Katarzyna Stemplewska-Żakowicz, Bartosz Zalewski, Hubert Suszek, Dorota Kobylińska and Bartosz Szymczyk
The paper proposes the model of discursive mind and describes the cognitive architecture of the dialogically structured mind. The model draws on Hermans’ (1999) theory of the dialogical self (DS) and Wertsch’s (1991) vision of mind as a “tool kit” with socio-cultural instruments, and also on the socio-cognitive approach to personality in experimental psychology. An I-position is understood here as an active totality of experience, shaped in a particular social context and represented in a separate representation module. Th ere are many modules in the mind because in the course of socialization, the individual comes across many different social contexts. Th e described model and its preliminary empirical verification not only gives support to the DS theory, but can also be a leverage of its contribution to general theories of mind stemming from other theoretical traditions
.E. Rumelhart, J.L. McClelland, & The PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition. Vol. 2 (pp. 216-271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Say, T. & Clahsen, H. (2002). Words, rules and stems in the Italian mental lexicon. In S. Nooteboom, F. Weerman & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Storage and Computation in the Language Faculty (pp. 93-129). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Spiro, S. (1895). An Arabic English Vocabulary of the Colloquial Arabic of Egypt . London: Bernard Quaritch.
self in relationships. In C.A. Nelson (Ed.), Memory and Affect in Development: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology. Vol. 26 (pp. 237-264). New York: Guilford Press.
Bretherton, I. & Munholland, K.A. (2008). Internal working models in attachment relationships: Elaborating a central construct in attachment theory. In J. Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications (pp. 102-127). New York: Guilford Press.
Bretherton, I. & Oppenheim, D. (2003). The MacArthur Story Stem Battery
This text is devoted to a discussion of current achievements in the psychology of creativity, as well as to the further development of the field. It is concerned with a criticism of former and current theses in the field of the psychology of creativity discussed by Glăveanu (2014). The arguments presented indicate that, despite Glăveanu’s (2014) proposition, the psychology of creativity is not in crisis. It is pointed out that the difference in views between supporters of the social psychology approach to creativity and psychology researchers oriented towards the study of creative potential on how to conduct creativity research, stems from a concentration on different levels of creativity, and not necessarily from an ineffective theory of creativity. As a consequence of these different perceptions of creativity at its particular levels, determining the prime standard of creative potential is not sufficient to understand the social conditioning of creative activity and the social assessment of creativity, and vice versa.
, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation: A role congruity account. In J.Y. Shah & W.L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434-447). New York: Guilford.
Eagly, A., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from distributions of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 735-754.
Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years