Introductory Psychology Textbooks Research Articles

Analysis of Psychology of Religion Content in Introductory Psychology Textbooks

Background Past research on the representation of religion/spirituality in introductory psychology textbooks is dated. Objective Analyze religion/spirituality content in the nine most frequently purchased introductory psychology textbooks published within the last 5 years. Method The current study identified 27 terms that related to religion/spirituality and performed qualitative analysis of term's mentions in each textbook. Results Findings indicated that 100% of textbooks mentioned religion/spirituality, which represents an increase in mentions compared to past research. However, none of the textbooks included a specific section on the psychology of religion and spirituality. Overall, there was greater discussion-based coverage of religion/spirituality than research-based coverage, similar to past research findings, although the current study found a greater percentage of research-based discussion than previous research. Compared to past research, the current study found a greater proportion of positive coverage of religious/spiritual mentions but found that most textbooks included negative coverage of religious/spiritual mentions representing rare phenomena associated with religion/spirituality. Conclusion This study provides evidence that coverage of religion/spirituality is better represented in introductory psychology textbooks than past research, but organization and inclusion is still lacking. Teaching Implications Religion/spirituality content could be better organized in textbooks by including a specific section dedicated to the psychology of religion and spirituality.

Hearing voices, but whose? Constructions of schizophrenia in introductory psychology textbooks

Introductory psychology courses have a broad reach; their textbooks are instrumental in disseminating information about mental distress. In this study, we present the theoretical implications of a Foucauldian discourse analysis of constructions of schizophrenia in six introductory psychology textbooks assigned in Aotearoa/New Zealand and Australia. We identify three interconnected discursive constructions within the textbooks: object-for-study, social problem, and unrecoverable illness. These constructions converge to position people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia (PWDS) as sites for biomedical intervention and generate biomedical treatment as necessary but non-curative. Notably, the voices of PWDS are absent from the texts. We contend that amplifying counter discourses and the voices of PWDS is essential to provide the context, meaning, and hope that is missing from these textbooks, and broader society. We work with Mad Studies to present potential ways of theorising otherwise around these experiences—and leveraging this theory in textbook writing.

Changing the Subject: A Turn From Content Toward Values and Skills in Introductory Psychology

The author of the target article hypothesizes that introductory psychology textbook authors aim to “indoctrinate” students toward a more liberal political worldview. In our response, we offer a counterhypothesis that introductory psychology authors are more likely to be biased against updating older research in general, given the enormous amount of new research that must be incorporated, as opposed to specifically ignoring findings that fit with a conservative political worldview. We point to content that is generally overlooked that would fit with a liberal perspective, and we suggest an empirical investigation that the author could conduct to evaluate these competing hypotheses. Finally, we encourage a pivot in how we think about the introductory psychology course from an emphasis on content to an emphasis on skills and values, offering psychological literacy as a framework for the renewal of the introductory psychology curriculum.

Liberal Bias on Psychology: A Comment on Bartels (2023)

Several prior empirical studies have documented considerable mistakes, often ongoing, in how research is presented in introductory psychology textbooks. Extending upon these previous analyses, Bartels notes that introductory psychology textbooks also demonstrate a pronounced liberal/progressive bias. Given the pronounced ideological bias among both practitioners and researchers in the field, this should not be a surprise. In this comment, I extend Bartels’ observations by raising the issues with textbooks reflect widespread problems within our field. It is well past time that psychology takes a hard look at how to increase rigor and reduce political biases.

Indoctrination in Introduction to Psychology

There have been dozens of papers published on the misrepresentation of psychological studies and theories (e.g., omitting criticisms) presented in introductory textbooks. Authors of these papers have offered numerous explanations for the errors including limited space for covering criticisms and the desire among textbook authors to “sell” psychological science to an introductory audience. In the present article, several studies and theories, most of which have been identified in previous research as misrepresented in introductory psychology textbooks, are reviewed. The possibility of ideological bias contributing to the misrepresentation is considered. The bias in introductory psychology is considered in the context of wider concerns about the consequences of political homogeneity in the field. Suggestions for reducing bias in introductory psychology textbooks and courses are offered.

