Disciplines that study science are relatively well established in philosophy, history, and sociology. Psychology of science, by comparison, is a late bloomer but has recently shown signs of codification. The authors further this codification by integrating and reviewing the growing literature in the developmental, cognitive, personality, and social psychology of science. Only by integrating the findings from each of these perspectives can the basic questions in the study of scientific behavior be answered: Who becomes a scientist and what role do biology, family, school, and gender play? Are productivity, scientific reasoning, and theory acceptance influenced by age? What thought processes and heuristics lead to successful discovery? What personality characteristics distinguish scientists from nonscientists and eminent from less eminent scientists? Finally, how do intergroup relations and social forces influence scientific behavior? A model that integrates the consensual empirical findings from the psychology of science is proposed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbertR., & RuncoM. (1987). The possible different personality dispositions of scientists and non-scientists. In JacksonD. N. & RushtonJ. P., Scientific Excellence (pp. 67–97). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
AlbertR., & RuncoM. (1995). [Personality dispositions of scientists and non-scientists]. Unpublished raw data.
3.
AllportG. W. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In LindzeyG. & AronsonE., Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1–46). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4.
AmabileT. (1996). Creativity in context. New York: Westview.
5.
AnzaiY. (1991). Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In EricssonK. A. & SmithJ., Toward a general theory of expertiseCambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6.
ArveyR. D., & DewhirstH. D. (1976). Goal-setting attributes, personality variables, and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 179–189.
7.
ArveyR. D., DewhirstH., & BrownE. M. (1976). A longitudinal study of the impact of changes in goal setting on employee satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 31, 596–608.
8.
AschS. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9, Whole No. 16).
9.
AstinH. S. (1975). Sex differences in mathematical and scientific precocity. Journal of Special Education, 9, 79–91.
10.
AtwoodG. E., & TomkinsS. S. (1976). On subjectivity of personality theory. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 12, 166–177.
11.
BachtoldL. M. (1976). Personality characteristics of women of distinction. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1, 70–78.
12.
BachtoldL. M., & WernerE. E. (1972). Personality characteristics of women scientists. Psychological Reports, 31, 391–396.
13.
BackmanM. E. (1972). Patterns of mental abilities: Ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex differences. American Educational Research Journal, 9, 1–12.
14.
BamberJ. H., BillJ. M., BoydF. E., & CorbettW. D. (1983). In two minds—arts and science differences at sixth-form level. British Journal of Educational Psychological, 53, 222–233.
15.
BarberB. (1961). Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science, 134, 596–602.
16.
BarnesM. L., & RosenthalR. (1985). Interpersonal effects of experimenter attractiveness, attire, and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 435–446.
17.
BarronF., & HarringtonD. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.
18.
BartonK., & CattellH. (1972). Personality characteristics of female psychology, science and art majors. Psychological Reports, 31, 807–813.
19.
BayerA. E., & DuttonJ. E. (1977). Career age and research—professional activities of academic scientists: Tests of alternative non-linear models and some implications for higher education faculty policies. Journal of Higher Education, 48, 259–282.
20.
BeardG. M. (1874). Legal responsibilities in old age. New York: Russell Sage.
21.
BellE. T. (1937). Men of mathematics. New York: Simon & Shuster.
22.
BenbowC. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169–183.
23.
BenbowC. P., & LubinskiD. (1993). Psychological profiles of the mathematically talented. Some sex differences and evidence supporting their biological basis. In RockG. R. & AckrillK., The origins and development of high ability (pp. 44–66). Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.
24.
BenbowC. P., & MinorL. L. (1986). Mathematically talented students and achievement in the high school sciences. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 425–436.
25.
BenbowC. P., & StanleyJ. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact?Science, 210, 1262–1264.
26.
BenbowC. P., & StanleyJ. C. (1982). Consequences in high school and college of sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: A longitudinal perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 598–622.
27.
BenbowC. P., & StanleyJ. C. (1983). Sex differences in mathematical ability: More facts. Science, 222, 1029–1031.
28.
BerryC. (1981). The Nobel scientists and the origins of scientific achievement. British Journal of Sociology, 32, 381–391.
29.
BouchardT. J.Jr., & McGueM. (1981). Familial studies of intelligence: A review. Science, 212, 1055–1059.
30.
BouchardT. J.Jr., & SegalN. L. (1990). Advanced mathematical reasoning ability: A behavioral perspective. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 191–192.
31.
BradshawG. F. (1992). The airplane and the logic of invention. In GiereR. N., Cognitive models of science (pp. 239–250). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
32.
BradshawG. F., LangleyP. W., & SimonH. A. (1983). Studying scientific discovery by computer simulation. Science, 222, 971–975.
33.
BrewerW. F., & ChinnC. A. (1992). Entrenched beliefs, inconsistent information, and knowledge change. In BirnbaumL., Proceedings of 1991 international conferences on the learning sciences (pp. 67–73). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.
34.
BrewerW. F., & SamarapungavanA. (1991). Child theories vs. scientific theories: Differences in reasoning or differences in knowledge?. In HoffmanR. R. & PalermoD. S., Cognition and the symbolic processes: Applied and ecological perspectives (pp. 209–232). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35.
