachette, UK.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. K. (2013). Theories of intelligence. In Bray, M. A. & Kehle, T. J. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of school psychology (pp. 79–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195369809.001.0001Google Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (2009). Realities and relationships: soundings in social construction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gernigon, C., Den Hartigh, R. J. R., Vallacher, R. R., & Van Geert, P. L. C. (2021). On the accumulation of small (and other) effects: will psychological science ever exorcise laplace’s demon? Submitted.Google Scholar
Geukes, K., Nestler, S., Hutteman, R., et al. (2017). Puffed-up but shaky selves: state self-esteem level and variability in narcissists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(5), 769–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000093Google Scholar
Gibb, S., Hendry, R. F., & Lancaster, T. (eds.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of emergence. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gibson, E. J., & Walk, R. D. (1960). The ‘visual cliff’. Scientific American, 202(4), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0460-64Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., Multmeier, J., Föhring, A., & Wegwarth, O. (2020). Do children have Bayesian intuitions? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000979Google Scholar
Gilden, D. L. (2001). Cognitive emissions of 1/f noise. Psychological Review, 108(1), 33–56. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.33Google Scholar
Gill, M. L. (2003). Aristotle’s distinction between change and activity. In Seibt, J. (ed.), Process theories: crossdisciplinary studies in dynamic categories (pp. 23–55). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0553-5Google Scholar
Gillies, D. (2016). The propensity interpretation. In Hájek, A. & Hitchcock, C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of probability and philosophy (pp. 406–422). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199607617.001.0001Google Scholar
Gillon, B. S. (1990.) Bare plurals as plural indefinite noun phrases. In Kyburg, H. E. Jr. et al. (eds.), Knowledge representation and defeasible reasoning (pp. 119–166). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0553-5Google Scholar
Gilmore, R. (1993). Catastrophe theory for scientists and engineers. North Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: a modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Glanzberg, M. (2004). Quantification and realism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 69(3), 541–572. DOI: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2004.tb00518.xGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. N. (2001). The mind’s arrows: Bayes nets and graphical causal models in psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: history and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49–72. DOI: 10.1207/s15327000em0101_4Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, M., & Schwabe, J. (2021). Context Dependency as a Predictor of Replicability. Review of General Psychology, in press, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10892680211015635Google Scholar
Gona, J. K., Newton, C. R., Rimba, K., et al. (2015). Parents’ and professionals’ perceptions on causes and treatment options for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in a multicultural context on the Kenyan coast. PloS One, 10(8), e0132729. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132729Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., et al. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111(1), 3. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.3Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., Schulz, L., & Schulz, L. E. (eds.). (2007). Causal learning: psychology, philosophy, and computation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195176803.001.0001Google Scholar
Gopnik, A., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., & Glymour, C. (2001). Causal learning mechanisms in very young children: two-, three-, and four-year-olds infer causal relations from patterns of variation and covariation. Developmental Psychology, 37(5), 620. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.37.5.620Google Scholar
Gottman, J. M. (2003). The mathematics of marriage: dynamic nonlinear models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Götz, F. M., Gosling, S. D., & Rentfrow, P. J. (2021). Small effects: the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, PsyArXiv Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hzrxfGoogle Scholar
Goudsmit, A. L. (1989). Self-organization in psychotherapy. Berlin and New York: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48704-0Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (revised and expanded version). New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Gräbner, C. (2018). How to relate models to reality? An epistemological framework for the validation and verification of computational models. JASSS, 21(3). http://doi.org/10.18564/jasss.3772Google Scholar
Graham, D. W. (2008). Heraclitus: flux, order, and knowledge. In Curd, P. & Graham, D. W. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of presocratic philosophy (pp. 169–188). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195146875.001.0001Google Scholar
Greenberg, D. M., Warrier, V., Allison, C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2018). Testing the empathizing–systemizing theory of sex differences and the extreme male brain theory of autism in half a million people. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(48), 12152–12157. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811032115Google Scholar
Greenier, K. D., Kernis, M. H., McNamara, C. W., et al. (1999). Individual differences in reactivity to daily events: examining the roles of stability and level of self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 67(1), 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00052Google Scholar
Grice, J. W. (2011). Observation-oriented modeling: analysis of cause in the behavioral sciences. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, J. W. (2015). From means and variances to persons and patterns. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1007. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01007Google Scholar
Grice, J. W., Barrett, P. T., Schlimgen, L. A., & Abramson, C. I. (2012). Toward a brighter future for psychology as an observation oriented science. Behavioral Sciences, 2(1), 1–22. doi: 10.3390/bs2010001Google Scholar
Grimm, V., & Calabrese, J. M. (2011). What is resilience? A short introduction. In Deffuant, G., & Gilbert, N. (eds.), Viability and resilience of complex systems: concepts, methods and case studies from ecology and society (pp. 3–13). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20423-4Google Scholar
Grush, R., & Springle, A. (2019). Agency, perception, space and subjectivity. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 799–818. DOI: 10.1007/s11097-018-9582-yGoogle Scholar
Guastello, S. J. (2013). Chaos, catastrophe, and human affairs: applications of nonlinear dynamics to work, organizations, and social evolution. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Guevara, M., Cox, R. F., Van Dijk, M., & Van Geert, P. (2017). Attractor dynamics of dyadic interaction: a recurrence based analysis. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, 21(3), 289–317.Google Scholar
Ha, S., Sohn, I. J., Kim, N., Sim, H. J., & Cheon, K. A. (2015). Characteristics of brains in autism spectrum disorder: structure, function and connectivity across the lifespan. Experimental Neurobiology, 24(4), 273–284. doi: 10.5607/en.2015.24.4.273Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1995a) The looping effects of human kinds. In Sperber, D., Premack, D., & Premack, A. J. (eds.), Causal cognition: a multidisciplinary approach (pp. 351–394). Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198524021.001.0001Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1995b). Rewriting the soul: multiple personality and the sciences of memory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI:10.1086/233676Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (2007). Natural kinds: rosy dawn, scholastic twilight. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 61, 203–239. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1358246100009802Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (2013). Lost in the forest. Review of DSM-5: diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). London Review of Books, 35(15), 7–8.Google Scholar
Haig, B. (2021). Understanding replication in a way that is true to science. Review of General Psychology, advance publication, https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/doi/pdf/10.1177/10892680211046514Google Scholar
Haig, B. D., & Borsboom, D. (2012). Truth, science, and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 22, 272–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311430442Google Scholar
Haig, B. D., & Borsboom, D. (2018). Scientific realism with correspondence truth: a reply to Asay (2018). Theory & Psychology, 28(3), 398–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318766718Google Scholar
Haimovici, A., Tagliazucchi, E., Balenzuela, P., & Chialvo, D. R. (2013). Brain organization into resting state networks emerges at criticality on a model of the human connectome. Physical Review Letters, 110(17), 178101. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.178101Google Scholar
Hájek, A. (1997). ‘Mises Redux’–Redux: fifteen arguments against finite frequentism. Erkenntnis, 45, 209–227. DOI:10.1007/978-94-011-5712-4_5Google Scholar
Hájek, A. (2009). Fifteen arguments against hypothetical frequentism. Erkenntnis, 70(2), 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-009-9154-1Google Scholar
Hájek, A. (2019). Interpretations of probability. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Autumn 2019 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/probability-interpret/Google Scholar
Haken, H. (1992). Synergetics in psychology. In Tschacher, W., Schiepek, G., & Brunner, E. J. (eds.), Self-organization and clinical psychology: empirical approaches to synergetics in psychology (vol. 58, pp. 32–54). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77534-5Google Scholar
Haken, H. (2007). Synergetics. Scholarpedia, 2(1), 1400. www.scholarpedia.org/article/SynergeticsGoogle Scholar
Hall, B. K. (2012). Evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo): past, present, and future. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(2), 184–193. DOI:10.1007/s12052-012-0418-xGoogle Scholar
Halley, J. D., & Winkler, D. A. (2008). Classification of emergence and its relation to self‐organization. Complexity, 13(5), 10–15. DOI: 10.1002/cplx.20216Google Scholar
Halsey, L. G. (2019). The reign of the p-value is over: what alternative analyses could we employ to fill the power vacuum? Biology Letters, 15(5), 20190174. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0174Google Scholar
Hamaker, E. (2012). Why researchers should think ‘within-person’: a paradigmatic rationale. In Csikszentmihalyi, M. (ed.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 43–61). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Harman, G. (2009). Prince of networks: Bruno Latour and metaphysics. Melbourne: Re-press.Google Scholar
Hartelman, P. A., Van der Maas, H. L., & Molenaar, P. C. (1998). Detecting and modelling developmental transitions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1998.tb00751.xGoogle Scholar
Harter, S., & Whitesell, N. R. (2003). Beyond the debate: why some adolescents report stable self-worth over time and situation, whereas others report changes in self-worth. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1027–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7106006Google Scholar
Haslam, N. (2014). Natural kinds in psychiatry: conceptually implausible, empirically questionable, and stigmatizing. In Kincaid, H. & Sullivan, J. A. (eds.), Classifying psychopathology: mental kinds and natural kinds (pp. 11–28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8942.001.0001Google Scholar
Haslam, N. (2016). Looping effects and the expanding concept of mental disorder. Journal of Psychopathology, 22, 4–9.Google Scholar
Haslam, N., & Kvaale, E. P. (2015). Biogenetic explanations of mental disorder: the mixed-blessings model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(5), 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415588082Google Scholar
Hausman, D. M., & Woodward, J. (1999). Independence, invariance and the causal Markov condition. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 50(4), 521–583. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/50.4.521Google Scholar
Hausman, D., & Woodward, J. (2004). Manipulation and the causal Markov condition. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 846–856. https://doi.org/10.1086/425235Google Scholar
Hawley, K., & Bird, A. (2011). What are natural kinds? Philosophical Perspectives, 25, 205–221. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41329468Google Scholar
Hayes, A. M., & Andrews, L. A. (2020). A complex systems approach to the study of change in psychotherapy. BMC Medicine, 18(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01662-2Google Scholar
Hayes, A. M., Feldman, G. C., Beevers, C. G., et al. (2007a). Discontinuities and cognitive changes in an exposure-based cognitive therapy for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(3), 409. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.3.409Google Scholar
Hayes, A. M., Laurenceau, J. P., Feldman, G., Strauss, J. L., & Cardaciotto, L. (2007b). Change is not always linear: the study of nonlinear and discontinuous patterns of change in psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(6), 715–723. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.01.008Google Scholar
