General Editor
David Matsumoto
San Francisco State University
Purchase Now !
Just with Paypal

Book Details
 606 p
 File Size 
 7,910 KB
 File Type
 PDF format
 978-0-511-63157-3 eBook (Dawsonera) 
 978-0-521-85470-2 Hardback
 978-0-521-67100-2 Paperback
 Cambridge University Press 2009 

dictionary n. A book containing a selection of the
words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically,
giving information about their meanings,
pronunciations, etymologies, and the like.
psychology n. The study of the mind including
consciousness, perception, motivation, behavior,
the biology of the nervous system in its
relation to mind, scientifi c methods of studying
the mind, cognition, social interactions in relation
to mind, individual differences, and the
application of these approaches to practical
problems in organization and commerce and
especially to the alleviation of suffering.
It is perhaps most fi tting that a dictionary
of psychology begins with defi nitions of the
terms dictionary and psychology. This is the
defi nition of psychology presented in this
work, and it highlights several important
points concerning this dictionary. First,
psychology is broad. Its contents range from
the microlevel neural processes that form
the building blocks of thought, feeling, and
action to the macrolevel social and cultural
processes that bind us with our primate relatives
in our evolutionary history and defi ne
our collectives. For that reason, a dictionary
of psychology needs to include terms and concepts
related to neural structures, chemicals,
transmitters, genes, and anatomy, as much as
it needs to include social processes, network
analysis, and cultural norms and artifacts.
It also needs to include concepts related to
the array of abnormal behaviors and methods
related to their treatment.
Second, psychology is a science. Knowledge
in psychology is generated through empirical
research, a conglomeration of methods that
allow for the generation of theories of human
behavior and the testing of hypotheses
derived from those theories. This set of
methods includes both qualitative and
quantitative approaches, case studies as
well as carefully controlled experiments, and
rigorous statistical procedures and inferential
decision making. All knowledge in psychology
is based on such research. Thus, understanding
the meaning, boundaries, and limitations of
psychological knowledge requires students to
have a working knowledge of psychological
research methods, statistics, probability, and inference.
Third, because the discipline of psychology
is broad, and because it is based on science,
it is a living discipline. That means that the
theories, concepts, and terminology used in
psychology are never static but often are in
fl ux, changing across time as theories, methodologies,
and knowledge change. Terms
that had a certain meaning in previous years,
such as borderline personality, homosexuality, and
self, have different meanings today and will
likely mean different things in the future.
Additionally, new terms and concepts are
continually being invented (e.g., psychoneuroimmunology),
in keeping with the contemporary
and evolving nature of psychology as a science.
This dictionary captures these characteristics
of psychology as a living, scientifi c
discipline by focusing on several defi ning
characteristics. It is comprehensive, capturing
the major terms and concepts that frame the
discipline of psychology, from the level of
neurons to social structures and as a science.
It is interdisciplinary, highlighting psychological
concepts that cut behavior at its joints,
whether the joints refer to social cognitive
neuroscience (a term defi ned in this dictionary)
or the interactions among culture, personality,
and genes. And it is international and
cross-cultural, owing to the growth of psychology
around the world, the interaction between
American and international approaches and
perspectives, and the education of American
psychology by the study and practice of
psychology in other countries and cultures.
In this digital age, when information concerning
psychology and many other disciplines
is already readily available online and
in various reference texts, a relevant question
is, Why produce another? The answer is very
simple: because no other reference work on
the fi eld of psychology captures the characteristics
described previously. Many, for
example, do not do justice to psychology
as a science and therefore do not include references
to research methodologies and statistics.
This work does. Many reference works
present psychology from a more clinical orientation
and do not present psychology as
an interdisciplinary science. This work does.
And many other works present psychology
mainly from an American perspective and
do not present it as the global, international
discipline that it is. This work does.
