Reports an error in "The New History of Psychology: Some (Different) Answers to Lovett's Five Questions" by Adrian C. Brock (History of Psychology, Advanced Online Publication, Jun 27, 2016, np). In this article there was an error in the 11th paragraph of the Lovett's Five Questions for the New Historians section. The conference paper "The "new" history of science: Implications for philosophy of science" by Rachel Laudan (1992) was wrongly attributed to her husband, Larry Laudan. All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2016-31594-001.) The professionalization of the history of psychology from the 1960s led to significant changes in the way that history was written. Several authors tried to summarize these changes in the 1980s, and Laurel Furumoto's (1989) G. Stanley Hall lecture, "The new history of psychology" is the best-known example of this genre. This journal published a critique of the new history by Benjamin R. Lovett (2006) with the title, "The new history of psychology: A review and critique," and it is still being cited as an authoritative source. The article consists of 3 parts. First, the author attempts to show that the new history is not as different from the old as its proponents claim. He then discusses some problems that he considers to be unique to the new history, and he presents them in the form of 5 questions for the new historians, which he then goes on to answer himself. Finally, he discusses the problematic relationship between critical history and psychology. This article is a reply to Lovett's article. The author argues that the new history is different from the old in every way that Lovett claims that it is not. It critically analyzes Lovett's answers to his own 5 questions and offers some alternative answers to these questions. It also suggests that many psychologist-historians are opposed to new history of psychology, especially in its critical versions, and that this explains why Lovett's article has been uncritically received. (PsycINFO Database Record

中文翻译：

---

“心理学的新历史：洛维特的五个问题的（不同）答案”：《纠正布鲁克》（2017年）。

在Adrian C. Brock（《心理学史》，高级在线出版物，2016年6月27日，np）的“心理学的新历史：洛夫特的五个问题的某些（不同）答案”中报告了一个错误。在本文中，洛维特​​的《新历史学家的五个问题》部分的第11段有错误。Rachel Laudan（1992）的会议论文“科学的“新”历史”对科学哲学的涵义被错误地归因于她的丈夫拉里·劳丹（Larry Laudan）。本文的所有版本都已得到纠正。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录2016-31594-001中。）自1960年代以来，心理学史的专业化导致历史写作方式发生了重大变化。几位作者试图总结1980年代的这些变化，和Laurel Furumoto（1989）的G. Stanley Hall演讲中，“心理学的新历史”是这一类型的最著名例子。该杂志发表了本杰明·洛夫特（Benjamin R. Lovett）（2006）对新历史的评论，标题为“心理学的新历史：回顾与评论”，并且仍然被引用为权威信息。本文由3部分组成。首先，作者试图证明新的历史与旧的历史并没有像其支持者所声称的那样不同。然后，他讨论了一些他认为是新历史所特有的问题，并以5个问题的形式向新历史学家提出了这些问题，然后他继续回答自己。最后，他讨论了批判历史与心理学之间的问题关系。本文是对洛维特文章的回复。作者认为，新历史与旧历史在洛夫特声称没有的所有方面都不同。它批判性地分析了洛维特对他自己的5个问题的答案，并为这些问题提供了一些替代答案。这也表明，许多心理学家-历史学家都反对心理学的新历史，尤其是在批评的历史中，这也解释了为什么洛维特的文章被无批评地接受了。（PsycINFO数据库记录 这就解释了为什么Lovett的文章受到了批评。（PsycINFO数据库记录 这就解释了为什么Lovett的文章受到了批评。（PsycINFO数据库记录