Correction to Lombardo and Foschi (2003).

Reports an error in the original article by G. P. Lombardo and R. Foschi (History of Psychology, 2003, 2, 123-142). In the reference list, several works by Pierre Janet were identified as being Paul Janet. The correct references are provided, where Paul Janet is identified by the initial P. and Pierre Janet is identified by the initials P. M. F.. (The following abstract of this article originally appeared in record 2003-03729-003.) Since the 1920s, the road to the acknowledgment of personality psychology as a field of scientific psychology that has individuality as its object began with the founding of the discipline by Gordon W. Allport. Historians of psychology have made serious attempts to reconstruct the cultural, political, institutional, and chronological beginnings of this field in America in the 20th century. In this literature, however, an important European tradition of psychological studies of personality that developed in France in the 2nd half of the 19th century has been overlooked. The aim of this article is to cast some light on this unexplored tradition of psychological personality studies and to discuss its influence on the development of the scientific study of personality in the United States. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A Tale of Two Visions: Can a New View of Personality Help Integrate Psychology?

Personality psychology studies how psychological systems work together. Consequently, the field can act as a unifying resource for the broader discipline of psychology. Yet personality's current fieldwide organization promotes a fragmented view of the person, seen through such competing theories as the psychodynamic, trait, and humanistic. There exists an alternative--a systems framework for personality--that focuses on 4 topics: identifying personality, personality's parts, its organization, and its development. This new framework and its view of personality are described. The framework is applied to such issues as personality measurement, psychotherapy outcome research, and education. The new framework may better organize the field of personality and help with its mission of addressing how major psychological systems interrelate. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Introduction to the special section on construct validity of psychological tests: 50 years after Cronbach and Meehl (1955).

The middle of the 20th century was a very exciting time to be in the field of clinical psychology and, especially, assessment psychology. Seminal publications during that time clarified the then novel distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables (MacCorquodale & Meehl, 1948), elucidated the concept of construct validity (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), and described a methodology for estimating convergent and discriminant validity of measures of constructs and the role of variance due to common methods in the associations among measures of similar and different constructs (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). These articles have been the bedrock of clinical psychological and personality psychology assessment since that time. The year 2005 marks the 50th anniversary of Cronbach and Meehl's (1955) article "Construct Validity in Psychological Tests." A submission last year by Smith (2005b) struck me as an excellent time to honor the signal contributions of these psychologists of the last century through consideration particularly of the article by Cronbach and Meehl. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Editorial: Into the Second Century.

This editorial discusses the first century of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology and speculates on the second century of the journal. In the early decades of its existence, Abnormal clearly was quite different from the typical psychological journal of today. The articles in its inaugural issue reflect the fact that its early content was heavily influenced by Freudian psychoanalysis and other forms of dynamic psychology. The first major shift in the journal's course occurred in 1921, when its scope was broadened to include social and personality research. For a variety of reasons, this union of social, personality, and clinical psychology ended in 1965, when the content subsumed by the old, expanded Abnormal was resplit into two separate outlets: Articles on personality and social processes were redirected to the newly created Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, whereas psychopathology research was retained for the rechristened Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Abnormal has been extremely well-managed in recent years, and it has maintained its status as the top-tier outlet for basic psychopathology research. Accordingly, the editor does not see a need to institute any fundamental changes in its scope or content. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychological instruments at the turn of the century.

Psychology at the turn of the last century was primarily a natural science in its approach. Its goals paralleled those of experimental physiology and physics that had been so successful earlier in the 19th century. The use of scientific instruments to produce stimuli and record responses in psychological experiments became the hallmark for this new psychology of the laboratory. The origins, role, and significance of some of these instruments are discussed as well as the role of instrument makers and their patrons. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Darwinian theory, functionalism, and the first American psychological revolution.

American functionalist psychology constituted an effort to model scientific psychology on the successes of English evolutionary theory. In part it was a response to the stagnation of Wundt's psychological research program, which had been grounded in German experimental physiology. In part it was an attempt to make psychology more appealing within the highly pragmatic American context and to facilitate the application of psychology to domains outside of the scientific laboratory. Applications of psychology that emerged from the functionalist ethos included child and developmental psychology, clinical psychology, psychological testing, and industrial/vocational psychology. Functionalism was also the ground within which behaviorism rooted and grew into the dominant form of psychology through the middle of the 20th century. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Children in perspective: Introduction to the section.