Heinzel, S., Tominschek, I., & Schiepek, G. (2014). Dynamic patterns in psychotherapy-discontinuous changes and critical instabilities during the treatment of obsessive compulsive disorder. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, 18(2), 155–176.Google Scholar
Helmich, M. A., Wichers, M., Olthof, M., et al. (2020). Sudden gains in day-to-day change: revealing nonlinear patterns of individual improvement in depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88(2), 119. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000469Google Scholar
Hennessy, S., Howe, C., Mercer, N., & Vrikki, M. (2020). Coding classroom dialogue: methodological considerations for researchers. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 25, 100404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100404Google Scholar
Herbert, J. D., & Padovani, F. (2015). Contextualism, psychological science, and the question of ontology. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 4(4), 225–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.11.005Google Scholar
Hesp, C., Steenbeek, H. W., & Van Geert, P. L. (2019). Socio-emotional concern dynamics in a model of real-time dyadic interaction: parent-child play in autism. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1635. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01635Google Scholar
Hibberd, F. J. (2014). The metaphysical basis of a process psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 34(3), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036242Google Scholar
Hilgers, M. (2009). Habitus, freedom, and reflexivity. Theory & Psychology, 19(6), 728–755. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309345892Google Scholar
Hilgevoord, J., & Uffink, J (2016). The uncertainty principle. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/qt-uncertainty/Google Scholar
Hitchcock, C. (2021). Probabilistic causation. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/causation-probabilistic/Google Scholar
Hladký, V., & Havlíček, J. (2013). Was Tinbergen an Aristotelian? Comparison of Tinbergen’s four whys and Aristotle’s four causes. Human Ethology Bulletin, 28(4), 3–11.Google Scholar
Hoffman, J., & Rosenkrantz, G. R. (1997). Substance: its nature and existence. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hofmann, S. G., Curtiss, J., & McNally, R. J. (2016). A complex network perspective on clinical science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(5), 597–605. DOI: 10.1177/1745691616639283Google Scholar
Hogan, J. A., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2008). Tinbergen’s four questions and contemporary behavioral biology. In Bolhuis, J. J. & Verhulst, S. (eds.), Tinbergen’s legacy: function and mechanism in behavioral biology (pp. 25–34). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hohn, R. E. (2020). Intransigence in mainstream thinking about psychological measurement. In Lamiell, J. T. & Slaney, K. L. (eds.), Problematic research practices and inertia in scientific psychology: history, sources, and recommended solutions (pp. 39–54). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holden, J. G., Van Orden, G. C., & Turvey, M. T. (2009). Dispersion of response times reveals cognitive dynamics. Psychological Review, 116(2), 318–342. doi: 10.1037/a0014849Google Scholar
Holden, M. T., & Lynch, P. (2004). Choosing the appropriate methodology: understanding research philosophy. The Marketing Review, 4(4), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1362/1469347042772428Google Scholar
Holland, J. H. (2000). Emergence: from chaos to order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holland, J. H. (2014). Complexity: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/actrade/9780199662548.001.0001Google Scholar
Hollenstein, T. (2007). State space grids: analyzing dynamics across development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 384–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025407077765Google Scholar
Hollenstein, T. (2012). Using state space grids for understanding processes of change and stability in adolescence. In Kunnen, E. S. (ed.), A dynamic systems approach to adolescent development (pp. 73–89). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hollenstein, T. (2013). State space grids: depicting dynamics across development. Boston: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5007-8Google Scholar
Hollenstein, T., Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., & Potworowski, G. (2013). A model of socioemotional flexibility at three timescales. Emotion Review, 5(4), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073913484181Google Scholar
Hooker, C. (2011). Handbook of the philosophy of science, vol. 10: philosophy of complex systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-06625-2Google Scholar
Howe, M., & Lewis, M. D. (2005). The importance of dynamic systems approaches for understanding development. Developmental Review, 25(3–4), 247–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.09.002Google Scholar
Howell, J. L., Collisson, B., & King, K. M. (2014). Physics envy: psychologists’ perceptions of psychology and agreement about core concepts. Teaching of Psychology, 41(4), 330–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314549705Google Scholar
Howell, J. L., Sosa, N., & Osborn, H. J. (2019). Self-esteem as a monitor of fundamental psychological need satisfaction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(8), e 12492. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12492Google Scholar
Hruschka, D. (2018). You can’t characterize human nature if studies overlook 85 percent of people on Earth. https://theconversation.com/you-cant-characterize-human-nature-if-studies-overlook-85-percent-of-people-on-earth-106670Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1960). A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press (first published in 1739).Google Scholar
Humphreys, P. (2016). Emergence: a philosophical account. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190620325.001.0001Google Scholar
Hutt, A. (2020). Synergetics: an introduction. In Hutt, A. & Haken, H. (eds.), Synergetics. A volume in the encyclopedia of complexity and systems science (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–3). New York: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0421-2Google Scholar
Hutt, A., & Haken, H. (eds.). (2020). Synergetics: a volume in the encyclopedia of complexity and systems science (2nd ed.). New York: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0421-2Google Scholar
Hutteman, R., Nestler, S., Wagner, J., Egloff, B., & Back, M. D. (2015). Wherever I may roam: processes of self-esteem development from adolescence to emerging adulthood in the context of International Student Exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(5), 767–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000015Google Scholar
Hüttemann, A. (2013). A disposition-based process theory of causation. In Mumford, S. & Tugby, M. (eds.), Metaphysics and science (pp. 101–122). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, S. E. (2010). The diagnosis of mental disorders: the problem of reification. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091532Google Scholar
Ihlen, E. A., & Vereijken, B. (2010). Interaction-dominant dynamics in human cognition: beyond 1/ƒα fluctuation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 436. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019098Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124Google Scholar
Jablensky, A. (2005). Categories, dimensions and prototypes: critical issues for psychiatric classification. Psychopathology, 38(4), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1159/000086092Google Scholar
Jackman, S. (2009). Bayesian analysis for the social sciences. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Jansen, B. R., Raijmakers, M. E., & Visser, I. (2007). Rule transition on the balance scale task: a case study in belief change. Synthese, 155(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9142-9Google Scholar
Jason, J. Y., Berrios, J., Newbern, J. M., et al. (2015). An autism-linked mutation disables phosphorylation control of UBE3A. Cell, 162(4), 795–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.06.045Google Scholar
Jeronimus, B. F., Riese, H., Sanderman, R., & Ormel, J. (2014). Mutual reinforcement between neuroticism and life experiences: a five-wave, 16-year study to test reciprocal causation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 751. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037009Google Scholar
Jörg, T. (2011). New thinking in complexity for the social sciences and humanities: a generative, transdisciplinary approach. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1303-1Google Scholar
Joseph, J. (2018). Autism aetiology: the journey of discovery from the ‘refrigerator mother’ to the neurodevelopmental hypothesis. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychology, 2(02), 1–2.Google Scholar
Juarrero, A. (1999). Dynamics in action: intentional behavior as a complex system, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2528.001.0001Google Scholar
Juarrero, A. (2000). Dynamics in action: intentional behavior as a complex system. Emergence, 2(2), 24–57. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327000EM0202_03Google Scholar
Kahn, C. H. (1979). The art and thought of Heraclitus. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627392Google Scholar
Kamphuis, J. H., & Noordhof, A. (2009). On categorical diagnoses in DSM-V: cutting dimensions at useful points? Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 294–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016697Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (2007). Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091432Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (2009). Understanding how and why psychotherapy leads to change. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4–5), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300802448899Google Scholar
Kello, C. T., Brown, G. D., Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., et al. (2010). Scaling laws in cognitive sciences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(5), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.02.005Google Scholar
Kelly, R., Desiree, K., & Stephen, P. (2015). Self-esteem, personality, and gender self-perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/conf.fpsyg.2015.66.00021Google Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: the self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S. (2001). How the brain changes its mind: metastable coordination dynamics. The emergence of the mind. Fondazione Carlo Erba, Milano, 93–101.Google Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S. (2005). The complementary nature of coordination dynamics: toward a science of the in-between. In McDaniel, R. R. & Driebe, D. J. (eds.), Uncertainty and surprise in complex systems (pp. 77–85). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/b13122Google Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S. (2013). Coordination dynamics. In Meyers, R. A. (ed.), Encyclopedia of complexity and system science (pp. 1537–1564). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27737-5_101-3Google Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S., & Engstrom, D. (2006). The complementary nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelso, J. A. S., Holt, K. G., Rubin, P., & Kugler, P. N. (1981). Patterns of human interlimb coordination emerge from the properties of non-linear, limit cycle oscillatory processes: Theory and data. Journal of Motor Behavior, 13, 226–261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00222895.1981.10735251Google Scholar
Kemp, J. J., Lickel, J. J., & Deacon, B. J. (2014). Effects of a chemical imbalance causal explanation on individuals’ perceptions of their depressive symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 56, 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.02.009Google Scholar
Kendig, C. (ed.). (2015). Natural kinds and classification in scientific practice. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315619934Google Scholar
Kernis, M. H. (2005). Measuring self-esteem in context: the importance of stability of self-esteem in psychological functioning. Journal of Personality, 73(6), 1569–1605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00359.xGoogle Scholar
Kernis, M., Bruce, H., Grannemann, B. D., & Barclay, L. C. (1992). Stability of self-esteem: assessment, correlates, and excuse making. Journal of Personality, 60(3), 621–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00923.xGoogle Scholar
Kernis, M., Cornell, D., Sun, C., Berry, A., & Harlow, T. (1993). There’s more to self-esteem than whether it is high or low: the importance of stability of self-esteem. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 65(6), 1190–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1190Google Scholar
Kernis, M., Grannemann, B., & Barclay, L. (1989). Stability and level of self-esteem as predictors of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(6), 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.6.1013Google Scholar
Kincaid, H., & Sullivan, J. A. (eds.). (2014). Classifying psychopathology: mental kinds and natural kinds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8942.001.0001Google Scholar
Klein, O., Doyen, S., Leys, C., et al. (2012). Low hopes, high expectations: expectancy effects and the replicability of behavioral experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463704Google Scholar
Koopmans, M. (2014). Change, self-organization and the search for causality in educational research and practice. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct19523Google Scholar
Kosko, B. (1993). Fuzzy thinking: the new science of fuzzy logic. New York: Hyperion. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081079408928570Google Scholar
Koutroufinis, S. A. (2017). Organism, machine, process: towards a process ontology for organismic dynamics. Organisms. Journal of Biological Sciences, 1(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.13133/2532-5876/13878Google Scholar
