Abramovitch, R. R. (1962). The Soviet Revolution 1917–1939. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Simons, R. J. and Niessen, T. (2006). ‘Considering diversity: multivoicedness in international academic collaboration’, Culture & Psychology, 12: 461–485.Google Scholar

Albertson, B. and Brehm, J. (2003). ‘Comments’, Political Psychology, 24: 765–768.Google Scholar

d’Alembert, Jean le Rond. (1751/1995). Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedia of Diderot. Trsl. R. N. Schwab with the collaboration of Walter E. Rex. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Allport, G. (1954/1968). ‘The historical background of modern social psychology’, in Lindzey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, pp. 1–80.Google Scholar

Allwood, J. (2014). ‘Trust as a communicative and epistemic simplifier and facilitator’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 189–211.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. and Dedrick, R. F. (1990). ‘Development of the trust in physician scale: a measure to assess interpersonal trust in patient–physician relationships’, Psychological Reports, 97: 1091–1100.Google Scholar

Anscombre, J. C. and Ducrot, O. (1983). L’Argumentation dans la langue [Argumentation in language]. Bruxelles: Pierre Margate.Google Scholar

Aquinas, T. (2002). Treatise on Human Nature: Summa Theologiae 1A. Ed. Pasnau, R.. Boston: Hackett Company, pp. 75–89.Google Scholar

Arendt, H. (1977a). ‘What is authority?’, in Arendt, H. (ed.), Between Past and Future. New York: Penguin Books, pp. 91–141.Google Scholar

Arendt, H. (1977b). ‘The crisis of education’, in Arendt, H. (ed.), Between Past and Future. New York: Penguin Books, pp. 173–196.Google Scholar

Aristotle, . (1998). The Nicomachean Ethics. Trsl. and ed. Ross, W. D., Ackrill, J. L. and Urmson, J. O.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aronsson, K. and Osvaldsson, K. (2014). ‘Trust and the contestation of blame narratives: veiled stances in an institutional assessment context’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 29–49.Google Scholar

Arruda, A. (2003). ‘Living is dangerous: research challenges in social representations’, Culture & Psychology, 9: 339–359.Google Scholar

Arruda, A. (2014). ‘Social imaginary and social representations of Brazil’, Papers on Social Representations, 23: 13.1–13.22.Google Scholar

Asch, S. E. (1951). ‘Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments’, in Guetzkow, H. (ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press, pp. 177–190.Google Scholar

Asch, S. E. (1956). ‘Studies of independence and conformity. A minority of one against a unanimous majority’, Psychological Monographs, 70: 1–70.Google Scholar

Asserud, F. (2005). ‘Introduction’, in Asserud, F. (ed.), N. Bohr, Collected Works. The Political Arena (1934–1961), Vol. 11. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 3–83.Google Scholar

Bachelard, G. (1949). Le rationalisme appliqué [Applied rationalism]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Bachelard, G. (1963). Le materialisme rationel [Rational materialism]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Bachelard, G. (1993). La formation de l’esprit scientifique [The formation of scientific mind]. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar

Bacon, F. (1620/2007). New Organon. www.earlymoderntexts.com/f_bacon.html.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1919/1990). ‘Art and answerability’, in Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Art and Answerability. Early Philosophical Essays. Ed. Holquist, M. and Liapunov, V.. Trsl. and notes Liapunov, V.. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1979/1986). ‘The problem of the text in linguistics, philology and the human sciences’, in Emerson, C. and Holquist, M. (eds.), Speech Genres and Other Late Essays by M. M. Bakhtin. Trsl. McGee, V. W.. Austin: University of Texas, pp. 103–131.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Ed. Holquist, M.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984a). Problems of Dostoyevsky’s Poetics. Ed. and trsl. Emerson, C.. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984b). Rabelais and His World. Trsl. Iswolsky, H.. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Art and Answerability. Early Philosophical Essays. Ed. Holquist, M. and Liapunov, V.. Trsl. and notes Liapunov, V.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bakhtin, M. M. (1993). Towards a Philosophy of the Act. Trsl. and notes Liapunov, V.. Ed. Liapunov, V. and Holquist, M.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Baldwin, J. M. (1897). Social and Ethical Interpretations in Mental Development. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Baldwin, J. M. (1910). Darwin and the Humanities. London: Swan Sonnenschein.Google Scholar

Barresi, J. (2002). ‘From “the thought is the thinker” to “the voice is the speaker”: William James and the dialogical self’, Theory & Psychology, 12: 237–250.Google Scholar

Bateson, A. and Fonagy, P. (2010). ‘Mentalization based treatment for borderline personality disorder’, World Psychiatry, 9: 11–15.Google Scholar

Bauer, M. W. (2009). ‘Editorial’, Public Understanding of Science, 18: 378–382.Google Scholar

Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G. (1999). ‘Towards a paradigm for research on social representations’, Journal for Theory of Social Behaviour, 29: 163–186.Google Scholar

Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Bauman, Z. and Donskis, L. (2013). Moral Blindness: The Loss of Sensitivity in Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Bayer, T. I. (2008). ‘Vico’s principle of sensus communis and forensic eloquence’, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 83: 1131–1155.Google Scholar

Baym, N. K. (2006). ‘Interpersonal life online’, in Lievrouw, L. A. and Livingstone, S. (eds.), Handbook of New Media. London: Routledge, pp. 34–54.Google Scholar

Beebe, B., Lachmann, F. and Jaffe, J. (1997). ‘Mother–infant interaction structures and presymbolic self and object representations’, Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 7: 133–182.Google Scholar

Beer, G. (1993). ‘Wave theory and the rise of literary modernism’, in Levine, G. (ed.), Reality and Representation. Madison and London: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 193–213.Google Scholar

Benedict, R. (1942). Race and Racism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Berdyaev, N. (1931). The Russian Revolution. London: Sheed and Ward.Google Scholar

Bergson, H. (1907/1998). Creative Evolution. Trsl. Mitchell, A.. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

Berlin, I. (1963). ‘History and theory: the concept of scientific history’, in Riasanovsky, A. V. and Riznik, B. (eds.), Generalizations in Historical Writings. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 60–113.Google Scholar

Berlin, I. (1976). Vico and Herder: Two Studies in the History of Ideas. London: The Hogarth Press.Google Scholar

Berlin, I. (1985). ‘On Vico’, Philosophical Quarterly, 35: 281–290.Google Scholar

Berlin, I. (2000a). Three Critics of the Enlightenment. Vico, Hamann, Herder. Ed. Hardy, H.. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar

Berlin, I. (2000b). ‘Herder and the enlightenment’, in Berlin, (ed.), pp. 168–242.Google Scholar

Bernard-Donals, M. F. (1994). Mikhail Bakhtin: Between Phenomenology and Marxism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bernstein, R. J. (2002). ‘Evil and the temptation of theodicy’, in Critchley, S. and Bernasconi, R. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Levinas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 252–257.Google Scholar

Berteau, F. (2010). Dialogicality in Staff Development. Exploring Socially Shared Knowledge in Communication and Congenital Deafblindness. MSc in Educational Sciences, Communication and Congenital Deafblindness. University of Groningen.Google Scholar

de Bie, P., Lévi-Strauss, C., Nuttin, J. and Jacobson, E. (1954). Les Sciences Sociales dans l’enseignement supérieur; Sociologie, Psychologie Sociale et Anthropologie Culturelle [Social sciences in higher education: sociology, social psychology and cultural anthropology]. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar

Billig, M. (2008). The Hidden Roots of Critical Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Billig, M. (2015). ‘Kurt Lewin’s leadership studies and his legacy to social psychology: is there nothing as practical as a good theory?’ Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45: 440–460.Google Scholar

Boffey, D. (2015). ‘“This is cultural barbarism”: experts line up to decry axeing of anthropology A-level’, The Observer, 8 February 2015, p. 17.Google Scholar

Bogdan, R. J. (ed.). (1991). Mind and Common Sense. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohr, N. (1949). ‘Discussion with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics’, in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, pp. 199–241.Google Scholar