Traces the history of developmental psychology in the US to the beginnings of child welfare groups and institutions for children in the 19th century. The reflective, action-oriented documents of this period led to knowledge-oriented writings about children and to a faint form of methodology for studying them. G. Stanley Hall and many of his contemporaries advocated an evolutionistic view of child development in their writings of the late 19th century. In the 20th century, the child study movement gave way to developmental psychology in the 1950s. While developmental psychology does not necessarily follow classical psychological conceptions of science in its methods of inquiry, it has been reasonably successful. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A Mexican psychology.

The universality—not the scientific character—of psychology is challenged by data previously reported by the present author and other researchers suggesting the need for a sociocultural psychology of personality. Specific factorial scales of Mexican, natural language, and sociocultural premises are found to be meaningfully associated, at three different ages, with a number of reliable measures of psychological dimensions. A national, local-belief-based, clinical understanding of Mexican youth on the basis of intra- and cross-cultural studies is illustrated. From the evidence, it is proposed (a) that culture, as defined, can account for significant variance of bona fide psychological and other behavioral science dimensions; and (b) that there is a basis to speak about sociocultural psychologies, such as a Mexican psychology. The disclosure is made in the context of the author's attempts to understand the Mexican personality and society. (38 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Proposals for a second psychology.

During the 19th century, numerous writers including Auguste Comte, John Stuart Mill, and Wilhelm Wundt called for a 2nd psychology, a psychology to complement laboratory-based psychology. This 2nd psychology would address aspects of human mind and behavior that emerged from cultural life. Different forms of empiricism appropriate to a 2nd psychology were gradually realized in studies of character formation, conduct, personality and culture, and more recently, cognition and culture. This article examines this 2nd psychology that has been slower to mature but has achieved some contemporary realization in personology, cultural psychology, and several of the applied psychologies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Contributions of American mental philosophers to psychology in the United States.

Professors of mental philosophy who taught and wrote textbooks in colleges and universities in the US before the Civil War contributed significantly to the development of the new psychology that replaced mental philosophy in the last quarter of the 19th century. Their contributions have been neglected in textbooks on the history of psychology, even those devoted to the history of psychology in the US. These mental philosophers eased the transition to, and influenced the nature of, the new psychology in the US by establishing a place in the curriculum for mental philosophy that the new psychology came to occupy; by identifying topics for laboratory methods to address; by pursuing an empirical, inductive, scientific approach to the study of the mind; and by their tradition of functional analysis that came to characterize psychology in the US. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Grief as pathology: The evolution of grief theory in psychology from Freud to the present.

The emergence of grief as a topic worthy of psychological study is an early 20th century invention. Freud published his influential essay on mourning and melancholia in 1917. Since he proposed the concept of “grief work,” contemporary psychologists have examined his theory empirically and have claimed that grief is a pathology that should be included within the psychological domain. How, and why, has grief theory evolved within the discipline of psychology in this way? In what ways do these changes in the understanding of grief coincide with other historical developments within the discipline? In this article, I trace the development of grief, originally conceived by Freud within a psychoanalytic and nonpathological framework, to the current conceptualization of grief within the disease model. I show how grief theory has evolved within the discipline of psychology to become (a) an object worthy of scientific study within the discipline, and subsequently, (b) a pathology to be privatized, specialized, and treated by mental health professionals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Beyond Aristotle and Galileo: Toward a contextualized psychology of persons.