Kraut, R. (2018), Aristotle's Ethics. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Summer 2018 Edition. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/aristotle-ethics/Google Scholar
Krifka, M., Pelletier, F. J., Carlson, G., et al. (1995). In Carlson, G. N. & Pelletier, F. J. (eds.), The generic book (pp. 1–124). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kristjánsson, K., Fowers, B., Darnell, C., & Pollard, D. (2021). Phronesis (practical wisdom) as a type of contextual integrative thinking. Review of General Psychology, 25(3), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211023063Google Scholar
Krueger, R. F., & Piasecki, T. M. (2002). Toward a dimensional and psychometrically-informed approach to conceptualizing psychopathology. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(5), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0005-7967(02)00016-5Google Scholar
Kunnen, E. S. (2012). The art of building dynamic systems models. In Kunnen, E. S. (ed.), A dynamic systems approach to adolescent development (pp. 99–116). Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203147641Google Scholar
Kunnen, E. S. (2017). Why computer models help to understand developmental processes. Journal of Adolescence, 57, 134–136. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.04.007Google Scholar
Kunnen, E. S., & Bosma, H. A. (2000). Development of meaning making: a dynamic systems approach. New Ideas in Psychology, 18(1), 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-118X(99)00037-9Google Scholar
Kunnen, S. E. (ed.). (2012). A dynamic systems approach to adolescent development. London: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203147641Google Scholar
Kuorikoski, J., & Pöyhönen, S. (2012). Looping kinds and social mechanisms. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457911Google Scholar
Kwiatkowska, M., & Kielan, K. (2013). Fuzzy logic and semiotic methods in modeling of medical concepts. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 214, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2012.03.011Google Scholar
Labrell, F., Van Geert, P., Declercq, C., et al. (2014). ‘Speaking volumes’: a longitudinal study of lexical and grammatical growth between 17 and 42 months. First Language, 34(2), 97–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723714526573Google Scholar
Ladyman, J., & Wiesner, K. (2020). What is a complex system? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300256130Google Scholar
Lamiell, J. T. (2003). Beyond individual and group differences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452229317Google Scholar
Lamiell, J. T., & Slaney, K. L. (eds.). (2020). Problematic research practices and inertia in scientific psychology: history, sources, and recommended solutions. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1996) Om aktor-netvaerksteroi. Nogle fa afklaringer og mere end nogle fa forviklinger. Philosophia (vol. 25 No 3 et 4, pp. 47–64); (article written in 1990). version anglaise (English version) in Soziale Welt (vol. 47, pp. 369–381), 1996; downloadable from www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-67%20ACTOR-NETWORK.pdfGoogle Scholar
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. (2004). After method: mess in social science research. Abingdon and New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. (2017). STS as method. In Felt, U., Fouché, R., Miller, C. A., & Smith-Doerr, L. (eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed., pp. 31–57). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leary, M. R. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(1), 32–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00008Google Scholar
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: the Sociometer Hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.68.3.518Google Scholar
Lebowitz, M. S., & Ahn, W. K. (2014). Effects of biological explanations for mental disorders on clinicians’ empathy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(50), 17786–17790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414058111Google Scholar
Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in information systems research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.3.221.16560Google Scholar
Legg, S., & Hutter, M. (2007). A collection of definitions of intelligence. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 157, 17–24.Google Scholar
Leonelli, S. (2015). What counts as scientific data? A relational framework. Philosophy of Science, 82(5), 810–821. https://doi.org/10.1086/684083Google Scholar
Levy, D. A. (2019). The ‘Self-Esteem’ Enigma: a critical analysis. North American Journal of Psychology, 21(2), 305–338.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. D., & Granic, I. (1999). Self-organization of cognition–emotion interactions. In Dalgleish, T. & Power, M. J. (eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 683–701). New York: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/doi:10.1002/0470013494Google Scholar
Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8, 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00044903Google Scholar
Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Kunnen, S. E., & Van Geert, P. L. (2009). Here we go again: a dynamic systems perspective on emotional rigidity across parent–adolescent conflicts. Developmental Psychology, 45(5), 1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558410367953Google Scholar
Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Kunnen, S. E., & Van Geert, P. (2010). Adolescent girls’ perceptions of daily conflicts with their mothers: within-conflict sequences and their relationship to autonomy. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25(4), 527–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558410367953Google Scholar
Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A., Van Geert, P., Bosma, H., & Kunnen, S. (2008). Time and identity: a framework for research and theory formation. Developmental Review, 28(3), 370–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2008.04.001Google Scholar
Lickliter, R. (2018). An intelligent guide to human intelligence: it’s all about development. Human Development, 61(2), 126–129. http://doi.org/10.1159/000486465Google Scholar
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2013). Labeling and stigma. In Aneshensel, C. S., Phelan, J. C., & Bierman, A. (eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 525–541). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. (2000). Inference to the best explanation. In Newton-Smith, W. H. (ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 184–193). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Liu, S., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Spelke, E. S. (2017). Ten-month-old infants infer the value of goals from the costs of actions. Science, 358(6366), 1038–1041. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2132Google Scholar
Lobo, L., Heras-Escribano, M., & Travieso, D. (2018). The history and philosophy of ecological psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2228. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02228Google Scholar
Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. H. (2019). Individual differences and the ergodicity problem. Language Learning, 69, 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12324Google Scholar
Ma, H., Aihara, K., & Chen, L. (2014). Detecting causality from nonlinear dynamics with short-term time series. Scientific Reports, 4(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
MacBride, F. (2013). The particular-universal distinction: a dogma of metaphysics? Mind, 114(455), 565–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzi565Google Scholar
MacBride, F. (2020). Truthmakers. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/truthmakers/Google Scholar
MacDougall-Shackleton, S. A. (2011). The levels of analysis revisited. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1574), 2076–2085. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0363Google Scholar
Madsen, E. B., & Aagaard, K. (2020). Concentration of Danish research funding on individual researchers and research topics: patterns and potential drivers. Quantitative Science Studies, 1. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00077Google Scholar
Magnus, P. D. (2018). Taxonomy, ontology, and natural kinds. Synthese, 195(4), 1427–1439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-015-0785-2Google Scholar
Magnusson, D. (2003). The person approach: concepts, measurement models, and research strategy. In Peck, S. C. & Roeser, R. W. (eds.), New directions for child and adolescent development. Person-centered approaches to studying development in context (pp. 3–23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Magro, S. W., Utesch, T., Dreiska ̈mper, D., & Wagner, J. (2019). Self-esteem development in middle childhood: support for sociometer theory. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43(2), 118–127. DOI: 10.1177/0165025418802462Google Scholar
Mahlan, J. R. (2019). Aristotle on secondary substance. Apeiron, 52(2), 167–197. https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2017-0068Google Scholar
Maiers, W. (2021). Replication crisis – just another instance of the replication of crises in psychology? Historical retrospections and theoretical-psychological assessments. Review of General Psychology, advance publication. https://journals-sagepub-com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/doi/pdf/10.1177/10892680211033915Google Scholar
Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: a theory of material engagement. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mallet, J. (2013). Species, concepts of. In Levin, S. A. (ed.), Encyclopedia of biodiversity (2nd ed., pp. 679–691). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00131-3Google Scholar
Mane, K. K., & Börner, K. (2004). Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(suppl 1), 5287–5290. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307626100Google Scholar
Mangalam, M., & Kelty-Stephen, D. G. (2021). Point estimates, Simpson’s paradox and nonergodicity in biological sciences. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 125, 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.017Google Scholar
Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In Edelson, J. (ed.). Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159–187). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mari, A., Beyssade, C., & Del Prete, F. (eds.). (2012). Genericity (vol. 43). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691807.001.0001Google Scholar
Markowitz, D., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Linguistic traces of a scientific fraud: the case of Diederik Stapel. PLoS One, 9(8), e105937. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105937Google Scholar
Markowitz, F. E., Angell, B., & Greenberg, J. S. (2011). Stigma, reflected appraisals, and recovery outcomes in mental illness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(2), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272511407620Google Scholar
Marshall, M. (2020). The hidden links between mental disorders. Nature, 581(7806), 19. doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-00922-8Google Scholar
Marshall, P. J. (2016). Embodiment and human development. Child Development Perspectives, 10(4), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12190Google Scholar
Martin, S., Deffuant, G., & Calabrese, J. M. (2011). Defining resilience mathematically: from attractors to viability. In Deffuant, G. & Gilbert, N. (eds.), Viability and resilience of complex systems: concepts, methods and case studies from ecology and society (pp. 15–36). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20423-4Google Scholar
Marwan, N., Romano, M. C., Thiel, M., & Kurths, J. (2007). Recurrence plots for the analysis of complex systems. Physics Reports, 438(5–6), 237–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2006.11.001Google Scholar
Mascolo, M. (2020). A relational conception of emotional development. Emotion Review, 12 (4), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/17540739209307Google Scholar
Mascolo, M. F., & Fischer, K. W. (2015). Dynamic development of thinking, feeling, and acting. In Lerner, R. (series ed.) and Overton, W. (vol. ed.), Handbook of Child Development and Developmental Science, Vol. 1: Theory and Method (pp. 113–161). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Maton, K. (2008). Habitus. In Grenfell, M. (ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: key concepts (pp. 49–62). Stockfield, UK: Acumen.Google Scholar
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980/2012). Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living (vol. 42). Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Matzler, K., Bauer, F. A., & Mooradian, T. A. (2015). Self-esteem and transformational leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(7), 815–831. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-01-2013-0030Google Scholar
Maul, A. (2013). On the ontology of psychological attributes. Theory & Psychology, 23(6), 752–769. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354313506273Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. (2010). Emergence in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 751–770. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01116.xGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, R. R., & Driebe, D. (eds.). (2005). Uncertainty and surprise in complex systems: questions on working with the unexpected. Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/b13122Google Scholar
McMullin, J. A., & Cairney, J. (2004). Self-esteem and the intersection of age, class, and gender. Journal of Aging Studies, 18(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaging.2003.09.006Google Scholar
McNally, R. J., Robinaugh, D. J., Wu, G. W., et al. (2015). Mental disorders as causal systems: a network approach to posttraumatic stress disorder. Clinical Psychological Science, 3(6), 836–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614553230Google Scholar
