A Fragmented Field: Construct and Measure Proliferation in Psychology

Framed against the long-standing dominance of quantitative methods in psychological science, this study examined contemporary publishing patterns for qualitative inquiry in American Psychological Association (APA) and Association for Psychological Science (APS) journals. We examined 19,012 publications across 95 APA and APS journals across four time points (2005, 2012, 2019, and 2022). The percentage of qualitative articles was determined using the methodology field value within APA PsycInfo, a process that we validated through a batch test. We also conducted a content analysis of journal mission statements and submission guidelines, and we made comparisons in light of journal impact factors. Our findings show a nearly threefold increase in qualitative publications accelerating over time from 2005 to 2022, albeit with wide variations depending on the type of journal. Qualitative-friendly journals were more likely to be published by APA, be specialty journals, be dedicated to diverse populations, and have lower impact factors. Conversely, qualitative research was less likely to be published in APS journals, core psychology journals, journals focused on general populations, and journals with higher impact factors (with some notable exceptions). We discuss these findings in terms of implications for the advancement of psychological science, including the discipline's need for development in qualitative training and expertise, its commitments to antiracism and anticolonialism, its fragmentation, and its equity in publishing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

A Commentary on “The Rorschach and Violent Crime” (de Ruiter, 2021)

Marcus et al. (2025) code the accuracy of the citations to empirical research contained in 16 amicus curiae briefs submitted by the American Psychological Association (APA). Based on their findings that these APA briefs contained citations that they deemed partly or wholly inaccurate, the authors made recommendations that APA adopt strategies to reduce miscitations in their briefs. However, their application of a coding scheme developed for evaluating the accuracy of citations for the scientific literature to an applied context without modifications that reflect the differences between those two contexts inflated the proportion of citations the authors coded as partially accurate. Although the citations in APA briefs may not be perfect, the briefs themselves have served the important function of bringing psychological science to the attention of the courts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

It remains to be seen whether the American Psychological Association’s new apology and resolutions on racism will help redress longstanding inequities in the field. To be sure, critiques of psychological science vis-à-vis racism have been around for decades, despite being ignored by psychological science, even when spoken by Dr. King—in his profound meditation on science, psychology, and racism in a speech delivered to the APA—or by psychiatrist Frantz Fanon—who has had a foundational influence on the broader history of anti-racism scholarship but remains relatively disregarded in his own psy-fields. This article addresses the viewpoints of these and other people of color on psychological science, which have yet to be adequately incorporated into the perspectives of psychological science. We also address traditions of communities of color that have become absorbed or consumed by psychological science but often after their cultural and historical origins are erased, like Buddhism. We locate these racial and scientific dynamics, and associated patterns of neglect and erasure, within a longstanding aversion in and by psychological science—here understood as a collective actor unto itself—to perspectives of people of color. Consequently, the promise not only of diversity, but of desegregation, has yet to be fulfilled within psychology. We conclude by discussing the psychosocial power of social movements—including South Africa’s apartheid-related Truth and Reconciliation process as personally experienced by our second author—to suggest elements of pathways forward.

In a recent seminal article, Lilienfeld (2012) argued that psychological science is experiencing a public perception problem that has been caused by both public misconceptions about psychology, as well as the psychological science community's failure to distinguish itself from pop psychology and questionable therapeutic practices. Lilienfeld's analysis is an important and cogent synopsis of external problems that have limited psychological science's penetration into public knowledge. The current article expands upon this by examining internal problems, or problems within psychological science that have potentially limited its impact with policymakers, other scientists, and the public. These problems range from the replication crisis and defensive reactions to it, overuse of politicized policy statements by professional advocacy groups such as the American Psychological Association (APA), and continued overreliance on mechanistic models of human behavior. It is concluded that considerable problems arise from psychological science's tendency to overcommunicate mechanistic concepts based on weak and often unreplicated (or unreplicable) data that do not resonate with the everyday experiences of the general public or the rigor of other scholarly fields. It is argued that a way forward can be seen by, on one hand, improving the rigor and transparency of psychological science, and making theoretical innovations that better acknowledge the complexities of the human experience. (PsycINFO Database Record

The long and remarkable life of Janet Taylor Spence, the sixth woman to serve as president of the American Psychological Association (APA), ended on March 16, 2015, after a short illness. Janet's 1978 book, Masculinity & Femininity, coauthored with Robert Helmreich, was a major contribution to our understanding of the complex relationships between personal attributes, self-esteem, and attitudes toward women, as well their links to both achievement motivation and parental characteristics. Janet's interest in achievement motivation was an extension of her gender work, as she attempted to learn more about the ways in which presumed differences in achievement motivation might be related to the key dimensions of instrumentality and expressiveness. Janet's election to the presidency of the APA was the culmination of a long and broad involvement in the organization. She served on the Board of Directors from 1976 to 1978, and again in 1983 to 1984 during her presidential term. Earlier she served on the Board of Scientific Affairs and edited Contemporary Psychology in the 1970s. Janet was a fellow in four divisions (3, 8, 12, and 35), and in 2004 she received the APA Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in the Science of Psychology.