Bohr, N. (1955). ‘Science and the unity of knowledge’, in Leary, L. (ed.), Unity of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday, pp. 47–62.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. (ed.). (1993/1999). La misère du monde. Paris: Seuil. Trsl. Polity Press as The Weight of the World. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P., Chamboredon, J.-C., Passeron, J.-C. and Krais, B. (1973/1991). Le métier de sociologie. Paris: Mouton. Trsl. R. Nice as The Craft of Sociology: Epistemological Preliminaries. New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bråten, S. (ed.). (1998). Intersubjective Communication and Emotion in Early Ontogeny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brazelton, T. B. and Cramer, B. G. (2002). The Earliest Relationship: Parents, Infants and the Drama of Early Attachment. London: Karnac Books.Google Scholar

Bres, J. (1998). ‘Entendre des voix: de quelques marqueurs dialogiques en français’ [Hearing voices: some dialogical markers in French], in Bres, J., Delamotte-Legrand, R., Madray-Lesigne, F. and Siblot, P. (eds.), L’autre en discours [The other in discourse]. Montpellier et Rouen: Praxiling et Dyalang, pp. 191–212.Google Scholar

Bres, J. (1999). ‘Vous les entendez? Analyse du discours et dialogisme’ [Do you hear them? Analysis of discourse and dialogism], Modèles linguistiques, 20: 71–86.Google Scholar

Bres, J. and Verine, B. (2002). ‘Le bruissement des voix dans le discours: dialogisme et discours rapporté’ [The rustling of voices in discourse: dialogism and reported discourse], Faits de langues, 19: 159–169.Google Scholar

Broady, D. (1997). ‘The epistemological tradition in French sociology’, in Gripsrud, J. (ed.), Rhetoric and Epistemology: Papers from a Seminar in the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme in Paris, September 1996. Rhetoric-Knowledge-Mediation Working Papers No. 1 1997. Department of Media Studies, University of Bergen, pp. 97–119.Google Scholar

Brooks, D. M. (1933). The Necessity of Atheism. New York: Freethought Press.Google Scholar

Brushlinski, A. (1994). Problemy psichologii subjekta [Problems of the psychology of subject]. Moscow: Rossijskaja Akademia Nauk.Google Scholar

Buber, M. (1923/1962). I and Thou. Trsl. Smith, R. G.. Edinburgh: T&T. Clark.Google Scholar

Buxton, R. (ed.). (1999). From Myth to Reason? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). ‘Common sense, intuition and theory in personality and social psychology’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8: 114–122.Google Scholar

Campbell, D. T. (1975). ‘Degrees of freedom and the case study’, Comparative Political Studies, 8: 178–191.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. and Garnett, W. (1882). The Life of James Clerk Maxwell with a Selection from His Correspondence and Occasional Writings and a Sketch of His Contributions to Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Campbell, N. R. (2007). Physics the Elements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carruthers, P., Laurence, S. and Stich, S. (eds.). (2005). The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cassirer, E. (1946). The Myth of the State. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Chaiken, S. (1980). ‘Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39: 752–766.Google Scholar

Chang, R. S. (ed.). (2009). Relating to Environments. A New Look at Umwelt. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Charta 77, in Prečan, V. (ed.). (1990). Charta 77 (1977–1998). [Charter 77 (1977–1998)]. Bratislava: Archa, pp. 9–13.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Coelho, N. E. and Figueiredo, L. C. (2003). ‘Patterns of intersubjectivity in the constitution of subjectivity: dimensions of otherness’, Culture & Psychology, 9: 193–208.Google Scholar

Cohen, H. (1907/1977). System der Philosophie. Zweiter Teil. Ethik des reinen Willens. [System of philosophy. Second part: ethics of pure will]. Vol. 7 of the Collected Works, reprint of 2nd ed. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar

Collingwood, R. G. (1930/1965). The Philosophy of History. London: The Historical Association, Bell and Co. Reprinted in Collingwood, R. G. (1965). Essays on the Philosophy of History. Ed. W. Debbins. Austin: Texas University Press, pp. 121–140.Google Scholar

Collins, S. and Marková, I. (1995). ‘Complementarity in the construction of a problematic utterance in conversation’, in Marková, I., Graumann, C. and Foppa, K. (eds.), Mutualities in Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 238–263.Google Scholar

Collins, S. and Marková, I. (1999). ‘Interaction between impaired and unimpaired speakers: intersubjectivity and the interplay of culturally shared and situation specific knowledge’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 38: 339–368.Google Scholar

Conquest, R. (1990). The Great Terror. A Reassessment. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar

Cousin, M. V. (1853/1883). Du vrai, du beau et du bien. Trsl. Wight, O. W. as Lectures on True, the Beautiful and the Good. New York: D. Appleton.Google Scholar

Cousin, M. V. (1857). Philosophie écossaise [The Scottish philosophy]. Paris: Librarie nouvelle.Google Scholar

Croce, B. (1913). The Philosophy of Giambattista Vico. Trsl. Collinwood, R. G.. London: H. Latimer.Google Scholar

Darwin, C. R. (1859/1874). The Origin of Species. London: John Murray.Google Scholar

Daukas, N. (2006). ‘Epistemic trust and social location’, Episteme, 3: 109–124.Google Scholar

De Cremer, D. and van Knippenberg, D. (2002). ‘How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 858–866.Google Scholar

Descartes, R. (1637/1955). ‘Discourse on the method of rightly conducting the reason and seeking for truth in science’, in Haldane, E. S. and Ross, G. R. T. (trsl. and eds.), The Philosophical Works of Descartes, Vol. I. London and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–130.Google Scholar

Descartes, R. (1641/1955). ‘Meditations on first philosophy’, in Haldane, E. S. and Ross, G. R. T. (trsl. and eds.), The Philosophical Works of Descartes, Vol. I. London and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–199.Google Scholar

Descartes, R. (1641/1970). ‘Letter to Mersenne, 16 June 1641’, in Kenny, A. (trsl. and ed.), Descartes: Philosophical Letters. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 22–23.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1917). ‘The need for social psychology’, Psychological Review, 24: 266–277.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1929). The Quest for Certainty. New York: Minton, Balch and Co.Google Scholar

Dewey, J. (1948). ‘Common sense and science: their respective frames of reference’, The Journal of Philosophy, 45: 197–208.Google Scholar

Diderot, D. (1749/1916). ‘Letter on the blind for the use of those who see’, in Jourdain, M. (ed. and trsl.), Diderot’s Early Philosophical Works. Chicago and London: The Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 68–225.Google Scholar

Diriwächter, R. (2012). ‘Völkerpsychologie’, in Valsiner, J. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Culture and Psychology. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 43–57.Google Scholar

Dodds, E. R. (1951). The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Donahue, W. A. (1990) The New Freedom: Individualism and Collectivism in the Social Lives of Americans. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar

Donnelly, J. (2007). ‘The relative universality of human rights’, Human Rights Quarterly, 29: 281–306.Google Scholar

Dostal, R. J. (ed.). (2002). The Cambridge Companion to Gadamer. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit [Dire and the said]. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar

Dumont, L. (1977). From Mandeville to Marx. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Dumont, L. (1986). Essays on Individualism. Modern Ideology in Anthropological Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Durant, W. (1933). The Story of Philosophy. New York: Garden City Publishing.Google Scholar

Durkheim, E. (1895/1982). The Rules of Sociological Method. Introduction Lukes, S.. Trsl. Halls, W. D.. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Durkheim, E. (1979). Durkheim: Essays on Morals and Education. Ed. Pickering, W. S. F.. Trsl. Sutcliffe, H. L.. London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. (1931/2009). On Cosmic Religion and Other Opinions and Aphorisms. With an appreciation by George Bernard Shaw. Mineola: Dover Publications.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. (1944). ‘Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s theory of knowledge’, in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell. Evanston, Chicago: Northwestern University, pp. 279–291.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. (1949). ‘Autobiographical notes’, in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, pp. 3–95.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. (1954). Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown Publishers.Google Scholar

Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938/1961). The Evolution of Physics. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Elkins, J. (1992). ‘Renaissance perspectives’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 53: 209–230.Google Scholar

Emerson, C. (2002). ‘Bakhtin after the boom: pro and contra’, Journal of European Studies, 32: 3–26.Google Scholar

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar

Eskin, M. (2000). Ethics and Dialogue in the Works of Levinas, Bakhtin, Mendel‘shtam and Celan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fantz, R. L. (1963). ‘Pattern vision in newborn infants’, Science, 140: 296–297.Google Scholar

