Ten Years After
A Decade of Internationalization and Topical Issues
With the current issue 1 of volume 225 (2017), the Zeitschrift für Psychologie (ZfP) celebrates its tenth anniversary as an English-language journal devoted to publishing topical issues from all branches of psychological science. Departing from the journal’s history that dates back to 1890 when Hermann Ebbinghaus and others founded the ZfP as a German-language psychology journal titled Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, Holling and Erdfelder (2007) were the first to launch an issue that was entirely published in English – a topical issue on human memory. Looking back at the past 10 years and the 40 topical issues that have appeared since Holling and Erdfelder’s issue 1 of volume 215 (2007), we feel that the step taken in 2007 was a good one. It was clearly worthwhile to head toward more internationality and a broader thematic scope of the ZfP – with respect to guest editors, authors, readers, and the topics of psychological research addressed in the journal.
As it now stands, the main objectives of the change in format have been met. First, the new ZfP attracted guest editors and authors from all over the world, several of them leading scholars in their fields. Second, almost all issues benefitted from international perspectives on the topic of interest, as exemplified by multinational groups of senior and junior researchers in the respective field. Third, as originally intended, the topical issues addressed so far covered virtually all parts of psychology. This not only holds for basic psychological science (a recent example is the issue on psychological reactance research, see Steindl, Jonas, Sittenthaler, Traut-Mattausch, & Greenberg, 2015) and applied psychology (see, e.g., the issue on competence measurement in higher education; Blömeke, Gustafsson, & Shavelson, 2015) but often also for research that aims at bridging the gap between applied and basic research, as exemplified by the topical issues on the role of memory in posttraumatic stress disorder (Flor & Wessa, 2010), on basic mechanisms underlying placebo effects (Klinger & Colloca, 2014), on psychological and neural consequences of torture (Weierstall, Elbert, & Maercker, 2011), and the recent issue on educational neuroscience (Ahr, Borst, & Houdé, 2016; Bédard, Laplante, & Mercier, 2016; Dion & Restrepo, 2016; Stern, Grabner, & Schumacher, 2016). Fourth, as a gratifying by-product of these achievements, the impact of ZfP publications on the field of psychology as a whole has also increased considerably. This is partly reflected in the positive developmental trend of the journal’s Web of ScienceTM impact factor since 2007, but even more so in several key papers published in ZfP that have become important for their field, as indicated by high citation rates. Most of these key papers are reviews (for a recent example, see Blömeke et al., 2015).
Formally, most ZfP issues focus on a single psychological topic and begin with a pertinent review, followed by up to six original articles. Where appropriate, guest editors may also include Research Notes on work in progress of high importance. In addition, the Opinion section can be used to cover current scientific controversies, typically on topics for which the empirical evidence is inconclusive.
Because of the increasing importance of research syntheses such as reviews, ZfP has recently supplemented an additional type of topical issues, called “hotspots in psychology” (Erdfelder & Bošnjak, 2016). In contrast to other issues, hotspot issues are thematically heterogeneous and allow for inclusion of all topics that are currently fiercely debated in psychology. The golden thread through potential contributions is methodological in nature: Hotspot issues include state-of-the-art meta-analyses (e.g., Chodura, Kuhn, & Holling, 2015; Lazarević et al., 2016; Rennung & Göritz, 2016, for recent examples), systematic reviews (e.g., Giroux, Coburn, Harley, Connolly, & Bernstein, 2016), and also methodological contributions on research synthesis approaches (e.g., Kühberger, Scherndl, Ludwig, & Simon, 2016). One hotspot issue has appeared so far (Erdfelder & Bošnjak, 2016), and we plan to continue this format regularly once per year, for the next time in issue 1 of volume 226 (2018).
This brings us to the contents of the current topical issue on applied psychological measurement, edited by Bernd Leplow. In behavioral science, measurement methods and measurement theory are often discussed in isolation, that is, separate from specific substantive research questions. Highly specialized disciplines like psychometrics and test theory typically aim at developing general-purpose tools that can be adapted to the needs of different psychological disciplines. Quite often, however, these general-purpose tools do not fit the substantive research questions closely enough to provide convincing scientific answers. As a consequence, more specific theory-guided measurement devices, instruments, and associated statistical methods need to be developed that are tailored to the research questions of interest.
In This Issue
The current topical issue presents a collection of examples of this type of research-question-driven applied psychological measurement. Because of the heterogeneity of the research topics and measurement methods covered in this issue, we have refrained from including a review article. Thus, all eight contributions to this issue report original research.
The current issue consists of three parts. The first part is about measurement of individual differences in cognition and includes three articles. In the second part, measurement issues in applied fields such as neuropsychology and trauma research are addressed in two contributions. Finally, in the third part, three articles discuss measurement issues in educational psychology and competence research.
