Unification Of Psychology Research Articles

The Role of Biological and Environmental Contexts in the Integration of Psychology: A Reply to Posner and Rothbart.

Abstract The unification of psychology is an important goal, and Posner and Rothbart (this issue) do psychology a great service in proposing Hebb's (1949) model as a basis for unification. But Hebb's model deals only with a biological level of analysis. A more comprehensive plan for unification would deal with ecological and cultural levels of analysis as well. In this article, I propose a more encompassing basis for thinking about unification, and give an example of how taking into account cultural context may change one's perspective on psychological phenomena. Cliches are often boring. Sometimes, however, they are true. One such cliche is we stand. Divided we fall. The slogan has been traced to various sources. For one thing, it is motto of Commonwealth of Kentucky in United States (http://www.phrases. org.uk/bulletin_board/8/messages/1009.html). But it goes further back to Liberty Song, composed by John Dickinson in 1768 (http://www.phrases.org.uk/ btilletin_board/8/ messages/1013.html). Going even further back to Biblical times, Jesus said, If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand (Mark 3:25) (http://www. btinternet.com/~sj.mackay/foundations/smuni ted. ht ml). Clearly, view of Posner and Rothbart (this issue) that psychology will do better united than divided has deep historical roots, as described above, as well as some more recent historical ones (e.g., Staats, 1999; Sternberg, 2002, 2003; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 200Ia). Posner and Rothbart are particularly interested in Hebb (1949, 1958) as bases for exploring unity of psychology, and in particular, Hebb's theory of organization of behaviour through what are now called neural networks. Posner and Rothbart's wonderful article shows how Hebb's theory can provide a basis for thinking about psychological science in a unified way. I strongly support and applaud Posner and Rothbart's efforts to unify psychology. I differ from them only in means, not in goals. In terms of means, I view biological level of analysis as an important one for unification of psychology. But I see study of biological bases and correlates of behaviour as a start, rather than as a finish toward this unification. Thus, I differ somewhat from Posner and Rothbart in how I think unification should be achieved. First, I believe unification cannot be reductionistic, based only on a single level of analysis. Rather, it should recognize that environmental contexts as well as biology play a crucial role in behaviour and in unifying psychology. second, I prefer as a goal unification of psychology rather than psychological science. My own goal is to bring together not only scientists of different stripes, but also those who might view themselves as interested in psychology, but not necessarily primarily in psychology as a science. For example, therapists might view their primary allegiance to practice rather than science of psychology. Well more than half professionals who are, one way or another, in business of psychology, are concerned primarily with applications of psychological science, rather than with psychological science, per se. I believe it important to include them in mission of unification because it is so easy for science and practice to become separated and even antagonistic (Sternberg, 2003). A Framework for Unification A framework for unification needs to take into account both biological and contextual levels of analysis. A start for thinking about unification is culture. Culture can be defined as the set of attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviours shared by a group of people, communicated from one generation to next via language or some other means of communication (Barnouw, as cited in Matsumoto, 1994, p. 4). Cultural context does not necessarily form a single context. For example, Berry and Irvine (1986) have proposed four nested levels of cultural context. …

Review of Paradigms of personality assessment.