Infusion of Climate Change Topics in Introductory Psychology Textbooks: A Content Analysis

Background: Mitigating and adapting to climate change are areas where psychology has promising applications. Recent task forces have recommended several approaches for psychologists to address climate change—including teaching about the intersection of psychology and climate change. Objective: The current study analyzes climate change topics in 36 commonly used introductory psychology textbooks. Method: We identified introductory psychology textbooks from three recent studies and procured electronic copies of each. Using a summative content analysis approach, we developed a list of keywords and analyzed each textbook's climate change mentions in terms of quantity, location, and content. Results: Most introductory psychology textbooks included at least one climate change mention, with substantial variability across textbooks. Climate change was often mentioned in the introduction, as well as social psychology and judgment or thinking chapters. Examples of climate change topics by chapter are provided. Conclusions: Most introductory psychology textbooks included at least some climate change discussion, but textbooks differed substantially in how (and how much) they incorporated climate change topics. Teaching Implications: We offer recommendations to instructors on textbooks with relatively high climate change content as well as textbook publishers and authors for additional ways to infuse climate change topics in future textbooks.

Introductory psychology textbooks (still) more different than alike.

Introductory psychology textbooks (still) more different than alike.

""On Being Sane in Insane Places" … it is a work half done."

“ON BEING SANE IN INSANE PLACES” TURNS FIFTY Rosenhan through a “scientific experiment aimed at exposing the system’s travesties”.[1] His article[2] naturally had an ominous title. Quite a stir was created on its publication, as multiple normal people or pseudopatients could get admitted to various psychiatric hospitals under the diagnostic labels of serious illnesses. In this brief communication, I will try to explore the origins of the article, the reception that the article had during the early years after its publication and subsequently during the twenty-first century, Rosenhan’s response to his critics, and the article’s contemporary relevance. The students, of Rosenhan’s 1969 abnormal psychology class, complained that his course was too conceptual and abstract. Rosenhan responded by asking them to check into a local psychiatric hospital to personally know the mentally ill. But as he cautiously checked things out for himself first and emerged humbled from nine traumatizing days in a locked ward, he had to abandon the idea of putting students through that experience. But an experiment was born.[1] Early years after the article One of the major concerns of the deeply embarrassing 1973 article was the unreliability of the psychiatric diagnoses. The same year saw homosexuality most humiliatingly struck as an abnormality from the DSM. The 1960s and early 1970s were bad for American psychiatry, which was being hit by multiple crises, including the anti-psychiatry movement.[3] Robert Spitzer in 1974 became a natural choice for chairing the task force of DSM-III, because of his involvement in developing Research Diagnostic Criteria … and resolving the gay controversy. “Gay Psychiatric Association [a secret group] invited Spitzer to sit in on a meeting … If such successful people—without any obvious distress or impairment—could be gay, then how could they call it a disorder?”[4] Soon influential voices in American psychiatry were seen mounting a collective defense of the profession.[3] So, after Spitzer became the chair, he naturally spearheaded an attack on Rosenhan[5–9]… while expressly admitting[7] the weaknesses of psychiatric diagnoses. “So be it.” Spitzer wrote, “But where did Rosenhan get the idea that psychiatry is the only medical specialty that is plagued by inaccurate diagnosis?” Then he attacked Rosenhan by devoting a long paragraph and quoting studies to prove that internal medicine too was plagued by the inaccuracies of diagnoses. Spitzer was personally targeting Rosenhan is clear from the title, abstract, and the entire text,[7] which begins: “Some foods taste delicious but leave a bad aftertaste. So it is with Rosenhan’s study, “On Being Sane in Insane Places”“. In his defense, Rosenhan argued[10]: “The issue is not that the pseudopatients lied or that the psychiatrists believed them … [or] whether the pseudopatients should have been admitted … The issue is the diagnostic leap that was made between a single presenting symptom, hallucination, and the diagnosis, schizophrenia (or, in one case, manic-depressive psychosis). That is the heart of the matter.” Coming back to Wilson,[3] who wrote quoting Robert Spitzer (personal interview, May 24, 1989): “at APA annual meetings in the 1960s, the academic psychiatrists interested in presenting their work on descriptive diagnosis would be scheduled for the final day in the late afternoon. No one would attend. Psychiatrists simply were not interested in the issue of diagnosis.” Spitzer[7] did not even try to defend the condition of the inpatients: “I shall not dwell on the latter part of Rosenhan’s study, which deals with the experience of psychiatric hospitalization. … I find it hard to believe that conditions were quite as bad as depicted, but they may well be.” Rosenhan revisited during the twenty-first century Slater covered Rosenhan’s Experiment in her 2004 popular nonfiction.[11] Even that nonacademic writing evoked a well-planned and sharp academic response from Spitzer, including a formal study to contradict “Slater’s findings”… and it was another opportunity to attack Rosenhan. “The [Rosenhan’s 1973] study was like a sword plunged into the heart of psychiatry. … The study was widely acclaimed in the popular news media, and two editorials in The Journal of the American Medical Association endorsed its findings … Many introductory psychology textbooks cited the study … Rosenhan’s study had a significant impact on the psychiatric and psychological literature: a Web of Science search conducted by the authors revealed that Rosenhan’s study has been cited over 750 times since its publication. In contrast, the critiques of Rosenhan’s study have received far less attention”.