DELIMITANDO O CAMPO DA PSICOLOGIA DA CIÊNCIA: UMA REVISÃO DE LITERATURA
Résumé
Esta pesquisa teve por objetivo delimitar os objetos, objetivos, estratégias metodológicas e potenciais aplicações da psicologia da ciência. Para tanto, foi realizada uma revisão sistemática da literatura, na base de dados Portal de Periódicos da CAPES. Os descritores utilizados foram ‘psicologia da ciência’, ‘psicologia do cientista’ e ‘psicologia da pesquisa’ e, após a aplicação dos critérios de inclusão e exclusão, 36 artigos foram selecionados. A análise dos textos amostrados sugere que a psicologia da ciência visa tanto examinar os processos psicológicos que participam da prática científica quanto discutir o processo científico a partir de uma perspectiva psicológica. Nos estudos psicológicos da ciência, métodos de investigação empíricos são prioritariamente empregados. As potenciais aplicações da área se dariam, por sua vez, no contexto educacional. Em vista dos resultados obtidos, algumas controvérsias da psicologia da ciência, como sua relação com o internalismo, com o subjetivismo, com o cientificismo e com o individualismo, também foram discutidas.
Téléchargements
Les données sur le téléchargement ne sont pas encore disponible.
Références
Abib, J. A. D. (2001). Teoria moral de Skinner e desenvolvimento humano. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 14(1), 107-117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722001000100009
*Anaya-Reig, N., & Romo, M. (2017). Cajal, psychologist of science. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20(e69), 1-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2017.71
*Brunetti, J., & Ormart, E. B. (2010). El lugar de la psicología en la epistemología de Kuhn: La posibilidad de una psicología de la investigación científica. Cinta Moebio, (38), 110-121. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-554X2010000200002
*Carré, D. (2018). Towards a cultural psychology of science. Culture & Psychology, 1-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1354067X18790000
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. (2020). Quem somos: O Portal de Periódicos da Capes. Recuperado de https://www-periodicos-capes-gov-br.ezl.periodicos.capes.gov.br/index.php/sobre/quem-somos.html
*Cordeiro, M. P. (2009). Bibliometria e análise de redes sociais: Possibilidades metodológicas para a psicologia social da ciência. Gerais: Revista Interinstitucional de Psicologia, 2(1), 23-33. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1983-82202009000100004&lng=pt&tlng=pt.
Cruz, R. N. (2010). Possíveis relações entre o contexto histórico e a recepção do behaviorismo radical. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 30(3), 478-491. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1414-98932010000300004&lng=pt&tlng=pt.
*Dauder, S. G. (2003). Fertilizaciones cruzadas entre la psicología social de la ciencia y los estudios feministas de la ciencia. Athenea Digital, 4, 109-150. https://redib.org/Record/oai_articulo401207-fertilizaciones-cruzadas-entre-la-psicolog%C3%ADa-social-de-la-ciencia-y-los-estudios-feministas-de-la-ciencia
Dimenstein, M. (2000). A cultura profissional do psicólogo e o ideário individualista: Implicações para a prática no campo da assistência pública à saúde. Estudos de Psicologia, 5(1), 95-121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2000000100006
*Domènech, M., Íñiguez, L., Pallí, C., & Tirado, F. J. (2000). La contribución de la psicología social al estudio de la ciencia. Anuario de Psicología, 31(3), 77-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1344/%25x
*Downes, S. M. (1999). Can scientific development and children's cognitive development be the same process? Philosophy of Science, 66(4), 565-578. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/392755
*Feibleman, J. K. (1960). The psychology of the scientist. Synthese, 12, 79-113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485535
Feist, G. J. (1995). Psychology of science and history of psychology: Putting behavioral generalizations to the test. Psychological Inquiry, 6(2), 119-123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0602_4
*Feist, G. J. (2006a). The past and future of the psychology of science. Review of General Psychology, 10(2), 92-97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.92
*Feist, G. J. (2006b). Why the studies of science need a psychology of science. Review of General Psychology, 10(2), 183-187. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.183
*Feist, G. J. (2006c). How development and personality influence scientific thought, interest and achievement. Review of General Psychology, 10(2), 163-182. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.10.2.163
*Feist, G. J. (2011). Psychology of science as a new subdiscipline in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 330-334. doi: 10.1177/0963721411418471
*Feist, G. J., & Gorman, M. E. (1998). The psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 2(1), 3-47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.2.1.3
Feist, G. J., & Gorman, M. E. (2013). Introduction: Another brick in the wall. In G. J. Feist, & M. E. Gorman (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 3-19). New York, USA: Springer Publishing Company.