Medaglia, J. D., Ramanathan, D. M., Venkatesan, U. M., & Hillary, F. G. (2011). The challenge of non-ergodicity in network neuroscience. Network, 22(1–4), 148–153. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2011.639604Google Scholar
Meehl, P. (1993). Four queries about factor reality. History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 5(2), 4–5.Google Scholar
Menzies, P. (2005). Causation, further themes. In Craig, E. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online (pp. 125–129). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Menzies, P. (2007). Causation in context. In Price, H. & Corry, R. (eds.), Causation, physics, and the constitution of reality: Russell’s republic revisited (pp. 191–223). Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
Merlone, U., Panchuk, A., & Van Geert, P. (2019). Modeling learning and teaching interaction by a map with vanishing denominators: fixed points stability and bifurcations. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 126, 253–265. DOI: 10.1016/j.chaos.2019.06.008Google Scholar
Michaels, C. F. (2003). Affordances: four points of debate. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 135–148. DOI: 10.1207/S15326969ECO1502_3Google Scholar
Michell, J. (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88(3), 355–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1997.tb02641.xGoogle Scholar
Michell, J. (2021). Representational measurement theory: is its number up? Theory & Psychology, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354320930817Google Scholar
Michotte, A. (1946). The perception of causality, translated from the French by Miles, R. and Miles, E., 1963. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2008). On the implications of the classical ergodic theorems: analysis of developmental processes has to focus on intra-individual variation. Developmental Psychobiology, 50(1), 60–69. DOI: 10.1002/dev.20262Google Scholar
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2(4), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0204Google Scholar
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2015). On the relation between person‐oriented and subject‐specific approaches. Journal for Person‐Oriented Research, 1(1–2), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2015.04Google Scholar
Molenaar, P. C. M., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person‐specific paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01619.xGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, P. C. M., Sinclair, K. O., Rovine, M. J., Ram, N., & Corneal, S. E. (2009). Analyzing developmental processes on an individual level using nonstationary time series modeling. Developmental Psychology, 45(1), 260–271. DOI: 10.1037/a0014170Google Scholar
Monty Python. (1972). International Philosophy sketch, commonly referred to as the Philosophers’ Football Match.Google Scholar
Moosa, I. A. (2018). Publish or perish: perceived benefits versus unintended consequences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Morawski, J. (2021). How to true psychology’s objects. Review of General Psychology, 108926802110465, 108926802110465–108926802110465. https://doi.org/10.1177/10892680211046518Google Scholar
Morgan, S., & Winship, C. (2012). Bringing context and variability back into causal analysis. In Kincaid, H. (ed.), Oxford handbook of the philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 319–354). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195392753.001.0001Google Scholar
Mumford, S., & Anjum, R. L. (2011). Getting causes from powers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199695614.001.0001Google Scholar
Nakash, O., Nagar, M., & Westen, D. (2019). Validity and clinical utility of DSM and empirically derived prototype diagnosis for personality disorders in predicting adaptive functioning. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 10(2), 105. DOI: 10.1037/per0000293Google Scholar
Nathan, P. E., Stuart, S. P., & Dolan, S. L. (2000). Research on psychotherapy efficacy and effectiveness: between Scylla and Charybdis? Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 964–981. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.964.Google Scholar
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology’s renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836Google Scholar
Newell, K. M., Liu, Y. T., & Mayer-Kress, G. (2003). A dynamical systems interpretation of epigenetic landscapes for infant motor development. Infant Behavior and Development, 26(4), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2003.08.003Google Scholar
Newen, A., De Bruin, L., & Gallagher, S. (eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.001.0001Google Scholar
Newstead, S. E. (1994). Do verbs act as implicit quantifiers? Journal of Semantics, 11(3), 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/11.3.215Google Scholar
Nguyen, H. T., Walker, C. L., & Walker, E. A. (2018). A first course in fuzzy logic. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Nickel, B. (2012). Dutchmen are good sailors: generics and gradability. In Mari, A., Beyssade, C., & del Prete, F. (eds.), Genericity (pp. 390–405). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691807.001.0001Google Scholar
Nickel, B. (2016). Between logic and the world: an integrated theory of generics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199640003.001.0001Google Scholar
Nicolis, G. & Rouvas-Nicolis, C. (2007), Complex systems. Scholarpedia, 2(11), 1473. doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.1473Google Scholar
Ninot, G., Fortes, M., & Delignières, D. (2005). The dynamics of self-esteem in adults over a 6-month period: an exploratory study. The Journal of Psychology, 139(4), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.4.315-330Google Scholar
Noonan, H., & Curtis, B. (2018). Identity. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/identity/Google Scholar
Norcross, J. C., Koocher, G. P., & Garofalo, A. (2006). Discredited psychological treatments and tests: a Delphi poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(5), 515–522. DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515Google Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., et al. (2021). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, PsyArXiv Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ksfvqGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058Google Scholar
Nowak, M. A., Komarova, N. L., & Niyogi, P. (2001). Evolution of universal grammar. Science, 291(5501), 114–118. doi: 10.1126/science.291.5501.114Google Scholar
Nuijten, M. B., Deserno, M. K., Cramer, A., & Borsboom, D. (2016). Mental disorders as complex networks: an introduction and overview of a network approach to psychopathology. Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 13(4/5), 68–76.Google Scholar
O’Connor, T. (2020). Emergent properties. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Autumn 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/properties-emergent/Google Scholar
Olthof, M., Hasselman, F., & Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A. (2020a). Complexity in psychological self-ratings: implications for research and practice. BMC Medicine, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01727-2Google Scholar
Olthof, M., Hasselman, F., Strunk, G., et al. (2020b). Critical fluctuations as an early-warning signal for sudden gains and losses in patients receiving psychotherapy for mood disorders. Clinical Psychological Science, 8(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619865969Google Scholar
Olthof, M., Hasselman, F., Wijnants, M., & Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A. (2020c). Psychological dynamics are complex: a comparison of scaling, variance, and dynamic complexity in simulated and observed data. In Viol, K., Schöller, H., & Aichhorn, W. (eds.), Selbstorganisation–ein Paradigma für die Humanwissenschaften (pp. 303–316). Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-29906-4Google Scholar
Oosterwegel, A., Field, N., Hart, D., & Anderson, K. (2001). The relation of self-esteem variability to emotion variability, mood, personality traits, and depressive tendencies. Journal of Personality, 69(5), 689–708. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.695160Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Psychology: estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. DOI: 10.1126/science.aac4716Google Scholar
Orth, U., Maes, J., & Schmitt, M. (2015). Self-esteem development across the life span: a longitudinal study with a large sample from Germany. Developmental Psychology, 51(2), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038481Google Scholar
Ostertag, G. (2020). Emily Elizabeth Constance Jones. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Autumn 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/emily-elizabeth-constance-jones/Google Scholar
Overton, W. F. (1975). General systems, structure and development. In Riegel, K. F. & Rosenwald, G. C. (eds.), Structure and transformation: developmental and historical aspects (pp. 61–81). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Overton, W. F. (1991). The structure of developmental theory. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 23, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2407(08)60019-1Google Scholar
Overton, W. F. (2013a). A new paradigm for developmental science: relationism and relational-developmental systems. Applied Developmental Science, 17(2), 94–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2013.778717Google Scholar
Overton, W. F. (2013b). Relationism and relational developmental systems: a paradigm for developmental science in the post-Cartesian Era. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 44, 21–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397947-6.00002-7Google Scholar
Overton, W. F. (2015). Processes, relations and relational-developmental-systems. In Overton, W. F. & Molenaar, P. C. M. (eds.), Theory and method, volume 1 of the handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., pp. 9–62). Editor-in-Chief: Lerner, Richard M.. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Owadally, M. I., Zhou, F., & Wright, I. D. (2018). The insurance industry as a complex social system: competition, cycles, and crises. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 21(4), 2. DOI: 10.18564/jasss.3819Google Scholar
Paoletti, M. P., & Orilia, F. (eds.). (2017). Philosophical and scientific perspectives on downward causation. New York and Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Parry, R. (2020). Episteme and techne. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Autumn 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/episteme-techne/Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: the evolution of a construct. In Braun, H., Jackson, D. N., & Wiley, D. E. (eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pearl, J. (2018). Challenging the hegemony of randomized controlled trials: a commentary on Deaton and Cartwright. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 60–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.024Google Scholar
Pearl, J., & Mackenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: the new science of cause and effect. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pelletier, F. J. (ed.). (2009a). Kinds, things, and stuff: mass terms and generics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382891.001.0001Google Scholar
Pelletier, F. J. (2009b). Generics: a philosophical introduction. In Pelletier, F. J. (ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: mass terms and generics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382891.001.0001Google Scholar
Pereira, A. F., Smith, L. B., & Yu, C. (2014). A bottom-up view of toddler word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(1), 178–185. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0466-4Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1954/2013). The construction of reality in the child (vol. 82). Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1037/11168-000Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1976). Piaget’s theory. In Inhelder, B., Chipman, H. H., & Zwingmann, C. (eds.), Piaget and his school (pp. 11–23). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-46323-5Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1997). The principles of genetic epistemology (vol. 7). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Piccirillo, M. L., & Rodebaugh, T. L. (2019). Foundations of idiographic methods in psychology and applications for psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 71, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.01.002Google Scholar
Picione, R. D. L. (2015). The idiographic approach in psychological research. The challenge of overcoming old distinctions without risking to homogenize. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(3), 360–370. DOI: 10.1007/s12124-015-9307-5Google Scholar
Pike, H. (2019). It’s time to talk about ditching statistical significance. Nature, 567(7748), 283. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-00874-8Google Scholar
Pilgrim, D. (2019). Critical realism for psychologists. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429274497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plana-Ripoll, O., Pedersen, C. B., Holtz, Y., et al. (2019). Exploring comorbidity within mental disorders among a Danish national population. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(3), 259–270. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.3658Google Scholar
Plato, Cratylus. 401e and 402a. http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg005.perseus-eng1:402aGoogle Scholar
Ploeger, A., & Galis, F. (2011). Evolutionary approaches to autism: an overview and integration. McGill Journal of Medicine: MJM, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v13i2.231Google Scholar