[12] In November 2022, Google Scholar returned 4502 citations for Rosenhan,[2] while its critique[7] returned only 211. More importantly “flaws in Rosenhan’s study … [was not a proof that psychiatry] had an adequately reliable diagnostic system”.[13] While writing the 2007 Foreword Spitzer admitted that the book The Loss of Sadness[13] “caused me to rethink my own position [about DSM approach]” and he hoped that the issue would become “one of the major topics that should be considered in the upcoming revisions that will yield the DSM-V” (pp. vii-x). While working on DSM-III drafts, Spitzer “often returned to Rosenhan’s study and asked himself: Would David Rosenhan and his pseudopatients get past this one?… Without Rosenhan’s study, Frances told me, “Spitzer could never have done what he did with the DSM-III”“.[4] Unlike his wife and Frances … Spitzer never publicly admitted that Rosenhan influenced his creation. In an obituary, Ross, and Kavanagh[14] noted: “Some critics saw this [Rosenhan] study as a personal attack on psychiatry and clinical psychology, even though the article’s emphasis was on diagnostic practices and contextual influences.” They quoted portions of the article’s concluding paragraph, which emphasized Rosenhan’s empathy and humanity towards the hospital staff. The whole paragraph is: “Quite the contrary, our overwhelming impression of them was of people who really cared, who were committed and who were uncommonly intelligent. Where they failed, as they sometimes did painfully, it would be more accurate to attribute those failures to the environment in which they, too, found themselves than to personal callousness. Their perceptions and behavior were controlled by the situation, rather than being motivated by a malicious disposition”.[10] Lee Shulman eulogized that Rosenhan’s work constituted “more than the report of an immensely inventive piece of research … it is a proclamation, a moral outcry, a scream of pain and a demand that the world bear witness to the consequences of wrongful diagnosis, of ungrounded labeling, of institutions whose very design shapes errors of diagnosis”.[14] Cahalan[4] wrote: “Rosenhan’s flawed work had an effect on Robert Spitzer and the creation of the DSM … [and] that the study had a wide influence, contributing to the shuttering of psychiatric hospitals. … Rosenhan’s paper, as exaggerated, and even dishonest, as it was, touched on truth as it danced around it … The messages were worthy; unfortunately, the messenger was not.” While commenting on the book, Pols in Science wrote: “with The Great Pretender, yet another well-known and rhetorically powerful experiment in psychology bites the dust”.[15] But Abbott was less forthright in condemning Rosenhan, because “she [Cahalan] cannot be completely certain that Rosenhan cheated. But she is confident enough to call her engrossing, dismaying book The Great Pretender”.[1] “In my first reading of “On Being Sane in Insane Places”… the first of hundreds of readings to come, I saw immediately why so much of the general public had hailed it—and why psychiatry writ large despised it. … I pinpointed so much of my own disappointment and frustration as a former patient myself. And I could feel, viscerally, the undercurrent of rage that travels through his paper that I feel, too, when I picture the face of my mirror image, that anonymous young woman, trapped in a psychiatric diagnosis, who would never be the same”.[4] And Dr. Deborah Levy called Cahalan “a modern-day pseudopatient”. So Cahalan never disagreed with Rosenhan’s observations. She did not seem to be promoting any vested interests, and she was never absolutely sure that Rosenhan faked. The contemporary relevance: Psychiatry will remain a work half done till we discover a better paradigm ““On Being Sane in Insane Places” is a negative work,” Rosenhan responded to his adversaries. “It tells what is wrong with treatment and diagnosis, without telling how it might be improved. … It tells those who have labored to improve psychiatric care that their efforts are grossly insufficient, without offering alternatives of demonstrated value. … It leaves scientists and practitioners in the lurch, urging them to abandon the little they have by way of hospital treatment and diagnosis, without providing them alternative tools. It would destroy a paradigm without providing an alternative. In short, it is work half done [emphasis added]”.[10] Even today, we continue to destroy the paradigm without realizing that we are acting like Rosenhan. The Lancet in the years 2007 and 2011 published two series about mental health. These twelve articles, whose references are here,[16] paint a grim narrative of the mental health scenario, especially in low and middle-income countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The ground reality is even grimmer in India.[17] We must recall Erwadi where a dargah claims healing powers for the mentally ill … unfortunate conditions prevailed in the asylums.[18]… and in 2001 roasted alive were twenty-eight mentally challenged. The official response of the Indian psychiatrists to the tragedy was brisk and predictable.[19,20] Siddiqui[21] is probably showing her wild desperation (and nothing else) when hailing dargahs and other forms of faith healing as forms of critical alternatives to (a less than adequate) psychiatry. These critiques should reinforce Rosenhan, reminding us of the work that fifty years ago Rosenhan tried to push forward, and that continues to remain half done. It will remain half-done till we find a new and better paradigm. So, it should jolt us to search for a new paradigm. His article[2] should be seen as an attempt to reform psychiatry in its entirety and not its diagnostic processes alone. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

