196,528 research outputs found
[Portrait of Robert M. Yerkes]
No full text[PORTRAIT OF ROBERT M. YERKES]
Evans, Rand. Department of Psychology, East Carolina University: Archival Material (-)
[Portrait of Robert M. Yerkes] (p0001recto
[Robert M. Yerkes with chronoscope in his Harvard room]
No full text[ROBERT M. YERKES WITH CHRONOSCOPE IN HIS HARVARD ROOM]
Evans, Rand. Department of Psychology, East Carolina University: Archival Material (-)
[Robert M. Yerkes with chronoscope in his Harvard room] (p0001
Corporatism and the mediation of social risks
No full textThe level of protection against social risks that is organised in a welfare state is not only dependent upon the arrangements of the welfare state itself, but also, as we have seen in the previous chapter, on arrangements organised in firms or in collective bargaining. The previous chapter investigatedthe introduction of the idea of employability as a strategy to enhance job security and concluded that the collective bargaining process facilitated the introduction and relative success of this strategy in collective labour agreements and in the labour policies of firms. This was explained by the institutional complementarity that exists in the Dutch corporatist welfare state between the norm of job security and the normative ideals of the strategy of enhancing employability. In this chapter, we focus on the corporatist institution of collective bargaining that is so important to Dutch labour policy and investigate the role this institution plays in risk management and the contribution it makes tothe protection against old and new social risks. In this chapter, we investigate the interaction between risk protection by the welfare state and provisions in collective labour agreements. If one diminishes, how does the other react? We investigate this interaction in relation to welfare state retrenchment (is this compensated for in collective labour agreements?), in relationto old and new social risks (to what extent do collective labour agreements and the traditional institution of social security protect against new social risks?) and in relation to the decentralisation of collective labour agreements (does decentralisation lead to a decrease in risk-protection?). Welearn that, as was the case in the previous chapter, the ‘old’ institutions of the (corporatist) welfare state play a decisive role in the birth of a ‘new welfare settlement’
R. M. Yerkes and G. E. Huggins: Habit Formation in the Crawfish Cambarus Affinis. Psychol. Rev. Monogr. Suppl. 4, Harvard Psych. Stud. 1, 565-577. 1903
No full textR. M. YERKES AND G. E. HUGGINS: HABIT FORMATION IN THE CRAWFISH CAMBARUS AFFINIS. PSYCHOL. REV. MONOGR. SUPPL. 4, HARVARD PSYCH. STUD. 1, 565-577. 1903
Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane (-)
Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane (35) (a0008)
R. M. Yerkes and G. E. Huggins: Habit Formation in the Crawfish Cambarus Affinis. Psychol. Rev. Monogr. Suppl. 4, Harvard Psych. Stud. 1, 565-577. 1903 (35) (p0320
National attitudes as a barrier to European citizenship rights? The case of parenthood, partnership and social rights across diverse family forms
No full textLa loi de Yerkes-Dobson : problèmes méthodologiques liés à sa vérification
No full textde Bonis M. La loi de Yerkes-Dobson : problèmes méthodologiques liés à sa vérification. In: L'année psychologique. 1968 vol. 68, n°1. pp. 121-141
Our Primate Materials Robert M. Yerkes and the Introduction of the Primate to Problems of Human Betterment in the American Eugenics Movement
No full textMy master\u27s thesis examines how eugenicist and psychologist Robert M. Yerkes’ experimental intelligence research helped to situate the non-human primate as the ideal research subject for human betterment research in the twentieth century U.S. Yerkes believed that the primate was the ideal research subject to address questions of human betterment and social welfare, specifically best to create methods of evaluating the imagined threat of intellectual disability. While Yerkes has been studied extensively in the history of psychology, primatology, and eugenics, rarely have his separate contributions to these fields been placed in conversation with one another. Placing the primate at the center of Yerkes’ work allows for all three fields to engage with one another in a new perspective. By analyzing Yerkes’ publications about the Multiple-Choice Experiment within the context of the American eugenics’ movement, we can see how the primate came to hold a central position in U.S. scientific research, the advancement of human welfare and betterment, and as a means of defining what it means to be human. This story offers a glimpse into this longer process of how the primate came to occupy this position, but even a glimpse offers historians of the American eugenics’ movement new questions. What was the role of the non-human animal in the formulation of American eugenic theories? How have we historically used the natural world in our attempts to separate ourselves from it? And can we truly reconcile a history with eugenics if we continue to ignore the role of animals within it, they who today exist unquestionably within the status of the sub-human
National attitudes as a barrier to European citizenship rights? : The case of parenthood and partnership rights for individuals in diverse family forms
No full textThis chapter explores national attitudes towards civil and social rights across diverse family forms in Europe and the role of European Union in harmonizing these rights across Member States. It uses cross-national data from a pilot study among students in Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Italy and the Netherlands to investigate cross-country differences in these attitudes. It concludes that respondents from more traditional countries tend to privilege the rights of married heterosexual couples over other family forms than respondents in non-traditional countries. In more traditional countries, respondents were less likely to agree that equality on civil rights is necessary. In all countries, advocating a common legal framework across Europe regarding parenthood rights appears to be stronger, and in the field of partnership rights when it concerns civil unions rather than marriages, with no differences across family types. In the field of social rights, the support for a common legal framework across Europe is weaker in less traditional countries
- …