Measuring Individual Differences in Cognition
The first part on cognition begins with a contribution by Danner, Hagemann, and Funke (2017) on measuring individual differences in implicit learning. Using one of the standard tasks to assess implicit learning – the artificial grammar learning task – the authors investigated effects of different task instructions and the inclusion of an explicit knowledge test. Their three experiments suggest that measures of individual differences in implicit learning share problems of low internal consistency and low reliability often found for other complex learning measures as well. Despite these caveats, however, results provide evidence that individual differences in implicit learning are unrelated to general intelligence and educational attainment. Thus, to allow for an exhaustive multidimensional assessment of cognitive skills, future research aiming at improved measures of implicit learning is necessary.
Another measure of individual differences in cognition – the propensity for using simple decision heuristics – is addressed in Pohl’s (2017) contribution. The author refers to the recognition heuristic (RH) of fast and frugal decision making, that is, the tendency to pick the recognized object whenever the decision maker has to choose between a recognized and non-recognized object. Based on the assumptions that (a) RH use involves knowledge about the validity of the recognition cue in the underlying decision domain (see Pohl, Michalkiewicz, Erdfelder, & Hilbig, 2017) and (b) that knowledge increases with age, the author predicts that RH use should increase from childhood to adolescence and adult age. Based on a multinomial model of RH use that disentangles the probability of pure RH use from other reasons to choose recognized objects, Pohl (2017) found support for the assumption that knowledge increases with age in a cross-sectional study. Somewhat surprisingly, however, RH use showed an inverted U-shaped trajectory across the life span: RH use increased from childhood to adolescence but then decreased again for adults.
The third contribution to Part 1 is also concerned with the measurement of decision preferences. Schneider, Streicher, Lermer, Sachs, and Frey (2017) address the so-called zero-risk bias in risky choice – the preference for certain wins (with probability = 1) to uncertain wins (with probability < 1) –, even if the expected value of the uncertain win is much higher than the proposed certain win. To clarify inconsistent results reported in the relevant literature, the authors assessed the effects of (a) the zero-risk bias measurement method and (b) the decision context in four different experiments. The results reveal that the measurement method is less crucial than the context in which the risky decision is embedded. Thus, the zero-risk bias appears to be a state rather than a stable trait, and it is influenced by task characteristics such as abstractness of the task and the decision domain. In sum, the zero-risk bias, although replicable as a psychological phenomenon, is labile and highly context sensitive if conceived as an individual difference measure.
Psychological Measurement in Clinical Contexts
The second part of this issue focuses on measurement in clinical contexts and starts with a neuropsychological contribution. Brunner et al. (2017) address a particularly challenging measurement issue in pain research, namely, the assessment of pain-induced suffering. The authors investigated this difficult and largely neglected topic using multimethod experimental pain induction approaches with healthy adults. Both visual analogue scales of pain-related suffering and the Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure were correlated with measures of subjective pain intensity, subjective unpleasantness, and various psychophysiological measures. Results suggest that suffering is distinct from subjective pain intensity and unpleasantness but is related to fear of pain, to private self-consciousness, and also to various peripheral physiological measures such as resting heart rate, skin conductance responses (SCR), and electromyogram (EMG). Thus, pain experiences should be conceived as multidimensional in nature. They require innovative assessment methods over and above established measures of subjective pain intensity and unpleasantness.
The Implicit Association Test (IAT) has been used as an indirect measure of various attitudes and personality dimensions for many years, despite the fact that IAT research has also uncovered a number of methodological problems inherent in IAT methodology. In their article, Bluemke et al. (2017) used IAT measures of aggressive attitudes to assess trauma effects among war-affected young men in Northern Uganda, including former child soldiers. The authors observed an intriguing dissociation between explicit and implicit attitudes toward aggression in this sample: With increasing trauma experiences, participants explicitly reported more appetite for aggression but at the same time they also showed less positive implicit attitudes toward aggression in the IAT. Importantly, objective physiological stress as reflected in cortisol levels was best predicted by the implicit attitude. IAT measures based on the diffusion model proved to be most useful in establishing validity.
Applied Measurement in Educational Contexts
The third and final part of this issue addresses applied measurement in educational psychology and competence assessment. In their contribution, Lüftenegger, Tran, Bardach, Schober, and Spiel (2017) propose the TARGET framework including the six instructional dimensions Task, Autonomy, Recognition, Grouping, Evaluation, and Time as a theoretical starting point for measuring the mastery goal structure of students in a classroom context. Given the lack of measurement instruments tailored to the TARGET dimensions, they develop a new questionnaire-based assessment instrument, called the Goal Structure Questionnaire (GSQ). Their findings indicate that the six GSQ scales are sufficiently reliable and can predict, among others, mastery goals and performance approach goals of students in the classroom context.
The measurement of teachers’ and parents’ attitudes toward bullying and cyberbullying among children is addressed in the subsequent contribution by Gradinger, Strohmeier, and Spiel (2017). Their results show that parents’ and teachers’ attitudes are moderated by experiences with bullying and cyberbullying in their own children or students. Specifically, attitudes toward bullying prevention programs were more positive in teachers of students affected by bullying.
Finally, in the eighth contribution to this issue, Strohmeier, Gradinger, and Wagner (2017) propose a three-phase learning model and a corresponding questionnaire-based assessment instrument to capture the development of intercultural competence among adults. For a sample of university students, they show that the self-report questionnaire data follow a multidimensional structure that can be aligned to the proposed three phases of the intercultural competence learning process.
