Why study the evolution of intelligence? // The evolution of intelligence. Mahwah, N. J.: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2001. P. 1–7.
Sundararajan L. The Chinese Notions of Harmony, With Special Focus on Implications for Cross-Cultural and Global Psychology // The Humanistic Psychologist. 2013. V. 41. P. 25–34.
Tele-interviews // European Psychologist. 2000. V. 5. № 2. Sp. iss. P. 90–162.
The Adapted Mind / Ed. by J. H. Barkow, J. Tooby, L. Cosmides. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
The debated mind: Evolutionary psychology versus ethnography / Ed. by H. Whitehouse. N. Y.: Berg, 2001.
The developmental psychologists: Research adventures across the life-span / Ed. by M. R. Merrens, G. G. Brannigan. N. Y.: McGrow-Hill, 1996.
The evolution of intelligence / Eds R. J. Sternberg, J. C. Kaufman. Mahwah, N. J.: L. Erlbaum Associates, 2001.
The social psychology of knowledge / Ed. by D. Bar-Tal, A. W. Kruglanski. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1988.
Timberlake W. Animal behavior: a continuing synthesis // Ann. Rev. Psychol. 1993. V. 44. P. 675–708.
Todes D. P. Darwin without Malthus. N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Todes D. Ivan Pavlov: A Russian Life in Science. Oxford University Press, 2014.
Tolman C. W. The basic vocabulary of activity theory. Activity Theory, Berlin: ISCRAT, 1988. Р. 14–20
Tooby J., Cosmides L. The past explains the present // Ethology and Sociobiology. 1990. V. 11. P. 375–424.
Tooby J., Cosmides L. The psychological foundations of culture // The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture / Eds J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, J. Tooby. Р. 19–136. N.Y.: Oxford University Press. 1992
Toomela A. Activity theory is a dead end for cultural-historical psychology // Culture & Psychology. 2000. № 6. P. 353–364.
Toomela A. Culture of science: Strange history of the methodological thinking in psychology // Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2007. V. 41. P. 6–20.
Toomela A. Commentary: activity theory is a dead end for methodological thinking in cultural psychology too // Culture & Psychology. 2008. № 14. P. 289–303.
Toomela A. Modern mainstream psychology is the best? Noncumulative, historically blind, fragmented, atheoretical // Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2010. P. 1–26.
Triandis H. C. The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts // Psychological Review. 1989. V. 96. № 3. P. 506–520.
Turner S., Turner J. The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of American Sociology. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1990.
UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030 – Executive Summary Published in 2015 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2015.
Unger R. Resisting Gender: Twenty-Five Years of Feminist Psychology. L.: Sage, 1998.
Urry J. Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2003.
Valsiner J. Cultural psychology today: innovations and oversights // Culture & Psychology. 2009a. № 15 (1). P. 5–40.
Valsiner J. Integrating Psychology within the Globalizing World // Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2009b. V. 43. Iss. 1. P. 1–21.
Valsiner J. A guided science: history of psychology in the mirror of its making. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2012.
Valsiner J. Between Self and Societies: Creating Psychology in a New Key. Tallinn: TLU Press, 2017.
Van der Linden D., Te Nijenhuis J., Bakker A. B. The general factor of personality: A metaanalysis and a criterion-related validity study // Journal of Research in Personality. 2010. V. 44. Р. 315–327.
Van der Linden D., Dunkel C. S., Figueredo A. J., Gurven M., von Rueden Ch., Woodley M. A. of Menie. How Universal Is the General Factor of Personality? An Analysis of the Big Five in Forager Farmers of the Bolivian Amazon // Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2018. V. 49 (7). P. 1081–1097.
Van der Veer R. Lev Vygotsky. L.: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2007.
Van der Veer R, Valsiner J. Understanding Vygotsky. A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991.
Vassilieva Y. Russian Psychology at the turn of the 21st century and post-Soviet reforms in the humanities disciplines // History of Psychology. 2010. № 13 (2). P. 138–159.
Vaughan T., Sjoberg G., Reynolds L. A Critique of Contemporary American Sociology. N. Y.: Roman & Littlefield, 1993.
Vessuri H. Global social science discourse: A Southern perspective on the world // Current Sociology. 2015. V. 63 (2). Р. 297–313.
Vygotsky L. S. The collected works. V. 1–2. L.: Plenum Press, 1987.
Walsh-Bowers R. Some social-historical issues underlying psychology’s fragmentation // New Ideas in Psychology. 2010. № 28. P. 244–252.
Westermark E. A. The History of Human Marriage. N. Y.: Macmillan & Co., 1891.
What’s Wrong with Sociology? / Ed. by S. Cole. N. Y.: Transaction Publishers, 2001.
Wilson D. S. Adaptive genetic variation and human evolutionary psychology // Ethology and Sociobiology. 1994. V. 15. P. 219–235.
Wilson E. O. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1975.
Wilson E. O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. L.: Little, Brown, 1998. Wolf A.P. Childhood association and sexual attraction.// American Antropologist. 1970. № 72. P. 503–515.
Wright R. The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life. London: Abacus, 1996.
Yamagishi T. What can be Asian in Asian psychology // Int. J. Psychology. 2000. V. 35. Sp. iss. 3/4.
Yamagishi T., Hashimoto H., Cook K. S. et al. Modesty in self-presentation: A comparison between the USA and Japan // Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 2012. V. 15. № 1. P. 60–68.
Yang K.-S. Monocultural and cross-cultural indigenous approaches // Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 2000. V. 3. P. 241–263.
Zittoun T., Gillespie A, Cornish F Fragmentation or Differentiation // Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. 2009. V. 43. № 2. P. 104–115.
Примечания
1
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant – белый, англо-саксонец, протестант.
2
Владиславлев, получивший образование в Германии, как большинство российских интеллигентов досоветского периода, разделял веру Канта в нравственный закон, априорно данный человеку, он переводил сочинения Канта.
3
Следует заметить, что в терминологии Б. Г. Ананьева понятие субъекта существенно уже, чем в описываемом здесь контексте. У Б. Г. Ананьева оно ближе к значению понятия субъекта в данном смысле находится понятие индивидуальности, которое, однако, понятию субъекта, по нашему мнению, не тождественно.
4
1 «В результате многолетней работы в русле единой системы в советской психологии сложился общий методологический каркас, который выступал