*Frieze, I. H., Knoble, J. M., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). American university students' beliefs about success in science: A case study. Scientometrics, 3(2), 115-126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02025634
*García, J. E. (2016). Una temprana psicología de la ciencia en el Paraguay. Propósitos y Representaciones, 4(2), 359-412. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.20511/pyr2016.v4n2.125
*Gholson, B., & Houts, A. (1989). Toward a cognitive psychology of science. Social Epistemology, 3(2), 107-127. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728908578522
*Grosul, M., & Feist, G. J. (2014). The creative person in science. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 30-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034828
*Grupo de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología. (2007). La psicología social de la ciencia: una revisión bibliográfica de su estado actual. Athenea Digital, (11), p. 161-208.
https://raco.cat/index.php/Athenea/article/view/60105
Guazi, T. S., Laurenti, C., & Córdova, L. F. (2021). Análise do comportamento como uma psicologia da ciência. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 17(2), 196-206. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v17i2.11015
*Hershey, D. A., Wilson, T. L., & Mitchell-Copeland, J. (1996). Conceptions of the psychological research process: Script variation as a function of training and experience. Current Psychology, 14(4), 291-312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686919
*Johnson, J. A. (2018). Correcting a longstanding misconception about social roles and personality: A case study in the psychology of science. Behavioral Sciences, 8(6), 1-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8060057
Köche, J. C. (2011). Fundamentos de metodologia científica: Teoria da ciência e iniciação à pesquisa. Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro: Vozes.
*Kožnjak, B. (2017). Kuhn meets Maslow: The psychology behind scientific revolutions. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 48(2), 257-287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-016-9352-x
*Krasner, L., & Houts, A. C. (1984). A study of the “value” systems of behavioral scientists. American Psychologist, 39(8), 840-850. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.8.840
Kuhn, T. (1970). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Ed.), Criticism and growth of knowledge (pp. 1-23). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
*Kumar, N. (2001). Indigenous social psychology of science for a developing society: An empirical justification. Psychology and Developing Societies, 13(2), 153-171. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/097133360101300203
Laurenti, C. & Lopes, C. E. (2016). Metodologia da pesquisa conceitual em psicologia. In C. Laurenti, C. E. Lopes & S. F. Araújo (Orgs.), Pesquisa teórica em psicologia: Aspectos filosóficos e metodológicos (pp. 41-70). São Paulo: Hogrefe CETEPP.
Mahoney, M. J. (1979). Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science, 9, 349-375. doi: 10.1177/030631277900900304
*Mahoney, M. J. (2003). Minding science: Constructivism and the discourse of inquiry. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(1), 105–123. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1023/A:1022594831661
*Mahoney, M. J., & DeMonbreun, B. G. (1977). Psychology of the scientist: An analysis of problem-solving bias. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(3), 229-238. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01186796
*Mitroff, I. I. (1972). The myth of objectivity or why science needs a new psychology of science. Management Science, 18(10), B613-B618. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2629184
*Mitroff, I. I., & Kilmann, R. H. (1975). On evaluating scientific research: The contribution of the psychology of science. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 8(2), 163-174. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/On-evaluating-scientific-research%3A-The-contribution-Mitroff-Kilmann/9c54850fdbe742ce1ba8d08309d98113197781d4
*Mitroff, I. I., & Kilmann, R. H. (1977). Systemic knowledge: Toward an integrated theory of science. Theory and Society, 4(1), 103-129. https://www.jstor.org/stable/656953
*Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). A social-cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(1), 73-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01029.x
*Reyes, F., & López, W. L. (1996). Richard J. Herrnstein, su obra y contribuciones al análisis del comportamiento. Suma Psicológica, 3(2), 173-189. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4512121
*Romo, M. (1992). El contexto de descubrimiento y la psicología de la ciencia. Estudios de Psicología, 48, 119-134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.1992.10821183
*Rueda, L. I., & Monguilod, C. P. (2002). La psicología social de la ciencia: Revisión y discusión de una nueva área de investigación. Anales de psicología, 18(1), 13-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps
*Runyan, W. M. (2006). Psychobiography and the psychology of science: Understanding relations between the life and work of individual psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 10(2), 147-162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.147
Shadish, W. R., & Neimeyer, R. A. (1987). Contributions of psychology to an integrative science studies: The shape of things to come. In S. Fuller, M. de. Mey, T. Shinn, & S. Woolgar (Eds.), The cognitive turn: Sociological and psychological perspectives on science (pp. 13-38). Colorado, USA: University of Colorado.
