Where are the observations in psychology ? Recurrent criticisms have been addressed to psychology for its excessive focus on hypothesis testing, and its disregard for the descriptive, exploratory and observational approaches commonly found in the other natural sciences (e.g., zoology, ethology, behavioral ecology, behavioral biology, primatology). The dominant belief in the discipline is that science only progresses by testing theories. We first gather these criticisms. Then, we present some major benefits to the use of such observations (e.g., stimulating discovery, stimulating theory building, improving experimental designs, producing more ecologically valid research). Finally, we propose concrete ways to conduct systematic observations of human behaviors in psychology (e.g., direct observation, official statistics and big data, descriptive exploratory studies, preliminary surveys, interviews, testimonies). Thus, the present contribution supports the idea according to which the primary question for psychologists should be ‘what is it that I study’ rather than ‘what is my theoretical framework?’.

PhD candidates are at particularly high risk of developing imposter thoughts. Imposter syndrome can be supposed to contribute to the high prevalence of mental health problems among PhD candidates, such as stress, burnout, depression, or intense negative emotions. In addition, emotion regulation is also considered an important factor in determining individuals’ well being and adaptation to stressful situations. However, little is known about the strategies used by PhD candidates when they try to regulate negative emotions, especially by those experiencing imposter thoughts. An online questionnaire was distributed to a convenience sample of 241 PhD candidates. Imposter syndrome appeared to be associated with a tendency to use more maladaptive emotion regulation strategies (associated with poorer long-term mental and physical health outcomes) in the work context. A contrario, imposter thoughts did not appear to be associated with a tendency to underuse adaptive strategies (associated with greater long-term health outcomes). Taken together, the results of the present study indicate that a prevalent self-focused belief among PhD candidates, namely the belief to be an imposter, is related to the overuse of emotion regulation strategies that are known to cause poor wellbeing and mental health problems. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

One of the more important questions about creativity is what makes a creative production a revolution ? The present contribution follows the analysis of the development of scientific knowledge proposed by Thomas Kuhn in ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ to propose a typology that may contribute to an answer. This typology, based on a retrospective analysis of a given domain of productions, distinguishes between two types of creativity: normal creativity and revolutionary creativity. Creative revolutions refer to ‘game changing’ productions in the domain, creating a turning point in the development of this domain. These creative revolutions constitute major disruptions within the domain since they display both a high degree of novelty, and sufficiently high value for future creative productions to take them as a new point of reference. The proposition to distinguish between normal and revolutionary creativity is explored as a complementary view to other typologies on creativity.

Interpersonal conflicts constitute an essential component of everyday life. The present research aimed to create a measure of the general individual orientation towards conflict, of the individual tendency to seek conflict. We conducted three correlational studies (Ntotal = 652) in order to validate the CONS (CONflict Seeking), to study the associations between this new measure and other antisocial and conflictual positions, and to study associations with potential individual motivations and perception of one’s tendencies to get into conflicts. In addition to good internal consistency, the scale displayed adequate concurrent validity (e.g., coherent correlations with personality traits). Conflict seeking was found to positively correlate with need for chaos, anomia, and conspiracy mentality, and the tendency to actually experience conflict in everyday life. In addition, CONS scores correlated positively with need for uniqueness and dominance motivation. Thus, conflict seeking would be linked to status seeking, potentially referring to a way to promote one's identity as a rebel without a cause.