BusseT. V., & MansfieldR. S. (1984). Selected personality traits and achievement in male scientists. The Journal of Psychology, 116, 117–131.
36.
ButcherH. J. (1969). The structure of abilities, interests and personality in 1, 000 Scottish school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 39, 154–165.
37.
CampbellD. T. (1989). Fragments of the fragile history of psychological epistemology and theory of science. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R.Jr., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., Psychology of science (pp. 21–46). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
38.
CareyS. (1992). The origin and evolution of everyday concepts. In GiereR. N., Cognitive models of science (pp. 89–128). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
39.
CattellJ. M. (1910). A further statistical study of American men of science. Science, 32, 633–648.
40.
CattellJ. M., & BrimhallD. R. (1921). American Men of Science (3rd ed.). Garrison, NY: Science Press.
41.
CattellR. B., & DrevdahlJ. E. (1955). A comparison of the personality profile (16PF) of eminent researchers with that of eminent teachers and administrators, and the general population. British Journal of Psychology, 46, 248–261.
42.
ChamberlainT. C. (1965). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 148, 754–759. (Original work published 1890)
43.
ChambersJ. A. (1964). Relating personality and biographical factors to scientific creativity. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78, 1–20.
44.
ChambersJ. A. (1965). Comments. Science, 147, 67.
45.
ChengP. C.-H., & SimonH. (1992). The right representation for discovery: Finding the conservation of momentum. In SleemanD. & EdwardsP., Machine learning: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference (pp. 62–71). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
46.
ChengP. C.-H., & SimonH. A. (1995). Scientific discovery and creative reasoning with diagrams. In SmithS. M., WardT. B., & FinkeR. A., The creative cognition approach (pp. 205–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
ChiM. T. H., FeltovichP. J., & GlaserR. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.
48.
ClarkR. D., & RiceG. A. (1982). Family constellations and eminence: The birth-orders of Nobel prize winners. Journal of Psychology, 110, 281–287.
49.
ClementJ. (1982). Students' preconceptions in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 50, 66–71.
50.
ClementJ. (1989). Learning via model construction and criticism: Protocol evidence on sources of creativity in science. In GloverJ. A., RonningR. R., & ReynoldsC. R., Handbook of creativity: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 341–381). New York: Plenum.
51.
ClementJ. (1991). Experts and science students: The use of analogies, extreme cases, and physical intuition. In VossJ. F., PerkinsD. N., & SegalJ. W., Informal reasoning and education (pp. 345–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53.
ColeJ. R. (1979). Fair science: Women in the scientific community. New York: Free Press.
54.
ColeJ. R. (1987). Women in science. In JacksonD. & RushtonP., Scientific Excellence (pp. 359–375). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
55.
ColeJ. R., & ColeS. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
56.
ColeS. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958–977.
57.
ColeS., & ZuckermanH. (1987). Marriage, motherhood, and research performance in science. Scientific American, 256, 119–125.
58.
ConwayJ. B. (1988). Differences among clinical psychologists: Scientists, practitioners, and science-practitioners. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 642–655.
59.
CordaroL., & IsonJ. R. (1963). Observer bias in classical conditioning of the planarian. Psychological Reports, 13, 787–789.
60.
CoxC. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. II. The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
61.
DattaL. E. (1967). Family religious background and early scientific creativity. American Sociological Review, 32, 626–635.
62.
DavidsA. (1968). Psychological characteristics of high school male and female potential scientists in comparison with academic underachievers. Psychology in the Schools, 3, 79–87.
63.
DeauxK. (1985). Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology, 36, 49–81.
64.
De MeyM. (1989). Cognitive paradigms and the psychology of science. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 275–295). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
65.
De MeyM. (1992). The cognitive paradigm. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66.
DennisW. (1954). Predicting scientific productivity in later decades from records of earlier decades. Journal of Gerontology, 9, 465–467.
67.
DennisW. (1956). Age and productivity among scientists. Science, 123, 724–725.
68.
DennisW. (1958). The age decrement in outstanding scientific contributions: Fact or artifact?American Psychologist, 13, 457–460.
69.
DennisW. (1966). Creative productivity between the ages of 20 and 80 years. Journal of Gerontology, 21, 1–8.
70.
DiamondA. M. (1986). The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and scientists. Journal of Gerontology, 41, 520–525.
71.
DunbarK. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In SternbergR. J. & DavidsonJ., The nature of insight (pp. 365–396). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
72.
EidusonB. T. (1962). Scientists: Their psychological world. New York: Basic Books.
73.
EidusonB. T. (1974). 10 year longitudinal Rorschachs on research scientists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 405–410.
74.
EricksonC., GantzB. S., & StephensonR. W. (1970). Logical and construct validation of a short-form biographical inventory predictor of scientific creativity.. In Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 5 (Pt. 1), 151152
75.
EysenckH. J. (1988). O tempora, o mores!Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 189–190.
76.
EysenckH. J. (1993). Creativity and personality: Suggestions for a theory. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 147–178.
77.
EysenckH. J. (1995). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
78.
