Knowledge that Transforms

The Institute of Psychology in Moscow became affiliated with the Academy of Sciences (AS USSR) 20 years ago. In this article a brief history of the Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Psychology is presented, along with a critical examination of the Institute's contribution to world psychology. Through an appraisal of laboratories, productivity, and journal articles, it is argued that Soviet psychologists affiliated with the Institute have made a modest impression on world psychology. The reason for the limited contribution is attributed to the lack of support from the Academy, the lack of essential equipment and supplies, the repressive political environment under which scientists have been forced to operate, and ethnocentrism brought about through cultural and physical isolation.

The limits of most sensory systems can now be routinely determined by objective detection-theory methods. The threshold of pain, however, is often thought to require more traditional methods that rely on a subject providing some estimate or description of what is perceived. The subject makes a measurement that cannot be contested and, in this sense, the methods are subjective. An experimental study of electrocutaneous stimuli showed how it is possible to interpret a traditional identification method and a category method in detection-theory terms. On this interpretation, these traditional methods yield results similar to a rating method of detection theory, a method that measures sensory resolution. However, the traditional methods give rise to additional judgmental variance not involved in standard detection-theory methods. They therefore do not provide a special insight into the experience of pain, and the extra variance they produce serves only to degrade, rather than to enhance, their usefulness.

This paper evaluates models and measurements of the stress induced by life changes to determine whether a single scale can explain several different phenomena, including judgments of “ratios” and “difference” as well as “combinations.” Judgments of “ratios” and “differences” were found to be approximately monotonically related, suggesting that these judgments should not be taken at face value, but instead that the same comparison operation governs both tasks. Judgments of “combinations” of stressful events were not simply the sums of their separate events; instead, they showed two systematic departures from additivity. First, the effect of a given event was less when it was the least stressful event in a combination than when it was the most, as if the most stressful event carries extra configural weight. Second, each additional stressor had diminishing marginal effect on the overall judgment. All three sets of data could be explained with a single scale using the theory that “ratios” and “differences” are both governed by subtraction and that “combination” judgments are a configurally weighted combination of the same scale values. This unified scale of stress seems preferable to the previous scale that was based on magnitude estimation.