These characteristics were accomplished
in several ways, the most important of which
were the recruitment and active participation
of a stellar Editorial Advisory Board (EAB).
Each of these individuals is an accomplished
scholar in his or her own right, and we were
very fortunate indeed to gain their participation
in the project. They guided me in every
single aspect of the production, and I was
fortunate to gain many insights their wisdom
and guidance provided.
Next, the entire work was reviewed not only
by the EAB but also by an equally stellar cast
of Managing Editors. Like the EAB, all of
these individuals are accomplished scholars
in their own right, and indeed are some of
the leading researchers in the world in their
respective areas of expertise. Equally important,
they are from many different countries,
cultures, and perspectives and have been able
to create the interdisciplinary, international,
and cross-cultural fl avor in the book, not only
in the selection of the keyword entries but
also in their writing.
Finally, we were very fortunate to have
so many authors contribute their time and
expertise to the project (see pages ix–xiii).
All of them are excellent researchers, teachers,
and scholars in psychology, and all
brought their expertise to bear in making
the discipline of psychology come to life in
their entries. They also made their entries
relevant to a global perspective, not just an
American one, and accessible to the educated lay reader.
These three groups of individuals worked
seamlessly as a team to deliver the product you
see today. The work started with the creation
of the keyword list. For any reference work of
this type, the selection of the keyword entries
is crucial to the success of the fi nal product,
and I believe that the process by which
they were selected for inclusion in this work
was exemplary. First, the Editorial Advisory
Board and I reviewed all of the keyword
entries in the various psychology dictionaries
that currently exist, as well as a number of
the leading textbooks used in introductory
psychology. This accomplished two goals.
While of course it led to an identifi cation of
keywords that we could deem “standard” in
the fi eld of psychology – by being cross-listed
in multiple sources – it also allowed us to identify
what was not included elsewhere, or that
which was idiosyncratic to its source. It was at
this point that the EAB and I were able to add
keyword terms that we felt could accomplish
the goal of making this work comprehensive
and timely, terms that specifi cally addressed
our goal of being international, crosscultural,
and interdisciplinary.
In addition, many contemporary dictionaries
do not focus on the scientifi c aspects
of psychology and consequently do not
include terms concerning research methods
or statistics. In this dictionary, however,
we have made a point of including many
of the terms that students of psychological
science will encounter, especially concerning
the numerous types of reliability and
validity, various types of statistics and probability,
and various experimental designs.
Finally, after the EAB and I had completed
our initial selection of keywords, our distinguished
group of Managing Editors and
authors provided us with yet additional levels
of expertise, proposing new keywords within
their areas of interests. For example, these
are a sampling of the keywords included
in the Cambridge Dictionary that are not
included in many of the other dictionaries
on the market:
Behavioral endocrinology
Collective self
Confi gurative culture
Culture assimilator training
Dialectical reasoning
Differential item functioning
Distributive justice
Ecological fallacy
Ecological-level analysis
Effect size
Emotion theory
Eta squared
Face (concept of)
False uniqueness effect
Filial piety
Fourfold point correlation
Front horizontal foreshortening theory
Gene expression
Hierarchical linear modeling
Implicit communication
Indigenous healing
Individual-level analysis
Intercultural adaptation
Intercultural adjustment
Intercultural communication
Intercultural communication competence
Intercultural sensitivity
Item reliability
Lay theories of behavioral causality
Naikan therapy
National character
Need for cognition
Neural imaging
Norm group
Omega squared
Omnibus test
Outgroup homogeneity bias
Ranked distribution
Regression weight
Response sets
Retributive justice
Social axiom
Social network analysis
Standardization sample
Statistical artifact
Statistical inference
Tacit communication
Terror management theory
Tetrachoric correlation
Ultimatum game
A quick perusal of the list makes it clear
that all of these terms are widely used in contemporary
psychology today, owing to its
interdisciplinary and cross-cultural ties and
its existence as a scientifi c discipline. These
entries, along with the way they were written,
make this text unique and timely in the fi eld.