FarmerH. S. (1988). Predicting who our future scientists and mathematicians will be. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 190–191.
79.
FarrisH., & RevlinR. (1989a). The discovery process: A counterfactual strategy. Social Studies of Science, 19, 497–513.
80.
FarrisH., & RevlinR. (1989b). Sensible reasoning in two tasks: Rule discovery and hypothesis evaluation. Memory & Cognition, 17(2), 221–232.
81.
FaustD. (1984). The limits of scientific reasoning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
82.
FayA. L., KlahrD., & DunbarK. (1990). Are there developmental milestones in scientific reasoning?. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference of Cognitive Science Society (pp. 333–339). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
83.
FeistG. J. (1987). The emotional and cognitive aspects and personality dimensions of artistic and scientific creativity. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.
84.
FeistG. J. (1991). The psychology of science: Personality, cognitive, motivational and working styles of eminent and less eminent scientists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
85.
FeistG. J. (1993). A structural model of scientific eminence. Psychological Science, 4, 366–371.
86.
FeistG. J. (1994). Personality and working style predictors of integrative complexity: A study of scientists' thinking about research and teaching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 474–484.
87.
FeistG. J. (1995). Psychology of science and history of psychology: Putting behavioral generalizations to the test. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 119–123.
88.
FeistG. J. (1997). Quantity, impact, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important?Creativity Research Journal, 10, 325–335.
89.
FeistG. J., & BarronF. (1995, October). Do hostile and arrogant scientists become eminent or are eminent scientists likely to become hostile and arrogant? Paper presented at the annual conference of Society for Social Studies of Science, Charlottesville, VA.
90.
FischR. (1977). Psychology of science. In Spiegel-RösingI. & de Solla PriceD., Science, technology, and society: A cross disciplinary perspective (277–318). London: Sage.
91.
FischbeinS. (1990). Biosocial influences on sex differences for ability and achievement test results as well as marks at school. Intelligence, 14, 127–139.
92.
FoxL. H. (1976). Sex differences in mathematical precocity: Bridging the gap. In KeatingD. P., Intellectual talent: Research and development (pp. 32–54). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
93.
FreedmanE. (1995, October). Working memory and testing multiple hypotheses. Paper presented at Annual Convention of the Society for Social Studies of Science, Charlottesville, VA.
94.
FullerS. (1988). Social epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
95.
FullerS. (1993). Philosophy of science and its discontents (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
96.
GaltonF. (1874). English men of science. London: Macmillan.
97.
GantzB. S., EricksonC. O., & StephensonR. W. (1972). Some determinants of promotion in a research and development population. In Proceedings of Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 7(Pt. 1) pp. 451–452.
98.
GardnerH. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
99.
GarwoodD. S. (1964). Personality factors related to creativity in young scientists. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 413–419.
100.
GentnerD., & GentnerG. R. (1983). Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity. In GentnerD. & StevensA. L., Mental models (pp. 99–129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
101.
GentnerD., & JeziorskiM. (1989). Historical shifts in the use of analogy in science. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 296–325). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
102.
GeschwindN., & BehanP. (1982). Left-handedness: Association with immune disease, migraine, and developmental learning disorder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 79, 5097–5100.
103.
GetzelsJ. W. (1987). Creativity, intelligence, and problem finding: Retrospect and prospect. In IsaksenS. G., Frontiers of creativity research (pp. 88–102). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.
104.
GholsonB., & HoutsA. C. (1989). Toward a cognitive psychology of science. Social Epistemology, 3, 107–127.
105.
GholsonB., ShadishW. R., NeimeyerR. A., HoutsA. C., (1989). The psychology of science: Contributions to metascience. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
106.
GiereR. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
107.
GleickJ. (1992). Genius: Richard Feynman and modern physics. New York: Pantheon.
108.
GolemanD. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
109.
GoodingD. C. (1985). In nature's school: Faraday as an experimentalist. In GoodingD. & JamesF., Faraday rediscovered: Essays on the life and work of Michael Faraday: 1791–1867New York: Stockton Press.
110.
GoodingD. C. (1990). Experiment on the making of meaning: Human agency in scientific observation and experiment. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
111.
GoodingD. C., & AddisT. R. (1993). Modelling Faraday's experiments with visual functional programming 1: Models, methods and examples. (Working Paper No. Joint Research Councils' Initiative on Cognitive Science & Human Computer Interaction Special Project Grant #9107137). Bath, England: University of Bath.
112.
GormanM. E. (1986). How the possibility of error affects falsification on a task that models scientific problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 85–96.
113.
GormanM. E. (1989). Error, falsification and scientific inference: An experimental investigation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 385–412.
114.
GormanM. E. (1992). Simulating science: Heuristics, mental models and technoscientific thinking. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
115.
GormanM. E. (1995). Confirmation, disconfirmation and invention: The case of Alexander Graham Bell and the telephone. Thinking and Reasoning, 1 (7)31–53.
116.
GormanM. E., & GormanM. E. (1984). A Comparison of disconfirmatory, confirmatory and a control strategy on Wason's 2-4-6 task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36, 629–648.