Faucheux, C. and Moscovici, S. (1962). ‘Remarques critiques sur la « question microsociale»’ [Critical remarks on the ‘micro-social question’], Arguments, 6: 19–27.Google Scholar

Faulkner, P. (2007). ‘A genealogy of trust’, Episteme, 4: 305–321.Google Scholar

Faur, J. (1987). ‘Francisco Sanchez’s theory of cognition and Vico’s verum/factum’, New Vico Studies, 5: 131–148.Google Scholar

Feldman, R., Magori-Cohen, R., Galili, G. Singer, M. and Louzoun, Y. (2011). ‘Mother and infant coordinate heart rhythms through episodes of interaction synchrony’, Infant Behavior & Development, 34: 569–577.Google Scholar

Fichte, J. G. (2000). Foundations of Natural Right. Ed. Neuhouser, F.. Trsl. Bauer, M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fiske, S. (2007). ‘On prejudice & the brain’, Daedalus, 136 (Winter): 156–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flåm, A. M. and Haugstvedt, E. (2013). ‘Test balloons? Small signs of big events: a qualitative study on circumstances facilitating adults’ awareness of children’s first signs of sexual abuse’, Child Abuse & Neglect, 37: 633–642.Google Scholar

Fletcher, G. J. O. and Copeland, B. J. (1999). ‘Volk psychology and psychological science’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 25–29.Google Scholar

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). ‘Five misunderstandings about case-study research’, Qualitative Inquiry, 12: 219–245.Google Scholar

Fonagy, P. and Allison, E. (2014). ‘The role of mentalizing and epistemic trust in the therapeutic relationship’, Psychotherapy, 51: 372–380.Google Scholar

Fonagy, P. and Target, M. (1997). ‘Attachment and reflective function: their role in self-organization’, Development and Psychopathology, 9: 679–700.Google Scholar

Foster, M. B. (1957). Mystery and Philosophy. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar

Francis, R. (2013). ‘Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry’. www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/sites/default/files/report/Executive%20summary.pdf.Google Scholar

Freud, S. (1922). Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Trsl. Strachey, J.. New York: Boni and Liveright.Google Scholar

Freud, S. (1960). The Ego and the Id. Trsl. Riviere, J.. Ed. Strachey, J.. New York and London: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar

Fruteau De Laclos, F. (2009). ‘Le sens commun pense-t-il ? L’épistémologie, la raison et les normes’ [Does common sense think? The epistemology, reason and norms], in Gautier, C. and Laugier, S. (eds.), Normativité du sens commun [Normativity of common sense]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 235–258.Google Scholar

Fruteau De Laclos, F. (2011). ‘Présentation’ [Presentation], in Meyerson, E. (1931/2011), Du cheminements de la pensée [The paths of thought]. Paris: Vrin, pp. 7–14.Google Scholar

Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and Method. Trsl. Weinsheimer, J. and Marshall, D. G.. London and New York: Sheed and Ward and the Continuum Publishing Group.Google Scholar

Gadamer, H.-G. (1984). ‘The hermeneutics of suspicion’, Man and World, 17: 313–323.Google Scholar

Gadamer, H.-G. (2007a). ‘Text and interpretation’, in Palmer, R. E. (ed.), Gadamer Reader. Chicago: Northwestern University Press, pp. 157–191.Google Scholar

Gadamer, H.-G. (2007b). ‘Greek philosophy and modern thinking’, in Palmer, R. E. (ed.), Gadamer Reader. Chicago: Northwestern University Press, pp. 267–273.Google Scholar

Gadamer, H.-G. (2007c). ‘Hermeneutics as practical philosophy’, in Palmer, R. E. (ed.), Gadamer Reader. Chicago: Northwestern University Press, pp. 227–245.Google Scholar

Gadamer, H.-G. (2007d). ‘Hermeneutics tracking the trace [on Derrida]’, in Palmer, R. E. (ed.), Gadamer Reader. Chicago: Northwestern University Press, pp. 376–408.Google Scholar

Gammut, G., Daanen, P. and Sartawi, M. (2010). ‘Interobjectivity: representations and artefacts in cultural psychology’, Culture & Psychology, 16: 451–463.Google Scholar

Gellner, E. (1992). Reason and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Gellner, E. (1998). Language and Solitude. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gentile, E. (2000). ‘The sacralisation of politics: definitions, interpretations and reflections on the question of secular religion and totalitarianism’, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 1: 18–55.Google Scholar

Gianturco, E. (1990). ‘Introduction’, in Vico, G. (1709/1990), On the Study of Methods of Our Time. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, pp. xxi–xlv.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. (1992). Correlations in Rosenzweig and Levinas. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Giles, D. C. (2002). ‘Parasocial interaction: a review of the literature and a model for future’, Media Psychology, 4: 279–305.Google Scholar

Gillespie, A. (2005). ‘GH Mead: the theorist of social act’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 35: 19–39.Google Scholar

Gillespie, A. (2006). Becoming Other: From Social Interaction to Self-Reflection. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar

Gillespie, A. (2012). ‘Dialogical dynamics of trust and distrust in the Cuban Missile Crisis’, in Marková, and Gillespie, (eds.), pp. 139–155.Google Scholar

Gillespie, A. and Cornish, F. (2010) ‘Intersubjectivity: towards a dialogical analysis’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40: 19–46.Google Scholar

Gillespie, A. and Cornish, F. (2014). ‘Sensitizing questions: a method to facilitate analyzing the meaning of an utterance’, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 48: 435–452.Google Scholar

Gonzalez, F. J. (2006). ‘Dialectic and dialogue in the hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur and H. G. Gadamer’, Continental Philosophy Review, 39: 313–345.Google Scholar

Gopnik, A. and Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Gordon, M. (1999). ‘Hannah Arendt on authority: conservatism in education reconsidered’, Educational Theory, 49: 161–180.Google Scholar

Grassi, E. (1976). ‘The priority of common sense and imagination: Vico’s philosophical relevance today’, Social Research, 43: 553–575.Google Scholar

Greco, J. and Turri, J. (2013). ‘Virtue Epistemology’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2013 ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/epistemology-virtue/.Google Scholar

Greenwood, J. D. (2004). The Disappearance of the ‘Social’ in American Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gregoric, P. (2007). Aristotle on the Common Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Grigorenko, P. G. (1982). Memoirs. Trsl. Whitney, T. P.. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar

Grim, P., Selinger, E., Braynen, W., Rosenberger, R., Au, R., Louie, N. and Connolly, J. (2004). ‘Reducing prejudice: a spatialized game-theoretic model for the contact hypothesis’, in Pollack, J., Bedau, M., Husbands, P., Ikegami, T. and Watson, R. A. (eds.), Artificial Life IX. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 244–249.Google Scholar

Gronow, J. (1988). ‘The element of irrationality: Max Weber’s diagnosis of modern culture’, Acta Sociologica, 31: 319–331.Google Scholar

Grossen, M. (2010). ‘Interaction analysis and psychology: a dialogical perspective’, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44: 1–22.Google Scholar

Grossen, M. and Salazar Orvig, A. (2011). ‘Third parties’ voices in a therapeutic interview’, Text & Talk, 31: 53–76.Google Scholar

Grossen, M. and Salazar Orvig, A. (2014). ‘Forms of trust/distrust and dialogicality in focus groups discussions about medical confidentiality’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 3–27.Google Scholar

Gruber, H. E. (1974). Darwin on Man, Together with Darwin’s Early and Unpublished Notebooks. Transcribed and annotated Barret, P. H.. London: Wildwood.Google Scholar

Guareschi, P. A. (2006). ‘Mídia e cidadania’ [Media and citizenship], Conexão – Comunicação e Cultura [Connection – Communication and Culture], January/June 5: 27–40.Google Scholar

Guillen, M. (1995). Five Equations that Changed the World. London: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar

Guthrie, W. K. C. (1962). History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation Crisis. Trsl. McCarthy, T.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1981/1984). The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and Rationalization in Society, Vol. 1. Trsl. McCarthy, T.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1981/1987). The Theory of Communicative Action: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Vol. 2. Trsl. McCarthy, T.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Halfin, I. (2003). Terror in My Soul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Halfin, I. (2009). Stalinist Confessions. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Halliwell, S. (2000). ‘The subjection of muthos to logos: Plato’s citations of the poets’, The Classical Quarterly, New Series, 50: 94–112.Google Scholar

