Historische Zeitschrift, 79, Beiheft (Popularisierungen von Geschlechterwissen seit der Vormoderne, Muriel González Athenas und Falko Schnicke), 2020
... veröffentlichten die Psychologin Marla Anderson und der Psychologe Mel Rutherford eine Studie... more ... veröffentlichten die Psychologin Marla Anderson und der Psychologe Mel Rutherford eine Studie im Journal "Evolution and Human Behavior". 1 In dem Arti-kel beabsichtigen sie, einen Nachweis dafür zu liefern‚ dass auch in der mensch-lichen Schwangerschaft eine Art "Nestbautrieb" existiere, den sie, ihrem disziplinä-ren Hintergrund gemäß, als "nesting psychology" bezeichneten. Hierzu führten sie eine quantitative Erhebung an kanadischen Frauen durch und konstruierten ein "Nesting Questionnaire", einen Nestbau-Fragebogen, den sie von einer Stichprobe an schwangeren und nicht-schwangeren Frauen ausfüllen ließen. Eigenschaften, de-ren Ausprägungen sich in der Gruppe der Schwangeren signifikant von der anderen Gruppe unterschieden, erklärten die Forscherinnen in ihrem Artikel zum Nestbau-verhalten in der Schwangerschaft. Dieses führten sie auf eine evolutionspsycholo-gische Adaption zurück, die mutmaßlich hormonell vermittelt sei. Anderson und Rutherford betrachteten es als sicheres Indiz für die natürliche Existenz eines Nest-bautriebes in der Schwangerschaft, dass das Wissen dazu in populären Diskursen bereits längst verbreitet, das Thema in der Forschung hingegen bislang sträflich ver-nachlässigt worden sei. Und tatsächlich handelt es sich bei ihrer empirischen Untersuchung um die erste wissenschaftliche Studie zu diesem Phänomen, während der Begriff im Bereich der Ratgeberliteratur und in populären Medien sehr viel stärker verbreitet ist. Heute kommt kaum ein Schwangerschaftsratgeber mehr ohne den Hinweis auf einen "Nestbautrieb" 2 , einen "Nestbauinstinkt" 3 oder, in englischer Sprache, einen "nest-1 Marla V. Anderson/Mel D. Rutherford, Evidence of a Nesting Psychology during Human Pregnancy, in: Evolution & Human Behavior 34, 2013, 390-397, 133. 2 Liz Fraser, Ich bin dann mal zwei: Der entspannte Ratgeber für Schwangerschaft und Babyzeit. Mün-chen 2012, 96. 3 Gabriele Grünebaum/Loay Okko, Meine Schwangerschaft-Tag für Tag: Fundierte Information und wertvoller Rat für jeden Tag der Schwangerschaft. Hannover 2010, 279.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Lisa Malich
as an indication for behavioral therapy. In this article, I trace the
historical development of the notions of drug dependence as
a neuronal and behavioral problem in the local research context of
the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany. Focusing on
the period from the 1950s to the 1980s, I argue that the neuroscientific
and behaviorist understanding of “dependence” had two different
trajectories that were yoked together under the same institution of
self-proclaimed basic research: (a) the neuroscientific notion derived
from an older toxicological approach to drug effects that was then
accompanied by biochemical methods from the 1950s onwards, and
neurochemical approaches from the 1960s and 1970s; and (b) the
behaviorist notion had predecessors in psychotherapeutic approaches
to addiction that emerged in the 1950s and took a psychodynamic
orientation at the Institute. When the Institute positioned itself as
a basic research establishment and developed a unified structure
during the 1960s, these psychodynamic approaches were excluded
for being “too applied.” Soon afterward, behaviorist psychotherapeutic
approaches to drug dependence emerged in the 1970s, emphasizing
their foundation in basic research. Even though neuroscientific and
behaviorist notions had some overlaps through the use of animal
experimentation and by referring to basic research, researchers using
the two approaches remained separate in their respective units during
the time period under analysis. When conceptualizing the local scientific
occupation with “drug dependence,” I apply here the history of
science concept of a “split object.” Like the “boundary object,” the split
object is plastic enough to adapt to local conditions and robust
enough to maintain its genuine identity. Compared with the boundary
object, however, the split object does not invite scientific collaboration.
It does, nonetheless, enable epistemic coexistence under
a common institutional goal.