117.
GormanM. E., & RosenweinR. (1995). Simulating social epistemology. Social Epistemology, 9(1), 71–79.
118.
GormanM. E., StaffordA., & GormanM. E. (1987). Disconfirmation and dual hypotheses on a more difficult version of Wason's 2-4-6 task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 1–28.
119.
GormanM. E., GormanM. E., LattaR. M., & CunninghamG. (1984). How disconfirmatory, confirmatory and combined strategies affect group problem-solving. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 65–79.
120.
GoughH. G. (1961, February). A personality sketch of the creative research scientist. Paper presented at 5th Annual Conference on Personnel and Industrial Relations Research, Los Angeles, CA.
121.
GoughH. G. (1976). What happens to creative medical students. Journal of Medical Education, 51, 461–467.
122.
GoughH. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
123.
GoughH. G., & WoodworthD. G. (1960). Stylistic variations among professional research scientists. Journal of Psychology, 49, 87–98.
124.
GreenA. J. K., & GilhoolyK. J. (1992). Empirical advances in expertise research. In KeaneM. T. & GilhoolyK. J., Advances in the psychology of thinking (pp. 45–70). London: Harvester and Wheatchief.
125.
GrossP. R., & LevittN. (1994). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
126.
GruberH. E. (1981). Darwin on man: A psychological study of scientific creativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
127.
GruberH. E. (1989). Networks of enterprise in creative scientific thought. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 246–266). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
128.
GuilfordJ. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In AndersonH. H., Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 142–161). New York: Harper.
129.
GuilfordJ. P. (1987). A review of a quarter century of progress. In IsaksenS. G., Frontiers of creativity research (pp. 45–61). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.
130.
GuyerL., & FidellL. (1973). Publications of men and women psychologists: Do women publish less?American Psychologist, 28, 157–160.
131.
HamS., & ShaughnessyM. F. (1992). Personality and scientific promise. Psychological Reports, 70, 971–975.
132.
HansonN. R. (1962). Scientists and logicians: A confrontation. Science, 138, 1311–1313.
133.
HargensL. L., McCannJ. C., & ReskinB. F. (1978). Productivity and reproductivity: Fertility and professional achievement among research scientists. Social Forces, 57, 154–163.
134.
HartJ. J. (1982). Psychology of the scientists: XLVI: Correlation between theoretical orientation in psychology and personality type. Psychological Reports, 50, 795–801.
135.
HelmreichR. L., SpenceJ. T., BeaneW. E., LuckerG. W., & MatthewsK. A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology: Demographic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 896–908.
136.
HelmreichR. L., SpenceJ. T., & PredR. S. (1988). Making it without losing it: Type A, achievement motivation and scientific attainment revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 495–504.
137.
HelsonR. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 210–220.
138.
HelsonR., & CrutchfieldR. S. (1970). Mathematicians: The creative researcher and the average PhD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 250–257.
139.
HeyesC. M. (1989). Uneasy chapters in the relationship between psychology and epistemology. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 115–137). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
140.
HinrichsJ. R. (1972). Value adaptation of new PhDs to academic and industrial environments: A comparative longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 25, 545–565.
141.
HoldenC. (1987). Female math anxiety on the wane. Science, 236, 600–601.
142.
HollandJ. (1961, June). The assessment and prediction of creative performance of high aptitude youth. Paper presented at the 4th University of Utah Conference on the Identification of Creative Scientific Talent, Salt Lake City, UT.
143.
HolmesF. L. (1980). Hans Krebs and the discovery of the ornithine cycle. Federation Proceedings, 39, 216–225.
HornerK. L., RushtonJ. P., & VernonP. A. (1986). Relation between aging and research productivity of academic psychologists. Psychology and Aging, 4, 319–324.
146.
HoutsA. (1989). Contributions of the psychology of science to metascience: A call for explorers. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., Psychology of science (pp. 47–88). Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge Press.
147.
HudsonL. (1958). Undergraduate academic record of Fellows of the Royal Society. Nature, 182, 1326.
148.
HullD. L., TessnerP. D., & DiamondA. M. (1978). Planck's principle: Do younger scientists accept new scientific ideas with greater alacrity than older scientists?Social Studies of Science, 202, 717–723.
149.
HusénT. (1960). Abilities of twins. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1, 25–35.
150.
IkpaahindiL. (1987). The relationship between the needs for achievement, affiliation, power, and scientific productivity among Nigerian veterinary surgeons. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 535–537.
151.
InhelderB., & PiagetJ. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.
152.
JacobsR. C., & CampbellD. T. (1961). The perpetuation of an arbitrary tradition through several generations of a laboratory microculture. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 83, 649–658.
153.
JohnsonJ. A., GermerC. K., EfranJ. S., & OvertonW. F. (1988). Personality as the basis for theoretical predilections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 824–835.
154.
John-SteinerV. (1985). Notebooks of the mind. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
155.
KanigelR. (1991). The man who knew infinity: A life of the genius Ramanujan. New York: Scribner's & Sons.
156.
KarlssonJ. (1991). Genetics of human mentality. New York: Praeger.