*Simonton, D. K. (1995). Behavioral laws in histories of psychology: Psychological science, metascience, and the psychology of science. Psychological Inquiry, 6(2), 89-114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0602_1
*Simonton, D. K. (2009). Applying the psychology of science to the science of psychology: Can psychologists use psychological science to enhance psychology as a science? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 2-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01093.x.
Tourinho, E. Z. (1993). Individualismo, behaviorismo e história. Temas em Psicologia, 1(2), 1-9. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-389X1993000200002&lng=pt&tlng=pt.
Tourinho, E. Z. (1999). Conseqüências do externalismo behaviorista radical. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 15(2), 107-115. https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/revistaptp/article/view/17386
*Tweney, R. D. (1998). Toward a cognitive psychology of science: Recent research and its implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(5), 150-154. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-8721.ep10836837
*Anaya-Reig, N., & Romo, M. (2017). Cajal, psychologist of science. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 20(e69), 1-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2017.71
*Brunetti, J., & Ormart, E. B. (2010). El lugar de la psicología en la epistemología de Kuhn: La posibilidad de una psicología de la investigación científica. Cinta Moebio, (38), 110-121. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-554X2010000200002
*Carré, D. (2018). Towards a cultural psychology of science. Culture & Psychology, 1-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1354067X18790000
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. (2020). Quem somos: O Portal de Periódicos da Capes. Recuperado de https://www-periodicos-capes-gov-br.ezl.periodicos.capes.gov.br/index.php/sobre/quem-somos.html
*Cordeiro, M. P. (2009). Bibliometria e análise de redes sociais: Possibilidades metodológicas para a psicologia social da ciência. Gerais: Revista Interinstitucional de Psicologia, 2(1), 23-33. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1983-82202009000100004&lng=pt&tlng=pt.
Cruz, R. N. (2010). Possíveis relações entre o contexto histórico e a recepção do behaviorismo radical. Psicologia: Ciência e Profissão, 30(3), 478-491. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1414-98932010000300004&lng=pt&tlng=pt.