A Tale of Two Rats: The Backstory of a Clever Cartoon.

A well-known cartoon among psychologists and behavior analysts depicts two rats in a Skinner box, leaning over a response lever as one says to the other, "Boy, do we have this guy conditioned, every time I press the bar down he drops a pellet in." Anyone who has ever conducted an experiment, worked with a client, or taught someone can relate to the cartoon's message of reciprocal control between subject and experimenter, client and therapist, and teacher and student. This is the tale of that cartoon and its impact. It begins mid-20th-century at Columbia University, then a hotbed of behavioral psychology, which bears an intimate connection to the cartoon's appearance. The tale expands from Columbia to follow the lives of its creators from their undergraduate days there to their deaths decades later. The infusion of the cartoon into American psychology begins with B. F. Skinner, but, over the years, it also has appeared in introductory psychology textbooks and in iterative form in mass media outlets such as the World Wide Web and magazines like The New Yorker. The heart of the tale, however, was stated in the second sentence of this abstract. The tale ends with a review of how reciprocal relations like those depicted by the cartoon's creators have influenced research and practice in behavioral psychology.

Not Quite on the Same Page: Comparing Key Terms in Introductory Psychology Textbooks

Background Textbooks shape the content and structure of most introductory psychology courses. It is important to compare the content of textbooks to assist educators in making the best textbook choice. Objective The purpose of this study was to conduct an analysis of five commonly used introductory psychology textbooks and examine the extent of overlap in their content coverage. Method Two trained readers identified 3878 key terms after performing a page-by-page content analysis. Commonality among texts was assessed by determining how many textbooks included each term. Results Coverage of psychology topics differed significantly across textbooks with 2766 terms (71%) unique to a single textbook. There were 494 terms (13%), 263 terms (7%), and 201 terms (5%) appearing in two, three, and four books, respectively. Only 154 terms (4%) were common to all five. Conclusion Given our results and how reliant course instructors are on textbooks, it appears introductory psychology students may not be exposed to similar vocabulary. Teaching Implications Introductory psychology textbooks may be similar at a chapter and topic level but do not share as much specific content as may be commonly believed. Instructors should take the time to check if the content matches course goals and expectations.