157.
Karmiloff-SmithA. (1988). A child is a theoretician, not an inductivist. Mind and Language, 3, 183–195.
158.
KeatingD. P. (1974). The study of mathematically precocious youth. In StanleyJ. C., KeatingD. P., & FoxL. H., Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development (pp. 23–46). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
159.
KellerE. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
160.
KelleyH. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In VineD. L., Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 192–240). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
161.
KlahrD., & DunbarK. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–48.
162.
KlahrD., DunbarK., & FayA. L. (1990). Designing good experiments to test bad hypotheses. In ShragerJ. & LangleyP., Computational models of discovery and theory formation (pp. 355–402). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
163.
KlahrD., FayA. L., & DunbarK. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 111–146.
164.
KlahrD., & RobinsonM. (1981). Formal assessment of problem-solving and planning processes in preschool children. Cognitive Psychology, 13, 113–148.
165.
KlaymanJ., & HaY.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211–228.
166.
KlineP., & LaphamS. L. (1992). Personality and faculty in British universities. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 855–857.
167.
KruglanskiA. W. (1994). The social-cognitive bases of scientific knowledge. In ShadishW. R. & FullerS., The social psychology of science (pp. 197–213). New York: Guilford.
168.
KuhnD. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological Review, 96(4), 674–689.
169.
KuhnD., AmstelE., & O'LoughlinM. (1988). The development of scientific thinking skills. New York: Academic Press.
170.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
171.
KulkarniD., & SimonH. A. (1988). The processes of scientific discovery: The strategies of experimentation. Cognitive Science, 12, 139–175.
172.
LaceyL. A., & EricksonC. E. (1974). Psychology of the scientist: XXXI: Discriminability of a creativity scale for the Adjective Check List among scientists and engineers. Psychological Reports, 34, 755–758.
173.
LangleyP., SimonH. A., BradshawG. L., & ZykowJ. M. (1987). Scientific discovery: Computational explorations of the creative processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
174.
LarkinJ. (1983). The role of problem representation in physics. In GentnerD. & StevensL. A., Mental models (pp. 75–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
175.
LarkinJ. H., McDermittJ., SimonD. P., & SimonH. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342.
176.
LarkinJ. H., & SimonH. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science, 11, 65–99.
177.
LearyD. E.. (1990). Metaphors in the history of psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
178.
LehmanH. C. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
179.
LehmanH. C. (1960). The age decrement in outstanding scientific creativity. American Psychologist, 15, 128–134.
180.
LehmanH. C. (1962). The creative production rates of present versus past generations of scientists. Journal of Gerontology, 17, 409–417.
181.
LehmanH. C. (1966). The psychologist's most creative years. American Psychologist, 21, 363–369.
182.
LevinS. G., StephenP. E., & WalkerM. B. (1995). Planck's principle revisited: A special note. Social Studies of Science, 25, 275–283.
183.
LoehlinJ. C., & NicholsR. C. (1976). Heredity, environment, and personality: A study of 850 sets of twins. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
184.
LongJ. S. (1992). Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity. Social Forces, 71, 159–178.
185.
LotkaA. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–323.
186.
LubinskiD., & BenbowC. P. (1994). The study of mathematically precocious youth: The first three decades of a planned 50-year study of intellectual talent. In SubotnikR. F. & ArnoldK. D., Beyond Terman: Longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 255–281). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
187.
LykkenD. T., McGueM., TellegenA., & BouchardT. J.Jr. (1992). Emergenesis: Genetic traits that may not run in families. American Psychologist, 47, 1565–1577.
188.
MaccobyE. E., & JacklinC. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
189.
MacKinnonD. W. (1960). The highly effective individual. Teachers College Record, 61, 367–378.
190.
MacKinnonD. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness. Buffalo, NY: Bearly.
191.
MaddiS. (1965). Motivational aspects of creativity. Journal of Personality, 33, 338–347.
192.
MahoneyM. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.
193.
MahoneyM. J. (1979). Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science, 9, 349–375.
194.
MahoneyM. J., & DeMonbreunB. J. (1977). Psychology of the scientist: An analysis of problem solving bias. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 229–238.
195.
MansfieldR. S., & BusseT. V. (1981). The psychology of creativity and discovery: Scientists and their work. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
196.
MaslowA. (1966). The psychology of science. New York: Harper & Row.
197.
McClellandD. (1962). On the psychodynamics of creative physical scientists. In GruberH., TerrellG., & WertheimerM., Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 141–174). New York: Atherton.
198.
McCloskeyM. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In GentnerD. & StevensA. L., Mental models (pp. 299–324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
199.
McDermidC. D. (1965). Some correlates of creativity in engineering personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 14–19.
200.
MertonR. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
201.
MesseriP. (1988). Age differences in the reception of new scientific theory: The case of plate tectonics theory. Social Studies of Science, 18, 91–112.
202.
MillerA. (1989). Imagery, metaphor, and physical reality. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., Psychology of science (pp. 326–341). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
203.
MohanJ., & KaurM. (1993). Adjustment, personal intelligence, values, and SES of male–female university research scholars. Social Science International, 9, 39–50.
