Between 1907 and 1908, Maria Montessori's (1870-1952) educational method was elaborated at the Children's Houses of the San Lorenzo district in Rome. This pioneering experience was the basis for the international fame that came to Montessori after the publication of her 1909 volume dedicated to her "Method." The "Montessori Method" was considered by some to be scientific, liberal, and revolutionary. The present article focuses upon the complex contexts of the method's elaboration. It shows how the Children's Houses developed in relation to a particular scientific and cultural eclecticism. It describes the factors that both favored and hindered the method's elaboration, by paying attention to the complex network of social, institutional, and scientific relationships revolving around the figure of Maria Montessori. A number of "contradictory" dimensions of Montessori's experience are also examined with a view to helping to revise her myth and offering the image of a scholar who was a real early-twentieth-century prototype of a "multiple" behavioral scientist.

Two studies were conducted to examine the factor structure of attitude toward ambiguity, a broad personality construct that refers to personal reactions to perceived ambiguous stimuli in a variety of context and situations. Using samples from two countries, Study 1 mapped the hierarchical structure of 133 items from seven tolerance-intolerance of ambiguity scales (N = 360, Italy; N = 306, United States). Three major factors-Discomfort with Ambiguity, Moral Absolutism/Splitting, and Need for Complexity and Novelty-were recovered in each country with high replicability coefficients across samples. In Study 2 (N = 405, Italian community sample; N =366, English native speakers sample), we carried out a confirmatory analysis on selected factor markers. A bifactor model had an acceptable fit for each sample and reached the construct-level invariance for general and group factors. Convergent validity with related traits was assessed in both studies. We conclude that attitude toward ambiguity can be best represented a multidimensional construct involving affective (Discomfort with Ambiguity), cognitive (Moral Absolutism/Splitting), and epistemic (Need for Complexity and Novelty) components.

Alfred Binet is internationally recognized as the "father" of the first intelligence test as well as the most faithful French representative of laboratory experimentalism. A historical analysis of his work is therefore necessary to get to a thorough comprehension of 20th century psychology. The present article, starting from Binet's intellectual path and from the suggestions of the previous historical literature, aims at providing fresh insights into Binet's work by trying to capture the intersections between Binet, his naturalistic culture and the political context in which he worked in the early 20th century, when he actively tried to apply experimental psychology to the pedagogical area. In fact, it is possible to underline, with reference to those years, an evident turn towards applications in Binet's psychological production. The article reconstructs the political and institutional background of Binet's research and shows how the naturalism and experimentalism he promoted were complementary to the solidarist conceptions that were particularly prevalent among those who supported his work during the Third Republic.

In contemporary history as well as in political science, a strong associational life known as sociability is thought to explain the roots of modern democracy by establishing a link between the increasing availability of free time to the middle classes, increasing willingness to gather with others in circles or associations, and increasing social capital. In personality psychology, sociability is related to prosocial behavior (i.e., the need for affiliation, agreeableness, openness, and extraversion), whose importance in different political behaviors is increasingly recognized. In the present article, we carried out 5 studies (N = 1,429) that showed that political and associative sociability (a) can be reliably assessed, can have cross-cultural validity, and are properly associated with general social interest measures and personality domains and facets in the five-factor model; (b) do not overlap with similar concepts used in political psychology to account for political participation (political expertise, political interest, political self-efficacy); and (c) predicted political and nonpolitical group membership as well as observable choices in decision-making tasks with political and nonpolitical outcomes. The results are discussed, taking into consideration the extent to which specific facets of sociability can mediate between general personality traits and measures of civic involvement and political participation in a holistic model of political behavior.

Sante De Sanctis (1862-1935) and Alfred Binet (1857-1911), the latter in collaboration with Théodore Simon (1873-1960), introduced their intelligence tests to the scientific community at the Fifth International Congress of Psychology, held in Rome in 1905 on April 26-30. The cultural and political contexts within which De Sanctis and Binet developed their respective intelligence tests showed certain similarities. Nevertheless, De Sanctis's intelligence test and Binet's test did differ in certain respects. The objective of this article is to understand the differences and similarities between the Parisian and the Roman contexts in relation to mental testing, and to investigate the theoretical-methodological contributions of each. In addition, the article analyzes the "diversity" of De Sanctis's context and test, which did not influence the international psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).