JERRY S. WIGGINS Paradigms of Personality Assessment New York: Guilford Press, 2003, 385 pages (ISBN 1-57230-913-X, US$45.00 Hardcover) I must begin with some full disclosure: If this book was an equity stock then I would own shares in the company. As a Jerry Wiggins student in the 1980s at UBC, I collaborated with this distinguished author and scholar on projects involving his interpersonal model of personality assessment. We became close friends almost from the beginning, and remained so until, tragically, a stroke recently stole this all away. Yet, as often inexplicably happens, our lives had slowly drifted apart, geographically and professionally, for the past almost 20 years, a period in which I only saw him once, briefly. So although the reviewer/author relationship in this review may not be quite as arms-length as it should be, I am convinced an editor would be hard pressed to find anyone in the diverse field of Personality Psychology who would not consider Jerry Wiggins to be at least a friendly ally. is because his own interpersonal networks have warmly and graciously touched not only all of the in the field, but amazingly most of the persons as well. Wiggins' latest, and sadly last, work is very much a must-read book for personality assessment specialists and their students, as is his more technical 1973 Principles of Personality Assessment classic (still in print). I believe the new book is destined to become another classic and a want-to-read book for many psychologists, ranging from those with a stake in the unity of scientific psychology to others who just like a good human-interest story. Afterall, when was the last time you read a book that brought together representatives from less-than-complementary scientific perspectives to cordially discuss the past, present, and future of one (particularly colourful) person? The book is unique, and important, for two reasons. First, it attempts to deliver on Personality Psychology's longstanding quest to integrate the many disparate perspectives in the field. Second, this is a multidisciplinary case study (a multitrait/multi-method analysis) of one person that combines theory and practice in a way not done before. is a collaborative project involving eight additional contributors representing five major traditions in personality assessment. The book begins with a discussion of the field of personality, measurement, and clinical assessment and the idea of how influential personality assessment communities can serve as the precursors (preparadigms) of Kuhn's notion of scientific paradigms. Although not the same as Kuhnian paradigms, Wiggins' assessment paradigms often operate in an analogous fashion, where, for example, likeminded scientists band together and develop a common modus operandi to help understand and explore their chosen world (focus of convenience). The insular nature of these assessment paradigms is often (perhaps unavoidably) at odds with the necessary integration of facts. Cross-pollenization between paradigms is not a priority, and is not very easy. This intense level of specialization, in turn, creates a community of scientists whose journal articles are largely unintelligible to those who are not members of their professional group (p. 6). The task of bringing the paradigms together is not an easy one, for it requires someone who is equally fluent in all of them. Wiggins manages to pull this off beautifully, as perhaps only he, and maybe a few other elder statespersons, could. The five paradigms considered in this book are referred to as psychodynamic, interpersonal, personological, multivariate, and empirical. They are each related, but not equivalent, to certain theories of personality and associated with certain personality tests. Each paradigm has carved out its own niche, sometimes under the influence of a single theorist (e.g., Freud's instincts and Sullivan's interpersonal relations), and reflects a different and potentially useful way of viewing the entire psychodiagnostic enterprise (p. …

Hebb's Neural Networks Support the Integration of Psychological Science.

Abstract In a recent paper and forthcoming volume, the former President of the American Psychological Association, Robert Sternberg, calls for an effort to reintegrate psychological science (Sternberg, in press; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001). In this paper we argue that D. O. Hebb, beginning with his technical volume in 1949 and continuing through a series of introductory textbooks, has convincingly presented the basis for such integration. The basis for this integration lies in understanding how genes and experience shape neural networks underlying human thoughts, feelings, and actions. Why has not Hebb's accomplishment been generally recognized as providing the needed integration for psychology? We suggest that the methods available to Hebb, mostly animal research and behavioural human experiments, were not sufficient to provide empirical methods for linking his conceptual nervous system to real events in the human brain. This methodology has now been provided by neuroimaging. While Hebb also recognized the importance of studying individual differences in intelligence and affect, there were also no methods for exploring the specific genes that were an important source of these differences. The human genome project has provided new methods for exploring this issue. Hebb's basic idea, together with the new methodological tools and new disciplines (e.g., cognitive, affective, and social neuroscience), all based on network views, give abundant evidence of the value of employing the converging operations strategy advocated by Sternberg and Grigorenko (2001). It is important that psychology recognize the need for integrating cognitive, affective and, social neuroscience with psychology, because many of the theoretical questions that need to be addressed by neuroimaging and genetic studies are exactly those that a century of psychologists have explored. The neuroscience approach provides crucial constraints for psychological theories, but also benefits from a closer connection with the psychological level of analysis. The Challenge In their paper, Sternberg and Grigorenko (2001) argue for a milltiparadigmatic and multidisciplinary integrated psychology to replace what they regard as a badly fragmented discipline. They outline three bad habits that they regard as symptoms of the fragmentation of the field. These are: a) the use of single methodologies, b) the identification of scholars with the psychological subfields of social, clinical, etc., and c) adherence to single paradigms such as behaviourism, cognitivism or psychoanalysis. Their paper traces various efforts to provide a unified psychology by Kimble (1994), Staats (1999), Magnusson (2000), and others. They also propose their own ideas, including the importance of using converging methods selected from different levels of analysis and the important role of graduate training in producing needed skills for integrative research. They also discuss political and social reasons why some oppose integration, and what can be done by organizations to foster it. We believe that the scientific basis for the integration is already on the scene, and that potentially integrated efforts under the names of cognitive, affective, and social neuroscience have already appeared. Functional neuroimaging requires the use of a task to activate brain areas. The usual strictures in the design of such tasks stem from cognitive studies, and they are now being taught and used by imagers. In addition, the combination of fMRl, EEC measures and lesions provide a toolkit of methods. Although there are many disagreements about the appropriate converging methods and how to best analyze imaging data, there is little question that a new generation of imagers are employing sophisticated and convergent methods. In our paper, we trace the background to these efforts in the work of D. O. Hebb. We then summarize important new developments that have increased the applicability of Hebb's ideas to many new topics. …

The Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology

The outline for theoretically unified psychology is offered. A new epistemological system is used to provide a unique vantage point to examine how psychological science exists in relationship to the other sciences. This new view suggests that psychology can be thought of as existing between the central insights of B. F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud. Specifically, Skinner's fundamental insight is merged with cognitive neuroscience to understand how mind emerges out of life. This conception is then joined with Freud's fundamental insight to understand the evolutionary changes in mind that gave rise to human culture. By linking life to mind from the bottom and mind to culture from the top, psychology is effectively boxed in between biology and the social sciences.

Social neuroscience: understanding the pieces fosters understanding the whole and vice versa.

Social science and neuroscience perspectives represent two ends of a continuum of levels of organization studied in psychology. Human behavior as a whole unfolds at social levels of organization, whereas much of the research in psychology has focused on cognitive and biological pieces of this whole. Recent evidence underscores the complementary nature of social, cognitive, and biological levels of analysis and how research integrating these levels can foster more comprehensive theories of the mechanisms underlying complex behavior and the mind. This research underscores the unity of psychology and the importance of retaining multilevel integrative research that spans molar and molecular levels of analysis.

Evolving Perspectives on the History of Psychology

Evolving Perspectives on the History of Psychology

The rhetoric of psychological research and the problem of unification in psychology.

The rhetoric of psychological research and the problem of unification in psychology.

The rhetoric of psychological research and the problem of unification in psychology.

There has been in the field of psychology a long and well-documented discontent with an apparent disorganization in its literature, most often interpreted as reflecting the absence of a unifying theory. This article examines some alternative ways in which some of the disorganization is being actively created by forms of argumentation used in reporting and discussing psychological research. One institutionalized form of argumentation used in reporting data actually generates the proliferation of theoretical terms in the literature. A second form of argumentation reifies theories into social groups, incorporating values that discourage theoretical integration. Some of the discontent arises from the incompatibility between the values latent in such social organizations and the values that motivate scientific inquiry at a personal level.

Unified psychology.

Unified psychology.

International psychology: Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?