204.
MooreE. G. J., & SmithA. W. (1987). Sex and ethnic group differences in mathematics achievement: Results from the National Longitudinal Study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 18, 25–36.
205.
MoscoviciS., & NemethC. (1974). Social influence II: Minority influence. In NemethC., Social psychology: Classic and contemporary integrations (pp. 217–249). Chicago: Rand McNally.
206.
MossholderK. W., DewhirstH. D., & ArveyR. D. (1981). Vocational interest and personality differences between development and research personnel: A field study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 19, 233–243.
207.
MullinsN. (1973). Theories and theory groups in contemporary American sociology. New York: Harper and Row.
208.
MynattC. R., DohertyM. E., & TweneyR. D. (1977). Confirmation bias in simulated research environment: An experimental study of scientific inference. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 85–95.
209.
MynattC. R., DohertyM. E., & TweneyR. D. (1978). Consequences of confirmation and disconfirmation in a simulated research environment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 395–406.
210.
NersessianN. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In GiereR. N., Cognitive models of science (pp. 3–44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
211.
OaksfordM., & ChaterN. (1994). Another look at eliminative and enumerative behaviour in a conceptual task. The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 149–169.
212.
OverR. (1982). Is age a good predictor of research productivity?Australian Psychologist, 17, 129–139.
213.
OverR. (1989). Age and scholarly impact. Psychology and Aging, 4, 222–225.
214.
ParloffM. B., & DattaL. (1965). Personality characteristics of the potentially creative scientist. Science and Psychoanalysis, 8, 91–105.
215.
ParloffM. B., DattaL., KlemanM., & HandlonJ. H. (1968). Personality characteristics which differentiate creative male adolescents and adults. Journal of Personality, 36, 528–552.
216.
PasewarkR. A., FitzgeraldB. J., & SawyerR. N. (1975). Psychology of the scientist: XXXII. God at the synapse: Research activities of clinical, experimental, and physiological psychologists. Psychological Reports, 36, 671–674.
217.
PearceC. (1968). Creativity in young science students. Exceptional Children, 35, 121–126.
218.
PiagetJ., & GarciaR. (1989). Psychogenesis and the history of science. New York: Columbia University Press.
219.
PopperK. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Science Editions.
220.
PriceD. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
221.
QinY., & SimonH. A. (1990). Laboratory replication of scientific discovery processes. Cognitive Science, 14, 281–312.
222.
ReskinB. F. (1977). Scientific productivity and the reward structure of science. American Sociological Review, 42, 491–504.
223.
ReynoldsA. J., & WalbergH. J. (1992). A structural model of science achievement and attitude: An extension to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 371–382.
224.
RocoM. (1993). Creative personalities about creative personality in science. Revue Roumaine de Psychologie [Romanian Review of Psychology], 37, 27–36.
225.
RoeA. (1952a). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd, Mead.
RoeA. (1953). A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 67, 1–55.
228.
RoeA. (1965). Changes in scientific activities with age. Science, 150, 313–318.
229.
RoeA. (1972). Maintenance of creative output through the years. In TaylorC. W., Climate for creativity (pp. 167–191). New York: Pergamon.
230.
Root-BernsteinR. S., BernsteinM., & GarnierH. (1995). Correlations between avocations, scientific style, work habits, and professional impact of scientists. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 115–137.
231.
RosenthalR. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. (enlarged edition). New York: Irvington.
232.
RosenthalR. (1994). On being one's own case study: Experimenter effects in behavioral research—30 years later. In ShadishW. & FullerS., The social psychology of scienceNew York: Guilford.
233.
RosenthalR., & FodeK. L. (1963a). Psychology of the scientist: V: Three experiments in experimenter bias. Psychological Reports, 12, 491–511.
234.
RosenthalR., & FodeK. L. (1963b). The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat. Behavioral Science, 8, 183–189.
235.
RosenthalR., & JacobsonL. (1992). Pygmalion in the classroom. (enlarged edition). New York: Irvington.
236.
RosenthalR., & RosnowR. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
237.
RosenweinR. (1994). Social influence in science: Agreement and dissent in achieving scientific consensus. In ShadishW. R. & FullerS., The social psychology of science (pp. 262–285). New York: Guilford.
238.
RoyaltyG. M., & MagoonT. M. (1985). Correlates of scholarly productivity among counseling psychologists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 458–461.
239.
RushtonJ. P., MurrayH. G., & PaunonenS. V. (1987). Personality characteristics associated with high research productivity. In JacksonD. & RushtonJ. P., Scientific excellence (pp. 129–148). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
240.
ScarrS., & SaltzmanL. C. (1982). Genetics and intelligence. In SternbergR. J., Handbook of human intelligence (pp. 792–816). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
241.
SchaeferC. E. (1969). The self-concept of creative adolescents. The Journal of Psychology, 72, 233–242.
242.
SchaieK. W. (1984). Midlife influences upon intellectual functioning in old age. International Journal of Behavior Development, 7, 463–478.
243.
SchroderH. M., DriverM. J., & StreufertS. (1967). Human information processing. New York: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.
