Prejudice or propaganda.

Slife and Reber accuse psychology of harboring a hidden, albeit unintentional, bias against theism in violation of the spirit of the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives (2007) resolution on religious prejudice. However, they are mistaken in categorizing a bias against theism in psychological research and theory as religious prejudice. Moreover, their discussion of religious prejudice morphs into promotion of Christian theology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychology, religion, and world loyalty.

This article provides a critical commentary on Slife and Reber’s (2009) article, “Is There a Pervasive Implicit Bias Against Theism in Psychology?” Drawing on A.N. Whitehead’s (1926/2005, 1928/1985) process philosophy, I challenge the bifurcation between naturalism and theism and suggest that religion is better conceived as world loyalty than as supernaturalism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The problem of prejudice in plural worlds.

This is to agree with Slife and Reber that the field of psychology has been negatively biased toward theism. However, accusations of bias or prejudice typically presume that with an even assay of available evidence, that such dispositions would be erased. In a world of multiple constructions of reality, morality, and justice, such an assumption is wholly unwarranted. The present article approaches the presence of multiple worlds from a social constructionist perspective. Proposed are a number of arguments to support an approach toward difference that emphasizes transformative dialogue, that is, dialogue among conflicting parties or standpoints that moves toward mutual viability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Biases against theism in psychology?

Slife and Reber issue a welcome challenge to "implicit biases" against the serious investigation of religious experience and phenomena in psychology. I agree with the main thrust of their article but express a few friendly reservations about their analysis and some concerns about how a productive dialogue between psychology and religion might best be pursued from this point forward. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Is there a pervasive implicit bias against theism in psychology?

To address the title question, the authors first conceptualize the worldview of theism in relation to its historical counterpart in Western culture, naturalism. Many scholars view the worldview of naturalism as not only important to traditional science but also neutral to theism. This neutrality has long provided the justification for psychological science to inform and even correct theistic understandings. Still, this view of neutrality, as the authors show, stems from the presumption that these two worldviews are philosophically compatible. The authors’ review of the traditional candidates for compatibility suggests not only that these candidates fail to reconcile naturalism and theism but also that these worldviews are fundamentally incompatible. Therefore, attempts to use the insights gleaned from a naturalistic worldview to inform or correct the understandings of a theistic worldview could constitute a significant prejudice against theism and theists. The authors then provide practical examples of this prejudice in the following: (1) mainstream psychology and its history, (2) research design and explanation in the psychology of religion, and (3) interpretations of important philosophers and scholars relevant to psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Theoretical psychology, yes: Methodological egalitarianism, no!

Comments on the article by B. D. Slife and R. N. Williams (see record 84-17550) concerning theoretical psychology as a new subdiscipline of psychology. It is believed that Slife and Williams may have confused postmodernism with theoretical development and relied too heavily on their critique of positivism and a consequent embrace of postmodern criticism. A theoretical focus does need to be formally recognized, but an emphasis on theory need not reject positivism nor embrace postmodernism to function adequately as a subdiscipline. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Every psychologist needs to be a theorist.

Comments on the article by B. D. Slife and R. N. Williams (see record 84-17750) concerning theoretical psychology as a subdiscipline of psychology. Psychologists doing research would benefit by concentrating less on experimentation and more on synthesis of findings. The solution is not just to have a theoretical speciality but for all researching psychologists to be more theoretical. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What is this naturalism stuff all about?

Wading into the thicket of science, naturalism, and theism in the context of psychology can seem quite daunting. One prerequisite for avoiding confusions and missteps is to properly distinguishing two forms of naturalism that are logically independent of each other: metaphysical and methodological. Once this underbrush is cleared away, interesting and important questions about psychology’s compatibility with theism, the psychological study of religion and other topics can be fruitfully engaged. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The EdD psychologist: Another American dilemma.

Describes the subordination of the EdD psychologist in various aspects of psychology and the elitism among psychologists responsible for the exclusion of EdD psychologists. The failure ot the American Psychological Association to examine this professional bias is noted, and the need to confront such prejudice is asserted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Critique and metacritique in psychology: Whence and Whither.

Do mainstream psychologists think critically? And are the many critiques of the mainstream made by its (theoretical and philosophical psychology) critics “on target”? Answering both questions (critical and metacritical, respectively) requires consensus about what critical thinking consists in, and there seems to be little consensus in sight. I begin by accepting Slife, Yanchar, and Reber's (2005) claim that “rigorous thinking” itself is insufficient for critical thinking in and about psychology, and I then consider various suggestions made by critics of the mainstream about thematic assumptions (or content categories) that should be included in critical thinking about the mainstream. After identifying three areas of mainstream research in which some of these assumptions seem to have been challenged from within the mainstream, I conclude by considering how both critique and metacritique may be combined, repositioned, and/or recontextualized, to advance the important cause of (meta) critical thinking in and about psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the status of nonconscious processes in human cognition: Comment on Reber.

Two issues are discussed. The first one pertains to the generality of the nonconscious learning processes and their somewhat paradoxical status in cognitive psychology. We argue that the ability of the human cognitive system to nonconsciously acquire complex knowledge structures is one of its elementary and indispensable properties. Moreover, the existence of this ability constitutes one of the necessary metatheoretical assumptions of contemporary cognitive psychology. Nevertheless, the contemporary cognitive psychology literature often implies that it is only one of many controversial and unusual phenomena. The second issue pertains to the distinction between the so-called primitive unconscious and the sophisticated unconscious as proposed by A. S. Reber (see record 1989-38920-001). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Review of What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences.