Evolving Perspectives on the History of Psychology

The American Psychological Association (APA) announced Jan. 28 the appointment of Catherine L. Grus, Ph.D., former assistant professor of psychology and 15‐year veteran of the APA as its chief education officer. Grus has held that position on an interim basis since 2018, when her predecessor, Jaime “Jim” Diaz‐Granados, Ph.D., was named APA deputy CEO. Grus joined the APA in 2005 as associate executive director of professional education and training, a post she held until 2010, when she was named the APA's deputy executive director of education. As chief education officer, Grus will oversee programs to enhance the quality of teaching and learning outcomes at all levels of education and to increase financial and policy support for psychology education and training. She will be responsible for implementing a transformational education agenda focused on advancing the science and practice of psychology for the benefit of the public through educational institutions, programs and initiatives.

Over the past 75 years, the history of Division 16 (School Psychology) has been integral to the science and practice of school psychology. As a constituent body of the American Psychological Association (APA), the division has advocated for role definitions and professional boundaries within APA and has represented the specialty of school psychology within the larger community of psychology. Since the convening of school psychology's Thayer Conference in 1955, the division has remained steadfastly committed to promoting the well-being of children. Toward this end, Division 16 has negotiated entry level debates between APA and the broad specialty of school psychology, sustained partnerships within and among APA and other organizations representing school mental health, elevated the place of technology in the profession of school psychology, and promoted the central importance of cultural competence and diversity within the discipline. The past contributions of Division 16 shape the future of the profession and the division in ways that are consistent with and add to Conoley, Power, and Gutkin's (2020) recommendations for strengthening school psychology's contributions to psychological health promotion and risk reduction in schools. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Much of psychological science and knowledge is significantly relevant to social justice, defined here as the goal to decrease human suffering and to promote human values of equality and justice. A commitment to social justice has evolved as a more important value in the last few decades for psychology, including for the American Psychological Association (APA). The mission, vision, goals, Ethics Code, and strategic plan of APA all provide a rationale for psychologists' involvement in systematic and visible ways of applying our knowledge to social issues. Although psychology has not been immune to the application of psychological knowledge in destructive ways, overall, psychology, many psychologists, and APA have demonstrated a commitment to social justice. This article provides a brief review of the key proponents, debates, and controversies involved in applying psychological science and knowledge to complex societal problems. Psychologists often find themselves in conflict and honest disagreement when the association addresses complex and controversial issues. An important goal is that we continue to find ways to agree or disagree in a respectful manner regardless of where each of us stands on the various positions that APA takes.

How Behavioral Interventions Can Reduce the Climate Impact of Energy Use

Social and Emotional Learning in Schools: From Programs to Strategies and commentaries

There have been three significant breakaways from the American Psychological Association (APA) as a result of its emphasis on professional practice as opposed to “pure” or scientific psychology. In the first, Titchener organized “the Experimentalists” in 1904 (renamed “Society of Experimentalists,” 1929) as an alternative to APA. Following that, the Psychonomic Society (1959) and American Psychological Society (1989; renamed Association for Psychological Science, 2006) broke away from APA. Titchener’s conflict with Ludwig Geissler might be read as a case study of some of the early issues associated with such breakaways. For better understanding of Titchener and Geissler, biographical sections are included with more about Titchener as he is more prominent in the history of psychology literature. Their primary conflict, a private one, was revealed in 14 extant letters between Titchener and Geissler. Titchener was persistently critical of applied psychology. Geissler, Titchener’s student, was the principal founder of the Journal of Applied Psychology. A secondary conflict involved Titchener’s persistent effort to convince Geissler to leave his position in Virginia and return “East, up into the center of things again.” Geissler (1923) eventually responded with a critique of Titchener’s structuralism. In spite of several longstanding disagreements, the two maintained a cordial professional relationship, and in the end, Titchener showed increasing respect for applications of psychology.

the term “gender” became popular among sociologists, psychologists, and sex researchers in the 1970s as a means to differentiate biological differences between men and women (sex differences) and differences due to socialization experiences (gender differences), or the act of having sex (e.g., [

Historically, the American Psychological Association (APA), as part of its contract with the editors of APA journals, has granted to the editors sole responsibility to accept or reject manuscripts for publication, without such actions being open for review by APA. Such a policy fosters the freedom of inquiry and expression so necessary for a healthy science. It also serves to protect the Association because publication of an article in an APA journal does not represent endorsement by APA itself. The lessons of history are clear: When political or other pressures interfere with the autonomy of science, the societal and scientific consequences are grim. APA should reaffirm the principle that a healthy science of psychology requires an open exchange of ideas and findings.