Hamel, J. (1997). ‘Sociology, common sense, and qualitative methodology: the position of Pierre Bourdieu and Alain Touraine’, The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 22: 95–112.Google Scholar

Haney, C., Banks, C. and Zimbardo, P. (1973). ‘Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison’, International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1: 69–97.Google Scholar

Harré, R. (1999). ‘Commentary on “psychologic and the study of memory”’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 31–40.Google Scholar

Harris, R. (2009). Rationality and the Literate Mind. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar

Hart, R. and Tejera, V. (1997). Plato’s Dialogues: The Dialogical Approach. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar

Hartman, T. and Goldhoorn, C. (2011). ‘Horton and Wohl revisited: exploring viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction’, Journal of Communication, 61: 1104–1121.Google Scholar

Havel, V. (1983/1999). ‘Odpovědnost jako osud’ [Responsibility as a fate], in Spisy 4 [Ouevre 4]. Prague: Torst, pp. 402–417.Google Scholar

Havel, V. (1985–86/1999). Dálkový výslech [A distant interrogation], in Spisy 4 [Ouevre 4]. Prague: Torst, pp. 699–917.Google Scholar

Hegel, G. W. F. (1807/1977). The Phenomenology of the Spirit. Trsl. Miller, A. V.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hegel, G. W. F. (1821/2001). Philosophy of Right. Trsl. Dyde, S. W.. Kitchener: Batoche Books.Google Scholar

Hegel, G. W. F. (1899/2007). The Philosophy of History. Trsl. Sibree, J.. New York: Cosimo.Google Scholar

Heider, F. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Foundations of Philosophy Series, eds. , E. and Beardsley, M.. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Herder, J. G. (1877–1913/1967). Sämtliche Werke [Complete works]. Ed. Suphon, B.. Reprinted Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar

Hermans, H. J. M. and Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). The Dialogical Self: Meaning as Movement. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (eds.). (1982). Rationality and Relativism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

van Holthoon, F. L. (1987). ‘Common sense and natural law: from Thomas Aquinas to Thomas Reid’, in van Holthoon, and Olson, (eds.), pp. 99–131.Google Scholar

van Holthoon, F. L. and Olson, D. R. (eds.). (1987). Common Sense: Foundation for Social Science. Lanham and New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Holton, G. (1973). ‘The roots of complementarity’, in Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 115–161.Google Scholar

Holton, G. (1975). ‘On the role of themata in scientific thought’, Science, 188: 328–334.Google Scholar

Holton, G. (2003). ‘Einstein’s third paradise’, Daedalus, 132 (Fall): 26–34.Google Scholar

Honneth, A. (1992/1995). The Struggle for Recognition. Trsl. Anderson, J.. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Horton, D. and Wohl, R. R. (1956). ‘Mass communication and para-social interaction. Observations on intimacy at a distance’, Psychiatry, 19: 215–229.Google Scholar

Hosking, G. (2014). Trust: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Houssaye, J. (2000). Le triangle pédagogique [The educational triangle]. 3rd ed. Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Howarth, C. (2006). ‘A social representation is not a quiet thing: exploring the critical potential of social representations theory’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 45: 65–86.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2013). Systematicity: The Nature of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Humboldt, W. (1999). On Language: On the Diversity of Human Language Construction and Its Influence on the Mental Development of the Human Species. Ed. Losonsky, M.. Trsl. Heath, P.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hurn, C. (1985). ‘Changes in authority relationships in schools: 1960–1980’, Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 5: 31–57.Google Scholar

Husserl, E. (1913/1962). Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Trsl. Gibson, W. R. Boyce. London and New York: Collier, Macmillan.Google Scholar

Husserl, E. (1936/1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Trsl. Carr, D.. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Ichheiser, G. (1968). ‘Six meanings of the terms “rational” and “irrational”’, Sociologia Internationalis, 6: 96–100.Google Scholar

Imber-Black, E. (1998). The Secret Life of Families. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. (2004). ‘Beyond biology and culture. The meaning of evolution in a relational world’, Social Anthropology, 12: 209–221.Google Scholar

Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. (1955/1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. Trsl. Parsons, A. and Milgram, S.. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Inhelder, B. and Piaget, J. (1959/1964). The Early Growth of Logic in the Child. Trsl. Lunzer, E. A. and Papert, D.. Abington: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Jacob, F. (1981/1982). The Possible and the Actual. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Published originally as Jacob, F. (1981). Le Jeu des possibles. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar

Jahoda, G. (1982). Psychology and Anthropology: A Psychological Perspective. London and New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Jahoda, G. (2007). A History of Social Psychology: From the Eighteenth-Century Enlightenment to the Second World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism. A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. New York: Longmans, Green and Company.Google Scholar

Janssen, M. and Rødbroe, I. (eds.). (2007). Communication and Congenital Deafblindness. II: Contact and Social Interaction. St. Michielsgestel: VCDBF/Viataal.Google Scholar

Jarvie, I. C. (1984). Rationality and Relativism. In Search of a Philosophy and History of Anthropology. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Jesuino, J. C. (2008). ‘Linking science to common sense’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38: 393–409.Google Scholar

Jesuino, J. C. (2012). ‘Back to common sense’, in Valentim, J. P. (ed.), Societal Approaches in Social Psychology. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 35–60.Google Scholar

Jodelet, D. (1989/1991). Madness and Social Representations. Trsl. Pownall, T.. Ed. Duveen, G.. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar

Joffe, H. (2008). ‘The power of visual material: persuasion, emotion and identification’, Diogenes, 217: 84–93.Google Scholar

Joffe, H. (2011). ‘Public apprehension of emerging infectious diseases’, Public Understanding of Science, 20: 448–460.Google Scholar

Johansen, T. K. (1999). ‘Myth and logos in Aristotle’, in Buxton, R. (ed.), From Myth to Reason? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 279–291.Google Scholar

Jones, R. (1976). ‘Is Peirce’s theory of instinct consistently non-Cartesian?’ Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 12: 348–366.Google Scholar

Jones, S. S. (2000). ‘Representations in Durkheim’s masters: Kant and Renouvier’, in Pickering, W. S. F. (ed.), Durkheim and Representations. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 37–58.Google Scholar

Jovchelovitch, S. (2002). ‘Re–thinking the diversity of knowledge: cognitive polyphasia, belief and representation’, Psychologie & Societé, 5: 121–138.Google Scholar

Jovchelovitch, S. (2007). Knowledge in Context: Representations, Community and Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jovchelovitch, S. (2008). ‘The rehabilitation of common sense: social representations, science and cognitive polyphasia’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 38: 431–448.Google Scholar

Jovchelovitch, S. and Priego-Hernandez, J. (2013). Underground Sociabilities: Identity, Culture, and Resistance in Rio de Janeiro’s Favelas. Brasilia: UNESCO.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. (2012). ‘A proposal to deal with questions about priming effects’. www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/suppinfoFile/Kahneman%20Letter.pdf.Google Scholar

Kalampalikis, N. (2007). Les Grecs et le mythe d’Alexandre [The Greeks and the myth of Alexander]. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar

Kant, I. (1784/1996). ‘An answer to the question: what is enlightenment?’, in Gregor, M. J. (ed. and trsl.), I. Kant: Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 15–22.Google Scholar

Kant, I. (1790/2000). Critique of the Power of Judgment. Ed. Guyer, P.. Trsl. Guyer, P., and Matthews, E.. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kaplan, D. M. (2008). ‘Ricoeur’s critical theory’, in Kaplan, D. M. (ed.), Reading Ricoeur. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 197–212.Google Scholar

Kearney, R. (1998). Poetics of Imagining. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar

Kelley, D. R. (1970). Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship: Language, Law and History in the French Renaissance. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Kennedy, G. (1954). ‘Science and the transformation of common sense: the basic problem of Dewey’s philosophy’, Journal of Philosophy, 51: 313–325.Google Scholar

Keucheyan, R. (2003). ‘Sens commun et réalité sociale: perspectives sociologiques et philosophiques’ [Common sense and social reality: sociological and philosophical perspectives], Social Science Information, 42: 209–228.Google Scholar

Keynes, J. M. (1925/1931). ‘A short view of Russia’, in Keynes, J. M., Essays in Persuasion. London: Macmillan and Co., pp. 297–311.Google Scholar