CPA Award for Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology (2000) Prix pour contributions remarquables a l'avancement international de la (2000) Abstract The beginning of international psychology dates back to the end of the 19th century, with the Ist International Congress held in Paris in 1889, but its first official structure, the International Union of Scientific Psychology, was created only in 1951. A rapid development then followed and today, 68 national societies of psychology involving more than one half billion psychologist,; throughout the world are currently represented by the Union, which has indeed become the voice of psychology on the international scene. The present structure of international psychology and its various elements are presented and discussed, and the role and function it assumes are described in relation to the development of psychology as a science and a profession. Examples are given of the capacity-building role to which international psychology has given priority and of diverse research projects pursued in collaboration with United Nations (UN) agencies, such as the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and World Health Organization (WHO). Current issues, such as the unity of psychology and the archiving of primary psychological data, are discussed, and future perspectives and directions are identified. The history of international psychology can be traced to the Ist International Congress of Psychology, held in Paris in 1889, and to the parallel formation of the International Congress Committee (Rosenzweig, Holtzman, Sabourin, & Belanger, 2000). Previously, in 1881, a young Polish psychologist, Julian Ochorowicz, had suggested holding a First International Congress which would help launch an international organization of psychologists. He managed to convince a friend, the editor of the Revue Philosophique, French psychologist Theodule Ribot, to publish a short note entitled Projet pour un congres international de psychologie (Ochorowicz, 1881). Although Ribot was doubtful that this idea, which he nevertheless judged attractive, would ever be achieved, this visionary project materialized, eight years later, on the occasion of the celebration of the centenary of the French Revolution. It is worth noting that the closing banquet was held on the first platform of the newly completed Eiffel Tower overlooking le Tout-Paris! What a remarkable start for international psychology! Although its official name was then the International Congress of Physiological Psychology, the term physiological was used to stress the fact that psychology was to be regarded as scientific as physiology (Rosenzweig et al., 2000). An International Committee was then created to assure that there would be other international congresses in the years to come. And it worked very well! Following Paris, 11 other congresses were held every three or four years in various European cities (with the exception of the 1929 Congress held at Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut) until the International Committee was abolished by the Assembly at the 1948 Congress in Edinburgh in view of the creation at the next Congress on July 15, 1951, in Stockholm, Sweden, of an International Union of Scientific Psychology (IUSP). The Golden Anniversary of existence of the Union was celebrated this year, during the 27th International Congress of Psychology, in the city where it was born almost 50 years earlier. The creation of the International Union in 1951 provided for the first time, a recognized voice for psychology in the international arena. Rapidly, contacts were made with the Department of Social Sciences of UNESCO, which had provided support to the creation of the Union, and gradually the IUSP was to be recognized by other international agencies as the body representative of international psychology. Another positive consequence of this initiative was that international congresses became more regular, larger, and were attended by participants from more countries than before. …

Unified psychology.

Unified psychology.

The role of theory in unified psychology.

The role of theory in unified psychology.

Unified psychology.

Unified psychology.

Toward a Psychology of Optimal Human Functioning: What Positive Psychology Can Learn from the “Experiential Turns” of James, Dewey, and Maslow

Past perspectives on optimal functioning and experience are discussed to inform current epistemological debates in humanistic and positive psychology. It is suggested that William James, John Dewey, and Abraham Maslow initiated “experiential turns” in American psychology, or turns toward immediate subjective experience, to explore questions about what makes life fulfilling and meaningful. Furthermore, these turns toward subjectivity were grounded in philosophical initiatives that challenged traditional, positivistic methods in science. The argument presented here is that a deeper appreciation of the benefits and inherent challenges of adopting an experiential perspective may help build a more unified psychology of optimal human functioning and avoid misunderstandings concerning the role of scientific research in humanistic and positive psychology.

VYGOTSKY AND COGNITIVE SCIENCE: LANGUAGE AND THE UNIFICATION OF SOCIAL AND COMPUTATIONAL MIND.William Frawley. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Pp viii + 333. $39.95 cloth.

More than 75 years ago, at the Second All-Russian Psychoneurological Congress, L. S. Vygotsky presented a paper, “Methods of Reflexological and Psychological Investigations,” in which he began to lay the foundation for a unified theory of mind. Vygotsky's concern was that psychology had lost sight of the uniqueness of human mental functioning, which for him resides in our ability to intentionally mediate, and hence regulate, our biologically specified mental systems (i.e., in today's jargon, input systems) through culturally determined means. Contemporary sociocultural psychologists, J. V. Wertsch in particular, have noted that, although Vygotsky called for the unification of psychology, in his writings, he actually paid very little attention to one part of the mental equation—the biological, or natural, mind. As it turns out, even those who fault Vygotsky for his failure here have themselves not focused much attention on the contribution of the natural, or what Frawley refers to as the computational, mind, preferring instead to concentrate on the sociocultural parameters of cognition. The present book can be seen as an attempt to bring to fruition Vygotsky's earlier vision of a unified psychology.

Three decades of professional psychology: Reflections and future challenges.