Psychologists of my generation will recognize the implicit reference in my title immediately: to Kurt Lewin's (1931) classic paper that introduced most of us to the excitement of his ideas when we read it as the initial chapter of A Dynamic Theory of Personality (Lewin, 1935). When Lewin wrote about "The Conflict Between Aristotelian and Galilean Modes of Thought in Contemporary Psychology" over a half a century ago, it was indeed a breath of fresh air. Along with a very few other books and papers, it stands out saliently in my memory as having had a large part in forming my enduring perspective in psychology. It surely played a similar role for many others, by no means just Lewinians. We cannot readily recall its content since we've absorbed it, and built it into the fabric of our thought. I turn back to Lewin's essay because it represents the psysicalist tradition in psychological theory at its best, free of many faults that tainted the behavioristic expressions of positivism. All the same, the hermeneutic and contextualist critique of positivism should leave us dissatisfied with Lewin's version of a Galilean strategy for psychology. In one respect, thus, I am using this occasion for my own "me-too" endorsement of post-positivist theorizing. My second concern here is to focus attention on the need for a culturally and historically contextualized approach in personality theory. Finally, this occasion lets me talk some sense about post-positivist perspectives in psychology. As usual, the conceptual innovators have not been very reasonable. If a contextualized psychology of persons is to be advanced, we need a more plausible version of contextualism than is being argued by the leading polemicists. This is also an effort, therefore, to domesticate a contextualized approach, to accommodate it to its prospective role of defining a new mainstream of theorizing at the softer, more human end of the psychological spectrum. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A glance back at a quarter century of social psychology.

Presents a selective and informal retrospective on the rapid growth of social psychology from a discipline uncertain of its identity and future 25 yrs ago to the robust field it is today. The entry of women into the field, the cumulative nature of the growth of social psychological theory and research, as well as the expansion of social psychology's basic and applied research boundaries are highlighted. It is concluded that the potential promised by social psychology just a quarter of a century ago has been realized despite a harsh funding environment. Hope is expressed for more adequate funding in the near future for basic social psychological research and theory development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Obituary: David Shakow (1901-1981).

This article describes the career and scientific achievements of David Shakow, PhD. Shakow was a major figure of 20th-century American psychology, one of only two persons honored by the American Psychological Association with two of its most prestigious awards: the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award and the Distinguished Professional Contribution Award. These two honors embodied the essence of Shakow's career. The award for scientific activity was given for basic contributions that enlarged our understanding of the processes underlying the psychological deficit manifested by schizophrenic patients. These studies spanned half a century, beginning in 1932 and concluding 50 years later, when his final publication on this subject appeared a year after his death. The award for professional achievement recognized his role as the father of contemporary clinical psychology. Shakow, by precept and example, gave meaning to the Boulder model for training clinical psychologists. He provided leadership in espousing the view that the clinical psychologist's role is that of both scientist and practitioner in the mental health field. He deeply respected both activities but gave primacy to the clinical psychologist as research scientist. His credo was one that, on reflection, was as applicable to the practitioner as it was to the researcher. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sex differences in personality structure at age 14.

Although much work has been published on differences between the sexes in Western countries on tests of abilities, interests, and personality traits, little attention has been paid to comparing the organization or structuring of psychological variables among males and females. 198 male and 189 female Canadian 8th graders were given a battery of tests (e.g., the Safran Student's Interest Inventory and the Embedded Figures Test). Results indicate that the ability factors in the 2 sexes were closely similar, although their relations to age, artistic and scientific interests, social attitudes, personality tendencies, and other variables often differed markedly. For example, large sex differences in the psychological significance of field independence and of divergent thinking, and the organization of career and other interests indicate that mixed-sex studies should be discouraged. (French summary) (28 ref.) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A new vision of personality...and of personality theory: Reply.

Replies to comments by Maddi (see record 2006-05893-007) on "A Tale of Two Visions: Can a New View of Personality Help Integrate Psychology?" (see record 2005-05480-001). In the original article, the current author proposed a new fieldwide framework for the discipline of personality psychology; in essence, it is a new outline to organize contemporary theory and research in the field. Maddi raised two interrelated objections to that proposed framework. First, he believes that there is a better way to organize the discipline of personality psychology than the one the current author proposed. His method involves comparing and analyzing the grand theories of personality and using the results of his analyses to guide research in the discipline. Maddi's (1968) meta-theory usefully organizes the statements of the grand theories of the early-to-mid-20th century, but the current author is not sure it is sufficient to organize the field. Second, he was concerned that the current author wants to de-emphasize the grand theories of the field. Maddi (2006) believes that disagreements among the grand theories are a fruitful source of research ideas. Although that may be true, there is more to personality psychology than the grand theories alone. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Community psychology, diversity, and the many forms of culture.