---
Abstract. Clinical psychology today is characterized largely by behavioral therapy. One explanation for this close connection is the thesis
that behavior therapy was historically the first therapeutic approach that came genuinely from the discipline of psychology. In this way,
according to the thesis, psychology was able to draw boundaries between it and medicine, which had long dominated the field of
psychotherapy. This article will examine this thesis for the Federal Republic of Germany and take a closer look at the relationship between
behavior therapy and psychology. To this end, a microhistorical investigation was conducted, focusing on the period of the 1960 s and 1970 s
at the Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry. In many psychological-historical accounts, the psychology department of the institute, which was
headed by Johannes Brengelmann, is considered to be fundamental to the development of behavioral therapy as well as clinical psychology
in Germany. Using archive material and publications from the psychology department, two different factors were found to be involved in
reconstructed with which central protagonists characterized the relationship of behavioral therapy to psychology and medicine. On the one
hand, there was a partial demarcation from medicine and an emphasis on psychology’s identity on its own terms. On the other hand,
behavioral therapy in that period was getting close to medicine in various ways. These included self-representation as a methodological
renewal of psychiatry, an orientation toward medical models of mental illness, and cooperation in practice. Therefore, the thesis as
examined could not be confirmed for German developments in this phase. Rather, a complex relationship between psychology and medicine
must be assumed, which oscillated between cooperation and competition.
as an indication for behavioral therapy. In this article, I trace the
historical development of the notions of drug dependence as
a neuronal and behavioral problem in the local research context of
the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany. Focusing on
the period from the 1950s to the 1980s, I argue that the neuroscientific
and behaviorist understanding of “dependence” had two different
trajectories that were yoked together under the same institution of
self-proclaimed basic research: (a) the neuroscientific notion derived
from an older toxicological approach to drug effects that was then
accompanied by biochemical methods from the 1950s onwards, and
neurochemical approaches from the 1960s and 1970s; and (b) the
behaviorist notion had predecessors in psychotherapeutic approaches
to addiction that emerged in the 1950s and took a psychodynamic
orientation at the Institute. When the Institute positioned itself as
a basic research establishment and developed a unified structure
during the 1960s, these psychodynamic approaches were excluded
for being “too applied.” Soon afterward, behaviorist psychotherapeutic
approaches to drug dependence emerged in the 1970s, emphasizing
their foundation in basic research. Even though neuroscientific and
behaviorist notions had some overlaps through the use of animal
experimentation and by referring to basic research, researchers using
the two approaches remained separate in their respective units during
the time period under analysis. When conceptualizing the local scientific
occupation with “drug dependence,” I apply here the history of
science concept of a “split object.” Like the “boundary object,” the split
object is plastic enough to adapt to local conditions and robust
enough to maintain its genuine identity. Compared with the boundary
object, however, the split object does not invite scientific collaboration.
It does, nonetheless, enable epistemic coexistence under
a common institutional goal.
---
Abstract. Clinical psychology today is characterized largely by behavioral therapy. One explanation for this close connection is the thesis
that behavior therapy was historically the first therapeutic approach that came genuinely from the discipline of psychology. In this way,
according to the thesis, psychology was able to draw boundaries between it and medicine, which had long dominated the field of
psychotherapy. This article will examine this thesis for the Federal Republic of Germany and take a closer look at the relationship between
behavior therapy and psychology. To this end, a microhistorical investigation was conducted, focusing on the period of the 1960 s and 1970 s
at the Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry. In many psychological-historical accounts, the psychology department of the institute, which was
headed by Johannes Brengelmann, is considered to be fundamental to the development of behavioral therapy as well as clinical psychology
in Germany. Using archive material and publications from the psychology department, two different factors were found to be involved in
reconstructed with which central protagonists characterized the relationship of behavioral therapy to psychology and medicine. On the one
hand, there was a partial demarcation from medicine and an emphasis on psychology’s identity on its own terms. On the other hand,
behavioral therapy in that period was getting close to medicine in various ways. These included self-representation as a methodological
renewal of psychiatry, an orientation toward medical models of mental illness, and cooperation in practice. Therefore, the thesis as
examined could not be confirmed for German developments in this phase. Rather, a complex relationship between psychology and medicine
must be assumed, which oscillated between cooperation and competition.