The Field of Psychology Never Maxed out on the Ideas of Max Wertheimer: A New Look at Productive Thinking

When we reach the limit of our credit card, we say we have “maxed out” the card. We have used up as much credit as it has to offer us.In the early 20th century, Gestalt psychology offered psychology an opportunity better to understand aspects of human behavior, especially perception and creativity. But the field never “maxed out” on their contribution, that, it made the most of what they had to teach us. At the head of the Gestalt movement was a Max, namely, Max Wertheimer.Max Wertheimer lived from 1880 to 1943. His son, Michael Wertheimer (born 1927), also became a famous psychologist. Max Wertheimer, together with Kurt Koffka and Wolfgang Köhler, were the founding trio of the Gestalt movement. These three founders have entered the pantheon of the greatest psychologists who ever lived.Wertheimer is known primarily for his greatest work, Productive Thinking, originally published in 1945. The book is a bit of an odd assortment. Chapter I is on “The Area of the Parallelogram.” Chapter II is on “The Problem of the Vertical Angles.” Chapter III is “The Famous Story of Young Gauss.” Chapter IV is about “Two Boys Play Badminton; A Girl Describes Her Office.” Chapter V is on “Finding the Sum of the Angles of a Polygon.” Chapter VI deals with “A Discovery by Galileo.” Chapter VII is on “Einstein: The Thinking That Led to the Theory of Relativity.” And there is a “Conclusion: Dynamics and Logic of Productive Thinking.” The book is perhaps not as widely read today as some other classics because so much of it is specific analyses of particular strategies used in specific problem-solving endeavors.The newly published edition of the book contains a preface and introduction by Viktor Sarris. These are tremendous additions to the book. Indeed, I believe the introduction is worth the price of the whole book! It contains a biography of Max Wertheimer, a discussion of the chapters of the book, a discussion of the main credo of Wertheimer, a consideration of the reception the book received, and a review of the book from a modern perspective. I have read about Gestalt psychology before in my various courses in school and in my studies of history, but this introduction provides a deeper and yet more readable introduction to Gestalt thinking than anything I have read in the past.This rather strange collection of chapters is valuable less for the particular content in each of them than for the main contributions of the book—and of the Gestalt movement in general. I point out here three of these main contributions. Doubtless, there are others.First, the Gestalt approach provided a school of psychological thought that freed its followers from the limitations behaviorism placed on the study of psychological phenomena (Schultz & Schultz, 2015). In at least the stricter forms of behaviorism, empirical work was literally limited to the study of behavior. The study of the internal mental representations and processes of the mind was off limits. When I named the first edition of my introductory psychology textbook, In Search of the Human Mind (Sternberg, 1995), I received pushback from some behaviorists, even at the end of the 20th century, regarding whether the mind existed and, if so, whether it was a legitimate object of study. Clearly, even then, behaviorism in a strict form was influential among at least some psychologists. The Gestalt approach, in contrast, delved into the human mind, although it was not clear about the mind's details.Second, the study of creativity was absolutely moribund when Wertheimer and his Gestaltist colleagues, including Karl Duncker (1945), began studying creative problem solving. Although J. P. Guilford (1950) is often given credit for the revival of interest in the study of creativity, it was actually the Gestalt psychologists who initiated a broad program of empirical research.The question of who gets credit for exciting interest in the empirical study of creativity could seem like a small matter of scholarly dispute. In my view, however, the mistake in credit was more serious than it might at first appear. The reason is that the Gestaltists, on one hand, and Guilford, on the other, took radically different approaches to studying creativity. The Gestaltists, including Wertheimer in his book, studied creative insight. They, and especially Duncker, devised ingenious problems to study insightful reasoning. They then observed how people came to the insights they had for solving these problems.On one hand, the Gestaltists never got very specific about how their participants reached their insights. On the other hand, at the time they were working in the early 20th century, experimental methodology was not very advanced. Subsequent investigators (e.g., Gick & Holyoak, 1983; Metcalfe & Weibe, 1987; see also Sternberg & Davidson, 1994), with the benefit of several decades of research in cognitive psychology, later devised more sophisticated methods of research. The Gestaltists were on the right track, at least so far as their problem-finding was concerned. They were dealing with a key aspect of creativity—insightful thinking—that later lent itself to programs of research that were highly illuminating with respect to the nature of creative thinking.In contrast, Guilford (1950) opened up creativity research to the study of divergent thinking, of the kind one uses in thinking of unusual uses of a paperclip. Many creativity researchers went on to pursue research in this area. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974, 2008) are based on divergent thinking, and a field built itself up around the study of divergent thinking (Runco, 1991). Some scholars in the field of creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Sternberg, 2018) have suggested that the divergent thinking approach may have trivialized creativity to the point that it told us less about real-world creativity than one would have hoped for, given the effort expended. Baer (2015; Baer & Kaufman, 2005) argues that creativity is largely domain specific, so that an approach such as that of divergent thinking, which is domain general, may have missed the point in terms of understanding how creativity is generated in each of a number of specific domains (see also Sawyer, 2012).Third, the main credo of the Gestalt movement, promulgated by Wertheimer, was important but, somehow, largely lost after the era of the Gestaltists. “There are entities where the behavior of the whole cannot be derived from its individual elements nor from the way these elements fit together; rather the opposite is true: the properties of any of the parts are determined by the intrinsic laws of the whole” (Wertheimer, 1925, Lecture at the Kant Society on December 17, 1924).This view came to be popularized as “the whole is more than the sum of its parts,” but the popularization obviously lost something. The loss for the field of psychology was great.An example was the psychometric approach, which grew up alongside the Gestalt approach but outlasted it, perhaps because its emphasis on measurement gave it a veneer of scientific credibility that the Gestalt approach did not carry for a sufficiently long time. The idea was that constructs such as creativity or intelligence could be broken down into constituent factors, which then could again be put together, supposedly to permit understanding of a phenomenon as a whole. Thus, psychometric tests of creativity or intelligence consisted of individual items, the sum of scores on which yielded an overall score, which then could be converted to a percentile, an IQ, or another standard score. Similarly, general intelligence or creativity could be broken down into factors, and the sum of factor scores would yield an overall composite factor score that was designed to capture the whole.But can creativity, intelligence, or anything else be fully understood merely as some kind of sum of its parts? Three types of theories of intelligence suggest that they cannot.First, cognitive theories view intelligence as involving the interaction of many different information-processing components with each other and with working memory (Ellingsen & Engle, 2020). Simply adding up scores on some kind of information-processing measure or measures will not fully reflect the complexity of this approach to intelligence. Second, cultural theories (Sternberg, 2020a) argue that the nature of intelligence can be understood only in a cultural setting, because intelligence is socioculturally defined. What is intelligent in one cultural milieu may or may not be in another. Third, system theories suggest that the elements of intelligence are highly interactive—that, following Wertheimer, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. For example, in one such view, intelligence is a complex interaction of creative, analytical, practical, and wisdom-based abilities (Sternberg, 2020b).What is left of the Gestalt approach today? Perhaps not as much as should be. But its influence has not disappeared. First, the names of Wertheimer, Koffka, and Köhler can be found in virtually any serious history-of-psychology textbook. They are among the few psychologists whose contributions to the field have become immortal. Second, when one compares the organismic approach of the Gestaltists to the strictly behavioral approach of the behaviorists, clearly the Gestaltists won. The cognitive psychology movement, as well as related movements, build far more on Gestalt psychology than on behaviorism. Indeed, in its origins, cognitive psychology was largely a reaction to behaviorism (Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 2013). Third, the psychological study of creativity, which the Gestaltists largely initiated, remains an active and vibrant field, one that has gone way beyond Guilford and that perhaps more closely resembles what the Gestaltists had in mind than what Guilford had in mind. The main emphasis today, at least for the field as presented in textbooks, is on understanding the inner workings of creativity and its interactions with the environment, rather than just on measuring divergent thinking and its offshoots (see Kaufman & Sternberg, 2021; Sawyer, 2012). Finally, most psychologists recognize, at some level, that the whole of behavior is more than the sum of its parts and that the whole influences its parts. For that contribution alone, the field of psychology should be forever grateful. Schools of thought come and go in psychology. Some disappear with scarcely a trace; others leave a legacy. Without doubt, Gestalt psychology, in large part propelled by Wertheimer's book, has left a lasting and important legacy.

