What Psychology Students Know and Believe about Charles Darwin

1997 ◽  
Vol 81 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1372-1374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Knapp ◽  
Charles Rasmussen ◽  
Mary Jo Wagner

204 introductory and 154 advanced students in psychology were asked about their knowledge of Charles Darwin and endorsement of belief statements about the status of evolutionary theory. Advanced students had higher scores than introductory students on three of six multiple-choice knowledge items and differed from them on all six statements of belief as assessed by χ2 Advanced students appear to know more about evolutionary theory but may be less inclined to endorse its relevancy to psychology.

Author(s):  
James Aaron Green

Abstract In Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (1863), Charles Lyell appraised the distinct contribution made by his protégé, Charles Darwin (On the Origin of Species (1859)), to evolutionary theory: ‘Progression … is not a necessary accompaniment of variation and natural selection [… Darwin’s theory accounts] equally well for what is called degradation, or a retrogressive movement towards a simple structure’. In Rhoda Broughton’s first novel, Not Wisely, but Too Well (1867), written contemporaneously with Lyell’s book, the Crystal Palace at Sydenham prompts precisely this sort of Darwinian ambivalence to progress; but whether British civilization ‘advance[s] or retreat[s]’, her narrator adds that this prophesized state ‘will not be in our days’ – its realization exceeds the single lifespan. This article argues that Not Wisely, but Too Well is attentive to the irreconcilability of Darwinism to the Victorian ‘idea of progress’: Broughton’s novel, distinctly from its peers, raises the retrogressive and nihilistic potentials of Darwin’s theory and purposes them to reflect on the status of the individual in mid-century Britain.


Author(s):  
Rachel Ablow

The nineteenth century introduced developments in science and medicine that made the eradication of pain conceivable for the first time. This new understanding of pain brought with it a complex set of moral and philosophical dilemmas. If pain serves no obvious purpose, how do we reconcile its existence with a well-ordered universe? Examining how writers of the day engaged with such questions, this book offers a compelling new literary and philosophical history of modern pain. The book provides close readings of novelists Charlotte Brontë and Thomas Hardy and political and natural philosophers John Stuart Mill, Harriet Martineau, and Charles Darwin, as well as a variety of medical, scientific, and popular writers of the Victorian age. The book explores how discussions of pain served as investigations into the status of persons and the nature and parameters of social life. No longer conceivable as divine trial or punishment, pain in the nineteenth century came to seem instead like a historical accident suggesting little or nothing about the individual who suffers. A landmark study of Victorian literature and the history of pain, the book shows how these writers came to see pain as a social as well as a personal problem. Rather than simply self-evident to the sufferer and unknowable to anyone else, pain was also understood to be produced between persons—and even, perhaps, by the fictions they read.


1968 ◽  
Vol 23 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1305-1306
Author(s):  
Jin Ong

T-score procedure was suggested in place of the rights only or corrected formula score for guessing. Multiple-choice tests were administered to 179 general psychology students. T scores using both rights only and corrected formula were calculated. Results showed that the empirical data fit the defined values of the T score quite well and that the T scores for all individual students from both procedures are comparable.


Author(s):  
Cheryl Ann Kier

<p>This project ascertains how well students taking online, distance education courses at a Canadian university recognize plagiarised material and how well they paraphrase. It also assesses the types of errors made<em>. </em>Slightly more than half of 420 psychology students correctly selected plagiarised phrases from four multiple choice<em> </em>questions. Only a minority was able to rewrite a phrase properly in their own words. A more diverse sample of university students also had difficulty recognizing plagiarised passages from multiple choice options. The poor ability of students to identify plagiarised passages may suggest poor understanding of the concept. Students may benefit from training to improve their understanding of plagiarism.</p>


Author(s):  
Marc W. Cadotte ◽  
T. Jonathan Davies

This chapter reviews the history of the use of phylogenetics in ecology, beginning with a discussion of early attempts to classify the diversity of life and the development of evolutionary theory. In particular, it examines how early taxonomists, starting with Carl Linnaeus, have grouped species by similarity in their traits and how early ecologists and biologists such as Charles Darwin recognized the importance of relatedness in influencing ecological interactions and species distributions. The chapter proceeds by focusing on the introduction of the neutral theory of biodiversity into mainstream ecology and the development of the niche-based model of community assembly. It also considers how some ecologists questioned the relevance of phylogenetic corrections for ecology and concludes by analyzing the emergence of ecological phylogenetics or ecophylogenetics.


Author(s):  
Bill Jenkins

The penultimate chapter looks at the longer-term impact of the efflorescence of evolutionary speculation in early-nineteenth-century Edinburgh on later generations of natural historians. First it examines the evangelical reaction against progressive models of the history of life and its role in the eclipse of the ‘Edinburgh Lamarckians.’ Next it examines to the evolutionary theory proposed by Robert Chambers in his anonymously published Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844) to assess its possible debt to the Edinburgh transformists of the 1820s and 1830s. Finally it turns to the important question of the possible influence of the ‘Edinburgh Lamarckians’ on Charles Darwin during his time as a medical student in Edinburgh in the years 1825 to 1827, during which period he rubbed shoulders with many of the key proponents of evolutionary ideas in the city.


2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Bateson

Charles Darwin has had an extraordinary impact on many aspects of human affairs apart from revolutionizing biology. On the 200th anniversary of his birth, the Cambridge Darwin Festival in July 2009 celebrated these contributions to the humanities, philosophy and religion and the approach to medicine, economics and the social sciences. He is a man to revere. It is no discredit to him that the science of evolutionary biology should continue to evolve. In this article I shall consider some of the ways in which this has happened since his day.


Ever since Charles Darwin, scholars have noted that cultural entities such as languages, laws, firms, and theories seem to ‘evolve’ through sequences of variation, selection and replication, in many ways just like living organisms. This book considers whether this comparison is ‘just a metaphor’, or whether modern evolutionary theory can help us to understand the dynamics of different cultural domains. The ‘evolutionary paradigm of rationality’ has a significant role to play throughout the human sciences, but raises complex issues in every cultural context where it is applied. By fostering discussion between scholars from a wide range of research traditions, this book aims to influence the evolution of all of them.


2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. Balch

On their first class day, introductory psychology students took a 14-question multiple-choice pretest on several principles of memory including primacy, recency, storage, retrieval, counterbalancing, and the free-recall method. I randomly preassigned students to come at one of two different times to the second class, 2 days later, when they either participated in a free-recall demonstration/debriefing or heard a lecture on comparable material. In the third class, five days later, they took a posttest identical to the pretest. On the posttest but not the pretest, students participating in the demonstration/debriefing significantly outperformed those hearing only the lecture.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document