Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich.
mehr Informationen...
Disseminating Intention: How a Term Has Spread Within Cross-Species Comparative Science
Ist Teil von
Journal of comparative psychology (1983), 2020-02, Vol.134 (1), p.11-26
Ort / Verlag
United States: American Psychological Association
Erscheinungsjahr
2020
Link zum Volltext
Quelle
PsycArticles (EBSCO)
Beschreibungen/Notizen
The current study takes a holistic view of cross-species comparative research and investigates the dissemination of the term intention as representative of the so-called "cognitive revolution." All references from 641 articles, published from 1948 to 2017, are used to analyze a citation network. The analysis visualizes and identifies prominent articles in the scientific debate and locates them structurally on a map. Each article is categorized in terms of the school of thought, its position within the discourse (e.g., opposing, supporting), the order of intentionality (e.g., 1st or 2nd order), and the species under consideration. By using a mixed-methods approach, which combines qualitative and quantitative methods, we identified 2 divergent schools of thought (psychological/philosophical and biological/behavioristic). Both schools introduced intention mostly independently from each other and show little overlap in citation habits. Both notions of intention have influenced comparative science until today. However, although the term finds limited application in various schools, only in connection with more cognitive approaches has it enjoyed a successful career, as indicated by the increasing number of articles in which it is used. Most controversy does not surround the concept of intention itself but its order. Furthermore, taking account of which species are investigated could reveal a pronounced primate bias in past discourse. Articles on nonprimate species using the term intention in the cognitive sense are markedly outnumbered by those on primates. The study reminds comparative psychologists of the importance to integrate a historical perspective into current debates, to avoid "speciesism" and talking past each other.