Icek Aizen
University of Massachusetts
Dolores Albarracin
University of Florida
Jeanette Altarriba
SUNY – Albany
Bob Altemeyer
University of Manitoba
Drew A. Anderson
SUNY – Albany
Alfredo Ardila
Florida International University
Evelyn W. M. Au
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Ozlem N. Ayduk
University of California, Berkeley
Amy Badura-Brack
Creighton University
Mahzarin R. Banaji
Harvard University
Albert Bandura
Stanford University
Lisa M. Bauer
Pepperdine University
Veronica Benet-Martinez
University of California, Riverside
Kathy R. Berenson
Columbia University
Peter Borkenau
Martin-Luther University
Marc A. Brackett
Yale University
Laura A. Brannon
Kansas State University
Linda Brannon
McNeese State University
Jonathan Brown
University of Washington
Jennifer Bruce
Purdue University
Susan Burns
Morning Side College
Gustavo Carlo
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Dana R. Carney
Harvard University
David W. Carroll
University of Wisconsin – Superior
Jose Centeno
St. John’s University
Edward C. Chang
University of Michigan
Rita Chang
University of Michigan
Shirley Y. Y. Cheng
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Chi Yue Chiu
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Andrew Christopher
Albion College
Austin Timothy Church
Washington State University
Mark Costanzo
Claremont McKenna College
Thomas S. Critchfi eld
Illinois State University
Frances Daniel
University of Illinois, Chicago
Sharon Danoff-Burg
SUNY – Albany
Mark Dechesne
University of Maryland
Filip De Fruyt
Ghent University
Ken DeMarree
Texas Tech University
Nicholas DiFonzo
Rochester Institute of Technology
Kristen A. Diliberto-Macaluso
Berry College
Dale Dinnel
Western Washington University
Stephen Dollinger
Southern Illinois University
G. William Domhoff
University of California, Santa Cruz
Christina A. Downey
University of Michigan
Geraldine Downey
Columbia University
Andrew Elliot
University of Rochester
Robert A. Emmons
University of California, Davis
Erica Fanning
CUNY Graduate Center
Eva M. Fernandez
City University of New York
Steve Franconeri
University of British Columbia
David Gard
San Francisco State University
Michele Gelfand
University of Maryland
Jennifer L. Gianico
SUNY – Albany
Howard Giles
University of California, Santa Barbara
Anna Gladkova
Australian National University
Normaris Gonzalez-Miller
New York Medical College
Donald Graves
SUNY – Albany
William Graziano
Purdue University
Jeffrey Greenberg
University of Arizona
Maria Rosario T. De Guzman
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Curtis Hardin
Brooklyn College
Sam A. Hardy
University of Virginia
Trevor A. Harley
Dundee University
Rachel Hayes
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Marlone D. Henderson
University of Chicago
E. Tory Higgins
Columbia University
Allyson L. Holbrook
University of Illinois – Chicago
Ying-yi Hong
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Tim Johnson
University of Illinois – Chicago
John T. Jost
New York University
Janice M. Juraska
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Lee Jussim
Rutgers University
Todd Kahan
Bates College
Yoshi Kashima
University of Melbourne
Anatoliy V. Kharkhurin
American University of Sharjah
John F. Kihlstrom
University of California, Berkeley
Young-Hoon Kim
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Suzanne Kirschner
College of the Holy Cross
Jason W. Kisling
Sun Lake Shimane Prefecture Youth Center, Japan
Arie Kruglanski
University of Maryland
John Kurtz
Villanova University
Nicole Landi
Haskins Laboratories
Ellen Langer
Harvard University
Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling
University of South Alabama
Heidi Lary
Stony Brook University
Patrick R. Laughlin
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Greg Lehne
Johns Hopkins Medical Center
Hong Li
University of Florida
Elizabeth F. Loftus
University of California, Irvine
Kevin MacDonald
California State University, Long Beach
David MacKinnon
Arizona State University
B. Jean Mandernach
Park University
Viorica Marian
Northwestern University
Todd Jason McCallum
Case Western Reserve University
Michael McCaslin
Ohio State University
Robert R. McCrae
National Institute on Aging
Kathleen C. McCulloch
Idaho State University
Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton
University of California, Berkeley
Tanya Menon
University of Chicago
Felicity Miao
University of Virginia
Joshua Miller
University of Georgia
Arlen C. Moller
University of Rochester
Sik-hung Ng
City University of Hong Kong
Kim Noels
University of Alberta
J. Farley Norman
University of Western Kentucky
Shigehiro Oishi
University of Virginia
Sumie Okazaki
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Margaret R. Ortmann
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
Nansook Park
University of Rhode Island
Marc Patry
St. Mary’s University
Sam Paunonen
University of Western Ontario
Chris Peterson
University of Michigan
Tiamoyo Peterson
University of California, Irvine
Richard Petty
Ohio State University
Cynthia L. Pickett
University of California, Davis
Valerie K. Pilling
Kansas State University
Jason Plaks
University of Washington
Gary E. Raney
University of Illinois – Chicago
Neal Roese
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Glenn Roisman
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Jerome Rossier
University of Lausanne
Kelly A. Sauerwein
University of California, Davis
Virginia Saunders
San Francisco State University
Anne R. Schutte
University of Nebraska, Lincoln
William G. Shadel
RAND Corporation
Dikla Shmueli
University of California, San Francisco
Jessica Sim
University of Chicago
Peter Smith
University of Sussex
Emily G. Soltano
Worcester State College
Amy Summerville
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
William B. Swann
University of Texas
Carmit Tamar Tadmor
University of California, Berkeley
Howard Tennen
University of Connecticut Health Center
Philip E. Tetlock
University of California, Berkeley
Abraham Tresser
University of Georgia
Harry Triandis
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Yaacov Trope
New York University
Chi-Shing Tse
SUNY – Albany
Jim Uleman
New York University
Johanneke van der Toorn
New York University
Joseph A. Vandello
University of South Florida
Patrick Vargas
University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign
Brendan Weekes
University of Sussex
Neil D. Weinstein
Rutgers University
Kipling D. Williams
Purdue University
Jessie Wilson
San Francisco State University
Katie M. Wood
University of South Alabama
Robert S. Wyer
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology


Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore,
São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo

Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
Loading... Protection Status