ReviewIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2016
A Philosophical vs. a Psychological Perspective on Borders.
Review in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ontological Issues and the Possible Development of Cultural Psychology.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2017Review
- Once More about Boesch's Ontological Predication in Focus.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2017Article
- Concerning the Importance of Ontological Issues for Cultural Psychology: a Reply to Comments.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2017Article
- Psychological Functions of Semiotic Borders in Sense-Making: Liminality of Narrative Processes.Europe's journal of psychology · 2017Article
- Ernst E. Boesch's Ontologic Predication in Focus.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper questions to what extent borders are to be understood from a philosophical or a psychological perspective. This is done by investigating the distinction between philosophy and psychology that comes up as a result of Immanuel Kant's investigation of the pure reason. Ontology is found as a demarcation criterion between the two fields in the sense that it is of crucial importance in philosophy, but not of certain interest from a psychological point of view. An investigation of three assumptions in the perspective of affective loading follows this up, which confirms the efficiency of borders in psychological meaning production.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26518569What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.