Changes in the Editorial Team
A final point should not go unnoticed in this Editorial. After almost a decade of serving as editor-in-chief of the ZfP, Bernd Leplow decided to step down and contribute to the journal as an associate editor in the future. On behalf of all other editors of the ZfP, Edgar Erdfelder likes to thank Bernd Leplow for his excellent work and his enormous efforts in planning and coordinating numerous topical issues, in inviting guest editors and supporting them in the editorial decision process, and in encouraging authors to submit their work to ZfP. The success of the new ZfP is his success to a large extent, and the editors of ZfP are grateful for Bernd Leplow’s willingness to act as the head of the Editorial team for so many years.
Beginning with this issue, Edgar Erdfelder takes over the office of the editor-in-chief from Bernd Leplow. As the incoming editor-in-chief, he also likes to thank the associate editors for supporting the journal. Of the longstanding associate editors, Herta Flor, Heinz Holling, and Christiane Spiel will fortunately stay in the team, whereas Dieter Frey and Friedrich W. Hesse have decided to step down. We are happy that we can count on their future aid as editorial board members of the ZfP. As a consequence of their decision, the group of editors has been complemented by new members recently. Michael Bošnjak (GESIS, Mannheim) and Benjamin E. Hilbig (Landau) already joined in the course of last year. In addition, beginning with this issue, Steffi Pohl (FU Berlin) and Elsbeth Stern (ETH Zurich) join the team of associate editors. Welcome to all new members and thanks for their willingness to support the journal in the future!
Topics for Future Issues
We very much hope that the topical issues of the ZfP will be even more successful in the future than they have been in the past. Whether this will turn out to be true also depends on the journal’s readers to a large extent. We therefore encourage readers to let the editors know about their preferences for future topical issues and to suggest potential guest editors who are international experts in the respective domain. In particular, timely and broadly discussed topics of psychological research suggest themselves as potential candidates for ZfP issues. The editors will definitely watch out for appropriate topics, but they will also be happy to discuss reader suggestions.
References
(2016). The learning brain: Neuronal recycling and inhibition. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224, 277–285. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000263
(2016). Development of reading remediation for dyslexic individuals: Added benefits of the joint consideration of neurophysiological and behavioral data. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224, 240–246. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000259
(2015). Beyond dichotomies: Competence viewed as a continuum. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223, 3–13. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000194
(2017). Is the implicit association test for aggressive attitudes a measure for attraction to violence or traumatization? Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225, 55–64. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000281
(2017). Assessing suffering in experimental pain models: Psychological and psychophysiological correlates. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225, 45–54. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000279
(2015). Interventions for children with mathematical difficulties: A meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223, 129–144. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000211
(2017). Measuring individual differences in implicit learning with artificial grammar learning tasks: Conceptual and methodological conundrums. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225, 5–19. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000280
(2016). A systematic review of the literature linking neural correlates of feedback processing to learning. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224, 247–256. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000260
(2016). “Hotspots in Psychology”: A new format for special issues of the Zeitschrift für Psychologie. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224, 141–144. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000249
(2010). Memory and posttraumatic stress disorder: A matter of context? Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 218, 61–63. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409/a000012
(2016). Hindsight bias and law. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224, 190–203. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000253
(2017). Parents’ and teachers’ opinions on bullying and cyberbullying prevention: The relevance of their own childrens’ or students’ involvement. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225, 77–85. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000278
(2007). The new Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 215, 1–3. doi: 10.1027/0044-3409.215.1.1
(2014). Approaches to a complex phenomenon: The basic mechanisms and clinical applications of placebo effects. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222, 121–123. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000175
(2016). Comparative evaluation of narrative reviews and meta-analyses: A case study. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224, 145–156. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000250
(2016). Disintegration as an additional trait in the psychobiological model of personality: Assessing discriminant validity via meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224, 204–215. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000254
(2017). Measuring a mastery goal structure using the TARGET framework: Development and validation of a classroom goal structure questionnaire. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225, 65–76. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000277
(2017). Measuring age-related differences in using a simple decision strategy: The case of the recognition heuristic. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225, 20–30. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000283
(2017). Use of the recognition heuristic depends on the domain’s recognition validity, not on the recognition validity of selected sets of objects. Memory & Cognition. Advance online publication. doi: 10.3758/s13421-017-0689-0
(2016). Prosocial consequences of interpersonal synchrony: A meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224, 168–189. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000252
(2017). Measuring the zero-risk bias: Methodological artefact or decision-making strategy? Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225, 31–44. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000284
(2015). Understanding psychological reactance: New developments and findings. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223, 205–214. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000222
(2016). Educational neuroscience: A field between false hopes and realistic expectations. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 224, 237–239. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000258
(2017). Intercultural competence development among university students from a self-regulated learning perspective: Theoretical model and measurement. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 225, 86–95. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000282
(2011). Torture: Psychological approaches to a major humanitarian issue. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 219, 129–132. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000059