Well-Being Science for Teaching and the General Public

Research on well-being has exploded in recent years to more than 55,000 relevant publications annually, making it difficult for psychologists—including key communicators such as textbook authors—to stay current with this field. Moreover, well-being is a daily concern among policymakers and members of the general public. Well-being science is relevant to the lives of students—illustrating the diverse methods used in the behavioral sciences, presenting highly replicated findings, and demonstrating the diversity of individuals and cultures. Therefore, in this article, we present eight major findings that teachers and authors should seriously consider in their coverage of this field. These topics include processes such as adaptation, influences such as income, the benefits of well-being, and cultural and societal diversity in well-being and its causes. We also examine how much these topics were covered in 15 of the most popular introductory psychology textbooks. Although some topics such as social relationships and well-being were discussed in nearly all textbooks, others were less frequently covered, including the validity of self-reported well-being, the effects of spending on happiness, and the impact of culture and society on well-being. We aim to ensure more complete coverage of this important area in psychology courses.

What Do Introduction to Psychology Textbooks Have to Say About Older Adults?

Introduction to Psychology is one of the most popular undergraduate courses, an entry course for psychology majors and also popular with students from other disciplines. Consequently, the content in introductory psychology textbooks has the potential to influence undergraduates’ knowledge, attitudes, and interests, including those related to aging. The purpose of this study was to analyze aging-related content in introductory psychology textbooks to understand the topics to which students are exposed in this important course. We analyzed the indices of 21 best-selling Introduction to Psychology textbooks for both advanced and intermediate audiences, published between 2018 and 2020. We extracted and aggregated 275 unique, aging-specific index terms from the textbooks and analyzed their relative frequency. We identified 61 superordinate index terms corresponding to general terms (e.g., “aging,” “death”). The indices also included 214 unique subordinate terms that were more specific (e.g., “aging, and cognition”). Across textbooks, the most frequent topics reflected negative consequences of aging (e.g., “Alzheimer disease” = appeared in 100% of textbooks, “death” in 52%). In contrast, positive aspects of aging appeared less often (e.g., “generativity” in 47%, “longevity” in 10%). Terms describing career opportunities were rare (e.g., “gerontology” in 5%, “geropsychology” in 5%), as were modern theories (e.g., “socioemotional selectivity theory” in 28%). Advocacy for comprehensive and balanced representation of aging in introductory psychology textbooks is critical for educating students and promoting interest in the field.

What Do Undergraduates Learn About Alzheimer Disease? An Analysis of Introduction to Psychology Textbooks

One of the most popular courses for undergraduate students, Introduction to Psychology, is often students’ first exposure to scientific and clinical facts about Alzheimer disease (AD). In order to learn how our current understanding of AD is presented to undergraduate psychology students, we analyzed passages related to Alzheimer disease that appear in contemporary Introduction to Psychology textbooks. We extracted and analyzed passages describing AD from twenty-four best-selling Introduction to Psychology textbooks for both advanced and intermediate undergraduate audiences, published between 2018 and 2020. We applied a standardized coding scheme to the passages to quantify what aspects of AD were most commonly described. Each textbook contained between 1 and 3 major passages regarding AD, most often appearing in the chapters on Memory or Human Development. Average word count for these passages was 409.1 words (SD = 194.8 words). Passages most often covered biological aspects of AD (87.5% of textbooks), symptoms (87.5%), prevalence (75%), and risk factors (75%). Disease prevention (62.5%) and illness course (62.5%) also appeared in the majority of textbooks, while aspects of treatment and management (25%), assessment and diagnosis (12.5%), and caregiving (25%) were mentioned less often. While the majority of books used contemporary and appropriate terminology to describe AD (e.g., “Alzheimer disease,” “dementia,” “neurocognitive disorder”), some textbooks maintained the use of out-of-date and inappropriate terminology (e.g., “senility” or “senile dementia” in 15%). Introductory psychology textbooks provide an opportunity to teach comprehensive, accurate information about AD and publishers and textbook authors could be guided in this effort.

Scott O. Lilienfeld (1960–2020).

Memorializes Scott O. Lilienfeld (1960-2020), one of the most influential figures in contemporary clinical psychology. His contributions were prodigious and spanned psychopathy and personality disorders, psychiatric classification and di agnosis, dissociation, memory and trauma, neuroscience, and cultural sensitivity. He authored, coauthored, and coed ited more than 500 articles and book chapters and 20 books, including the Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology. His in tellectual reach extended to writing introductory psychology and graduate textbooks, to op-eds and coverage in major news outlets, TV appearances, radio programs, podcasts, and lectures across the world. He made his mark in editorial roles including as editor-in-chief of Clinical Psychological Science, and as past editor and founder of the Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Your Brain Is Not an Onion With a Tiny Reptile Inside