Polani, D., Sporns, O., & Lungarella, M. (2006). How information and embodiment shape intelligent information processing. In 50 years of artificial intelligence: essays dedicated to the 50th anniversary of artificial intelligence. Proceedings of the 50th anniversary summit of artificial intelligence (pp. 9–14). Ascona, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77296-5Google Scholar
Pomagalska, D. (2005). The reification of self-esteem: grammatical investigations into scientific and popular texts. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Adelaide. https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/37812/10/02whole.pdfGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1990). A world of propensities: two new views on causality. Bristol: Thoemmes.Google Scholar
Potochnik, A., & De Sanches, O. G. (2020). Patterns in cognitive phenomena and pluralism of explanatory styles. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(4), 1306–1320. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12481Google Scholar
Pratten, S. (2013). Critical realism and the process account of emergence. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 43(3), 251–279. DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12017Google Scholar
Price, H., & Corry, R. (2007). Causation, physics, and the constitution of reality: Russell’s republic revisited. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1979). La nouvelle alliance: Métamorphose de la science. Paris: Gallimard/ English translation Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1997). The end of certainty. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Proulx, S. R., Promislow, D. E., & Phillips, P. C. (2005). Network thinking in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(6), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.004Google Scholar
Puga-Gonzalez, I., Hildenbrandt, H., & Hemelrijk, C. K. (2009). Emergent patterns of social affiliation in primates, a model. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(12), e1000630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000630Google Scholar
Quetelet, A. (1869). Physique sociale, ou essai sur le développement des facultés de l’homme (vol. 2). Bruxelles: C. Muquardt.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O., & Ullian, J. S. (1978). The web of belief (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Rabinovich, M. I., Friston, K. J., & Varona, P. (eds.). (2012). Principles of brain dynamics: global state interactions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Racine, E., Waldman, S., Rosenberg, J., & Illes, J. (2010). Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Social Science & Medicine, 71(4), 725–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.017Google Scholar
Rączaszek-Leonardi, J., Nomikou, I., Rohlfing, K. J., & Deacon, T. W. (2018). Language development from an ecological perspective: ecologically valid ways to abstract symbols. Ecological Psychology, 30(1), 39–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1410387Google Scholar
Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11401–11405. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115Google Scholar
Radder, H., & Meynen, G. (2013). Does the brain ‘initiate’ freely willed processes? A philosophy of science critique of Libet-type experiments and their interpretation. Theory & Psychology, 23(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354312460926Google Scholar
Raeff, C. (2010). Self constructing activities. Theory & Psychology, 20(1), 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309345646Google Scholar
Raeff, C. (2016). Exploring the dynamics of human development: an integrative approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199328413.001.0001Google Scholar
Raeff, C. (2019). From objects to acting: repopulating psychology with people who act. Theory & Psychology, 29(3), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354319844603Google Scholar
Ragin, C. C. (2009). Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ramos, R. T., Sassi, R. B., & Piqueira, J. R. C. (2011). Self-organized criticality and the predictability of human behavior. New Ideas in Psychology, 29(1), 38–48. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.12.001Google Scholar
Ramsden, S., Richardson, F. M., Josse, G., et al. (2011). Verbal and non-verbal intelligence changes in the teenage brain. Nature, 479(7371), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10514Google Scholar
Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the world: toward an ecological psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195073010.001.0001Google Scholar
Rennie, D. L. (2012). Qualitative research: a matter of hermeneutics and the sociology of knowledge. Using Qualitative Methods in Psychology, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452225487.n1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescher, N. (1996). Process metaphysics: an introduction to process philosophy. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. (2000). Process philosophy: a survey of basic issues. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Resnik, M. D. (2007). Quine and the web of belief. In Shapiro, S. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mathematics and logic (pp. 412–436). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195325928.001.0001Google Scholar
Reutlinger, A. (2013). The interventionist theory of causation. In A. Reutlinger (Ed.), A theory of causation in the social and biological sciences (pp. 25–70). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137281043Google Scholar
Reuzel, E., Embregts, P. J., Bosman, A. M., et al. (2013). Conversational synchronization in naturally occurring settings: a recurrence-based analysis of gaze directions and speech rhythms of staff and clients with intellectual disability. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37(4), 281–305. DOI: 10.1007/s10919-013-0158-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revelle, W., & Wilt, J. (2013). The general factor of personality: a general critique. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 493–504. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.012Google Scholar
Richardson, K. (2000). The making of intelligence. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, K. (2002). What IQ tests test. Theory & Psychology, 12(3), 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354302012003012Google Scholar
Richardson, K. (2017). Genes, brains, and human potential: the science and ideology of intelligence. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, M. J., Shockley, K., Fajen, B. R., Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2008). Ecological psychology: six principles for an embodied–embedded approach to behavior. In Calvo, P. & Gomila, T. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach (pp. 159–187). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. C. (2006). Explanation and causality in self-organizing systems. In Feltz, B., Crommelinck, M., & Goujon, P. (eds.), Self-organization and emergence in life sciences (pp. 315–340). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3917-4Google Scholar
Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2014.958035Google Scholar
Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. T. (2001). The self-organizing dynamics of intentions and actions. American Journal of Psychology, 114(1), 160–169. DOI:10.2307/1423388Google Scholar
Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tracy, J. L., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2002). Global self-esteem across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 17(3), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1037//0882-7974.17.3.423Google Scholar
Robinson, B. F., & Mervis, C. B. (1998). Disentangling early language development: modeling lexical and grammatical acquisition using and extension of case-study methodology. Developmental Psychology, 34(2), 363–375. DOI: 10.1037//0012-1649.34.2.363Google Scholar
Robinson, H. (2016). An argument for the existence of mental substance. In Robinson, H. (ed.), From the knowledge argument to mental substance: resurrecting the mind (pp. 233–247). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316092873.016Google Scholar
Robinson, H. (2020). Substance. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/substance/Google Scholar
Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15(3), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087176Google Scholar
Rohde, M. (2010). Enaction, embodiment, evolutionary robotics: simulation models for a post-cognitivist science of mind (vol. 1). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Romeijn, J.-W. (2017). Philosophy of statistics. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/statistics/Google Scholar
Roochnik, D. (2009). What is theoria? Nicomachean ethics book 10.7–8. Classical Philology, 104(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1086/603572Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, M. (1986). Self-concept from middle childhood through adolescence. In Suls, J. & Greenwald, A. G. (eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (vol. 3) (pp. 107–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosqvist, J., Thomas, J. C., & Truax, P. (2011). Effectiveness versus efficacy studies. In Thomas, J. C. & Hersen, M. (eds.), Understanding research in clinical and counseling psychology (pp. 319–354). Abingdon: Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Rouse, J. (1996). The dynamics of scientific knowing: understanding science without reifying knowledge. In Rouse, J. (ed.), Engaging science: how to understand its practices philosophically (pp. 179–204). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501718625Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1912–1913). On the notion of cause. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 13(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/aristotelian/13.1.1Google Scholar
Ruzich, E., Allison, C., Chakrabarti, B., et al. (2015). Sex and STEM occupation predict autism-spectrum quotient (AQ) scores in half a million people. PLoS One, 10(10), e0141229. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141229Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2003). Why we don’t need self-esteem: on fundamental needs, contingent love, and mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 71–76.Google Scholar
Sabat, S. R., Fath, H., Moghaddam, F. M., & Harré, R. (1999). The maintenance of self-esteem: lessons from the culture of Alzheimer’s sufferers. Culture and Psychology, 5(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X9951001Google Scholar
Salatino, A. A., Osborne, F., & Motta, E. (2017). How are topics born? Understanding the research dynamics preceding the emergence of new areas. PeerJ Computer Science, 3, e119. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.119Google Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1998). Causality and explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/0195108647.001.0001Google Scholar
Salvatore, S. (2020). How to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater: abduction is the solution to pseudo-empiricism. In Lindstad, T. G., Stänicke, E., & Valsiner, J. (eds.), Respect for thought (pp. 181–194). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43066-5Google Scholar
Salvatore, S., & Valsiner, J. (2010). Between the general and the unique: overcoming the nomothetic versus idiographic opposition. Theory & Psychology, 20(6), 817–833. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354310381156Google Scholar
Samuelson, L. K., Jenkins, G. W., & Spencer, J. P. (2015). Grounding cognitive-level processes in behavior: the view from dynamic systems theory. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7(2), 191–205. http://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12129Google Scholar
Samuelson, L. K., Kucker, S. C., & Spencer, J. P. (2017). Moving word learning to a novel space: a dynamic systems view of referent selection and retention. Cognitive Science, 41(suppl 1), 52–72. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12369Google Scholar
Samuelson, L. K., Schutte, A. R., & Horst, J. S. (2009). The dynamic nature of knowledge: insights from a dynamic field model of children’s novel noun generalization. Cognition, 110(3), 322–345. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.017Google Scholar
Santa Fe Institute (2021). Emergence. www.complexityexplorer.org/explore/glossary/414-emergenceGoogle Scholar
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Demo, D. H. (1983). Situational and transituational determinants of adolescent self-feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(4), 824–833. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.824Google Scholar
Sawyer, J. E., & Stetsenko, A. (2018). Revisiting Marx and problematizing Vygotsky: a transformative approach to language and speech internalization. Language Sciences, 70, 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2018.05.003Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2002). Emergence in psychology: lessons from the history of non-reductionist science. Human Development, 45(1), 2–28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000048148Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2004). The mechanisms of emergence. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 260–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393103262553Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2001). Causes as probability raisers of processes. Journal of Philosophy, 98(2), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2678483Google Scholar
Schaffhuser, K., Allemand, M., & Schwarz, B. (2017). The development of self-representations during the transition to early adolescence: the role of gender, puberty, and school transition. Journal of Early Adolescence, 37(6), 774–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431615624841Google Scholar
Scheff, T. (2015). Three scandals in psychology: the need for a new approach. Review of General Psychology, 19(2), 203–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000047Google Scholar