Keynes, J. M. (1926/1931). ‘The end of laissez-faire’, in Keynes, J. M., Essays in Persuasion. London: Macmillan and Co., pp. 312–322.Google Scholar

Keynes, J. M. (1947). Newton, the Man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Klautke, E. (2010). ‘The mind of the nation: the debate about Völkerpsychologie, 1851–1900’, Central Europe, 8: 1–19.Google Scholar

Koestler, A. (1940/2005). The Darkness at Noon. London: Vintage Books.Google Scholar

Kojève, A. (1969). Introduction to the Reading of Hegel. New York and London: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Kojève, A. (2004/2014). La notion de l’authorité. Mayenne: Gallimard. Trsl. H. Weslati as The Notion of Authority. New York and London: Verso.Google Scholar

Koyré, A. (1948). ‘Du monde de l’ « à-peu-près » à l’univers de la précision’ [From the world of ‘very nearly’ to the universe of precision]. Critique, 28: 806–823.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lambert, C. (2005). La société de la peur [Society of fear]. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar

Lana, R. E. (1979). ‘Giambatistta Vico and history of social psychology’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 9: 251–263.Google Scholar

Laney, J. T. (1991). ‘Can the humanities still humanize higher education?’, in Thompson, D. L. (ed.), Moral Values in Higher Education. Provo: Brigham Young University, pp. 125–133.Google Scholar

van Lange, P. A. M. (2006). Bridging Social Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Lecourt, D. (1977). Proletarian Science? The Case of Lysenko. Introduction Althusser, L.. Trsl. Brewster, B.. London: NLB.Google Scholar

Lee, A. S. and Baskerville, R. L. (2003). ‘Generalizing generalizability in information systems research’, Information Systems Research, 14: 221–243.Google Scholar

LeGouis, C. (1997). Positivism and Imagination: Scientism and Its Limits in Emile Hennequin, Wilhelm Scherer and Dmitrii Pisarev. London: Associated University Presses.Google Scholar

Leiman, M. (2012). ‘Dialogical sequence analysis in studying psychotherapeutic discourse’, International Journal for Dialogical Science, 6: 123–147.Google Scholar

Lenin, V. I. (1913/1977). ‘Three sources and three component parts of Marxism’, in Collected Works, Vol. 19. Moscow: Progress Publishers, pp. 21–28.Google Scholar

Levinas, E. (1951/1996). ‘Is ontology fundamental?’, in Peperzak, A. T., Critchley, S. and Bernasconi, R. (eds.), Emmanuel Levinas: Basic Philosophical Writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

Levinas, E. (1961/1969). Totality and Infinity. Trsl. Lingis, A.. Pittsburgh: The Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar

Levinas, E. (1968/1996). ‘Substitution’, in Peperzak, A. T., Critchley, S. and Bernasconi, R. (eds.), Emmanuel Levinas: Basic Philosophical Writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 97–107.Google Scholar

Levinas, E. (1974/1998). Autrement que l’être ou au-delà de l’essence. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Trsl. Lingis, A. as Otherwise than Being, or, Beyond Essence. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar

Levinas, E. (1988). ‘Useless suffering’, in Bernasconi, R. and Wood, D. (eds.), The Provocation of Levinas. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 156–167.Google Scholar

Levinas, E. (1998). ‘Philosophy, justice and love’, in Entre-nous: On Thinking of the Other. Trsl. Smith, M. B. and Harshav, B.. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 103–122.Google Scholar

Levine, G. (1993). Reality and Representation. Madison and London: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962/1966). La pensée sauvage. Paris: Plon. Trsl. Weidenfeld, and Nicolson, as The Savage Mind. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1970). The Raw and the Cooked. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Lévi-Strauss, C. (2009) ‘Ce que je suis’ [What I am], Le Nouvel Observateur, Hors-série, November–December, 74: 30–38.Google Scholar

Lévy-Bruhl, L. (1910/1926). Les fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inferieures. Trsl. Clare, L. A. as How Natives Think. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar

Lévy-Bruhl, L. (1922/1923). La mentalité primitive. Trsl. Clare, L. A. as Primitive Mentality. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Lewin, K. (1938/1999). ‘Will and needs’, in Ellis, W. D. (ed.), A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 283–299.Google Scholar

Lewin, K. (1939/1951). ‘Field theory and experiment in social psychology’, in Cartwright, D. (ed.), Field Theory in Social Science. Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin. New York: Harper, pp. 130–154.Google Scholar

Lewin, K. (1943). ‘Defining the “field at a given time”’, Psychological Review, 50: 292–310.Google Scholar

Lewin, K. (1947/1951). ‘Frontiers in group dynamics’, in Cartwright, D. (ed.), Field Theory in Social Science. Selected Theoretical Papers by Kurt Lewin. New York: Harper, pp. 188–237.Google Scholar

Lewis, M. D. (2002). ‘The dialogical brain. Contributions of emotional neurobiology to understanding the dialogical self’, Theory & Psychology, 12: 175–190.Google Scholar

Lindenberg, S. (1987). ‘Common sense and social structure: a sociological view’, in van Holthoon, F. and Olson, D. R. (eds.), Common Sense: Foundation for Social Science. Lanham and New York: University Press of America, pp. 199–215.Google Scholar

Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar

Linell, P. and Keselman, O. (2012). ‘Trustworthiness at stake: trust and distrust in investigative interviews with Russian adolescent asylum-seekers in Sweden’, in Marková, and Gillespie, (eds.), pp. 156–180.Google Scholar

Linell, P. and Marková, I. (eds.). (2014a). Dialogical Approaches to Trust in Communication. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar

Linell, P. and Marková, I. (2014b). ‘Trust and distrust in interaction: some theoretical and methodological points’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 213–235.Google Scholar

Linell, P. and Rommetveit, R. (1998). ‘The many forms and facets of morality in dialogue: epilogue for the special issue’, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31: 465–473.Google Scholar

Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I. and Kelly, K. (2009). New Media: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. Abington and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Livingstone, S. (2008). ‘Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression’, New Media & Society, 10: 393–411.Google Scholar

Lloyd, G. E. R. (1990). Demystifying Mentalities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lucas, J. R. (1993). Responsibility. Oxford: Clarendon University Press.Google Scholar

Luckmann, T. (1987). ‘Some thoughts on common sense and science’, in van Holthoon, and Olson, (eds.), pp. 179–197.Google Scholar

Mali, J. (2012). The Legacy of Vico in Modern Cultural History: From Jules Michelet to Isaiah Berlin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Marañon, G. (1924). ‘Contribution à l’étude de l’action émotive de l’adrenaline’, [Contribution to the study of emotional action of adrenaline], Revue Française d’Endocrinologie, 21: 301–325.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (1982). Paradigms, Thought and Language. Chichester and New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (1990). ‘The development of self-consciousness: Baldwin, Mead and Vygotsky’, in Faulconer, J. E. and Williams, R. N. (eds.), Reconsidering Psychology: Perspectives from Continental Philosophy. Pittsburgh: Duquesne Press, pp. 151–174.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (1992). ‘Scientific and public knowledge of AIDS: the problem of their integration’, in Cranach, M., Doise, W. and Mugny, G. (eds.), Social Representations and the Social Bases of Knowledge. Bern: Huber, pp. 179–183.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (2003a). Dialogicality and Social Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (2003b). ‘Constitution of the self: intersubjectivity and dialogicality’, Culture & Psychology, 9: 249–259.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (2006). ‘On “the inner alter” in dialogue’, International Journal for Dialogical Science, 1: 125–147.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (2008a). ‘Persuasion and propaganda’, Diogenes, 217: 37–51.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (2008b). ‘A dialogical perspective of social representations of responsibility’, in Sugiman, T., Gergen, K. J., Wagner, W. and Yamada, Y. (eds.). Meaning in Action. New York: Springer, pp. 253–270.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (2012) ‘Confession as a communication genre: the logos and mythos of the Party’, in Marková, and Gillespie, (eds.), pp. 181–200.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (2013). ‘Forms of resistance during Stalinism’, in Bauer, M. W., Harré, R. and Jensen, C. (eds.), Resistance and the Practice of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 137–156.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (2014a). ‘Complementarity as an epistemology of life’, in Wagoner, B., Chaudhary, N. and Hviid, P. (eds.), Cultural Psychology and Its Future: Complementarity in a New Key. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (2014b). ‘Questioning interdisciplinarity: history, social psychology and the theory of social representations’, in Tileagă, C. and Byford, J. (eds.), Psychology and History. Interdisciplinary Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–126.Google Scholar