Comments on the original article, "Many forms of culture," by A. B. Cohen (see record 2009-04471-003). Cohen argued that psychology must broaden its conceptualization of culture to consider its many forms, such as religion, socioeconomic status, and region. The current author could not agree more with Cohen’s proposed conceptualization of culture and its potential impact on psychological theory, research, and practice. However, the current author asserts that Cohen's conceptualization is one that the field of community psychology has been incorporating into its theory, research, and practice for the past 15 years. Evidence for this can be found in the field’s journals and texts as well as its conferences and course offerings. It is striking, says the current author, that this rich tradition of scholarship and social action—much of it illustrating what Cohen’s proposed conceptualization purports to achieve but also advancing his vision further than even he proposes—was ignored in his analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The American Psychological Association's response to Brown v. Board of Education: The case of Kenneth B. Clark.

In 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision (1896) that was the foundation of school segregation in 17 states and the District of Columbia. Brown is arguably the most important Supreme Court decision of the 20th century in terms of its influence on American history. Moreover, it has a special significance for psychology because it marked the first time that psychological research was cited in a Supreme Court decision and because social science data were seen as paramount in the Court's decision to end school segregation. This article describes psychologist Kenneth B. Clark's role in that case and the response of the American Psychological Association to scientific psychology's moment in a great spotlight. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Who's afraid of John B. Watson? Comments on: Behavior: An introduction to comparative psychology.

Reviews the book, Behavior: An Introduction to Comparative Psychology by John B. Watson (Introduction by R. J. Herrnstein) (see record 1967-08039-000). This book, a reprint of the 1914 volume which was Watson's first book, disinters again from its mouldy wrappings the often harrassed spectre of John B. Watson's place in the history of North American psychology. Was he, as Gustav Bergmann (1956) has suggested, second only to Freud as "the most important figure in the history of psychological thought during the first half of the century?" Or was A. A. Roback (1937, 1964) closer to the truth in dismissing Watsonian Behaviorism as a "rah-rah technique" which "made a big noise" which was "not substantiated by deeds?" Or was Watson, as other writers have suggested, simply a footnote to Functionalism? Herrnstein, in his introduction, discusses Watson as the heir of Darwin, Sechenov, and Pavlov, and as the progenitor of Tolman, Hull, and Skinner. The fact of the matter is that Watson's contributions to psychology, however they may be assessed, were not in the field of animal behavior but in the field of methodology. Thorndike's Law of Effect continued to overshadow Watson's frequency principle in learning, Pavlov did more with the reflex in terms of both research and theory, and Lashley began a tradition of revolutionary explorations of the animal nervous system. It is not without good reason that Boring (1950) discusses Watson in a section on Behaviorism '(with the ism)" rather than in sections on Animal Psychology where Romanes, Loeb, Morgan, and Yerkes are included. Indeed, it is to the "history and systems" books one must turn to find consistent reference to Behavior. It would appear that if Behavior is, in fact, a classic, it is a classic in the field of psychological theory and methodology, not in the field of animal behavior or comparative psychology. Perhaps it was this point which Herrnstein was making when he began the first sentence of his introduction with the words, "To find out what behaviorism was, consult this book," rather than with the words, "To find out what comparative psychology was, consult this book." Nevertheless, whether your interest is behaviorism, comparative psychology, or the history and growth of psychological thinking in North America, this book is worth consulting. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social psychology a century ago.

America's dual interest in social welfare and practical science fueled the emergence of social psychology in the late 19th century. By that century's end, psychologists had presented diverse and sometimes contesting models of social psychology. These varied conceptualizations, however, were challenged by the discipline's growing dedication to the scientific method and experimentation, as well as the profession's need to produce knowledge that could be readily used to address current social problems and regulate social institutions. An appreciation of this late-19th-century moment of intellectual generativity and constraint affords an opportunity to reflect on the potentials and constraints of social psychology at the end of the 20th century. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)