244.
ScottN. A., & SedlacekW. E. (1975). Personality differentiation and prediction of persistence in physical science and engineering. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6, 205–216.
245.
ShadishW. R. (1989). The perception and evaluation of quality in science. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 383–426). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
246.
ShadishW. R., & FullerS.. (1994). Social psychology of science. New York: Guilford.
247.
ShadishW. R., FullerS., & GormanM. E. (1994). Social psychology of science: A conceptual and empirical research program. In ShadishW. R. & FullerS., Social psychology of science (pp. 3–123). New York: Guilford Press.
248.
ShadishW. R., HoutsA. C., GholsonB., & NeimeyerR. A. (1989). The psychology of science: An introduction. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
249.
ShadishW. R., TolliverD., GrayM., & GuptaS. K. (1995). Author judgements about works they cite: Three studies from psychology journals. Social Studies of Science, 25(3), 477–498.
250.
ShapiroR. J. (1968). Creative research scientists. Psychologia Africana Monograph Supplement, No. 4(180).
251.
ShragerJ., & LangleyP. (1990). Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
252.
SieglerR. S., & LiebertR. M. (1975). Acquisition of formal scientific reasoning by 10- and 13-year olds: Designing a factorial experiment. Developmental Psychology, 10, 401–402.
253.
SimonH. A. (1966). Scientific discovery and the psychology of problem solving. In ColodnyR., Mind and cosmos (22–40). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
254.
SimonH. A. (1974). The work habits of eminent scientists. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 1, 327–335.
255.
SimonH. L., LangleyP. W., & BradshawG. (1981). Scientific discovery as problem solving. Syntheses, 47, 1–27.
256.
SimontonD. K. (1975). Invention and discovery among the sciences: A p-technique factor analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 7, 275–281.
257.
SimontonD. K. (1976a). The causal relation between war and scientific discovery. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 7, 133–144.
258.
SimontonD. K. (1976b). Interdisciplinary and military determinants of scientific productivity: A cross-lagged correlation analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 53–62.
259.
SimontonD. K. (1977a). Creative productivity, age, and stress: A biographical time-series analysis of 10 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 791–804.
260.
SimontonD. K. (1977b). Eminence, creativity, and geographic marginality: A recursive structural equation model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 805–816.
261.
SimontonD. K. (1980). Techno-scientific activity and war: A yearly time-series analysis, 1500–1903 A.D. Scientometrics, 2, 251–255.
262.
SimontonD. K. (1984). Creative productivity and age: A mathematical model based on a two-step cognitive process. Developmental Review, 4, 77–111.
263.
SimontonD. K. (1988a). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
264.
SimontonD. K. (1988b). Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research?Psychological Bulletin, 104, 251–267.
265.
SimontonD. K. (1989). Chance-configuration theory of scientific creativity. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., Psychology of science (pp. 170–213). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
266.
SimontonD. K. (1990). Psychology, science, and history: A treatise on their convergence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
267.
SimontonD. K. (1991). Career landmarks in science: Individual differences and interdisciplinary contrasts. Developmental Psychology, 27, 119–130.
268.
SimontonD. K. (1992a). The social context of career success and course for 2, 026 scientists and inventors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 452–463.
269.
SimontonD. K. (1992b). Leaders in American psychology, 1879–1967: Career development, creative output and professional achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 5–17.
270.
SimontonD. K. (1995). Behavioral laws in histories of psychology: Psychological science, metascience, and the psychology of science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 89–114.
271.
SingerB. F. (1971). Toward a psychology of science. American Psychologist, 26, 1010–1015.
272.
SmithersA. G., & BatcockA. (1970). Success and failure among social scientists and health scientists at a technological university. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 40, 144–153.
273.
SonnertG. (1995). What makes a good scientist?: Determinants of peer evaluation among biologists. Social Studies of Science, 25, 35–55.
274.
StaatsA. (1991). Unified positivism and unification psychology. American Psychologist, 46, 899–912.
275.
StanleyJ. C. (1988). Some characteristics of SMPY's “700-800 on SAT-M before age 13 group”: Youths who reason extremely well mathematically. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 205–209.
276.
StanleyJ. C., KeatingD. P., FoxL. H., (1974). Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
277.
StantonF., & BakerK. H. (1942). Interviewer bias and the recall of incompletely learned materials. Sociometry, 5, 123–134.
278.
SteinerI. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
279.
SternbergR. J. (1986). The triarchic mind: A new theory of human intelligence. New York: Viking Penguin Inc.
280.
SternbergR. J. (1988a). A three-facet model of creativity. In SternbergR. J., The nature of creativity (pp. 125–147). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
281.
SternbergR. J. (1988b). The male/female difference is there: Should we care?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 210–211.
282.
SternbergR. J., & GordeevaT. (1996). The anatomy of impact: What makes an article influential. Psychological Science, 7, 69–75.
283.
SternbergR. J., WagnerR. K., WilliamsW. M., & HorvathJ. A. (1995). Testing common sense. American Psychologist, 50, 912–927.
284.
StevensS. S. (1936). Psychology: The propaedeutic science. Philosophy of Science, 3, 90–104.