Marková, I. (2016). ‘Dialogue and mutual understanding’, in de Saussue, L. and Rocci, A. (eds.), Verbal Communication. Handbooks of Communication Science. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 181–201.Google Scholar

Marková, I. and Gillespie, A. (eds.). (2008). Trust and Distrust: Sociocultural Perspectives. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.Google Scholar

Marková, I. and Gillespie, A. (eds.). (2012). Trust and Conflict: Culture, Representation and Dialogue. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Marková, I., Linell, P. and Gillespie, A. (2008). ‘Trust and distrust in society’, in Marková, and Gillespie, (eds.), pp. 3–27.Google Scholar

Marková, I. and Wilkie, P. (1987). ‘Concepts, representations, and social change: the phenomenon of AIDS’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17: 398–409.Google Scholar

Marková, I., Wilkie, P. A., Naji, S. and Forbes, C. (1990). ‘Self- and other-awareness of the risk of HIV/AIDS in people with haemophilia and implications for behavioural change’, Social Science and Medicine, 31: 73–79.Google Scholar

Märtsin, M., Wagoner, B., Aveling, E., Kadianaki, I. and Whittaker, L. (eds.) (2011). Dialogicality in Focus: Challenges, Reflections and Applications. Hauppauge. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar

Marx, K. (1843/1970). Contribution to Critique of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy of Right’. Ed., introduction and notes O’Malley, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mathias, E. (2008). ‘Economic success and social trust: evidence from the Baltic States’, in Marková, and Gillespie, (eds.), pp. 219–245.Google Scholar

Matusov, E. (2011). ‘Irreconcilable differences in Vygotsky’s and Bakhtin’s approaches to the social and the individual: an educational perspective’, Culture & Psychology, 17: 99–119.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1915). ‘Natural rights and the theory of the political institution’, Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Method, 12: 141–155.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (2011). ‘On the self and teleological behavior’, in da Silva, F. C. (ed.), G.H. Mead: A Reader. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 21–44.Google Scholar

Medvedev, Z. A. and Medvedev, R. A. (1971). A Question of Madness. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Meyerson, E. (1908/1930). Identity and Reality. Trsl. Loewenberg, K.. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Meyerson, E. (1931). Du cheminements de la pensée [The paths of thought]. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar

Mezník, J. (2005). Můj Život za Vlády Komunistů (1948–1989). [My life during the communist rule, (1948–1989)]. Brno: Matice moravská.Google Scholar

Michelet, J. (1827). ‘Discourse sur le système et la vie de Vico’ [Discourse about the system and life of Vico], in Vico, G., Principes de la philosophie d’ histoire[Principles of the philosophy of history]. Trsl. Michelet, J. (from Italian to French) of Vico’s The New Science. Paris: A. Colin, pp. v–lxx.Google Scholar

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Miller, A. I. (1975). ‘Albert Einstein and Max Wertheimer: a Gestalt psychologist’s view of the genesis of special relativity theory’, History of Science, 13: 75–103.Google Scholar

Minogue, K. (2010). The Servile Mind. How Democracy Erodes the Moral Life. New York: Encounter Books.Google Scholar

Moghaddam, F. M. (2003). ‘Interobjectivity and culture’, Culture & Psychology, 9: 221–232.Google Scholar

Moghaddam, F. M. (2010). ‘Commentary: intersubjectivity, interobjectivity, and the embryonic fallacy in developmental science’, Culture & Psychology, 16: 465–475.Google Scholar

Monas, S. (1990). ‘Did Bakhtin read Vico?’, New Vico Studies, 8: 156–157.Google Scholar

Moran, R. (2005). ‘Getting told and being believed’, Philosophers’ Imprint, 5: 1–29.Google Scholar

Morgan, K. A. (2004). Myth and Philosophy: From the Presocratics to Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Morhenn, V. B., Park, J. W., Piper, E. and Zak, P. J. (2008). ‘Monetary sacrifice among strangers is mediated by endogenous oxytocin release after physical contact’, Evolution and Human Behavior 29: 375–383.Google Scholar

Morin, E. (1959). Autocritique [Self-criticism]. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar

Morris, B. (1987). Anthropological Studies of Religion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Morson, G. S. and Emerson, C. (1989) (eds). Rethinking Bakhtin: Extensions and Challenges. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Morson, G. S. and Emerson, C. (1990). Mikhail Bakhtin. Creation of Prosaics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1961). La psychanalyse: son image et son public [Psychoanalysis: its image and its public]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1970). ‘Préface’, in Jodelet, D., Viet, J. and Besnard, P., (eds.), La psychologie sociale, une discipline en mouvement [Social psychology, a discipline in movement]. Paris-La Haye: Mouton, pp. 9–64.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1972/2000). ‘Society and theory in social psychology’, in Israel, J. and Tajfel, H. (eds.), The Context of Social Psychology: A Critical Assessment. London and New York: Academic Press, pp. 17–68. Reprinted in Moscovici, S. (2000). Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Ed. Duveen, G.. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 78–119.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1976/2008). La psychanalyse: son image et son public. 2nd ed. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Trsl. Macey, D. as Psychoanalysis: Its Image and Its Public. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1977). Essai sur l’histoire humaine de la nature [Essay on the human history of nature]. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1979). ‘La dissidence d’un seul’ [The dissent of one], in Psychologie des minorités actives [Psychology of active minorities]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 241–266.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1981). ‘On social representations’, in Forgas, J. (ed.), Social Cognition: Perspectives on Everyday Understanding. New York: Academic Press, pp. 181–210.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1982). ‘The coming era of representations’, in Codol, J.-P. and Leyens, J.-P. (eds.), Cognitive Approaches to Social Behavior. The Hague: M. Nijhoff, pp. 115–150.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1988/1993). La machine à faire des dieux: sociologie et psychologie. Paris: Fayard. Trsl. Hall, W. D. as The Invention of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1992). ‘The psychology of scientific myths’, in Cranach, M., Doise, W. and Mugny, G. (eds.), Social Representations and the Social Bases of Knowledge. Bern: Huber, pp. 3–9.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1993). ‘The return of the unconscious’, Social Research, 60: 39–93.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1997). Chronique des années égarées: récit autobiographique. Paris: Stock.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (1998). ‘Social consciousness and its history’, Culture & Psychology, 4: 410–429.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (2003) ‘Le premier article’ [The first article], Journal des Psychologues, Numéro hors série, 10–13.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. (2011). ‘An essay on social representations and ethnic minorities’, Social Science Information, 50: 441–461.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. and Hewstone, M. (1983). ‘Social representations and social explanations: from the “naïve” to the “amateur” scientist’, in Hewstone, M. (ed.), Attribution Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 98–125.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. and Marková, I. (2000). ‘Ideas and their development: a dialogue between Serge Moscovici and Ivana Marková’, in Moscovici, S., Social Representations. Ed. Duveen, G.. London: Polity Press, pp. 224–286.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. and Marková, I. (2006). The Making of Modern Social Psychology: The Hidden Story of How an International Social Science Was Created. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Moscovici, S. and Vignaux, G. (1994/2000). ‘Le concept de thêmata’, in Guimelli, C., Structures et transformations des représentations sociales [Structures and transformations of social representations]. Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestlé, pp. 25–72. Reprinted in Moscovici, S., Social Representations. Ed. Duveen, G.. London: Polity Press, pp. 156–183.Google Scholar

Most, G. W. (1999). ‘From logos to mythos’, in Buxton, R. (ed.) From Myth to Reason? Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–47.Google Scholar

Mure, G. R. G. (1940). An Introduction to Hegel. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Musgrave, A. (1993). Common Sense, Science and Scepticism. A Historical Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nafstad, A. V. (2015). ‘Communication as cure: communicative agency in persons with congenital deafblindness’, Journal of Deafblind Studies on Communication, 1: 23–39.Google Scholar

Nafstad, A. V. and Rødbroe, I. (1999). Co-creating Communication. Perspectives on Diagnostic Education for Individuals Who Are Congenitally Deafblind and Individuals Whose Impairments May Have Similar Effects. Dronninglund, Denmark: Forlager Nord-Press.Google Scholar