*Dauder, S. G. (2003). Fertilizaciones cruzadas entre la psicología social de la ciencia y los estudios feministas de la ciencia. Athenea Digital, 4, 109-150. https://redib.org/Record/oai_articulo401207-fertilizaciones-cruzadas-entre-la-psicolog%C3%ADa-social-de-la-ciencia-y-los-estudios-feministas-de-la-ciencia
Dimenstein, M. (2000). A cultura profissional do psicólogo e o ideário individualista: Implicações para a prática no campo da assistência pública à saúde. Estudos de Psicologia, 5(1), 95-121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2000000100006
*Domènech, M., Íñiguez, L., Pallí, C., & Tirado, F. J. (2000). La contribución de la psicología social al estudio de la ciencia. Anuario de Psicología, 31(3), 77-93. doi: https://doi.org/10.1344/%25x
*Downes, S. M. (1999). Can scientific development and children's cognitive development be the same process? Philosophy of Science, 66(4), 565-578. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/392755
*Feibleman, J. K. (1960). The psychology of the scientist. Synthese, 12, 79-113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485535
Feist, G. J. (1995). Psychology of science and history of psychology: Putting behavioral generalizations to the test. Psychological Inquiry, 6(2), 119-123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0602_4
*Feist, G. J. (2006a). The past and future of the psychology of science. Review of General Psychology, 10(2), 92-97. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.92
*Feist, G. J. (2006b). Why the studies of science need a psychology of science. Review of General Psychology, 10(2), 183-187. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.183
*Feist, G. J. (2006c). How development and personality influence scientific thought, interest and achievement. Review of General Psychology, 10(2), 163-182. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.10.2.163
*Feist, G. J. (2011). Psychology of science as a new subdiscipline in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(5), 330-334. doi: 10.1177/0963721411418471
*Feist, G. J., & Gorman, M. E. (1998). The psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 2(1), 3-47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.2.1.3
Feist, G. J., & Gorman, M. E. (2013). Introduction: Another brick in the wall. In G. J. Feist, & M. E. Gorman (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of science (pp. 3-19). New York, USA: Springer Publishing Company.
*Frieze, I. H., Knoble, J. M., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). American university students' beliefs about success in science: A case study. Scientometrics, 3(2), 115-126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02025634
*García, J. E. (2016). Una temprana psicología de la ciencia en el Paraguay. Propósitos y Representaciones, 4(2), 359-412. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.20511/pyr2016.v4n2.125
*Gholson, B., & Houts, A. (1989). Toward a cognitive psychology of science. Social Epistemology, 3(2), 107-127. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728908578522
*Grosul, M., & Feist, G. J. (2014). The creative person in science. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(1), 30-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034828
*Grupo de Estudios Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología. (2007). La psicología social de la ciencia: una revisión bibliográfica de su estado actual. Athenea Digital, (11), p. 161-208.
https://raco.cat/index.php/Athenea/article/view/60105
Guazi, T. S., Laurenti, C., & Córdova, L. F. (2021). Análise do comportamento como uma psicologia da ciência. Revista Brasileira de Análise do Comportamento, 17(2), 196-206. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18542/rebac.v17i2.11015
*Hershey, D. A., Wilson, T. L., & Mitchell-Copeland, J. (1996). Conceptions of the psychological research process: Script variation as a function of training and experience. Current Psychology, 14(4), 291-312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686919
*Johnson, J. A. (2018). Correcting a longstanding misconception about social roles and personality: A case study in the psychology of science. Behavioral Sciences, 8(6), 1-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8060057
Köche, J. C. (2011). Fundamentos de metodologia científica: Teoria da ciência e iniciação à pesquisa. Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro: Vozes.
*Kožnjak, B. (2017). Kuhn meets Maslow: The psychology behind scientific revolutions. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 48(2), 257-287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-016-9352-x
*Krasner, L., & Houts, A. C. (1984). A study of the “value” systems of behavioral scientists. American Psychologist, 39(8), 840-850. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.8.840
Kuhn, T. (1970). Logic of discovery or psychology of research? In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Ed.), Criticism and growth of knowledge (pp. 1-23). New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
*Kumar, N. (2001). Indigenous social psychology of science for a developing society: An empirical justification. Psychology and Developing Societies, 13(2), 153-171. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/097133360101300203
Laurenti, C. & Lopes, C. E. (2016). Metodologia da pesquisa conceitual em psicologia. In C. Laurenti, C. E. Lopes & S. F. Araújo (Orgs.), Pesquisa teórica em psicologia: Aspectos filosóficos e metodológicos (pp. 41-70). São Paulo: Hogrefe CETEPP.
