subjects, studies and futures of social psychology of science; Suggestions for science and technology policy makers

Document Type : Review article


public Administration, Islamic studies and management, Imam sadiq university, Tehran, Iran


Attention to the unique role of science in the development of a country and the special attention to this issue in recent years has led, along with the study of science from a philosophical and historical point of view, from the angles that followed its prescriptive, namely, the planning and policy-making of related sciences It is also worth looking at. In addition to economics and sociology of science, psychology of science has also studied science from its own angle, ie, the study of psychological factors influencing scientific behavior of scientists. One of the branches of the psychology of science is the social psychology of science, which is more recent than other branches, and studies how other people and scientists are influencing scientific activity. Effects of the Experimenter on the Experiment, Social-Cultural Influences on Science, Influences Evaluation of Science, science networks, Mentorships/Training, Small Group Processes in Science and Gender and Science are among the issues that have been studied so far. Possible Historical Case Studies, Possible Experimental Paradigms, the study of the impact of competition and collaboration, the perception and advocacy of other people on scientific behavior, how to allocate the cause of the effects, issues of industrial-organizational psychology are also issues that have not been studied seriously and made to as the future lies in the social psychology of science. The quantitative and qualitative development of international communication, the emphasis on Mentorships and the allocation of special privilege to this in the promotion of faculty members, the balancing of individual and group activities in scientific research, correct distribution and allocation of the appropriate academic positions and related occupations relative to gender, and Ultimately, helping to develop the field of psychology of science are suggestions based on the findings for policy makers of science and technology.


موسوی، آرش (1387). «توسعۀ تاریخی و مبانی معرفت‌شناختی روان‌شناسی علم». فصلنامۀ روش‌شناسی علوم انسانی، 14(55). 111-95.
موسوی، آرش (1390). درآمدی بر روان‌شناسی علم؛ تحلیل روان‌شناختی فرایند نظریه‌پردازی، قم: پژوهشگاه حوزه و دانشگاه.
Achter, J. A., Lubinski, D., and Benbow, C. P. (1996). “Multipotentiality among the intellectually gifted: It was never there and already it’s vanishing.” Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 65–76.
Allport, G. W. (1985). “The historical background of social psychology”. In Handbook of social psychology, ed. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Asch, S. E. (1956). “Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority”. Psychological Monographs 70(9), 1-70
Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., and Eftekhari- Sanjani, H. E. (2000). “Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: Their status 20 years later”. Psychological Science, 11(6), 474- 80
Berry, C. (1981). “The Nobel scientists and the origins of scientific achievement”. British Journal of Sociology, 32(3), 381–391.
Brewer W. F. and Mishra P. (1998). “science” IN W. Bechtel and G. Graham(eds.), blackwell companion to cognitive science, Oxford: Blackwell, p 744-749
Callon, M. (1974). “Is Science a Public Good?”. science, Technology and human values, 19, Isssue 4, 395-424.
Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D. M., and Gerhardstein, R. (2002). “All consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype threat can restrain women academically and professionally”. Personality and Social Psychology, 28(12), 615–28.
Feist, G. J. and Gorman, M. E. (1998). “The Psychology of Science: review and Integration of a Nascent Discipline”. review of general psychology, 2(1), 3-47.
Feist, G. J. (2006). the psychology of science and origins of scientific mind. New Haven. CT: Yale University Press
Feist, G. J., Paletz, S., and Weitzer, W. (2005). Predicting scientific interest in college students: The influence of quantitative skills, gender, self-image, and personality. Manuscript in preparation
Fox Keller, E. (1986). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Gorman, M. E. (1986). “How the possibility of error affects falsification on a task that models scientific problem-solving”. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 85–96.
Gorman, M. E. and Rosenwein, R. (1995). “Simulating social epistemology”. Social Epistemology, 91, 71–79.
International Conference at the National Institute for Science, Technology and Development tudies (NISTADS) on “Women in zcience: Is the Glass Ceiling Disappearing,”New Delhi, India, March 8 to 10, 2004.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). “Attribution theory in social psychology”. In Nebraska symposium on motivation,ed. D. L. Vine. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Long, J. S. (2001). From scarcity to visibility: Gender differences in the careers of doctoral scientists and engineers. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shadish, W. R. (1989). “The perception and evaluation of quality in science”. In Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience, ed. B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish, R. A. Neimeyer, and A. C. Houts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shadish, W. R. and Fuller, S. (1994). Social psychology of science. New York: Guilford Press.
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., and Ambady, N. (1999). “Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance”. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80–83.
Simonton, D. K. (1975). “Invention and discovery among the sciences: A p-technique factor analysis”. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 7, 275–281.
Simonton, D. K. (1980). “Techno-scientific activity and war: A yearly time-series analysis,1500-1903 A.D”. Scientometrics, 2, 251–55.
Simonton, D. K. (1989). “Chance-configuration theory of scientific creativity” In Psychology of science: Contributions to metascience, ed. B. Gholson, W. R. Shadish, R. A. Neimeyer, and A. C.
Zuckerman, H. (1996). Scientific elite. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press.