Scheff, T. J., & Fearon, D. S. (2004). Cognition and emotion? The dead end in self-esteem research. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 34(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.2004.00235.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schermuly-Haupt, M.-L., Linden, M., & Rush, A. J. (2018). Unwanted events and side effects in cognitive behavior therapy. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 42(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-018-9904-yGoogle Scholar
Schiepek, G. (2009). Complexity and nonlinear dynamics in psychotherapy. European Review, 17(2), 331–356. DOI: 10.1017/S1062798709000763Google Scholar
Schiepek, G., & Aichhorn, W. (2013). Real-time monitoring of psychotherapeutic change processes. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, medizinische Psychologie, 63(1), 39–47.Google Scholar
Schiepek, G., Aichhorn, W., Gruber, M., et al. (2016). Real-time monitoring of psychotherapeutic processes: concept and compliance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 604. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00604Google Scholar
Schiepek, G., Aichhorn, W., & Schöller, H. (2017). Monitoring change dynamics: a nonlinear approach to psychotherapy feedback. Chaos and Complexity Letters, 11(3), 355–375.Google Scholar
Schiepek, G., Gelo, O., Viol, K., et al. (2020). Complex individual pathways or standard tracks? A data‐based discussion on the trajectories of change in psychotherapy. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 20(4), 689–702. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12300Google Scholar
Schiepek, G., & Perlitz, V. (2020). Self-organization in clinical psychology. In Hutt, A. & Haken, H. (eds.), Synergetics: a volume in the encyclopedia of complexity and systems science (2nd ed., pp. 263–285). New York: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0421-2Google Scholar
Schiepek, G., Schöller, H., Carl, R., Aichhorn, W., & Lichtwarck-Aschoff, A. (2019a). A nonlinear dynamic systems approach to psychological interventions. In Kunnen, E. S., De Ruiter, N. M., Jeronimus, B. F., & Van der Gaag, M. A. (eds.), Psychosocial development in adolescence: insights from the dynamic systems approach (pp. 51–68). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schiepek, G., Stöger‐Schmidinger, B., Kronberger, H., et al. (2019b). The therapy process questionnaire‐factor analysis and psychometric properties of a multidimensional self‐rating scale for high‐frequency monitoring of psychotherapeutic processes. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 26(5), 586–602. DOI: 10.1002/cpp.2384Google Scholar
Schiff, B. (2017). A new narrative for psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199332182.001.0001Google Scholar
Schiraldi, G. R. (2001). The self-esteem workbook. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, M., & Parisi, D. (2001). The agent-based approach: a new direction for computational models of development. Developmental Review, 21(1), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.2000.0520Google Scholar
Schlicht, T., & Starzak, T. (2019). Prospects of enactivist approaches to intentionality and cognition. Synthese, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02361-zGoogle Scholar
Schmittmann, V. D., Cramer, A. O., Waldorp, L. J., et al. (2013). Deconstructing the construct: a network perspective on psychological phenomena. New Ideas in Psychology, 31(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.02.007Google Scholar
Schneegans, S., & Schöner, G. (2008). Dynamic field theory as a framework for understanding embodied cognition. In Calvo, P. & Gomila, T. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: an embodied approach (pp. 241–271). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schöner, G., & Spencer, J. P. (2016). Dynamic thinking: a primer on dynamic field theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199300563.001.0001Google Scholar
Schraube, E. (2015). Why theory matters: analytical strategies of critical psychology. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 32, 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-166X2015000300018Google Scholar
Schuhmacher, N., Ballato, L., & Van Geert, P. (2014). Using an agent-based model to simulate the development of risk behaviors during adolescence. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 17(3), 1. DOI: 10.18564/jasss.2485Google Scholar
Seibt, J. (1997). Existence in time: from substance to process. In Faye, J., Scheffler, U., & Urchs, M. (eds.), Perspectives on time (pp. 143–182). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8875-1Google Scholar
Seibt, J. (2002). ‘Quanta,’ tropes, or processes: ontologies for QFT beyond the myth. In Kuhlmann, M., Lyre, H., & Wayne, A. (eds.), Ontological aspects of quantum field theory (pp. 53–98). Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Seibt, J. (2004). Free process theory: towards a typology of occurrings. Axiomathes, 14(1), 23–55. DOI: 10.1023/B:AXIO.0000006787.28366.d7Google Scholar
Seibt, J. (2018). Ontological tools for the process turn in biology. In Nicholson, D. J. & Dupré, J. (eds.), Everything flows: towards a processual philosophy of biology (pp. 113–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198779636.001.0001Google Scholar
Seibt, J. (2020). Process philosophy. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/process-philosophy/Google Scholar
Sekścińska, K., Jaworska, D., & Rudzinska-Wojciechowska, J. (2021). Self-esteem and financial risk-taking. Personality and Individual Differences, 172, 110576 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110576Google Scholar
Shaw, R., & Bransford, J. (eds.). (2017). Perceiving, acting and knowing: toward an ecological psychology (vol. 27). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shen, C. C., Hu, L. Y., & Hu, Y. H. (2017). Comorbidity study of borderline personality disorder: applying association rule mining to the Taiwan national health insurance research database. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 17(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0405-1Google Scholar
Shen, M. D., Li, D. D., Keown, C. L., et al. (2016). Functional connectivity of the amygdala is disrupted in preschool-aged children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(9), 817–824. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.05.020Google Scholar
Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (1996). Emerging minds: the process of change in children’s thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silberstein, M., & Chemero, A. (2011). Dynamics, agency and intentional action. Humana Mente, 4(15), 1–19.Google Scholar
Siler, W., & Buckley, J. J. (2005). Fuzzy expert systems and fuzzy reasoning (pp. 29–54). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI:10.1002/0471698504Google Scholar
Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 13(2), 238–241. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2984065Google Scholar
Simpson, T., Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., & Stich, S. (2005). Introduction: nativism past and present. In Carruthers, P., Laurence, S., & Stich, S. (eds.), The innate mind: structure and contents (pp. 3–19). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195179675.001.0001Google Scholar
Sloman, S. (2005). Causal models: how people think about the world and its alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183115.001.0001Google Scholar
Smit, H., & Hacker, P. (2014). Seven misconceptions about the mereological fallacy: a compilation for the perplexed. Erkenntnis, 79(5), 1077–1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9594-5Google Scholar
Smith, B. (1997). On substances, accidents and universals: in defence of a constituent ontology, Philosophical Papers, 26(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/05568649709506558Google Scholar
Smith, B. (2003). Objects and their environments: from Aristotle to ecological ontology. In Cheylan, J. P., Frank, A., & Raper, J. (eds.), Life and motion of socio-economic units: GISDATA volume 8. CRC Press.Google Scholar
Smith, E. R., & Conrey, F. R. (2007). Agent-based modeling: A new approach for theory building in social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294789Google Scholar
Smith, G. T., Atkinson, E. A., Davis, H. A., Riley, E. N., & Oltmanns, J. R. (2020). The general factor of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 75–98. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-071119-115848Google Scholar
Smith, L. B. (1999). Do infants possess innate knowledge structures? The con side. Developmental Science, 2(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00062Google Scholar
Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., Landau, B., Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Samuelson, L. (2002). Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention. Psychological Science, 13(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00403Google Scholar
Smith, L. B., Thelen, E., Titzer, R., & McLin, D. (1999). Knowing in the context of acting: the task dynamics of the A-not-B error. Psychological Review, 106(2), 235–260. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.106.2.235Google Scholar
Smits, M. L., Feenstra, D. J., Bales, D. L., et al. (2017). Subtypes of borderline personality disorder patients: a cluster-analytic approach. Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-017-0066-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sorensen, R. (2018). Vagueness. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/vagueness/Google Scholar
Sparkes, A. C. (2007). Embodiment, academics, and the audit culture: a story seeking consideration. Qualitative Research, 7(4), 521–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107082306Google Scholar
Spencer, J. P. (2017). Models at play: using dynamic field theory to understand looking and learning in dyadic interactions. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings, 1(3), 181. https://doi.org/10.3390/IS4SI-2017-04100Google Scholar
Spirtes, P., Glymour, C. N., Scheines, R., & Heckerman, D. (2000). Causation, prediction, and search. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spirtes, P., & Scheines, R. (2004). Causal inference of ambiguous manipulations. Philosophy of Science, 71(5), 833–845. DOI:10.1086/425058Google Scholar
Spivey, M. (2008). The continuity of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195170788.001.0001Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J. (2013). The emergence of intentionality. Ecological Psychology, 25(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2013.810475Google Scholar
Sripada, C., Kessler, D., & Jonides, J. (2016). Sifting signal from noise with replication science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 576–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616652875Google Scholar
Stamovlasis, D., & Tsaparlis, G. (2012). Applying catastrophe theory to an information‐processing model of problem solving in science education. Science Education, 96(3), 392–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21002Google Scholar
Stasiulis, N. (2019). The transformation of modern causality in Heidegger’s thought. Filosofija. Sociologija, 30(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.6001/fil-soc.v30i1.3913Google Scholar
Stedman, J. M., Kostelecky, M., Spalding, T. L., & Gagné, C. (2016). Scientific realism, psychological realism, and Aristotelian-thomistic realism. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 37(3–4), 199–218. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44631770Google Scholar
Steel, D. (2008). Across the boundaries: extrapolation in biology and social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331448.001.0001Google Scholar
Steel, D. (2010). Cartwright on causality: methods, metaphysics and modularity-hunting causes and using them. Approaches in philosophy and economics, Nancy Cartwright. Cambridge University Press, 2008, x + 270 pages. Economics & Philosophy, 26(1), 77–86. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:26:y:2010:i:01:p:77-86_00Google Scholar
Steele, J. S., & Ferrer, E. (2011). Latent differential equation modeling of self-regulatory and coregulatory affective processes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(6), 956–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.625305Google Scholar
Steenbeek, H. W., & Van Geert, P. L. (2007). A theory and dynamic model of dyadic interaction: concerns, appraisals, and contagiousness in a developmental context. Developmental Review, 27(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.06.002Google Scholar
Steenbeek, H., & Van Geert, P. (2008). An empirical validation of a dynamic systems model of interaction: do children of different sociometric statuses differ in their dyadic play? Developmental Science, 11(2), 253–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00655.xGoogle Scholar
Steenbeek, H., & Van Geert, P. (2013). The emergence of learning-teaching trajectories in education: a complex dynamic systems approach. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, 17(2), 233–267.Google Scholar
Steenbeek, H., Van der Aalsvoort, D., & Van Geert, P. (2014). Collaborative play in young children as a complex dynamic system: revealing gender related differences. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, 18(3), 251–276.Google Scholar
Steenbeek, H., & Van Geert, P. (2007). A dynamic systems approach to dyadic interaction in children: emotional expression, action, dyadic play, and sociometric status. Developmental Review, 27(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405620544000020Google Scholar
Stengers, I. (2015). In catastrophic times: resisting the coming barbarism. London: Open Humanities Press. http://openhumanitiespress.org/books/download/Stengers_2015_In-Catastrophic-Times.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). A broad view of intelligence: the theory of successful intelligence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55(3), 139. https://doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.55.3.139Google Scholar
Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680. https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n292Google Scholar
Stokoe, E., Hepburn, A., & Antaki, C. (2012). Beware the ‘Loughborough School’ of social psychology? Interaction and the politics of intervention. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 486–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02088.xGoogle Scholar
Strandell, J. (2017). Self-esteem in action: from direct causality to motive and mediator of self-performative action. Culture and Psychology, 23(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X16650835Google Scholar
Strle, T. (2018). Looping minds: how cognitive science exerts influence on its findings. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: INDECS, 16(4), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.7906/indecs.16.4.2Google Scholar
Sturm, T., & Mülberger, A. (2012). Crisis discussions in psychology—new historical and philosophical perspectives. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(2), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.001Google Scholar
Sugarman, J., & Martin, J. (2020). A humanities approach to the psychology of personhood. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429323416Google Scholar
Swenson, R., & Turvey, M. T. (1991). Thermodynamic reasons for perception–action cycles. Ecological Psychology, 3(4), 317–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0304_2Google Scholar
Tafarodi, R. W., & Ho, C. (2006). Implicit and explicit self-esteem: what are we measuring? Canadian Psychology, 47(3), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/cp2006009Google Scholar
Talbott, W. (2016). Bayesian epistemology. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/epistemology-bayesian/Google Scholar
Te Molder, H. (2015). Discursive psychology. In Tracy, K., Ilie, C., & Sandel, T. (eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction (1st ed., pp. 257–273). New York: Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429356032-4Google Scholar
Tellings, A. (2020). Diagnosis pressure and false positives: toward a non-reductionist, polytomic approach of child mental problems. Philosophical Psychology, 33(1), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2019.1698021Google Scholar
Teo, T. (1998). Klaus Holzkamp and the rise and decline of German critical psychology. History of Psychology, 1(3), 235. https://doi.org/10.1037/1093-4510.1.3.235Google Scholar
Teo, T. (2017). From psychological science to the psychological humanities: building a general theory of subjectivity. Review of General Psychology, 21(4), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000132Google Scholar
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thom, R. (1989). Structural stability and morphogenesis: an outline of a general theory of models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. https://doi.org/10.2307/2065330Google Scholar
Tillas, A., Vosgerau, G., Seuchter, T., & Caiani, S. Z. (2017). Can affordances explain behavior? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8(2), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-016-0310-7Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20(4), 410–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1963.tb01161.xGoogle Scholar
Tognoli, E., & Kelso, J. S. (2014). The metastable brain. Neuron, 81(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.12.022Google Scholar
Tognoli, E., Zhang, M., Fuchs, A., Beetle, C., & Kelso, J. S. (2020). Coordination dynamics: a foundation for understanding social behavior. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00317Google Scholar
Tonello, L., Giacobbi, L., Pettenon, A., et al. (2018). Crisis behavior in autism spectrum disorders: a self-organized criticality approach. Complexity, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5128157Google Scholar
Tracy, J., Robins, R., & Sherman, J. (2012). The practice of psychological science in social personality research: are we still a science of two disciplines? In Proctor, R. W. & Capaldi, E. J. (eds.), Psychology of science: implicit and explicit processes. Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753628.003.0014Google Scholar
Trendler, G. (2019). Conjoint measurement undone. Theory & Psychology, 29(1), 100–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318788729Google Scholar
Trull, T. J., & Durrett, C. A. (2005). Categorical and dimensional models of personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 355–380. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144009Google Scholar
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2003). Stability of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.205Google Scholar
Trzesniewski, K. H., Donnellan, M. B., & Robins, R. W. (2016). Stability of self-esteem across the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.205Google Scholar
Tschacher, W., Dauwalder, J. P., & Haken, H. (2003). Self-organizing systems show apparent intentionality. In Tschacher, W. & Dauwalder, J. P. (eds.), The dynamical systems approach to cognition: concepts and empirical paradigms based on self-organization, embodiment, and coordination dynamics (vol. 10, pp. 183–199). Singapore: World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/5395Google Scholar
Tschacher, W., & Haken, H. (2007). Intentionality in non-equilibrium systems? The functional aspects of self-organized pattern formation. New Ideas in Psychology, 25(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.09.002Google Scholar
Tschacher, W., & Haken, H. (2019). The process of psychotherapy: causation and chance. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12748-0Google Scholar
Tschacher, W., & Haken, H. (2020). Causation and chance: detection of deterministic and stochastic ingredients in psychotherapy processes. Psychotherapy Research, 30(8), 1075–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2019.1685139Google Scholar
Tschacher, W., Schiepek, G., & Brunner, E. J. (eds.). (2012). Self-organization and clinical psychology: empirical approaches to synergetics in psychology (vol. 58). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77534-5Google Scholar
Turvey, M. T. (2004). Impredicativity, dynamics, and the perception-action divide. In Jirsa, V. K. & Kelso, J. S. (eds.), Coordination dynamics: issues and trends (pp. 1–20). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39676-5Google Scholar
Turvey, M. T., & Carello, C. (1981). Cognition: the view from ecological realism. Cognition, (10), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90063-9Google Scholar
Valentine, K. (2010). A consideration of medicalisation: choice, engagement and other responsibilities of parents of children with autism spectrum disorder. Social Science & Medicine, 71(5), 950–957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.010Google Scholar
Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (1997). The emergence of dynamical social psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0802_1Google Scholar
Valsiner, J. (2007). Culture in minds and societies: foundations of cultural psychology. London: SAGE Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9788132108504Google Scholar
Valsiner, J. (2019). Generalization in science: abstracting from unique events. In Højholt, C. & Schraube, E. (eds.), Subjectivity and knowledge: generalization in the psychological study of everyday life (pp. 79–97). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29977-4Google Scholar
Van de Leemput, I. A., Wichers, M., Cramer, A. O., et al. (2014). Critical slowing down as early warning for the onset and termination of depression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(1), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312114110Google Scholar
Van der Gaag, M. A., & Van den Berg, P. (2017). Modeling the individual process of career choice. In Jager, W., Verbrugge, R., Flache, A., De Roo, G., Hoogduin, L., & Hemelrijk, C. (eds.), Advances in social simulation (vol. 528, pp. 435–444). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47253-9Google Scholar
Van der Gaag, M. A., van den Berg, P., Kunnen, E. S., & Van Geert, P. L. (2020). A simulation model shows how individual differences affect major life decisions. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0446-zGoogle Scholar
Van der Maas, H. L. J., Kolstein, R., & Van der Pligt, J. (2003). Sudden transitions in attitudes. Sociological Methods & Research, 32, 125–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124103253773Google Scholar
Van der Maas, H. L. J., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (1992). Stagewise cognitive development: an application of catastrophe theory. Psychological Review, 99, 395–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.395Google Scholar
Van der Maas, H. L., Dolan, C. V., Grasman, R. P., et al. (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: the positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review, 113(4), 842. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.842Google Scholar
Van der Maas, H. L., Kan, K. J., & Borsboom, D. (2014). Intelligence is what the intelligence test measures, seriously. Journal of Intelligence, 2(1), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence2010012Google Scholar
Van der Maas, H. L., Kan, K. J., Marsman, M., & Stevenson, C. E. (2017). Network models for cognitive development and intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 5(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5020016Google Scholar
Van der Sluis, J. K., Van der Steen, S., Stulp, G., & Den Hartigh, R. J. R. (2019). Visualizing individual dynamics: the case of a talented adolescent. In Kunnen, E. S., De Ruiter, N. N. P., Jeronimus, B. F., & Van der Gaag, M. A. E. (eds.), Psychosocial development in adolescence: insights from the dynamic systems approach (pp. 209–222). (Studies in Adolescent Development). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van der Steen, S., Steenbeek, H., Van Dijk, M., & Van Geert, P. (2014). A process approach to children’s understanding of scientific concepts: a longitudinal case study. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.004Google Scholar
Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding vygotsky: a quest for synthesis. Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Van Heugten-Van Der Kloet, V., & Van Heugten, T. (2015). The classification of psychiatric disorders according to DSM-5 deserves an internationally standardized psychological test battery on symptom level. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1108.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, M., & Van Geert, P. (2005). Disentangling behavior in early child development: interpretability of early child language and its effect on utterance length measures. Infant Behavior and Development, 28, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2004.12.003Google Scholar
Van Dijk, M., & Van Geert, P. (2007). Wobbles, humps and sudden jumps: a case study of continuity, discontinuity and variability in early language development. Infant and Child Development, 16(1), 7–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.506Google Scholar
Van Dijk, M., & Van Geert, P. (2011). Heuristic techniques for the analysis of variability as a dynamic aspect of change. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 34(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1174/021037011795377557Google Scholar
Van Dijk, M., & Van Geert, P. (2014). The nature and meaning of intraindividual variability in development in the early life span. In Diehl, M., Hooker, K., & Sliwinski, M. J. (eds.), Handbook of intraindividual variability across the life span (pp. 57–78). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, M., Hunnius, S., & Van Geert, P. (2009). Variability in eating behavior throughout the weaning period. Appetite, 52(3), 766–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2009.02.001Google Scholar
Van Dijk, M., Hunnius, S., & Van Geert, P. (2012). The dynamics of feeding during the introduction to solid food. Infant Behavior and Development, 35(2), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2012.01.001Google Scholar
Van Dijk, M., Van Geert, P., Korecky‐Kröll, K., et al. (2013). Dynamic adaptation in child–adult language interaction. Language Learning, 63(2), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12002Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. C. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198244274.001.0001Google Scholar
Van Geert, P., & Van Dijk, M. (2002). Focus on variability: new tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior & Development, 25, 340–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00140-6Google Scholar
Van Geert, P. (1991). A dynamic systems model of cognitive and language growth. Psychological Review, 98, 3–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.1.3Google Scholar
Van Geert, P. (1994). Dynamic systems of development. Change between complexity and chaos. London and New York: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Van Geert, P. (1998). A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky and beyond. Psychological Review, 105(4), 634–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.105.4.634-677Google Scholar
Van Geert, P. (2000). The dynamics of general developmental mechanisms: from Piaget and Vygotsky to dynamic systems models. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(2), 64–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00062Google Scholar
Van Geert, P. (2002). Developmental dynamics, intentional action, and fuzzy sets. In Granott, N. & Parziale, J. (eds.), Microdevelopment: transition processes in development and learning (pp. 319–343). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489709Google Scholar
Van Geert, P. (2008). Nonlinear-complex-dynamic-systems in developmental psychology. In Guastello, S., Koopmans, M., & Pincus, D. (eds.), Chaos and complexity in psychology: the theory of nonlinear dynamical systems (pp. 242–281). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Geert, P. (2011). The contribution of complex dynamic systems to development. Child Development Perspectives, 5(4), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00197.xGoogle Scholar