CPA Award for Distinguished Contribution to Psychology as a Profession (1999) -- Prix de la SCP pour contribution remarquable a la psychologie en tant que profession (1999)AbstractThis paper addresses observations, from both a public and personal viewpoint, on those factors and events that have affected professional psychology in Canada. The personal viewpoint has been gained from over 30 years of professional practice as a scientist practitioner. During this same time, I was a psychology department head in an adult general then a pediatric hospital. Concomitant with this experience I held academic and clinical appointments first in a department of Psychiatry at McMaster University then in the School of Psychology at the University of Ottawa with a cross appointment in the Department of Pediatrics. The public viewpoint has been gained from experience with provincial and federal granting agencies, from governance issues with service on the Board of Directors of CPA and with issues of accreditation, licensure and credentialing. There are lessons to be drawn from the experience. Within the same personal and public perspective, a number of issues as diverse as the unification of psychology as a discipline and a profession, academic entry level requirements, psychology's place in the health care system and mobility are identified and discussed. As we approach the 21st century, opportunities for major advancement of the profession and the public interest are explored.IntroductionWhen asked to prepare an address, I took it as an opportunity to share my experiences as a psychologist from two viewpoints. The first is personal, reflecting my understanding of where the profession has been and where we are going. The second is public and more disciplined, representing my experience in governance, credentialing, licensure and standards of practice. My focus from the professional perspective will be on those very broad issues that have been of concern to me throughout my career. I know that many in the field of psychology share these concerns. I will also touch on some of the recent historical events that have shaped our discipline and our profession. There are a large number of factors that impact the profession of psychology but they are too numerous to be covered in this address. Instead, I have selected some of what I consider to be significant issues for us. The disunity of the discipline and the profession continues to present a major challenge. Legislation, licensure, and masters-level registration takes up a great deal of attention. Changes in practice -- the shift from mental health to health care -- and the change in the administrative structure of psychology within health care institutions has had a significant impact and presents a unique challenge. Issues of standardization, credentialing, and mobility are very significant topics for psychology regulatory boards and provincial and federal governments. What lessons can we learn from our history and our current experiences that will help us develop strategies for the future? What are the strengths in the profession and what are our vulnerabilities?My experience has been in clinical psychology and my work has been with adults, children, and families. However, clinical psychology is not synonymous with professional psychology. It is a subset along with school psychology, counseling psychology, forensic-correctional psychology, neuropsychology, rehabilitation psychology, and industrial organizational psychology. While there is overlap among the subsets, each has its own unique features. My clinical perspective will no doubt bring some bias to this presentation but hopefully the professional issues will be seen as providing some commonality.BACKGROUNDBefore I discuss the professional issues, it may be useful to briefly describe my professional experiences. I have spent the past 30 years working in general hospitals and almost all of those years were as a director or department head of psychology. …

Multilevel integrative analyses of human behavior: social neuroscience and the complementing nature of social and biological approaches.

Social and biological explanations traditionally have been cast as incompatible, but advances in recent years have revealed a new view synthesized from these 2 very different levels of analysis. The authors review evidence underscoring the complementing nature of social and biological levels of analysis and how the 2 together can foster understanding of the mechanisms underlying complex behavior and the mind. Specifically, they review the utility of considering social influences on biological processes that are often viewed as outside the social domain including genetic constitution, gene expression, disease, and autonomic, neuroendocrine, and immune activity. This research underscores the unity of psychology and the importance of retaining multilevel integrative research that spans molar and molecular levels of analysis. Especially needed in the coming years is more research on the mechanisms linking social and biological events and processes.

Significs, Semiotics and Synthesis

In A.D. de Groot's semiotic work from 1944 to the present day, three motives are discerned: (a) the elimination of misunderstandings among psychologists, due to terminology; (b) the desire for consensus about the uses of key concepts before their elaboration in theoretical and applied psychology; and (c) the acceptance of pluralism as regards styles, methods and interpretations in the behavioral sciences. First, the significance of De Groot's early publications is sketched against the back-ground of similar developments in the Dutch tradition of significs. Next it is argued that De Groot's methodological work has interesting semiotic aspects, for example with respect to the question of surplus meanings. Finally, results of De Groot's later Signific Concept Analysis are presented insofar as they are relevant for contemporary psychology. The question that remains is how far De Groot's actual proposals for definitions of key concepts can be accepted. The purpose of the paper is to promote further discussion of De Groot's attempts at unifying psychology on a sound semiotic basis.

Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method, and a research agenda.

Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method, and a research agenda.

The Unification of Psychology

The Unification of Psychology