Mahoney, M. J. (1979). Psychology of the scientist: An evaluative review. Social Studies of Science, 9, 349-375. doi: 10.1177/030631277900900304
*Mahoney, M. J. (2003). Minding science: Constructivism and the discourse of inquiry. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(1), 105–123. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1023/A:1022594831661
*Mahoney, M. J., & DeMonbreun, B. G. (1977). Psychology of the scientist: An analysis of problem-solving bias. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(3), 229-238. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01186796
*Mitroff, I. I. (1972). The myth of objectivity or why science needs a new psychology of science. Management Science, 18(10), B613-B618. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2629184
*Mitroff, I. I., & Kilmann, R. H. (1975). On evaluating scientific research: The contribution of the psychology of science. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 8(2), 163-174. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/On-evaluating-scientific-research%3A-The-contribution-Mitroff-Kilmann/9c54850fdbe742ce1ba8d08309d98113197781d4
*Mitroff, I. I., & Kilmann, R. H. (1977). Systemic knowledge: Toward an integrated theory of science. Theory and Society, 4(1), 103-129. https://www.jstor.org/stable/656953
*Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). A social-cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(1), 73-95. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01029.x
*Reyes, F., & López, W. L. (1996). Richard J. Herrnstein, su obra y contribuciones al análisis del comportamiento. Suma Psicológica, 3(2), 173-189. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4512121
*Romo, M. (1992). El contexto de descubrimiento y la psicología de la ciencia. Estudios de Psicología, 48, 119-134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.1992.10821183
*Rueda, L. I., & Monguilod, C. P. (2002). La psicología social de la ciencia: Revisión y discusión de una nueva área de investigación. Anales de psicología, 18(1), 13-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps
*Runyan, W. M. (2006). Psychobiography and the psychology of science: Understanding relations between the life and work of individual psychologists. Review of General Psychology, 10(2), 147-162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.10.2.147
Shadish, W. R., & Neimeyer, R. A. (1987). Contributions of psychology to an integrative science studies: The shape of things to come. In S. Fuller, M. de. Mey, T. Shinn, & S. Woolgar (Eds.), The cognitive turn: Sociological and psychological perspectives on science (pp. 13-38). Colorado, USA: University of Colorado.
*Simonton, D. K. (1995). Behavioral laws in histories of psychology: Psychological science, metascience, and the psychology of science. Psychological Inquiry, 6(2), 89-114. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0602_1
*Simonton, D. K. (2009). Applying the psychology of science to the science of psychology: Can psychologists use psychological science to enhance psychology as a science? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 2-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01093.x.
Tourinho, E. Z. (1993). Individualismo, behaviorismo e história. Temas em Psicologia, 1(2), 1-9. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1413-389X1993000200002&lng=pt&tlng=pt.
Tourinho, E. Z. (1999). Conseqüências do externalismo behaviorista radical. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 15(2), 107-115. https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/revistaptp/article/view/17386
*Tweney, R. D. (1998). Toward a cognitive psychology of science: Recent research and its implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7(5), 150-154. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111%2F1467-8721.ep10836837
Publiée
2025-12-16
Comment citer
Laurenti, C., & Scarpin Guazi, T. (2025). DELIMITANDO O CAMPO DA PSICOLOGIA DA CIÊNCIA: UMA REVISÃO DE LITERATURA. Psicologia Em Estudo, 30. https://doi.org/10.4025/psicolestud.v30i0.61928
Numéro
Rubrique
Artigos originais
Copyright (c) 2025 Psicologia em Estudo
Ce travail est disponible sous la licence Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International .
As opiniões emitidas, são de exclusiva responsabilidade do(s) autor(es). Ao submeterem o manuscrito ao Conselho Editorial de Psicologia em Estudo, o(s) autor(es) assume(m) a responsabilidade de não ter previamente publicado ou submetido o mesmo manuscrito por outro periódico. Em caso de autoria múltipla, o manuscrito deve vir acompanhado de autorização assinada por todos os autores. Artigos aceitos para publicação passam a ser propriedade da revista, podendo ser remixados e reaproveitados conforme prevê a licença Creative Commons CC-BY.
The opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the author (s). When submitting the manuscript to the Editorial Board of Study Psychology, the author (s) assumes responsibility for not having previously published or submitted the same manuscript by another journal. In case of multiple authorship, the manuscript must be accompanied by an authorization signed by all authors. Articles accepted for publication become the property of the journal, and can be remixed and reused as provided for in theby a license Creative Commons CC-BY.