Nafstad, A. V. and Rødbroe, I. (2013). Kommunikative Relasjoner [Communicative relationships]. Aalborg: Materialecentret.Google Scholar

Nestle, W. (1942). Vom Mythos zum Logos: die Selbstentfaltung des griechischen Denkens von Homer bis auf die Sophistik und Socrates. Zweite Auflage [From myth to logos: the self-unfolding of Greek thought from Homer to the Sophists and Socrates]. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Kröner.Google Scholar

Neuhouser, F. (2000). ‘Introduction’, in Fichte, J. G., Foundations of Natural Right. Ed. Neuhouser, F.. Trsl. Bauer, M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. vii–xxviii.Google Scholar

Nisbet, R. A. (1966). The Sociological Tradition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

North, J. D. (2008). Cosmos: An Illustrated History of Astronomy and Cosmology. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

O’Connor, C. (2014). ‘Neuroscience and social identity: the brain as an index of social difference’. Lecture presented at the meeting on Brains, Neuroscience, and Common Sense, of the study group Reconsidering Common Sense (RICOS), 18 September 2014, University of Neuchâtel.Google Scholar

O’Connor, C. and Joffe, H. (2014). ‘Gender on the brain: a case study of science communication in the new media environment’, Plos One, 9: e110830. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110830.Google Scholar

O’Connor, C. and Joffe, H. (2015). ‘How the public engages with brain optimization: the media-mind relationship’. Science, Technology & Human Values, 40: 712–743.Google Scholar

O’Connor, C., Rees, G. and Joffe, H. (2012). ‘Neuroscience in the public sphere’, Neuron, 74: 220–226.Google Scholar

O’Neill, O. (2002). ‘A question of trust. Reith lectures’, BBC 1. www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2002/lecture3.shtml.Google Scholar

Orfali, B. and Marková, I. (2002). ‘Analogies in focus groups: from the victim to the murderer and from the murderer to the victim’, European Review of Applied Psychology, 52: 263–271.Google Scholar

Otsuka, Y. (2014). ‘Face recognition in infants: a review of behavioral and near-infrared spectroscopic studies’, Japanese Psychological Research, 56: 76–90.Google Scholar

Oyler, C. (1996). Making Room for Students: Sharing Teacher Authority in Room 104. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Pace, J. L. and Hemmings, A. (2007). ‘Understanding authority in the classroom: a review of theory, ideology and research’, Review of Educational Research, 77: 4–27.Google Scholar

Panofsky, E. (1924/1968). Idea. A Concept in Art Theory. Trsl. Peake, J. J. S.. New York and London: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Panofsky, E. (1956). ‘Galileo as a critic of the arts: aesthetic attitude and scientific thought’, Isis, 47: 3–15.Google Scholar

Panofsky, E. (1991). Perspective as Symbolic Form. Trsl. Wood, C. S.. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar

Paoletti, G. (2000). ‘Representation and belief. Durkheim’s rationalism and the Kantian tradition’, in Pickering, W. S. F. (ed.), Durkheim and Representations. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 118–135.Google Scholar

Paredes, E. C. and Jodelet, D. (eds.). (2009). Pensamento mitico e representações sociais [Mythical thinking and social representations]. Cuiabá: EdUFMT, pp. 11–23.Google Scholar

Pascal, B. (1670/1995). Pensées. Trsl. and introduction Krailsheimer, A. J.. London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar

Patočka, J. (1973a/1989). ‘The dangers of technicization in science according to E. Husserl and the essence of technology as danger according to M. Heidegger’, in Kohák, E. (ed., trsl. and preface), Jan Patočka: Philosophy and Selected Writings. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 327–339.Google Scholar

Patočka, J. (1973b). ‘On the principle of scientific conscience’, Telos, 18 (December): 158–161.Google Scholar

Patočka, J. (1977a/1990). ‘O povinnosti bránit se proti bezpráví’ [About the duty to defend oneself against injustice], in Prečan, V. (ed.) (1990). Charta 77 (1977–1098). Bratislava: Archa, pp. 31–34.Google Scholar

Patočka, J. (1977b/1990). ‘Co můžeme očekávat od Charty 77?’ [What can we expect from the Charta 77?], in Prečan, V. (ed.) (1990). Charta 77 (1977–1098). Bratislava: Archa, pp. 38–42.Google Scholar

Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Vols. 1–6. Ed. Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P., 1931–1935. Vols. 7–8. Ed. Burks, A. W., 1958. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Phelps, E. A. and Thomas, L. A. (2003). ‘“Race”, behavior, and the brain: the role neuroimaging in understanding complex social behaviors’, Political Psychology, 24: 747–758.Google Scholar

Pickering, M. (1993). Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pickering, M. (2009a). Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pickering, M. (2009b). Auguste Comte: An Intellectual Biography. Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Plato. (1991). The Republic of Plato. Trsl., notes, interpretive essay and a new introduction Bloom, A.. New York: Basic Books/Harper and Collins.Google Scholar

Pólya, G. (1945). How to Solve It. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Pólya, G. (1984) ‘Two incidents’, in Pólya, G., Collected Papers. Vol. IV. Probability; Combinatorics; Teaching and Learning in Mathematics. Ed. Rota, G.-C.. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, pp. 165–168.Google Scholar

Pompa, L. (1990a). Human Nature and Historical Knowledge: Hume, Hegel and Vico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pompa, L. (1990b). Vico. A Study of the ‘New Science’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. (1979). An Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Power, M. (1999). The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Power, M. (2000). ‘The audit society – second thoughts’, International Journal of Auditing, 4:111–119.Google Scholar

Reid, T. (1764/1801). An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense. Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute and William Creech.Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. (1965/1970). De l’interpretation: essay sur Freud. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Trsl. Savage, D. as Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. (1969/1974). Le conflit des interpretations: essais, d’hermeneutique. Paris: Editions du Seuil. Trsl. McLaughlin, K., Sweeney, R., Domingo, W., McCormick, P., Savage, D. and Freilich, C. as Conflicts of Interpretations. Ed. Ihde, J.. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. (1990/1992). Oneself as Another. Trsl. Blamey, K.. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Ricoeur, P. (2004/2005). The Course of Recognition. Trsl. Pellauer, D.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Riddle, E. M. (1925). ‘Aggressive behaviour in a small social group’, Archives of Psychology, No. 78.Google Scholar

Rober, P., Walravens, G. and Versteynen, L. (2012). ‘“Search of a tale they can live with”: about loss, family secrets, and selective disclosure’, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38: 529–541.Google Scholar

Rochat, P. (2009). Others in Mind: Social Origins of Self-Consciousness. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rødbroe, I. and Janssen, M. (eds.). (2006). Communication and Congenital Deafblindness. I: Congenital Deafblindness and the Core Principles of Intervention. St. Michielsgestel: VCDBF/Viataal.Google Scholar

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Rommetveit, R. (1974). On Message Structure. Chichester and New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Rommetveit, R. (1983). ‘In search of a truly interdisciplinary semantics. A sermon on hopes of salvation from hereditary sins’, Journal of Semantics, 2: 1–28.Google Scholar

Rommetveit, R. (1990). ‘On axiomatic features of a dialogical approach to language and mind’, in Marková, I. and Foppa, K. (eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue. New York and London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 83–104.Google Scholar

Rommetveit, R. (1991a). ‘On epistemic responsibility in human communication’, in Rönning, H. and Lundby, K. (eds.), Media and Communication. Readings in Methodology, History and Culture. Oslo: Norwegian University Press, pp. 13–27.Google Scholar

Rommetveit, R. (1991b). ‘Dominance and asymmetries in a Doll’s House’, in Marková, I. and Foppa, K. (eds.), Asymmetries in Dialogue. New York and London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 195–220.Google Scholar

Rosa, A. and Valsiner, J. (2007). ‘Rationality, ethics and objectivity’, in Valsiner, J. and Rosa, A. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 692–707.Google Scholar

de Rosa, A. S. (2014). ‘The role of the iconic-imaginary dimensions in the Modelling Approach to social representations’, Papers on Social Representations, 23: 17.1–17.26.Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, L. (1963/1979). ‘Niel’s Bohr’s contribution to epistemology’, in Cohen, R. S. and Stachel, J. J. (eds.), Selected Papers of Leon Rosenfeld. Dordrecht and London: D. Reidel, pp. 522–535.Google Scholar