Reviews the book, What’s behind the research? Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences by Brent D. Slife and Richard N. Williams (1995). As the book's subtitle indicates, the authors' purpose is to assist the reader in Discovering hidden assumptions in the behavioral sciences, a worthy objective not likely to be realized simply through a love affair with "information" and its packaging. Slife and Williams state their mission clearly: "Presenting (behavioral sciences') hidden assumptions, along with their costs and consequences, is our task in this book. Whether you are a student of the behavioral sciences, therapist, educator, businessperson, or simply a consumer of behavioral science information, you will need to know the implicit ideas in that information. What are the main interpretations of the data by scientists? What alternative methods are available for gathering knowledge? What ideas are embedded in the usual approaches to abnormality and treatment? Are there other ideas available for generating solutions to human problems? Do conventional approaches to business or education include assumptions about the world or human nature that are questionable or unacceptable to the people who use them? We attempt to answer these and many other questions." In most respects, Slife and Williams do a splendid job at this. Many of the central conceptual issues Slife and Williams have raised have been treated before (by, among others, the mentor of both authors and the scholar to whom they have dedicated their work, Joseph Rychlak, but I know of no work the equal of this one in presenting the material in a way so accessible to previously uninitiated students and the intelligent and interested lay public. Surely this book will be welcomed by those scholars and educators who would wish to move psychology and the other behavioral sciences into the 21st century shorne of their positivistic leanings and empiricist pretensions, and re-oriented toward a more apposite science of human nature. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The role of theory in psychotherapy.

Comments on the article by B. D. Slife and R. N. Williams see record 84-17550) concerning theoretical psychology as a new subdiscipline of psychology. It is stated that their analysis neglected to emphasize that theory can have an important role in guiding the practice and teaching psychotherapy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The psychology of thinking before the cognitive revolution: Otto Selz on problems, schemas, and creativity.

Otto Selz has been hailed as one of the most important precursors of the cognitive revolution, yet surprisingly few studies of his work exist. He is often mentioned in the context of the Würzburg School of the psychology of thinking and sometimes in the context of Gestalt psychology. In this paper, it is argued that Selz’s emphasis on the role of problems and schemas in the direction of thought processes and creativity sets him apart from the program of the Würzburg School. On the other hand, by developing a theory of thinking that is exclusively at the intentional level, Selz also differs from psychologists that take physics as a model for psychology, such as the Gestalt psychology of Wolfgang K?hler. Special emphasis is given in this paper to Selz’s use of the concept of problem or task and the concept of the schema. It is further argued that the concept of the schema is the result of Selz’s adaptation of the theory of relations as developed by the philosopher Meinong. The paper begins with a sketch of Selz’s life that ended so tragically. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Giving children security: Mamie Phipps Clark and the racialization of child psychology.

During the 1930s and 1940s, social psychologists became increasingly well-known among progressives battling race prejudice. By the early 1950s, African American psychologist Kenneth Bancroft Clark had become deeply involved with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's battle against segregated education in the South. By this time, his wife, who is less well-known in the annals of history, was developing her own reputation as the guiding spirit behind Harlem's Northside Center for Child Development. Her work at the center helped define an increasing interest in the psychology of children of color. This article examines the individual and social contexts of Mamie Phipps Clark's life and argues for greater attention to the dynamics of race and gender in the history of psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Beyond the pleistocene: Using phylogeny and constraint to inform the evolutionary psychology of human mating.

Evolutionary psychologists explore the adaptive function of traits and behaviors that characterize modern Homo sapiens. However, evolutionary psychologists have yet to incorporate the phylogenetic relationship between modern Homo sapiens and humans’ hominid and pongid relatives (both living and extinct) into their theorizing. By considering the specific timing of evolutionary events and the role of evolutionary constraint, researchers using the phylogenetic approach can generate new predictions regarding mating phenomena and derive new explanations for existing evolutionary psychological findings. Especially useful is the concept of the adaptive workaround—an adaptation that manages the maladaptive elements of a pre-existing evolutionary constraint. The current review organizes 7 features of human mating into their phylogenetic context and presents evidence that 2 adaptive workarounds played a critical role as Homo sapiens’s mating psychology evolved. These adaptive workarounds function in part to mute or refocus the effects of older, previously evolved adaptations and highlight the layered nature of humans’ mating psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

American Psychological Foundation contributors, 2009.

The American Psychological Foundation’s (APF) competitive grant and scholarship program supports the development of psychological talent and mobilizes psychology’s resources toward those problems that need to be addressed yet would otherwise go unfunded. Giving to APF supports students and psychologists whose research, projects, and intervention programs help individuals and communities worldwide, making a difference every day. APF lists donors who contributed to the Foundation in 2009. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Theory and disciplinarity?

Comments on the article (see record 84-17550) by B. D. Slife and R. N. Williams concerning theoretical psychology as a subdiscipline of psychology. Additions and emendations to the article are suggested, such as a need for the proposal to grounded in history. It is argued that their conceptualization of the theorist is limiting. This limitation forecloses debate on the institutionalized nature of knowledge, leaving the disciplinary boundaries and structures invisible. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)