285.
StevensS. S. (1939). Psychology and the science of science. Psychological Bulletin, 36, 221–263.
286.
SubotnikR. F., DuschlR. A., & SelmonE. H. (1993). Retention and attrition of science talent: A longitudinal study of Westinghouse science talent search winners. International Journal of Science Education, 15, 61–72.
287.
SubotnikR. F., & SteinerC. L. (1992). Adult manifestations of adolescent talent in science. Roeper Review, 15, 164–169.
288.
SuedfeldP. (1985). APA presidential addresses: The relation of integrative complexity to historical, professional and personal factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1634–1651.
289.
SullowayF. (1996). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. New York: Pantheon.
290.
TaylorD. W. (1963). Variables related to creativity and productivity among men in two research laboratories. In TaylorC. W. & BarronF., Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 228–250). New York: Wiley & Sons.
291.
TaylorC. W., & BarronF. (1963). Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
292.
TermanL. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 1. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
293.
TermanL. M. (1954). Scientists and nonscientists in a group of 800 men. Psychological Monographs, 68, (7, Whole No. 378).
294.
TermanL. M. (1955). Are scientists different?Scientific American, 192, 25–29.
295.
TetlockP. E., & SuedfeldP. (1988). Integrative complexity coding of verbal behavior. In AntakiC., Lay explanation (pp. 43–59). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
296.
ThagardP. (1988). Computational philosophy of science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
297.
ThagardP., & NowakG. (1990). The conceptual structure of the geological revolution. In ShragerJ. & LangleyP., Computational models of scientific discovery and theory formation (pp. 27–72). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.
298.
TweneyR. D. (1985). Faraday's discovery of induction: A cognitive approach. In GoodingD. & JamesF., Faraday rediscovered: Essays on the life and work of Michael Faraday: 1791–1867New York: Stockton Press.
299.
TweneyR. D. (1989). A framework for the cognitive psychology of science. In GholsonB., ShadishW. R.Jr., NeimeyerR. A., & HoutsA. C., Psychology of Science (pp. 342–366). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
300.
TweneyR. D. (1991). Faraday's notebooks: The active organization of creative science. Physics Education, 26, 301–306.
301.
TweneyR. D. (1994). Towards a cognitive psychology of science. Mexican Journal of Behavioral Analysis, 20, 35–46.
302.
TweneyR. D., & ChitwoodS. T. (1995). Scientific reasoning. In NewsteadS. E. & EvansS. St. B. T., Perspectives on thinking and reasoning: Essays in honour of Peter Wason (pp. 241–260). Hove, England: Erlbaum.
303.
TweneyR. D., DohertyM. E., MynattC. R., (1981). On scientific thinking. New York: Columbia University Press.
304.
UdellG. G., BakerK. G., & AlbaumG. S. (1976). Creativity: Necessary, but not sufficient. Journal of Creative Behavior, 10, 92–103.
305.
VandenbergS. G. (1988). Could these sex differences be due to genes?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 212–214.
306.
Van ZelstR. H., & KerrW. A. (1954). Personality self-assessment of scientific and technical personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 145–147.
307.
VernonP. E. (1989). The nature–nurture problem in creativity. In GloverA., RonningR. R., & ReynoldsC. R., Handbook of creativity: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 93–110). New York: Plenum Press.
308.
WallachM. A. (1970). Creativity. In MussenP. H., Manual of child psychology (pp. 1211–1272). New York: Wiley & Sons.
309.
WallerN. G., BouchardT. J., LykkenD. T., TellegenA., & BlackerD. M. (1993). Creativity, heritability, familiality: Which word does not belong?Psychological Inquiry, 4, 235–237.
310.
WasonP. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.
311.
WertsC. E., & WatleyD. J. (1972). Paternal influence on talent development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19, 367–373.
312.
WhartonC. M., ChengP. W., & WickensT. D. (1993). Hypothesis-testing strategies: Why two goals are better than one. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(4), 743–758.
313.
WienerN. (1953). Ex-prodigy: My childhood and youth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
314.
WilsonG. D., & JacksonC. (1994). The personality of physicists. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 187–189.
315.
WiseL. L., SteelL., & McDonaldC. (1979). Origins and career consequences of sex differences in high school mathematics achievement. Washington, DC: American Institute for Research.
316.
WiserM., & CareyS. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In GentnerD. & StevensA. L., Mental models (pp. 267–297). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
317.
WispeL. G. (1963). Traits of eminent American psychologists. Science, 141, 1256–1261.
318.
ZacharP., & LeongF. T. L. (1992). A problem of personality: Scientist and practitioner differences in psychology. Journal of Personality, 60, 667–677.
319.
ZuckermanH. (1977). Scientific elite. New York: Free Press.
320.
ZuckermanH., & ColeJ. R. (1975). Women in American science,. Minerva, 13, 82–102.
321.
ZuckermanH., & MertonR. K. (1972). Age, aging, and age structure. In RileyM. W., JohnsonM., & FonerA., Aging and Society, Vol. 3 (292–356). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
322.
ZuckermanM. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University Press.