A widespread misconception in much of psychology is that (a) as vertebrate animals evolved, “newer” brain structures were added over existing “older” brain structures, and (b) these newer, more complex structures endowed animals with newer and more complex psychological functions, behavioral flexibility, and language. This belief, although widely shared in introductory psychology textbooks, has long been discredited among neurobiologists and stands in contrast to the clear and unanimous agreement on these issues among those studying nervous-system evolution. We bring psychologists up to date on this issue by describing the more accurate model of neural evolution, and we provide examples of how this inaccurate view may have impeded progress in psychology. We urge psychologists to abandon this mistaken view of human brains.

Considerations for an Integrated Undergraduate Comparative and Clinical Psychology Course

It has been established that comparative psychology is in danger of becoming a footnote in the history of psychology. Six pieces of evidence to support this problem are few graduate psychology programs; little of no mention in introductory psychology textbooks or courses; insufficient number of undergraduate courses in comparative psychology; few teaching exercises; declining membership in Division 6 of APA; no recent textbooks in comparative psychology. Therefore, this article sought a viable solution to promote comparative psychology’s interconnections to different psychology areas. Specifically, a solution for combining comparative psychology into clinical fields by creating a course that combines comparative and clinical psychology was conceptualized. The rationales, history, barriers, benefits of creating a comparative and clinical psychology course were all examined to make a case for this solution. Concrete approaches to a course development covering domains such as cognitive, behavioral analysis, and scientific reasoning were presented. Also, the consideration of a ‘capstone course’ that is approached from the perspective of ‘challenge-based learning’ was recommended. This capstone course could offer students flexibility and promote problem-solving and innovative-think skills needed for careers. The rationales and recommendations covered in the article established that providing a course on comparative and clinical psychology can actually facilitate students to think differently about psychology and how exactly the different areas of psychology interconnect. In conclusion, it was determined that developing a course on the connectedness of comparative and clinical psychology is one way to help strengthen comparative psychology’s rightful place in the broad field of psychology.

John M. Darley (1938–2018).

Presents an obituary for John M. Darley (1938-2018). As a professor of psychology at Princeton, Darley teamed up with colleagues Joel Cooper and Edward E. ("Ned") Jones, to build one of the strongest experimental social psychology programs in the country. These articles consolidated John's reputation as one of the premier social psychologists in the country, a true generalist who made important contributions on a remarkably wide range of topics. Also during this period, John wrote an introductory psychology textbook with Princeton colleagues Sam Glucksberg and Ron Kinchla, coauthored several articles and a book on professional issues in psychology, and chaired the Department of Psychology from 1980 to 1985. John was always a great champion of interdisciplinary exchanges and applied research. He spent about a decade, from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, studying behavioral approaches to energy conservation in collaboration with colleagues in engineering. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Reflections on Bruce Bridgeman's insights into the Evolution of Consciousness and Cognition.

This tribute to Bruce Bridgeman has three parts, which were selected to illustrate his diverse approaches for linking consciousness and cognition. In Part 1 Bridgeman's research on eye movements is used to show how the visual system is functionally divided into two very different streams: the temporal pathway is available for cognitive aspects available to consciousness and the parietal pathway is available to the motor system and is largely unconscious. Part 2 provides links to his Psycoloquy article that connects language and consciousness. The Psycoloquy format has other scholars write a response and then the author responds to each one. Part 3 covers Bruce Bridgeman's book Psychology and Evolution, which is special because it covers many areas with examples not typically treated in introductory psychology textbooks. I decided to quote directly from Bridgeman's writings throughout this essay. I can't think of a better way to pay tribute to him and to inspire others to read his publications.

Discussions of Animal Research Ethics in Introductory Psychology Textbooks

Abstract Research ethics is a core component of undergraduate psychology curricula, typically first encountered in introductory textbooks. Previous analyses of introductory textbooks focused on human research ethics. Given growing concerns about animal research—particularly among college students—we analyzed discussions of animal research ethics in 18 introductory psychology textbooks. Our results revealed that while most textbooks address this topic, defenses of animal use and mentions of oversight account for a majority of content, while discussions of ethics were lacking. We discuss implications of these results and suggest improvements for engaging students to think critically about animal research ethics.