{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021037868162692847, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004207573632538569, 'mean_word_length': 5.31858407079646, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The new history of psychology: a review and critique.

In the past 30 years, the "new history of psychology" and its adherents have advocated a critical approach to scholarship, increased use of primary sources, a focus on sociopolitical forces, and the active inclusion of psychologists from underrepresented groups. This article argues that many scholars exaggerate the differences between old and new history of psychology, and that where the differences are indeed large, those discrepancies reveal certain limitations unique to the new history approach. These limitations, presented in the form of 5 questions posed to new historians, lead to a discussion of professional issues in the history of psychology.