Rosenstock-Huessy, E. (1924). ‘Angewandte Seelenkunde, eine pragmatische Ubersetzung’ [Applied psychology, a pragmatic translation]. Darmstadt: Roetherverlag.Google Scholar

Rosenzweig, F. (1921/1971). Stern der Erlösung. Frankfurt: Kauffmann. Trsl. Hallo, W. W. as The Star of Redemption. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Rosnow, R. L. (1978). ‘The prophetic vision of Giambattista Vico: implications for the state of social psychological theory’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36: 1322–1331.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1920). The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1956). Our Knowledge of the External World. New York: Menton Books.Google Scholar

Salazar Orvig, A. (2005). ‘Les facettes du dialogisme dans une discussion ordinaire’ [The facets of dialogism in ordinary discussion], in Haillet, P. and Karmaoui, G. (eds.), Regards sur l’héritage de Mikhaïl Bakhtine [Views on the heritage of Mikhail Bakhtin]. Amiens: Encrage, pp. 35–66.Google Scholar

Salazar Orvig, A. and Grossen, M. (2008). ‘Le dialogisme dans l’entretien clinique’ [Dialogism in a clinical interview], Langage & Société, 123: 37–52.Google Scholar

Salgado, J. (2014).’Searching for trust in psychotherapy: the developmental dynamics of trust within a dialogical perspective’, in Linell, and Marková, (eds.), pp. 101–124.Google Scholar

Salgado, J., Cunha, C. and Bento, T. (2013). ‘Positioning microanalysis: studying the self through the exploration of dialogical processes’, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47: 325–353.Google Scholar

Salvatore, S. and Valsiner, J. (2010). ‘Between the general and the unique: overcoming the nomothetic versus idiographic opposition’, Theory & Psychology, 20: 817–833.Google Scholar

Schachter, S. and Singer, J. E. (1962). ‘Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state’, Psychological Review, 69: 379–399.Google Scholar

Schütz, A. (1953). ‘Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 14: 1–38.Google Scholar

Scott-Baumann, A. (2009). Ricoeur and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Seikkula, J. (2011). ‘Becoming dialogical: psychotherapy or a way of life?’ Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 32: 179–193.Google Scholar

Seikkula, J., Laitila, A. and Rober, P. (2012). ‘Making sense of multi-actor dialogues in family therapy and network meetings’, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38: 667–687.Google Scholar

Seikkula, J. and Trimble, D. (2005). ‘Healing elements of therapeutic conversation: dialogue as an embodiment of love’, Family Process, 44: 461–475.Google Scholar

Seligman, A. B. (1997). The Problem of Trust. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar

Sennett, R. (1980). Authority. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Sense. ‘Congenital deafblindness’. www.sense.org.uk/content/congenital-deafblindness.Google Scholar

Service, R. (2000). Lenin: A Biography. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Shaftesbury, A. A. Cooper. (1711/1999). Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. Ed. Klein, L. E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shapiro, D. and Crider, A. (1969). ‘Psychophysiological approaches in social psychology’, in Lindsay, G. and Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 3. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 1–49.Google Scholar

Shepherd, L. (2003). ‘Face to face: a call for radical responsibility in place of compassion’, St. John’s Law Review, 77: 445–514.Google Scholar

Shotter, J. (1986). ‘A sense of place: Vico and the social production of social identities’, The British Journal of Social Psychology, 25: 199–211.Google Scholar

Shotter, J. (1991). ‘A poetics of relational forms: the sociality of everyday social life’, Cultural Dynamics, 4: 379–396.Google Scholar

Shotter, J. (1999). ‘From within an external world’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 81–84.Google Scholar

Shotter, J. (2007). ‘Vico, Wittgenstein, Bakhtin and the background: what is there before anything is’, Analysis and Metaphysics, 6: 195–223.Google Scholar

Shweder, R. A. (1990). ‘Cultural psychology: what is it?’, in Stigler, J. W., Shweder, R. A. and Herdt, G. H. (eds.), Cultural Psychology: Essays on Comparative Human Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar

Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through Cultures. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Shweder, R. A. and LeVine, R. A. (eds.). (1984) Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shweder, R. A., Minow, M. and Markus, H. R. (eds.). (2002). Engaging Cultural Differences: The Multicultural Challenge in Liberal Democracies. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Siep, L. (1979). Anerkennung als Prinzip der Praktische Philosophie: Untersuchungen zu Hegels Jenaer Philosophie des Geistes [Recognition as a principle of practical philosophy: studies in Hegel’s Jena philosophy of mind]. Freiburg: Karl Alber Verlag.Google Scholar

Simão, L. M. and Valsiner, J. (eds.). (2007). Otherness in Question. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar

Šimečka, M. (1984). The Restoration of Order: The Normalization of Czechoslovakia 1969–1976. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Simmel, G. (1950). The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Trsl., ed., introduction Wolff, K. H.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Simmel, G. (1978). Philosophy of Money. Ed. Frisby, D.. Trsl. Bottomore, T. and Frisby, D.. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Smedslund, J. (1997). The Structure of Psychological Common Sense. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Smedslund, J. (1999a). ‘Psychologic and the study of memory’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 3–17.Google Scholar

Smedslund, J. (1999b). ‘Author’s response: psychologic in dialogue – reply to commentaries’, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40 (Suppl.): 123–138.Google Scholar

Smith, B. (1995). ‘Common sense’, in Smith, B., and Smith, D. W. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Husserl. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 394–437.Google Scholar

Sorokin, P. (1992). The Crisis of Our Age. Oxford: Oneworld Publishers.Google Scholar

Souriau, J. (2000). ‘Introduction: surdi-cécité et développement de la communication. Problèmes et stratégies adaptives’ [Introduction: deafblindness and communicative development. Problems and adaptive strategies], Revue Enfance, 53: 3–18.Google Scholar

Souriau, J. (2001). ‘La surdi-cécité’ [deafblindness], in Rondal, J. A. and Comblain, A. (eds.), Manuel de psychologie des handicaps. Sémiologie et principes de remédiation [Manual of the psychology of disabilities. Semiology and principles of remediation]. Sprimont: Mardaga, 391–418.Google Scholar

Souriau, J. (2013). ‘Comprendre et communiquer avec ceux qui ne parlent pas’ [To understand and to communicate with those who do not speak], Vie Sociale, 3: 93–116.Google Scholar

Souriau, J. (2015). ‘Blended spaces and Deixis in communicative activities involving persons with congenital deafblindness’, Journal of Deafblind Studies on Communication, 1: 5–22.Google Scholar

Souriau, J., Rødbroe, I. and Janssen, M. (eds.). (2008). Communication and Congenital Deafblindness. III: Meaning Making. St. Michielsgestel: VCDBF/Viataal.Google Scholar

Souriau, J., Rødbroe, I. and Janssen, M. (eds.). (2009). Communication and Congenital Deafblindness IV: Transition to the Cultural Language. St. Michielsgestel: VCDBF/Viataal.Google Scholar

Souvarine, B. (1939). Stalin – A Critical Survey of Bolshevism. New York: Alliance Book Cooperation.Google Scholar

Spiegelberg, H. (1971). The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction. Vol. II. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar

Spinoza, B. (1677/1967). Ethics. Trsl. Boyle, A., introduction Gregory, T. S.. London: Dent.Google Scholar

Stern, D. N. (1985). The Interpersonal World of the Infant. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Sutherland, S. (1992). Irrationality. London: Pinter and Martin.Google Scholar

Swidler, A. (1979). Organization without Authority: Dilemmas of Social Control in Free Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Tagliacozzo, G. (1980). ‘Introductory remarks’, in Tagliacozzo, , Mooney, and Verene, (eds.), pp. 1–8.Google Scholar

Tagliacozzo, G., Mooney, M. and Verene, D. P. (eds.). (1980). Vico and Contemporary Thought. London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press. Reprinted from Social Research, 1976, 43, numbers 3 & 4.Google Scholar

Taylor, C. (1975). Hegel. Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Taylor, C. (1991). ‘The dialogical self’, in Hiley, D. R., Bohman, J. F. and Shusterman, R. (eds.), The Interpretive Turn: Philosophy, Science, Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 304–317.Google Scholar