van Geert, P. (2014a). Dynamic modeling for development and education: from concepts to numbers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 8(2), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12046Google Scholar
Van Geert, P. (2014b). Group versus individual data in a dynamic systems approach to development. Enfance, 3(3), 283–312. https://doi.org/10.4074/s0013754514003061Google Scholar
Van Geert, P. (2019). Dynamic systems, process and development. Human Development, 63(3–4), 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503825Google Scholar
Van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2004). A model of behavior modification: the suppression of undesirable behavior. www.paulvangeert.nl/dynamic%20growth%20models/Model%20of%20behavior%20modification.docGoogle Scholar
Van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2005a). Explaining after by before: basic aspects of a dynamic systems approach to the study of development. Developmental Review, 25(3–4), 408–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.10.003Google Scholar
Van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2005b). The dynamics of scaffolding. New Ideas in Psychology, 23(3), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.05.003Google Scholar
Van Geert, P., & Van Dijk, M. (2003). Ambiguity in child language: the problem of interobserver reliability in ambiguous observation data. First Language, 23(3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/01427237030233001Google Scholar
Van Geert, P., & Fischer, K. W. (2009). Dynamic systems and the quest for individual-based models of change and development. In Spencer, J. P., Thomas, M. S. C., & McClelland, J. (eds.), Toward a new grand theory of development? Connectionism and dynamic systems theory reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195300598.001.0001Google Scholar
Van Orden, G. C., & Holden, J. G. (2002). Intentional contents and self-control. Ecological Psychology, 14(1–2), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326969ECO1401&2double_5Google Scholar
Van Orden, G. C., Kloos, H., & Wallot, S. (2009). Living in the pink: intentionality, wellbeing, and complexity. In Hooker, C. (ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science, vol. 10: philosophy of complex systems (pp. 639–683). Amsterdam: Elsevier BV.Google Scholar
Van Orden, G. C., Holden, J. G., & Turvey, M. T. (2003). Self-organization of cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132(3), 331–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.3.331Google Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2016). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience (Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.29173/cmplct8718Google Scholar
Vogel, J. (1998). Inference to the best explanation. Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-P025-1Google Scholar
Volkmar, F. R., Reichow, B., & McPartland, J. (2012). Classification of autism and related conditions: Ppogress, challenges, and opportunities. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 14(3), 229. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2012.14.3/fvolkmarGoogle Scholar
Von Wachter, D. (2009). The tendency theory of causation. www.generativescience.org/papers/nature/Wachter-_2009-1-31.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vostal, F. (2016). Accelerating academia: the changing structure of academic time. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137473608Google Scholar
Vostal, F., Benda, L., & Virtová, T. (2019). Against reductionism: on the complexity of scientific temporality. Time & Society, 28(2), 783–803. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X17752281Google Scholar
VSNU, NFU, KNAW, NWO, and ZonMw (2019). Room for everyone’s talent: toward a new balance in the recognition and rewards of academics. The Hague. www.nwo.nl/en/position-paper-room-everyones-talentGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The historical meaning of the crisis of psychology. InRieber, R. W. & Wollock, J. (eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: problems of the theory and history of psychology (vol. 3, pp. 233–344). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes. London: Allen & Unwin. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5893-4Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E. J., Van der Maas, H. L. J., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2005). Fitting the cusp catastrophe model. In Everitt, B. & Howel, D. (eds.), Encyclopedia of behavioral statistics (vol. 1, pp. 234–249). New York: Wiley. DOI: 10.1002/0470013192Google Scholar
Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., Van der Maas, H. L., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463078Google Scholar
Wagner, A. (1999). Causality in complex systems. Biology and Philosophy, 14(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006580900476Google Scholar
Wagner, C. H. (1982). Simpson’s paradox in real life. The American Statistician, 36(1), 46–48.Google Scholar
Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2016). Self-esteem is mostly stable across young adulthood: evidence from Latent STARTS models. Journal of Personality, 84(4), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12178Google Scholar
Wallot, S., & Kelty-Stephen, D. G. (2018). Interaction-dominant causation in mind and brain, and its implication for questions of generalization and replication. Minds and Machines, 28, 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9455-0Google Scholar
Walpole, M. (2003). Socioeconomic status and college: how SES affects college experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 45–73. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2003.0044Google Scholar
Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: the evidence for what makes psychotherapy work. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wasserstein, R., & Lazar, N. A. (2016). The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2), 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108Google Scholar
Weisstein, E. W. (2020). Dynamical system. From MathWorld – A Wolfram Web Resource. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/DynamicalSystem.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A sociocultural approach to socially shared cognition. In Resnik, L. B., Levine, J. M., & Teasley, S. D. (eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85–100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10096-004Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (2010). Vygotsky and recent developments. In Peterson, P., Baker, E., & McGaw, B. (eds.), International encyclopedia of education (3rd ed., pp. 231–236), New York: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00490-5Google Scholar
Westen, D. (2012). Prototype diagnosis of psychiatric syndromes. World Psychiatry, 11(1), 16–21. doi: 10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.01.004Google Scholar
Westen, D., Shedler, J., & Bradley, R. (2006). A prototype approach to personality disorder diagnosis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(5), 846–856. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.163.5.846Google Scholar
Whitehead, A. N. (1929). Process and reality: an essay in cosmology. New York: Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Wichers, M., Groot, P. C., Psychosystems, E. S. M., & EWS Group. (2016). Critical slowing down as a personalized early warning signal for depression. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 85(2), 114–116. https://doi.org/10.1159/000441458Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. (2016). Discursive psychology: theory, method and applications. London: SAGE Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473983335Google Scholar
Wiggins, S., & Potter, J. (2008). Discursive psychology. In Carla, W. & Wendy, S.-R. (eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 73–90). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607927Google Scholar
Wilkinson, S. (1986). Feminist social psychology: developing theory and practice. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Willems, J. C. (2007). The behavioral approach to open and interconnected systems. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 27(6), 46–99. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCS.2007.906923Google Scholar
Williamson, J. (2009). Probabilistic theories of causality. In Beebee, H., Hitchcock, C., & Menzies, P. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of causation (pp. 185–212). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199279739.001.0001Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (2021). Determinables and determinates. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/determinate-determinables/.Google Scholar
Winters, A. M. (2017). Natural processes: understanding metaphysics without substance. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67570-1Google Scholar
Withagen, R., Araújo, D., & De Poel, H. J. (2017). Inviting affordances and agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 45, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2016.12.002Google Scholar
Withagen, R., De Poel, H. J., Araújo, D., & Pepping, G. J. (2012). Affordances can invite behavior: reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2011.12.003Google Scholar
Witherington, D. C. (2011). Taking emergence seriously: the centrality of circular causality for dynamic systems approaches to development. Human Development, 54(2), 66–92. https://doi.org/10.1159/000326814Google Scholar
Witherington, D. C., & Heying, S. (2015). The study of process and the nature of explanation in developmental science. Review of General Psychology, 19, 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witherington, D. C., Overton, W. F., Lickliter, R., Marshall, P. J., & Narvaez, D. (2018). Metatheory and the primacy of conceptual analysis in developmental science. Human Development, 61(3), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1159/000490160Google Scholar
Witkiewitz, K., Van der Maas, H. L., Hufford, M. R., & Marlatt, G. A. (2007). Nonnormality and divergence in posttreatment alcohol use: reexamining the Project MATCH data ‘another way’. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(2), 378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.2.378Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (2006). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell (originally published in 1953).Google Scholar
Wolf, M., & Weissing, F. J. (2012). Animal personalities: consequences for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(8), 452–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.05.001Google Scholar
Wong, A. E., Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2014). Fractal dynamics in self-evaluation reveal self-concept clarity. Nonlinear Dynamics Psychology and Life Sciences, 18(4), 349–369.Google Scholar
Wong, A. E., Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (2016). Intrinsic dynamics of state self-esteem: the role of self-concept clarity. Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.024Google Scholar
Woods, W. C., Arizmendi, C., Gates, K. M., et al. (2020). Personalized models of psychopathology as contextualized dynamic processes: an example from individuals with borderline personality disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 88(3), 240. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000472Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2005). Making things happen: a theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195155270.001.0001Google Scholar
Woodward, J. (2016). Causation and manipulability. In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/causation-mani/Google Scholar
Wurzman, R., & Giordano, J. (2009). Explanation, explanandum, causality and complexity: a consideration of mind, matter, neuroscience, and physics. NeuroQuantology, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.14704/nq.2009.7.3.239Google Scholar
Xu, T. L., De Barbaro, K., Abney, D. H., & Cox, R. F. (2020). Finding structure in time: visualizing and analyzing behavioral time series. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01457Google Scholar
Ylikoski, P. (2013). Causal and constitutive explanation compared. Erkenntnis, 78(2), 277–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9513-9Google Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. (1975). Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning. Synthese, 30, 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485052Google Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. (1978). Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 100(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(99)80004-9Google Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. (2006). Generalized theory of uncertainty (GTU) – principal concepts and ideas. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51, 15–46. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230305687_6Google Scholar
Zahnoun, F. (2020). Explaining the reified notion of representation from a linguistic perspective. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 19(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-018-9603-xGoogle Scholar
Zeigler-Hill, V. (2011). The connections between self-esteem and psychopathology. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 41(3), 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-010-9167-8Google Scholar
Zeigler-Hill, V. (2013). The importance of self-esteem. In Zeigler-Hill, V. (ed.), Self-esteem (pp. 1–20). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203587874Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Etz, A., Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2018). Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 41, E120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17001972Google Scholar